Censorship and Republicans

[Azurain]

Deacon, while I'm not sure calling these stories censored is entirely accurate, your attitude of 'it's not perfectly written and actually makes outright accusations, so it must not actually contain relevant points and factual data or valid conclusions' is about as irrational as it is obvious. I don't mean this as a personal attack, of course, but really... wouldn't it be possible for you to, maybe, just once, actually argue the ideas/facts/information rather than simply dismissing it all because you don't like the source or presentation?

For example, was there not truly a significant condemnation of the Bush administration's policy on science by sixty of the most prominent American scientists? Wouldn't this normally be considered a rather newsworthy thing? And even if you don't think it is, will you at least acknowledge that it reflects poorly upon the Bush administration?

Do you deny that the top 1% of Americans now own about 1/3 of the nation's wealth? Doesn't this disturb you at all, especially given that it is not a natural trend in the rest of the developed world, not on even remotely that scale? With your cynical view of humanity does it occur to you that maybe, just maybe, this shift is not due to legitimate or fair economic practices?

Really, some of these stories really should be getting media attention, if only to, you know, make people think a bit more about actual issues and a bit less about whether or not Bush went AWOL for his service or Kerry deliberately injured himself. Howabout the ruling in Florida that the media can legally distort the truth and even outright lie? Shouldn't this be something that becomes general knowledge so that pressure for changes can be made?

Sorry about the rant, but the casual dismissal of some of these stories, and the fact that they received little or no attention despite the fact that many of them are far more significant than much of what you'll see on an average night of the news, strikes me as deliberate self-deception.

-- Chris

[Deacon]

[quote="Azurain";p="393813"]Deacon, while I'm not sure calling these stories censored is entirely accurate, your attitude of 'it's not perfectly written and actually makes outright accusations, so it must not actually contain relevant points and factual data or valid conclusions' is about as irrational as it is obvious. I don't mean this as a personal attack, of course, but really... wouldn't it be possible for you to, maybe, just once, actually argue the ideas/facts/information rather than simply dismissing it all because you don't like the source or presentation?[/quote]
No, Azurain, I'm saying what you see on that site is, as far as we know, pure hearsay. There's not even the pretext of the slightest effort to explain what they mean by censored, much less when it was written, when it was submitted (and to whom), when it was "censored" (and by whom), and when it was actually made publicly available. This is important information. What you're suggesting is that we take this...propaganda, for lack of a better word, at face value and assume that the Bush administration is secretly "censoring" articles and columns to be published that could possibly reflect poorly on the administration. Those are heady charges, alleged evidence of a conspiracy at the highest levels and with its fingers at the deepest depths of the world's media, and it's going to take more than "because I said so" to legitimize them. They don't make much sense, regardless, because one periodical deciding to go with something else doesn't mean it's some sort of knowledge black-out, as if that would even be possible, and there's PLENTY of stuff that is *constantly* being put out in very prominent media outlets that's constantly attacking the administration.

For example, was there not truly a significant condemnation of the Bush administration's policy on science by sixty of the most prominent American scientists? Wouldn't this normally be considered a rather newsworthy thing? And even if you don't think it is, will you at least acknowledge that it reflects poorly upon the Bush administration?

Whether a particular periodical decided to make a major news story out of it or not is not really earth-shattering to me either way, regardless of your own personal interpretation of the story.

Do you deny that the top 1% of Americans now own about 1/3 of the nation's wealth? Doesn't this disturb you at all, especially given that it is not a natural trend in the rest of the developed world, not on even remotely that scale? With your cynical view of humanity does it occur to you that maybe, just maybe, this shift is not due to legitimate or fair economic practices?

How would I deny it? I don't know it to be true or false, either way--especially with such broad descriptions as "wealth". Details and context are not just important to something like this; they're vital. Though I'm pretty damn sure your assertion that "it is not a natural trend in the rest of the developed world, not on even remotely that scale" is rather laughibly false.

Really, some of these stories really should be getting media attention, if only to, you know, make people think a bit more about actual issues and a bit less about whether or not Bush went AWOL for his service or Kerry deliberately injured himself. Howabout the ruling in Florida that the media can legally distort the truth and even outright lie? Shouldn't this be something that becomes general knowledge so that pressure for changes can be made?

It sounds like to me that you've never visited a grocery store, or at least never actually read about the Bat Child and other such things. As far as "these stories really should be getting media attention" ...that's fine. Great! Go for it! Start your own media outlet and publish only stories that you believe should be published. A single periodical passing on a story that a court in Florida ruled that the First Amendment exists does not equate to the Bush administration instituting a media blackout on some thing or another.

Sorry about the rant, but the casual dismissal of some of these stories, and the fact that they received little or no attention despite the fact that many of them are far more significant than much of what you'll see on an average night of the news, strikes me as deliberate self-deception.

It's fun to watch unreasoned kneejerk reactions

[Azurain]

It's fun to watch unreasoned kneejerk reactions

It's admittedly when my otherwise strong sense of reason and calm logic tends to fail me... Just look at the oil thread I started. I have a bad habit of not dealing with surprises/new negative developments very well at all... Alas.

[Nekra]

if you want to read articles that are anti bush, check out the rest of the worlds media, i dont think i have yet to read an article promoting his amazing intelligence, wit and political skills.

[Deacon]

Nekra, can you recall an article here in the US that does so?

[Nekra]

no, i dont read american publications, kinda hard since i dont live there

[Azurain]

There's this fancy new invention, Nekra, which I assume you're familiar with, called 'the Internet' ...

[peter-griffin]

Isn't it fun to call America the "big, massive satan of the world" when one does very little research into it's culture, media, and people?


You know, Nekra, there are people in the US that don't like Bush. I just found that out yesterday, and luckily, the Gestappo took them away very quickly. Thank God!

[Salvation122]

[quote="NorthernComfort";p="393727"]After all, it's just a conspiracy theory, right?[/quote]
Right.

Most ignorance is willful.

Yes, yes it is.

[Bjarni Herjolfsson]

I read a couple and I think there is truth to them but, as Martin said, they are overblown.