Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Major (Score:3, Insightful)

    The White House changed the headline "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended" to include the word "Major" before "Combat".

    This is absolutely true. However, the second headline was entirely accurate, while the first headline was false. Bush never said that combat operations in Iraq had ended, he said MAJOR combat operations in Iraq had ended. They fixed an error, because the headline said Bush said something he never said. That hardly qualifies as revisionist history. I can find
    • I stand corrected about the White House site changing the headline. I did some research on the speech and you are correct, though it makes me wonder why they had an erroneous headline in the first place. Since so many people merely scan headlines, it's easy to paint a false picture and then later claim "that's not what was said". I've often had fun reading articles and seeing how closely they match the headline. Frequently they don't and I think that is also a form of dishonesty.

      I also agree that poli

      • Political parties suck.

        That's the truth. So why wring your hands over their perpetual failure to
        deliver democratic control of society? Just admit that capitalist republics
        don't deliver democracy, and look for something that does.
        • Just admit that capitalist republics don't deliver democracy, and look for something that does.

          I can't admit that because I don't believe it. From my perspective, there are three major things wrong with the US system: money, media, and machines (political ones, that is). The media is an obvious problem. The yellow journalism of Fox News is just the most obvious example. Make the media truly competitive or, better yet, permanently publicly fund the media as a public resource (rather than forcing the

            • I'm still astonished at those who believe that huge mega-corporations are spewing liberal propaganda.

            I'm still astonished that people don't see the liberal propaganda being spewed by the mainstream media. The media writers, reporters and producers are overwhelmingly liberal, just ask them. Polls always indicate a far left bias in the opionion of media workers.

            There may be some examples of corporations influencing the media content, but the mega-corporations run the risk of this becoming widely known a

            • It's been a long time since I picked up Bias and leafed through it, so I honestly can't tell you what my objections were at that time. However, the media watchdog group "FAIR" has an interesting piece about Golberg's book [fair.org]. I routinely check what FAIR has to say about a topic because they have impressed me with the thoroughness with which they research material. In this particular case, they did not go through on a point-by-point basis, but I felt that there points were relevant.

              For opposing views, look

                • I routinely check what FAIR has to say about a topic because they have impressed me with the thoroughness with which they research material.

                FAIR thorough and well researched? FAIR is hardly a "media watchdog", but rather a reaction to AIM (Accuracy In Media), Reed Irvin's group that started criticizing liberal media back in the 70s.

                I challenge you to find even a single example of any FAIR issue that is critical of the media for having a liberal bias. You would think that a balanced watchdog group could

                • OK, I thought about responding to your points, but you and I will not see eye to eye on many issues and I'd be wasting my time. I did, however, note that, while you didn't assert that AIM was reasonable, I suspect that this might actually be your point of view (though I certainly hope not).

                  From AIM's FAQ [aim.org]: We encourage members of the media to report the news fairly and objectively--without resorting to bias or partisanship.

                  Hoo boy. That's a real howler. From their article with the completely non-alar


                    • OK, I thought about responding to your points, but you and I will not see eye to eye on many issues and I'd be wasting my time.

                    I guess you are either saying that I'm a narrow minded idealogue or that you are, I'm not sure which. In any case, while we may have hardened positions, and I recognize that, I often join these "debates" for the benefit of those reading here. If I was interested in only persuading you, I'd take it to email


                    • I did, however, note that, while you didn't assert that AIM was reason
                    • The mainstream press is mainstream corporate -- that's where the advertising
                      money comes from. They don't rock the boat, in general. Just as you won't find
                      the NY Times advocating land redistribution (giving land back to small-scale
                      farmers, for instance), or pointing out the human cost of drug patents, you also
                      won't find them working overtime to dig up corporate malfeasance or official
                      corruption.

                      Not rocking the boat goes both ways. So "anti-conservative" might apply, if by
                      "anti-conservative" you mean "opp
                    • by jordan (120) on 2003.12.20 14:31 (#26729) Homepage Journal
                      • They don't rock the boat, in general. Just as you won't find
                        the NY Times advocating land redistribution (giving land back to small-scale
                        farmers, for instance)

                      If you are saying that the media in this country is not of a Marxist bent, I would agree. That's completely in line with the fact that Socialism is pretty much unpopular with the American people in general and the media is no exception.
                      • or pointing out the human cost of drug patents

                      If you are referring to the fact that there would be no miracle drugs without drug patents, I guess that would be a huge human cost. Seeing as Capitalist drug companies develop practically all new drugs, given their motivation for doing so that they will be granted a patent for the result.

                      Now, I will agree that the media is failing to point out that drug companies are spending 3x on marketing compared to developing new drugs, or the fact that Acid Reflux disease that's untreatable by lifestyle changes is extremely rare. The two are not disconnected. Major media is reaping a boon to their advertising budgets pushing, largely unnecessary Acid blocking drugs and major media is not rocking the boat by pointing out the medical facts.

                      • you also
                        won't find them working overtime to dig up corporate malfeasance or official
                        corruption.

                      I agree that the media could do better here. Corporate malfeasance is really a Government job given that investigative and subpoena powers help a lot and there are some bright spots here, like the NY Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer gets a LOT of favorable press, just check it out.

                      • As an example -- in my opinion, any "objective" newspaper would have been
                        running a headline every day for the last couple years saying "The Government is
                        obviously making all this shit up as they go along." Yet the articles run by
                        the NY Times are more in the line of "White House Announces Pi Equal To Three;
                        Some Experts Disagree."

                      We disagree. It's not obvious to me that anything is being "made up". Sometimes, the Government has been wrong about specific charges, but that's not the same as lying.

                      If one of the things you are referring to the issue of WMD in Iraq, the whole world seemed to believe that they had them. UN Resolution 1441 was clearly drafted with that in mind.

                      Of course, you don't hear the media trumpeting the fact that Silkworm missles, missles acquired in only the last few years, were found with warheads designed to carry chemical and nerve agents.

                      I have no doubt whatsoever that Hussein would have been developing and stockpiling the worst weapons he could lay his hands on if the international pressure hadn't been so strong.

                      Unfortunately, Hussein had arranged it so that the sanctions were killing 10000 people every month, according to the UN, which was infuriating the Islamic street. Our options were to eventually accept a stockpile of horrible weapons, continuing to threaten his neighbors - he still layed claim to Kuwait, for example - or we had to remove him.

                      This theory of media corporatism just doesn't wash with me. The media is overwhelmingly against the War in Iraq, constantly referring to it as a quagmire, while by your theory, they would be behind it because of all the profits their corporate masters could expect to squeeze out of the Middle East now.

                      The media is beating a constant drumbeat for us to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, ignoring the history of this kind of thing. It took 5 years to de-Nazify Germany after WWII and 7 years before elections could be held in Japan. We've been in Korea for 50 years now and I think you'll find that the South Koreans are more or less happy that they are South Koreans and not conquered by those monsters to the North. What's the rush in Iraq if it's not the fact that the media writers just hate the Bush Administration?

                      To me, "objective" media would still be running headlines about how Clinton obviously "lied" about our involvement in Bosnia. He said we would be out in 1 year, but the media gave him a complete pass and I never once heard this referred to as a lie.

                      Face facts. The media has an irrational hatred of Bush and will spin everything to the disadvantage of the Republicans, while giving the Democrats a complete pass.

                      If you are as far left as I believe you to be, you might consider this irrelevant. To you, the Democrats are probably just a slightly less far right version of the Republicans. Recognize that the American people. as a whole. don't share your views and it would be really surprising if the media slanted the news to your taste.

                    • Face facts. The media has an irrational hatred of Bush and will spin everything to the disadvantage of the Republicans, while giving the Democrats a complete pass.

                      I wish you had put this part at the beginning, so I didn't have to waste time reading the rest. Who is "the media"? Does every single member of the group have this "hatred"? Is it always (or necessarily) irrational? Does "everything" get spun, and do all Democrats get a "complete" pass? I suspect we disagree on the underlying politics, but