From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 27 2005 - 21:11:33 GMT
Hi Arlo (Nick and Ant mentioned),
Arlo writes:
> The "media bias" myth is simply another one of these dialetic tricks. The
> hope is to paint the words of "liberals" as "deceitful and misleading",
> oriented towards deception and full of propaganda. While at the same time
> supporting unabashedly the objective and never-flawed reporting of the
> right. Indeed, the battle is polar, and not between left-wing and
> right-wing bias, but as Platt (and others like the MRC) depict it, between
> left-wing bias and objective reporting.
Nice try, Arlo, but I have specifically said that all sources are biased,
left, right and in between. It's just that the left won't admit to theirs,
and therefore it has to be pointed out.
> I have been trying to get Platt to see that a "liberal" or "conservative"
> bias in the media is an illusive distinction. As Ant, Mark and others have
> repeatedly pointed out, the media is "commericial", and as such is "biased"
> towards only entrenched power structures.
Let's see. Businesses are power structures, but governments are not? Last
time I looked, businesses can't legally use the point of gun to force
someone to do something, but if I don't pay my taxes, guess who shows up
at my door wearing a gun belt.
> For all examples of so-called
> "liberal bias", I have tried to show that there are just as many
> "conservative bias" examples to counter. But this has had one false
> premise. Namely, the idea that "right wing bias" was even possible in the
> conservative dialogue. When the media attacked Clinton, it was objective,
> fair and responding to adequate facts. When it attacks Bush it is
> deceitful, lying liberals seeking to smear the president. I made the
> mistake of trying to demonstrate a "left-wing/right-wing" polarization,
> when in fact the debate ends at "left-wing/truth" polarizations.
Once again that word "truth" shows up which everyone here, including me,
hasn't really examined in depth. But recently Nick wrote, "There has to be
an absolute truth here," and Paul replied to him saying, "The Absolute
truth is that DQ runs the world." Given the past heated arguments about
absolutes on this site, I guess it's little wonder that the subject of
truth along with criteria for identifying credible sources has been
avoided.
> > Again, note the ad hominem "average barfly." Leftists just can't seem to
> > help themselves when it comes to leveling insults at individuals and
> > groups they disagree with.
>
> Again, notice the semantic desire to force a relationship between
> "leftists" and "leveling insults". The true statement would be: People just
> can't seem to help themselves when it comes to leveling insults at
> individuals and groups they disagree with. But by forcing the "leftist"
> distinction, the desire is to conversely make it appear "rightists" would
> never do such a thing.
I call 'em as I see 'em. If you catch me or any other rightist engaging in
gratuitous personal insults to those we disagree with here, please point
it out. (May I presume ad hominems have no place in "critical thinking"?)
Also, how do you propose to correct the faults of the "commercial" media
other than by calling on the government gun power structure?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 27 2005 - 21:09:51 GMT