POLITICS: Internet Replacing Mainstream Media: Update 16-3-05

Soficrow,
I hadnt realized i had you backed down so much you can only give a one line responce. (wouldnt that be a violation?)

When i speak of placing true blame...
Sofi says,

You need to take that up with the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Umm excuse me,
BUT,
isnt that exactly why ive been questioning your blame game here?
Didnt i already point out the GAO's assesment of the office to which is accountable for the violation in question?
I think i already said look at your own source to see where they said the blame was or should be. Simply stating that a "Bush administration office" isnt enough evidence to say the president ordered this act, or took any part in it other than being the executive that the office reports to.
Just as much as following orders doesnt get you off from committing an act, neither does acts by subordinants mean that the boss is guilty, or that he was even in on things.

Sofi then masks her failure to provide some tangible way to back out of a witch hunt to "get Bush" while avoiding casting direct blame where it should go, by rallying all those living in similar denial with a rousing "go troops" chant,

How qute...
How LAME.

The internet will have no trouble taking over from main stream media if throngs of people choose to embrace ignorance and live in denial....why use a reputable source and be accurate with mainstream news, when you can just tune into the net to find the exact pablum you need to hear to feel ok with life, even if its not the truth.
But
Go Team!!! Go to your select view only internet
Dont be distracted by reality,
Dont be diverted from making baseless accusations
dont let anyone jerk your chain with unrelated sketchy linkage supporting a fallicy
Deny Ignorance. Find the truth. Even if its not the truth you WANT to hear/believe in.

Originally posted by CazMedia
The internet will have no trouble taking over from main stream media if throngs of people choose to embrace ignorance and live in denial....why use a reputable source and be accurate with mainstream news, when you can just tune into the net to find the exact pablum you need to hear to feel ok with life, even if its not the truth.

the newspapers and television are the LAST places you'll find truth. they lie mostly by omission. they no longer give much CONTEXT, prefering instead to spew easily digestable sound and vision bytes.
we don't need evidence anymore. a 'finger pointed firmly at bin laden' is enough for us.
'news you can trust'
'your trusted news source'
reputable? a recent ruling in america decided that newspapers are not obligated to tell the truth. how do i know? was it on TV, or the papers? no. the internet.
if i go to boeing's site, are they going to lie about the planes they are making? if i go to a government site and get information, will it be a bunch of lies(probably, in that case, HEHE)? if i want to find out what's going on in space, will not NASA's site give me MUCH more indepth coverage than any little blurb just before the puppy farm story.
the internet is not a tabloid. it is an unprecendently EXCELLENT research tool. it is unbiased, showing both(or multiple) sides of every story. it has no agenda, unlike the corporate military/industrial/pharmaceutical power network which is propped up by the media, and the media is propped up in turn. it is interactive, as opposed to the passive, static world of the mainstream.

sorry, cazmedia, but you're backing a dinosaur. a very sick one, at that. especially television. talk about pablum. newspapers are at least conscious that their medium is more subject to scrutiny, being in print makes it harder to get away with quick factoids and innuendo like TV does.

here's the reality of television.

an interesting search to try is network "mad as hell, and i'm not going to take it anymore" transcript

HOWARD BEALE:
Good evening. Today is Wednesday, September the twenty-fourth, and this is my last broadcast. Yesterday, I announced on this program that I was going to commit public suicide, admittedly, an act of madness. Well, I'll tell you what happened. I just ran out of bulls--t...Bulls--t is all the reasons we give for living, and if we can't think up any reasons of our own, we always have the God bulls--t...We don't know why the hell we're going through all this pointless pain, humiliation and decay, so there better be someone somewhere who does know. That's the God bulls--t. If you don't like the God bulls--t, how about the man bulls--t? Man is a noble creature that can order his own world. Who needs God? Well, if there's anybody out there that can look around this demented slaughterhouse of a world we live in and tell me that man is a noble creature, believe me, that man is full of bulls--t...I don't have any kids, and I was married for thirty-three years of shrill, shrieking fraud. So I don't have any bulls--t left. I just ran out of it, you see?

and then

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it, is that clear?! You think you have merely stopped a business deal - that is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity, it is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations! There are no peoples! There are no Russians! There are no Arabs! There are no Third Worlds! There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars! Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds and shekels! It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic, and subatomic and galactic structure of things today. And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and you will atone! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon - those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state - Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories and mini-max solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime, and our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you to preach this evangel, Mr. Beale.

Howard Beale: Why me?

Arthur Jensen: Because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.

Howard Beale: I have seen the face of God.

Arthur Jensen: You just might be right, Mr. Beale.

And Beale, overwhelmed, goes on television to preach the goodness of coprorate governance:
Because in the bottom of all our terrified souls, we know that democracy is a dying giant, a sick, sick dying, decaying political concept, writhing in its final pain. ...Well, the time has come to say, 'Is dehumanization such a bad word?' Because good or bad, that's what is so. The whole world is becoming humanoid, creatures that look human but aren't. The whole world, not just us. We're just the most advanced country, so we're getting there first. The whole world's people are becoming mass-produced, programmed, numbered, insensate things...

And thus, in telling the other side of the truth, the nihilistic element, his ratings plummet. The network panics. And they realize the only way to bring up the ratings is to go with the original idea: kill Howard Beale on live tv. And so, the terrorist lead-ins for Beale's show gun him down.

that was in 1976.




[edit on 2-3-2005 by billybob]

Originally posted by soficrow


Yes, the internet is just another tool to "them," but unlike you, I do think they know how to use it. ...I have observed numerous sites go down over the past 3-4 years, buried by dirty tricks. I've watched the same crud here at ATS - narrow perspectives, carefully chosen facts, reducing discussion to partisan name-calling, building personality cults, character assassinations, distraction - and burying good threads with frivolous drivel... The list does go on. Some of it's standard net community stuff I know - but much is orchestrated IMO.

...? You think maybe it's conspiranoia?

YES soficrow again I fear you are correct. What are your thoughts about this recent development?

Department of Homeland Security Announces Appointments to Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010
February 23, 2005
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today announced the appointment of twenty members to the Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee (DHS Privacy Advisory Committee). This newest federal advisory committee to DHS was established to provide external expert advice to the Secretary and the Chief Privacy Officer on programmatic, policy, operational, and technological issues that affect privacy, data integrity, and data interoperability in DHS programs.

“This Committee will provide the Department with important recommendations on how to further the Department’s mission while protecting the privacy of personally identifiable information of citizens and visitors of the United States,” said Nuala O’Connor Kelly, the Chief Privacy Officer of the Department of Homeland Security. “The diversity of experience and perspectives represented by this Committee will play an important role in advancing the national discourse on privacy and homeland security.”

The members of this Advisory Committee have diverse expertise in privacy, security, and emerging technology, and come from large and small companies, the academic community, and the non-profit sector. The members also reflect a depth of knowledge on issues of data protection, openness, technology, and national security.

Here They Come

and just look WHO is on board:

Members appointed for the inaugural term of the DHS Privacy Advisory Committee are:

D. Reed Freeman, Chief Privacy Officer and Vice President, Claria Corporation, Arlington, VA

Freeman explains:

"The law is that material terms have to be disclosed prior to a consumer's taking action. ... Material terms, as defined by the FTC, are those that are likely to affect a consumer's conduct with respect to a product or service. ... In my view, the key terms that consumers should know--those that consumers would be unhappy if they didn't know--are that we will track your online behavior and serve you advertising.

Claria's license fails to prominently disclose transmission and storage of users' activities.

Uh-Oh

Are these the new opponents in the cyber Fahrenheit 451?Are we the soon- to-be designated Montags?




[edit on 2-3-2005 by Vajrayana]

Originally posted by Vajrayana

What are your thoughts about this recent development?

Department of Homeland Security Announces Appointments to Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee

Well that's a totally stacked deck. ...[Tries to figure out how to budget for really good anti-spyware program]

Are these the new opponents in the cyber Fahrenheit 451? Are we the soon- to-be designated Montags?

Looks like it. All I can say is - there's safety in numbers. They cannot - absolutely cannot - keep tabs on millions of unhappy voters.



.

Billybob,
As i am a member of the mainstream broadcast journalistic community, lets clear up some misconceptions.

Ill agree that mainstream media,

spew easily digestable sound and vision bytes.

as you say,
BUT,
dont blame the messenger, blame the audience that pays the bills by tuning into crap instead of real journalisim. The media is a business, and will follow the $$$ before going bankrupt trying to give people REAL info that they have no interest in. Hold their news departments accountable to journalism instead of making $$$ and things will improve.

BillyB says,

a recent ruling in america decided that newspapers are not obligated to tell the truth. how do i know? was it on TV, or the papers? no. the internet.

While i believe you MAY be correct here, for discussion purposes can you provide some link or evidence of this?
Even assuming this ruling came down like you say...SO WHAT?
Printing lies about people is already slander and makes you lible under the laws, so that kind of "mis-truth" is already covered....

If you as a media entity continually get caught distributing false info...what will happen? You dont NEED any laws to make them, their VIEWERS?READERS will simply defect to another more reputable source for info, and the media making the false info will lose $$$ and dry up and wither away.
The market will eliminate those media that arent credible.

credibillity is the biggest thing lacking now from the internet.
BBob says,

the internet is not a tabloid. it is an unprecendently EXCELLENT research tool. it is unbiased, showing both(or multiple) sides of every story. it has no agenda, unlike the corporate military/industrial/pharmaceutical power network which is propped up by the media, and the media is propped up in turn.

NOT tabliod? OK... while the internet itself as a thing is unbiased, ALL search engines can be made to be, as well as there are many sites that are completely biased for their cause....there are also many sites with NO way to check the "facts" they presume to report. Heck these days people buy software filters to weed out "offensive" material, software that also weeds out non offensive but seemingly realted material, and software that someone that wasnt you decided for you what would and would not be filtered.

What assurances does the avg internet user have that the info they get from it is valid? I see constantly here on ATS people linking to total bias sites, or ones citing un-named sources, and the people reading this drivel BELIEVE IT AS FACT! Then all the extraploations and rumors based off of the already sketchy info....where is the CREDIBILLITY?

At least with the mainstream news, so many people are watching a few key sources and will see quickly if someone is screwing info up....on the internet, there are literally billions of places to hide from your credibillity being scrutinized by a large population in one shot.

The interactivness of the internet IS a big plus for the internets rise in stature...but dont discount tired from work people that want to come home and BE passive instead of having to activly participate with the internet.

You claim im backing a dinosaur eh? ask yourself when the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words" was coined and why.....long before the internet and cable/satalite TV...
Its no less true today (not including digitally altered images...assume for discussion real pics/video)

Yes the internet can incorporate still and moving images, yet its still a text based read/write format at its core, where as TV can use images and sounds to tell the same story with no words...Mankind is very visually based, and because of this "bias" a printed media will never take over an all digital audio/visual experiance.
At least not until the issue of credibillity is resolved.

Originally posted by CazMedia

billybob

the internet is not a tabloid. it is an unprecendently EXCELLENT research tool. it is unbiased, showing both(or multiple) sides of every story. it has no agenda, unlike the corporate military/industrial/pharmaceutical power network which is propped up by the media, and the media is propped up in turn.

At least with the mainstream news, so many people are watching a few key sources and will see quickly if someone is screwing info up....on the internet, there are literally billions of places to hide from your credibillity being scrutinized by a large population in one shot.

Mainstream news routinely publishes government and industry press releases almost verbatim - and most sources say the same thing, almost word for word. What you call "screwing info up" is just presenting an alternative perspective to the propaganda.

Bias and (Mis)Representation in the Media


Without doubt, the mainstream media propagates bias, misrepresentation and disinformation. So-called journalism has degenerated as a profession to become 'copy writing' and 'copy editing' - nothing more in most cases.

The Internet is and will remain the only way ordinary people can seek the truth.


.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by soficrow]

Sofi AGAIN misplaces the blame,

Mainstream news routinely publishes government and industry press releases almost verbatim - and most sources say the same thing, almost word for word.

Yes Sofi, this does occur sometimes, but blaming the media is misguided. Its NOT for lack of trying.

If the gov, or Corps, DONT have a recognized chain of command and person to get info from...who else is going to give it to you "officially"?
Employees would need to "go on the reccord" and likley lose their jobs and indeed arent always privi to the entirity of the issue being examined.
Employees often are disgruntled and only give thier side and not the whole picture.

This is part of the credibillity issue i speak of.

Asside from reputable sources, the internet is FULL of low accountabillity and i believe low/no access to the real info...MOST of it is mearly a regurgitation of something from another source (and mostly without citing the source)

As one of those mainstreamers you condem, I get into trouble CONSTANTLY for trying to buck the system, point out these flaws and ask people to do better and look beyond the ratings...when you allege

propagates bias, misrepresentation and disinformation.

You ONLY blame the media?
IF i could get my hands on some exclusive, damning info that i could VERIFY, id run it in a second without a care who it burnt. Dont think we dont try all the time, using hidden cameras and other means to both get AND verify information... You cant immagine how often the media pretty much KNOWS about an incident yet cant broadcast this "info", even if its true, because we CANT back it up and wont put ourselves in the position of possible printing a LIE, libling ourselves, and risking getting sued.

Where is the same level of accountabillity on the web?
I notice you didnt include LYING in your judgment of the mainstream, WHY?
The why is because $$$ is tied right to credabillity...
lose one you'll lose the other....
Where is this $$$ tied to the internet in the millions of little alternative sources? Meaning What else is forcing them to be credible if its not the laws or loss of revenue for getting to be know as a "yellow journalist"?

People rant about fox news all the time, and i say, ok they can put forth as much info about choses topics as they want AS LONG AS ITS FACTUAL!!!
Take this with the caveot that sometimes info isnt initially correct or that mistakes are made.

Here is my take on some media issues, please join in...tell your friends.
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Hmm does this seem like Sofi and I are actually agreeing in basic principle yet not seeing the same points?

Going back to the original report - it does look like the Internet is replacing the mainstream media. Many people are grateful to have the option for finding alternate sources of information, and are willing to slog through the muck. Others seem to think we should stick to the big guys despite their corporate and political loyalties.

Moi. I like the Net. And I'm willing to slog. But I suspect we will soon need to defend our right to uncensored access.


.

Reports early today suggested that Bush's speech this morning would address US security and the need for Internet controls. But the speech focused on Syria and said nothing about intel breaches in the USA, not did Bush recommend greater controls on the net than are already in the works.

Controlling the Net: New Laws and Legislation


It could be that the initial reports were wrong or maybe - free speech works, and Bush backed off.



.

This is a good find from Realist05 - and well worth reading.


news.yahoo.com.../nm/20050314/pl_nm/media_report_dc_5

"The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people.

Despite the growing importance of the Web, the report said investment was not keeping pace and some 62 percent of Internet professionals reported cutbacks in the newsroom in the last three years, even more than the 37 percent of print, radio and TV journalists who cited cutbacks in their newsrooms.

"For all that the number of outlets has grown, the number of people engaged in collecting original information has not," the report said, noting that much of the investment was directed at repackaging and presenting information rather than gathering news."


Annual Report on American Journalism


[edit on 16-3-2005 by soficrow]

.
Centralized media, by its very nature tends to be dictatorial.

The internet is a more difuse source and therefore more democratic in nature.

Sort of like the Automobile replacing the railroad as the central means of transport in America.

Cheaper, lower overhead technologies tend to displace high overhead techs.

Buying a radio or TV station is a very big purchase, not to mention feeding it programming. Only wealthy corps, individuals and groups can afford it. By that very nature they are going promote perpetuating that system.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could decentralize government in a similar way?
.

Originally posted by slank
.
Centralized media, by its very nature tends to be dictatorial.

The internet is a more difuse source and therefore more democratic in nature.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could decentralize government in a similar way?
.

and

Too bad more people don't agree.