Bush wants media control

Post the link please.

Read the terms and conditions you've agreed to when joining this forum.

Do not copy and paste material that belongs to someone else, or is available elsewhere on the Internet.

[Edited on 29-7-2003 by William]

I saw this on CNN a couple of days ago surprisingly.
(I think it was yesterday.)

I'm not surprised.
It maks sense. No one can organize a resistance if coummunication and basic social services are owned by the government.

Control the media, you control peole's minds.
Contol their minds, you control them.
If you control them, you control everything.

Tassadar

this is nothing new. the FCC has been rolling back the rules on conglomerate ownership for quite a while now. I'm surprised that somebody in Congress has noticed and decided to take a stand against it.

I thought shrub & his cartel already controlled the press and electronic media?

Since no one in mainstream media seems willing to offer any kind of resistance to the rightwing propaganda I just assumed his agents had already infiltrated and created editorial road blocks to anything even remotely critical of himself or his administration.

Originally posted by USMC Harrier
I thought shrub & his cartel already controlled the press and electronic media?

Since no one in mainstream media seems willing to offer any kind of resistance to the rightwing propaganda I just assumed his agents had already infiltrated and created editorial road blocks to anything even remotely critical of himself or his administration.

Took the words right out of my mouth. No one in the media is willing to stand up and resist anything that he says or claims. Like now with the Liberia situation, no one has said anything about his unwillingness to send peacekeepers into Liberia when Taylor said he would step down upon their arrival. He was willing to send hundreds of thousands of troops to iraq to liberate iraqis from an oppressive dictator, but is reluctant to send a couple thousand troops as peacekeepers to Liberia for the same reason. what's the only difference - oil. If Liberia finds tons of oil and joins OPEC, then I bet Bush would be more willing to send troops there.

Sorry about gettin a little off topic but the situatiuon kinda bugs me. Sometimes it just makes me

for years. Forget about the daily killing of the English language and world respect that his office used to hold, that he killed everytime he opened his mouth. Just look back to when it really started in earnest: the 2000 presidential debates.
Bush got his arse handed to him by Gore, yet the Networks reported ....what? They put a standard out there for him that was so low, he only had to avoid peeing in his pants to not get a rave review.
That was the beginning of our downfall.

[Edited on 25-7-2003 by Bout Time]

Monopolistic media are just one more step on the route to American Stalinism with the Bush administration.

Look at the Topics here associated with it:

* election rigging
* insane government and Police State powers under Homeland Security, TIA & the Patriot Act
* dumbing down of the education systems
* cover-ups of any real issue from public scrutiny, no administration accountability
* cronyism.

Stalin was a great teacher wasn't he.

No one in the media is willing to stand up and resist anything that he says or claims.

i dont want the "media" to stand up to anyone. i just want them to report what happens. i prefer to take up the fight myself. i dont want someone else like the media speaking for me. if the media took on this role....who's side do they take up? mine? yours? the other guys? see how it becomes a problem?

the media SHOULD be neutral and let us decide for ourselves. i wont say whether the media is slanted one way or another but i think they are definitely slanted in one direction and thats in the direction of the almighty dollar. like the politicians everyone claims they are defending they are only looking out for themselves first. they dont give a damn about anything else.

and i reitereate, the media should NOT be "resisting", they should only be telling us whats going on and let US think for ourselves for a change.

then again i dont rely on the media to do anything but give a skewed view of whats happening. i still decide for myself.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

No one in the media is willing to stand up and resist anything that he says or claims.

i dont want the "media" to stand up to anyone. i just want them to report what happens. i prefer to take up the fight myself. i dont want someone else like the media speaking for me. if the media took on this role....who's side do they take up? mine? yours? the other guys? see how it becomes a problem?

the media SHOULD be neutral and let us decide for ourselves. i wont say whether the media is slanted one way or another but i think they are definitely slanted in one direction and thats in the direction of the almighty dollar. like the politicians everyone claims they are defending they are only looking out for themselves first. they dont give a damn about anything else.

and i reitereate, the media should NOT be "resisting", they should only be telling us whats going on and let US think for ourselves for a change.

then again i dont rely on the media to do anything but give a skewed view of whats happening. i still decide for myself.

Sorry about that, I didn't mean it in the context you said and it was probably a bad choice of words on my part. I meant that media only seems willing to say positive things about Bush and is not taking an objective view on subjects concerning him. All that I seem to hear in the mass media are the positives about Bush. Any story that condemns Bush is perceived as anti-american propaganda.

Originally posted by abeyer

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

No one in the media is willing to stand up and resist anything that he says or claims.

i dont want the "media" to stand up to anyone. i just want them to report what happens. i prefer to take up the fight myself. i dont want someone else like the media speaking for me. if the media took on this role....who's side do they take up? mine? yours? the other guys? see how it becomes a problem?

the media SHOULD be neutral and let us decide for ourselves. i wont say whether the media is slanted one way or another but i think they are definitely slanted in one direction and thats in the direction of the almighty dollar. like the politicians everyone claims they are defending they are only looking out for themselves first. they dont give a damn about anything else.

and i reitereate, the media should NOT be "resisting", they should only be telling us whats going on and let US think for ourselves for a change.

then again i dont rely on the media to do anything but give a skewed view of whats happening. i still decide for myself.

Sorry about that, I didn't mean it in the context you said and it was probably a bad choice of words on my part. I meant that media only seems willing to say positive things about Bush and is not taking an objective view on subjects concerning him. All that I seem to hear in the mass media are the positives about Bush. Any story that condemns Bush is perceived as anti-american propaganda.

i think you and i are watching two totally different medias. i dont see reports praising bush i do see lots of reports that SHOULD make people wonder about their government, not just bush. and i do question a lot of things, everything practically and i take nothing at face value, ESPECIALLY from the media. sometimes because of our own views we THINK the media slants a certain way but i dont think they lean in anyway except in the way of more ratings and more money. yes those who report the "news" are going to put their own slant on it in some way shape or form but what are you going to do? as much as some of us think/claim we could remain objective could we really? i doubt it. so do we blame the individual reporter or the whole media for this? a little of both but we should also blame ourselves for not screaming at them to do better reporting.

a lot of people said the same media was being nice to clinton and those who supported clinton said the media was being too harsh on him and should "mind their own business". so who was right? neither. its all in how you want to perceive the reporting.