Jack Dawson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2004
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
I, for one, will deny that mainstream American news media is completely sympathetic to modern liberal causes. They are dedicated to profits and whichever ideology helps them to increase them. Currently, I find them extremely conservative. However, as Noam Chomsky points out in his landmark work, Manufacturing Consent, it is the benefit of a conservative media to on occasion accept criticism for being too liberal. Using such criticism, usually administered by itself, the media can continuously become more and more conservative.Christiaan said:KBeta,I concur, in part, with your assessment of the various biases of various news media. However, it is undeniable that mainstream American news media are sympathetic to modern liberal causes, i.e. the welfare state, abortion, the U.N. Though, I am curious, how do you define the terms Conservative and Liberal?
I'm blushing.Contrarian said:K Beta as usual is "fair and balanced"
I don't object to a point of view. I object to a everyone claiming to be objective. As I said previously, the more a news soruce claims to be objective, the less I trust it. Tas and Pravda claimed objectivity too.Contrarian said:...unlike any media outlet in this country. Unfortunately the situation is merely a function of the free market, capitalistic system. If it is "fair and balanced" it just doesn't sell. It's all about marketshare and money. People (like all of us) will gravitate to those outlets that best fit their personal belief systems. Be it O'Reilly or Rush.... Dan Rather or the NY Times, we take in what we believe to be the truth.
I never fail to be amazed at the vast disparity in one story, or view as reported by diametrically opposed news organizations. It makes me wonder if they were even there.
"To be young and not a liberal means you have no heart but, to be old and not a conservative means you have no brain," said Winston Churchill. Mr. Cornelius, rather, Mr. Raging Liberal, how do you use the term "liberal"(let alone the adjective "raging")? The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are frequently used, though rarely defined.
"Liberal" refers to people who believe that society can be changed for the better, and that government can be used as an instrument of such change. Because of their idealism, liberals often come off as unrealistic and sometimes downright flaky.
"Conservative" refers to people who have a much more "realistic" viewpoint: money rules; greed, not altruism, is what really drives human behavior; and human nature is so powerful that society can never be changed (except to strengthen the institutionalization of greed). There is a lot to be said for the accuracy of this viewpoint.
However, if we had not had millions of idealistic people working their buns off for the past several hundred years, each doing their tiny bit to make the world a better place, satisfied to make their incremental, almost-invisible changes which accumulated decade after decade, century after century, then we would still have slavery, public hangings, and open sewers running down the middle of our streets.
The forces of greed and corruption have become very powerful in recent years. I can only encourage idealistic people to keep struggling, to fight the inertia, to continue working to make the world a better place.
Modern liberals have pirated the name "Liberal". Liberalism, in western civilization since the late 17th century, has meant: "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state."
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:Ref. #20
Or maybe, like Conservative, the meaning has evolved a bit. I'm willing to incorporate that in my definition, too. However, it must be recognized that the maximums and minimums need adjustment...considerable adjustment. There is the matter of the much more extensive infrastructure needed to keep civilization perking along now, as compared to three hundred years ago. Seeing that this is built, maintained and operated is the responsibility of government, and this means that the role of the State must be greater. The vastly increased population and diversity also necessitates some decrease in individual freedom. There may still be places where one might live the life of a seventeenth century liberal, but you wouldn't want to live there. :drink
/agreedChristiaan said:There is no "maximum" amount of Liberty. Liberty is what it is, there can be no more, but there can be semblances of Liberty. What you propose for your modern society is a mere semblance of liberty. In all actuality you are redefining "liberty" to mean: "what certain individuals are permitted to do, be, think and say under the guidance and direction of other individuals." Government's only responsibility is to protect individuals from coercive physical violence, and its corollary, fraud. Furthermore, as population and diversity increase individual freedoms (mind you, these freedoms are not given to people by the Government, they are theirs by Nature and Government was formed to protect these rights) must be recognized with the utmost of fidelity. You are attempting to "have your cake and eat it to." You can not have that, either you are for freedom or you are not. Mixing in "some" statism with liberty will inevitably dilute and poison a free society.
There is no "maximum" amount of Liberty. Liberty is what it is, there can be no more, but there can be semblances of Liberty. What you propose for your modern society is a mere semblance of liberty. In all actuality you are redefining "liberty" to mean: "what certain individuals are permitted to do, be, think and say under the guidance and direction of other individuals." Government's only responsibility is to protect individuals from coercive physical violence, and its corollary, fraud. Furthermore, as population and diversity increase individual freedoms (mind you, these freedoms are not given to people by the Government, they are theirs by Nature and Government was formed to protect these rights) must be recognized with the utmost of fidelity. You are attempting to "have your cake and eat it to." You can not have that, either you are for freedom or you are not. Mixing in "some" statism with liberty will inevitably dilute and poison a free society.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?