SwiftVets.com

[RiggerPJS]

The main editorial in the August 21 edition of the "Roanoke Times" (Roanoke, VA) contains the sub-title: "Charges that John Kerry misrepresents his military service are crumbling under the weight of the documentary and testimonial records". The main portion of the editorial also implies that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are in a direct connection with the Bush campaign. Finally, the piece contains the following: " the group's ads edge beyond expressions of opinion and into statements of purported fact. The preponderance of the evidence, and it is mounting, suggests that the group's statements are false."

The Roanoke Times is well known among its readership as being extremely liberal. Unfortunately, it is the only daily paper in the area, so it has the freedom to spew pro-Kerry diatribe without fear of losing readers to another paper.

For the editorial staff to make such statements is irresponsible unless the facts are available to support such claims. In this case, facts that do not exist.

[Paul]

All of the media is biased.

It always has been.

The myth of fair and impartial, even presented as an ideal, I personally believe is a dangerous one in a nation in which most of our individuals are abandoning the sound norms of character and principles of "right and wrong" of our predecessors (in large measure, and in some ways primarily, with the aid of the media!).

Even worse, the self-serving myth and nonsense of the media constituting some kind of 4th check and balance within our government, or even intended as such by the Founding Fathers of our Republic.

Even in the past, such as these gross romanticizations and myths presented by many elements of the media about itself would have been dangerous.

There's certainly no constitutional or historical support for these contentions where either the "press" or the "media" are concerned. It's based on nothing more substantial than only the present-day media's own PR campaigns.

For the most part, the bulk of it is not a public service either, even though elements of it perform limited acts of public service.

The media is given Freedom of Speech in our constitution; Nothing less (even when many in it sink lower and abuse it), nothing more (regardless of nonsense claims of being a "4th estate").

Historically, elements of the press or media have ranged from being supportive of government policies, some jingoistic to extremes at times, often some working to exert influence on policies and others even anti-government policies and working overtly against some policies to the point of serving as 5th column subversives. . .

Personally, I take them for what they are. Business firms with central control and that only print or televise what their editors allow to be published or broadcast.

Increasingly, very powerful and very wealthy firms in an industry increasingly dominated by a shrinking number of powerful firms.
_________________
Paul

[NashvilleGuy]

When Paul used the term "media" I had to grin.

I think these days, in an increasingly digitally connected world, the distinction between an established "news media" and programs or broadcasts by organizations with a specific political bent or agenda has become blurred to the point of total chaos.

While there have been polls and studies that show traditional news media personalities tend to skew liberal, they are still mostly held in control. Their affiliate organizations know that there are some lines that they really can't afford to cross without alienating large numbers of their viewers. This is a built in checks and balances system overseen by these organizations need for advertising dollars from sponsors.

But what about the Michael Moores of the world? A so-called documentary that is full of proven factual inaccuracies and serves no other purpose than to create resentment. That it was done in the guise of some sort of "journalism" goes towards my point. Hollywood can get away with it because it is "giving the people what they want" and filling theater seats. Their point of view get's out, and if people take it as all fact oh well.

To take that further, what about other films that aren't overtly political like "The Day After Tomorrow" or "The Manchurian Candidate"? These films take pointed digs at the current administration in the guise of "entertainment". Where does all of this end?

The mainstream press is only the tip of the iceberg here. Taken together, the constant bombardment of a pointed philosophy from television, radio, print, the internet and even movie screens is an indication that there are some serious problems in getting unbiased facts.

I don't have any solutions. All I can do is look at everything from at least three different directions and try to triangulate where the truth is.

[Paul]

"The mainstream press is only the tip of the iceberg here. Taken together, the constant bombardment of a pointed philosophy from television, radio, print, the internet and even movie screens . . . " {NashvilleGuy}

Hi NG:

Good list. And given even the movies that you cite, one could also add video rentals as distribution, which I'd probably include along with theatres and under such as my mention of broadcast. Given the structural changes in recent decades of the media and all of these elements with it then even publishing houses also fit under the term media these days.

You’re right. It’s exactly why I used the term "media" instead of "press" or even use the two as synonymous with each other. Rather more a matter of the press now being encompassed under the term media.

Possibly because it's stated frequently, it may seem like there's been a proliferation of different sources, however, I actually believe that it's more a matter of the opposite, easily demonstrable. The number of different independent sources are declining where the majority of the so-called "main stream" media is concerned.

Prior to the days of television, especially in the decades preceding the second world war there was a very large number of specialty periodicals, journals, magazines and such in the United States. Not only diverse in specialty, content, or even political focus or doctrine, but, and more importantly, in ownership.

Hollywood has been around since the '20s and had its own biases and ethics counter to the broader culture back then and since as well, about the same in fact as those it has today. It's been less a matter of Hollywood changing in the past 40 years especially as it has been the culture at large having been changing.

Hollywood and the new electronic media are the most apt example I believe.

What's mostly changed are many of the public standards and public debates. The ethics have increasingly changed in recent decades and the old debates all but ceased. Hollywood hasn't changed. The restraints on it have. And as a result, then increasingly, there’s less and less unity on basic ethical principles in our society any longer except for a trend of the society increasingly being formed by those of the media that had once been restricted by those of our society in the past.

I believe a big factor is that of the new corporations in the so-called entertainment industries which now constitute elements of all of these listed above and others.

Hence my mention of the merging of these elements into corporations and the subsequent growth of the corporations while the numbers of these corporations simultaneously decline.

Increasingly there’s no counterpart whatsoever today, independent ownership wise, to the countless independent publishers of journals and such of past decades.

One after another they’re all merging (through acquisitions, takeovers, or whatever) into the large entertainment industry corporations that are increasingly larger while simultaneously fewer in number: elements of all of these, publishing, broadcasting, newspapers, television, videos. . . each business a portion of one or another of the increasingly fewer large corporations.

I’ve heard others advocate variations of such as the "triangulation" approach of multiple sources that you mention, but personally would point out that even in the past such an approach would only indicate a uniformity of opinion among a number of different independent sources. Given the current situation, then even a demonstration of uniformity among independent sources is less and less likely. Many only quote one another, one source to another inside the industry so that sometimes three or more “independent” sources are in reality only one single source.

At any rate, such isn’t a sure indication of anything at all by itself where such as the veracity of facts, opinions or claims are concerned.[/b]

Even if four independent sources all say the same thing, that doesn’t prove anything other than uniformity of agreement by the four. By itself, mere uniformity of opinion while not automatically discounting or discrediting anything doesn’t automatically demonstrate the veracity of anything either. The four may be wrong in something reported, never mind an opinion stated, while a single source alone in its reporting elsewhere may be accurate or the reason for its opinion more clearly given or presented.

Anyway, I don’t believe that it’s a matter of chaos created by a proliferation of different sources, but increasingly quite the opposite. The number of different sources inside the mainstream media are actually in decline.

In fact, in this context and by these standards, then such as SBVFT would never have even gotten off of the ground when they first began.

Any more, then while I'm willing to hear anyone out and often read views by those who I might or might not agree with, or even share the same philosophical foundations with, I'm less interested in only knowing what the opinions are and more curious regarding what the particular details are that form the basis and reason for the opinions being given or the claims being made. In short, whatever is being reported or presented is based upon? I still try to proceed based upon critical thinking and critical reading standards, once commonly taught.

How many others share a particular view, whether it's only different sources within a common corporation, or not, then to be honest, that doesn’t mean much to me.

As noted, the PR about “fair and impartial” as a universal standard or that about the media constituting a 4th check and balance in our government and any similar such romanticization, doesn’t hold up either historically, today or by the standards of our own constitution. It’s nonsense. Personally, I believe it’s potentially dangerous nonsense if one takes it seriously.

PS. The original bolds were too much.
_________________
Paul