gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Still wrong...No matter how much you would like to play with words. The US government is in possession of certain news worthy items, be it alienn corpses in Area 51 or more prisoner abuse photos out of Abu Grhaib or Gitmo. The US President does not allow its dissemination to the public. For you to say that this is equivalent to 'media control' is like saying just because the US government restrict flights over Area 51, it is the same as 'banning' civil aviation.It doesnt matter how you're screaming and shrieking, or try to find excuses or pretext, the bottom-line fact is that the US government banned the photo, regardless whether Taguba is allowed to work or reporter is prosecuted or not.
This is the true 'media control' and intimidation...Your IQ nonetheless failed you to recognize the simple fact:
Executive, Judiciary, and most of legislature have formed a united front in an open defiant of federal freedom of information laws.
This is a vivid, living example of medium control by US government. It is amazing that in the face of iron fact, somebody will still, in vain though, attempt to deny it clownishly.
If you read Dr. Michael Parentis book, there are numerous examples with sources and proofs how the government and corporate control/influence US media when need arises. It doesnt have to actually organize the publishing companies. (see McCarthyism below)
Venezuela's Chávez threatens to shut down TV station | csmonitor.com
Did Clinton made similar threats when the media, from serious news reportage to late night comedians, made fun of his sexual pecadillos? Did you see how Jim Carey on In Living Color caricatured Clinton with thrusting hips in a dance? Why was Bush Sr a one-termer but his son re-elected? Given blatant examples of 'media control' by governments all over the world, INCLUDING CHINA, your attempts to portray the US in similar light borderline on the pathological.Caracas, Venezuela - President Hugo Chávez is threatening again to shut down Globovision, the sole television channel in Venezuela that regularly criticizes him saying it had stirred panic for reporting an earthquake before the government announced it.
"We're not going to tolerate a crazy man with a cannon shooting it at the whole world," Mr. Chávez said on his weekly television and radio show Sunday, referring to Alberto Ravell, the Globovision general manager. "Enough! ... This has to end or I'll stop calling myself Hugo Rafael Chávez Frias."
"You are playing with fire, manipulating, inciting hate and much more. All of you: television networks, radio stations, papers," he said. "Don't make a mistake with me."
Looks like it is YOUR intelligence that should be questioned. The point here is about 'media control' and in order for the Obama administration to be as effective as Chavez down in Venezuela, the President must have governmental institutions, plural, ready made for that task. And if that is true, then we would have seen that power passed from President to President. But that is not the case, we saw how two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, brought down the Nixon Presidency, we saw how Clinton was ridiculed and eventually his impeachment came to fore, we saw how Bush Sr's approval rating plummeted when he failed to live up to his campaign promise of no new taxes as reported by the media and lost re-election. One US President administration after another came under media attacks. So where is your evidence, other than stretching the definition of 'banning', that there is 'media control' in the US? You have none.FBI Director cant serve even a single president if he/she is in conflict with the president: he/she'd then better go Hawaii to type behind screen.
The whole institution is set up for balancing (hopefully) the interest between different interest groups. Ordinary citizen normally can only be represented by/through those interest groups.
Give yourself a break this time. There is NOTHING there to support your argument that there is 'media control' by the government in the US. I read the entire summary link. If anything, his summary actually debunked you since according to his thesis, the media is catered to, or 'kissed up' in order for the 'elites' to exercise their 'rule' in America. May be you are in high school?For your reference, this link tells WHO RULES AMERICA
BTW, I saw this website because I found that it actually serves as high school teaching material! I love America that there are more sane people than you.
Once again your IQ failed to live up to my expectation. So I will attempt to dumb it down a little more.What all this raving has anything to do with critics that Chomsky made?
You claimed that there is 'media control' in the US and trotted out Chomsky to 'prove' it. Anyone who is willing to exercise critical thinking, and apparently you are not on that list, would have found out that for a large part of Chomsky's tenure at MIT, the US DoD indirectly paid for his research. So it would have been logical to ask that IF there is 'media control' in the US to the extent as that of China as you insinuated, THEN WHY THE HELL DID THE US GOVERNMENT NOT SHUT CHOMSKY UP? After all, he was critical of the US, anything from the Vietnam War to how stupid and gullible average Americans are, in the whole time the Pentagon was financing his research. The Pentagon could have sent a couple of goons to arrange an 'accident' for Chomsky at his house or at the very least pressured MIT's administration to shut him up. Far worse have been done to academics in China if they got out of the political line. Is it clear enough on how weak it was to use Chomsky to support your argument?
How does this support your argument that there is 'media control' in the US by the government?President Ford pardoned a criminal called Nixon! Please lets not talk about presidential pardon another can of worms of the system.
"He did not decide not to run for re-election." Perhaps in your imagination Americans are crazy people who all in a fact-denial status similar to you to support a criminal for president.
And you are old enough?In addition, bet a young person like you never heard of McCarthyism in US?
Buddy...Pressure is not the same as control like when the government have a state media at the exclusion of competetion. McCarthyism was pressure, even wikipedia has it right...
McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also known as 'smearing' someone's good name. And this does NOT support your argument that there is 'media control' in the US.McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.
Try saying that in China or Venezuela. For Venezuela, make it quick before Chavez really crack down.We ordianry citizen must watch the behavior of the governement with a vigilant eye!