Any americans watch the debate last night?

[MrColossal]

So let's get this straight here...

You just said that you don't care that soldiers were sent to war and died because they didn't have the proper protection as long as not too many of them die?

Do you have a brother? A sister? A friend? What if they went to Iraq and got hit with a peice of shrapnel that torn through their chest and killed them dead because they didn't have body armor. You wouldn't care because the death toll isn't high enough? You sicken me to no end.

Also Losttraveler, Dick was being humorous, he gained no experience from being president for 8 hours... It was a joke.

I am so glad you're not old enough to vote.

[shbaz]

Lost - so do I, that's why I asked in a post slightly above Colossal's. I was responding to Las.

I'm watching the debate right now and Bush mentioned right away that great progress is being made in Afghanistan because 10 million people registered to vote, "a phenominal statistic." My history professor mentioned this the other day - there are 9.8 million eligible voters in Afghanistan. Just guess how many actually registered.

They love voting so much that some of them registered twice! Freedom is awesome.

[Anarcho]

Woh, I so feel like going into a rant, but damnit, it's just not worth it.

[Anarcho]

Instead of ranting at LostTravler, I'll respond to DGMacphee:

My opinion: FOX has a bigger audience, so there's a greater right-wing bias.

The size of a station's audience has little to do with whether or not it's reporters and staff are biased.Ã,  It just reflects how popular the station is.Ã,  It doesn't even neccesarily reflect the bias of the audience.Ã,  If that were the case, would everyone who watches say, "Roots" be supporters of slavery?Ã,  I hope not.Ã,  Maybe that's a wierd example, but I suspect the attraction to Fox News is that it's news-er-tainment.Ã,  It's not dry, factual, or based in reality like other "news" programs...it's just an endless barrage of baseless opinion and ranting.Ã,  Like proffesional wrestling.

Regarding the actual breakdown of political affiliations/bias among the media...the polls that I've seen (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head) showed that most media outlet owners (and they are increasingly small in numbers) are largely conservative.Ã,  Polls among actual reporters show that while they are mostly liberal regarding social issues, they are quite conservative regarding economic issues.

[Andail]

I'm so glad this flip-flop-argument is starting to fade. It's great that one real debate peformance can kill all the myths and ill-founded name-calling that the republican campaign whipped up.

If their campaign hadn't promoted the "flip-flop"-argument so darn hard, nobody would have understood why it's such a bad thing to change one's oppinion regarding an important issue where new facts arise.

Kerry turned out to be nothing like the republican campaign tried to portrayed him as, which sends out good signals to the american people.

[Fuzzpilz]

W00t four generals support him, big deal, I personaly know more then four myself, thats why its humorous.

And how many of them have told you and/or the public that they think you're currently the best possible choice for president?

How can you say that a few countries support bush. Countries dont support individuals, they support nations.

No. No. No. "Countries" or "nations" don't support each other or individuals or anybody. They're not monolithic entities. To some extent, you might say: governments support governments. The invasion of Iraq wasn't a decision of "America", it was a decision of the Bush administration. Any support for it or the occupation was likewise a decision of each participating country's government, not somehow the country itself, or its people. Whether the people even supported this decision is irrelevant - the final decision was not theirs to make.

I'm not American, so I don't get to decide, but: while there are several points on which I disagree with the views represented by Kerry, but it's clear to me he's a damn sight better than Bush. He actually pays attention to what goes on in the world, he's not an idiot, and he's not a total bastard; nor will his administration be composed of a majority of such.

And you still haven't pointed out the slightest bit of hypocrisy.

[DGMacphee]

the patriot act was passed by congress and has no relation to the president. Yes, he could of vetoed it.

Why the hell would he veto something that practically gives the government power? Your point makes no sense. Not only that, where do you think these bills come from? At the end of a rainbow? Why don't you look up the origin of the Patriot Act and then tell me it has no relation to Bush?

Also, I still haven't heard a good reason as to why people hate John Kerry so far. Someone please give me an actual reason!

I mean, it's not like the guy murdered his grandmother and danced naked on her grave. The guy's only in trouble for not sticking to a clear decision. I welcome that. When it comes the  shit hitting the fan, he won't stick to the same path as more and monkeys fling wad after wad of faeces in his direction.

The size of a station's audience has little to do with whether or not it's reporters and staff are biased.  It just reflects how popular the station is.  It doesn't even neccesarily reflect the bias of the audience.  If that were the case, would everyone who watches say, "Roots" be supporters of slavery?  I hope not.  Maybe that's a wierd example, but I suspect the attraction to Fox News is that it's news-er-tainment.  It's not dry, factual, or based in reality like other "news" programs...it's just an endless barrage of baseless opinion and ranting.  Like proffesional wrestling.

I was talking about the influence of bias in society. It's already well-documented that FOX News reporters are biased. You have several gatekeepers (a journalistic term) in newsrooms that make sure people are hired to fit the agenda of a certain network. Any journalist can tell you that. Plus, Rupert Murdoch has publically admitted he's a republican supporter too. Not only that, the idea behind Fox News' establishment was an alternative voice to so-called "liberal media". Like I said, this is all well-documented.

But that's not what I'm saying in this case. I'm saying that that effect of bias is more wide-spread as far as FOX news is concerned. Because they reach more people, they have the potential to influence a greater number. Thus, the amount of right-wing bias in society increases.

Let me put it this way: Would there be just as much right-wing bias today if FOX News didn't exist? The media is a very power entity to influence people. To say it doesn't "reflect the bias of the audience" is a very foolhardy claim to make (no offence intended). If you think people aren't influenced in this way, you should do a little more research.

To prove my point, here's a fancy diagram:



The diagram is a model of the agenda setting process. It was created by two crazy guys called E.M. Rogers and J.W. Dearing. They say that the media agenda does influence the public agenda. To have a bigger audience means you influence more people. Thus, this increases the amount of bias in society.

Also, I disagree with the comparison to professional wrestling. Professional wrestling is way more honest.

Regarding the actual breakdown of political affiliations/bias among the media...the polls that I've seen (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head) showed that most media outlet owners (and they are increasingly small in numbers) are largely conservative.  Polls among actual reporters show that while they are mostly liberal regarding social issues, they are quite conservative regarding economic issues.

A reporter's social standing (liberal, conservative, left, right, whatever) doesn't really mean much because they have to conform to the ideology of a media outlet's gatekeepers. If they don't, their stories either get: a) rewritten with a change in ideology, b) thrown out and thus they risk unemployment. It's happened to me -- I've been rewritten to fit a certain ideology of a particular journalism lecturer.

And in other polls, most reporters say that job security and editorial policies of organisations rate as the highest professional values.

By the way, I should mention I'm journalism student, Anarcho. I get horny for stuff on media studies.



Also, as far as "Roots" is concerned, it wasn't really a good example to use. The mini-series was more of a story about liberation than slavery (and on another note, my Aunty Leslie was nominated for an best Actress Emmy in that mini series too [She played Kizzy]).

Regardless, it would have been better to use Birth of a Nation as an example.

[Dave Gilbert]

Why do people hate John Kerry?Ã,  That's easy.Ã,  As a former Kerry hater, here's my take.

For months the Bush team blasted Kerry with negative ads, portraying him as weak, flip-flopping and unfit to be president.Ã,  They would get on TV and do nothing but attack attack attack.Ã,  And what did Kerry do?Ã,  Practically nothing.Ã,  He sat and took it.Ã,  His team would occasionally offer a half-hearted rebuttal, but nothing really hard hitting.Ã, 

Personally, I was freaked out.Ã,  My friends and I were like "Okay, any minute now he's going to come out and kick ass.Ã,  Right.Ã,  Any minute.Ã,  Just you wait.Ã,  He's just biding his time.Ã,  Come on, Mr. Kerry.Ã,  Mr. Kerry, where the hell are you, Mr. Kerry?Ã,  Bush is killing you, Mr. Kerry.Ã,  Why are you wasting your time on the Regis show? Why don't you say anything?Ã,  Why has John Edwards dropped off the face of the earth?Ã,  WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING BACK!Ã,  ARRGGH! You WIMP. You total PUTZ.Ã,  How can you be losing to BUSH, you MORON.Ã,  etc etc"

So basically Bush was saying Kerry was a wimp for months, and since Kerry never fought back it made it look like Bush was right.Ã,  Kerry just seemed like such a nonentity.Ã,  It was kind of admirable for him to take the high road and not go on the offensive, but it backfired in a big way.Ã,  Again, I just pray it isn't too late to turn things around.

[Ghormak]

But that's not really a reason for saying "this man is unfit to become president!", just because he didn't respond to personal attacks? Where are the political reasons Kerry shouldn't be in office?

[Dave Gilbert]

That's just it.Ã,  For the longest time, Kerry himself never gave any real reasons why he should be elected other than "I'm not Bush."Ã,  Most folks didn't knew anything about him because he so rarely ever SAID anything about himself.Ã,  He didn't defend himself, didn't attack Bush, didn't really do much of anything really.Ã,  And the Bush team took full advantage of Kerry's inactivity to talk about how lame Kerry was.  If you're among the uneducated masses who never really pay attention to the real issues, who would look more presidential?Ã,  Sad but true. 

You're right.Ã,  Those aren't good reasons per se.Ã,  But it is the main reason, I think, why Bush is killing Kerry in the polls.

[Moox]

I have family and friends, I wouldnt mind them dieing if it was for a cause. You seem not to understand what a bullet proof vest does. It cannot repel shrapnel. A bullet proof vest is composed of layers of kevlar woven together. It is intended to slow a bullet down to a speed that will not kill the wearer. Shrapnal would puncture the vest as it sharp and jagged. I will try to find some photos to illustrate this. As to the patriot act, a bill can be sumbitted to a congressmen by any citizen. If the congressmen passes it it goes to vote infront of the senate and house, how does that relate to the president at all?

[Anarcho]

DGMacphee: I guess the previous sentence I quoted from you confused me. Ã, I agree with nearly everything you're saying here. Ã, There's no doubt that FOX is a super biased media entity, and they're popularity will influence the public. Ã, I'm just saying that not everyone who watches it necessarily believes it. Ã, I have a ton of friends who watch FOX news because it's entertaining, but would never in a million years believe the crap they spew. Ã, It's like Rush Limbaugh and right wing radio...it's popular because it's abrasive, not neccessarily because people are sympathetic (though plenty are).

I also agree with you regarding your gatekeeper argument. Ã, I was just sharing the "facts" as I've read them. Ã, I'm certainly not one of your "the media is liberal" people. Ã, I believe it's the exact opposite.

And regarding Roots...look...it was late at night and I was fucking tired. Ã, So my analogy wasn't all that great. Ã, Man, get off my back! Ã, 

Journalism student, aye? Ã, I was a political science/international affairs student...in my day...

[Blade]

I've just read that Kerry beats Bush in rankings after first debate. So who knows, maybe he's got a REAL chance.

[Anarcho]

How does it relate to the President at all?  Because the Justice Department drafted the Patriot ACT.  John Aschcrofts's Justice Department....get it?  Viet Dinh, who was a top assistant to Aschcroft was the chief architect of the document.  Get it?  It wasn't written by Congress, it was written by the administration.

[DGMacphee]

Anarcho:
Hehe, I only pointed out the Roots thing so I could brag again about my Aunt being nominated for an Emmy.

And aye, I agree that not every sinlge person becomes wholely influenced by one particular network. I guess the trick is to just be well-informed -- read, watch, and listen to a variety of different sources.


LT:
What Anarcho said.

Or better yet, wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Note the line: "Assistant attorney general Viet D. Dinh, was the chief architect of the act."

[Moox]

It was still passed in congress. I dont support it, but it was passed. The government is divided into three branches, how can you blame the ones actions on the others. So what your saying is that the author worked for the Att Gen so the bill was all bushs doing?

[DGMacphee]

No. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz's doing.

As for congress, a large majority (if not all) didn't even read the Patriot act. And they've been faulted for that. But that's not the point.

In fact, I'm lost as to what you're trying to argue here. What is your point?

It sounds like you're trying to say people should vote for Bush because congress does a lousy job. If so, you can't be serious.

[Snarky]

DGMacphee, to address your question...

I never hated John Kerry, but like many Democrats I was fairly lukewarm in my enthusiasm for him. In too many ways, he seemed like "Bush lite", with policy proposals that were just watered-down conservative positions. He failed to offer a clear and distinct alternative. Specifically on Iraq, but also in general. In recent speeches and in the debate, he went a long way towards rectifying this.

Other policies I was (and remain) uncomfortable with include his commitment to perpetuate the US policy of blind support for Israel, and his populist stance against free trade. However, a president who will pursue a fair Israel/Palestine policy is a pipe dream, and in spite of his rhetoric, Kerry's voting record remains solidly pro-free trade.

In learning more about Kerry, I have discovered how many of his opinions and priorities I share. I have been impressed by his life, as well as by his performance in the debate. I have come to feel that Goddammit! this man should be president.

Besides, consider the alternative...

[DGMacphee]

It's ironic. More Democrats and liberals can acknowedge more substantial aspects against Kerry than Republicans can.

[bspeers1--]

Dg, Anarcho, I just had to add my 2 bits about media bias. Ã, DG, your agenda setting model is apt, but anarcho is right in that not everyone is duped. Ã, Many people *believe* everyone else is duped, which is a very effective way of maintaining institutional control. Ã, If you're interested, my background is in Sociology AND Writing, having a degree in both (I'm currently working on a MA in Sociology). Ã, That doesn't make me an expert, but it has privileged me towards certain readings.

Also note that you probably know and half-agree with all this. Ã, I'm just saying it so people reading the debate will get a more rounded interpretation.

If you look at polls (which are still highly flawed), you find massive support for things like gun control, peace, gender equality, even gay marriage. Ã, But the media help establish an atmosphere in which it seems that more "liberal" views are crazy and more conservative views are the norm. Ã, They help engender the atmosphere in which it is "acceptable" to make extremely uniformed conservative statements. Ã, You may notice that conservatives are less likely to back up their claims with any sort of evidence. Ã, This is not always the case, but more often than not, conservatives will claim that any one who opposes them is just anti-american, or anti-Canadian, or pro-terrorist and that everyone else is sane. Ã, Really radical ideas are just shut out by the media system (excepting a few audience-based and/or non-profit publications) due to the importance of advertisers. Ã, Herman and Noam Chomsky, for example, have shown how advertsiers engender a propaganda system in the media, just because of their massive influence over agenda setting. Ã, Sometimes, media owners, like Ted Turner or Izzy Asper actually interfere in the hiring and even writing process to support their agenda, but even when owners are more relaxed, the relationships between advertisers and media outlets control content.

A couple of cases that probably most people know about, but that demonstrate different parts of how this works. Ã, First, there are public relations industries which actually package and deliver advertising in the form of "news." This is not the same as an infomercial or a supplement stating "Paid Advertisment," but highly scripted reports sold to thousands of dailys and weeklys as advertising posing as news. Ã, Hill and Knolan (I can't remember the exact name), is one such company. Ã, The Public Relations industry also commisions their own polls, which journalists searching for interesting stories invariably report on. Ã, These polls and surveys are almost always of a highly dubious quality, but since they seem to come from official sources, many journalists don't even have time to check.

Two more extreme examples include direct censorship. Ã, During the last "Woodstock" reunion in the 90's, much of the music was broadcast live, uninterupted on some cable network. Ã, During the course of the show, one musician played a song criticizing Pepsi-cola for their turn to plastic bottles, describing the waste left behind. Ã, Only problem? Ã, Pepsi was one of the sponsors of the telecast. Ã, Not the show itself, just the telecast. Ã, During the show, viewers saw a huge Pepsi ad hastily put up in front of the singer, and the sound was muted for a Pepsi commercial. Ã, Viewers never saw the song.

A second example is from here in BC, Canada. Ã, A group called Adbusters raised money to produce anti-car ads. Ã, The ads were slick and funny. Ã, They had the money to buy space, but no TV station would air it. Ã, It clashed with other advertisers too much. Ã, This demonstrates that even money isn't the source of media bias. Ã, It's all about the relationships of control and domination.

However, this does not mean that viewers are simply dupes. Ã, We are influenced, as people in this thread said who ended up hating Kerry, but viewers do not simply pick up the bias of their programs. Ã, Recent studies show that viewership is reflexive--it's critical of what they watch, even sarcastic. Ã, It's the overall climate the media help engender that defines what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Ã, So FOX news doesn't pick up on Conservative people (exclusively) and it doesn't create conservative people (exclusively) but it helps make the atmosphere more friendly to radical neo-liberalism/conservatism.

As for the Kerry/Bush debate, Kerry is probably better than Bush, but don't get too excited. Ã, Kerry would probably have gone to war in Afganistan if not Iraq, and other counterinteligence moves would have been on his agenda. Ã, The Democrats rarely break extensively from the patterns set out by the Republicans, they just do it more quietly. Ã, Bush's blunders have allowed the largest resistance movements in recorded history to rise up, which is a good sign for pluralist democracy. Ã, I'm not saying you should vote Bush. Ã, By all means, vote Kerry and get a less dogmatic leadership, but don't put too much effort into it. Ã, Remember that the real struggle is for public space, peace and social values, and if Kerry becomes another Clinton with a lot of talk and little positive action, don't be afraid to continue the movement for better government, more democracy, equality and truly unchecked human freedom.