The Glade 4.0

The sarcastic drivel? Answer the question - do you think that CNN published these articles because they've received government subsidies? If not, then your statements are fairly off-topic, are they not?

That's just sad, rather than address the various points presented to you, you choose to pull a grammar police defense?

Here, understand it now?

Yes, because giving money most assuredly only means direct cash contributions; never things such as FCC regulations or fines, or approving mergers and EM spectrum allotments for some and not others.



Sorry, but my post directly addressed your statement:

That makes it directly on-topic.

You've got no answer other than crying foul about grammar, or tone - kudos.

As for your question, I believe every decision is colored by the involvement of the government taxpayer $$ being handed out by the gov't. Care to tell us why "The news is free market", as you so self-assuredly stated?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I disagree. Regulations and fines from the FCC most assuredly do exist.



Not crying anything. Your post was a weird over the top sarcasm-fest that was difficult to follow.

But, here goes - you made a claim that it's not free-market because of subsidized loans (which you did not demonstrate) and insinuated that the government gives billions to push its agenda in the media (which you did not demonstrate).

None of this indicates that CNN would have some sort of non-free market reason for running these stories. Sorry, but I disagree with your assertion.

CNN ran these stories because they thought they would increase ratings and revenues. CNN competes in a REGULATED free market with many other news agencies, and is interested in turning a profit. Nothing you've said (even if I take your unsupported assertions at face value) changes my opinion on this.

You can believe that if you like. Taxpayer dollars are a small source of profit for news agencies, so I disagree.

Also, I fail to see any logic behind the assertion that the government would have a hand in playing these dumb stories.

But we aren't talking about news agencies here. We are talking about huge multi-national corporations who operate pseudo-news agencies as soft propaganda arms for their big money ventures. Entities which generate trillions of dollars in federal subsidies, government contracts, and garner permanent market-share freeing them from free market competition through regulation.



Straw-man. You used to be much better at constructing arguments.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

It was incredibly easy to follow and directly refuted your stupid witticism, which you then shifted goalposts to try to attempt correctness. If anything is hard to follow, it's how your logic/contention went from "news is free market" to "CNN would have run this regardless of government involvement.

Furthermore, the following statement indicates your ignorance as to the definition of the words being used to define the industry in question:



"Regulated" in context and "free market" are oxymorons. Free markets only have sufficient regulation to prevent fraud.

And since you like things to be demonstrated, allow me to demonstrate that:









The idea that print and broadcast media operate in a "free market" is either purposefully or unforgivably ignorant, given the amount of subsidy, regulation, and controlled access in each.

Therefore, Vindi, Rynar, Elmo, and my core point: that it is in the interest of print and broadcast media to perpetuate large government due to the fact that they operate in a controlled market and thereby have a vested self-interest in the perpetuity of that control, currently stands.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Being a smart-ass won't allow you to skirt the facts.



You're using that excuse a bit too much, it would seem.



Yup, I would be at fault for thinking that you were intellectually curious and would wonder where these points came from; guess I was wrong.

Subsidized loans:



Agenda and Initiatives:




Ahhh, I see, now it's a "REGULATED free market". Sorry, that's not the assertion you started with.


I'll spell it out for you, the gov't gives loans (hell it creates whole new loan programs) at special rates to corporations "interested in turning a profit" and divvys up lucrative contracts to corporations "interested in turning a profit". The corporations "interested in turning a profit" tend not to bite the hand that feeds them.


I guess that a light bulb is a small source of profit for GE, so they don't make any attempt to sell them.
Since taxpayer dollars make up such a small source of profit I guess they don't pursue them. I guess MSNBC's profits of $400 million in 2008 are so big that contracts worth $630 million wouldn't have a tendency skew choices.



If you don't want to see that the gov't giving out contracts and subsidized loans affects how things are run, and still results in a free market, you're just being obtuse.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Just to interject, it doesn't really matter if that's the assertion he started with, as a "regulated (caps or no caps) free market" is, by definition, not a free market. It's a controlled market.

Now, if he's switching his assertion from "it's a free market" to "it's a controlled market" and just didn't know the right words to use, I'd agree with his change in opinion. I don't think that's what he meant though, because we've been told all kinds of things are "free markets" for the last, what, 50 years, that aren't really free at all; and most people don't realize it.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Absolutely.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Well said.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Man, ya'll get waaaay too hung up on grammar and definitions. If any of you actually think anyone on this board doesn't know about the FCC or federal regulations for broadcasting, that's really pretty sad. I wonder how many threads have gotten bogged down over this kind of stupidity. Regardless, I am happy to clarify, as it is my responsibility to convey my message. I did so, above. Regulated free market.

Anyway, derail aside, and getting back to the point of the thread - do any of you believe that these government subsidies and/or FCC fines contributed to CNN running this story?

Which is an oxymoron.

Words have meanings, and it isn't a derail to point out that you're not using them correctly. Failure to use words correctly muddies your message, and since you're the one always griping about how the messenger should improve and not the listener: live by your own statements.



I'm pretty sure that's what everybody has repeatedly stated in this thread, except for you.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I do not. I think it got published for the same reason that Tom Cruise is on the cover of every magazine. Pop-culture has evolved beyond entertainment and is now presented as pseudo-news in the form of "info-tainment" that people eat up with a shovel-sized spoon.

"teh Facebook is in teh news! I use Facebook, I am news-worthy! My stupid group that I started/joined as a joke made headlines!"

_________________

Basically this.

"News" agencies are in the business to sell newspapers/ads spots (i.e. make money). So they will run whatever "news" they think will increase their viewers/readers. Their prime motivator is profit, not news, so whatever silly thing that they think will increase the number of people buying their newspapers or watching their shows is what they will do. Confined only by the various laws/regulations and some (currently) lingering nod to "journalism".

Not at all. But anyway, how did you come to that conclusion? What is the interest the gov't has in Facebook?

Exactly, and the public pays for this because they use Facebook and it's interesting to them. It's really sad how simple the general public is.

Actually, I think it's more sad how many of you think you're somehow not part of the general public; are better than the general public; or somehow deserving/entitled to be treated as more than the general public. But, that's ok, sorry to pick on you specifically, Arathain, but the political demagoguery of the Obama Administration has reeled you in hook, line, and sinker: you're buying into a populist division and bi-factional false dilemma that doesn't exist. The media and his message control groups have done their job: they've convinced you that the general public needs enlightened leadership and has a valueless opinion.

_________________

What's humorous is that you appear to think that this is unique to Obama's administration. It is far older than Obama, and in fact was a central ideal of our Founding Fathers. America as a country was FOUNDED on the idea of elitism. But it's far far older than America.

Aizle:

Except, I'm not talking about elitism.

_________________

Are you saying with a straight-face that this is a result of Obama's two-year administration? Not an inevitable evolution of our own belief that we are infallible, news-worthy and better than anyone else dating back at least to our victory in the War of 1812?

_________________

Hopwin:

Are you speaking of American Exceptionalism?

_________________

I had no idea there was a label for the term. Just a common theme I picked up reading accounts of historical periods and events that seemed to be find its avatar in TDR.

_________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

You can go read at wikipedia if you want an example of confirmation bias. American Exceptionalism is a "dirty word" in current political and academic circles.

_________________

Hmmm yes that is what I was referring to, especially the section on Manifest Destiny but they left out the Monroe Doctrine.

I think that concept has filtered down to the individual as a result of a more humanistic view of the world as opposed to a nationalist one. It is no longer what can you do for your nation but what's in it for me? How do I fit into the world?

_________________

And assholes eat this **** up.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn