Oh... Well, if you put it that way... D :
Actually, concerning fainting, I have to check up with a doctor - I've been having these lapses where I feel like I'm going to faint, or I black out momentarily. I don't know what's wrong. And also, if you want to sleep, go ahead... I won't stop you. *cries*
Okay, but seriously, if you want to sleep, you can go ~ Don't want someone like me keeping you awake.
EDIT:
The point is that they have to make it seem like they're furthering the interests of the populace, and as long as they don't upset the ruling class too much the media will go along with the farce and present them as being largely upstanding politicians regardless of what they do.
If they further the interests of the populace, wouldn't that mean they would have to actually act on it though?
However, if they actually piss off the ruling class (by say, nationalising banks or something) then the ruling class will engineer a 'grassroots backlash' like the one over Bush v. Gore in Florida where it turned out all the 'Floridian protesters' were flown in from other states.
I recall that's been done to another election... I think it was Abraham against I forget who?
Let's put it this way, if Obama actually wound down U.S. involvement in other countries he'd probably be assassinated, and certainly the media coverage of him would make the stuff running on Faux News right now look reverent. As it is he can take steps towards ending the war in Iraq while stepping up combat operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and thus to the media he's a dove. That's the flaming socialist (to the mainstream media) who got elected. If an actual socialist were in office the airwaves would be full of nonstop invective.
He's African American, and there are so many racist bastards here I can't even make up a number of it. He's already in danger of getting asassinated, much more than just the usual president. And it's not necessarily a bad thing if he takes steps towards the ending of the war in Iraq, so wouldn't that mean he DOES potray as a dove because he's helped America with this huge screw up? Are you saying that if he did something bad after that it wouldn't affect his reputation because of what's already been done?
The wiki article does a much better job of explaining it than I'm doing at this late hour though. For perhaps an even more thorough explanation, look up Andrew Marr's interview of Chomsky on YouTube.
Alright, sorry for asking.
It's interesting talking politics with someone who's not a ding dong head, and I need to get a clearer view anyways. We should really be discussing this in GJ though.
Yeah basically. The media present themselves as "unbiased observers" when really, they are actively involved in influencing and shaping public opinion by excluding certain viewpoints from consideration. They may not even place any bias into their work consciously; the whole setup of the rewards and punishments is such that those who endanger the interests of the status quo are rewarded by having their jobs placed in jeopardy. So it's not necessarily that anyone working within the media has a cynical motivation (although people like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck certainly do), but just that the system itself is set up to discourage people from entertaining certain points of view.
But everyone has a right to free speech, right? It's not like anyone's preventing us from speaking up, and it doesn't make much of a difference... right?
at the moment my dream occupation is actually bestselling author of allegorical sci-fi/fantasy-ish works, but I need to cure my blocks about creating a plot before I can really make any strides towards that.
