It's worth reading Carl Trueman's book "Republocrat" (P&R) simply for his thoughts on Rupert Murdoch and Sky News.
From page 52-53
"...Murdoch's media empire is rather selectie in its promotion of conservative values...For example, take The Sun - Britain's most popular daily paper, and a tabloid known for setting the bar as low as it gets when it comes to journalism, with its often hilarious but scarcely nuanced front-page headlines, such as "Stick it up your Junta" (from 1982, when Mrs Thatcher rejected a peace proposal from Argentina during the Falklands conflict), "Freddie Starr ate my Hamster" (from 1986, and actually a completely fabricated story, much to the relief of the hamster concerned) and "Bonkers Bruno Locked Up" (from 2003, a paticularly sensitive fromt-page reference to the hospitalisation of former boxer Frank Bruno after he had a nervous breakdown.) Most famous of all, however, is The Sun's contribution to nude modelling. Page 3 of the Murdoch owned British tabloid is famous in Britain for providing the world with a daily diet of beautiful, topless women. Indeed, prior to the advent of the World Wide Web, it is possible that Murdoch was responsible for putting more soft porngraphy into more houses than anyone else in history....I wonder how many Christian fathers out there would appreciate opening their morning newspaper and seeing their own daughters, in topless glory, smiling at them from page 3? Probably not too many, yet this all part of the wider Murdoch empire..."
"like Rush Limbaugh, Mr Beck is undoubtedly amusing. I like to think of him as a comedy in the Monty Python DP Gumby "flower arranger" mold, but we should never confuse a loudmouth, a microphone, and a talent for outrage with real political discussion"
p46
"Socialism as with most if not all words ending in ism is a word that covers a broad spectrum of concepts. It is thus misleading to claim that it is the "exact opposite of capitalism, which is our system in America."In fact, capitalism is also a term with a broad range of meanings...Strictly speaking, for example, a Mafia protection racket and your friendly neighbourhood drug dealer are both examples of capitalism. I doubt that Mr O'Reilly would want me to base my definition of capitalism on those two examples...and then claim that capitalism is "the exact opposite of law enforcement." "I am not a socialist and never have been, but my grandparents were, and for the record, neither of them believed that the government had the right to control or seize private property in the way implied by O'Reilly. His argument is logically fallacious, and can be expressed as follows: Fidel Castro is a socialist; Fidel Castro believes that the government has the right to control and seize private property; therefore socialism is the view that the government has the right to control and seize private property. By similar logic, Denny the Dealer is a capitalist; Denny the Dealer believes that he has the right to sell illegal drugs...therefore capitalism is the view that the individual has the right to sell illegal drugs..."
Quite a sample of "goodthink" and "projection." I've never seen anything on Fox News half as biased, bigoted, hysterical, and dishonest as that article.
When we want some minor Kennedy pontificating about our country and our political leaders, we'll let you know. Until then, keep your nose out of it, Bobby.
Now, about all those lies the Kennedys have told . . .
Should there be a law outlawing "false and misleading news?"
Do you trust the government to censor only what is actually false and misleading? Does your answer to your own question change if Nixon is in power versus Clinton?
I have to say, despite my utter contempt for Faux News, that I would prefer their continued spewing of falsehood and distortion to any law preventing them from doing so. "Let a hundred flowers bloom..."
But wouldn't violations have to be determined by a court, not Nixon or Clinton.
A court? Are you assuming that each accused incident of dishonesty would result in a jury trial? That private citizens could sue networks for 'falsehood'?
I imagine violations would have to be determined by whoever the law empowered to determine it. Could be anyone from the FCC to.. etc.
OK, it's still people, and people on courts can have political motives. Still that provides some impartiality, no???
Where does the impartiality come in again? Does it come in when whoever is in charge of determining these things is appointed by a president or congress? Let's assume jury trials: Does it come in during jury selection? Does it come in when both lawyers are presenting their cases to the jury? And will they be instructed to judge according to your standard of falsity and honesty, or someone else's?
Maybe the current system we have is bad, but all things considered, is still the best option anyway. Heck, maybe the problem you're trying to address is best addressed through culture, not legislation and regulation.
16 comments:
It's worth reading Carl Trueman's book "Republocrat" (P&R) simply for his thoughts on Rupert Murdoch and Sky News.
From page 52-53
"...Murdoch's media empire is rather selectie in its promotion of conservative values...For example, take The Sun - Britain's most popular daily paper, and a tabloid known for setting the bar as low as it gets when it comes to journalism, with its often hilarious but scarcely nuanced front-page headlines, such as "Stick it up your Junta" (from 1982, when Mrs Thatcher rejected a peace proposal from Argentina during the Falklands conflict), "Freddie Starr ate my Hamster" (from 1986, and actually a completely fabricated story, much to the relief of the hamster concerned) and "Bonkers Bruno Locked Up" (from 2003, a paticularly sensitive fromt-page reference to the hospitalisation of former boxer Frank Bruno after he had a nervous breakdown.) Most famous of all, however, is The Sun's contribution to nude modelling. Page 3 of the Murdoch owned British tabloid is famous in Britain for providing the world with a daily diet of beautiful, topless women. Indeed, prior to the advent of the World Wide Web, it is possible that Murdoch was responsible for putting more soft porngraphy into more houses than anyone else in history....I wonder how many Christian fathers out there would appreciate opening their morning newspaper and seeing their own daughters, in topless glory, smiling at them from page 3? Probably not too many, yet this all part of the wider Murdoch empire..."
"The bottom line is that Fox's political posturing as the advocate for and defender of conservative values is just that - a piece of posturing"
ibid; p 55
"like Rush Limbaugh, Mr Beck is undoubtedly amusing. I like to think of him as a comedy in the Monty Python DP Gumby "flower arranger" mold, but we should never confuse a loudmouth, a microphone, and a talent for outrage with real political discussion"
p46
"Socialism as with most if not all words ending in ism is a word that covers a broad spectrum of concepts. It is thus misleading to claim that it is the "exact opposite of capitalism, which is our system in America."In fact, capitalism is also a term with a broad range of meanings...Strictly speaking, for example, a Mafia protection racket and your friendly neighbourhood drug dealer are both examples of capitalism. I doubt that Mr O'Reilly would want me to base my definition of capitalism on those two examples...and then claim that capitalism is "the exact opposite of law enforcement."
"I am not a socialist and never have been, but my grandparents were, and for the record, neither of them believed that the government had the right to control or seize private property in the way implied by O'Reilly. His argument is logically fallacious, and can be expressed as follows: Fidel Castro is a socialist; Fidel Castro believes that the government has the right to control and seize private property; therefore socialism is the view that the government has the right to control and seize private property. By similar logic, Denny the Dealer is a capitalist; Denny the Dealer believes that he has the right to sell illegal drugs...therefore capitalism is the view that the individual has the right to sell illegal drugs..."
ibid pp47-48
Quite a sample of "goodthink" and "projection." I've never seen anything on Fox News half as biased, bigoted, hysterical, and dishonest as that article.
"Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism"
Hahahahahahahahahaha
<>
Robert F. Kennedy ,Jr., often referred to as "Edward Kennedy's Mini Me," . . .
When we want some minor Kennedy pontificating about our country and our political leaders, we'll let you know. Until then, keep your nose out of it, Bobby.
Now, about all those lies the Kennedys have told . . .
Should there be a law outlawing "false and misleading news?"
David
Which article - Kennedy's or Trueman's?
graham
Should there be a law outlawing "false and misleading news?"
Do you trust the government to censor only what is actually false and misleading? Does your answer to your own question change if Nixon is in power versus Clinton?
I have to say, despite my utter contempt for Faux News, that I would prefer their continued spewing of falsehood and distortion to any law preventing them from doing so. "Let a hundred flowers bloom..."
But wouldn't violations have to be determined by a court, not Nixon or Clinton.
OK, it's still people, and people on courts can have political motives. Still that provides some impartiality, no???
A lot Democrats want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
But wouldn't violations have to be determined by a court, not Nixon or Clinton.
A court? Are you assuming that each accused incident of dishonesty would result in a jury trial? That private citizens could sue networks for 'falsehood'?
I imagine violations would have to be determined by whoever the law empowered to determine it. Could be anyone from the FCC to.. etc.
OK, it's still people, and people on courts can have political motives. Still that provides some impartiality, no???
Where does the impartiality come in again? Does it come in when whoever is in charge of determining these things is appointed by a president or congress? Let's assume jury trials: Does it come in during jury selection? Does it come in when both lawyers are presenting their cases to the jury? And will they be instructed to judge according to your standard of falsity and honesty, or someone else's?
Maybe the current system we have is bad, but all things considered, is still the best option anyway. Heck, maybe the problem you're trying to address is best addressed through culture, not legislation and regulation.
It would be of some interest to know how the regulation that Harper wanted repealed is working out in practice in Canada. I just don't know.
There should be a law against Kennedys spewing their garbage northwards. Please keep it to yourselves.
Post a Comment