![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jul. 23rd, 2004 01:12 pm1. Do you follow current events? Why/Why not?
Absolutely. I used to be apathetically moderate, or moderately apathetic. Now, I can't afford that luxury anymore.
2. Where do you get most of your news from?
My Yahoo, meaning feeds from Reuters and AP. Washington Post. WTOP. Slashdot. The BBC.
3. Do you believe that the media is biased? Why or why not?
"The Media" as some conglomerated force doesn't exist except in the imaginations of those who aim to manipulate it or the people who watch it.
Are people biased? Yes. This means 1) reporters are biased, and 2) editors who select stories for publication are biased. However, as the presense of Washington Times and Fox News shows, there's no one particular bias. One paper's "case X thrown out on technicality" becomes another paper's "supreme court rules against X". The same facts, utterly opposing headlines with regards to how the public interprets it, because both headlines have an interpretation built into them. The most recent example is the pledge of allegiance case. Pro-pledge newspapers referred to it as a "preserved the pledge" victory, where anti-pledge newspapers referred to it as "reversed the case on a technicality" setback. The former implies a constitutional decision which was not actually made, but leads the reader to think that it was.
Do reporters "bias" themselves in favor of finding a scandal to exploit? Of course they do. They have since news was invented. McCarthyism, Watergate, Clinton vs. Starr, Bush's guard service, Kerry's voting record -- it all sells papers and brings in eyeballs, making money through advertising. The only true "Free" press is a press unencumbered by not just by government censorship but also by ratings, sales, or advertising requirements. Thus, the "Free" press doesn't exist and never will. Even a totally altruistic news source would eventually find that it would be measuring its success against the marketplace criteria and values and change itself in reflection of that. Only by the elimination of the market in media will the press ever be free, which is, of course, impossible.
4. Will you be voting this year?
Absolutely. I can't afford not to.
5. Describe one political issue that really pushes your button.
"IP" law and its legal abuses, and the corporatism which has created a world where the public domain no longer exists. Patents are granted for EVERYTHING, whether preexisting or non-obvious or even an "invention" in the common sense of the word. Copyrights now last for "life of author + 90" and in 17 years when Micky Mouse is once again up for "public domain" status, will likely be extended again. Trademarks are overly-abused when it comes to "same genre" status -- a website for a company can get sued for their name by another company simply because both are part of the web, even though in a phone book, they would never be mistaken for each other.
Also, I'm EXTREMELY pissed off at Michael Powell and his Orwellian attempts to control all media channels by allowing a few companies control EVERYTHING, which then has the FCC only having to deal with a few companies (easily manipulated) rather than with every individual broadcaster. Media consolidation is bad for public knowledge, and its worse for creating an environment of government control and censorship in violation of the First Amendment. And Michael Powell has all but confessed that that is his goal as head of the FCC.
I don't want Bush out because of Bush. I want Bush out because of Cheney, Ashcroft, Ridge, Rice, and M. Powell.
Absolutely. I used to be apathetically moderate, or moderately apathetic. Now, I can't afford that luxury anymore.
2. Where do you get most of your news from?
My Yahoo, meaning feeds from Reuters and AP. Washington Post. WTOP. Slashdot. The BBC.
3. Do you believe that the media is biased? Why or why not?
"The Media" as some conglomerated force doesn't exist except in the imaginations of those who aim to manipulate it or the people who watch it.
Are people biased? Yes. This means 1) reporters are biased, and 2) editors who select stories for publication are biased. However, as the presense of Washington Times and Fox News shows, there's no one particular bias. One paper's "case X thrown out on technicality" becomes another paper's "supreme court rules against X". The same facts, utterly opposing headlines with regards to how the public interprets it, because both headlines have an interpretation built into them. The most recent example is the pledge of allegiance case. Pro-pledge newspapers referred to it as a "preserved the pledge" victory, where anti-pledge newspapers referred to it as "reversed the case on a technicality" setback. The former implies a constitutional decision which was not actually made, but leads the reader to think that it was.
Do reporters "bias" themselves in favor of finding a scandal to exploit? Of course they do. They have since news was invented. McCarthyism, Watergate, Clinton vs. Starr, Bush's guard service, Kerry's voting record -- it all sells papers and brings in eyeballs, making money through advertising. The only true "Free" press is a press unencumbered by not just by government censorship but also by ratings, sales, or advertising requirements. Thus, the "Free" press doesn't exist and never will. Even a totally altruistic news source would eventually find that it would be measuring its success against the marketplace criteria and values and change itself in reflection of that. Only by the elimination of the market in media will the press ever be free, which is, of course, impossible.
4. Will you be voting this year?
Absolutely. I can't afford not to.
5. Describe one political issue that really pushes your button.
"IP" law and its legal abuses, and the corporatism which has created a world where the public domain no longer exists. Patents are granted for EVERYTHING, whether preexisting or non-obvious or even an "invention" in the common sense of the word. Copyrights now last for "life of author + 90" and in 17 years when Micky Mouse is once again up for "public domain" status, will likely be extended again. Trademarks are overly-abused when it comes to "same genre" status -- a website for a company can get sued for their name by another company simply because both are part of the web, even though in a phone book, they would never be mistaken for each other.
Also, I'm EXTREMELY pissed off at Michael Powell and his Orwellian attempts to control all media channels by allowing a few companies control EVERYTHING, which then has the FCC only having to deal with a few companies (easily manipulated) rather than with every individual broadcaster. Media consolidation is bad for public knowledge, and its worse for creating an environment of government control and censorship in violation of the First Amendment. And Michael Powell has all but confessed that that is his goal as head of the FCC.
I don't want Bush out because of Bush. I want Bush out because of Cheney, Ashcroft, Ridge, Rice, and M. Powell.
