No Democracy for TV or radio

[spice756]

One other thing today.I was talking to friend and he was saying all the talk radios and TV sations .Yes all the 1,000 TV stations and 1,000 AM and FM stations are own by 6 or 7 companies.Yes Fox,court TV ,History ,Discovery ,TLC, sci-fi,MTV so on .Are own by 6 or 7 companies.

Because capitalists own it , not the people , they are not going to allow talk about communism and socialism.And they not going to allow any anti-capitalists or anti-big businesses talk at all.Even if the capitalists who own Discovery talk about it the 6 or 7 companies will not allow it.

All the major news outlets are own by the state and will not allow any talk about communism and socialism at all.And supress any talk about anti-capitalists or anti-big businesses talk.Do to lobbying by big businesses to the stae.

Anyways I got to go my time is up.I have a good artical that talks about this.:) I will post it later.

So much for democracy .

[Bud Struggle]

One other thing today.I was talking to friend and he was saying all the talk radios and TV sations .Yes all the 1,000 TV stations and 1,000 AM and FM stations are own by 6 or 7 companies.Yes Fox,court TV ,History ,Discovery ,TLC, sci-fi,MTV so on .Are own by 6 or 7 companies.

Because capitalists own it , not the people , they are not going to allow talk about communism and socialism.And they not going to allow any anti-capitalists or anti-big businesses talk at all.Even if the capitalists who own Discovery talk about it the 6 or 7 companies will not allow it.

All the major news outlets are own by the state and will not allow any talk about communism and socialism at all.And supress any talk about anti-capitalists or anti-big businesses talk.Do to lobbying by big businesses to the stae.

Anyways I got to go my time is up.I have a good artical that talks about this.:) I will post it later.

So much for democracy .

Actually, that's a good point. There's only one point of view on American TV with a little leeway from CNN to Fox--but for the most part they are just one tiny little spectrum in the whole world of politics.

But there's this--would you guys accept a "Commie" news network of that meant there also would be a "Nazi" news network? Make it totally fair anyone with a point of view could speak--without infringment.

And would something life that be accepted AFTER the Revolution. Will Pat Robertson still be on the air? ;)

[mikelepore]

What the History Channel omits is obvious by its absense. There's some ancient history, like the pyramids and Roman emperors, and some semi-modern history, which usually means World War II. They even make up topics, like the history of the electric drill, the history of the hot dog bun, etc. But in the past twenty years I have never heard any mention whatsoever of labor unions, unless it was a program about gangsters and the program mentioned their deals with corrupt union officials. Organized labor is a major chapter in any textbook on the history of the past few hundred years. The omission is glaringly obvious. (At the present time Hearst, Disney and General Electric own most of this channel's shares.)

[Socialist18]

I'd accept a nazi news network if we could have a socialist one. Nazism is so dead today its a joke, its not a problem we need to worry about. As far as Nazi's and nationalists go, well, they have stormfront and a few other forums and thats about all they do, talk on forums. We socialists need not worry about them gaining enough support to make any changes in anything in life.
I've noticed Socialists are way more active in real life than nazi's are today and to be honest I feel socialism appeals to more people than nazism does. I've never understood people than think nazis and nationalists are a threat, sure they have a few concerts but thats mostly drunken skinhead types that are drawn to the image not the politics of it.

Socialists are way more organized and far more prominent in society than nationalists will ever be in my opinion. I know quite a few nationalists and they are wasting their time in my opinion, they aren't ever going to change anything of any relevance, besides, nationalism has a negative image attached to it and this turns people off immediately.
Let them have a news network if it means us having one too.

Of course this is all a fairy tale and we aren't going to get a news network are we.

[Flash]

One other thing today.I was talking to friend and he was saying all the talk radios and TV sations .Yes all the 1,000 TV stations and 1,000 AM and FM stations are own by 6 or 7 companies.Yes Fox,court TV ,History ,Discovery ,TLC, sci-fi,MTV so on .Are own by 6 or 7 companies.

Because capitalists own it , not the people , they are not going to allow talk about communism and socialism.And they not going to allow any anti-capitalists or anti-big businesses talk at all.Even if the capitalists who own Discovery talk about it the 6 or 7 companies will not allow it.

All the major news outlets are own by the state and will not allow any talk about communism and socialism at all.And supress any talk about anti-capitalists or anti-big businesses talk.Do to lobbying by big businesses to the stae.

Anyways I got to go my time is up.I have a good artical that talks about this.:) I will post it later.

So much for democracy .


Thats why I only read Alternative news and independent blogs on the Internet. Anyone that wants good journalism would be kidding themselves to watch CNN or FOX. Especially now that is comes out from that White House press secretary that the White House was feeding FOX/CNN information to talk about.

[Socialist18]

Thats why I only read Alternative news and independent blogs on the Internet. Anyone that wants good journalism would be kidding themselves to watch CNN or FOX. Especially now that is comes out from that White House press secretary that the White House was feeding FOX/CNN information to talk about.
Ain't that the truth, only the sheeple watch mainstream TV "news".

[Dean]

Thats why I only read Alternative news and independent blogs on the Internet. Anyone that wants good journalism would be kidding themselves to watch CNN or FOX. Especially now that is comes out from that White House press secretary that the White House was feeding FOX/CNN information to talk about.

You don't have to do that; frankly, its a bad way of getting your news. If you want to be tuned in to the world, you need to see what others see, at least in regards to ideology.

These are some good news sites with very little obvious bias or misleading info:
alJazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net), Reuters (http://reuters.com), The Guardian (http://guardian.co.uk)

Haaretz (http://haaretz.com) is a good site for info on Israel; though there is a heavy bias, information is rarely omited.

Amnesty Int'l (http://amnesty.org) and Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org) are good for in-depth info and analysis on Human Rights.
Reuter's AlertNet (http://alertnet.org) is a good source for general info on humanitarian crises.

Drudge Report (http://drudgereport.com) exemplifies all that is shitty about the U.S. media. If you want to know what CNN, NBC and FOX are reporting without all the pseudo-liberal gloss, this is a great one-stop. Be warned, most of the sites he links are incredibly biased, but the point is to see what is being told to Americans.

[Socialist18]

Al Jazeera is a good site, it often shows just how bad the Palestinians get it from the Israeli military. I'll never forget the article I saw of little ashkenazi girls signing messages on the bombs that were to be sent over to the Palestinians.

[pusher robot]

All the major news outlets are own by the state and will not allow any talk about communism and socialism at all.

You are wrong. First of all, the major news outlets are owned by private companies, not the state. Second of all, they would allow talk about anything at all that people want to hear. The reason there is no commie-talk is not because they don't want people to hear it. It's because people don't want to hear it, and they exist to provide people what they want.

[Bud Struggle]

I'd accept a nazi news network if we could have a socialist one. Nazism is so dead today its a joke, its not a problem we need to worry about. As far as Nazi's and nationalists go, well, they have stormfront and a few other forums and thats about all they do, talk on forums. We socialists need not worry about them gaining enough support to make any changes in anything in life.

I would agree about that here in the United States, and I guess you don't see many of them in Australia, but the British people here at RevLeft seem to have a good number of "issues" with them.

[Socialist18]

Yeah, Australia has no problem with them, we used to have a skinhead problem in the 80's and early 90's but it seems to have died out almost in its entirety for some reason. I hear things about the UK and the BNP but from what I can see all these kinds of organizations die out eventually, maybe the BNP will too.

[Dean]

Second of all, they would allow talk about anything at all that people want to hear. .

Please explain why Israeli settlements are called "neighborhoods" by CNN and CBS. Also, CAMERA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in _America)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You are wrong. First of all, the major news outlets are owned by private companies, not the state. Second of all, they would allow talk about anything at all that people want to hear. The reason there is no commie-talk is not because they don't want people to hear it. It's because people don't want to hear it, and they exist to provide people what they want.
Not quite. What people want to hear (at least what they want to hear in the news, anyway) is based on their knowledge of world politics, and their knowledge of world politics depends on what the major news outlets want to talk about.

I mean, when there were mass protests in Myanmar, do you honestly believe that the major news outlets covered the story because there was huge popular demand for more news about Myanmar?

[Sendo]

We can see the problem in the horrendous self-censorship that has meant ZERO JohnPilger documentaries in the USA. He's tried so hard, but PBS and Discovery keep giving him the finger. Why? The owner of Discovery is friends with Murdoch.....hmmmmm....

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Is there any citation that only seven or so companies own over 1000 channels? If that's true, it's despicable.

[Sendo]

In the USA about 5 companies own nearly all TV, radio, and a good deal of publishing (but not all print. The NYT is conservative enough on its own. And most print is firing all good reporters to shore up more profits. But this will fail and they'll be bought up in the next few years).

News Corp (Fox, SKY, Sun, etc)
Disney-ABC
CBS-Viacom-Nickelodeon
AOL Time Warner
GE-NBC

What's REALLY scary is how Chomsky (and Herman) wrote Manufacturing Consent 19 years ago and he was *****ing about only 37 media companies. Oh, the good old days.

[freakazoid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist18 http://www.revleft.com/vb/no-democracy-tv-t88250/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/no-democracy-tv-t88250/showthread.php?p=1232997#post1232997)
I'd accept a nazi news network if we could have a socialist one. Nazism is so dead today its a joke, its not a problem we need to worry about. As far as Nazi's and nationalists go, well, they have stormfront and a few other forums and thats about all they do, talk on forums. We socialists need not worry about them gaining enough support to make any changes in anything in life.

I would agree about that here in the United States, and I guess you don't see many of them in Australia, but the British people here at RevLeft seem to have a good number of "issues" with them.

I disagree. They are a threat here in the US. They are not HUGE but they are growing, and getting smarter on how to get people to listen. I believe that the times are getting right for them to grow real big in popularity soon.

[RGacky3]

I watch the mainstream news the same way I watch a shot at love with tila tequila, its funny and rediculous. The sad thing is people take it seriously.

Mainstream news has gotten more and more of a joke its almost impossible to watch.


But there's this--would you guys accept a "Commie" news network of that meant there also would be a "Nazi" news network? Make it totally fair anyone with a point of view could speak--without infringment.

And would something life that be accepted AFTER the Revolution. Will Pat Robertson still be on the air? ;)

Of coarse, there could be a nazi news network, I doubt there would be much of a demand for one in a communist society, also sure Pat Robertson would still be on the air if after the revolution people still wanted to listen to him.


The reason there is no commie-talk is not because they don't want people to hear it. It's because people don't want to hear it, and they exist to provide people what they want.

Its interesting how there is no Labor section in most news outlets but there is always a business section, which one do you think matters to most people? Theres a reason for that.

[pusher robot]

Its interesting how there is no Labor section in most news outlets but there is always a business section, which one do you think matters to most people? Theres a reason for that.

Let me guess:
[It's a conspiracy!]

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What the History Channel omits is obvious by its absense. There's some ancient history, like the pyramids and Roman emperors, and some semi-modern history, which usually means World War II. They even make up topics, like the history of the electric drill, the history of the hot dog bun, etc. But in the past twenty years I have never heard any mention whatsoever of labor unions, unless it was a program about gangsters and the program mentioned their deals with corrupt union officials. Organized labor is a major chapter in any textbook on the history of the past few hundred years. The omission is glaringly obvious. (At the present time Hearst, Disney and General Electric own most of this channel's shares.)

Thank You!

And not just Labor, but many huge topics are left out.

We don't need any more hour-long shows about how we defeated the 34th Panzer Mechanized Super-Soldier Division with 50 guys and a bazooka (since the Americans were always outgunned and outnumbered :rolleyes:) at the Battle of I-don't-give-a-rats-ass.

What we could use is more programs covering, say, the result of WWI and the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, and the competing forces which rose up to try and present the most appealing alternative all the way to 1933.

[Socialist18]

I disagree. They are a threat here in the US. They are not HUGE but they are growing, and getting smarter on how to get people to listen. I believe that the times are getting right for them to grow real big in popularity soon.

What exactly makes you say that?
I've been visiting stormfront for years and nothings changed, most are still all talk. The few that are committed to their ideology can't seem to arouse enough interest from regular people to join in their "fight". To me, from years of observation, it is evident that nothing will likely ever happen, partly due to the fact that today people are becoming more open to different races living in traditionally white countries and we are seeing less and less homophobic people too, call it progress or what ever you like but I feel people are starting to get beyond racist/homophobic ideologies today. I just can't see any white nationalist group gaining enough (any) political support to change anything or become a serious threat. Neither is any white country ever going to allow a national socialist revolution to take place, it would be nipped in the bud before it was allowed to happen. For revolution to take place you need the support of the people and most people have a negative biased view towards national socialism, regardless if they have an incorrect view of national socialism or not, even if they viewed it correctly it still wouldn't matter, its a dead ideology to most and just doesn't appeal to most people today. Thats where socialism is different and it appeals to more people, it isn't a judgmental ideology like national socialism nor does it discriminate against its comrades or gender etc.

I just think any preventative action taken against nationalist organizations by socialist ones in Australia and America at least is a waste of time and it could be spent better on something else.

[mikelepore]

The reason there is no commie-talk is not because they don't want people to hear it. It's because people don't want to hear it, and they exist to provide people what they want.

Actually, the whole subject of "is it possible that some other political and/or economic system might be better than what we have now?" is banned by media management. It's not only commie talk that's banned. The laissez faire Libertarian is banned also. They are banned individually, and the debate between them is banned. For every hundred thousand hours of televised panel discussions on the topic of "this husband and wife cheated on each other, so who the baby daddy?" there is not so much as one minute of discussion investigating comparative political or economic systems. The media want us the population to think that politics means only "picking charismatic leaders", "predicting the winners", etc., and never thinking at all about the structures or characteristics of systems.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Oh, and by the way, there is an alternative to Corporate News, which is never discussed despite being much more informative:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
http://www.charlierose.com/home
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/

Bill Moyers kicks ass. He had a program on a while back about the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Did you know he (Abramoff) was using Tom Delay to protect the interests of Willie Tan, who runs a sweatshop on American soil which pays a fraction of minimum wage, doesn't allow it's all-women labor-force to have relationships, forces them to have abortions if they become pregnant, and live in horrible conditions? The worst thing, in my opinion, was that these women come from China and were told they were going to America, but will be deported immediately if they break any of the rules or complain to people outside the company.

It's true, because it's in Saipan, which was exempt for a long time (thanks to Mr Delay and others) from federal labor laws, and Delay called it a "petry-dish of healthy capitalism?"

So don't tell me 6 or 7 corporations run every news outlet available in most homes. Please.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't think citing PBS of all things is really that strong of a point.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I don't think citing PBS of all things is really that strong of a point.

Why?

Is it not entertaining enough?

[Sendo]

I have to stand up for Bill Moyers, though. He's progressive and he's been working hard behind the scenes to get more real documentaries played on PBS and even suggested carrying Amy Goodman. He knows how fucked up PBS can be but is doing his best. I'd say he's doing as much for progressive journalism while working within the system as Kucinich does for politics.

In addition to PBS, there's Nation/Harper's/Salon can be OK at times, sometimes even Huffington Post. But all of these range mostly from social democrat to centrist liberal.

The best stuff would be Green Left Weekly (from Australia), Democracy Now!, ZNet, various Indymedia outlets.

It's not always about headlines and books, but checking out essays and light research, too. I really like Monthly Review and New Left Review, which have some access online.

[theraven]

1) There isn't a Nazi Channel for the same reason their isn't a communist Channel-the number of people of either ideology is extremely minute and thus not worth the cost.

2) A large number of companies own these stations because of the high amount of initial investment required. After the initial investment in production equipment, employees and the other infrastructure it is much cheaper to open another channel. So they have a competitive advantage, however it is still expensive. So they make a lto of channels each, but its mostly either A) extremely low cost channels (think digital cable music channels) or B) Channels that reach a substantial niche.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Why?

Is it not entertaining enough?
Seeing how PBS is funded by major corporations and the government collectively, it didn't really contrast with his point.

[Lynx]

Which leftist organizations are making use of YouTube or comparable venues?

[Killfacer]

What you got in mind? Lets face it, if there was a left wing news station it would be just as biased as anything we have now. Who's going to run it anyway? The anarchists? The communists? Known for working well together (personally i blame the communists) are they not?

[Robespierre2.0]

The History Channel = The Hitler Channel. Now with 20% more Hitler documentaries!

As for allowing a Nazi TV station? Under socialism, NEVER. The state would filter reactionary shit like that out. Under communism, the economic impetus for racism would no longer exist, and I doubt there would be a demand for it.

Fox News: Half of the time it makes me LOL, half of the time it makes me weep for humanity. To actually find out what's happening in the world, I read Al-Jazeera.

I wouldn't be so suprised about corporate control of media; concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands is only natural. The reason there's no communist channel is that the bourgeois would have to be nuts to give those who seek to overthrow them a voice.

[theraven]

The History Channel = The Hitler Channel. Now with 20% more Hitler documentaries!

As for allowing a Nazi TV station? Under socialism, NEVER. The state would filter reactionary shit like that out. Under communism, the economic impetus for racism would no longer exist, and I doubt there would be a demand for it.

Fox News: Half of the time it makes me LOL, half of the time it makes me weep for humanity. To actually find out what's happening in the world, I read Al-Jazeera.

I wouldn't be so suprised about corporate control of media; concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands is only natural. The reason there's no communist channel is that the bourgeois would have to be nuts to give those who seek to overthrow them a voice.

You kidding? If Communism was a popular ideology they would have their own channel.

[Bud Struggle]

You kidding? If Communism was a popular ideology they would have their own channel.

Interesting--if Communists could make Fox TV money--they'd have a program.

[Robespierre2.0]

Impossible. Even if it were a popular ideology, instead of giving it a voice, the bourgeois media would focus all the more on demonizing it, to drive the other half of the population into an anti-communist frenzy.

You can't deny that every system will rabidly defend itself when it sees its control slipping. For all the talk of 'freedom of speech' and 'due process', I have no doubt that the U.S. would throw all of that out the window and take 'emergency measures' to preserve 'democracy' if the system showed signs of collapse.

[RGacky3]

Let me guess:
[It's a conspiracy!]

Nope, the reason is that the major news outlets are owned and controled by major corporations led by people that are (obviously) Big time Capitalists and are sponsored and payed for by major corporations, and thus will generally reflect Capitalist class interests. Thats why, not conspiracy involved, pretty straight forward.

[Dean]

You can't deny that every system will rabidly defend itself when it sees its control slipping. For all the talk of 'freedom of speech' and 'due process', I have no doubt that the U.S. would throw all of that out the window and take 'emergency measures' to preserve 'democracy' if the system showed signs of collapse.

Seems like they don't even know what that is. During Recreate68, some Fox News goon came up to the anarchists and they immediately chanted "fuck Fox News." The producer replied, "do you not believe in freedom of speech?"

Laughable at first, but ultimately really sad.
Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWJF1tXyt38)

[mikelepore]

For the U.S. media, perhaps the most serious problem is corporate censorship of news reporting, and probably the worst example of it is manipulation of NBC news by NBC's parent company, General Electric. NBC management has forced their reporters to delete news stories about the investigation of GE for selling defective parts as part of government contracts, reports of sweatshop conditions in international GE factories, and reports about consumer boycotts of companies in partnership with the nuclear power industry. More about this:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1334

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01july-august/julyaug01interviewcohen.html

[Sendo]

For the U.S. media, perhaps the most serious problem is corporate censorship of news reporting, and probably the worst example of it is manipulation of NBC news by NBC's parent company, General Electric. NBC management has forced their reporters to delete news stories about the investigation of GE for selling defective parts as part of government contracts, reports of sweatshop conditions in international GE factories, and reports about consumer boycotts of companies in partnership with the nuclear power industry. More about this:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1334

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01july-august/julyaug01interviewcohen.html


And people laugh when I say corporate news will serve corporate interests. Will ABC report on Disney abusing its workers? Will NBC be anti-war when GE has war contracts?

[pusher robot]

Nope, the reason is that the major news outlets are owned and controled by major corporations led by people that are (obviously) Big time Capitalists and are sponsored and payed for by major corporations, and thus will generally reflect Capitalist class interests. Thats why, not conspiracy involved, pretty straight forward.

But if there's one thing in the world that capitalists care more about than capitalism, it's profits. If people wanted to hear about communism, there would be a profit to be made and the capitalists would make it. There isn't, so they don't. It's really no more complicated than that. No need whatsoever to subscribe to smoke-filled rooms.

[spice756]

But if there's one thing in the world that capitalists care more about than capitalism, it's profits. If people wanted to hear about communism, there would be a profit to be made and the capitalists would make it. There isn't, so they don't. It's really no more complicated than that. No need whatsoever to subscribe to smoke-filled rooms.


Do you even watch TV? You know how many times they call communist fascism and fascism communist .Or call China communist :lol: Or communists non- democracy.

That is exactly what they are doing to pump communist is non democracy and evil thus people are brainwash and all you got is republican and democratic.They never tell the truth about the FARC and problems in Colombia where communists , socialists ,freedom fighters ,unions are killed and the US has supported this.

The US has been fighting in Colombia and Venezuela .Not even the question they will allow any communist,socialist ,labor party talk .They don't even allow social democratic.It is all right wing republican and center democratic talk.

They lie and distort the meaning of what communism is.Look how they lie about the USSR and cuba.

[Sendo]

sorry, pusher, but that ain't true. It was the case in the 1850s that, in England, the Times could buy out its competition (the working-class papers) because only the Times could survive the rising costs. The times had a very small readership. But that didn't matter. The main revenue was from advertisers. As Manufacturing Consent (the book) clearly demonstrates, it has been the rule to follow the wishes of government (for the sake friendly access), advertisers, management, and shareholders. The final product of corporate news outlets is largely the same across the board. Its bad taste is drowned in a wash of marketing and a lack of alternatives. Hell, the government outright supports them. Look at CNN's embedded coverage of Gulf War I. I'd like to add that embedded journalism began with the Nazi propaganda piece, "Triumph of the Will", as directed by Leni Riefenstahl.

[freakazoid]

Seems like they don't even know what that is. During Recreate68, some Fox News goon came up to the anarchists and they immediately chanted "fuck Fox News." The producer replied, "do you not believe in freedom of speech?"

There is a thread about that around here somewhere. Apparently not wanting to speak to the media, that is only going to twist your words, means that you don't believe in the freedom of speech. :confused:

[Lynx]

But if there's one thing in the world that capitalists care more about than capitalism, it's profits. If people wanted to hear about communism, there would be a profit to be made and the capitalists would make it. There isn't, so they don't. It's really no more complicated than that. No need whatsoever to subscribe to smoke-filled rooms.
I believe they would resist.
If there were a communist consumer block demanding more news of Marxism and worker's struggles, the media barons would be reluctant to cater to their demands. Such information might awaken class consciousness. Next thing you know, that consumer block would insist upon worker-owned or profit-sharing businesses - or we spend our money elsewhere. Are you suggesting big business owners would not do their best to ignore such customers? It's one thing to provide certified green products; quite another to certify that a product or service is 'bourgeois free'.

If a consumer block can be used as a pressure tactic them I'm for it.

[Bud Struggle]

But if there's one thing in the world that capitalists care more about than capitalism, it's profits. If people wanted to hear about communism, there would be a profit to be made and the capitalists would make it. There isn't, so they don't. It's really no more complicated than that. No need whatsoever to subscribe to smoke-filled rooms.

Brother Pusher is right. There are NO and I mean NO Capitalist defending Capitalism. I have almost never heard the word even used except in the most abstruse sense in all my years in business.

Capitalists are interest in profits--economic theory and Capitalism in particular are of no interest to businessmen.

Listen, I'm a businessman and you never see me joining in any economics threads--my eyes just glaze over when I read that stuff. As a matter of fact-- I mostly don't have a clue what you are talking about. But I'm a businessman. :rolleyes:

:)

[pusher robot]

I believe they would resist.
If there were a communist consumer block demanding more news of Marxism and worker's struggles, the media barons would be reluctant to cater to their demands.

I think you're wrong about this, really. For sure, bureaucrats would be reluctant to allow it. But if there was profit to be made, the media barons would be fighting the bureaucrats for the privilege to show Marxism.

And, in case you think I'm nuts...someone wants to remind you of something:
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
-V. I. Lenin

[RGacky3]

But if there's one thing in the world that capitalists care more about than capitalism, it's profits. If people wanted to hear about communism, there would be a profit to be made and the capitalists would make it. There isn't, so they don't. It's really no more complicated than that. No need whatsoever to subscribe to smoke-filled rooms.

Many many markets are made by advertising and manufacturing the markets, i.e. the Corporations see what they can hype up and sell, so its not like the Corporations are just waiting for what comes along, a lot of times, especially in entertainment, they try and MAKE markets.

But in a way, some corporations (not news perse) have taken revolutionary attitudes, packaged them, made them safe for Capitalism and fed them back out to the market as a safe way to feed off discontent.

Its not as simple as that, class interests are always involved, if you don't think that next time in your workplace just bring up anything about class struggle, see how quickly your boss starts to panic. Corporations many times will take big profit losses to stop anytime of worker organizations, that mentality applies to news as well.

Fair news is impossible under Capitalism, because Capitalists have the power.

[Flash]

[QUOTE=Dean;1233092]You don't have to do that; frankly, its a bad way of getting your news. If you want to be tuned in to the world, you need to see what others see, at least in regards to ideology.

These are some good news sites with very little obvious bias or misleading info:
[/quote[

I like the Drudge Report, sometimes I'll go there.

Al-Jazeerah has a lot of good interviews that I viewed on Youtube, but I'll be sure to check it out some more.

[spice756]

I think you're wrong about this, really. For sure, bureaucrats would be reluctant to allow it. But if there was profit to be made, the media barons would be fighting the bureaucrats for the privilege to show Marxism.

And, in case you think I'm nuts...someone wants to remind you of something:
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
-V. I. Lenin

Than why do thay say China is communism? Why do they lie about Cuba and the USSR?

[pusher robot]

Than why do thay say China is communism? Why do they lie about Cuba and the USSR?

Because they are businessmen, which usually means they are politically naive to a surprising degree. They know about business. They don't know or much care about political theory, particularly political theory like Marxism that is useless to businessmen. So when a country like China or Russia or Cuba says "I am communist!" the businessman takes them at their word. Journalists have less of an excuse of course, but then journalists tend to be amazingly ignorant about everything. I swear, J-school seems to attract the laziest people.

[mikelepore]

But if there was profit to be made, the media barons would be fighting the bureaucrats for the privilege to show Marxism.

The point isn't the existence of an "ism." Everyone knows there something out there called Marxism (although most of what they have been taught that Marx said, he never said, and what he did say, they've never been taught.) They have heard of the name. But what is not covered is the subject matter. For example, we have seen TV documentaries where they have said said: Let's consider point-by-point the claims of those who said the the moon landings were faked ... the claims of those who said there's a sea serpent in Lake Champlain ... the claims of those who said they died and went to heaven.... etc. What we don't ever see is: Let's consider point-by-point the arguments of those who say that labor produces all wealth and the capitalists are parasites, and that such class stratification is the cause of poverty and unemployment and other social crises.

[Die Neue Zeit]

pusher and TomK subscribe to REALLY vulgar notions of politically correct "supply" and "demand."

[theraven]

sorry, pusher, but that ain't true. It was the case in the 1850s that, in England, the Times could buy out its competition (the working-class papers) because only the Times could survive the rising costs. The times had a very small readership. But that didn't matter. The main revenue was from advertisers. As Manufacturing Consent (the book) clearly demonstrates, it has been the rule to follow the wishes of government (for the sake friendly access), advertisers, management, and shareholders. The final product of corporate news outlets is largely the same across the board. Its bad taste is drowned in a wash of marketing and a lack of alternatives. Hell, the government outright supports them. Look at CNN's embedded coverage of Gulf War I. I'd like to add that embedded journalism began with the Nazi propaganda piece, "Triumph of the Will", as directed by Leni Riefenstahl.

Does this post make sense to anyone else

First he says the Times of London bought out its opposition (which he defines as the working class papers). Which of course makes no sense because the Times was a paper for the middle/upper classes so "working class" papers had no impact on their sales.

Then he says only the times could keep up with rising costs because of its advertisers (which is almost always the rule in any news paper-subscription are not substantial parts of their revenue) and thus THAT drove the "working class papers" out (despite the fact that they weren't in competition and thus the working class papers could have had advertisers too).

[Ken]

Because they are businessmen, which usually means they are politically naive to a surprising degree. They know about business. They don't know or much care about political theory, particularly political theory like Marxism that is useless to businessmen. So when a country like China or Russia or Cuba says "I am communist!" the businessman takes them at their word. Journalists have less of an excuse of course, but then journalists tend to be amazingly ignorant about everything. I swear, J-school seems to attract the laziest people.

the businessmen in power are smarter than that. if they really believed what they said, they wouldnt be in power, instead of being a high rank manager, CEO or chairman etc they would be a

no...

the manager, chairman, or CEO all know about Marxism and the history of communism. its the banal employee, the indifferent worker who believes the crap the manager or person above him says.

if they believed what they said, they wouldnt be in positions of power...

although i think right now, past the cold war, the idea of a communist revolution in the first world is so laughable that the mainstream news have opened up a little.

its possible the 'mainstream' news might start to talk about leftism without demonizing it, instead of just showing footage of a bunch of thirteen year olds with circles and A's at a protest they may actually give them air time.

because is there going to be a communist revolution here anytime soon? of course not, so the corporations can think less about system control and indoctrination, and more about profits.

[Sendo]

Does this post make sense to anyone else

First he says the Times of London bought out its opposition (which he defines as the working class papers). Which of course makes no sense because the Times was a paper for the middle/upper classes so "working class" papers had no impact on their sales.

Then he says only the times could keep up with rising costs because of its advertisers (which is almost always the rule in any news paper-subscription are not substantial parts of their revenue) and thus THAT drove the "working class papers" out (despite the fact that they weren't in competition and thus the working class papers could have had advertisers too).

I never said that the Times drove its competition out of business. I said the operating costs of newspapers rose (as all industries naturally do--if left to run the same course all capitals slowly lose profit margin...I won't get into why in this thread). Only the Times could afford to sell papers for cheap. They did NOT make profit from sales per se, they made profit from ADVERTISERS. They were able to stay afloat in a world of rising costs because they had their upper-class swill subsidized by capitals who bought advert space. It's very simple. I never said that the Times and the working-class papers were competing for the same audience. Don't put words in my mouth.

[theraven]

I never said that the Times drove its competition out of business. I said the operating costs of newspapers rose (as all industries naturally do--if left to run the same course all capitals slowly lose profit margin...I won't get into why in this thread). Only the Times could afford to sell papers for cheap. They did NOT make profit from sales per se, they made profit from ADVERTISERS. They were able to stay afloat in a world of rising costs because they had their upper-class swill subsidized by capitals who bought advert space. It's very simple. I never said that the Times and the working-class papers were competing for the same audience. Don't put words in my mouth.

1) the main cause of the rising prices of production was increasing technology. The times could afford newer, better printing presses. I am sure plenty of "workers" papers on old style prints continued. Hell they still do today, some idiot was handing out badly zeroxed copies of his manifesto today.

2) That has been the case for most of news papers for the past two centuries. Even my schools "alternative" magazine is funded by ad's. The advertisers want to reach the subscribers, so they make it easier to subscribe.

3) Again the times readership was mostly middle class. The upper class was the landed gentry, who while they probably read the times, they were not its main market.

4) Sorry but when you say:


the Times could buy out its competition (the working-class papers)

You are clearly saying they have the same audience. If they didn't they wouldn't be competition. If I sell dresses to girls size 0-5 and you sell dresses to girls size 10-15 what are the chances of our markets overlapping? Exactly, so if the working class (which is a misnomer since the middle class worked too) was the market for one group, and the middle/upper was another what are the chances they are competition.

[Bud Struggle]

the businessmen in power are smarter than that. if they really believed what they said, they wouldnt be in power, instead of being a high rank manager, CEO or chairman etc they would be a

no...

the manager, chairman, or CEO all know about Marxism and the history of communism. its the banal employee, the indifferent worker who believes the crap the manager or person above him says.

if they believed what they said, they wouldnt be in positions of power...


No, I don't think so. I don't think any businessmen think about Communism let alone worry about it. Aside from RevLeft and a few other places Communism isn't a matter of discussion at all. Marx for most businessmen is the same as any other discredited historical fugure--he had an idea that came and went. Who would have thought that the SU and China and Cuba weren't "Communist" countries? You guys knew it, but 99% of the businessmen in America wouldn't have had a clue. Communism fell when the SU died, period.

Capitalism is the world as we know it--no need for a businessman to look any farther than Microsoft or Toyota or the NYSE. No one cares about some fighters in some jungle or some people with spike hairdos and red flags.

Communism is't an issue.

[freakazoid]

You are clearly saying they have the same audience. If they didn't they wouldn't be competition. If I sell dresses to girls size 0-5 and you sell dresses to girls size 10-15 what are the chances of our markets overlapping? Exactly, so if the working class (which is a misnomer since the middle class worked too) was the market for one group, and the middle/upper was another what are the chances they are competition.

They don't have to be in competition in order for one to buy out the other. They don't even need to be selling the same things or be in any sort of competition. If one thinks it can make money off the other then they will buy it out. It is not like there is some rule that says that they have to be in direct competition in order for one to buy out the other. In the dress example one very easily would buy out the other, they both sell dresses. Both companies sell newspapers so one is going to buy out the other because it can make money off it, it was tapping into a part of the market that it didn't have before.

[Ken]

No, I don't think so. I don't think any businessmen think about Communism let alone worry about it. Aside from RevLeft and a few other places Communism isn't a matter of discussion at all. Marx for most businessmen is the same as any other discredited historical fugure--he had an idea that came and went. Who would have thought that the SU and China and Cuba weren't "Communist" countries? You guys knew it, but 99% of the businessmen in America wouldn't have had a clue. Communism fell when the SU died, period.

Capitalism is the world as we know it--no need for a businessman to look any farther than Microsoft or Toyota or the NYSE. No one cares about some fighters in some jungle or some people with spike hairdos and red flags.

Communism is't an issue.

more broadly, protection of their system is an issue. in my opinion, the status quo is private corporation's first priority. profits are seconded.

if the rich arent defending capitalism, the rest will be ripping down the walls to their mansions.

this is why you have bullshit 'mainstream' television and gossip magazines. they arent just doing it for profit and giving us what we want, there is more to it than that..

[Die Neue Zeit]

What TomK fails to remember is that cappie media folks would NOT want to harp about any concept of class struggle at all outside the populist concepts.

[Bud Struggle]

What TomK fails to remember is that cappie media folks would NOT want to harp about any concept of class struggle at all outside the populist concepts.

Well, I think the idea of class conciousness has for the most part either never took root or has been driven from the mind of most people--rich or poor, or should I say Borgeoise or Proletarian.

The best way you can tell ther is no difference between us is that EVERYONE is on a first name basis. From the lowest to the highest, it's Bill and Jim and Frank. No Mr. This or That. We are all equals working together--just some people make a million dollars a month and some make a thousand dollars a month--but we all the SAME, bucause in the end each of our votes counts just as much. Each of us in equal (in theory of course) unnder the law.

That's the joy of being an American citizen.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The best way you can tell there is no difference between us is that EVERYONE is on a first name basis. From the lowest to the highest, it's Bill and Jim and Frank. No Mr. This or That.

You're really overoptimistic, aren't you? That's a Bible Belt cultural sideliner that actually reflects under-education on the part of a lot of people, not a main issue.

[Bud Struggle]

You're really overoptimistic, aren't you? That's a Bible Belt cultural sideliner that actually reflects under-education on the part of a lot of people, not a main issue.

'Cept, that's the way it is in NYC. We're all buds. The doormen and millionaires are all on first name basis. That's not Bible Belt--that's Ivy League Liberalism at it's best.

Do you think Black maids call their white employers anything else but their first name?

Really, I don't think Christians and Capitalists have undermined Communism a fraction as much as Liberals and Socialists.

[spice756]

No, I don't think so. I don't think any businessmen think about Communism let alone worry about it. Aside from RevLeft and a few other places Communism isn't a matter of discussion at all. Marx for most businessmen is the same as any other discredited historical fugure--he had an idea that came and went. Who would have thought that the SU and China and Cuba weren't "Communist" countries? You guys knew it, but 99% of the businessmen in America wouldn't have had a clue. Communism fell when the SU died, period.

No businessmen don't have to know about Communism /Marx or any policital spectrum.All they care about is staying in power and the right for private ownership.Any group that is trying to overthrow them they will censer them or spread distorted views. Labor unions and pro-worksers are considered scum in their eyes.And all they have to know about Communism is they want to overthrow them and have worker collectives.Just look at MSN/Encarta all the distorted views and propaganda .

All the businessmen and media want the public to know is communism is not democracy and does not work.

And a communism came and gone.Doing the red care there was claims in a communism society everyone will all dress the same and look the same ,communist are ET ,communism taking over the world , The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much ,Communists are seeking to destroy our country,Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption ,Nonetheless, one final and inescapable conflict remains before us, the war between democracy and communism ,:crying:How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." ,The Soviet Union is an Evil Empire, and Soviet communism is the focus of evil in the modern world ,Communism is like Prohibition, it's a good idea but it won't work" ,Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity – :crying:in short, of tyranny – and it is committed to making tyranny universal.,Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff ,The scientific approach uncovers, that Communism does not eliminate the inequality between men, the social injustice, exploitation of man by man and other evils of society – communism merely changes their form and gives birth to new evils, which become eternal fellow-travelers of communism." ,Today the primary threat to the liberties of the American people comes not from communism, foreign tyrants or dictators. It comes from the tendency on our own shores to centralize power, to trust bureaucracies rather than people." ,When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." ,Communism is the perfect system, in theory but does not work ,Communism works on paper but never works on people."

More at http://cubanology.com/Archives/Anti-communist,%20Anti-Dictatorship%20Quotes.htm (http://cubanology.com/Archives/Anti-communist,%20Anti-Dictatorship%20Quotes.htm)
http://www.fdrs.org/communism_quotes.html (http://www.fdrs.org/communism_quotes.html)

Again you should been around when the red scare was on.All this nonsense , distorted views and propagada.

Doing the red scare was the hight of distorted views and propaganda .And no they not going to allow a talk radio station to talk about Communism .There may interview a communist than laugh at him and open up lines and allow all the middle class to mock him.

[Bud Struggle]

Again you should been around when the red scare was on.All this nonsense , distorted views and propagada.

Doing the red scare was the hight of distorted views and propaganda .And no they not going to allow a talk radio station to talk about Communism .There may interview a communist than laugh at him and open up lines and allow all the middle class to mock him.

Actually, I was around during the Cold War--I hid under my school desk during nuclear bomb drills (don'tr look out the window.) As a kid all I know about Communism is that they imprisoned people and that they wanted to kill me. Kruschev banging his shoe at the US saying "we will bury you!"

OK, maybe not true--but as a kid of 8 or so I had no choice but to believe it all. And for what it was worth--that's where Communism sat in my consciousness till I joined RevLeft. Now in the mean time I visited the SU and Communist Europe and China a bunch of times--and nothing there showed me that the stuff I learned about Communism wasn't basically true.

Now the PEOPLE I met in Communist countries were lovely and friendly--but for the most part all people are, but I was quite anxious about their governments.

i suspect most Americans were like me.

[Sendo]

1) the main cause of the rising prices of production was increasing technology. The times could afford newer, better printing presses. I am sure plenty of "workers" papers on old style prints continued. Hell they still do today, some idiot was handing out badly zeroxed copies of his manifesto today.

2) That has been the case for most of news papers for the past two centuries. Even my schools "alternative" magazine is funded by ad's. The advertisers want to reach the subscribers, so they make it easier to subscribe.

3) Again the times readership was mostly middle class. The upper class was the landed gentry, who while they probably read the times, they were not its main market.

4) Sorry but when you say:

You are clearly saying they have the same audience. If they didn't they wouldn't be competition. If I sell dresses to girls size 0-5 and you sell dresses to girls size 10-15 what are the chances of our markets overlapping? Exactly, so if the working class (which is a misnomer since the middle class worked too) was the market for one group, and the middle/upper was another what are the chances they are competition.


You're right about that; I misspoke or mis-wrote. I meant the Times was able to buy out the other papers in England. I was typing fast and used the wrong word. They were competition in the fact that the Times wanted to be the paper of ALL England, not just the upper classes. So while they weren't in direct competition, the Times needs to consume the whole market and every demograph. It cannot offer a better paper for the masses so it merely took advantage of its higher capital resources and bought better presses and whatnot, then proceeded to buy out the stalling working class papers.

[pusher robot]

more broadly, protection of their system is an issue. in my opinion, the status quo is private corporation's first priority. profits are seconded.

And your evidence for this is...? This is an inherently self-extinguishing trait, as the business that does not care about profits first will be driven out of business by the ones that do, and will cease to exist.



if the rich arent defending capitalism, the rest will be ripping down the walls to their mansions.


They would, if "the rest" agreed with you. But that assumes facts not in evidence.


this is why you have bullshit 'mainstream' television and gossip magazines. they arent just doing it for profit and giving us what we want, there is more to it than that..


No, there isn't. Really. Look at the ratings and it's as clear as it can be.

[Sacrificed]

Let me guess:
[It's a conspiracy!]

This is a problem with rightards such as yourself: you have no conception of 'class interests', and hence cannot possible conceive of the notion that a group of people can do ill while looking out for themselves, which unintentionally benefits the rest of their class.

General Electric (the owners of NBC and MSNBC) have no innate love for Rupert Murdoch, billionaire owner of FOX. Their business interests frequently conflict, even. However, both of them are interested in preserving the economic status quo, and so individually undereport instances of bourgeois class conflict separately. This causes an accumulative effect: they might despise each other, but they despise the 'unwashed masses' moreso. It's not a conscious conspiracy of the sort that right-wingers posit - the "Jewish conspiracy", the "Masonic conspiracy", etcetera - but rather the cumulative effect of monied interests monopolizing the public media towards their own ends. The idea of a group of bourgeois sitting together in a smoke-filled rooms conversing in hushed whispers about their next scheme to dick over the working classes is laughable; the notion that their individual actions in their own favor have the unintended effect of benefiting their entire class and enriching their competitors is not so absurd.

This extends to every other form of bourgeois production as well, and is the very lynchpin of its existence as a class. To use a relatively mundane example, say that Capitalist A decides that he wishes to build a new factory in Bumfuck, America, but that Bumfuck has zoning laws which would prohibit the construction of that factory in a region accessible to the main highway. To this end he lobbies the town council to open up the region to "economic development", and they grant it. Capitalist A builds his factory, hires laborers, etc., and is getting along dandily until his competitor, Capitalist B, chooses to take advantage of the new zoning development and constructs his factory adjacent to the pre-existing one. Now Capitalist A's initial decision doesn't look so good, but both corporations are profiting to the detriment of the local community.

Sound vague? This happened here in St. Louis, when Monsanto moved into a region previously dominated by a rival petrochemical plant that had only gained access to the town of Sauget after an intense lobbying campaign.

Businessmen are the most class-conscious group of individuals there are, and they don't even know it. That's the irony. Simply acting out in their own interest perpetuates the welfare of all other members of the bourgeoisie, even their competitors.

[freakazoid]

It's not a conscious conspiracy of the sort that right-wingers posit - the "Jewish conspiracy", the "Masonic conspiracy", etcetera

I would say that that is not to far from the truth in certain cases, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove