Censored News?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:51 pm

We are informed here in Ireland that all American News is censored to the ordinary Americans?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:13 pm

That sounds like it could be a statement OR a question...It would depend on what you hear there, whether or not it is censored. I do believe that our media is extremely biased, is that what you mean?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:23 pm

A relation of one of my friends knew nothing about the time US forces invaded Iraq. His news media had it all wrong.

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:42 pm

Must be that "Dam" Rather again....glad he's leaving!

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:05 pm

Still not clear, Captain...Is your realtions friend here or in Ireland?

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:10 pm

Hard to be censored when there are hundreds of news channels on the satellite or cable systems and 100,000's of news sources directly on the Internet!

Maybe your friend's noggin was censoring input!

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:17 pm

Tombstone wrote: Hard to be censored when there are hundreds of news channels on the satellite or cable systems and 100,000's of news sources directly on the Internet!

Maybe your friend's noggin was censoring input! Perhaps your right.

Hawke · Post by **Hawke** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:25 pm

While I do not believe our news is 'censored' in the traditional sense, I do believe and realize that it is highly biased. CNN in this country tends toward the liberal left, Fox tends toward the conservative right.

I tend to get my news from BBC and various 'underground' sites. I like my news without a political agenda.

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:36 pm

Fyrehawke wrote: While I do not believe our news is 'censored' in the traditional sense, I do believe and realize that it is highly biased. CNN in this country tends toward the liberal left, Fox tends toward the conservative right.

I tend to get my news from BBC and various 'underground' sites. I like my news without a political agenda.

Fyrehawk

Anything I read coming out of the BBC I view as essentially biased too.

I also believe they have a huge political agenda pandering to the liberal outlook.

Isn't perception weird?

I don't see Fox as "right" wing at all.... they make an attempt to present both sides, whereas the Alphabets and CNN are all lefties.... it was evident during the election campaigns. I see Fox as more central and to the right, but not right wing, except when compared with some of the left hype we get from CNN.

Fox have hired conservative hosts, but even with Hannity the most outspoken and rigid conservative of them all, they have Colmes for balance. O'Reilly favors the right side, but he always gives air time to opposition.

I find it a refreshing change.

I think the internet and rapid exchange of viewpoints has made the MSM sit up and take notice that we aren't going to settle for their hysteria any more...we

want all the facts they have without prejudice (I dream of course).

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:39 pm

Wednesday's Child wrote: Fyrehawk

Anything I read coming out of the BBC I view as essentially biased too.

I also believe they have a huge political agenda pandering to the liberal outlook.

Isn't perception weird?

I don't see Fox as "right" wing at all.... they make an attempt to present both sides, whereas the Alphabets and CNN are all lefties.... it was evident during the election campaigns. I see Fox as more central and to the right, but not right wing, except when compared with some of the left hype we get from CNN.

Fox have hired conservative hosts, but even with Hannity the most outspoken and rigid conservative of them all, they have Colmes for balance. O'Reilly favors the right side, but he always gives air time to opposition.

I find it a refreshing change.

I think the internet and rapid exchange of viewpoints has made the MSM sit up and take notice that we aren't going to settle for their hysteria any more...we

want all the facts they have without prejudice (I dream of course).
I get my news from London ITN.

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:45 pm

I would love to get the BBC and ITN

The U.S. has so many choices, but they seem to ignore the fact there are other countries which have excellent news outlets.... C-SPAN often carry the British Parliament which I adore watching...I'd get up in the middle of the night to hear some of Blair's debate...he is a master and I find he is one of the most gifted orators on the planet at the present time.

I even forget what my philosophy and ideology is concerning the news when watching him..that is excellent in itself.

I also watch the Canadian Paliament when they broadcast it, but I get bored with the ritual translation French/English going on... it is like having to sit through a movie twice.

We may not have censorship in the U.S. but I think our plate is too full of the same thing...

and I am too cheap to invest in satellite....I get basic cable and a tier above that....and it is all I can afford ....

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:06 pm

I hear the same comment here in New Zealand about U.S. news being censored and that it is part of the reason for the re-election of Bush. With as many editorials, both of left and right, major news papers, both left and right, TV channels, both foreign and domestic, internet access to news etc., etc. censorship is just not the case.

I think what happens is that many people only watch, read or hear those things that happen to co-inside with their pre-conceived ideas. Liberals are going to agree with a liberal press and editorials, conservatives with conservative viewpoint. Very few of us are totally open minded and try for some measure of objectivity.

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:26 pm

Lon

That is so strange...with so much media I can't see how it is censored - there will always be one gun jumper who beats the start.....and spills the news....just can't possibly be censored unless it is something held for security reasons - often I wish they would hold much of the Iraq reporting as they give the enemy some information which should be held and it costs lives...both Iraqi and U.S.

I call the "visiting our favorite news outlets" the comfort zone.... we don't want to be upset by someone preaching something we dislike hearing, especially after a hard day of work or just before eating or bedtime.... we want to be lulled into thinking "all's right with the world"... and with the MSM it never is haha....

I think it is very difficult to be totally open minded.... I can be about many things, but on one or two subjects I am rigidly set in my opinion.

What a life you must have between Roseville, CA and Christchurch, NZ..... talk about nirvana!!! Lucky soul.

I love your avatar!

Der Wulf · Post by **Der Wulf** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:39 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: A relation of one of my friends knew nothing about the time US forces invaded Iraq. His news media had it all wrong.
Is perhaps your friend's relation unhappy because the invasion start was not announced in advance?, did he want the location and troop strength as well?

Have him watch Al Jazeera, the terrorist's first choice, after CNN.

libertine · Post by **libertine** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:42 pm

I reply as I am watching Bill O'Reilly with whom I usually totally disagree. But he DOES make me think!!

I think the news, from wherever one gets it, is biased in one way or another. BBC is great to listen to to get a non-USA pov, but it is not unbiased.

That said, our news is not censored in any way. If someone missed the military going into Iraq they must have been asleep. There is a clue in the word 'invasion' in the subsequent post, however. I don't remember any of the USA news sources referring to it as an Invasion...'incursion' maybe. And that makes all the difference.

Semantics is not censorship. :rolleyes:

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:08 pm

Semantics may not be censorship, and you may not be able to call what the news media does "censorship" per se, but if you believe that what you get from 99% of the news media isn't, at best, skewed, and at worst, propoganda, you're fooling yourself.

People seem to take what they hear on the news and what they read on the internet as gospel. "Oh, if it's on the Web, it must be true, if the news is saying it, it's GOT to be fact." And people, it just ain't so! They tell us what they want us to hear. And I'll be sitting here waiting for the "oh SHE'S paranoid" responses...(lol)

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:18 pm

Babyrider - you write:

They tell us what they want us to hear.

I agree totally - and I'd like to change that a tiny bit to:

They tell us what will get our attention - for viewership and ratings. Controversy attracts.

The old adage of news is:

A house is just a house until it catches fire - then it becomes news.

Therefore the more controversial a lead in to a story - the more attention it will receive.

What I dislike are totally biased, one-sided reports given on public television and radio paid for by taxpayer dollars. Private enterprise can say and do what they wish within the bounds of the FCC mandates - but we must self-censor or exercise our discretion in choosing what we wish to believe.

I prefer it that way - I would never want a government entity telling me what they "thought I should believe".

Even the internet has its crackpot places...but now we have the pleasure of choice...in some countries they don't.

libertine · Post by **libertine** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:47 pm

BabyRider wrote: Semantics may not be censorship, and you may not be able to call what the news media does "censorship" per se, but if you believe that what you get from 99% of the news media isn't, at best, skewed, and at worst, propoganda, you're fooling yourself.

People seem to take what they hear on the news and what they read on the internet as gospel. )

I don't think your implication was that only the US news is biased or at least I hope not. I can remember movie newsreels and 'Mr & Mrs America and all the shps at sea" (I was a very precocious child

) 24/7 news coverage is the worst thing that has happened to credibility in the past 20 years. When news channels have to find something to talk about all day and night it is no wonder that real news becomes secondary to keeping an audience.

My dad's favorite saying used to be "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see!" I subscribe to that philosophy.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:41 am

I think it is edited in ways to not cause mass panic. Also presented with an approach that will keep patriotism high. Also planned in layers. Throw out something critical to make the people forget about the last critical issue, that was never resolved last week.

cars · Post by **cars** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:45 am

Wednesday's Child wrote: Babyrider - you write:

They tell us what they want us to hear.

I agree totally - and I'd like to change that a tiny bit to:

They tell us what will get our attention - for viewership and ratings. Controversy attracts.

The old adage of news is:

A house is just a house until it catches fire - then it becomes news.

Therefore the more controversial a lead in to a story - the more attention it will receive.

What I dislike are totally biased, one-sided reports given on public television and radio paid for by taxpayer dollars. Private enterprise can say and do what they wish within the bounds of the FCC mandates - but we must self-censor or exercise our discretion in choosing what we wish to believe.

I prefer it that way - I would never want a government entity telling me what they "thought I should believe".

Even the internet has its crackpot places...but now we have the pleasure of choice...in some countries they don't.

WC, you took the words right out of my mouth, I was going to say exactally what you said about "Controversy". :wah: Getting attention & ratings! There are so many news media people out there that many of them try to get a leg up on the others, by trying to come up with the most "outrageous" far-out, far fetched attention getting questions and or scenarios and putting their own spin on the subject for shock affect! It's not censorship, but it sometimes gets off the initial subject. Many news media people are out there trying to "outdo" their competetion! And by doing so getting their "own 15 minutes" of fame in the overall process!

Cars :driving:

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:06 am

LOL Cars

I always enjoy reading the headlines and seeing how they match up with the stories following.... or the lead in on the news broadcasts and how they match up with the rest of the story....

Headliners must be the madcap extroverted Wild Bills of the writing world, more immersed in fiction than fact.

FAMILY DESTROYED BY FIRE IN HOME......says headline (accompanied by pic of mom weeping)

Mother's tale of loss of family's possessions which were destroyed in last nite's fire. Nobody was injured thanks to the fire alarms, and some valuables were saved.

Luckily the family was insured for their losses... They plan to rebuild.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:16 am

Perhaps it is not so much censorship but spin. By that I mean the news media is going to tell you what they think you should know.. print only the facts that they think are important and the other information... well that gets left by the wayside. It was amusing though, to watch Dan Rather try to spin an out of control situation and make it appear that they were not responisible to the public for checking thier facts before reporting on them. But it isn't just TV news.. remember the whole NY Times fiasco.. made up sources and stories..... I guess that if you read a news story or hear a story on TV... you just have to question the validity of the reporter..

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:22 am

Greydeadhead

Spin is probably what I veered into (my mistake actually).... because the topic was censored...but I can't see how news is censored in the U.S. when we have access to so many outlines and mediums for news reporting.

Especially the beauty of the internet which works on the spot, 24/7 without all the fluff of getting one's hair blowdried haha....

Rather was a bit of a hoot eh? Too bad he had to finish his career with a sour note...although I think he is in the SouthAsia mess right now doing what he enjoyes best...

on the scene reporting.

I wonder what happens to men like Rather and Cronkite - who have for years seemed to report - not embellish - the news and all of a sudden they go political on us.

Newscasters should leave their politics in the make-up room.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:50 am

Well.. that could be part of the problem. Which source to believe.. newspapers, blogs, television, radio, etc... and with the instant access ability via todays high tech abilities like satellite phones and such.. it can be very much sensory overload.

Yep.. way to bad that Mr. Rather had to go out on such a negative note. Unfortunately that will probably be what he is remembered for.. not the early part of his career when he was a great field reporter.

I agree.. I can't understand why great reporters all of the sudden have to become political editorialists.. if that is even a word. If I want opinion.. hell I can ask anyone that...

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:08 am

Cars

I like "editorialists"...sounds good to me!

I think it is difficult to live in a world which is so split between two honorable schools of thought as to which would best serve our country and our world.

I appreciate forums for the diversity. While I had opinions before when I watched, read or heard news stories, but never had input from others..... I have done 180 on so many things I used to believe were the "only way"..... so personally it works for me.

I don't know about the people with high BP tho....haha.... I still enjoy my comfort news and gravitate to places where I will find validation for my opinions..... I try not to get into the political arena on forums where I find the people interesting.... I have a couple of "news" places I go and fight.... and rarely win of course.... but I think it keeps us on our toes...

even if it is do defend what we believe over the other guy's opinion.

Der Wulf · Post by **Der Wulf** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:22 am

The very best defense against censorship is the variety of news sources available. Despite the "fluff", and the showmanship aspects of competing entities, we have a tremendous amount of sources to choose from. In addition to the "major" sources, we have the entire world. As an example, I have links to 17 news sources in Islamic countries.

The notion that *our news* is censored is ridiculous on it's face. Censorship is not possible as long as choices are not limited.

Now, if we are too biased, lazy, or stupid to take advantage of our choices, we could impose a type of censorship on ourselves. No one has ever claimed that the excercise of democracy was supposed to be easy.

It does seem that a lot of our European friends these days, remind one of the three blind men describing an elephant. On the other hand it could just be more condescension, :rolleyes: or the favorite Euro parlor game, "lets patronize the yanks". :yh_peace

'

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:26 am

I enjoy the forums because they are a great place to agree to disagree.. in a civil manner. Atleast so far it has been pretty civil. I love to debate and discuss.. no blood no foul rules. I try not to take it on a personal level and do try to learn something from each discussion.. if that is possible for an oldster like myself. but.. I digress from the topic..

I guess that you have to take whatever news media you use with a grain of salt. To me.. alot of todays reporting is of the "if it bleeds it leads" category.. sensationalism at its best.. and most reporters seem to be attempting to follow Woodard and Bernstein.. Soooo.. that said my favorite parts of the paper are the comics, sports, and letters to the editors.. in that order..

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:50 am

posted by libertine

I think the news, from wherever one gets it, is biased in one way or another. BBC is great to listen to to get a non-USA pov, but it is not unbiased.

That said, our news is not censored in any way. If someone missed the military going into Iraq they must have been asleep. There is a clue in the word 'invasion' in the subsequent post, however. I don't remember any of the USA news sources referring to it as an Invasion...'incursion' maybe. And that makes all the difference.

Semantics is not censorship.

It is part of the BBC charter that they present both sides equally. They consistently antaginise all parties whichever is in power. Politicians by their nature do not like being criticised. Maggie Thatcher was notorius for only agreeing to be interviewed if she knew the questions beforehand. No politician should have that right. they have to be accountable.

This is the first time that a party in power has thretaened to change the status of the BBC. Currently in the UK the BBC has far more credibility than Tony Blair despite attempts to discredit them.

We expect it to be critical but that means when a reporter asks tony blair or any politician to justify his actions he is not biased but doing what he is supposed to do. Asking awkward questions. Of course they come across as being biased if the questions are hostile. Why should politicians only be interviewed by their supporters abd not face hostile questioning?

Does anybody have a an american dictionary definition of the word liberal? It seems to have a completely different meaning in the US than the UK. Liberal is middle of the road, in favour of free speech and personal liberty. How did it become so corrupted? It drives me up the wall.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:13 am

gmc wrote: Does anybody have a an american dictionary definition of the word liberal? It seems to have a completely different meaning in the US than the UK. Liberal is middle of the road, in favour of free speech and personal liberty. How did it become so corrupted? It drives me up the wall.

On-line American dictionaries indicate the meaning is the same as here, gmc, so I'm at a loss to know why it is mis-used.

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:21 am

GMC

So what would be the extreme opposite of conservative/republican(USA)?????

Socalism? Fascism? Communism?

That is: If liberal is the middle of the road.... not sure what it means because I know Canadian liberal is different from US liberal too.

Additionally, I read a "Conservative" Canadian site which is rabidly religious to the point of disbelief, which isn't the Conservatism that I understand in the US...

Or maybe the philosophies are so huge and consist of so many diverse people, one can't put a label on it.....

Wish they'd have a Potpourri Party....that would suit me well~!

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:27 am

Der Wulf

Agreed with your post points.

17 Islamic sources.....wowee....!

That's devotion to getting the news all right. Good for you.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:50 am

I have breezed through a couple of posts here (I will go back and read them all. I wanted to get this down before I forget. I have a good memory, it's just short.)

WC: You have made my point for me when you say "comfort news". If you can go to your prefferred source for news, and avoid others because they don't fit your opinions, then the news is skewed. Look long enough and you will find the news that suits your taste. Even if your opinion is so far extreme, you will find a source that supports it. And you will find sources that don't. Me, I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and I don't believe we get it.

And Grey? If you call it "spin" and believe that it's what "the powers that be" think we should hear, how is that acceptable? Someone else deciding for us what they think we should hear? Who is anyone else to tell me what is good for me, or what I can "handle" in dealing with the news.? That said, I'm off to read the rest. Morning everyone!

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:00 am

Well.. first of all it is not acceptable.. control the media.. control the population. By spinning the news I mean the omission of facts that are important to the story on purpose. News stories can be slanted or spun just by the wording of the story or the context in which a word or phrase is used... it would be wonderful if the facts were presented in a manner that would allow us to make an informed decision.. but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in the modern world of reporting..

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:05 am

OK. I like what DerWulf says. You need to get your news from a variety of sources, that's good. It's the only way to get a broader range of views, therefore being better informed. I don't want everyone to think I'm some loon, convinced of a nationwide conspiracy! I just happen to think that we don't get an accurate picture of everything a majority of the time.

And WC: Our liberal is "leftist". Our conservative is more "right-wing". If that helps.

I am a conservative who leans a tad to the left. I own guns and am Pro-Choice. Does that help?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:08 am

"Ommission of facts." That's exactly my problem...who decides which facts are important and which ones aren't? And you're right, it would be wonderful, and it just ain't that way. Like I said earlier (stolen from DerWulf) a variety of sources is the best defense!

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:09 am

BabyRider

Strangely enough - people believe all kinds of things about the news.

I was on another forum just now reading about how the U.S. held back its "warning" to the South Asian islands regarding the 9.0 and Tsunami.

The writer was committed to his belief (an Art Bell fan maybe?).... until someone asked why Japan didn't issue the warning....as they were much closer to the monitoring devices they

must maintain in their own enlightened country.

It has long been news media history they have a spin on their ideological position, in order to influence the public for a favored political group....as long as it generates good subscriber/ratings numbers.

Most of these regular alphabets and CNN have enjoyed non-questioning by the public, along with the big newspaper outlets such as the N.Y. Times, the Boston Globe, the L.A. Times and the Washington Post..... the uber elitists outlets.....

Until Fox.....the bad guy... joined up...didn't follow the crowd....and the ratings soared...more viewership than all the other network newscasts combined..... why? Because there was a vast "right wing" viewership being underserved.

There is spin....since television began..... since radio.... since newsprint.....because the editors and publishers have to take some kind of position on the issues of the day for their public.....

Trouble is the public is getting smarter than the creators of the news now....thank you

Internet!!!

But we still have our favorites and we hunker down with our comfort any time we can. It's human nature.

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:16 am

BabyRider wrote: "Ommission of facts." That's exactly my problem...who decides which facts are important and which ones aren't? And you're right, it would be wonderful, and it just ain't that way. Like I said earlier (stolen from DerWulf) a variety of sources is the best defense!

BabyRider....

To be top of the game a publisher must support political parties... or political issues....their editorials are easily identified as to which party they are committed.

Again we were left with many left-leading ideological papers until the internet gave voice to some more right-leaning authors and commentators. And radio of course has been the special "home" for the "rabid" right wingers as they are termed by the moderates.....

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:19 am

yep.. so it appears we are in agreement then BabyRider.. you.. moderate Conservative...nothing wrong with that.

Multiple sources are fantastic when you have access to them.. but that also requires that you have an open mind too.. strange how reading the opposing view can be tough but eye opening sometimes.

Yep Spin has been around forever.. but it really came to the forfront with William Randoph Hearst and his form of journalism.. used to incite the Spanish-American War

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:25 am

Greydeadhead

Thanks for that information about Hearst..... I didn't know about his policies....

only about Marion Davies and San Simeon....

Gotta go read up on him .... sounds like a powerful baron type in those days....

While I am at it...thanks everyone for a great conversation...I hope it continues...

I have to get at my work now but will have to return to see what I missed....WC

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:39 am

yep.. the father of Yellow Journalism... was quite a powerful figure in those days..

moi aussi WC..

later.....

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:51 am

Well, gang, you'll be real interested in this too...

I posted the story about the teens causing a miscarriage from a televised broadcast I had seen. Turns out, many "facts" were just flat-out wrong. I believe it was letha who looked into it further and found the whole story. Proves our point about getting your news from several sources, huh?

Note to self: PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!!

Sorry for the incomplete story everyone!

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:06 pm

GASP.. oh no... forum Baliff.. wack her teepee....

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:55 pm

Will I be on probation now? :wah:

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:22 pm

BabyRider

Not with me no probation allowed for you !!

I read the "incomplete" or "inaccurate" story of the young couple who performed a do-it-yourself abortion/murder and had to leave it there....

I later saw your disclaimer.... so you were caught in the middle yourself of that crazy thing we call nooz.........

Terrible story that no matter if accurate or not.

See you again soon I hope...you are an energizing force! WC

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:33 pm

Greydeadhead

I went snooping on my break for Hearst and the Google folk have the general biographical stuff....no doubt being kind to his memory....

http://www.zpub.com/sf/history/willh.html

I'll keep on a-snooping however - somehow you have caught my interest in the man I know little about.

The above link has him: pro-Nazi and anti-Communist... I guess there were a lot of dissenters during the depression days - even for millionaires.

I will say one thing: I doubt any medium could rise to the crisis of influence this man did with the Spanish/American War. The public and our available information sources are too strong these days. (I hope).

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:03 pm

Posted by wednesday's child

So what would be the extreme opposite of Conservative/republican(USA)?????

The Labour party are social democrats, much of their funding comes, or used to come from the Trade Union movement. Currently some of their policies are more right wing than the Tories/Conservatives. ID cards for example you would expect the tories to favour but it is labour that seem set on introducing them while the Tories are agin. Holding people without trial and defying the courts is another one. Even the Tory party would seem to be social democrat compared to either of the american parties. For instance both support the NHS at least in principle although whether they actually do in practice is another question. Mucking about with it too much is a sure vote loser for either party.

(just in case you don't know what I mean.

from the oxford engliush dictionary

social democracy n.

a socialist system achieved by democratic means.

social democrat n.)

Most Tories would be horrified by my using that description, nowadays it means as much government encouraging social change to improve things for people as socialism per se. A lot of old style labour supporters would laugh but only because of Tony Blair.

The liberals are kind of middle ground but still basically social democrat in nature. They're pushing for proportional representation which would stop the situation where for the last twenty or thirty years the party in power does not have the most support.

We also have more extreme socialist parties and also The British national party or national front (nazi front) neither of whom get anywhere at national level but get on some local councils.

There seems to be less polarisation between the two main parties than there is between the democrats and republicans but I don't profess to understand american politics, nor can i claim to speak for anyone else on this forum from the UK. We have vastly different attitudes I think to most americans, socialised medicine is probably the best example. Most would think it grossly unfair if someone gets better treatment just because they can pay more.

As to censorship, I have seen suggestions that us news media is censored not in a formal sense but since the mainstream is in just a few private hands they tend to put the viewpoint of the proprietors rather than a balanced one. Unpleasant facts are skated over or just not reported.

I watch CNN and CNBC and occasionally nbc on cable (I am an inveterate channel hopper). I doubt it is the same as you get but there seems to be a paucity of discussion or investigative reporting but it is impossible to judge properly.

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:27 pm

Thanks GMC!

I grew up in Canada - are the political parties similar there because your Labour Party sounds the same as it used to be (perhaps under another name - I was totally uninterested when I lived there)...but my dad was a labour organizer so guess where he stood!

I believe I am a conservative but have many social ideologies, however do not believe in large government and bureaucracy therefore I tend to side with the republicans.... I think I am an "issue" voter than a "party voter"....the parties are so huge. I think most people here have a bit of both parties in them, and tend to vote for their candidate representing them.

Fox is the network I watch...they offer more two-sided blather than the CNN/CNBC or MSNBC crowd....but I don't know if you get it in England...I know they broadcast in Europe and Scandinavia and probably the U.K... but am not totally certain.

My favorite British thing is watching your people go at it in Parliament....wow I would love to see that kind of action in the U.S. - nope - they would probably kill each other! haha

Der Wulf · Post by **Der Wulf** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:50 pm

Wednesday's Child wrote:

I believe I am a conservative but have many social ideologies, however do not believe in large government and bureaucracy therefore I tend to side with the republicans.... I think I am an "issue" voter than a "party voter"....the parties are so huge. I think most people here have a bit of both parties in them, and tend to vote for their candidate representing them.

Sounds like politicly, were pretty close. I consider myself Independent. I really think that because we can be close in beliefs, yet comfortable in labeling ourselves differently is significant.

We Americans generally are pretty difficult to classify or define, labels are generally meaningful only to politicians and demigogs on both sides. That this confounds and mystifys our Euro friends is a source of both amusement, but sometimes irritation to me.

It is also a source of comfort that a homogenous voting block dominated by rigid political dogma is unlikely to infect us in the near future. I really think our best quality, as Americans, is our cranky, independant nature. I have some interesting ideas about why we are, and are likely to stay this way, --but thats another thread.

Wednesday's Child · Post by **Wednesday's Child** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:08 pm

Der Wulf - you write:

I really think our best quality, as Americans is our cranky, independent nature. I have some interesting ideas about why we are, and are likely to stay this way, - but thats another thread.

Well said! That's what I love about being in the USA - independence, the feeling we all have a say in matters and we don't fit into neat little boxes for labelling!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:38 am

posted by wednesdays child

I grew up in Canada - are the political parties similar there because your Labour Party sounds the same as it used to be (perhaps under another name - I was totally uninterested when I lived there)...but my dad was a labour organizer so guess where he stood!

Be interesting to see what he thinks now. Personally I don't think it is what it used to be, at least there was a pretence of caring for the underdog before, now they are more openly self serving with no sense that they are doing anything wrong. I know even less about Canadadian politics than I do american.

Most people range all over the political spectrum. Libertarian in most things so long as those involved don't harm others but extreme in others. How many. for instance would agree paedophiles should be allowed any freedom at all? Thieves and thugs most people would want punished in proportion to the crime and dealt with severely if they don't take the hint. The ones I am wary of are those who feel they have the moral right ti tell others how they should live and what they can watch or read about. Book burners of any ilk.

In the UK we have different attiutudes to a lot of things. The NHS for instance, here we expect the government to provide these things-it's more a case of do it or else yet I have an impression-garnered from some forums. that many americans think this is foisted on us.