By more than 4-1 Americans say US media more of a threat to clean elections than Russian hackers

Discussion in 'Election Forums' started by cnelsen, Nov 2, 2016.

  1. cnelsen
    Offline

    cnelsen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,685
    Thanks Received:
    431
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Ratings:
    +2,721
    Imagine the world's richest diamond mine is opened in Bolivia but accessing the diamonds will utterly destroy the environment of the people living there. Imagine American companies control the mines. They also own all the media in the country. So, through a campaign of lies and propaganda, the American-controlled media succeeds in getting the natives to go to war against each other and in the ensuing slaughter they take the opportunity to grab all the diamonds, destroying the environment in the process. Then the Americans pull out, leaving the natives in a degraded and untenable position. What would you think of those American companies? What could have saved the natives?

    We are in the position of those Bolivian natives vis-a-vis our media.
     
  2. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    The scenario you describe, were it in fact the nature of the ownership of a factor of production - land and the raw materials in it -- in the U.S., I'd cotton to the implied line of thought that drove you to present the analogy you did. But it isn't the nature of asset ownership in the U.S.

    Green:
    The abstraction you used necessarily carries in it at least one of two, perhaps three, assumed premises. Now, I'm not sure which of them you had in mind when you devised the analogy. Perhaps you had both the premises in mind? Perhaps you weren't specifically thinking of them and didn't consider whether the assumed (implied) premises are actually true? I don't know, but let's examine them.
    • Possible Premise/Assumption #1:
      • The owners/managers of the media, merely by dint of their being countrymen of the landowners of the mines -- which are one part of the nation's factor of production (see also: Why are the factors of production important to economic growth?) called land, and I realize (or hope for your argument's sake) you don't as much mean mines specifically, but rather material factors of production in general -- the media owners will act in allegiance with the landowners to foment civil war among the people, thereby allowing the "controversial" act of mining the diamonds with impunity, and in the process destroying the environment because the nation's attention is focused largely on the physical conflict and slaughter.

        By what stroke of your imagination do you come to think that war and its attendant slaughter constitutes an environment in which any business activities of foreign actors take place? Do you see foreign owned oil mining companies investing in Syria right now? Do you see McDonald's opening new restaurants in Syria?

        Come on! Business owners are not going to risk their resources by engaging in business expansion and development in the midst of a war. The cost of doing business in such situations is far higher and the profits to be obtained from doing business in a warzone are no more than they would be were there no war, unless one is a producer of the weapons of war.
    • Possible Premise/Assumption #2:
      • Oh, and BTW, did you not consider that war destroys the environment? This is the 21st century. Combatants don't battle by throwing spears, wielding swords and maces and riding horses into battle. Ecosystems don't recover faster from being ravaged by mining operations than they do from being blown up by bombs.

        The environment, however, is not the only thing that suffers in a state of war. During war, workers get retasked to fight or support the war. They won't be working in non-war-essential industries.
    • Possible Premise/Assumption #3:
      • The owners/managers of the media are also the owners of the mines.

        Well, media bosses and companies do not own the factors of production. They own commercial media, but there is plenty of non-commercial media they don't own, even though it may not be media published in the country in question. So while it's not as easy to come by information that isn't aired in a domestically produced television or radio program, the information is nonetheless readily available. (see my signature line quote) A lot of that information, furthermore, is presented sans the bias found in editorial content delivered by mainstream print and broadcast news and information outlets.
    • Possible Premise/Assumption #4:
      • Consumers of media content cannot distinguish between news and editorial content, or those consumers treat editorial content as news reporting rather than as commentary.
    So you see, the big problem with your allegorical argument is that it has a flawed premise. War is not a state in which non-war related business thrives. The non-governmentally owned media don't create events; it talks about events and it talks about and shares what others say.

    Red:
    With regard to the specific scenario you described, nothing positive. The problem, as described above, is that the specific scenario isn't applicable to the state of affairs with the media and the captains of industry in the U.S.

    Blue:
    The obvious answer is that the people should rely on mainstream media to learn in general about the occurrence of events, and then use other sources of information, non-commercial media, to obtain the information needed to evaluate the significance of those events, as well as to assess the sufficiency of media personalities' editorials about the events' significance, impact, and so on. In other words, "trust, but verify."
     
  3. cnelsen
    Offline

    cnelsen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,685
    Thanks Received:
    431
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Ratings:
    +2,721
    We are waging multiple wars right now. War is the new normal. Meanwhile, we are being invaded as is Europe--an act of war our media will not cover. The media is run by by the same tribe as the instigators of war as the architects of the invasion. But "production" continues apace.

    What could the "natives" have done? They could have shut down the foreign ownership of the media and organized themselves by nativity.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

carlos slim jeff bezos george soros