Dan Rather Article About US Press

[nicky g]

Mark: I have no love for Fox and CNN but be serious. In the USSR you could be killed for speaking your mind, and millions were. That rarely happens in the US and Western world these days (though it happens lots in Westen-sponsored regimes). It just isn't the same thing. There is a big problem with the mainstream media dissemintating misinformation and skewed versions of what's going on, but that is a different problem. You can still state the truth as you see it; you'll just have a hard time getting a lot of people to read it.
I agree with Tom that the vast majority of Msulims do not believe sharia entails the execution of adulterers.

[MMMMMM]

Mark Heide: "The degree of censorship is only relative to your ideology. In a democratic and capitalist system you, as a US citizen, could view the former Pravda from the cold war era as 100% censorship. The citizens of a socialist society do not view it that way. Their press reflects the views of a collective society working together."

This is utter horseshit: their press reflected the iron control of a totalitarian government...with no dissidence permitted. It didn't reflect the views of the people because the people weren't allowed to express alternate views.

Mark Heide: "So degrees of censorship or even self-censorship can only be measured by your ideology."

Or by the government arresting and executing you for opening your mouth. How's THAT for an alternate ideology?

What planet do you live on, anyway?

[brad]

i think chomsky described it best by saying that in totolatarian regimes where force is used the government has no need to decieve the people - dissenters are sent to work camps or killed.

whereas in a democracy or republic the need for persuasion or whatever you call it is paramount.

[MMMMMM]

I think that's a superficial and subtly deceptive statement by Chomsky, and I'm surprised you don't seem to be aware of this. He's apparently equating the goals of totalitarian governments with the goals of democratic-style governments. Why is this not surprising, coming from Chomsky?

[brad]

well take for example gun confiscation.

in any dictatorship the thug in power says turn in your guns and sends the military around to pick them up and kill anyone who resists.

here in US especially CA note how different it is even though in california some guns have been banned and the state has 'asked' owners to turn them in.

in other words here in US we have to be tricked into giving up our guns, incrementalism, etc.

im sure youll agree that the purpose of power is more power.

do you think the word democracy is the opposite of tyranny?

[MMMMMM]

I think there's a helluva difference between Condoleeza Rice imploring the news media not to run the full recent bin-Laden tape (due to fears it contained hidden trigger-phrases for sleeper cells--and Fox News ran the full tape anyway)--and newspaper editors knowing they will be shot if they print anti-Saddam views.

Voting in a multiparty system is also a helluva lot different than being able to vote only "YES" or "NO" for one candidate: Saddam.

While I agree there are slippages away from our Constitutionally protected liberties, we're still a LONG way from totalitarianism.

Those who argue in many instances of the equivalence of such things fail to take into account the vast differences in relative degree--in other words, they're being quite stupid, or else knowingly using false arguments for insidious or subversive purposes. Anyone who thinks total censorship at the point of a gun is identical to inherent media bias can't think straight, or at least, is thinking with their emotions instead of their intellect.

That said I do agree we need to be quite vigilant about protecting our Constitutional rights and liberties.

[brad]

see youre already more propagandized than u realize.

do u really believe it is a tape of bin laden?

do u realize earlier 'bin laden' tapes have been proven to be fakes?

who do u think benefits from this?

p.s. i bought a gun just so if guns are confiscated i can kill someone a la alexander Solzynetzyn's Gulag Archipeligo

[MMMMMM]

What's THAT got to do with the discussion? The bin-Laden tape example I used to point up the differences between government requests and government censorship at gunpoint. Whether the tape is real or not has zero bearing on the point under discussion.

As far as the tape being propaganda, al-Jazeera was the FIRST to say it was unmistakably bin-Laden's voice. But so what?

I really think you just like to argue for the sake of debate rather than to try to arrive at the truth. That's a waste of time in my book.

[brad]

no my point is that you accepted it so deeply you didnt even think to question it and thats how it works here.

false paradigm, etc.

btw, do u own guns? will u turn them in if requested? will u go to a camp?

[MMMMMM]

No, you PRESUMED that's what I thought. OBVIOUSLY the tape might not be real--and it's SO obvious, why even mention it?

I never said the tape was real--I only spoke of the difference between a government request and a government request at gunpoint.