Lame Stream Media or: How journalists failed America. The Lara Logan Story

[Rhinox]

I doesn't matter what you did or did not imply, the answer is the same. No one is obligated to provide me with electricity unless I pay for it. Unless I paid them to provide it, I would complain to no one. If I did pay them, I would complain to the court system, not my representative.

In other words Kuya, unless I don't understand your question, just because our govt. has no right to privacy, except in national security matters, doesn't make it more transparent than private companies.

You're so full of shit.

If you seriously put politics ahead of your family you're a horrible person.

[GRT]

Haha, I love how your response to a comment on a socioeconomic issue is to challenge him on a personal level. You will be a great future American politician.

[Kuya]

In other words Kuya, unless I don't understand your question, just because our govt. has no right to privacy, except in national security matters, doesn't make it more transparent than private companies.

Irrelevant. The public sector is being compared with the private sector. The issue is: if the government has no right to privacy but the private sector does, then the government (or sectors within the government that aren't allowd privacy/secrecy) are more likely to be more transparent (and therefore more easily accountable) than the private sector.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You're so full of shit.

If you seriously put politics ahead of your family you're a horrible person.

No one is obligated to act for my benefit Rhino. In my opinion the horrible person would be the one who believes he's entitled to other people's involuntary labor.

And I don't believe politics are necessary to solve the problem in your scenario. Thus, politics wouldn't be before my family.

Kuya: Now I see. The key word in your response is "likely." But, more important is your statement that because the govt. has "no right to privacy" it is more easily accountable. I don't believe so because transparency in govt. currently is more related to unelected bureaucrats. Fannie and Freddie are losing billions of dollars every quarter, yet who are they accountable to? Their behavior is not going to change because of you and I. If enough people find out about it, I don't think their behavior is likely to change. But a private company, they are not guaranteed to get your money, and if enough people find out about w/e it is they are doing wrong, they are not going to get their money.

[Kuya]

I don't believe so because transparency in govt. currently is more related to unelected bureaucrats

Electability is related to accountability, and not transperency. The president is elected (somewhat) but he still has the wherewithal to deem some of the things he does secret.

A private company can be held accountable because of customers and shareholders, and an elected official can be held accountable by voters, but what an unelected official has over a private company is that the former can't keep what he does and who he is a secret. If an unelected official is found wanting, he can be held accountable indirectly by exerting preassure over the elected officials who designate him.

In the private sector there is some accountability via the customer and shareholder, and also via the courts (who are part of the government), but in the government, some parts can be elected and transparent, others elected, and others transparent, and not to mention subject to the courts. Not to mention that in the public sector votes are (supposed to) be equal, while in the private sector influence is not equal. Some have more money than others, but all votes are worth the same.

It's pretty self evident; unelected officials can be transparent and they can be held accountable indirectly via the officials that are elected, while a company can be held accountable via money, but it is not as transparent as even an unelected official, generally. The courts can interfere with both, and votes are assured equality of influence. More accountability and transperency can generally be found at the government. Of course, just as long as the government is a democracy or a democratic republic.

[BerenTebogo]

http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.co...wakefield.html

About halfway down is extremely relevant to this thread. Problem is not limited to America it would seem. UK isn't doing much better on impartial journalism when it comes to some shit.

[Zoolander]

This is kind of a tangent rant about the media that set me off today. I've been studying DR Congo pretty extensively lately, I'm sure you guys in here are at least familiar with it. So today, what is the article giving DRC a bit of rare press on the front pages no less of CNN, Al Jazeera English, and BBC? This stupid shit: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/af...545278537.html

At least 220 people have been killed after a lorry carrying fuel overturned on a highway and leaked oil that triggered an explosion in a village in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, officials say.

Now don't get me wrong, this is a terrible tragedy, but I mean come on. This is eastern DR Congo, South Kivu, quite literally the worst place on earth for the last decade. 5.4 million dead since 1998, estimated something like 34,000 deaths a month...but 200 deaths from an accident? This story has no actual relevance, no underlying issue of politics, violence etc, its just some shit luck that will not educate anyone on anything or actually have any hope of improving anything. But its a good read I guess.

Idk if I have much of a point, just hella annoyed that the rare press about drc is something so minuscule in comparison to the real problem.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Electability is related to accountability, and not transperency. The president is elected (somewhat) but he still has the wherewithal to deem some of the things he does secret.

A private company can be held accountable because of customers and shareholders, and an elected official can be held accountable by voters, but what an unelected official has over a private company is that the former can't keep what he does and who he is a secret. If an unelected official is found wanting, he can be held accountable indirectly by exerting preassure over the elected officials who designate him.

In the private sector there is some accountability via the customer and shareholder, and also via the courts (who are part of the government), but in the government, some parts can be elected and transparent, others elected, and others transparent, and not to mention subject to the courts. Not to mention that in the public sector votes are (supposed to) be equal, while in the private sector influence is not equal. Some have more money than others, but all votes are worth the same.

It's pretty self evident; unelected officials can be transparent and they can be held accountable indirectly via the officials that are elected, while a company can be held accountable via money, but it is not as transparent as even an unelected official, generally. The courts can interfere with both, and votes are assured equality of influence. More accountability and transperency can generally be found at the government. Of course, just as long as the government is a democracy or a democratic republic.

I have no doubt that everything you said is correct and logical. Where I disagree is unelected officials. I agree they can be held accountable indirectly via the officials that are elected, where I differ is whether they are. I don't think they are. Every day we here about this one doing that, and that one doing this, yet there are never any consequences. None. Sure one might get fired, but the behavior is never corrected. When the EPA passes cap and tax, nothing will happen even though the people don't want it.

[Rhinox]

I have no doubt that everything you said is correct and logical. Where I disagree is unelected officials. I agree they can be held accountable indirectly via the officials that are elected, where I differ is whether they are. I don't think they are. Every day we here about this one doing that, and that one doing this, yet there are never any consequences. None. Sure one might get fired, but the behavior is never corrected. When the EPA passes cap and tax, nothing will happen even though the people don't want it.

EPA isn't gonna pass Cap and trade jesus fucking christ.


You're the same person that cried that the Senate was going to use the "Slaughter rule" to deem and pass HCR and it never happened.

Just more Scare tactics by Frank Luntz and the GOP blogosphere is regurgitating it.

[Sepukku]

Now don't get me wrong, this is a terrible tragedy, but I mean come on. This is eastern DR Congo, South Kivu, quite literally the worst place on earth for the last decade. 5.4 million dead since 1998, estimated something like 34,000 deaths a month...but 200 deaths from an accident? This story has no actual relevance, no underlying issue of politics, violence etc, its just some shit luck that will not educate anyone on anything or actually have any hope of improving anything. But its a good read I guess.

You know I was thinking the same thing... Tsunami killing hundreds of thousands? International Headlines News. 200 people dying in an accident somewhere on Earth? Not international headlines news.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

EPA isn't gonna pass Cap and trade jesus fucking christ.


You're the same person that cried that the Senate was going to use the "Slaughter rule" to deem and pass HCR and it never happened.

Just more Scare tactics by Frank Luntz and the GOP blogosphere is regurgitating it.

It didn't happen b/c they didn't need to, not b/c it was bullshit.

[Not not Mattaru]

The real question is do you want to listen to a donkey in a swamp (only person that ever arguably worked for was a giant ogre named Shrek)?