every single press organization in every capitalist country has tried to represent what the audience wants.

Wrong.

you're arguing that this selective bias only exists in America, not in any other country.

Wrong. I'm saying people in here that react to my opinion that the press should not disclose non-public figured in a humiliating way, like the one in this case, by raving about the US superior freedom of the press as the basis for such a disclosure to be necessary are full of shit. That's always been my point, but then you're once again trying to put the other part (me) in as bad as a light as possible while bringing up unrelated shit (fuck, I even stated why this isn't comparable to Watergate in one of my first posts by this being sensational bullshit and yet you try to drag it in here anyway) and I have to reply to your shit and thus you're dragging me further away from what this is really about.

the press follows controversy, but it leans to what the people who watch the press lean to. you seem to think that the US press failed in regards to Iraq, despite like I said every press organization being found free of bias, but they didn't fail to report the sketchiness of the Iraq issue; people just didn't want to hear it. so pro-Iraq voices became more common on talk shows.

Bullshit. Your media doesn't cover what people want them to cover, they cover what they want people to want them to cover!

it's not POLITICAL forces that shape the press, it's capitalist.

Capitalist forces and political forces in the USA are distinguishable now?

claiming a certain unpopular political view was underrepresented doesn't mean the "wrong people" were paying them off, it's because the American people were scared and coerced by the government into believing Iraq was a threat, and the press ECHOING that. granted, you'll get a recursive loop eventually but obviously no one likes Bush now so the loop is broken, usually by...the press.

Calling major US press post-9/11 pre-Iraq war anything but a major showcase of camouflaged propaganda is bullshit.

and once again, you're ignoring what these cases of journalists being put on trial are about; they're leaking TRIAL INFO 90% of the time.

What cases? The ones I posted? About the cameraman going to Guantanamo and the blogger going to jail? Stop trying to distract.

you can't do that, because then you fuck up the justice system and someone else's life gets ruined.

Fuck what is this topic about? Why did this massive derail even start?

Because the press is ruining someone else's life?

Since Northern European countries almost NEVER see this kind of infringement, they never have the case go to court, and so they have a ratio of zero percent, putting them all at the top. since the US has more journalists, more trials, more federal cases, and more people, having even ten cases like this skyrockets them past all those Northern Europe countries.

Everything is proportional.

you can't take a few solitary examples and call them indicative of a political agenda to put the press against the wall.

I'm not sure if you're talking about solitary examples of press people being punished or the press protecting the political system??

Either way I think the former were pretty grand cases (especially Judith Miller) which did cause headlines here so I'd say you can base opinions on those??

And post 9/11 press shows how much media is run by people with agendas yes/no???

this is true EVERYWHERE there is a capitalist system.

The American mentality is extremely grounded in capitalist ideals. That is not true for all capitalist system, especially not in the Scandinavian ones, that are also considered extremely successful capitalist states. If you were to live here for a couple of years I'm pretty sure you'd be shocked how different our mentalities are. But even in the USA, with capitalism driving the media, there are owners that control them. Money and fear of losing jobs are closely related in this aspect and I don't exactly think highly of US corps to say the least (altho Microsoft likes to buy me food) (as these often have shares and/or ownership of various media sources??).


But seriously stop driving this so extremely far off from where we were. I'm just saying: Yo, US Press hasn't got the best reputation in recent years (it really hasn't! really really really!) and I think it's hilarious that people have some kind of golden avatar of the US press burned into their mind that seems to pop up ready to fight once I question the point in disclosing a non-public figure in such a humiliating way. What the fuck!!

Also, I recognize this tactic of yours because it's always the same. Discredit the other part by interpreting the other person and having him counter excessive statements based on such an interpretation until you're on safe ground and you're sure to win because the other person has to defend himself from ridiculous statements.

...what?  i don't understand this sentence at all.

Please explain post 9/11 pre Iraq-officially-failed US press then?

Should've had some commas, I agree 8)

I meant US Press in between 9/11 and when the US public started to consider the Iraq war a failure.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. britney spears? CELEBRITY GOSSIP? come on man.

Yeah good point I guess but then again I tabloid != press... =/

But I was more talking about especially the Iraq war, where the press pretty much convinced the US public about how right it was to go to war, how many nukes Saddam had, how Saddam was a terrible terrible dictator etc all to make them flamed up and ready for wartime.

edit: and the same for Obama really since steel brought him up. It seems more the press are trying to make him a phenomena than Obama himself does thus making him a case that sells rather than something he has been.

Are you guys all idiots??  How can you possibly defend the US press with what they did???

So they covered Britany Spears??? That's completely unimportant bullshit, of course they covered it.  It sells papers and still allows them to go on with their agendas.

I'm not good at debating, so I'm going to stop here (but anyone who thinks Iraq had Nukes ever has their head up their ass).



Two years, what the fuck?

Uh this new argument aside, printing this woman's name in the paper isn't going to matter at all.  Printing the majority of non-public figures names isn't going to make a difference.  This is because anyone reading it now is not going to remember the name (can anyone post her name without referring back to the article?) or do anything with the name, and anyone that lives in her town and would know her are definitely aware that she has been on the toilet for this long.  The only people that would want this name is the press who might go hound her for an interview, and they already have the name, or would have gotten it from public record.

Yeah I'm not really thinking of people remembering the name for a long while after, more that everyone who already knew the person will know what she's been up to for the past two years (sitting on a toilet) which can be pretty damn humiliating if she ever runs into anyone who has ever known her and knows of this story imo. 8(

I mean if someone you went to school with/someone you worked with etc had this story about them I'd be pretty damn sure you'd be like "whoa! hahahah!" and tell everyone you know that know her about this story