[ExI] the myth of the US "liberal media"

[Richard Loosemore]

Max More wrote:
> Your argument -- "garbage" -- is very impressive.
>  
> What Samantha said is not garbage at all. For those willing to look, 
> the evidence is all around. It's especially abundant in the areas of 
> climate change and nutrition.
>  
> But, go ahead, nationalize (monopolize) all the media and then see how 
> much freedom of speech remains. Because that's always worked so well 
> in the past.

The word "garbage" was the opening summary, it was not the argument.  If 
you had read a few more words you would have seen the argument.


You made no attempt to address the information I gave following the word 
"garbage".

Instead, you just waved your hands.

Now get down to the facts.  The BBC is government funded.  It has some 
grave shortcomings, but it is also credited as being one of the most 
valuable, unbiased news sources to billions of people around the world. 

In addition, the organization that committed the offence that John 
Pilger referred to -- the censorship -- was NOT government funded.

On both counts, no evidence that government funded media is the source 
of the problem in the article by John Pilger.

That makes Samantha's complaint garbage, since it pointed the finger at 
goverment funded media, contra the two pieces of evidence I gave.

Now, on a more general level, yes, government funded media in many 
countries is pure propaganda.  But completely non-government-funded 
media (e.g. Fox) is also pure propaganda.  My point is that there is no 
strong correlation:  you can have the one with, or without, the other.




Richard Loosemore