大象传媒

William:

I know that I am stupid, naive, paranoid, suspicious, whining, and anything else you like, but would you or someone else please explain to me in terms that I can understand why the media in Britain give so much publicity to what happens in America?

Please don't fob me off with the usual, "I's an important country, what it does affects us all", crap. Every country and every individual in this world SHOULD be important and SHOULD be treated with equal dignity and respect. American are no better and no worse than any other people. So why on earth do Americans and what happens in America receive so much attention here?

I find it totally bizarre, surrealistic even. It's not as if it is a role model for the rest of us. After all, for 8 years it had George W Bush as President (he was re-elected only 4 years ago, for heaven's sake). It has fought more wars since WW2 than any other country and killed more people in other countries than any other country. Its film and video game culture is psychotically bloodthisty. Its society is more violent and has more people in prison than any other nation.

Yet there is a general media fawning of it in the UK, whose government, Labour or Tory, follows its foreign policies slavishly.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the UK and Ireland are both members of the European Union, not two of the United States of America.

There has so much media hype about Obama, encouraged of course by his own high-flown rhetoric, that the poor man is bound to sink into a mire of disillusionment ere long.

I think Graham is right. I am tempted to get rid of the TV, except that I would miss the football and the cricket and the racing. I certainly wouldn't miss the news or be any less informed about it.

Brain

"There has so much media hype about Obama, encouraged of course by his own high-flown rhetoric, that the poor man is bound to sink into a mire of disillusionment ere long."

I agree. The words which came to mind this afternoon and tonight as I listened and watched were, 'Hosanna, Hosanna.... Crucify, Crucify.'

And I really do hope that the picture at the top of the thread is ironic.

Brian, it's not only the British media that's covering this thing, it's the WORLD'S media. You are seriously missing the point, I'm afraid. Think Roman Emperor, and you come close to the role of America in the world today.

"Every country and every individual in this world SHOULD be important and SHOULD be treated with equal dignity"

- Yes William, this would be true in an ideal world, however by forming your opinions according to this you loose sight of reality- America has a significant role in all levels of international politics- (surprise!) and as such the politics of the president resonate worldwide (whether we like it or not). I wish our country had a more integrated relationship with Europe, however I feel the British people are right in welcoming a change in attitude from the American Premiership on the basis that it supports many of the commonly held EU notions G. W. Bush has ignored.

You don't have to be flying flags to be seeing hope here...

brianmcclinton;

"would you or someone else please explain to me in terms that I can understand why the media in Britain give so much publicity to what happens in America?"

"It has fought more wars since WW2 than any other country and killed more people in other countries than any other country. Its film and video game culture is psychotically bloodthisty. Its society is more violent and has more people in prison than any other nation."

Perhaps it's to keep tabs on what's going on there to see if there are any intentions of going to war with the UK (again.) Not much the UK could do about it if they did but still it would be nice to know so that the end doesn't come as a complete surprise.
:-)

One if by land, two if by sea.....

Augustine:

Sure, the Roman Empire is a good parallel in many ways, but it didn't have the media to sustain it. My gripe is that things should not be this way and we only feed it by constantly giving it the oxygen of incessant publicity.

TomUndy:

Sure we can hope, and hope is a good thing. But that was not my point.

On hope:

According to the 19th American agnostic Robert Ingersoll, hope is the only universal liar who never loses his reputation for veracity.

I agree. Why should I watch or listen to 大象传媒 when all I hear about is my own country. For that I could do far better watching and listening to domestic sources of news where they have experts who actually understand what's going on including all of the nuances. Who was 大象传媒's expert on American poltics election night, Ted Koppel? What a joke.

I agree. America needs to set its own house in order before it goes around poking and breaking into others' houses. We have too much power. Not only that, we don't hold ourselves to the standards we set. This is why I voted Ron Paul and Bob Barr. This is why I supported the aforementioned (and Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney, Nader and Baldwin) over Obama.

I hope that President Obama's presidency will put back our economy in shape.

In his inaugural address, Obama said:
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers". That, at least, is promising. Is it the first time an American President has acknowledged the existence of non-believers?

Brian, you really are a whinger.

John
It's Brian's God given right to complain. He's retired.

It's exactly what I'm planning to do if God spares me.

GV

Bob Barr
Wasn't he the dad in "The Incredibles"?

Brian-

GV- LOL! Bob Barr was the libertarian nominee this election. I'm more of a 'small-l' libertarian and wasn't that interested in him, particularly the detail that it was impossible for him to win. Ron Paul, on the other hand, was truly a gift, the one that got away. Oy vey.

John:

I was around in 1997 and the New Dawn and 'Things Can only Get Better' of Tony Blair and New Labour. I know only too well that humanity is prone to putting certain people up on pedestals, only to pull them down and bey for their blood when they fail to deliver. Then they transmogrify from being revered as gods to being reviled as liars and hypocrites.

Politicians have too high an opinion of themselves and the public expect too much from them. Journalists and the media are generally less interested in the truth than in a 'good' story, whether positive or negative.

Look, I am pleased that Bush has gone to play cowboys on his ranch inside of inside the White House and that America has its first black President (and about time too), but all this showbiz hype of what is, after all, only a ceremony is really weird.

I would be the first to admit that the atheist bus campaign is also only a media 'event' of no real substance in itself. But it proves my point. The publicity is unbelievable, but over what? A statement of an opinion on the side of a bus? Struth! Where have you heard an in-depth of the veracity of this statement, other than on a few blogs like this one?

"There is probably no God". Has this been discussed on radio, TV or the newspapers? Oh no, it's all talk about the wording, bus drivers who refuse to carry the slogan, evangelicals who think it is offensive - anything other than the substantive opinion. That would be too 'dry', 'deep' and unexciting, wouldn't it? It would soon lose the listeners, readers or viewers, and we can't have that, can we?

You're right, of course, Brian.

But I'm afraid that's just the way it is. If you want Channel 5 news to have an in-depth debate about the existence of God, the scope of global cultural and political American influence, or, indeed, the essentially lowest-common-denominator element of the media...you're not going to get it.

I don't really see your point.

Journalists like an easy story...yes...and so, probably, do most people.

so what?

And anyway, at the end of the day the in-depth discussions that you crave are available, now more than ever. You just have to dig deep to find them.

So there's no real problem. anyone who wants such deeper understandings are not hindered from finding them.

We just have to go looking.

Bernard:

Do you live in the real world? It is a world where despots and dictators have fooled people with their hatred, their lies and their half-truths?

The point is that if soundbite simplification dominates public discourse, then complex arguments and truths can get buried. A reactionary, right-view is easily put. Hang 'em ll, flog them all etc.

A more liberal or complex view is not so easily put in soundbites. It is precisely for this reason that many intellectuals don't perform well in the media. They are trying to deal with complexity and most of the media want simplicity.

Not everyone is as discerning as you or me or has the time to sort out truth from falsehood. They rely on the media for their information.

Over the last three weeks Israeli government spokesmen have been trotted out to spin about their appalling onslaught on the people of Gaza. No doubt many people have believed them.

To find the truth, you have to read some serious newspapers or radical websites, or watch Aljazeera, not the Sun, Mirror or the Daily Express.

But Brian...I agree with you.

I'm only saying, you seem to be stating the obvious.

"To find the truth, you have to read some serious newspapers or radical websites, or watch Aljazeera, not the Sun, Mirror or the Daily Express."

Yes. I'm sure we all know that. I'm not sure this is an issue. Do you want people to respond to your views, or are you just venting spleen.

But you are right. no doubt about it. I just don't get your point.

If I made a post stating "Isn't it terrible there are so many nasty people in the world"...would you wonder why I bothered?

But yes, you are right

Bernard:

QUE SERA SERA

It seems that either you disagree with me or I am stating the obvious. Perhaps the bus slogan should read:"It is obvious that God probably doesn't exist".

Why bother commenting if I am stating the obvious?

As for saying that it is just the way things are, presumably, many Germans thought the same during the Holocaust. Similarly, if the Israelis can slaughter 400 children and leave thousands homeless with impunity, well, that's just the way things are.

I would have assumed that you, as a Christian, are not entirely happy with the way many things are. Seemingly not.

The word is full of poverty, injustice, killings, lies, deceptions.
But Bernard's great insight is that it is just the way things are. I'm sure there's song about it. Doris Day, perhaps?

Brian, aren't you reading anymore?

you said;

"It seems that either you disagree with me or I am stating the obvious"

I said; "Brian...I agree with you... (but)you seem to be stating the obvious"

That's fairly clear.

"I would have assumed that you, as a Christian, are not entirely happy with the way many things are. Seemingly not."

Of course I am not entirely happy with the way things are. Who is?

The reason I've bothered commenting is that I'm trying to work out what your point is.


"The word is full of poverty, injustice, killings, lies, deceptions"

Yes, i know.

"But Bernard's great insight is that it is just the way things are"

Whereas your great insight is....what?

For you've said absolutely nothing but give a list of things to complain about.

I KNOW that these things are worthy of complaint. I just don't see what point you're trying to make in bringing them up here, other than as an excuse for a whine.

Usually you're whining about Christians, or theocracy, or discrimination.

Now you just seem to be whining that the world isn't as nice as you would like it to be.

So, although I may have been flippant in saying "that's just the way things are"...you have offered absolutely nothing more, other than a list of horrid things.

Yes very good. it was a very inclusive list. But if you're attempting to persuade us that the world isn't perfect, why waste your breath? We already know. In fact, it's a fundamental tenet of my faith, whereas, as a humanist i would have assumed you would have taken a rosier view of human nature.

I don't mean to get at you here, and I realise that this may look like a pointless jab at you, but I genuinely thought you were presenting an argument or a conclusion, whereas in fact you are just saying "isn't the world horrible, and aren't people stupid".

Feel free, but I was waiting on the punchline.

What is your conclusion, and what does this have to do with Obama?

Bernard:

The twisted and distorted soundbites in which you frequently engage, especially when you are riled, are a perfect example of what I am whining about. You have a nice line in objectivity:

You criticise, whereas I whine.
You are insightful, whereas I state the obvious.
You think the world is imperfect, whereas I think it is horrid.
You think that people are sinful, whereas I think they are stupid.

So, although the Pope had ample evidence of the Holocaust against the Jews and it was clear what was happening, he wisely kept silent, according to your logic, because it would have been stating the obvious and he would have been accused of whining. Again, although the Catholic Church had abundant evidence of child abuse, it kept quiet about the culprits because it would have been exposing what was obvious to anyone of above average intelligence.

You say that the imperfections of the world is a tenet of your faith. Humanists would put it similarly, though we would take a more existentialist view: human beings aren鈥檛 essentially good or bad but are capable of either. And you certainly won鈥檛 make them better by being silent about obvious wrongs. Indeed, as a teacher, I find this attitude ludicrous. What may be obvious to you or me is certainly not obvious to teenagers, although they have their own simple certainties, which a teacher tries to ruffle.

Humanists believe in encouraging good qualities, but you won鈥檛 do this by a kind of spiritual resignation which says: 鈥淎h, that鈥檚 the way things are鈥�. I don鈥檛 believe 鈥榯he world is horrid鈥�, though there are horrid things in it. Nor do I believe that 鈥榩eople are stupid鈥�. In fact, this is a really stupid statement from a supposed learned Christian; I suggest you refine your reasoning somewhat.

Widespread disillusionment with politics is not a good thing and often leads to support for people who promise sincerity beyond politics, which is precisely what Hitler did. In the UK, the failure of Blair and New labour to deliver on their promises has led to a large degree of cynicism and apathy about politics, which is always dangerous. The same could happen in America, and it is not mere 鈥榳hining鈥� to point it out. Obama cannot possibly deliver because he has promised too much and too many others hope for too much. The hype feeds the expectations and makes the disappointment all the more bitter.

I don鈥檛 believe in silence in the face of wrong, however small the wrong is or however obvious it may be to a truly 鈥榠nsightful鈥� Christian like yourself

Remember the poem attributed to Niemoller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Brian;

Your self-righteous nobility spectacularly misses my point.

I'm not at all suggesting we should take a disillussioned jaded view of life just because it's imperfect.

We should always speak out about injustice.

My point is, here and now, on an internet blog, on a specific topic..

aren't you just whining?

You take to Stormont or the whitehouse with the above message and I'll applaud you.

But aren't you, here and now, just looking for an excuse to whine?

Take it to the streets, Brian.

Bernard:

"My point is, here and now, on an internet blog, on a specific topic". What the holy rosary does this mean?

I have 'taken to the streets' on many occasions on many issues, Gay Pride, trade union rights, the Middle East. etc. But politics is certainly not all street fighting. You are unnecessarily restricting the range of this blog. Many of its subjects are political and ethical, including this thread (about a coverage of an inauguration of a President), or hadn't you noticed? Not all issues revolve around you or the subtle distinctions between Protestant and Catholic theology and whether or not the universe is rational according to your esoteric formulation of that concept.

Come out of the cloisters, Bernard, and face up to the real world. Show a little humility yourself.

OK Brian, forget it.

I was just looking for the point, and there isn't one.

Yes the world is horrid.

Yes we should do what we can.

thanks for telling me

Bernard:

There is a point, which relates to the media's distorting image of the world and the issues in it.

I have already said that the world is not horrid but that thee are horrid things in it. But you don't listen. There are many beautiful things in the world too. And many of them are simple things, like
listening to a Bach Brandenburg Concerto on a sunny morning or walking the dog, or watching the smile on a child's face when it shows enthusiasm about learninge, or the smell of a rose.

I'm afraid, I think you want to pigeon-hole me because I am an atheist. Well, it won't happen, I can assure you. So you forget it.

Bernard:

You wrote:

"We should always speak out about injustice.

My point is, here and now, on an internet blog, on a specific topic..

aren't you just whining?

You take to Stormont or the whitehouse with the above message and I'll applaud you".

But when I told I often do get involved outside this blog, you shift the ground of your attack to again implying that I am only stating the obvious. What is really obvious is that if one line of attack doesn't work, you switch to another one which contradicts the earlier one. You should read your entries to see what a bundle of contradictions they really are.

Brian;

If your point is that the media distorts reality...fair play. you're right.

It's the shoe-horning in of this nonsense...

"So, although the Pope had ample evidence of the Holocaust against the Jews and it was clear what was happening, he wisely kept silent, according to your logic, because it would have been stating the obvious and he would have been accused of whining. Again, although the Catholic Church had abundant evidence of child abuse, it kept quiet about the culprits because it would have been exposing what was obvious to anyone of above average intelligence."

...that deflects attention away from your quite plain point.

But I agree with you.

Ok?

Bernard:

One of my points is that your attempt to censor or curtail my criticism by labelling it whining is akin to government flak designed to stifle opposition.

Silence about anything that we don't agree with or consider very wrong is generally taken as assent. The reference to the pope and the Holocaust is not a shoe-horning in of nonsense, as you put it. On the contrary, it is a paradigm case of my argument.

Why did Pius XII maintain a public silence about the holocaust throughout the war, despite the fact that he had full knowledge of it from the beginning? He never even informed the people of Europe of its occurrence, so that by withholding information he led them to believe that things were less dire than they were.

Contrast this silence with the case of Denmark. Despite the country being under Nazi rule, the Danish Lutheran Church condemned anti-semitism from the pulpit and in newspapers. When deportation of Jews began in 1943, a letter was read from every Lutheran pulpit, leading ordinary Danes in their thousands to ferry Jews to safety in neutral Sweden.

By contrast, two weeks later, the Germans deported 1,900 Jews from Rome to Auschwitz and the Vatican said nothing. If the Danish and ordinary Danes had emulated the Pope, then all the 7,000 Jews they saved in this way would have ended up like the deported Jews of Rome whom the Pope abandoned, i.e. dead.

For whatever reason, Pius XII apparently failed to realise that silence in the face of mass murder is definitely not the way to save the victims. Of course, the Vatican had Concordats with both Mussolini's and Hitler's governments.

Now, both you and I have not remained silent on the Israeli slaughter in Gaza. We feel it our moral duty to express our horror at this outrage against humanity.

Surely, the same applies to the Holocaust against Jews. And if it does, how do you explain the Pope's silence in the face of attempted extermination of European Jewry?

I am sure that William doesn't run this blog to engender cosy agreement. I think he is TOO fascinated with American politics. And I do also that this is a failure of western journalists in general.

It is not such a huge leap from the media giving a country incessant publicity to the people in that country thinking they matter more than people anywhere else.
And that is not good for humanity in general.