Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post Reply
User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Hermit » Tue May 10, 2011 1:24 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:
Geoff wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
We see more blood and guts on the evening news every day. And, we had to watch our countrymen jump out of a burning building 10 years ago.

The last thing I want the government doing is deciding what is too yucky for me to see. If it bears a legitimate, substantial national security interest, then fine. When there is no more interest, release the information no matter what it is. The fact that some people think it's irrelevant or distasteful should not be a factor.
I agree with zilla about Oreskes, though - he doesn't give a shit about the historical record, he just wants his ratings going up.
That's what I was talking about. He doesn't give a shit about history, just the bottom line.
Surely, some libertarian will turn up any moment now to lecture us about "the invisible hand", "private greed leads to public good" and stuff like that.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue May 10, 2011 1:29 pm

So what if he doesn't care about history? Whether he cares about it or not, the fact still remains that news is news, and this is news. And, news and current events are the "first draft of history," and that too is important, irrespective of the cares and wishes of Oreskes.

Moreover, we all know what the sentiment of releasing the picture would be if Bush was President. Imagine the howling if Bush wanted to protect us from viewing a gruesome picture, and claimed it was because the sensitivities of a tiny number of Muslim terrorists (who already want to kill Americans if they get the chance) might be offended....

Will anyone honestly say that they would have been four square behind the Bush administration withholding this information under the same or similar circumstances?

I would most certainly be in favor of releasing the phone, regardless.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue May 10, 2011 1:30 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:So what if he doesn't care about history? Whether he cares about it or not, the fact still remains that news is news, and this is news. And, news and current events are the "first draft of history," and that too is important, irrespective of the cares and wishes of Oreskes.

Moreover, we all know what the sentiment of releasing the picture would be if Bush was President. Imagine the howling if Bush wanted to protect us from viewing a gruesome picture, and claimed it was because the sensitivities of a tiny number of Muslim terrorists (who already want to kill Americans if they get the chance) might be offended....

Will anyone honestly say that they would have been four square behind the Bush administration withholding this information under the same or similar circumstances?
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of his posturing. Nothing new there, of course.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue May 10, 2011 1:30 pm

Seraph wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
Geoff wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
We see more blood and guts on the evening news every day. And, we had to watch our countrymen jump out of a burning building 10 years ago.

The last thing I want the government doing is deciding what is too yucky for me to see. If it bears a legitimate, substantial national security interest, then fine. When there is no more interest, release the information no matter what it is. The fact that some people think it's irrelevant or distasteful should not be a factor.
I agree with zilla about Oreskes, though - he doesn't give a shit about the historical record, he just wants his ratings going up.
That's what I was talking about. He doesn't give a shit about history, just the bottom line.
Surely, some libertarian will turn up any moment now to lecture us about "the invisible hand", "private greed leads to public good" and stuff like that.
Free press is now a loopy Libertarian notion?

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue May 10, 2011 1:31 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:So what if he doesn't care about history? Whether he cares about it or not, the fact still remains that news is news, and this is news. And, news and current events are the "first draft of history," and that too is important, irrespective of the cares and wishes of Oreskes.

Moreover, we all know what the sentiment of releasing the picture would be if Bush was President. Imagine the howling if Bush wanted to protect us from viewing a gruesome picture, and claimed it was because the sensitivities of a tiny number of Muslim terrorists (who already want to kill Americans if they get the chance) might be offended....

Will anyone honestly say that they would have been four square behind the Bush administration withholding this information under the same or similar circumstances?
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of his posturing. Nothing new there, of course.
His hypocrisy is irrelevant, though.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue May 10, 2011 1:32 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:So what if he doesn't care about history? Whether he cares about it or not, the fact still remains that news is news, and this is news. And, news and current events are the "first draft of history," and that too is important, irrespective of the cares and wishes of Oreskes.

Moreover, we all know what the sentiment of releasing the picture would be if Bush was President. Imagine the howling if Bush wanted to protect us from viewing a gruesome picture, and claimed it was because the sensitivities of a tiny number of Muslim terrorists (who already want to kill Americans if they get the chance) might be offended....

Will anyone honestly say that they would have been four square behind the Bush administration withholding this information under the same or similar circumstances?
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of his posturing. Nothing new there, of course.
His hypocrisy is irrelevant, though.
Oh fuck! We disagree about different subjects. I never thought I'd see the day. :faints:
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue May 10, 2011 1:38 pm

Shocking!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Hermit » Tue May 10, 2011 1:44 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seraph wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
Geoff wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
We see more blood and guts on the evening news every day. And, we had to watch our countrymen jump out of a burning building 10 years ago.

The last thing I want the government doing is deciding what is too yucky for me to see. If it bears a legitimate, substantial national security interest, then fine. When there is no more interest, release the information no matter what it is. The fact that some people think it's irrelevant or distasteful should not be a factor.
I agree with zilla about Oreskes, though - he doesn't give a shit about the historical record, he just wants his ratings going up.
That's what I was talking about. He doesn't give a shit about history, just the bottom line.
Surely, some libertarian will turn up any moment now to lecture us about "the invisible hand", "private greed leads to public good" and stuff like that.
Free press is now a loopy Libertarian notion?
I should have added that wilful misreading of post will follow.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue May 10, 2011 2:11 pm

Seraph wrote: I should have added that wilful misreading of post will follow.
Sorry to offend you.

However, a free press means people are allowed to sell newspapers, and that newspapers are free to print what they like, and the government isn't generally supposed to keep secrets (particularly when secrets are kept for convenience or to avoid offending people). Free press and a lack of secrets (except where necessary for significant, articulable and demonstrable reasons) are important to maintain a stable democracy. That's true whether the AP is run by a greedy SOB or a nicey-nicey guy, and that's true whether Libertarians think we should have laissez-fair economics or otherwise.

Other than the fact that folks like Obama and think he's dreamy: why ought the photos not be released?

If it's because they are bloody, that seems rather stupid, since we had to live through 9/11 to begin with and we see more grisly imagery on an episode of Law and Order than in a few snaps of Osama. And, if it's for national security - what's national security about a photo of a guy we all know has been killed? Because Muslims who already want us eliminated from the face of the Earth might get a tad more peeved than they already are (since they too know we executed their idol)....

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Hermit » Tue May 10, 2011 2:26 pm

Coito, personally I am in favour of releasing the photos, the videos, the sounds and smells of everything to do with bin Laden. My initial remark was to agree with Gawdzilla's comment regarding Oreskes' Trojan horse. Then I went on to anticipate that some shithead is bound to defend the hypocrisy along the lines I hinted at. If you want to keep banging the drum about a "free press", I'll join you, (after qualifying just how free a press owned by billionaires with fingers in a thousand money making pies actually is) but kindly stick your strawman arguments up your arse and let me light them for you.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue May 10, 2011 6:17 pm

Seraph wrote:Coito, personally I am in favour of releasing the photos, the videos, the sounds and smells of everything to do with bin Laden. My initial remark was to agree with Gawdzilla's comment regarding Oreskes' Trojan horse. Then I went on to anticipate that some shithead is bound to defend the hypocrisy along the lines I hinted at. If you want to keep banging the drum about a "free press", I'll join you, (after qualifying just how free a press owned by billionaires with fingers in a thousand money making pies actually is) but kindly stick your strawman arguments up your arse and let me light them for you.
I didn't make an argument other than one you apparently agree with.

However, a free press isn't less free because some press outlets are huge. As long as anyone can publish what they want, it's a free press. You may not be able to get your stuff on MSNBC, but because other people's press is not open to you doesn't make the press un-free. Nowadays, we have the freest press in the history of mankind here in the West (US and Europe). Never before in the history of mankind can, for the equivalent of a few hundred dollars, can a single person send out a message on almost any topic and have it viewable by almost anyone else in the world.

Sitting at a desk on a $250 out of date computer, with a $40 a month high speed internet connection, a person can publish pamphlets like Thomas Paine and rail against whatever he or she wants to rail against. People like Matt Drudge and Ariana Huffington, our own Seth, and you and me, can start websites and report the news as well as opinion and reach more people than Thomas Paine could reach in a year of hardscrabble work.

It's certainly true to say that CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews aren't free to you and me, in the sense that they don't give equal access to anyone who wants to say something and they certainly prefer people who pay them money, but that doesn't mean we don't have a "free press" overall.

Not sure what you're pissed off about, but the idea of straw up my arse, on fire or not, does not seem appealing. Maybe if you kiss it, it'll be a little bit better.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by sandinista » Tue May 10, 2011 7:45 pm

Seraph wrote:Coito, personally I am in favour of releasing the photos, the videos, the sounds and smells of everything to do with bin Laden. My initial remark was to agree with Gawdzilla's comment regarding Oreskes' Trojan horse. Then I went on to anticipate that some shithead is bound to defend the hypocrisy along the lines I hinted at. If you want to keep banging the drum about a "free press", I'll join you, (after qualifying just how free a press owned by billionaires with fingers in a thousand money making pies actually is) but kindly stick your strawman arguments up your arse and let me light them for you.
That's about what I was thinking. Free press? Doesn't exist. Hasn't for a while. The press/media is a virtual monopoly, they print what is in their and their advertisers best interests. Nothing free about it. I guess what CES is saying is that because of the internet their is a free press. To a certain extent, yes, but most sites link to mainstream news reports to "prove" or "validate" their story. So, yes, anyone can say pretty much anything on the net (those who have access, the education to use the net, and the cash) but the mainstream corporate press is far from free.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue May 10, 2011 8:04 pm

When did it exist?

When did "the press/media" not have a "virtual monopoly" over the press? The press/media ARE the press.

The difference today is that people actually have MORE influence on what is published than they ever did in the history of mankind. You and I, from the comfort of our own chairs, can reach more people than a newspaper of just a century ago did, and probably more than a newspaper of half a century ago. The ability to report on news and publish opinions has never been greater for the individual than it is today.

Most sites link to mainstream news reports to prove or validate the story because mainstream news sites are actually pretty darn accurate. I'd much rather read CNN than "prison planet" or "alternet" or some other basement opinion site.

Of course those who have access to the internet are the ones who can use the internet. That's just like those with access to printing presses were those that could print newspapers, and those with typewriters are those that can type. The reality is that the internet is often free, and is available at low prices.

The education to use the net is of course required to use the net, just as the education to write is required to write a story.

That has always been the case. Thus your "hasn't for a while" is bogus. If what you say is true, it NEVER existed, and it's the best it has ever been right now. It most certainly hasn't gotten harder for people to be reporters and writers of opinions. It has only gotten easier.

As for the "mainstream corporate press is far from free" - you mean - far from free TO YOU to publish what YOU want. The people that own one outfit or another are free to publish what they like. That's what a free press is. People are free to start their own press and publish what they want. It has never meant, nor is it possible to ever mean, that the individual man on the street John Q. Public has the same power as MSNBC does. That would be ridiculous.

But, if you're good, you can build up a media outlet - Drudge Report - Huffington Post - DailyKos, etc. These are just people doing what they want.

Your idea of freeing the press would be to bring MSNBC and CNN and FoxNews under public control, right? That's the exact opposite of what I think of when I think of a free press. Freedom from the government, not some notion that by being publicly owned the press would magically be "free."

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by sandinista » Tue May 10, 2011 8:48 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:I'd much rather read CNN than "prison planet" or "alternet" or some other basement opinion site.
Well, that's where we disagree.
Coito ergo sum wrote:The people that own one outfit or another are free to publish what they like.
exactly. So, mainstream news outlets are free, as far as "free" means "free to print what they wish". Of course, the problem with that is a "news" service that is extremely biased. The problems being omission (stories that run counter to the prevailing propaganda lines), concision (only telling partial stories and partial truths) and, at time, running flat out lies. I think perhaps we are simply disagreeing on the term "free".
Coito ergo sum wrote:But, if you're good, you can build up a media outlet
such as znet, alternet, democracy now etc. True, but the majority of the people still rely on mainstream news outlets.
Coito ergo sum wrote:Your idea of freeing the press would be to bring MSNBC and CNN and FoxNews under public control, right? That's the exact opposite of what I think of when I think of a free press. Freedom from the government, not some notion that by being publicly owned the press would magically be "free."
Well, partially true. Where you think that the press should be free from the government (which they are not seeing as the government is the corporate sector anyway) I think the press should be free from corporate powers. If...the government represented the people (a fancy notion) then it would follow that a government media would represent the people more so than corporate media which only represents their advertisers and CEO's.

Have you read, or seen the film, manufacturing consent? I would recommend a viewing or reading. Might change your mind as to what "free" really means when it comes to media control.

Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
.Morticia.
Comrade Morticia
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:14 am
About me: Card Carrying Groucho Marxist
Location: Bars and Communist Dens of Iniquity

Re: Osama bin Laden: Dead

Post by .Morticia. » Tue May 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Historically Free meant Secular.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. ~ Marx

Do you really think it is weakness that yields to temptation? I tell you that there are terrible temptations which it requires strength, strength and courage to yield to. ~ Oscar Wilde

Love Me I'm A Liberal

The Communist Menace

Running The World

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests