About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 1:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd like to make a proposal:  Let's ban any references from Fox News and The Washington Times on SoloHQ, in honor of the lessons learned from Ellsworth M Toohey.  Does anyone really believe these are credible newsources? 

Post 1

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 4:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, I do not believe they are credible news sources, but I really do not see how any major news source today (or even many years ago, like the New York Times lying about the 7 million Ukrainians in Stalin's forced famine) is credible news. As with any other news source, you should read it and do your best to get around the bias and lies, and make up your own mind. Objectivism is all about thinking for yourself, so a ban on any newspaper or television programme would be anti-Objectivist.

Post 2

Friday, December 10, 2004 - 7:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
the New York Times lying about the 7 million Ukrainians in Stalin's forced famine
Why do you think they lied about this?


Post 3

Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The story has been told many times. However, since I happen to be reading Mona Charen’s “Useful Idiots,” let me quote her summary (page 87):

 

In the 1930’s Duranty [the Times Moscow reporter] would play a critical role in debunking the “propaganda” that the USSR was experiencing a famine.

 

But, of course, the famine was quite real – not to mention intentional – and took the lives of at least ten million people. In was later called the “terror-famine” because it was the first time in modern history that any nation intentionally starved its own people. But readers of the New York Times heard nothing of it from their renowned Moscow correspondent. We know, through letters and other contemporaneous documents, that Duranty was well aware of the misery being imposed on Russia’s Peasants by the forced collectivization of agriculture. But his dispatches featured cheerleading accounts of the marvels of Soviet agriculture, stories that earned him the Pulitzer Prize “for dispassionate, interpretive reporting from Russia.” Only much later did his reputation suffer when it became impossible to deny that his reporting had been a skein of falsehoods.

 

Malcolm Muggeridge, the foreign correspondent for the Manchester Guardian, was the only Soviet sympathizer in the USSR who reported on the famine at the time. No prizes were issued to him. Instead he was often branded a liar. … At the end of the twentieth century, it was learned that Duranty had been not a dupe but a blackmail victim.

 Charen continues to describe how leading intellectuals defended the Soviet Union and dismissed critics as prejudice. Robert Conquest, of the Hoover Institution, has written extensively on the famine. I believe he wrote the first book on the subject - in the 1980s!


Post 4

Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 5:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry I apparently misunderstood what Tom Stak's meant when he said the New York Times lied about the murder of 7 million Ukrainians. My apology. 

Post 5

Monday, December 13, 2004 - 7:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom, can you truly think for yourself when you are being manipulated intentionally?  I agree that you should judge things for yourself, but sometimes that is impossible if the source has crossed that line of mistakes vs intentional deception/bias.  In the case of Fox, WashTimes, and Rush Limbaugh (especially) the sources are corrupted.  To engage your mind in accepting their reality and logic is to submit to their control.

Further, the old argument of 'everybody does it' is dangerous, in the context of media bias, politician sleeze--whatever.    The case of the NY Times and the famine is indeed graphic, but it is an apples to oranges comparison for the topic discussed here--I'm talking about the Ellsworth Toohey's of our day purposely manipulating their media machines to further their devious goals.


Post 6

Monday, December 13, 2004 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Going back to the original question, I don't think they are credible for the most part. To me, Fox news can, once in a blue moon, be refreshing in that it will approach a story with different point a view other than the usual left. Unfortunately, they too often skip being neutral and jump right into a conservative slant.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.