Call 'em what you like, my friend.
All I know is "Americans" are no longer "in charge" of corporations doing business in the United States of America for the most part, any longer.
And we can see the result of that lack of control.
*Why* in the world would said corporations do *anything* "patriotic"?
It's a silly unrealistic expectation, don'tcha think?
OK let's take the Australian Rupert Murdoch for example.
Not including his publishing empire, his American broadcast television interests run the whole spectrum from "news" (with the FNC), to "sports" (with MLB/NBA/NFL/NAZZZCAR) to "entertainment" (with FoxTV & FX) and it was recently reported he dominates *all*??
Wow.
Notice what's happening at his nets?
Murdoch "plays to the room" with the FNC and one needs their head examined if they believe FNC is "conservative".
Yet America's political right is so desperate for representation they've elevated FNC *&* its owner to near demigod status?
Think that's an accident, or, the behavior of and result of being corralled?
Given what's happening at Murdoch's FX & FoxTV et al, the filth, smut and Lord knows what else the man's responsible for being broadcast on America's airwaves he's personally "covered" because of his FNC.
Nuts, just nuts.
Murdoch has single handedly pushed the proverbial "envelope" further than the other 3 sewer-nets, combined.
And he's succeeded in 9 out of 10 instances, too.
And why not?
Ever seen what televison looks like in Australia, England or Europe in general?
If not just watch Murdoch's nets & you'll get a reasonable taste.
And if at some point you realize you've *not* been watching anything reminiscent of "America", it's because it ain't American.
What you/we see is what Murdoch & Co *think* is American be it good, bad or indifferent.
But whatever it is he gets away with impunity, unscathed and making scads of loot.
Sex has always sold inasfar as "entertainment" goes, so Murdoch didn't do anything "creative" or "innovative" by employing the most guttural bottom-of-the-barrel programming content at his entertainment nets.
Hardly.
What Murdoch is, *is* courageous -- if not full to overflowing with a degree of chutzpah never before witnessed in our lifetime -- for *trying* because apparently he took the 1st Amandment, literally.
Because prior to his coming the other 3 nitwit-nets wouldn't have dared airing the kind of smut he does, out of an abject & well placed fear of sponsor backlash, eh?
But what happens when sponsors -- like P&G, Ford et al -- are no longer majority American owned/operated "American" interests, but rather "global"?
What of the corps who were traditionally America owned & operated but are now, unbeknownst to a huge majority of Americans, no longer bound by our customs & mores?
Furthemore what of those corps *&* their BoDs who hold The United States of American, for whatever reason(s), in contempt?
Think they'd object to all manner of shit being smeared around the country of our birth via our airwaves?
Or, are they *responsible* for it?
The kind of change which has so many "old school" Americans so angry and upset only happened after the traditional American MSM became [quite] emboldened, and that happened after they'd witnessed the success Murdoch had peddling shit *and* the total absence of consequence.
Only then did ABCNBCCBS rush hell-bent for the lowest possible denominator to be the content of their programming, too.
Mr.C?
Why do you suppose foreign entities are prohibited from owning broadcast mediums -- of any type -- in other nations like say Japan, to name just one?
What do leaders of other countries know that ours don't?
Has anyone who's advocating coporate America take the lead in "cleaning things up" thought much about what the three Murdoch interests are actually doing in an effort at understanding how the shell game's now being played?
Methinks not; hence, the angst.
>Finger, dike, Dutch-boy & all that?
"These days that sorta language takes on a whole new perspective...don't it?"
HA!!
I was deliberately gender specific, my friend.
Your close & prolonged exposure to MSM rays has, I'm afraid, taken a toll. {g}
>Forces a FOI is adamant are responsible for & behind his -- & all other oppressed minorities -- predicament.
"Sounds provocative."
It is.
OBTW you *did* notice *who* recently -- or soon to be -- "qualifies" as a "minority" in The United States of America?
The demographics my friend, they are-a-changin'.
The world you & I knew as youngsters was a "culture" Mr.C...and today it may be said it's a dead culture.
I do not say that to be provocative or controversial, hardly.
Just stating a fact.
The United States of America will continue [on] for many, many years to come; however, it will not be an America you & I recognize because that America's been destroyed.
Can one rely of the constitution today?
A constitution which has become increasingly irrelevant and/or meaningless with every passing day?
I don't *think* so.
How about the ballot box?
Vote on/for anything going against the grain of some *ideal* devised by *someone/body* and within a short period of time the election & will of the people's negated, annnnnd done so by a *single* member of our judiciary, to boot.
In fact that bullshit's become quite routine, huh.
Minimal standards for "decency" for our media?
That too has gone out the window because what's considered "decent" in the United States is not the same as [in] another part of the globe.
As they say, "possession is nineteenths of the law," eh?
Ask Rupert if I lost ya on that one, OK? :o)
Malcolm X was handed a dictionary and told -- matter of factly -- he was to read the book from the very first word on the very first page to the very last word of the very last page.
When he was finished, thoroughly knew *&* understood the meaning of every word contained within that dictionary?
He was to then use every one of those words against "the man" [read: white man].
While today it isn't the "white man" who's necessarily the target of such rage any longer, that rage is directed toward a specific *ideology*; but, it does serve nicely as a metaphor, don't you think? :o)
In any event methinks someone's used the words I learned growing up, against me, just the same.
"In the meantime, I'll check in with my brother on the subject. He's seen the movie and I believe he said it was worth a look. Trouble is, I can sit at this computer for 5 - 6 hours at a whack easier than I can sit and watch a 2 hour movie. Go figger."
That is precisely why I told you "Sit yourself down".
>Something I'd think quite crucial if we're to *fight* back; lest, we continue shooting peas against hulls?
"Well, you know me, the eternal optimist."
And may God richly Bless you for that optimism, my friend.
But I caution you against seeing exactly what you want to see, at the same time.
That'd be the first sign of a fool, and a fool you're not.
"'Course having been "in the woods" for some years now, has given me a little different outlook generally."
Now that I occupy this mountain top parcel tucked away here in Wisconsin's Kettle Moriane, I can *relate*. ;^)
"Different kind of people. Good people for the most part that too often take what their "leaders" say as the gospel."
Good people all, and soon to be victims.
Yet these *new* victims will never enjoy the luxury of "victim status" either, for by the time they've officially recognized their situation the definition will have changed.
Their angry reaction(s) will be labeled "extremist", "Militant", or whatever else marginalizes 'em.
"BUT, I wouldn't want to be on the other side when/if they discover they are being had. Slow to anger but tough as nails they are."
Their numbers won't be nearly large enough to constitute an "army" I'm afraid. and it's only an "army" who commands respect in a place where things have become so screwed-up and convoluted.
Whether or not "they" *agree* with that which they discover is their immediate fate they'll nonetheless be expected to do as they're told, or else.
Those will be the rules.
"And anyhow, that pea could hit a bad rivet near a weak bulkhead you know"
HA!!
Optimists.
What I wouldn't give right about now.
...for a good slingshot. ;^)
Hearsay only. But if only some of it is accurate, it's a wasteland. Smut is cheap.....and it sells. I've never seen audience demographics but I'd be curious to see who actually watches this stuff. Any guesses?
But whatever it is he gets away with impunity, unscathed and making scads of loot.
And it runs headlong into the 1st amendment....ostensibly. The media and the courts said so! Did our founders even consider the peddling of smut when they penned the 1st? Probably, but since it generally could not be construed as political expression, they gave it no weight? Left if to the states, where it belonged. Enter, interstate commerce....
Anyway, a question I've asked several times on FR(without much response) is, does a society/culture have the right, the duty even, to demand certain minimum standards from its members. The answer, to me is obvious. Standards tempered with God given "rights"? Does anyone have the God given right to view/read/hear smut? I don't think so.
We "hire" people to enforce those standards; representatives, judges and the like that should be answerable to the ones who created the standards, no?
Thought provoking stuff you've written Dan, but gotta run for now. Speaking of run, deer have been using my yard for a freeway lately. Fun to watch, since they come through with head high, ears up, and high steppin'. They shouldn't worry. I haven't popped a cap on one in years ;^)
Later my friend,
FGS