Big Media

I have to thank for pointing out something obvious that I didn't notice: the word "big" serving as a shorthand for "too big", implying that the modified noun is something that is more powerful than the individual and evoking fear. It is a clear indicator of bias.

No truthsleuth,

that is slight of hand, fingers, mouth, whatever to conflate business with government.

Business has never threatened me. Business has made attempts to persuade me but has always been shown to be incpable of bring force against me.

Big government on the other hand......well I know you aren't stupid or naive, are you?

"Evil corporations are unable to impose anything on you without the aid of government, yet you fear corporations more than government?"

Excellent!

"Government, at least in Alabama, has become an arm of corporate interests and no longer a contract between the citizens of the state."

Evil corporations are unable to impose anything on you without the aid of government, yet you fear corporations more than government?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Just curious, truthsleuth, what specific policies in the AL government do you consider to be promoting "corporate interests"?

So vidyohs, you would agree there is no "big" government as well? I agree with your assessment as long as we fully extend the argument.

Tiede, I think what you say is somewhat true. The 1901 AL constitution was written by corporate interests for corporate interests. At some point the origin of power shifts from the people to corporations. Government, at least in Alabama, has become an arm of corporate interests and no longer a contract between the citizens of the state.

"We label things as "big" as those things that we fear. I fear "big" corporations and "big" farms more than I fear government, "big" or "small."

Bias in media? No doubt. Bias in the use of the term "big"? It is in the eyes of the beholder - or the fearful.

Posted by: truthsleuth | Apr 4, 2009 2:45:27 PM"

truthsleuth, I might point out that you should be careful with the word "we" when stating "your" opinions. Not all of "us" are necessarily on "your" page.

For instance to me the word big is simply a quantity and I assign no emotional context to it.

Long long ago I learned that if I were to be independent and retain my imndividuality I had to avoid letting others attempt to control me through the use of words and slogans. Those who use the word "big" in the context Don posted about are those who try to contol your emotional reaction to their words and make "you" feel fear, aversion, contempt, and/or anger.

There is no such thing as "big" tobacco, oil, auto, steel, sugar, etc. It is a boogyman conjured up to control people.

I don't even know what corporate interests has to do with Alabama (considering being 49th in the US is pretty bad), but even if that's true, where do you think these "corporate interests" get their power? Maybe it's better to say Alabama is run exclusively by corporate interests that seek power and influence through the state government? Just a thought...

Or it could be I now live in Alabama - 49th in everything and run almost exclusively by corporate interests. It's all about where you are coming from.

truthsleuth,

The only reason you distrust big corporations is because Wal-Mart invaded Iraq and Apple sent all those prisoners to its Guantanamo Bay facility.

One thought could be: because there is/was "small" tobacco. My grandfather ran a "small" tobacco farm outside of DC in the 40s and 50s. Only 40 acres. It is now a subdivision.

We label things as "big" as those things that we fear. I fear "big" corporations and "big" farms more than I fear government, "big" or "small."

Bias in media? No doubt. Bias in the use of the term "big"? It is in the eyes of the beholder - or the fearful.

"But we're not anarcho-Capitalists either."

Compared to what we have, ‘tis a consummation Devoutly to be wished.

Ok. starting to get it. You're a nut.

Don - That's a great example of a media bias that hides in plain sight.

"...is a cheap and lame smear tactic that only works on those who ignore the essential facts of the situation."-Big Michael

That describes a big part of the population, that is, those who ignore essential facts.

I know news would be more boring if it were written as news, but it would also be less annoying to those of us who don't ignore essential facts.

For example, I don't understand how replacing "big tabacco" with "tabacco companies", "the tabacco industry" or "makers of cigarettes" changes the news value of the story.

Good letter.

Using the term "big" to discredit an organization (or someone associated with it) is a cheap and lame smear tactic that only works on those who ignore the essential facts of the situation.

For instance, a "big" gangster like Stalin, who murdered millions of people, and a "big" genius like Edison, who showered the world with beneficial inventions, are NOT morally equal. “Bigness” is not automatically immoral, independent of what it is that’s “big”.

That obvious fact is evaded by the millions who subscribe to the belief that “big business, big pharma, big oil” are robbing them blind -- all while claiming that the solution is make ever-bigger and ever-more powerful the only entity with a monopoly on the legal use of force -- government.

". . . government uses violence against persons who refuse to fund its budget and otherwise do its bidding."

But we're not anarcho-Capitalists either.

Dr. Boudreaux, you must be butter, because you're on a roll.

Once again, Dr. Boudreaux, I seek your permission to use a similar wording in letters to my own local paper (the Houston Chronicle). Since I've learned to be a bit less verbose, I seem to have some success getting published.

"The US Constitution does not specify media, but it could not work without them."

I beg to differ. The 1st Amendment specifically protects the freedom of the press by name.

I will offer this answer to your rhetorical question, why the New York Times does not acknowledge "big government".

It is because the mainstream media, including the New York Times, are part of the state. Of course they are not part of the formally constituted state, as described in the US Constitution. But they are a crucial member of the collaborating interests which, working together, create the state. A democratic state includes voters, representatives, capitals, legislation, and ... ?

And obviously it could not work without media. Media binding together voters and representatives in capitals. The US Constitution does not specify media, but it could not work without them. Mainstream media are part of the US Government, in this view.

It is not in the interest of the New York Times to expose big government. It is rather in their interest to make anything else, outside of government, look in need of government regulation.

Mmmm. You don't happen to own a horse called "Rocinante" do you?

I do admire your persistence; it continues to inspire the rest of us.

,Oh yeah that one will get published (not).