some people can´t notice the difference between journalism and advertising,
and quite frankly neither can some news stations

If you want to get Ralph's Message out, do it. Buy airtime. Broadcast your own network. If you care so much, do it. Nobody else seems to care that much, because they aren't doing it, but they aren't stopping you. Get going.

You're just such a happy volunteer to the cause that it makes me all warm and fuzzy.
Other than the part where you seem to think the corporate media has no role in presenting ALL of the news to the citizens.

I don't know what you want me to tell you here. Privately-owned media corporations are filled with people who enjoy the same freedom of speech that all Canadians and Americans do. What that means is that since they are generally free to say whatever they want, they choose to say what they wish. Not what you wish, what they wish. If you dislike what they happen to choose to report, you only have a few choices: listen anyway, turn them off and go somewhere else for your information, or create your own company and present the news as you wish to. That, of course, just means you are doing exactly as they do--running your media outlet as you see fit. If you can understand why you have the freedom to run yours as you see fit, you can understand why they have that very same freedom to run theirs as they see fit, whether you happen to agree with it or not.

If you don't like Fox, go to CNN, if you dislike them go to CNBC, or ABC, CBC, or BBC, or Le Monde, or the Daily Worker. They all report as they see fit. That you disagree is of no concern of theirs. They simply don't care what you think.

Is it your position that only those who buy time in the news should receive any coverage and that since they bought the coverage they also control the story?

It is my position that media companies are free to cover, or not cover, any information they see fit, however they see fit, regardless of what you happen to think about it. Similarly, people are free to listen to them, ignore them, or go other places to find their information as they see fit.

Where goes the news?

"News?" Who knows? You can call something news and cover it however you wish, just as they do. If you can't be bothered, why should anyone care what you think?

Into the deep pockets and away from the citizens.

You seem to be laboring under the false impression that "the citizens" have some right to have "news" as you think it should be presented, presented to them according to your ideas of what is news. They do not have this right, and if you do not care enough to either create your own media company, or buy airtime from existing media companies to get your version of the "news" across, then why should anyone care what you think?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

WOW Rush
I cannot fathom some of ideology you express at times.

Advocating for a system of indoctrination and exclusion of differing opinion controlled by the uber-wealthy, in place of a free press, leaves me speechless.

But then, according to your belief system, no one cares what I think.

somebody likes to be puppet on a string

I believe the founders wanted there to be multiple parties that would form coalitions. Unfortunately, we ended up supporting behemoths that suck the populous dry and pander to the lowest common denomenator. (the clue is it's green and the US government is $9+ trillion debt of it)

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

(the clue is it's green and the US government is $9+ trillion debt of it)

Yea, I keep forgetting to 'round up' to that extra zero...

But now there are 13 of 'em... 10,000,000,000,000

See for yourself ---> Here... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

WOW Rush
I cannot fathom some of ideology you express at times.

WOW Robert. I cannot see much evidence that you have even read what is written sometimes.

But I don't know what you mean. Do you mean you didn't understand what I meant when I said, "media companies are free to cover, or not cover, any information they see fit, however they see fit, regardless of what you happen to think about it. Similarly, people are free to listen to them, ignore them, or go other places to find their information as they see fit."

I really don't know how hard that is to understand. If you don't like what Time calls news and reports on, read the Daily Worker. If you don't like what CNNMoney.com calls news and reports on, read antiwar.com. If you don't like what CBC calls news and reports on, try the BBC. If you don't like what National Review calls news and reports on, read Mother Jones.

But the point remains, Mother Jones is doing exactly what National Review is doing, just as antiwar.com is doing exactly as CNNMoney.com is doing: reporting the information they want as they see fit. They are all doing the same thing, and they are free to do so, no matter what you think. If you don't happen to like that, well, c'est la vie.

Advocating for a system of indoctrination and exclusion of differing opinion controlled by the uber-wealthy, in place of a free press, leaves me speechless.

What should leave your readers speechless is that not only do you make these things up, but that you post them when it is clear that I said no such thing. I noted specifically that the press is free, and that by extension, they are free to report, or not report, anything, everything, or nothing, as they see fit, be it National Review or Mother Jones. If you, or by extension, the Daily Worker or Mother Jones enjoy the right to speak as you see fit, then you can understand why National Review, or CNNMoney.com enjoys that same right.

But then, according to your belief system, no one cares what I think.

Wrong again. According to my belief system, anyone who wishes to can care what you think, not care what you think, embrace your ideas, or ignore your ideas. Whatever their choice, you shouldn't be surprised that National Review and many many many other media outlets don't care what you think--they don't.

So what? Find one that does. Or don't. Your choice and you're free to make it. Or not.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

It's been made very clear these past few weeks that the corporatists, profiteers and uber-wealthy indeed do not care what the rest of us think.

They have made their plans and the average citizen is not a factor in their thinking at all.

When I say to you Rush, that I don't understand, it doesn't mean that I cannot comprehend the words or their meanings.
It means that I don't understand someone believing and promoting the drivel.

It's been made very clear these past few weeks that the corporatists, profiteers and uber-wealthy indeed do not care what the rest of us think.

Again: so what? They do not have to care what you think. You do not have to care what they think.

To use your silly rhetoric, it's been made very clear these past few decades that the communists, the socialists, and the tree-huggers indeed do not care what those that do not agree with them think.

So what? They are free to think as they wish. Just as you are. Just as William F. Buckley, Jr. is. Just as Michael Moore is.

They have made their plans and the average citizen is not a factor in their thinking at all.

Sure. Michael Moore and Oprah and Barbara Streisand and George Soros, and everyone else is free to make decisions as well, as they see fit, just as you are. They run their lives as they see best, just as you do. I have no idea how often the "average citizen" comes into their calculations, but boy they sure do take the guy on the street to the bank. They are all uber-rich.

Note that Moore and Doprah and Babs manage to get their ideas out there. Moore especially. What are you waitin' for? No one is stopping him, no one can stop you. You could fire up Imbobwaiteandthisismynews.com. Say anything you want. Go for it. Knock yourself out. And just like michaelmoore.com, people are free to go there or not, as they wish.

When I say to you Rush, that I don't understand, it doesn't mean that I cannot comprehend the words or their meanings.

It certainly does often seem that way though.

It means that I don't understand someone believing and promoting the drivel.

You would have to be more specific as to what you feel is drivel.

Is it the part that you are free to think as you wish, and by extension so are others? People have that right, is that drivel?

Is it that part that Mother Jones is free to think as it wishes, and by extension, so is National Review? They both have that right, is that drivel?

Is it the part that antiwar.com is free to think as it wishes, and by extension, so is CNNMoney.com? They both have that right, is that drivel?

Is is drivel that all of these people are free to think as they wish and do not have to listen to you, care what you think, or embrace your ideas? People have the right to think as they wish, is that drivel?

Is it drivel that media companies are free to cover, or not cover, any information they see fit, however they see fit, regardless of what you happen to think about it. Similarly, people are free to listen to them, ignore them, or go other places to find their information as they see fit. Is that drivel?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

it is not news if it is advertising or beliefs, news is about the fact, whether you like it or not, otherwise it is propaganda, and that´s a million miles away from news.

They have made their plans and the average citizen is not a factor in their thinking at all.

Can you 'predict' who the next president will be? I sure can... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

in civilized country, we have this thing called free press.
(yes, i know, i should write free with capital letters, sorry , i have run out of them)

You would have to be more specific as to what you feel is drivel.

Every policy, law, regulation and action taken by, or brought forth by government has to pass through the filter that each of us uses to sort out the garbage from the good.

My filter simply asks if the policy, law, regulation or action is good for working people. Is it in the best interests of working people?

If it is not good for working people, it is drivel and should be fought.
If it is good for working people, then fight hard to see it inacted.

The difficulty is in sifting through the bull.... designed to appear good for working people while actually benefiting the uber-rich and corporatists.

I believe that my filter has fewer gaping holes than yours.

Every policy, law, regulation and action taken by, or brought forth by government has to pass through the filter that each of us uses to sort out the garbage from the good.

My filter simply asks if the policy, law, regulation or action is good for working people. Is it in the best interests of working people?

If it is not good for working people, it is drivel and should be fought.
If it is good for working people, then fight hard to see it inacted.

So, then answer the questions, which parts of the below are drivel?:

Is it the part that you are free to think as you wish, and by extension so are others? People have that right, is that drivel?

Is it that part that Mother Jones is free to think as it wishes, and by extension, so is National Review? They both have that right, is that drivel?

Is it the part that antiwar.com is free to think as it wishes, and by extension, so is CNNMoney.com? They both have that right, is that drivel?

Is is drivel that all of these people are free to think as they wish and do not have to listen to you, care what you think, or embrace your ideas? People have the right to think as they wish, is that drivel?

Is it drivel that media companies are free to cover, or not cover, any information they see fit, however they see fit, regardless of what you happen to think about it. Similarly, people are free to listen to them, ignore them, or go other places to find their information as they see fit. Is that drivel?

And what happens when people disagree? Because what Moore thinks is good for people is not going to be what Buckley thinks is good for people? What happens then?

The difficulty is in sifting through the bull.... designed to appear good for working people while actually benefiting the uber-rich and corporatists.

I believe that my filter has fewer gaping holes than yours.

Well then, demonstrate them. Show us how it's drivel that both National Review and Mother Jones have the right to speak and write and think and cover what they wish, however they wish.

Be specific, what "gaping holes" have I mentioned? Is it the idea that you should be free to join a union or not?

Is it the idea that other people do not have to care what you think, just as you do not have to care what they think?

Is it the idea that people are free to think as they wish? Just as you are? Just as William F. Buckley, Jr. is? Just as Michael Moore is?

Please do demonstrate the "gaping holes."

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

in civilized country, we have this thing called free press.
(yes, i know, i should write free with capital letters, sorry , i have run out of them)

there is big difference

Your filter allows the corporate garbage through.

My filter, as I stated already, tries to protect working people from the garbage.

PS: for a guy who doesn't care what I have to say, you sure spend a lot of time trying to gun me down...TeeHee

in civilized country, we have this thing called free press.

In america, we have this thing called BIG BROTHER... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

and boy he tells a lies

Your filter allows the corporate garbage through.

Do you just make this stuff up? I don't have a filter. Where do you get a "filter" out of: People are free to think, say, and believe as they wish. Just as you are, just like Moore is, just like Nike or Exxon are, just like National Review is, just like anyone is.

Why? Because they are all free.

Tell us again, well, actually, tell us for the first time, how all of them being free is drivel?

My filter, as I stated already, tries to protect working people from the garbage.

You have no right to decide what other people say, how they say it, what they cover as news or how they do so. Certainly, you can filter what you read, see, and hear, but again, everyone has that right. They don't need you imposing what you want filtered on them, and the companies, people, and websites you dislike don't care what you think as is evidenced by the fact that they ignore you.

PS: for a guy who doesn't care what I have to say, you sure spend a lot of time trying to gun me down...TeeHee

It's just a discussion. One that I find quite amusing, to say the least.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

People are free to think, say, and believe as they wish. Just as you are, just like Moore is, just like Nike or Exxon are, just like National Review is, just like anyone is.

Why? Because they are all free.

Tell us again, well, actually, tell us for the first time, how all of them being free is drivel?

More proof of your allegiance to corporate interests.
The well conditioned among us believe that corporations can be free and have rights, just like a citizen.

A corporation is a man made THING! It is NOT alive. It is NOT human.
It is NOT anything outside of a vehicle to make money.

Attributing human rights and freedoms to a corporation is as mad as allowing a bicycle those rights.

There lies your drivel mate.