Report: The effects of poor (and political) media coverage

The video below shows what happens to people when they rely on biased news, and how a political news organization responds to claims about biased reporting. It's quite scary.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

China knows words Americans don't?

In a recent Rasmussen poll, 51 percent of the respondents answered affirmatively when asked if the recent WikiLeaks leak was an act of treason. The problem with this poll is that "treason" does not simply mean something the United States does not like, but an act against ones own country.

The Chinese president, Hu Jintao, seems better up to date with the fine nuances of language. According to a recently leaked document, Hu referred to Dalai Lama as a traitor. Dalai Lama is from Tibet (which is a part of China) and can therefore be considered a traitor. Good work, Hu!

In the United States, however, there seems to be considerable movement towards simply changing the meaning of the word. This follows a trend that George W. Bush also liked, when he attempted to change the word "torture". I've suggested previously that the new, less freedom-loving version of the United States, might opt to have new federally funded dictionaries. I think it's a good idea to ensure that ALL Americans are up to date with the recent meaning of words.

The US needs new dictionaries!

The tendency in the US is that new dictionaries really are needed. No, I don't refer to the questions that are raised about whether Julian Assange - an Australian - can commit treason to the United States. But yes, I do refer to the re-working of what the word "terrorism" means.

Traditionally, a terrorist has been one who uses fear (terror) as a way to attempt to frighten people into a certain type of behavior. By the old school standard, such an act involves the use of violence. But not anymore...

Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, spoke today about Julian Assange and called the guy a "hi-tech terrorist". The idea, I think, is that everyone who threatens the United States in some way now, is to be labeled a terrorist.

So here are suggested revisions for a new American federally funded dictionary:

Terrorism:
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. a person who is viewed as dangerous by the American government.

Treason:
1. the betrayal of a trust
2. the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
3. the act of doing something that is disliked by the American government.

As more words in need of an update show up, I will keep adding to this list.

Media organizations: Example of framing

Whereas censorship gets quite a bit of attention from various people on the internet, another serious issue that is about as important, is given much less attention. Media framing means that media organizations offer different cues to readers and these cues are known to influence the opinions of readers. That people respond positively to cues - if they lack information that counters it - is a primary reason why propaganda works.

There are a lot of stories nowadays that offer certain cues or that frame stories in a given way. Take this recent CBS story, for example, which is titled "When Did Assange Know Pvt. Manning?". By titling an article this way, the journalist seem to indicate that Assange knew Manning, even if no information has been offered to support this position.

While this may seem like a small thing, it is the combined effort by all the major news organizations to do this that really matters. When everyone promotes similar views, people become more likely to accept those views.

Poll: 38 percent of Americans are tired of press freedom

In a recent poll, Fox News found the following:

"Americans are far less harsh in their judgment of news organizations -- like the New York Times -- that published the leaked information, as only 38 percent would push for punishment of those media outlets."

It is quite amazing that "only" 38 percent would push for punishment. The number is really low, considering the potential negative effects it could have on press freedom and democracy. If New York Times were to be found guilty, it could become illegal to publish anything the US government finds to be "secret", for whatever reason. That would mean the press would essentially have to print just what the government wants it to print.

So yeah, 38 percent of Americans must want to make the country look more and more like China. But then again, China may be right.

Fox News journalist Bill McGowan: Paranoia club boss?

Fox News journalist Bill McGowan responded yesterday to recent arguments made by the New York Times reporter David E. Sanger. Sanger defended the newspaper's decision to publish WikiLeaks stories by concluding that "what we did was responsible, it was legal and it was important for a democratic society"

McGowan does not quite agree. Sure,he agrees that it was probably legal to publish the stories, but not so much on the other two issues:

"On Sanger's other two points, that The Times acted responsibly in publishing some of the leaked cables' contents and that doing so was good for democracy, the picture is much more ambiguous.

(...)

But for all the good these revelations about our allies and adversaries do, they come at high cost, largely by stripping away the veils that American diplomats need to conduct their business around the world, particularly against Islamic terrorism."

This argument would be all well and good if it actually made sense. Yet no one are willing to even touch the following question: What effect does McGowan and his censorship-pals think it would have if American newspapers did not write about the story? Would WikiLeaks realize they're beaten, apologize and stop publishing?

No, it seems as if McGowan misses the point that there are other countries, other newspapers that do a good job publishing these things. There's also Wikileaks.ch, Wikileaks.de and a lot of other versions of that site. So even if American newspapers would not publish the information, it would still be out there.

The only actual effect of it would be that Americans won't have as easy access to it as they've used to. This situation mirrors the one people in China would face in case leaks that could be troublesome for that country, would happen. Chinese people really will have to struggle to get the information.

Are people like Bill McGowan really suggesting that the Chinese way is the better way? Bye, bye freedom, welcome paranoia?

Should Spotify censor Nazi music?

Spotify has declared that despite requests from Jewish organizations, they will not remove songs that could probably be considered neo-Nazi or Nazi. Fans of songs like "Sieg heil, Viktoria!", "Landzer und Panzer" and "Sa Totenmarsch" can therefore still hear their songs on the internet.

Following demands from Jewish, anti-semitic organizations, a spokesperson for Spotify in Europe, Sofie Grant, has declared that "although the company does not support content that may hurt people, they cannot remove such content either." According to Grant, "it is the record labels that pick the material we host and they are the ones who are responsible for ensuring that this material is legal."

I agree with the position Spotify takes here. Although a lot of people may feel offended if they find a song titled "Sieg heil, Viktoria," we simply shouldn't move towards a society where disliking something is reason enough to remove it. If the music is legal, it should thus be available on Spotify for those who wishes to listen to it.

I think Jewish organizations ought to fight for things that actually means something. I seriously don't think people become Nazis by listening to Nazi music and I think these organizations should instead use their energy to fight people who wish to kill Jews simply because they are Jewish. That's an actual problem.