|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 22, 2007 19:41:28 GMT -4
3onthetree, where you going to answer my question is if you thought that the BBC helped to put spin on the British decision to invade the oil rich Ottoman Empire to secure oil for it's war efforts during WWI?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 22, 2007 20:21:24 GMT -4
I think the recent events with the BBC might have made the locals wary. What recent events with the BBC?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 23, 2007 0:48:48 GMT -4
3onthetree, where you going to answer my question is if you thought that the BBC helped to put spin on the British decision to invade the oil rich Ottoman Empire to secure oil for it's war efforts during WWI? I thought you were kidding, speech was first broadcast by radio in 1914. Unless people at that time had Morse decoders in their homes. I've never seen a yellow pigeon either so they're out.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 23, 2007 1:19:39 GMT -4
I think the recent events with the BBC might have made the locals wary. What recent events with the BBC? The Cock up mainly, the conspiracy files hit piece secondly where the BBC can be seen sensationalising actual ATC conversations with overdubbed voices to create the sense of confusion.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 23, 2007 1:28:45 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 23, 2007 3:03:47 GMT -4
How about my point about other empires? You said the "MSM" (presumably the mainstream media, but since "mainstream" is one word, it should just be "MM") has always been part of empire. Do you include Napoleon? Do you include the British Raj? Do you include Rome? Do you include Persia? Do you get my point?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 23, 2007 4:05:39 GMT -4
How about my point about other empires? You said the "MSM" (presumably the mainstream media, but since "mainstream" is one word, it should just be "MM") has always been part of empire. Do you include Napoleon? Do you include the British Raj? Do you include Rome? Do you include Persia? Do you get my point? MSM is used quite a lot to describe the mass media with MSM being used as a funny comparison to the Microsoft Network which is called the MSN even though Microsoft is one word, funny eh. The Mass Media only really got going with the invention of Radio and mass printing, not every silly pleb can read but most can hear. No I don't get your point on Romans or Persians or even Napoleon. The British Raj? Almost 100 years of British rule of the Indian Subcontinent, it's a pretty safe bet that after 1922 the Raj had a new weapon in their divide and rule toolkit. ;D I'll take a look at that.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 23, 2007 15:44:54 GMT -4
MSM is used quite a lot to describe the mass media with MSM being used as a funny comparison to the Microsoft Network which is called the MSN even though Microsoft is one word, funny eh. Yes, and Bill Gates will get strong words from me on that subject if I ever happen to meet him. It's still wrong. Welcome to my point. You said "always," yet by your own admission, that's bogus. Those are all empires. There have been empires for thousands of years, and they tend to have managed pretty nicely without the BBC--or, until just a couple of hundred years ago, even newspapers.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 25, 2007 9:54:16 GMT -4
This is about the Mass media, this never really took hold until the early twentieth century mainly because literacy improvements and the invention of radio and television. If you want to score some strange point in the use of the word always good for you, I award you one brownie point.
See literacy rates in time and mass printing.
For the sake of future argument or discussion I'll let it be known that I believe there is only one imperial power on this planet at the moment, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This can be determined by which nation has a military presence on every continent of Earth with over 700 military bases worldwide. Don't worry about the Romans.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 25, 2007 12:23:19 GMT -4
I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Of what did you think these recent events would make the regulars wary? Wary of answering your poll? Wary of the BBC? Wary of governments?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 25, 2007 12:32:05 GMT -4
For the sake of future argument or discussion I'll let it be known that I believe there is only one imperial power on this planet at the moment, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This can be determined by which nation has a military presence on every continent of Earth with over 700 military bases worldwide. Don't worry about the Romans. An interesting opinion, and probably true, for some definition of "empire". But it does not follow from this opinion, or even from the facts that inform this opinion, that: a) such an empire has done all the things it is alleged to have done. b) such an empire is even capable of doing all the things it is alleged to have done. The sun never set on the British Empire, but that doesn't mean that its soldiers practiced cannibalism, or that its monarchs could control their their viceroys and governors via intercontinental mind-beams. Even in the case where a thing can be done, you have to show that a thing was actually done, before you can accuse anyone--even an empire, of doing that thing. Or do we now cry over spilt milk, even when the glass is still on the table, still full of milk, and there is a remarkable absence of milk on the kitchen floor?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 25, 2007 18:05:44 GMT -4
This is about the Mass media, this never really took hold until the early twentieth century mainly because literacy improvements and the invention of radio and television. If you want to score some strange point in the use of the word always good for you, I award you one brownie point. Sigh. Yes. Empires predated mass media. Hence empire cannot be entirely derived from mass media. You can blame the BBC all you want, but it's a tool that has only been used in recent years, and you can call that a minor point all you like, but in fact it directly contradicts your point. In short, you are wrong, and you're not going to get righter by failing to understand. It's interesting. You concede my point, but you don't see how it totally invalidates yours. Because mass media is a new phenomenon and empire is not, you can't entirely blame mass media for empire. What's so hard to understand about that? I don't, now. However, their empire lasted significantly longer than the American one has thus far. What's more, it was a substantially different kind. A large amount of the US empire is predominantly cultural; even societies that are not, strictly speaking, part of the US empire are strongly influenced by our society. And since China has actively taken over other previously-autonomous countries and is keeping them against the will of the indigenous people, I'd say there are at least two current empires.
|
|