<<Your redefinitions, selected terms, and rationalizations not withstanding, the article in question continues to rebutt precisely your original allegation of widespread MSM slander and blackout.>>
Let's just back this up to where the discussion went off the tracks in the first place. The issue was how the MSM was going to trash the Occupy! movement, and I suggested, as in fact happened, that they'd start with an initial black-out, followed by something I called "slander."
"Slander" was an admittedly poor choice of words on my part, because it could include spreading malicious falsehoods, which wouldn't be necessary as long as other methods like selective editing were available. This doesn't mean that the MSM wouldn't use slander, only that if they did, it would not have to be the only arrow in their quiver.
However, I could see where the discussion could easily get bogged down in endless, pointless discussions as to whether a particular MSM article or newscast was or was not slanderous, when the real issue was my contention that the MSM would try to trash the Occupy! movement, not the particular method that they would employ in doing so.
So, I apologized for my poor choice of words (or if I didn't already apologize for it, I do now,) withdrew the word "slander" from the discussion, and phrased it instead as "portraying the movement in an unfavourable light," something which might or might not include slander but was certainly not limited to slander.
sirs then graciously (or more accurately with his usual griping and grousing) consented to continue the debate over the issue as re-phrased, whether the MSM was portraying the movement in an unfavourable or favourable light.
So all sirs' bitching about my "redefinitions, selected terms and rationalizations" apparently relates to my withdrawal of the term "slander" and replacing it with "to portray in an unfavourable light," which includes slander but not necessarily. All that bitching about such a relatively insignificant matter. But nevertheless, I felt that the record might as well be set straight here and now.
<<But by golly Superman, cudos with sticking with the template>>
Thanks, sirs, and kudos to you for sticking with yours. Nothing like two stubborn bastards locking horns. And now finally, let's see what you've admitted or not - - does the article which you yourself posted really show that the MSM is portraying the movement favourably, or does the article (albeit unintentionally) show that in fact the MSM has been portraying the movement unfavourably?
Q1: so you think that describing the movement as "noble but fractured and airy" is a favourable portrayal of a movement? That is absolutely ridiculous. The movement was just "damned with faint praise." What on earth is favourable about a movement that is "fractured and airy?" Simply that it's "noble?" But there must be plenty of noble movements that are NOT "fractured and airy." This is really a condemnation of the movement hiding behind the meaningless word "noble." Because of what use is the nobility if the whole thing is "fractured and airy?"
Q2: "The protest of the current era" is also favourable treatment? Again, ridiculous. By the same logic, "flavour of the month" applied to an opinion would also be "favourable." That's bullshit. What it means really is that in every era, a protest arises, and these guys are flocking to this one because it's the only game in town, it's "in," it's "trendy," and not because of any intrinsic merit in the cause itself.
Q3: So you think "leaderless" is favourable treatment? OK, I actually reconsidered that one, and I think it's neutral. First of all because the movement in fact is leaderless, secondly because the absence of a leader could indicate that the movement is spontaneously arising out of genuine and wide-spread outrage.
Q4: So you think that "few specific demands" are favourable? Again, that's ridiculous. It indicates that all these people come together to make a lot of noise and create a spectacle but when asked what do they want changed, have few specific demands. In other words, they are not really serious.
I indicated that the demands were few and focused in contrast to the general attempts in some MSM reports to portray the demands as manifold and spread all over the map, which would have indicated a random collection of screwballs rather than people attracted by a set of common grievances.
Q4: (again) You indicated that a demand to abolish the internal combustion engine would portray the movement in a favourable light, "to those who support the notion." What a ridiculous caveat. A demand that all parents should be killed and eaten would portray the movement in a favourable light "to those who support the notion" as well, but the issue isn't whether the MSM was portraying the movement in a favourable light to those who supported any one reported aspect of it or not, but to the general public.
<<If you wish, I can demonstrate far more reports that echo the rebutt as well.>>
Thanks, but I'm sticking to the one report that you yourself posted, apparently in support of the proposition that the MSM tries to portray the movement in a favourable light. And yet we see how even THAT article inadvertently reveals how the MSM in fact tries to portray the movement in an unfavourable light.
<<But alas, I think we can all safely assume how you'd demonstrate how red is blue>>
Well, of course, that's your POV, and I thank you for it, but I think any reasonable person reading what I write would have to admit that I try to show that what's red is red and what's blue is blue, and that you are the person trying to prove that red is blue, or in this case, that unfavourable is favourable. But I don't think we're going to agree on that either, so let's leave it at an agreement to disagree.
