| Pages:
1
2 |
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Capt. George
Jesse, Bravo! But how do the poor in Mexico find time to put pressure on a less then caring government?
Jesse, what I don't know about Mexico or its politics would fill a book but I do know how difficult it is to get an uncaring government to listen to
the poor and/or middle class. |
If you don't think the oppressed in Mexico have the tools to change their society just look to the south. Virtually everywhere you look in South
America populist movements are gaining hold. If Argentina, Peru, Chile, Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela can change so can Mexico. As Jesse has said,
it won't be pretty but eventually it WILL happen. I'm amazed the Mexican people have put up with this caca for this long!
|
|
|
JESSE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3370
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Dave
| Quote: | Originally posted by Capt. George
Jesse, Bravo! But how do the poor in Mexico find time to put pressure on a less then caring government?
Jesse, what I don't know about Mexico or its politics would fill a book but I do know how difficult it is to get an uncaring government to listen to
the poor and/or middle class. |
If you don't think the oppressed in Mexico have the tools to change their society just look to the south. Virtually everywhere you look in South
America populist movements are gaining hold. If Argentina, Peru, Chile, Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela can change so can Mexico. As Jesse has said,
it won't be pretty but eventually it WILL happen. I'm amazed the Mexican people have put up with this caca for this long! |
The only reason why Mexico hasn't been as problematic and caotic as other Latin American nation is simple geography, after WW2 a deal was made betwen
Mexico and the U.S., basically the PRI had to keep all reds out of Mexico and in exchange the U.S. would turn a blind eye to the corruption and black
dealings of the Mexican goverment, this worked well because every social movement was violently crushed until a decade ago, and the U.S. never had the
problem of dealing with a growing communist movement in its neighborhood.
|
|
|
Packoderm
Super Nomad
Posts: 2116
Registered: 11-7-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
A question for Jesse
Jesse, regarding your post containing ?What the U.S. and Mexico need is to stop bull******* each other?,? Are there many more Mexican Nationals in
Mexico who share your views on Mexican society needing to erupt? Or is your view considered radical and unpopular?
|
|
|
JESSE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3370
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
Packoderm,
During the last 50 yrs there has been plenty of movements against the Mexican goverment, and all of them where violently crushed. I believe most
Mexicans want a change, ANY change, contrary to popular belief, Mexicans are not laid back people who's only desire is to live life in a quiet and
calm way, Mexicans are very ambitious, and if given a chance, very hard working and prosperous, sadly here in Mexico the generation before me has been
educated to simply accept the way things are, but not my genration, whos just coming into its own.
I would't like my nation to end up as a Venezuela or a Peru, but i would like for people to start complaining about everything, i want my people to
punish bad goverment with their votes, and i would like to see more agressive demonstrations against bad goverment.
I would say most Mexicans agree with me, but like i said, the current generation whos in charge of everything is conditioned to not make many waves,
so they are too quiet, wait until my generation starts to take over and i think we are going to see a big clash or a big change for the nation.
|
|
|
Stephanie Jackter
Senior Nomad
Posts: 566
Registered: 11-3-2002
Location: Arizona
Member Is Offline
|
|
I hope for that change...
but don't expect it, even in the younger generation. I am one of the most politically active people I know, but the minute I step off the plane in La
Paz, I know that it's time to shut my mouth or take the risk of having my family deported or even worse, winding up on a street corner dead for
insulting the wrong person. The Mexican population lives under that same fear.
As long as the press, especially, lives under the fear of assasination and information to the public is in that way controlled, I don't see a prayer
that there will be any change for the better in Mexico.
A press friend of mine from this side of the border recently covered an event involving a big political mucky muck from Mexico and another from the
U.S. (I'm sorry. I can't be more specific without the possibility of getting my friend in trouble). On the way back to the States, the American
contingent were all very impressed at how subservient to the politicos the Mexican press covering the event seemed to be.
There is a certain critical line that every Mexican journalist has to decide whether to cross. It is one that can get him or her killed, so it is not
crossed by many.
When governments can get that kind of a stranglehold on free speech (and still call themselves "democracies", no less), it is very hard for social
change to take place.
Unfortunately, it seems these days that the U.S. will be heading more in the direction of Mexico, not the other way around.-Stephanie
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
"Unfortunately, it seems these days that the U.S. will be heading more in the direction of Mexico, not the other way around.-Stephanie"
You got that right! If the new FCC regs are implemented, free speech will be history.
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
"Unfortunately, it seems these days that the U.S. will be heading more in the direction of Mexico, not the other way around.-Stephanie"
"You got that right! If the new FCC regs are implemented, free speech will be history. "
I don't think so. There is more diversified news reporting now than ever before. From the TV side ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC. Plus the large groups like
Tribune and Clear Channel. Throw in the Radio of AP and Westwood One as well as the Clear Channel Radio group and a few others.
What has some upset at the FCC is raising the ownership cap from 35% to 45%. So what. Every TV station in the U.S. gets it's primary regional and
national news from it's network plus CNN Newsourse. Whether Disney owns your local ABC affiliate or Joe Smith the local caretaker owns it, the news
still comes from ABC and/or CNN. The local stations people cover local news. The only way one owner could control all local news is to own all local
stations and that is NOT
allowed presently or in any new regulations. You can't own two TV stations in the same market unless there are at least five full power stations in
that market.
Add in the newspapers and we have so many different news sources you can't keep up. And if you don't think there is competition between stations
you've never been around a news departrment.
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
There are lots of media outlets, hundreds of cable and satellite channels, four major broadcast networks, Internet access to news from around the
world. But those numbers are deceiving. Seventy percent of the news, information, and programming viewers see on television, hear on the radio or read
in the newspaper comes from just a handful of media giants.
Here is an example of how big media operates:
After the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, told a concert crowd, "We're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas," angry listeners
called local radio stations threatening boycotts if they didn't pull the group's songs. Some individual stations complied, but others went far beyond
local action. The nation's second-largest radio chain, Cumulus, banned the group from all of its country-western stations ? 42 in all.
It's only the tip of the iceberg of the kind of control that can happen if we permit more consolidation. At one time the FCC had the power to issue
and even revoke, broadcast licenses. The underlying assumption was that since the airwaves belonged to the public, the government had the right to
regulate broadcasting, to insist on certain minimal standards. The networks ? just ABC, CBS and NBC, at one time ? were severely restricted as to the
number of radio and television stations they could own. Broadcasters were obliged to operate in what was called the "public's interest, convenience,
and necessity. In exchange for the right to make tons of money by selling advertising over the public airwaves, broadcasters had a responsibility to
provide a certain amount of news, cultural and children's programming, and to present a balanced view of controversial issues.
No more!
Here is a direct quote from the CEO of Clear Channel Communications:
"We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the
business of selling our customers products."
|
|
|
Packoderm
Super Nomad
Posts: 2116
Registered: 11-7-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
Today's radio and TV stations are getting lame to the point of irrelevancy. Hopefully, someday, we'll have low-cost satellite stations that are less
homogonous. I don?t buy the FCC?s reasons for regulating public access to media to the point where all we see and hear is narrow bands of moneyed
blandness. I?m sure that the FCC would have a problem with U.S. citizens receiving foreign satellite stations, even if they only played music. It?s
like Castro having a problem with XM. (Especially the Spanish language news broadcasts) Furthermore, if quality doesn?t sell, then we just aren?t
going see or hear it. Which American radio station for instance, would play Jimi Hendrix from his live in Berkley album, or better yet, from his last
recorded concert at Isle of Mann, (kick butt stuff) or which TV station would play the same concert?s video footage? Mine would.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
