This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why is it that governments that Western media do not agree with are referred to as regimes, yet western governments are not?
After reading many articles from bbc, CNN, thompson/Reuters , NBC, really anything western controlled they refer to countries they consider to not on their side to be a regime. Yet I don't hear it that often of the Obama regime or the Harper regime. What are your thoughts on the word usage of western media?
Is the future of journalism with wiki leaks and such organizations?
Robert Winner 50+
Media question: Have you stopped beating your wife? You either did, do, or do not want to discuss it. No win. Pick a channel and they will give their slant on politics or the issues. We watch the one that is least offensive and the closest to what we want to hear.
By defination REGIMES: a form of government. however, it is often refered to as an oppressive government. So again we are being led as to how we look at the issue by the medias choice of words. Most of us see the word regime and think of Idi Amein and great oppression.
Your question about wiki and other organizations .. I don't think so. Wiki and others are both good and bad. If there is anyone who is not aware that we have problems in government, even the best forms, they need to be informed.
The solution, in my opinion, is that the public stay informed and to draw their own conclusions based on more than one source. In the states that may be hard to come by as all but one news agency has aligned with the current administration. We need to look past the hype and spin doctors. What is the cost of "FREE"? Are we spending more that we are bringing in? Where are we going? What is the cost of more government ... less government? Are the states still sovergn? When is the last time you read the constitution? Wrote your Senator, state and national.
Believe little and question all. Get off your backside and get in the game. If you don't vote don't gripe.
Thanks. Great topic. All the best. Bob.
Lawren Jones 10+
Varlan Allan 10+
Random Chance 30+
It almost doesn't matter anymore because everyone believes what they are told to believe, they think what they are told to think, they say what they are told to say, thus they do what they are told to do. They also do not believe what they are told not to believe, they don't think what they are told not to think, they don't say what they are told not to say, and thus they don't do what they are told not to do.
dean crawford
Varlan Allan 10+
Varlan Allan 10+
Please comment if you have any further knowledge of this subject as I am terribly interested.
Varlan Allan 10+
Barry Palmer 50+
The usage noted by the Oxford English Dictionary is a change that was caused by western media.
My favorite euphemism from the media is the USA "Health Care System." There is no health care system in the USA. We do have a MEDICAL industry which does not remotely resemble a system. It is driven by economics and doesn't care about anything except profits. (Yes, there are very many individual professionals who are very caring people. They are caught up in an industry that frustrates them as it hurts patients.)
Scott Armstrong 50+
People seem to not even notice (not me! I can't stomach the 6 o'clock news) and absorb the notions that go along with the language without a second thought.
My mum and dad still habitually watch the news every night.The small stuff is just gossip, but the "big" news is terribly, terribly biased.
Wikileaks and Julian Assange are visionary.
I think that it's really (at the heart of it) about entertainment. Increasingly, I find mainstream media to be lacking in all departments.
Lejan . 30+
As usual, it is all just a matter of perspective.
It is like it is at war. The heroes of one are the murderer of the other side.
So western governments are referred to as regimes today, but just not in western media.
The reason why it appears differently is a matter of presented information only.
So if you wan't to get a better understanding how your own country is seen by other nations, take a look into their, not your media. It's that simple (if you are good in languages) and unfortunately it is difficult as well.
The given fact, that sources of alternative information such as wiki leaks are seen as threat in our so called 'free' western nations can be seen as a hint of our true agenda. Or this 'beautiful' invention of 'embedded journalism' may rise the quiestion since when journalism was meant to be embedded and if this is not contradictory to its original purpose.
To me, those mechanisms are clear signs of regime control.
You can also find those mechanisms working in the semantic change of words. For instance, what is seen as the 'agressor' in the beginning of a war from an neutral position, is named 'preventive strike' on the side which started. In WW2 the German people were not told that they began the war, they were told that they were defending themselves. That's makes 'the difference' to all of those who doesn't know better. This 'disinformational tactic' is used till today and not only in states our media calles 'regimes'.
pat gilbert 50+
Zdenek Smith 100+
"Modern usage
While the word regime originates as a synomym for any form of government, modern usage often gives the term a negative connotation, like an authoritarian government or dictatorship. Webster's definition states that the word "regime" refers simply to a form of government [1], while Oxford English Dictionary defines regime as "a government, especially an authoritarian one" [2]. Nowadays the political use the word regime is most commonly applied to any government that is most of the time not democratically elected and impose strict and often arbitrary rules and laws on the people that are, because of the undemocratic nature of the government, non-negotiable."
Based on the modern meaning of 'regime' then Canada and US do not fall under such a category as they have democratically elected governments.
cheers
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+