The Media

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[saltandsauce 0]

the BBC makes it's left wing propaganda stance by not reporting certain things

i hate the media

[MrCinatit 30]

You want to see commentary masquerading as news? Watch Lou Dobbs. Watching his hate-filled mouth-frothing tirades is rather sickening.

There was a four month period when I had a little contest: I would watch his show for the night until he would "report" on a story involving himself, or inject himself into a story.

The longest I went during that period: 15 minutes. That is right - every night, Lou Dobbs would report on a story about Lou Dobbs within 15 minutes of every show.

The guy is terrible.

[Zelgadis 638]

First point: Disagree.

I believe the media to be neither conservative nor liberal. They're both stupid and out for profits, so they play whatever they think will get ratings over and over again. And unfortunately, Republican smears get good ratings, so there are a lot of Republican smears. Ex: Al Gore never said he invented the internet. Obama never has been a Muslim (And in the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't matter if he was anyway). And a "fist bump" is just a "fist bump." (Actually, it's a "pound.") It's not a "terrorist fist jab." General Clark never questioned McCain's patriotism or service. He just said it doesn't qualify anyone to be President. (Simple and true) Distortion gets good play.

Second point: Agree

Yup, just commentary. Lots of talking heads telling us what we should think instead of doing actual reporting. And when they do "report" the news on the election, they just repeat the candidates' spin and talking points. Let's see, what have we learned in this presidential election so far? That Obama may or may not be a Muslim (yawn). That "fist jab" was slightly menacing (yawn). That McCain is an old guy. (Yawn) That McCain gave a boring speech in front of a green backdrop. (Um... Shouldn't we be focusing on the content of that speech??? I mean, this guy might be president! I don't care what color his backdrop is!!!)

Third Point: Agree

And also agreed that there is too much celebrity dish. It's gotten to the point where the previous night's events on American Idol, is now "news." I don't watch the news anymore because I really don't care at all who Paris Hilton had sex with or the latest injustice of who got voted off American Idol.

I have to admit, however, that Britney Spears was some interesting entertainment during the writer's strike.

ISF

[The_Dalai_Llama 15]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa First, from my perspective, the majority of news programs are Republican-oriented, or, more precisely, are conservative-leaning.  With the sole exception of Keith Olberman (and perhaps Schiffer), I cannot think of a single news show host who is not biased towards the right.  Tim Russert is dead, mind you.

quote>

 

I must absolutely disagree with you to a point.  Countless polls and studies show that most journalists define themselves as liberal while a small majority say they're conservative.  I find that some news outlets (MSNBC, New York Times, and CNN to a lesser extent) typically lean to the left... and the big 3 nightly news shows are also pretty favorable to liberals.

That doesn't mean there's conservative bias out there.  Talk radio is still heavily conservative and I believe Fox News somewhat balances the cable news bias with its conservative bias... but overall, the media is left-of-center, in general.

Originally posted by: MrCinatit You want to see commentary masquerading as news? Watch Lou Dobbs. Watching his hate-filled mouth-frothing tirades is rather sickening.

There was a four month period when I had a little contest: I would watch his show for the night until he would "report" on a story involving himself, or inject himself into a story.

The longest I went during that period: 15 minutes. That is right - every night, Lou Dobbs would report on a story about Lou Dobbs within 15 minutes of every show.

The guy is terrible.quote>

The same thing can be said about Bill O'Reilly, I think.  He always seems to bring himself into some of the stories he covers.  Nevertheless, I'd rather listen to O'Reilly and Dobbs than Olbermann or Matthews, by far the most biased "journalists" on TV.  Of course, we do have opposing opinions... I don't mind Dobbs that much.

Link to some Wiki thing about bias

Oh yeah, I do agree on your other two points.  Too many pundits, too much propaganda, too much celebrity news.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

I would say we in the UK have it pretty good because we have the BBC, which, despite what certain people to both the right and the left would have you believe, is pretty unbiased. There are clearly instances where one could show the BBC being biased, but I would say these far less frequent than you will find in America's news output. Overall the BBC provides an excellent news service, well worth the licence fee, if commercial American-style news services are the alternative.

Newspaper wise we have at least 3 decent newspapers, representing a fair range on the political spectrum. The Guardian is Left-wing, The Times pretty much centre and The Telegraph right wing.

However, most people choose to read the large amount of crap the tabloids produce instead. The main two tabloids are The Sun and The Mirror and a couple of other so-called newspapers. However, on top of this we have the so-called 'middle-market' newspapers such as The Daily Mail and The Express. These are in the habit of reporting ill-informed and sensationalist headlines relating to real news stories and the filling on the other pages with celebrity gossip.

[Meg 368]

There is a wide discrepancy between how I would like the news to be reported and how it actually is reported.  I would like the news to give me facts that are newsworthy.   This can be amazingly difficult to find.

I do not care about which "celebrity" gained or lost custody of their kids.  That is not news.  That is their own personal business that we shouldn't be sticking our noses into.  If I was interested in that nonsense, I would buy the Enquirer.  It has no place in respectable news.

I don't want to hear the biases from the individuals giving me the news.  If they want to share their opinion, call it commentary, not news.   I do not want to see interviews that involve biased, leading questions.  For example:

Nancy Grace:  So, what is the situation here?

Whoever:  well, blah, blah, yadda, yadda.

Nancy Grace:  What do people there think about this terrible, disgusting turn of events?

There are few events that are universally perceived as --- insert any adjective here ---.   I don't know anyone who is going say, for instance, that Katrina was wonderful but most things are not that clear cut.

On some occasions, I do hear balanced reporting, such as giving the facts about what happened and then giving multiple opinions about it.  Key word here being multiple.  I'm fine with hearing how Person A's viewpoint is different from Person B.  I think looking at multiple points of view can be enlightening.    Looking at only one can be very biased, whatever that bias happens to be.

I do object to "reporting" that hammers away at one viewpoint while totally ignoring facts that don't support that viewpoint.   Which is one reason I avoid talk radio.   Most of it seems like prolonged hateful rantings to me.

I haven't tried your Lou Dobbs experiment, MrC.   It would be interesting to see if I could duplicate your results.

[Explodingsims 3]

I would have to say I agree with all three points.

What really bugs me about the news, is the fact that celebrities have somehow become deities now. We must know every little fact about what goes on in their life...Ugh... As for American Idol results, There's a reason I don't watch that show, I don't like it or care about the contestants...Don't throw it in my face when I'm trying to learn about the potential Presidents.

Yet another thing I hate is how the media uses comments out of context. Or how they take some little background aspect of something and make it the big issue. I want to hear about the person/story, not some almost unrelated piece of it.

[RJ11 0]

No matter who owns it, it doesn't mean it's not biased. CNN, NBC, CBS (even fox guys), PBS all of them are slanted to the left, where you find it to be conservative.. hey, that's WAY beyond me.

[fukuda 351]

Woah, even if here TV news and newspapers keep low the level of tabloidism (it's not very well seen) some cases are.... amazing.

I'll group the media (TV, Radio and newspapers) in 3 groups: pretty unbiased, biased and nasty.

- Pretty unbiased:

El País

The most read newspaper in Spain by far, even if the editors and opinion articles are clearly left-winged, the bias is relatively low. Except when it must perform (socialist) goverment propaganda and can be moved to the nasty group

El Periódico

(Cover about a failed terrorist attack in barcelona)

Catalan journal sold in all Spain, center-right leaning, usually unbiased

TVE News

Most viewed TV journal too, it is pretty unbiased and journalists usually do their work (aka they don't explain you their opinions).

SER Radio

- Biased

La Vanguardia

2nd most read newspaper, center-right leaning articles and opinion, more libertarian than authoritarian

La Razón

(self-explanatory cover if you understand spanish)

Clearly right-extreme right leaning newspaper, more authoritarian than libertarian

Onda Cero Radio

left-center leaning radio, quite biased

- Nasty

The king cathegory

El Mundo

(cover making fun of the government)

This is one of the most read newspapers, despite being so ridiculously biased.

For instance, it seriously  pretends that: socialists worked with the madrid terrorists to get to power, that one car used by them belongs to a minister, that unlike what all evidences show, ETA and not Al Qaeda caused the attacks and so on....

Its main journalist, Pedro J. is well known in the satirical world.

COPE Radio

Episcopal Radio, the catholic radio. Like El Mundo but even worse, it's main contributor spends all night spitting insults to everyone not belonging to extreme right parties, several lawsuits have been filled against him, and he's been judged several times, he still spits insults everynight, though.

TeleMadrid

Main propaganda mean for Esperanza Aguirre, one of the most right.winged politicians of the PP Party, watched by several millions of people it's like a televised version of El Mundo

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: RJ11 \

 CNN, NBC, CBS (even fox guys), PBS all of them are slanted to the left, where you find it to be conservative.. hey, that's WAY beyond me.quote>

As Obi-wan says, it depends greatly on our point of view.

which is why it can be useful to understand other points of view.  Not agree with them, just understand what they are and why.

[Zelgadis 638]

It's easy to get the conception that the media is conservative.

The media "reports" on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as if it is the truth. (It wasn't.) Nothing happens. Well, except that it costs Kerry the election.

Dan Rather "reports" on a story about George Bush and his national guard duty and he gets fired.

The owners are conservative at least.

ISF

[Jerebannus XVI 7]

@Fukuda: I completely agree with you there, when you listed your categories, without even looking at the rest of your post I knew you would mention Telemadrid, gosh it's so disgustingly biased that it actually makes me sick when I watch it, lol.

[Duke87 1,070]

Whatever. I don't watch news on TV for just this reason. Everything is always in permanent gyroscope mode.

I have seen more intelligent and interesting discussion on news stories occur in this very forum than on TV. That should tell you something.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

I have seen more intelligent and interesting discussion on news stories occur in this very forum than on TV. That should tell you something.quote>

You have an excellent point there.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Duke87

I have seen more intelligent and interesting discussion on news stories occur in this very forum than on TV. That should tell you something.quote>

You have an excellent point there.quote>

 

Were media savy....

[panthersimcity4 162]

I hate the media, they get paid money to twist and distort the truth wherever it may be found. Whenever I turn on CNN, MSNBC,and especially Weazel News, all I see is "ZOMFG AL QAEDA IS GOING TO KILL YOU! And Britney is sleeping with a fire hydrant!"

And political pundits piss me off too with their bull opinions that nobody cares about. /rant

Nice to let off some steam somewhere

[RJ11 0]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4 I hate the media, they get paid money to twist and distort the truth wherever it may be found. Whenever I turn on CNN, MSNBC,and especially Weazel News, all I see is "ZOMFG AL QAEDA IS GOING TO KILL YOU! And Britney is sleeping with a fire hydrant!"

And political pundits piss me off too with their bull opinions that nobody cares about. /rant

Nice to let off some steam somewhere quote>

Your right, the media is exaggerating.. they're going to milk your cows. I'd post gorey pictures of the things al-qaeda does, but I think the mods wouldn't like me so I wont.

How's about a news story, seems like it's slanted to the left, not very right at all.. I'm right I find it not really slanted to my side or yours.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1542035,00.html

Look at the related topics too. Al-Qaeda wants to cut your head off with a knife. Don't know if you've seen their objective or heard from real sources, I heard this is the official site to get stuff from Iraq off of my friend gave to me.

mnf-iraq.com

[Duke87 1,070]

The mental picture of Britney sleeping with a fire hydrant is rather hilarious, actually.

[ShortStraw 1]

First of all, Thank You Barbarossa for starting this thread.

Second of all, this is a personal "hot topic" for me and I may not be able to help but get a little wordy here (long post inc).  I will attempt to provide links to my sources and resources as best I can.  I urge you to check out these links and whether you agree with me or not please use these resources to investigate the issues at hand for yourself.  If I fail to provide an adequate source for a claim or statement please feel free to ask me "where'd you get that idea from?" and I'll provide source data as best I can.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa I thought it was about time to post a thread about the media.  As most regulars know, the media is often attacked on both sides of the aisle in various threads as being "liberal" or "conservative".  This is the place to discuss the biases we hear in the news on a daily basis, particularly in American broadcasting.  I put this thread in Current Events, since it is easily argued that everything we hear from the news is happening in our time.

Here are three topics to start this conversation:

First, from my perspective, the majority of news programs are Republican-oriented, or, more precisely, are conservative-leaning.  With the sole exception of Keith Olberman (and perhaps Schiffer), I cannot think of a single news show host who is not biased towards the right.  Tim Russert is dead, mind you.quote>

In my own opinion, News show hosts (Talking Heads) are essentially actors.  Their personal beliefs and agendas are of little consequence.  They are being paid to professionally deliver reports that are usually written by trained journalists and heavily edited/influenced by their respective employers.  When you watch Lou Dobbs (for example), you are actually seeing the combined efforts of a large team of skilled writers, producers, directors, and technicians all of whom are masters at the craft of communications.  My point is this, Lou Dobbs is a mouthpiece for CNN.  CNN is owned by Time-Warner TBS-AOL, which in turn is headed up by CEO Richard Parsons.  Mr Parsons is closely associated with the American power structure, his career began as an aide on New York governor Nelson Rockefeller's legal staff and went on to include the following memberships- Member of presidential Drug Task Force; chairman, Wildcat Service Organization. Member of the board of directors of Dime Savings Bank, Federal National Mortgage Association, Philip Morris Companies, Time Warner Inc., New York Zoological Society, and American Television & Communications Inc.; trustee of Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Howard University, and Metropolitan Museum of Art.  (Source-  http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-parsons?cat=biz-fin  )   Of course, a corporations CEO isn't in full control of the corporation.  AOL-TBS-Time-Warner is controlled by a Board of Directors as well as its executive officers.  A comprehensive list of these people can be found here (Source- http://www.timewarner.com/corp/corp_governance/board_directors/index.html  ).  Without going into detailed specifics I can assure you that all of these people are both wealthy and politically motivated.  When you watch Lou Dobbs, you are actually seeing what these people want you to see.  You are hearing their words and being exposed to their systems of belief.  Lou Dobbs is reading a teleprompter and exercising his skills in communications delivery.  Who knows what his personal beliefs actually entail.

Second, when I watch the news today, I do not see actual news being reported.  I see commentary.  I see punditry.  I see a bunch of idiots spouting their opinions and working a gigantic propaganda machine. quote>

Your eyes do not deceive you.

Lastly, when news actually is reported, it doesn't seem to be important news.  It focuses more on celebrities (OMG, Brittany yielded custody!), human-interest stories (tales for the heartstrings), and inconsequential, tangential stories related to the presidential run (oh, wow, did you see that cartoon?!  Ooh...).

So, let's keep it civil, let's keep it sane.

Barbarossaquote>

I'm going to address this last topic in a roundabout way.  Please bear with me. . .

First, I would like to introduce you to the concept of The Public Sphere (Source- http://science.jrank.org/pages/10917/Public-Sphere-Influence.html  )   if you're not already familiar with it.    According to social critic and philosopher Jurgen Habermas, "public sphere" first of all means "... a domain of our social life in which such a thing as public opinion can be formed. Access to the public sphere is open in principle to all citizens. A portion of the public sphere is constituted in every conversation in which private persons come together to form a public. They are then acting neither as business or professional people conducting their private affairs, nor as legal consociates subject to the legal regulations of a state bureaucracy and obligated to obedience. Citizens act as a public when they deal with matters of general interest without being subject to coercion; thus with the guarantee that they may assemble and unite freely, and express and publicize their opinions freely." (Source-  http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611734/100438658403?opmode=contents '>http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611734/100438658403?opmode=contents  )

So basically, the Public Sphere is where Public Opinion is formed.  This is highly relevant to our topic since the bias of the media has a direct and profound influence upon the public sphere and public opinion.

A word on American media bias. . .

Most Americans rely on one of the following news sources when formulating public opinion:

CNN (i.e. Aol-Time-Warner-TBS corporation)

ABC News and affiliates (Owned by Disney corporation)

NBC News and affiliates (Owned by GENERAL ELECTRIC, the U.S. corporation, not the british one)

CBS News and affiliates (Owned by Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels, whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group))

And of course, Fox News (Owned by NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch)).

(Source-  http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530_comment.php#47603 '>http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530_comment.php#47603  )

A comprehensive list of corporate holdings in the media can also be found here- http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php

"To be able to participate in community life and make political choices citizens heavily rely on information. They need to know what is going on and the options that they should weigh, debate and act upon. An essential element for a functioning public sphere therefore is information.

Whereas formerly communication mostly happened on a face-to-face basis in large and complex societies (mass) media have evolved as the principal source of information. They act as a transport medium for the information necessary for a citizen's participation in the public sphere. Ideally there should be a wide range of media, that represent the diverse opinions and viewpoints on issues of public interest existent in a society and which are independent of the state and society's dominant economic forces."

(Source-  http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611734/100438658499?opmode=contents '>http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611734/100438658499?opmode=contents  )

"Almost all media that reach a large audience in the United States are owned by for-profit corporations--institutions that by law are obligated to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations. The goal of maximizing profits is often in conflict with the practice of responsible journalism.

Not only are most major media owned by corporations, these companies are becoming larger and fewer in number as the biggest ones absorb their rivals. This concentration of ownership tends to reduce the diversity of media voices and puts great power in the hands of a few companies. As news outlets fall into the hands of large conglomerates with holdings in many industries, conflicts of interest inevitably interfere with newsgathering."

(Source-  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=6 '>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=6  )

"As citizens rely on information to make political choices, media are an important element in the process of public opinion formation. They decide which topics and issues are on the agenda or not; which individuals or societal groups are given broadcasting time or publishing space and which aspects and facts are presented or suppressed. Media therefore have the ability to influence public opinion and those controlling the media are to a certain extent capable of altering the nature of discourse in their desired direction."

(Source-  http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611734/100438658438?opmode=contents '>http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611734/100438658438?opmode=contents  )

"Most of the income of for-profit media outlets comes not from their audiences, but from commercial advertisers who are interested in selling products to that audience. Although people sometimes defend commercial media by arguing that the market gives people what they want, the fact is that the most important transaction in the media marketplace--the only transaction, in the case of broadcast television and radio--does not involve media companies selling content to audiences, but rather media companies selling audiences to sponsors.

This gives corporate sponsors a disproportionate influence over what people get to see or read. Most obviously, they don't want to support media that regularly criticizes their products or discusses corporate wrongdoing. More generally, they would rather support media that puts audiences in a passive, non-critical state of mind-making them easier to sell things to. Advertisers typically find affluent audiences more attractive than poorer ones, and pay a premium for young, white, male consumers-factors that end up skewing the range of content offered to the public."

(Source-  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=60 '>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=60  )

Media as today's main information sources unarguably have the power to influence political agenda-setting and public opinion. They decide which topics and issues are covered and how they are reported. Still, in many cases those decisions are not primarily determined by journalistic criteria, but affected by external factors. The importance of shareholders forces media to generate more profit every quarter, which can chiefly be raised by enlarging audiences and hence attracting more advertising money. Therefore the focus of media's programming in many cases shifts towards audience alluring content like entertainment, talk-shows, music and sports.

Further pressure regarding the selection of content occurs from advertisers and marketers, who often implicitly or explicitly suggest to refrain from programming which could show them or their products and services (e.g. tobacco) in an unfavorable light. Interlocking directorships and outright ownerships can moreover be responsible for a selective coverage. Financial connections with defense, banking, insurance, gas, oil, and nuclear power, repeatedly lead (commercial) media to the withholding of information, which could offend their corporate partners. In totalitarian regimes also pressure from political elites may be a reason for the suppression or alteration of certain facts."

(Source-  http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611734/100438658492?opmode=contents '>http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611734/100438658492?opmode=contents  )

"Given that most media outlets are owned by for-profit corporations and are funded by corporate advertising, it is not surprising that they seldom provide a full range of debate. The right edge of discussion is usually represented by a committed supporter of right-wing causes, someone who calls for significantly changing the status quo in a conservative direction. The left edge, by contrast, is often represented by an establishment-oriented centrist who supports maintaining the status quo; very rarely is a critic of corporate power who identifies with progressive causes and movements with the same passion as their conservative counterparts allowed to take part in mass media debates."

(Source-  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=56 '>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=56  )

"Since governments almost always have an interest in controlling the free flow of information, official censorship is something that must be constantly guarded against. In our society, however, large corporations are a more common source of censorship than governments: Media outlets killing stories because they undermine corporate interests; advertisers using their financial clout to squelch negative reports; powerful businesses using the threat of expensive lawsuits to discourage legitimate investigations. The most frequent form of censorship is self-censorship: Journalists deciding not to pursue certain stories that they know will be unpopular with the boss."

(Source-  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=31 '>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=31  )

Finally, addressing all those lurid celebrity gossip/Human Interest/outlandish but irrelevant stories you see. . .

"Profit-driven news organizations are under great pressure to boost ratings by sensationalizing the news: focusing attention on lurid, highly emotional stories, often featuring a bizarre cast of characters and a gripping plot but devoid of significance to most people's lives. From Tonya Harding to O.J. Simpson to Elian Gonzalez, major news outlets have become more and more dependent on these kind of tabloid soap operas to keep profits high."

(Source-  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=49 '>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=49  )

I apologize for all the blatant copy/pasting.  I chose to copy/paste in the many areas where the cited words were simply more eloquent or to the point than my own personally written synopsis would have been.

With all that said I would like to point out that all hope is not lost when it comes to gathering objective, relevant, (mostly) unbiased information on domestic and world events.  We as citizens are very fortunate to still have mostly unregulated, uncensored access to the internet.

Here's a list of my own personal news sources.  Please check them out and use them to find your own alternatives to the corporate, commercial news sources that so obviously are not interested in informing you so much as in controlling you.

World Information.org

http://world-information.org/wio

FAIR fairness and accuracy in reporting

http://www.fair.org/index.php

Z Communications

http://www.zmag.org/

the apc.au blog

http://blog.apc.org.au/

RTMark

http://www.rtmark.com/fundwar.html#AMKG

B92

http://www.b92.net/eng/

LA Indymedia

http://la.indymedia.org/

LA Talk Radio

http://www.latalkradio.com/

Project Censored

http://www.projectcensored.org/

Thank you all for your time and patience and many kudos to you if you read all that in one sitting.

[Meg 368]

The owners are conservative at least.

quote>

Since we are on the topic of owners . . . the owner of the conservative newspaper in Washington, DC is the Unification Church, aka the Moonies.

Personally, I find it troubling that this paper is run by a religious cult. 

(I know it's difficult to define the word "cult" but, imho, it includes a group run by a guy who claims he is the Messiah because Jesus messed up the job.)

I'm not trying to bring the religion-vs-cult issue into this thread.  We have a thread for that.  

But I do think that, while we are talking about the media, talking about who owns what is a valid point to consider.  The biases that we see in the media are, at least in part, due to who owns what.

[ShortStraw 1]

But I do think that, while we are talking about the media, talking about who owns what is a valid point to consider.  The biases that we see in the media are, at least in part, due to who owns what.quote>

I personally find it quite frightening that for the past 15 years or so the vast overwhelming majority of all mass media outlets in the U.S. have been owned and operated and controlled by only 5 corporations.  Those 5 corporations (AOL-Time Warner, Disney, G.E., Westinghouse and News Corp) are all controlled by a relatively small group of people (Executive Officers and Boards of Directors) each and every one of which has a strong vested interest in maintaining the "Status Quo", or existing Power Structure in the U.S.   They represent a truly awe inspiring propaganda machine that very firmly and efficiently controls public opinion in the U.S.   As an American citizen your thoughts and opinions are not your own.  It is overwhelmingly likely that your thoughts and opinions concerning any major issue in the world today were carefully placed in your mind by this propaganda juggernaut.

We (Americans) have been effectively enslaved in heart and mind by a very small, very powerful group of men and women who see to it that we think, feel, speak and vote exactly the way they want us to.  The typical American citizen lost the propaganda war a long time ago.  Everything that is wrong in this country today is the price of our defeat. 

The fact that this sounds like a paranoid rant is just one small element of the propaganda victory enjoyed by our countries existing power structure.  I urge my fellow Americans to turn off the T.V.'s and radios.  Set aside your newspapers and magazines.  Be aware that the entertainment you are enjoying has been professionally engineered to influence your thoughts and opinions.  We must ween ourselves off of our mass media outlets or any hope for change in this country is lost.

Unless of course you think there's nothing wrong with America today that can't be fixed by our existing power structure (hardly surprising that this is almost what you're supposed to think).  In that case you need do no more than continue to trust in CNN, MSNBC,FOX,  Republicans, Democrats, Oil/Chemical/Pharmaceutical corporations etc and let them continue to use you as they see fit.

(The Moonies are tiny cogs in the aformentioned propaganda machine Ski.  They are imitating the succesful tactics of our existing power structure but their resources are paltry when compared to the Big 5.)

[Jerebannus XVI 7]

The first step towards getting a less partial media is to somehow prevent the Murdoch dynasty and others like them from owning so much of the media establishment. In Australia they already have some sort of restrictions in place and I think the rest of the world should do the same.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: ShortStraw

I personally find it quite frightening that for the past 15 years or so the vast overwhelming majority of all mass media outlets in the U.S. have been owned and operated and controlled by only 5 corporations.  [...] They represent a truly awe inspiring propaganda machine that very firmly and efficiently controls public opinion in the U.S.  quote>

Nothing new. Consider for instance the effects of the corporations (W. R. Hearst, mainly) on the media in causing the spanish-american war (1889) .

Or (unrelated to companies) the panic wave caused solely by H. G. Well's War of the Worlds.

[Danlikebooks 6]

There is a magazine that I read, called The Week, that reports news as it actually is (in my opinion).  It doesn't really report news, it compiles different viewpoints on an event to show you what people think about the event.  And it doesn't just have U.S. news.  It has news from all over the world (anything from The Olympics in Beijing, to how the people in the Czech Republic feel about missile defense).  It's pretty good.

[coolotter88 2]

I watch The Daily Show for news. it's probably just as informative, if not more, as any other news show.

I also get most of my news from the Simtropolis CE forum.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: ShortStraw

I personally find it quite frightening that for the past 15 years or so the vast overwhelming majority of all mass media outlets in the U.S. have been owned and operated and controlled by only 5 corporations.

quote>

I agree; that is very worrisome.  I do have hopes that the internet can help combat that, at least to some degree.   We don't have to restrict ourselves to what those 5 corporations want us to hear.  We can read a newspaper from anywhere whether those corporations like it or not.

It will take time, though.  Let's be honest:  most of my parents' generation is never going to use the internet.    As for my generation, there seems to be a dividing line in there.  The early baby boomers aren't into it; the later ones are, to some extent.  Your generation is growing up being used to having access to other sources.

Originally posted by: coolotter88

I also get most of my news from the Simtropolis CE forum.quote>

On one level, that is a scary thought since current events are a side issue here.   We make no attempt to cover the news.  We just talk about whatever people feel like talking about.

But it does go to what I was saying earlier.  Those 5 corporations probably don't want me to know how a particular issue is covered, and perceived, in Europe but I can find out anyway.

Sometimes, it's more literal and direct than that.  I remember when that bus hit an airport terminal and set it on fire.   Some news outlets here showed that fire burning for hours.  I heard that the fire was out from Boggy.

[coolotter88 2]

Well, I'm sure whatever is truly important will be covered here on this forum. If other people don't think a particular news story is important enough to be shared, then it's not newsworthy for me.

[Yoman3 5]

This Jibjab video shows what I think of the news perfectly.

JibJab Vid about News

[Red1530 1]

We now know that the New York Times is in the tank for Senator Obama because they refused to print Senator John McCain rebuttal to a Senator Obama op-ed unless he included a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.  If that is not bias, I don't know what is.