Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.
Where does truth and speculation depart company in the case of media today?
It is a pretty well established fact as well as just simple logic that any given government (and in this case the US government) would have assets in a variety of media organizations. After all, what better way to gain access to various other nations, cities, and governments than through the use of the press? After WWII, many in the US marveled at the use of propaganda by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, as in the case of the former, it was extremely effective in getting a given population to bend to the will of the state. This is nothing new and has been done since even before the church was used both as a political tool and as a means to socially engineer a population to the desire of those that understood this. What level of involvement between government, industry and the media takes place is anyone’s guess, but you can be sure that it does in fact happen. Check out Carl Bernstein’s 1977 piece in Rolling Stone, on the CIA and the media for just a few of the examples.
Today we have a media that most people believe is purely driven by money, ratings, and the desires of the viewer. While widely acknowledged that media, and particularly news media are owned by corporate conglomerates and internationalist that do a wide variety of other things other than provide media to the masses. What escapes most people is that many of these large titanic companies are also inexorably tied to the political body of government for the most obvious reasons of legislation that is beneficial to any said company. Matters not if they produce tanks, asprin, or lollipops and of course, news.
While people continue to bicker and argue that this news is biased this way or that this news is biased another, what the vast majority fail to understand is that it really does not matter which you prefer, you are still being fed the same bovine excrement, only the packaging has changed. It goes unnoticed due to the very intended purpose that more attention is paid to the wrapper than the contents of the package. We also tend to forget that the same people selling toothpaste are the same people selling you on the pros and cons of your choice for your next President and the marketing tools are used enforce.
An example I would like to cite is our current views with the Middle East. After it has been determined that WMD’s didn’t really exist as claimed, the majority of people felt rather fooled, became angry that they were fooled and vowed to never be fooled again. Then, almost on cue the march to Iran began. It used nearly the identical script as Iraq, only the name of the weapons inspector and country had changed. There was more skepticism this time around the ole flag pole, but still, large segments of the American people, led by the nose by a complacent media apparatus jumped right on the same boat and bought it hook, line and sinker. It comes to light that now the current administration has known this for at least 5-6 months and yet it chose to sell the same snake oil to willing fools. This of course should be of no surprise, this administration is not that much different then a plethora of previous ones who were trying to sell their schtick but they could not have done so without a willing press to market their story. Again, we must ask, where was the great liberal fourth estate, it was busy helping Uncle Sam fill your head with a fools tale.
Other example might be the latest Presidential debate hosted by CNN. If the pomp and pageantry of our current side show freak parade weren’t bad enough, we did at least have one of the most obvious uses of manipulation ever before witnessed by anyone watching. One of the most notable things I saw (being a Paul supporter) was the question about the alleged super highway from Canada to Mexico. The question was framed as to paint the recipient as a conspiracy theorist in its very phrasing. Yet it isn’t really a secret, even if the government does not openly discuss it, all one has to do is visit Alberta, Canada government website to see this thing. The question posed to Duncan Hunter by the gun enthusiast was a classic, as it made it appear as though everyone who owned a rifle acted as though they were Bruce Willis on the latest Die Hard set. The entire fiasco was an abomination of anything that could be remotely considered news, yet the people ate it up.
While I will never say that you can’t learn anything from our news media as they all produce some news and present many factual things and usually do. It is that during the presentation of the factual that other impurities are inserted through the use of subtle and clever sound bytes, the use of language, image presentation, and context. As I have often stated before, I think each and every American should be required to take a class in marketing to help them better see its use in what people want to consider just news.
It should make one beg to ask why and to what ends. Why in a nation of free people would there be the need to manipulate and steer public opinion in any given direction? Are there actually people who either have so little confidence in the American people’s ability to disseminate fact from fiction that it has to be presented to them so that they will understand at the expense of even truth? Is there a benefit to those who own the media to guide Americans desires to suit their own agenda or some desire of governments? Or could it all just be that it is mere coincidences that a given public view point just so happens to coincide with the will of corporate or government interests? I can say with complete honesty that I don't know but I sure would love to.
Food for thought and in the meantime, by all means, think for yourself and always ask, Qui Bono.
I'd like to know who decided that this election cycle was going to be 18 months long.
How many damn "debates" are we going to have? Who is Mike Gravel? Who, for that matter, is Ron Paul? How do they qualify as viable candidates for the Presidency? We all know that Richardson, Dodd, Tancredo, Biden, and Hunter are really Vice Presidential or Cabinet wannabes. Who is going to pick Gravel or Paul for anything other than crank of the week?
The presentation of the "debates" has indeed, been manipulative and obviously scripted. But the whole overall scenario has so much of a fait accompli air to it that I wonder who is actually in chargle, if not the networks? If it's the political parties, they are even more out of touch with reality than any of us could have imagined.
Or maybe not. Maybe what's going on has the ring of authenticity to the big public. Remember -- this is a populace that cheered a one-legged gold-digger on Dancing with the Stars, and sends rating through the roof over Rosie O'Donnell and Jerry Springer.
I think this is related to the rise of so many different think tanks since the 1970's and early 1980's. Ideologues with money and desire for political power (despite an unwillingness to run for public office) founded these things in order to create breeding grounds for academics and researchers who would later be implanted into government, especially into advisory roles.
Every side plays this game, but the remarkable success of the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Institute, and a few others in influencing the debate around the Iraq war was especially notable, because so many of the leading figures in those think tanks migrated back and forth from the Bush administration to their academic posts.
The thing is, if you have a political agenda, you have to 'sell' it. You sell it on at least two levels - government and media. Selling it to the government is relatively easy for think tanks; they just produce reports and shuffle their people into government posts until they represent both sides of the transaction, so to speak. Sort of like the way former investment banking executives populate the Treasury department.
Selling it to the media is a bit different tactically, but it flows from the existing influence in the government. You start by producing a series of very alarming reports with dramatic titles about your chosen subject (let's say, war with Iran). Then your people in government amplify this message, which is, in turn, carried by the media, not necessarily because it is true, but because it sounds important and interesting. So, we develop a three-point cycle between these think tanks, government, and media, then back from media to the think tanks by way of the think tanks integrating the coverage into their next round of reports.
So, before long, an amplification effect gets underway. One might ask, why doesn't it work in the opposite direction? Why can't antiwar think tanks just use the same tactics? To some extent, perhaps they have, as the recent NIE and drawback from rhetoric among certain officials may indicate. But generally, the media is disposed toward drama and potential drama. It does no one's advertising account any good to play down the 'threat of Iran' or the 'chances of war.'
And, to be honest, most casual observers of the media don't have time to sort through these claims. They like simple binarisms, likes 'good' and 'bad.' So Iran becomes a 'bad' thing, and maybe bad things should be bombed.
I think this is related to the rise of so many different think tanks since the 1970's and early 1980's. Ideologues with money and desire for political power (despite an unwillingness to run for public office) founded these things in order to create breeding grounds for academics and researchers who would later be implanted into government, especially into advisory roles.
A most interesting aspect of this topic. I can see how lobbies certainly have this effect as it is pretty well accepted and normal practice. Do you think transparency and disclosure between various think tanks and government would provide any buffer to a given ideology manifesting itself in policy?
While a year ago I would have and did vehemently disagree that media bias existed on a large scale, I now concede the point that it does.
I also wonder if there isn't one controling entity that operates one main outlet for republicans and another main outlet for the democrats when in reality they are blithely steering both parties, by various routes, in the exact direction that they want us all to go. Makes me feel a bit sheepish (no pun intended of course) .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn
And, to be honest, most casual observers of the media don't have time to sort through these claims.
I agree with this statement heartily. I know that in my busy life, I rarely have time to watch the news much less question the integrity of network. However, I'm fortunate enough to have someone that keeps me informed.
How many damn "debates" are we going to have? Who is Mike Gravel? Who, for that matter, is Ron Paul? How do they qualify as viable candidates for the Presidency? We all know that Richardson, Dodd, Tancredo, Biden, and Hunter are really Vice Presidential or Cabinet wannabes. Who is going to pick Gravel or Paul for anything other than crank of the week?
I absolutely disagree. The media should do its damn job and report. But instead, they had already decided well in advance who would get the spotlight. And they are the ones that push people. Look at Huckabee. He was polling at 1% and raised under $1million in the 3rd quarter. But suddenly, lots of stories started popping up about him being up and coming, he starts getting more air time, and then magically he gets more talk time at the debate. And then what? Wow, he magically surges several points in all of these cranked out polls that are spoonfed to the masses telling them how to vote.
But too many people are happy with the dog and pony show and are convinced there are too many dogs and ponies and any of them that weren't harped upon before the race began must be carted off so everyone can once again have their moronic puppet show. That way we can end up with another Clinton most likely, or just as bad, a Bush clone who will continue borrowing 1-2 billion a day to continue fighting a war we can't afford to fight on our own dime. Hell, lets start another one while we are at it, China would be glad to loan us 3-4 billion a day instead.
I don't think the media has one damn bit of business paring down the field. The people should be doing that, but their are too busy waiting for the next Paris Hilton story or the latest Keith Olbermann or Sean Hannity garbage feeding sessions.
I also wonder if there isn't one controling entity that operates one main outlet for republicans and another main outlet for the democrats when in reality they are blithely steering both parties, by various routes, in the exact direction that they want us all to go. Makes me feel a bit sheepish (no pun intended of course) .
My next question would be steering to what direction ultimately?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
The media should do its damn job and report. But instead, they had already decided well in advance who would get the spotlight. And they are the ones that push people. Look at Huckabee.
Well not that it every just simply reported on anything without a bit of spin but it certainly seems it gets worse with each passing day. Huckabee is another excellent example of what many feel is the heavy guiding hand of the fourth estate in todays world. It isn't as though a candidate hasn't come from behind in the past but Huckabee?
I am going to assume that most people feel that the media plays a much larger role in guiding and outright directing the national perspective. I am going to assume this because even if you don't agree that the media at large has reasons, just by the sheer volume of nearly every poster on this particular forum who has laid claim that either the left or the right leaning news programs have had an agenda and presented a news item which favored their point of view, for whatever reason it may be.
So, how can people trust a large establishment, regardless of lean or slant when it is the consensus by nearly everyone that it does exist? Again, to what ends does all this serve and what possible gain could be achieved?
Do you think transparency and disclosure between various think tanks and government would provide any buffer to a given ideology manifesting itself in policy?
I think the problem is, even with transparency, nobody cares. The names of Bush's advisers, and their previous think tank posts, are not secret. But how many people actually know what a think tank like the AEI is, or does? I think, in life, there are only a finite number of things the populace is capable of caring about, and something as arcane as think tank affiliations of administration officials will simply never be one of those things, barring some kind of massive disaster stemming from them.
1. Consumers should always understand that any media outlet has a bias. What's new about that?
2. There is such a thing in the law authorizing the existence of the FCC, which regulates use of the public airwaves, as "programming in the public interest". If any citizen group can make a compelling case that today's status quo is not functioning in the public interest, then some changes could be forced onto the televised media.
3. There is no longer any journalism occurring on the part of the televised media. Let the viewer beware. Learn to diversity your information sources.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
