The News Media

[SilverDNA]

Here is a documentary that speaks directly to this , its a remarkable piece of work.

And yet nothing has been done. Many of the people interviewed there are part of groups that could do something to fix the system, they know the system is broken, but they don't do anything. It's like a sick form of irony. They are people who are in a position to do more than comment and inform about these problems, but they expect us to be the ones to solve them, or for things to just work themselves out on their own. Either you're an activist, or you're a journalist, you cannot play both roles.

 

Thank you Vargant for for clarifying. That was very helpfull.

I think you refer here to the Spiral of silence (Wikipedia Link)

The manipulation that is happing uses a Group Polarization (Wikipedia Link) to create a Memory hole (Wikipedia Link) while the Spiral silence is is mostly visible when someone moves against the medias or politicians in facing reprisals creating the image that if someone speaks out what he believes is the truth on this matter is deformed to a retarded, querulous person by the media or even threatened to be shown as such by those in charge to preserve their abusive powers. Later is not only viewable in lager scales, but also in smaller scales, when government officials threaten proposer's to not move against the Government Official because he will be backed up by his/her supervisor and the proposer is threatened to be made by reprisal to step from the rightful claim. it is like placing a Damocles sword over the head and if the proposer's doesn't gives up and makes any move against the injustice done to him let the sword fall. Similar measures are taken up if an individual moves against such media corporation industrial corporates, insurances and political movements that have well established lobby, that has like an octopus multiple arms in the pockets of politician of all parties.

 

For a merry thought of my own click on the spoiler

 

 

(I wish only, I had my fingers had, in my lifetime, that often in others p*****s,

as they have their nepotistic fingers, right now, in the political parties. )

:whistling:

 

 

 

I have made several observation on when ministry's made publications in front of a government official (example: monthly unemployment reports but i survey a loot more) of about 300 pages or more the staged group of journalists runs, grabs the report turn up table of contents, turn up the page they want already having their ear on the cellphone. ... around 30 to 45 or even less minutes later the report is narrowed down to what the public wants to read/ view and in the net or TV. keywords as pre-prepared pre-filtered are used to describe this in public. If i want my own opinion i need to download the report my self, read the report, raise questions, research the questions and if i then would want to publish this in an article i wonder why almost 2 days have past since i downloaded the online version.. .. does this raise suspicion?, No! Multiple excuses you get as answers for bad journalism.

 

another neat trick how to make fools out of the public that uses the established broad so called news from the political end that i have lately seen in my country is to pull out the drawer dust covered legislative changes, that should have been there established about 3 years ago and are planned 2 years ago and have been since in the drawers, while the citizens that could possible need them could lead a legal charges against the government, because those laws are the direct result of a treaty singed 5 years ago and with in the treaty a causal progress had already been established. Now they present the legislative changes to the journalists as innovative novelty to for the citizens that can now make use to it.

 

Sometimes i have the notion in my countrie we have typical (beware stereotype) American car sellers as politicians and the medias buying this kind of fraud without questioning before publishing and re-sell only the Chassi to the citizens and put the rest into the tin-bin.

Edited June 28, 2012 by SilverDNA

[HeyYou]

Here is a documentary that speaks directly to this , its a remarkable piece of work.

And yet nothing has been done. Many of the people interviewed there are part of groups that could do something to fix the system, they know the system is broken, but they don't do anything. It's like a sick form of irony. They are people who are in a position to do more than comment and inform about these problems, but they expect us to be the ones to solve them, or for things to just work themselves out on their own. Either you're an activist, or you're a journalist, you cannot play both roles.

 

Mainly because the folks that are in a position to implement the necessary changes, profit the most from things staying exactly as they are. So, we get lip service to the 'issues', but, never any action toward fixing it. Why would anyone purposely wreck their own gravy train?

Because we face assured destruction otherwise.

 

When 75% of a country's infrastructure is already crumbling, you don't need terrorists, you don't need natural disasters, society can be brought to a grinding halt just because one place had too much strain. That is what happened with the massive blackouts along the East coast a few years back. We will likely face similar issues this year as about the only improvements made to the system were bandages over the most damaged sections. Most of the bridges in the country are deteriorating. Most of the water mains have cracks and aged sections that threaten to deprive whole cities of clean drinking water, and nothing is done until things have already broken.

 

Because we have a population who is frightened, doubtful of the future, and greatly distrustful of the government which exists to serve them. If left on the current path, there will be riots, there will be death and destruction, there will be people too fed up with the lies and who have nothing left to lose. Parts of Europe have already seen these erupt, but there has been almost no coverage of these being broadcast in the West. The tendency for politicians to simply stand idle while lining their pockets will only serve to add passion and validation to the rioters.

 

Something has to give, for all our sakes.

 

But that is in some nebulous future. Our government has more than adequately demonstrated that they don't particularly care about the future. Just like corporate america, its what makes the most money RIGHT NOW. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

 

The situation you describe is EXACTLY what I expect to see in our future, and probably not all that far away either. It doesn't really matter who wins in November, the course won't significantly change. Its just a matter of who will get us to the collapse faster.

[Beriallord]

Ok, Beriallord, I agree with what you have posted. Now do you have any opinion as to why and how this has happened?

 

I have an opinion/theory. The ones in power are more concerned about swaying people toward a certain direction, than being truthful and honest with the masses. If the people knew the facts about everything, they would be up in arms with their government. Its more about placating and controlling than anything else. They know a 1 party system doesn't work. That experiment has been done in the past, and has failed every time. Its easier to teach people how to think and make it appear that they have freedoms, than to control people with threats, force and violence. I'm not saying the government has full control over the media, because its much more complex than that. If the dissenting voices have nowhere to turn to for answers or representation, then over time that creates problems, which is why there is a 2 party system and not 1. It might sound like a Conspiracy theory to some, and by definition it is.

 

The difference between me and most, is most believe we live in a free country, I don't. Most think they can send their voice with a vote and get adequate representation, I don't. The America as we know it is nothing more than a large social experiment. Leaders all throughout history have tried to seek methods of controlling the masses of people, many did it through threats of force and violence, which usually works for a time, but only as long as people have nothing left to lose, then they resist with every bit of will they have. America is different only by its methods. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. For them to maintain any control, with little risk of revolt they must give the people some wiggle room and freedoms, and also make them feel like their ideals are represented by their government. The problem is, people are getting increasingly alienated not only by losing freedoms, but more people are starting to feel like they don't have any voices in power that represent them. What happens then is you got someone like me who loses complete trust/confidence in their government.

 

This is one of the reasons gun sales have skyrocketed. You ask the guy who has 20+ guns and 10s of thousands of rounds of ammunition why they are doing it, and you will find that they no longer have any faith or trust in their government and are clinging to the one right they have left that makes them feel like they have any power or control over the situation. Even though its mostly a false sense of security. The ones buying a lot of guns are the ones that fear their government. They buy guns because they are looking for piece of mind. If fear ever leads to desperation, then they are going to have a revolt on their hands. Some might argue that is why they should take gun rights away, but that will ultimately lead to desperation and increased resistance. So they are in a catch 22 with that one.

 

The mistake they made, is in their effort to control and please everyone, they are only alienating the largest majority in the country, the White working/middle class.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Beriallord

[Aurielius]

I was going to stay out of this but I felt that someone should point out that the media has never been unbiased from colonial days to present. If you looked at the level of political invective used during the Jacksonian era one would find that we are pikers in comparison. The founders were among some of the worst political proselytizers in their distortions of incidents such as the Boston Massacre to name just one distortion of the actual facts to suit a political agenda. The founding fathers expected journalists to be what they are now and always have been. They also expected that a good citizen should not be lazy and accept being spoon fed an opinion. If you want the truth then you must accept the fact that you will have to sift a lot of manure to arrive at it, whinging about how it is not presented to you by corporations that control the media with a definite agenda of their own is lazy thinking at best and naively oblivious at worst.

[Vagrant0]

I was going to stay out of this but I felt that someone should point out that the media has never been unbiased from colonial days to present. If you looked at the level of political invective used during the Jacksonian era one would find that we are pikers in comparison. The founders were among some of the worst political proselytizers in their distortions of incidents such as the Boston Massacre to name just one distortion of the actual facts to suit a political agenda. The founding fathers expected journalists to be what they are now and always have been. They also expected that a good citizen should not be lazy and accept being spoon fed an opinion. If you want the truth then you must accept the fact that you will have to sift a lot of manure to arrive at it, whinging about how it is not presented to you by corporations that control the media with a definite agenda of their own is lazy thinking at best and naively oblivious at worst.

The difference is that in those days, the agenda was clearer, and usually had some eventual end. The facts were distorted not because of someone's own ego or for money and ratings, but because they were trying to build support for a cause and actually following though with that cause. The causes may not have always been right, they may not have been just, but atleast those that talked them up managed to stay with them until some point of resolution. If the media environment of today were present in colonial times, there would have never been a revolution because there wouldn't be anyone willing to put their life or their career on the line in seeing that it leads somewhere, and talks of protesting would be overshadowed by political scandal, commentary on what popular authors and poets were doing behind closed doors or in pubs, and spreading fear of potential attacks from Native American "savages". The difference is that none of the higher-ups in this environment seem to have any resolve beyond their own contracts and bank accounts.

[Beriallord]

In colonial times, the media was limited to newspapers, which meant that many in those times were in the dark about the dealings of their government due to nothing but their location. This was prior to the telegraph, so information traveled on horseback, if it ever even reached certain locations. It was several years in some locations in the South before they were aware they even lost the war, just due to how slowly the information traveled. These days you can't turn the TV on without getting the media thrown right in your face.

[Aurielius]

I was going to stay out of this but I felt that someone should point out that the media has never been unbiased from colonial days to present. If you looked at the level of political invective used during the Jacksonian era one would find that we are pikers in comparison. The founders were among some of the worst political proselytizers in their distortions of incidents such as the Boston Massacre to name just one distortion of the actual facts to suit a political agenda. The founding fathers expected journalists to be what they are now and always have been. They also expected that a good citizen should not be lazy and accept being spoon fed an opinion. If you want the truth then you must accept the fact that you will have to sift a lot of manure to arrive at it, whinging about how it is not presented to you by corporations that control the media with a definite agenda of their own is lazy thinking at best and naively oblivious at worst.

The difference is that in those days, the agenda was clearer, and usually had some eventual end. The facts were distorted not because of someone's own ego or for money and ratings, but because they were trying to build support for a cause and actually following though with that cause. The causes may not have always been right, they may not have been just, but atleast those that talked them up managed to stay with them until some point of resolution. If the media environment of today were present in colonial times, there would have never been a revolution because there wouldn't be anyone willing to put their life or their career on the line in seeing that it leads somewhere, and talks of protesting would be overshadowed by political scandal, commentary on what popular authors and poets were doing behind closed doors or in pubs, and spreading fear of potential attacks from Native American "savages". The difference is that none of the higher-ups in this environment seem to have any resolve beyond their own contracts and bank accounts.

So your counter is "The ends Justify the Means"? Expecting morality from journalists is much the same as expecting pigs to fly. Unconvinced to say the least.

[grannywils]

This topic is turning out to be more interesting than I expected, if I do say so myself. Aurielius, Vagrant0 and Beriallord all make excellent points; and I cannot say that any of you are incorrect in your positions, at least not in my opinion.

 

However, I guess Vagrant gets closest to what I see as the reality we are facing today. My perspective is this. I agree with Aurielius in that media (in whatever form it took) has always had an opinion/bias. Let's face it, reporters are human beings, and they cannot be expected to be totally without a viewpoint. What I see as the difference is either (A) In colonial times it was expressed as an opinion blatently and not as a fact, giving one an opportunity to make one's own decisions; or (B) in the 40's and 50's and even maybe the early 60's, we knew that reporters had opinions and leanings, but they left them out of their reporting. They gave us the news without a lot of extraneous fluff. It was fairly easy for a reasonably intelligent human being to know which papers or tv stations or radio stations leaned in which direction, but one still felt that one was getting the "real" news, and (as suggested by our astute Lt. Cmdr.), if you had any sense you checked in with all sides

 

I'm not even sure if we were always getting the unbiased truth then, but I am pretty dang positive that we are not now. Not only that, but we all know who owns the vast majority of the media conglomorates, and what they want to push. I don't really believe that it is whinging (or whining) to suggest or even to discuss the fact that our world has changed as dramatically as it has. I believe that it is important for us to be conscious of what is going on around us; and whether or not it took place in another form 200 years ago or 75 years ago does not necessarily mean that it is ok now or that we need to calmly sit back and accept it. Some of what happened in the good old days was not so good, or at least it's not so good for us now.

 

Of course we need to continue to dig for the truth. But wouldn't it be a glorious world if we did not have expect to be lied to on a regular basis??? :blush:

[Lisnpuppy]

Perhaps being cynical from birth, I have never trusted the press or their ability to be objective. I honestly think this focus on truth and fair and balanced and objective...all these things are a recent development made by the press themselves. Motive? Ratings, job security? A few journalist who really try to do it right?

 

They have never been objective and even if you look back in the days before "mass media" the media lied to us.....or at least lied by omission. No one knew of the polio and heart issues of Roosevelt or the chronic back pain and multiple liaisons of Kennedy....the press all knew it and kept it to themselves.

 

Truth in general is subjective but the media for the most (and I am not going to get down to those that do simply make up things....I don't even consider them to be journalist.) walks that fine line. Making money has always been the end goal of media, Citizen Cain anyone? Hot or scandalous stories always sold papers and journalist have always, always, always put some of their own or their employers' slant on the story.

 

This isn't always bad. The breaking of the Watergate Story by the Washington Post an their reporting of it....well they did get lots of facts right but they didn't get them all....their opinion of the story is apparent in there mere reporting of the incident. The difference in this reporting is the willingness to stand up and tell a story that has wide reaching repercussions and could likely blow up in a journalist face. The press is supposed to be the watchdog for the people.

 

So those who wish to know fact or truth or information have always had to work a bit. Information is power. It has been since humans could give that first guttural sound of communication. I believe the second sound made was probably the first lie.

 

If certain interested parties (rich, government, aliens, etc) control the media then it is in their best interest to keep the public uninformed and unmotivated. Get them worked up about things that have nothing to do about the issues of the day, but rather the issues of moral ambiguity in which the individuals can feel justified in being angry and shaking their fist at the incorrect "other".

 

So I really don't care how much a journalist or media is fair and accurate or entertainment because I will NEVER trust only one source to give me the information I need. The media is like this because of US.....they wouldn't act they way they do if it wasn't making them masses of money. How do they get their money? Us of course.

 

Ultimately I do not think most of us will do the work required to get information to base our decisions and ideas. To do that would make the individual responsible for their own ideas and actions. Very easy to say.."But the tv told me" or "my preacher said it" or "it was on Fox." If an individual can claim to not have complete or accurate information then they can't be held responsible for what is going on and they can point a finger at someone else.

 

So the problem with the media won't change until WE change as individuals and we demand that the Fourth Estate climb out of the mire in which it has imbedded itself and again become to some extent the watchdog that it has been in the past. No not all the time or all of them....but those journalist (not newscasters or whatever...but true investigative journalist) who will still buck the trends and perhaps put themselves in danger on many different levels. Those few that with a pen can cut away more lives and lies than any sword.

[Vagrant0]

So your counter is "The ends Justify the Means"? Expecting morality from journalists is much the same as expecting pigs to fly. Unconvinced to say the least.

No, what I am saying is that there will always be people who want to believe in a cause, resonate with it, and who need someone more prominent to be in control. These news reporters don't have the following they do just because of their own charisma, they have that following because there are people who want to believe that someone else has the answers, that someone can give them hope, that someone can make a difference. This is what has always been a driving factor in revolution, change, or solidifying those values that people hold dear. The problem is that those values are being sold out and manipulated purely for ratings, viewership, and it is intentional.

 

On one hand, this false sense of hope ends up making people content enough with the world such that they aren't personally spending the time and effort to work towards these ends. It is a very effective means of control since you both get a good idea of how frequent those sentiments are, and keep them partially satiated by means of some public figure taking up the cause. So even if the cause is something contrary to the dominant force, the dominant force still wins because rather than having individuals actively opposing it, those individuals are taking the easy route and just supporting that public figure.

 

On the other hand, people eventually start feeling disenfranchised by the promises and lies. They get sick of how nothing is getting better. They realize how these people manipulate facts and emotions towards an empty conclusion. And eventually these people will get tired of it and lash out in ways that were more destructive than that initial cause ever was.

 

 

The problem is not that these causes might be personal, or that people are being used for them. It is that these causes don't go anywhere, that people are given promise after promise and just left there floating as if their feelings on a matter really don't matter because nothing will ever be done. What was once hard-fought causes and people working towards improving a way of life is now just illusion, performances, and empty hope.