Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The Mainstream Media: An Analysis

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 2:47:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was asked recently why I believe an Associated Press article since "according to me all mainstream media is controlled lies." But that's never been my claim. Here's the truth of the matter:

The mainstream media tends to report real news. The wars reported by the news are real. The events reported domestically actually happened this stuff is all real. Especially the journalists. The journalists are real people investigating real events.

Here's where the manipulation comes in: the presentation of the news.

The real important news you can find on the online Reuters articles, the Independent, the BBC, AP, Newsweek, Daily Mail, Examiner, etc. online articles. But on the TV news which gets the most views reports trivial issues, repeats the Casey Anthony case over and over and over (even though bad stuff like that happens daily), and then they'll report the REAL important stuff as a sidenote and then everyone forgets about it.

The discussions of the opinion news shows also debate trivial matters and get into partisan politics and he said she said. Yeah, once in a while they'll show a real debate between Ron Paul and Keynesian economist Paul Krugman, but you ain't gonna see that very often.

So while the mainstream news rattles on and on about Biebers latest break-up, or Congressman Weiners dumb pics, Infowars is highlighting QE3, the Syrian conflict, the NDAA, the details in the Obamacare bill, what Zbigniew Brzezinskis latest statement is,
how much money is being sent on drones, how many civilian deaths by drone strike.

Where is the NDAA Senate vote on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox?

Another contrast is Infowars will get the official documents and numbers on how much Federal departments are spending and how many rounds of ammo and report billions while Associated Press will downplay it and report only one agencies number of ammo and say only a few thousand bullets and blatantly ignore and leave out the 80% of the rest of the bullets they purchased.

The media also engages in propogating the fear mongering of the government and will repeat over and over "terrorism," "Bin Laden," "weapons of mass destruction," to scare the public into accepting the agenda that "fixes" a problem they created.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 2:52:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Mainstream Media, unfortunately, has "ratings" to worry about and thus includes JB's latest riffraff to appeal to stupid Americans. Lets face it, your average American can name more Kardashian marriages than states in the union.

My main problem with InfoWars is that they're overhyped. If they really were being whistleblowers on government control, they would've been taken out by now or forced to tone down their content. It's just too good to be true.
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 3:10:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 2:52:34 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
The Mainstream Media, unfortunately, has "ratings" to worry about and thus includes JB's latest riffraff to appeal to stupid Americans. Lets face it, your average American can name more Kardashian marriages than states in the union.

The publics dumbed down in part because of the media. The Alex Jones Show is highly entertaining. If a news show like that was on mainstream television, they would watch because reality is fascinating.

But global elitists Rupert Murdock and Ted Turner control the mainstream news.

My main problem with InfoWars is that they're overhyped.

False. Prove it.

If they really were being whistleblowers on government control, they would've been taken out by now or forced to tone down their content. It's just too good to be true.

Infowars has had many attacks on it. They've tried crashing his site, George Soros has tried to assassinate his character, he gets harassed by the NSA, the CIA, etc., he's been arrested multiple times for protesting. You think him and his site go unopposed? Give me a break, youre living under a rock. They don't need to stop Infowars if they can convince 80% of the population that he's crazy. Did Infowars stop Obama from getting reelected? No. Did Infowars get the bankers arrested? No. So why would they bother.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 3:35:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 3:10:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The publics dumbed down in part because of the media. The Alex Jones Show is highly entertaining. If a news show like that was on mainstream television, they would watch because reality is fascinating.

I've never watched the alex jones show so I can't comment, but I seriously doubt it has the kind of mainstream appeal you think it does. People have limited time. They can spend time learning about the complex difficult grisly world of international politics, or they can turn their brains off at the end of the day and watch a show about some celebrity's life, or football, or toddlers in tiaras, or shallow representations of the news, or an action flick or play a video game or catch up on corrie or whatever. Fact is, there are thousands of different competing things for people's attention and only some of them are going to bother delving into the complexities of the kind of world that you spend your time being a conspiracy theorist about.

Also, fiction is more interesting to people. It's just a fact. Go into a bookstore and look at the size of the fiction vs the non-fiction section. Go to amazon and look at the books and films with the most reviews. And yes, look at the tv programs with the highest ratings. It isn't because the public have been brainwashed. That's just the way people are.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 3:41:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, the reason they don't show substantive debates between economists very often is because few people have the kind of economic background to even understand what's being said in the debate, never mind be interested by it. Say what you like about him, Krugman presents some very complex economic arguments and he has to dumb them down for people even to grasp the outlines of what he's saying. People don't understand economics. Most people would look at you quizzically if you started talking about elasticity or supply curves or even basic concepts like the difference between fiscal and monetary policy. It takes time to learn about those things, like it takes time to learn about physics or computer coding. Most people just don't want to put in the time.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:13:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 2:47:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I was asked recently why I believe an Associated Press article since "according to me all mainstream media is controlled lies." But that's never been my claim. Here's the truth of the matter:

The mainstream media tends to report real news. The wars reported by the news are real. The events reported domestically actually happened this stuff is all real. Especially the journalists. The journalists are real people investigating real events.

Here's where the manipulation comes in: the presentation of the news.

The real important news you can find on the online Reuters articles, the Independent, the BBC, AP, Newsweek, Daily Mail, Examiner, etc. online articles. But on the TV news which gets the most views reports trivial issues, repeats the Casey Anthony case over and over and over (even though bad stuff like that happens daily), and then they'll report the REAL important stuff as a sidenote and then everyone forgets about it.

The discussions of the opinion news shows also debate trivial matters and get into partisan politics and he said she said. Yeah, once in a while they'll show a real debate between Ron Paul and Keynesian economist Paul Krugman, but you ain't gonna see that very often.

So while the mainstream news rattles on and on about Biebers latest break-up, or Congressman Weiners dumb pics, Infowars is highlighting QE3, the Syrian conflict, the NDAA, the details in the Obamacare bill, what Zbigniew Brzezinskis latest statement is,
how much money is being sent on drones, how many civilian deaths by drone strike.

Where is the NDAA Senate vote on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox?
Some of these are valid, others are not, and others are only cause for concern due to fear-mongering by infowars against the police state.

Another contrast is Infowars will get the official documents and numbers on how much Federal departments are spending and how many rounds of ammo and report billions while Associated Press will downplay it and report only one agencies number of ammo and say only a few thousand bullets and blatantly ignore and leave out the 80% of the rest of the bullets they purchased.
So, their analysis is more in depth, but as you admitted with the Inspire woman in England, the analysis was glaringly absent. All that was reported was she went to prison for having literature; no charges, prosecutorial theory, or the law was discussed.

So, if this case (and I am sure others), info is gathered and not reported to give a full analysis; this is misleading at best, manipulation at worst. I would rather take an incompentant news program that is lazy, than one that says how great they are but purposefully drops the ball. Either way, no one should blindly believe either source.

The media also engages in propogating the fear mongering of the government and will repeat over and over "terrorism," "Bin Laden," "weapons of mass destruction," to scare the public into accepting the agenda that "fixes" a problem they created.
Constantly using terms like "patriot" and "police state" are somehow less evoking of emotion?
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:50:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 3:41:24 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Also, the reason they don't show substantive debates between economists very often is because few people have the kind of economic background to even understand what's being said in the debate, never mind be interested by it. Say what you like about him, Krugman presents some very complex economic arguments and he has to dumb them down for people even to grasp the outlines of what he's saying. People don't understand economics. Most people would look at you quizzically if you started talking about elasticity or supply curves or even basic concepts like the difference between fiscal and monetary policy. It takes time to learn about those things, like it takes time to learn about physics or computer coding. Most people just don't want to put in the time.

It's not necessary to get into supply curves, elasticity, etc., it'd be sufficient if people at least engaged in economic discussion at a basic level. People don't even understand fiat currency, we can leave elasticity to budget analysts and businessmen to worry about, we just need to understand that the Federal Reserve is private, the artificial interest rates that cause malinvestment, inflation, fiscal policy, the business cycle, etc.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 5:04:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:13:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/13/2012 2:47:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Where is the NDAA Senate vote on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox?
Some of these are valid, others are not, and others are only cause for concern due to fear-mongering by infowars against the police state.

False. Infowars is not fearmongering. Ron Paul in 2001 wasn't fear mongering when he predicted the 2008 collapse. Infowars isn't fearmongering when they say the mainstream media lied, the administration lied, and that GMO is bad.

Another contrast is Infowars will get the official documents and numbers on how much Federal departments are spending and how many rounds of ammo and report billions while Associated Press will downplay it and report only one agencies number of ammo and say only a few thousand bullets and blatantly ignore and leave out the 80% of the rest of the bullets they purchased.
So, their analysis is more in depth, but as you admitted with the Inspire woman in England, the analysis was glaringly absent. All that was reported was she went to prison for having literature; no charges, prosecutorial theory, or the law was discussed.

Exception, not the rule. I have read many Infowars articles. The Inspire incident was a small matter compared to their eugenics-environmental fraud analyses, etc.

So, if this case (and I am sure others), info is gathered and not reported to give a full analysis; this is misleading at best, manipulation at worst. I would rather take an incompentant news program that is lazy, than one that says how great they are but purposefully drops the ball. Either way, no one should blindly believe either source.

They didn't purposefully drop the ball. It's your fault for caring about minutia. Btw, they provided a link to the AP article for people who wanted to see the rest of the minutia.

The media also engages in propogating the fear mongering of the government and will repeat over and over "terrorism," "Bin Laden," "weapons of mass destruction," to scare the public into accepting the agenda that "fixes" a problem they created.
Constantly using terms like "patriot" and "police state" are somehow less evoking of emotion?

They prove their claims of police state. Alex has made documentaries with footage and proof of police state takeovers. He even showed video from C-SPAN of a Congressman testifying that they were threatened with martial law if they didn't vote for the bailout bill. Alex Jones has footage of riot police, police drills, physical copies of real federal documents about federal police, reeducation camps and all.

The government is using Reichtag tactics to scare people info giving up their liberties like Hitlers false flag that he used to accomplish his police state.

Alex Jones is trying to energize people to combat the evil regimes, bankers, intentionalists, sadists, war-mongering world leaders.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 5:49:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 4:50:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It's not necessary to get into supply curves, elasticity, etc., it'd be sufficient if people at least engaged in economic discussion at a basic level. People don't even understand fiat currency, we can leave elasticity to budget analysts and businessmen to worry about, we just need to understand that the Federal Reserve is private, the artificial interest rates that cause malinvestment, inflation, fiscal policy, the business cycle, etc.

Elasticity and supply/demand are basic, fundamental econ 101 concepts that must be understood before you can understand the economy at even a basic level. Like the circular flow of income, marginal utility and price signals. All those will be taught in the first semester of any economics course because they are utterly fundamental to the way a capitalist economy works.

What you want to do is commit the typical mistake of taking particular macroeconomic issues and learn only about those without understanding the wider economic context that those issues take place in. You aren't going to get an accurate picture of what's going on that way. Macroeconomics arise out of micro-economic transactions. And you aren't going to understand the impact of fiscal policy on those transactions if you don't understand microeconomics.