Proof of the bias of mainstream media lapdogs

[untermensche]

They all want to perpetuate the system that has made them rich.

Their control over the media allows a bad system to remain despite it's incredible instability.

Well, I'm just curious regarding the mechanism that allows all rich people, across the world, to coordinate the exact same message, to all the world's western media (sans the Russian media - the only unbiased media) at the exact same time!

If only you would read Hermann and Chomsky's book.

They go through this. And as some have pointed out the situation is worse than when they wrote about it. We have fewer sources of media now than then.

Good old capitalism, giving us fewer and fewer choices.

 

[ZiprHead]

Man that sucks! How do the rich control the whole media? What system do they use? I'm amazed that the rich in all western countries have the same opinions! It's incredible how the all put out the exact same message!

They all want to perpetuate the system that has made them rich.

Their control over the media allows a bad system to remain despite it's incredible instability.

Nobody ever wonders why much of the advertising on all the Sunday news programs is for stuff you cannot buy? Wow, Exxon has off-shore oil rigs. Southern Pacific has fuel efficient trains.

Advertising dollars are used to control the news. Tell a bad story about us and we'll pull our ad dollars and your network will be out millions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, I'm just curious regarding the mechanism that allows all rich people, across the world, to coordinate the exact same message, to all the world's western media (sans the Russian media - the only unbiased media) at the exact same time!

probably by email or phone, or in closed door meetings, the same way the insider trading on 9/11 was coordinated or the same way bilderberg does it

You sure do like that site. It's a crackpot site.

As for the supposed insider trading--nothing unusual once you actually looked at things. Yes, there was a spike in options trading--but it would be expected there would be such a spike due to a triple witching day coming up. (I forget exactly which day, but it's a day when three different option durations run out and there's always a spike in trades before one.)

 

[TV and credit cards]

Nobody ever wonders why much of the advertising on all the Sunday news programs is for stuff you cannot buy? Wow, Exxon has off-shore oil rigs. Southern Pacific has fuel efficient trains.

Advertising dollars are used to control the news. Tell a bad story about us and we'll pull our ad dollars and your network will be out millions.

I do. My favorite was one for nuclear reactors. I can't remember the name of the company but the background music was to die for. Every time I hear this song, I think about buying a nuclear reactor.

 

[empty]

probably by email or phone, or in closed door meetings, the same way the insider trading on 9/11 was coordinated or the same way bilderberg does it

You sure do like that site. It's a crackpot site.

you sure do like to make unspecific and ad hominem comments
especially since the site tends to aggregate from other sources, more reputable to your liking

As for the supposed insider trading--nothing unusual once you actually looked at things. Yes, there was a spike in options trading--but it would be expected there would be such a spike due to a triple witching day coming up. (I forget exactly which day, but it's a day when three different option durations run out and there's always a spike in trades before one.)

im sure the fact that the trading was done with companies related to the events on 9/11 is just coincidence to you
have anything better than vague hand waving to discredit the wealth ov proof for insider trading? bet not, you never addressed my comments from the previous board, and i bet you wont address those i make here, either
but what should i expect, you support mainstream news

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You sure do like that site. It's a crackpot site.

you sure do like to make unspecific and ad hominem comments
especially since the site tends to aggregate from other sources, more reputable to your liking

I have yet to look at a link there and not find problems. I've long since quit looking.

As for the supposed insider trading--nothing unusual once you actually looked at things. Yes, there was a spike in options trading--but it would be expected there would be such a spike due to a triple witching day coming up. (I forget exactly which day, but it's a day when three different option durations run out and there's always a spike in trades before one.)

im sure the fact that the trading was done with companies related to the events on 9/11 is just coincidence to you
have anything better than vague hand waving to discredit the wealth ov proof for insider trading? bet not, you never addressed my comments from the previous board, and i bet you wont address those i make here, either
but what should i expect, you support mainstream news

Trading was done with many companies.

 

[empty]

you sure do like to make unspecific and ad hominem comments
especially since the site tends to aggregate from other sources, more reputable to your liking

I have yet to look at a link there and not find problems. I've long since quit looking.

As for the supposed insider trading--nothing unusual once you actually looked at things. Yes, there was a spike in options trading--but it would be expected there would be such a spike due to a triple witching day coming up. (I forget exactly which day, but it's a day when three different option durations run out and there's always a spike in trades before one.)

im sure the fact that the trading was done with companies related to the events on 9/11 is just coincidence to you
have anything better than vague hand waving to discredit the wealth ov proof for insider trading? bet not, you never addressed my comments from the previous board, and i bet you wont address those i make here, either
but what should i expect, you support mainstream news

Trading was done with many companies.

more unspecifics, im not surprised

 

[credoconsolans]

They all want to perpetuate the system that has made them rich.

Their control over the media allows a bad system to remain despite it's incredible instability.

Nobody ever wonders why much of the advertising on all the Sunday news programs is for stuff you cannot buy? Wow, Exxon has off-shore oil rigs. Southern Pacific has fuel efficient trains.

I wasn't aware vastly wealthy people watched TV news commercials to get hints on what to invest in. If their financial advisors are doing that, I'd get a new financial advisor.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I'm just curious regarding the mechanism that allows all rich people, across the world, to coordinate the exact same message, to all the world's western media (sans the Russian media - the only unbiased media) at the exact same time!

Harry: You're not curious enough. What makes you think you only have a problem "when all the rich people of the world coordinate the exact same message." That isn't how it works. We have a plethora of rich liars and media buyers giving us their tailored lies on this or that network. The girl who quit RT just verifies that all the mainstream news systems are special interest...including the Russian one.

These media systems are NOT IN LEAGUE WITH "THE GOVERNMENT." They are in league with their owners' interest....definitely not yours or mine. It only seems subtle to someone who does not analyze what they are being told. The rich have their own interests. They buy just enough media to keep you OUT OF THEIR WAY, and they buy just enough government officials to get their way. For big ticket issues like war mongering, it means they buy quite a lot of media and quite a lot of senators and congressmen and of course...the president. Rich people buy people in both of the parties. Can't you see what that makes your vote worth? Zip!

Most of the mainstream media is clearly in the hands of the military industrial complex, and other big corporations either connected with oil or finance or agribusiness. You need to listen for what they DO NOT DISCUSS. That is what one of the clips in the OP was all about...Contractually shutting mouths. They really don't care what goes on on TV or radio as long as it does not discuss their warts...and keep people like you trusting and entertained enough to stay OUR OF THEIR WAY.

I wasn't aware the government and vastly wealthy people always shared the same goals. Otherwise why are so many banking off shore? Or giving up citizenship? Obviously their goals do not often coincide.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Nobody ever wonders why much of the advertising on all the Sunday news programs is for stuff you cannot buy? Wow, Exxon has off-shore oil rigs. Southern Pacific has fuel efficient trains.

I wasn't aware vastly wealthy people watched TV news commercials to get hints on what to invest in. If their financial advisors are doing that, I'd get a new financial advisor.

I don't think that's what he's saying. It's not that rich people are making buying decisions based on those commercials, it's that by having those commercials, the networks become financially dependent upon those companies and any potentially negative coverage about them is influenced accordingly.

 

[arkirk]

Nobody ever wonders why much of the advertising on all the Sunday news programs is for stuff you cannot buy? Wow, Exxon has off-shore oil rigs. Southern Pacific has fuel efficient trains.

I wasn't aware vastly wealthy people watched TV news commercials to get hints on what to invest in. If their financial advisors are doing that, I'd get a new financial advisor.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I'm just curious regarding the mechanism that allows all rich people, across the world, to coordinate the exact same message, to all the world's western media (sans the Russian media - the only unbiased media) at the exact same time!

Harry: You're not curious enough. What makes you think you only have a problem "when all the rich people of the world coordinate the exact same message." That isn't how it works. We have a plethora of rich liars and media buyers giving us their tailored lies on this or that network. The girl who quit RT just verifies that all the mainstream news systems are special interest...including the Russian one.

These media systems are NOT IN LEAGUE WITH "THE GOVERNMENT." They are in league with their owners' interest....definitely not yours or mine. It only seems subtle to someone who does not analyze what they are being told. The rich have their own interests. They buy just enough media to keep you OUT OF THEIR WAY, and they buy just enough government officials to get their way. For big ticket issues like war mongering, it means they buy quite a lot of media and quite a lot of senators and congressmen and of course...the president. Rich people buy people in both of the parties. Can't you see what that makes your vote worth? Zip!

Most of the mainstream media is clearly in the hands of the military industrial complex, and other big corporations either connected with oil or finance or agribusiness. You need to listen for what they DO NOT DISCUSS. That is what one of the clips in the OP was all about...Contractually shutting mouths. They really don't care what goes on on TV or radio as long as it does not discuss their warts...and keep people like you trusting and entertained enough to stay OUR OF THEIR WAY.

I wasn't aware the government and vastly wealthy people always shared the same goals. Otherwise why are so many banking off shore? Or giving up citizenship? Obviously their goals do not often coincide.

You missed the point. I never said "government" shared any goals with anybody. It is politicians who share goals with their rich sponsors. The problem is far more complex than just one big conspiracy. What we get in mainstream news for example is simply a consensus of the rich and powerful of our country. It also is not that accurately determined. It is a perfect storm of conflicting corporate agendas. Offshoring occurs when a corporation finds it profitable to offshore. These corporations are not actually "American" institutions. The reach of their activities is global.

Our society, and especially our large corporate sector is highly dependent on systems that use CO2 generating power sources. They have deeply invested interests in the carbon powered economy and managed to squelch coverage on this week end's anti climate change demonstrations in NYC...no CNN coverage...no LA times coverage...no Fox coverage. It was covered by the NYT because it was happening all around and to them. That is due to carbon economy bias. Foreign news sources covered it quite well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think that's what he's saying. It's not that rich people are making buying decisions based on those commercials, it's that by having those commercials, the networks become financially dependent upon those companies and any potentially negative coverage about them is influenced accordingly.

Yeah. I would like to see a firewall between advertisers and the companies they advertise on. Obviously, in some situations it's not possible--if there's only one newspaper then you perfectly well know where a newspaper ad is going. The ad companies should get an eyeball count and the demographics of those eyeballs but as much as possible they would not have any control over who actually hosted the ads. (Think of how most internet advertising works these days--the companies pay the big ad companies, the ad companies put the ads on websites but rarely do the advertisers know where the ads will end up. Extend that model to all ads and enforce it.)

This would make it much harder for advertisers to mess with the news. Any attempt to bypass the firewall would automatically be a criminal offense--even if the "threat" is sufficiently veiled it can't be proven the contact itself is automatically deemed criminal.

I would also like to see the news media separated from the rest of the business world: News media could not own or be owned by anything other than other news media and individuals (index funds could still invest in them, though--but any shares held by anyone other than a private individual are non-voting) and never by competing news media. News companies could only produce news. Again, this would make it much less likely that a story would get killed because it stepped on toes somewhere.

 

[blastula]

deleted, wrong thread

 

[doubtingt]

They all want to perpetuate the system that has made them rich.

Their control over the media allows a bad system to remain despite it's incredible instability.

Well, I'm just curious regarding the mechanism that allows all rich people, across the world, to coordinate the exact same message, to all the world's western media (sans the Russian media - the only unbiased media) at the exact same time!

Besides the fact that almost all news outlets are owned by the same handful of corporations, and besides the fact that these corporations all have their hands in controlling most other major markets, there is the very direct and explicit centralizing force of the Associate Press.

Most news outlets don't do any investigating about anything and just parrot what the AP says. The AP is basically a completely out in the open conspiracy, in that it is an organization co-owned and controlled by the major news corporations. The AP is a central headquarters where member news corps send in the "raw materials" of story ideas or drafts, then stories are manufactured and distributed back out to all the news corps to parrot out to the public. Most smaller outlets not owned by the corporations who coordinate their message via the AP still wind up just parroting AP stories themselves because they do not have any actual journalists and its cheaper to just report the stories the AP writes.

That is the rather simple and undeniable manner by which corporate profit interests put out a highly controlled and calibrated message that advances their shared corporate interests. Corporations compete with each other, but their real enemy from whom they profit by causing harm is the people of the world. Thus, they not only spontaneously craft the same misinformation to control the people, but they very explicitly collaborate and craft a shared message, and that is what everything that the AP reports represents.

BTW, this doesn't mean that the AP never says anything that makes some corporations look bad. They need to maintain a veneer of integrity and "service" to the public or the whole ruse collapses. Given how unthinking and uncritical most news consumers are, it doesn't take much to keep them swallowing it or even better to deflect attention from their true corporate bias onto silly notions that the government controls the media or that specific party bias is the main factor. There is a market for blatantly ideological news, and Fox News is the largest example of this strategy. But there is a bigger market in pretending to serve the public interest more generally, so most outlets don't have a strong party-directed bias beyond what is advantageous to their corporate interests.

 

[NobleSavage]

You know, there have been peer reviewed academic studies on bias in the media. A lot. There are meta studies of the studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

There is a lot more than the Chomsky propaganda model.

 

[boneyard bill]

I started this thread and then never got back to it to comment, but in reading it now I see that there were some very good posts and a lot of new and good information posted by others. I'm rather surprised. I thought my OP would get a lot of criticism, but it appears that few are willing to defend the MSM.

One important omission, no one mentioned "Operation Mockingbird." This was a CIA project that actually bribed journalists to give a story a particular slant. After it was exposed, the CIA said they wouldn't do it anymore but, AFAIK, there is no way for Congress to find out if they actually have terminated the program.

Another important omission, I think, was the internet. Yes, a lot of internet sites are unreliable nonsense, but the beauty of the internet is that you can check these things out, and a great many internet sites are accurate and outside (sometimes WAY outside) the mainstream media slant. Cenk Yugur is a great example of this and the most successful of the heterodox sites, but there are others including the likes of Glenn Beck and Alex Jones which have a very large following. Are these people always accurate? Of course not. They make mistakes. They jump to conclusions. Certainly, they are not unbiased. Sometimes they have to correct themselves or apologize for not checking things out sufficiently. But the MSM has all of those problems as well and added to a uniformity of coverage that serves the interests of a relative few people who have the power to control the news.

You also have access to alternative sites like Al Jazeera and RT on the internet. I wouldn't claim that these sites are objective either, but they give a different spin that information that is often suppressed by the US MSM.

By the way, I did not intend to suggest that the greater leeway allowed by reporters on RT necessarily meant that RT was, in some sense, a "freer" news outlet than Western media. I noted the "irony" that in some respects at least, RT allowed reporting that would get suppressed in the US. It is ironic, of course, because during the Cold War sources like TASS and ISVESTIA were regarding as paradigmatic examples of a controlled media. We cannot automatically make that assumption about RT even though it is a government-owned enterprise.

 

[bilby]

I started this thread and then never got back to it to comment, but in reading it now I see that there were some very good posts and a lot of new and good information posted by others. I'm rather surprised. I thought my OP would get a lot of criticism, but it appears that few are willing to defend the MSM.

One important omission, no one mentioned "Operation Mockingbird." This was a CIA project that actually bribed journalists to give a story a particular slant. After it was exposed, the CIA said they wouldn't do it anymore but, AFAIK, there is no way for Congress to find out if they actually have terminated the program.

Another important omission, I think, was the internet. Yes, a lot of internet sites are unreliable nonsense, but the beauty of the internet is that you can check these things out, and a great many internet sites are accurate and outside (sometimes WAY outside) the mainstream media slant. Cenk Yugur is a great example of this and the most successful of the heterodox sites, but there are others including the likes of Glenn Beck and Alex Jones which have a very large following. Are these people always accurate? Of course not. They make mistakes. They jump to conclusions. Certainly, they are not unbiased. Sometimes they have to correct themselves or apologize for not checking things out sufficiently. But the MSM has all of those problems as well and added to a uniformity of coverage that serves the interests of a relative few people who have the power to control the news.

You also have access to alternative sites like Al Jazeera and RT on the internet. I wouldn't claim that these sites are objective either, but they give a different spin that information that is often suppressed by the US MSM.

By the way, I did not intend to suggest that the greater leeway allowed by reporters on RT necessarily meant that RT was, in some sense, a "freer" news outlet than Western media. I noted the "irony" that in some respects at least, RT allowed reporting that would get suppressed in the US. It is ironic, of course, because during the Cold War sources like TASS and ISVESTIA were regarding as paradigmatic examples of a controlled media. We cannot automatically make that assumption about RT even though it is a government-owned enterprise.

Do you really think that "Sometimes they have to correct themselves or apologize for not checking things out sufficiently" belongs on a list of 'problems' which some media outlets have?

Any media outlet that never corrects itself or apologises for any error is to be avoided like the plague. Absolute and unwavering certainty is a sure sign of extreme bias, in any field other than pure mathematics. In news media, it is completely unacceptable not to routinely correct oneself and apologize for not checking things out sufficiently.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, nothing exposes the liberal bias of the MSM better than an example of a guy getting axed because he was too honestly liberal. The problem in the media is not a bias left or right. The problem is that the media has a PROFIT motive to keep everything looking like it's uncertain. They sell spin and stories, not honest appraisals of the world.

So in every political cycle, politicians get depicted as being neck and neck. Issues that are well settled in the scientific community are posed as if they are tenuous at best. Tenuous discoveries are touted as near certainties so that the inevitable failure of them is shocking. The MSM is directly responsible the current EBOLA scare. I could go on but I wont. The MSM has a profit bias, and reality has a liberal bias. But being realistic isn't entertaining.