- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,730
- Reaction score
- 239
- Location
- Timbuktu
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I have always been talking about the corruption and connections with the U.S. media and the corporate U.S. government.
Through Republican and Democrat marketing teams putting out articles, publications and news stories that plant seeds into the sheeples brains on what opinions to have on who.
This is especially evident with the media blitz's on any third party trying to be in control of the U.S. Presidency.
Bill O'Reilly recently even stated there is corruption in the media.
Why won't Bill O'Reilly investigate the depths and details of the media corruptions even though he acknowledges its existence?
The American media used to investigate everything under the sun....especially things to do with the U.S. government.
This has changed somehow and now the U.S. media is nothing more than a propaganda beacon for the U.S. government and both political parties.
This is especially evident in how the American people now get bought and paid for "debunking" propaganda to sway the minds of the American people instead of new and real investigations asked for by the American people with government officials under oath.
CD:
You would be taken more seriously if you would quit the name calling (Sheeples). I think you have some interesting things to say, but as soon as you start with this name calling, I loose all respect for what you have to say.
So do whatever. You can debate with yourself. I would encourage other to ignore your posts when you use this tactic.
I'm not taking it personal, it just is my opinion it weakens what you
want to say.
It gets to a point where I roll my eyes at any of it. To listen to them; everything is conspiracy. Its not a conspiracy that it isn't covered in prime time on Fox or MSNBC; its bad TV!
If there were a story; the print media would be following it. All media is hurting and the ideal that somehow the press would ignore something that would sell papers or get viewers is simply the stuff of ignorants.
It is a bit conveluded. One one hand they use new sources to prove a point, yet then say the news is in bed with the govt or corporations.
If I wasn't on the verge of crashing right away, I'd go a little bit deeper and source, but anyway.
There's 6 big companies that control a 95% of the market shar of the media, whose advertising money comes in majoritarily from fortune 500 companies, their subsidiairies, etc... So, great care is placed not so much to make it so that the 'important' news (or news that might affect the bottom line of their advertisers) does not appear, but rather that these stories appear in parts of the newspaper that 90% of the readers will never read.
I would urge you to look at Project : Censored and see their top 10-20 stories that meet their criteria as being all but blacked out over the past 10-15 years...
When you see the threads of the topics these censored stories (I don't mean explicitly censored, but media self-censorship of topics that really are of of public interest).
So, yes... 6 companies control about 95% of the flow of information for about 90% of the people, and for a surprisingly high number of people, if it doesn't appear as a mainstream source, it for all intents and purposes does not exist.
All this to address your point : I agree with you that what you say is the way it SHOULD be, but in reality it's not quite that simple.
Yes, the media is in bed with government and other corporations... that doesn't mean that the information printed in the media is necessarily false, just that what appears there suits an agenda.
Also, one MUST use mainstream sources to make their point, because NOT using mainstream sources means that it's fabricated... as though none of the mainstream news is fabricated ever... maybe not fabricated, contrived might be a better word.
And those 6 companies are making $0.00 on their press products which is why they are closing newspapers, cutting back on news telecasts, etc...
Whats always hilarious about you all is that you sit there and say that theres no difference between the two parties yet when it comes to the press, they have a need to keep one or the other in power so they don't investigate.
If that were true, tell me a good reason why the press won't blow open this story on you all's supposed evidence of conspiracy and sell 10X as many papers or commercial time at 10X the normal rate?
All that is going to happen is that a president--likely out of power or a Party will go away as a result and maybe a few hangers on will lose their jobs and freedoms as a result. Since there is no difference in the power center from blue to red; why would the press hold back and not cash in on the billions they would make?
Woodward and Bernstein are still raking in dough from their Water Gate coverage 40 years ago. Your thesis that no reporter would like to have that sort of history is laughable.
CD:
You would be taken more seriously if you would quit the name calling (Sheeples). I think you have some interesting things to say, but as soon as you start with this name calling,
Sorry for the insults. I usually try not to offend anyone.
Here is what I said:Can you elaborate on the relevance of these papers making no money when they are still the controling arm of these newspapers?? I would attribute what you're saying to more something along the lines that people are simply 'tuning out'.
And those 6 companies are making $0.00 on their press products which is why they are closing newspapers, cutting back on news telecasts, etc...
Whats always hilarious about you all is that you sit there and say that theres no difference between the two parties yet when it comes to the press, they have a need to keep one or the other in power so they don't investigate.
If that were true, tell me a good reason why the press won't blow open this story on you all's supposed evidence of conspiracy and sell 10X as many papers or commercial time at 10X the normal rate?
So your stance is that every editor is killing stories?That's a good question... those newspapers are all owned by larger media conglomerates. So, while there might be some individual jouranlists writing these stories, the editors that understand the connections more won't allow the stories to be printed. Or, if it does get printed it's hidden in a 5 line ad buried in the back of the newspaper.
I'm not catching the relevance because your mixing three seperate, albeit related, topics.Here is what I said:
"And those 6 companies are making $0.00 on their press products which is why they are closing newspapers, cutting back on news telecasts, etc...
Whats always hilarious about you all is that you sit there and say that theres no difference between the two parties yet when it comes to the press, they have a need to keep one or the other in power so they don't investigate.
If that were true, tell me a good reason why the press won't blow open this story on you all's supposed evidence of conspiracy and sell 10X as many papers or commercial time at 10X the normal rate?"
You took a partial quote. It makes sense when you read the whole thing together.
So your stance is that every editor is killing stories?
I'm curious...Ted Koppel, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw (just to name a few) no longer work for any major media corporation. What is keeping them from investigating? All are financially comfortable beyond any compelling measure to argue otherwise. Why are these men not investigating or leading an investigation?
What about Frontline? Nova? Any one of the dozens of cable news channels? Reputable foreign news papers? Reuters?
All of these people are on the take?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?