Can we agree on this

[code1211]

The future of Americans' freedoms is threatened by the powerful mass media systems.

When our country was founded, there were just 'people' talking and writing. There were issues with free speech being allowed or not and that's about it. It was a time of idealism about the power of 'rational man', who was making many discoveries in science.

Flash forward to today, and a century of developing ever-more effective opinion manipulation technologies, driven by advertising and used for politics.

Now we have over half of one party who believes an absurd lie that the election was stolen and tens of millions who can't understand facts about things like climate change or the Qanon insanity.

The public has pretty much shown is isn't able to be rational against the powerful advertising and propaganda systems in many if not most individuals. When there are billions of dollars to be made, the ability to create messages that mislead people is very powerful. Going forward, our country looks more like lab rats being led around than the rational citizens our founding fathers expected.

Of course, everyone things that's only a problem for others. Regardless, it's easy to see how we go from the current 1/3 nuts to 2/3, and the game is over, as the technology becomes ever-more loud and effective. And it's money driving the messaging - which results in controlling people for power. Who's left to complain - as if complaining would do any good - if 2/3 are indoctrinated?

"Free speech" has been weaponized. It's not now useful for random citizen to say a politician sucks, it's protecting mass media to greatly influence public opinion for wealthy interests.

Right now, it's still more 'ad hoc' - people like Rupert Murdoch and Sean Hannity making money by exploiting the technology. But there's every reason to expect it to become a more organized effort - think the Nazis or China. If you think people will resists, think about the supporters and opponents of 1/6 screaming at each other about who the traitors and who the patriots are.

If you think 'experts' will be heard more, think about how climate change science is not effectively heard despite countless experts. How badly Coronavirus experts have been heard by tens of millions. If anyone wanted to build support for some change to this - where would they be heard? The mass media are making the billions.

After reading about half of your post, I think we can agree that there are many, that you represent, who victims of the propagandists recommending the silencing and cancelling of many in our society.

 

[Craig234]

To be clear, I can't stand Putin; I assume his motives for RT are to harm the US by building division.

But they seem to know that putting Russians on the air saying 'US bad, Putin great leader' wouldn't be very convincing. So what they do is a lot more subtle, and appears to me to simply include trying to have some good commentators just to build some ratings. He support progressives somewhat only because he likes the division between corporatists and progressives.

 

[joluoto]

Wrong. Thom Hartmann and Chris Hedges are two of our best commentators, and they are quite independent. I think both are critical of Putin.

Both of them are Putin apologists, so them getting a spot on RT makes sense.

 

[Craig234]

Both of them are Putin apologists, so them getting a spot on RT makes sense.

That's a lie.

 

[Craig234]

Thom Hartmann writing on Putin: Simply calls him a " hard-right broadly autocratic regime "

Opinion | There Are 3 Main Theories That Explain Trump’s Approach to Putin and Russia—Which One Makes the Most Sense? (commondreams.org)

 

[The Old Soul]

Its not the media as much as the people who willingly and blindly get sucked into the narritive; the media is a supplier that gives the customer what they want and respond to.

This will be a useless paragraph for many because it addresses a solution instead of endlessly rehashing the problem:
Much mainstream (fake) news contains some truth - to twist - dependent on the network or outlet. When finding a story, report, or opinion of interest, my tactic is to check several news sources; if it is 'exclusive,' the suspicion flag goes right up. If found on several sources, first look at the source, then filter out the applicable mudslinging, badmouthing, posturing, and propaganda, and try to deduct the often well concealed facts. Common topics often span multiple news providers, and taking the average of what's reported by sources like WaPo, Hannity, Fox, CNN, Reuters, or whoever, usually borders the truth.

Saves much of the pointless arguing that go on here and amongst the hard-core pragmatists diving on partisan propaganda and near-truths.

This reminded me of a memory from high school, one where some girl in my class was talking/ranting about how the science teachers were wrong, she didn't believe in Evolution because the Bible, her church told her Evolution couldn't have happened because God created everything. It was one of those moments that made me realize how easy it was to use religion as an excuse for ignorance.