The media controlling people

Don't forget, fox news nearly dominates the am bandwidth, and a good percentage of the fm.

 

Figures?

 

Dunno, but Clear Channel comm. controlling more air than cbs and abc have chose Fox news for another five...

FOX News Radio and Clear Channel have signed an extension that keeps the syndicated radio news network providing news for some 100 CC stations for the next five years. FOX’s full-service, general-interest news offering features FOX News’ top talent and includes a five-minute top-of-the-hour newscast, a nightly signature news broadcast, and 24/7 dedicated national news coverage. Also under the agreement, FOX News Radio will continue to have access to news produced by Clear Channel’s more than 500 local news journalists via the company’s Clear Channel News Network.

 

As the propaganda machine shifts gears and rolls along.

 

Oh yeah, we have 'news providers', too (ITN being the main independent)
I think some of the people that were around three years ago might not be with Fox now.
So, historically, you might be right.

That was three years ago, right?

 

uuh, yeah... sry I didn't provide a link

 

Media in itself is fine, as it does a good job of getting information out there.......however I do take issue with the mainstream media. Half the crap on the news is just biased crap or you get more opinions and theorizing by people that really have no clue than the actual thing going on.

 

It's ok.

 

Controlling sounds a bit strong/exaggerated to me. They are influencing people sure, but controlling people? You would have to be pretty stupid for that. But yeah, the media does influence a lot of people.

 

I believe the media had a good side, which allows us to get information that we need, but at the same time. when it comes to telling us What the government wants us to know and hides alot of the actual truth, so i believe theyre good sides to it and also bad sides to it as well.

 

The media manipulates because it is manipulated by design. They exist to maximize profit. They don't want to rock the boat because it's bad for business. If they mess with powerful people, they only do so superficially. Even Fox and MSNBC only rock the boat within very strict limits while reinforcing the phony political spectrum we're presented with. The formula to pleasing the right constituency appears to us as manipulation and to them as not losing business. So, not reporting things to us is more important than reporting things to us. The people in the industry may even think of it as "objectivity". It's all built into the professional standards. The end result is manipulation, but they'll respond with a "what are you talking about? This is how we try to be fair." It's fair to a very narrow spectrum of thought. Don't know if that made sense.

 

But at least the truth, is *not* among the hostages because I, Richard Thornburg, just happen to be here. To put his life and talent on the line for humanity and country,

and if this should be my final broadcast...

 

id rather keep my nose in a book that sit back and fall asleep with my eyes open staring at the programming box

 

This is interesting, because I heard something similar long ago.

There's a guy, Mark Hertzgard, who published a book called On Bended Knee (1987), about how the Reagan admin. manipulated media. This was a first, really: for ages, pres. admins. measured media savvy by how little they told media. The Reagan press apparatus, contrary to, say, Nixon's, which forever had this adversarial relation w/ the press, delivered a daily press briefing w/ what Hertzgard called "the line of the day." Example: the Grenada invasion (Oct. 1983) was peddled w/ "we got there just in time." & That's what the press reported.

Successive pres. admins. have copied the Reagan scheme, which resulted in the press during the first Bush II admin. being basically cheerleaders for the war on terror. So when an outlier like Hastings printed nasty $h!t about Gen. McChrystal in 2010, the MSM treated *him* like a terrorist.

As for money, Hertzgard commented (1987 again!) that the average annual income of MSM journalists was $60K; @the time, only 10% of the Am. workforce made $60K. & They're rewarded for their cooperation: Thomas Ricks, a Wash. Post reporter & a big booster of the wars on terror, is now an associate @the neocon Heritage Fdn. It's fun to say, oh, big money is behind media, but media like that big money!

 

It should be noted that the best way to change a system is to work from the inside out.

Take chances! Make mistakes! Get the inside story!

 

The media can provide us with leading headlines, interesting articles and enlighten us about what's going on around us - the good and the bad. I think that especially when it comes to politics - the media alone isn't always credible. There will always be a bias or some facts left out or distorted, making it difficult to get a clear and true picture of what's going on, and base an opinion on it. Whem opening a newspaper people should keep in mind that a lot of what they're reading isn't actually a compilation of updates and facts, rather opinions!

 

i can tolerate certain channels on tv, but social media is what gets me. things like instagram, face book, twitter. these are just a few examples but it really lowers you initial opinion of yourself seeing what everyone else has or is doing, on top of that i don't understand hy any established person would get on these sites. you have your life in front of you but you wanna turn around and see everyone else life... unpluged

 

Blow the whole world up to kingdom come and our one and only god will have no other choice but to make world/edenv2 hopefully/faithfully amen

 

Who owns the media?
Who controls the means of communication?
B-A-N-K-S

Why on earth should we trust they tell an unbiased version of events?

The don't need to brainwash directly, they simply with-hold key ideas and alternate narratives.

The UK media provide a scary example, right now: Since the implosion of the financial 'services' sector, which forced huge debts onto public accounts as well as caused the structural deficit the right wing are in hysterics over... consider this:

The UK public are presented with a choice, between 'cutting public spending' or 'increasing public borrowing'. The debate conducted in the media is framed as ONLY between these two alternatives.

There are other alternatives, for example 'increasing public revenue'. But because this third option would involve raising taxation for the wealthiest, oh, no, it's silenced by the media. What makes it worse is that the BBC have been cowed into submission by the corporate press and now toe the bank-sponsored version of truth.

There is no 'free press', there is only capitalist propaganda.

(I am very upset by this!)

 

Hold up: who was the one who decided that the U.S. should have a national bank--again?