There are:

1,500 newspapers
1,100 magazines
9,000 radio stations
1,500 TV stations
2,400 publishers

owned by six corporations and 272 executives
that control 90% of what 277 million Americans SEE, HEAR, and READ.

A great opportunity for the few to condition the many.

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are:
>
> 1,500 newspapers
> 1,100 magazines
> 9,000 radio stations
> 1,500 TV stations
> 2,400 publishers
>
> owned by six corporations and 272 executives

Not that I think your numbers are way off*, but...which companies and "executives?" How many TOTAL newspapers and magazines are there, so we can judge what percent of the total these "six corporations" own? Is there any evidence these "six corporations" cooperate and conspire, or are they very much in competition with each other?


> that control 90% of what 277 million Americans
> SEE, HEAR, and READ.

...and that's where you go off the deep end.
The "90%" number has no basis in reality. Neither does the "277 million Americans" number.
The rather silly idea that all these Americans only look at the particular media owned by these six corporations, and never at any competing sources, is shown false by numerous studies by people who study the media and its impact.

> A great opportunity for the few to condition the
> many.

If you're going to spout nonsensical paranoia, at least *try* to put some facts behind it. That won't make it any more plausible, but it will at least give the impression you're trying to be honest.

This looks like YOU are the one who is being "controlled" by some wacky, fact-challenged "media" -- like you read something, uncritically "believed" it without doing any research, and are repeating it as if it's fact.


*edit: never mind, your numbers ARE way off. They're clearly not based on any facts. Because in 2014, there were 1,282 newspapers in the US, and that number is expected to decline in 2015. So there aren't 1,500 newspapers at all -- and a very quick search shows over 86 different ownerships (for just the papers with the biggest circulation), 9 "big" corporate owners (not six), and the 9 "big corporate" owners owning about 48% of all newspapers nationwide. It took me two minutes to go find those facts which contradict your claims, why were you too lazy to do two minutes of research before posting?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2015 09:11PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I'll find a link to the big report released out of Europe last year or so that detailed how few people are at the top of the corporate pyramid in this world. Media is no different, and unless you have done your research as to exactly how these various corporations are related/unrelated, then you also are just spouting "something you read".

As to these stats, things change over time, so these may not be perfectly up to date. They are illustrative of the point, tho, that this structure represents a great opportunity for the few to condition the many. As to conspiracies, I have said nothing, I'll leave that up to you.

BTW, didn't you say, ificouldhietokolob, (in your last "uncivil attack posts" (yes, that is the tone your posts convey) on one of my recent threads) that you knew of many ancient archaeological sites where the early civilizations moved and built with stones much bigger than those at Baalbek? I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to come good on that claim. When asked to provide some references, you tried to divert and fill the thread with irrelevancies to close it out. You insist on facts and perfect stats from others, show some yourself.

Yeah, bnoJ, it's pretty obvious what the sitch is in today's real world.

Reply to brothernotofJared, misplaced.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2015 09:57PM by hello.

Regardless of the numbers and statistics, I have little doubt that a large majority of the American people get their ideas and values fed to them via a small minority of sources be that media (mainstream and social), religious institutions, or political organizations (I include not just the major parties, but gun rights, gay rights, and any organization with a political discourse here).

The minority controls the majority of discourse. Individual ideas get drowned out by the screams of a thousand talking heads repeating the party line over and over until the most popular opinion this week becomes the equal of truth.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2015 09:31PM by brothernotofjared.

"Regardless of the numbers and statistics, I have little doubt that a large majority of the American people get their ideas and values fed to them via a small minority of sources be that media (mainstream and social)...."

Anyone that argues with that statement has their 'head in the sand' when it comes to politics and what the 'real people' in charge (paying, etc.) are doing and want.

Mainstream media/money behind them have a few agendas they push and yes they may report against their agendas once in awhile but the way they report it is clear what their agendas are.

Business/politics/control is big Business my friends it has been that way for many years but only seems worse now.

Sure, simply declare "you have no doubt" with no facts to back it up, and then say that anyone who doesn't agree has their "head in the sand."

Because fallacies are such good ways to make a point.

Not.

Sheesh.

Oh, noes! When the Rothchilds' know your on to them, you will be forced to manage a convenience store in Giltner, Nebraska. Oh, the humanity.


So let's see if I have this right.

Nobody listens to you because:
1) 272 executives who could all be the villain in a James Bond film have taken over all media and bamboozled the entire planet, or
2) you don't know what you're talking about.


Which would William of Occam pick? He's pretty sharp.

false dilemma, straw man. False appeal to authority (Occam), your meager two choices don't account for all the facts.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, noes! When the Rothchilds' know your on to
> them, you will be forced to manage a convenience
> store in Giltner, Nebraska. Oh, the humanity.
>
Please leave my blood relatives out of this discussion. They've been unfairly implicated in bizarre conspiracy theories since their inception. They don't control the banks or the news sources.

The enormous wealth they used to control has been divested. Today they offer financial services and own wineries. Big departure from their glory banking days.

I may be totally off base here, since I'm not troubled by facts, surveys, or a personal philosophy that I feel any need to share, it's my personal opinion that the 'general public' in any country is sheepish. Or herdish...

I don't think it's ever been different. I don't know how or why, but pretty much 100% of a given population divides on every issue as either for or against. Name ANY issue here and we will divide as either for or against. We're seldom aloof on important issues. And the more time available, the more we'll involve ourselves with forming opinions about the Kardashians, etc.

Now, how or why do we form our opinions?

Heck if I know. But we do!

Here ya go, hello.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/7-things-about-the-mainstream-media-that-they-do-not-want-you-to-know



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2015 01:07AM by iplayedjoe.

thanks, iplayedjoe. Been busy this evening, but here's a few more:

http://www.storyleak.com/graphic-6-corporations-own-90-percent-of-media/

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read

http://www.cjr.org/resources/

http://phys.org/news/2011-08-powerful-corporations-world.html

Hopefully, some of the good folks reading here will find some usefulness in this data as they wake up from Mormon conditioning.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2015 02:14AM by hello.

iplayedjoe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here ya go, hello.
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporation
> s-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
>
> http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/7-thin
> gs-about-the-mainstream-media-that-they-do-not-wan
> t-you-to-know

The "businessinsider" post is quite funny, actually. It simply puts up a graphic made by somebody else, admits that the data is wrong, and then wonders if we should worry.

The "economiccollapse" post is worse than funny -- it's disturbing. Because the writer is obviously way gone off the deep end, and makes no attempt to admit the data is wrong.

The most hilarious (and at the same time sad) part of this rant, and the stuff it's based on?
That the claimed "information" all comes from "the media."
But the media can't be trusted.
But we're the media, and you can trust us.
But the media can't be trusted.

I weep for the lack of thinking skills.

I agree, media qua media is not the bad guy. It is the concentration of control over major media in the US that is the problem. There are alternatives to this media, much of it web-based, and thankfully we have choices and access to alternative info.

I think the well-done Swiss study discussed in the phys.org link I posted is illustrative of just how concentrated the power over world affairs is, into the hands a a surprisingly few people and the corps. they control. These represent the so-called "one percent" of the population who have been shown to be gaining dramatically in wealth over the last 15 years, while the US middle class is stagnating and dying away, and real wages decline.

I am happy to see that today, new networks have begun to arise to offer alternative reporting to counter the constant stream of propaganda from the US "mainstream media". Networks such as RT, teleSur, CCTV, PressTV offer news from beyond the US border, and they are widely available in many formats around the world. But these networks are not always available on most peoples' DISH Network or Time Warner or BBC TV feeds. You have to seek them out, just like many alternative blogs etc. that offer alternative coverage on the web.

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree, media qua media is not the bad guy. It is
> the concentration of control over major media in
> the US that is the problem. There are alternatives
> to this media, much of it web-based, and
> thankfully we have choices and access to
> alternative info.

Yes, we do have alternatives. Additionally, the "concentration" isn't with one company, it's with many *competing* companies (more than the six mentioned, and the 90% number isn't accurate). For example, MSNBC caters to a "liberal" audience, Fox to a "conservative" one. Those two are competitors, not collaborators. The idea that they're colluding to "control" what's aired is unsupportable.

>
> I think the well-done Swiss study discussed in the
> phys.org link I posted is illustrative of just how
> concentrated the power over world affairs is, into
> the hands a a surprisingly few people and the
> corps. they control. These represent the so-called
> "one percent" of the population who have been
> shown to be gaining dramatically in wealth over
> the last 15 years, while the US middle class is
> stagnating and dying away, and real wages
> decline.

Well, sort of -- that had to do with the concentration of wealth, not control of the media.
I used to work for a media company majority-owned by Sumner Redstone (Viacom, VH1, etc.). I was an officer of the company. Was in all the board meetings. Not once did Redstone tell us what to publish or not. Not once. He cared about profitability, not content.

>
> I am happy to see that today, new networks have
> begun to arise to offer alternative reporting to
> counter the constant stream of propaganda from the
> US "mainstream media".

Calling it "propaganda" is rather outrageous, and not supported by evidence. You lose credibility that way, and that's where your claims (besides the incorrect numbers) fall flat.

When the Pentagon is involved with scripting movies and TV, and claims "right of editing" over scripts, which has been confirmed, that to me represents propaganda. When the nightly news across the country and across networks, reports news according to an exact same script, which is confirmed, that to me is propaganda. When my local news here in a state that is basically a large military base is loaded up with news and PR for activities of the military branches, that to me is propaganda. When TV networks and channels make themselves available to air, for a fee, fake "news pieces" that are custom-made made by special interest groups, which is confirmed and is SOP, that to me is propaganda. When CNN fakes "on-ground, in-country" war reporting with what is actually footage made in a US studio, that to me is propaganda. And when the entire American news establishment joined together in chorus in 2002 to endlessly proclaim that Saddam had "Nookular bombs aimed at the US", that to me is propaganda.

When the NYTimes and WaPost routinely attack the latest "chosen enemies of the Pentagon du jour", I consider that propaganda. When they only validate whatever conclusions about major events are presented by government spokespersons, agencies and commissions, and ridicule all other possibilities, I consider that to be propaganda.

When employees of "intelligence agencies" are placed in "media newsrooms", which has been confirmed, that to me represents an effort at least to tacitly, if not overtly, censor and guide the news and entertainment media.

Recently, a PBS nightly news reader asserted that 100 people died in the "Disneyland measles outbreak" in LA, when in reality no one died at all, which is confirmed. That to me is propaganda.

If Jon Stewart makes repeated secret visits to the White House to confer with Obama, as has recently been confirmed, am I justified in suspecting that there may be some propaganda brewing?

New examples of biased reporting appear continually. Trusting mainstream American media to present the actual truth, or a balanced journalistic treatment of multiple views, is now more of an act of faith, especially for those that do not question their accuracy. "CBS would never lie to me", says the loyal viewer. "Deseret News or KSL would never lie to me".

How long ago did you work for Redstone? Could the situation in mass media have changed any since then? The landscape in media is changing rapidly these days. CNN, Fox and MSNBC, with tiny audiences, are losing viewers rapidly, and yet somehow they stay in business. Who is paying to run MSNBC while they operate in the red?

Anyhoo, I'm sure you will belittle my comments as the rantings of a paranoid psychotic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2015 08:49PM by hello.

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the Pentagon is involved with scripting
> movies and TV, and claims "right of editing" over
> scripts, which has been confirmed, that to me
> represents propaganda.

"Confirmed" by whom? How many movies and TV shows? Which ones? Where's the evidence?

> When the nightly news
> across the country and across networks, reports
> news according to an exact same script, which is
> confirmed, that to me is propaganda.

That's not "confirmed." It's bullshit. I'd give you a little leeway on the previous one (but not much, having worked in the movie business and worked with military consultants, who had no such "right"), but nightly news from various sources all following one anonymously sourced "script" is demonstrable bullshit.

> When my
> local news here in a state that is basically a
> large military base is loaded up with news and PR
> for activities of the military branches, that to
> me is propaganda.

Sure, because reporting items of interest to the local people, lots of whom are in the military, is "propaganda." Oh, wait, not it's not -- it's knowing your audience. Never mind.

> When TV networks and channels
> make themselves available to air, for a fee, fake
> "news pieces" that are custom-made made by special
> interest groups, which is confirmed and is SOP,
> that to me is propaganda.

Once again, "confirmed" by whom? Which networks and channels? How often? Which stories? As usual, your posts are long on claims and absent evidence.

> When CNN fakes
> "on-ground, in-country" war reporting with what is
> actually footage made in a US studio, that to me
> is propaganda.

Once again, all claim, no evidence. I've seen the *claimed* "shot in a newsroom not on location footage," but the claims are baseless. They're made by idiots with an agenda, who don't know the first thing about video, lighting, or anything else, and they simply declare, in their ignorance of those things, "this looks fake so it is, and so CNN is a tool of the state!"
And you appear to simply "believe" them, without any evidence. Because that fits your pre-conceived notions.

> And when the entire American news
> establishment joined together in 2002 to proclaim
> that Saddam had "Nookular bombs aimed at the US",
> that to me is propaganda.

See, now you've just gone over the deep end. I paid close attention to those stories then. The vast majority of the media reported what the President was saying, but most were *very* critical of it. A large number of big-name anchors and lots of regular reporters flat-out stated that evidence didn't support the administration's claims. The argument about the claims were BIG NEWS. How did you miss all of that? Not paying attention?

> When employees of "intelligence agencies" are
> placed in "media newsrooms", which has been
> confirmed, that to me represents an effort at
> least to tacitly, if not overtly, censor and guide
> the news and entertainment media.

And again, "confirmed" by whom, when, where, etc.?
Some idiot making stuff up on some nutcase web site, without any evidence, isn't "confirmed."

> Recently, a PBS nightly news reader asserted that
> 100 people died in the "Disneyland measles
> outbreak" in LA, when in reality no one died at
> all, which is confirmed. That to me is propaganda.

Got a link to the video? That one is at least plausible -- though plausible as a mistake, not some grand government conspiracy. Think about this for 2 seconds: plenty of other "big media" correctly reported the story, nobody died. That information was readily available. So what possible benefit is there for the government to get PBS to say something so easily checkable as wrong? There is none.

> New examples of biased reporting appear
> continually.

That's not at all surprising -- reporters are biased. They're NOT all biased the same though. As per my MSNBC/FOX comparison above.

> Trusting mainstream American media to
> present the actual truth is now more of an act of
> faith, especially for those that do not question
> their accuracy.

"Trusting" is always lazy and stupid. Verifying by research things that matter to you isn't. That goes for YOUR "conspiracy" sources too, by the way -- whom YOU seem to "trust" without doing any research.

> "CBS would never lie to me", says
> the loyal viewer.

Sure, let's make up quotes that nobody ever actually says, and pretend they're real. What a good argument.

> How long ago did you work for Redstone? Could the
> situation in mass media have changed any since
> then?

I left that job 9 years ago. I worked in "media" for 20+ years. Yes, things have changed. No, things haven't changed such that there's a massive conspiracy to lie to YOU.

> The landscape in media is changing rapidly
> these days. CNN, Fox and MSNBC, with tiny
> audiences, are losing viewers rapidly, and yet
> somehow they stay in business.

The "landscape" in media has always changed rapidly. It's the nature of the business.

Claim: "CNN...[is] losing viewers rapidly..."
Fact: "CNN saw a higher spike in ratings than any other network in the first quarter of 2015 compared with the same period last year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/cnn-ratings/
Status: FALSE

Claim: "Fox...is losing viewers rapidly..."
Fact: "Fox News Channel has now been the No. 1 cable news channel for 54 consecutive quarters, and saw double digit prime time growth in the A25-54 demo compared to Q2 2014."
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q2-2015-ratings-fox-news/266253
Status: FALSE

Claim: "MSNBC...is losing viewers rapidly..."
Fact: "Generally, Fox News dominated primetime with 1.64 million viewers compared to CNN’s 576,000 and MSNBC’s 525,000, though CNN saw a 20-percent percent increase in primetime viewership -- the largest jump for any of the networks. MSNBC's daytime viewership is down 17% over the same quarter of 2014."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/q-ratings-report-abc-fox-news-on-top-msnbc-struggles-209762.html
Status: Somewhat true. Not sure half a million prime-time viewer is "tiny," but their share is declining, almost exactly matching CNN's increase.

You do realize it's really easy to check this stuff, don't you? Why don't you do it yourself BEFORE you post, so you don't look so ridiculous?

> Who is paying to
> run MSNBC while they operate in the red?

They're not operating in the red.
MSNBC made $206 million in *profit* (not income) in 2014, and 2015 profit is expected to top $300 million.
Don't you ever check ANYTHING?

> Anyhoo, I'm sure you will belittle my comments as
> the rantings of a paranoid psychotic.

I belittle them as poorly-researched outrageous claims which evidence shows false. Most of your claims are SO EASY to fact-check, yet you never do. You post claims that are flat-out wrong, don't bother to check anything, and then when shown wrong by facts, resort to comments as above.
I don't care what you "believe" -- but when you post here claiming facts, and they're simply flat-out WRONG, they merit all the criticism they get. Go check facts before you post. It's not hard at all.

1. Sumner Redstone - I'd love to hear more about that. He's an interesting person. Plus Boston Latin.

2. Did anyone bring up the fake moon landing yet?

Yes, OK, ificouldhie. I haven't done all the research I could, and I thank you for your leads. It's true, I sometime take some things I read partly on faith, and am prolly too trusting of sources. My data is obviously out of date for this year and last. My understanding was that cable news was fading. Even double digit increases on fairly small and previously declining audiences don't amount to much, if overall viewership over the last ten years has declined. But I am often guilty of reading what appears to be a referenced and researched report and not searching for further industry data. But I will do more research on this and other subjects as you suggest. :)

I have seen multiple videos, tho, that show tv news anchors from many stations reading the exact same sentences on their broadcasts. Conan O'Brien's show has made a bit of a splash with such vid segments, as have some youtubers. I've posted links to such on this board in the past, which you may have missed.

And I've read quotes from station and network reps who admit that they frequently air PR segments passed to them complete from agencies and PR firms, as if they were legit in-house journalistic reporting. I can prolly dig these up and provide some links here, given some time. I'll work on that. And I will try to find refs for "alphabet agency" participation in creating scripts and shows, which I do recall having read. I just have to do some googling etc..

Bear with me, I'm just a young fella, and it will take me some time to find this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2015 03:51AM by hello.

If I can make the effort to find links to some of these subjects and post them, will you not then reciprocate, and post links to articles which support your claims about the multiple (as you stated such work was commonly done) ancient archaeological sites where early civilized man cut, moved and built with stones much bigger than the 1000-1200 ton ashlars found today at the Baalbek site? As I have said, I would be most grateful to learn more about such sites, as I have encountered nothing about them in all my years of study. Also, if you could post links to reports and articles about the techniques used by the Baalbek builders to move their stones, which you said today's archaeologists and engineers understood quite well? That would be great!

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I can make the effort to find links to some of
> these subjects and post them, will you not then
> reciprocate, and post links to articles which
> support your claims about the multiple (as you
> stated such work was commonly done) ancient
> archaeological sites where early civilized man
> cut, moved and built with stones much bigger than
> the 1000-1200 ton ashlars found today at the
> Baalbek site?

That thread closed, but I did do some research.
First, the biggest Ball-Bek stone that was cut and placed is about 800 tons. There are three "monoliths" larger than that, but they are all still sitting in the quarry they were partially cut from, never fully cut, and never moved. Apparently the builders (who were Romans in the 1st century BCE - 2nd century CE, by the way) realized they bit off more than they could chew.
The quarry where the stones that were cut and placed (max of 800 tons) came from is on higher ground than the building sites, a short distance away -- so it was all downhill to move them. His tests showed that it took 512 men to move a 512-ton stone using ropes and rollers and nothing else. Moving the 800-ton stones wouldn't have been a problem, and would probably have required less than 800 men.
Roman cranes (like hamster wheels) easily would have handled lifting the stones into place, and needed less than a dozen men to do so.

So in that instance, your claims that the "big" stones of 1,000+ tons were "moved and placed" is false -- no stones over 800 tons were moved and placed. The bigger ones sit in the quarry, unfinished and unmoved. The building was done by the Romans, who had no problem moving stones that large. Earlier work on-site was done by the Greeks under Alexander, but it wasn't the "spectacular" remains we see today, those are Roman. Nothing about the site is considered archeologically strange, unexplained, "miraculous," or anything of the sort.

Look, I don't know why you "believe" some of the things you do. I won't call it "paranoia," 'cause I don't know why you believe these things. I do know that the claims you make regularly show that you don't bother to do any research before you make your claims. It appears you find something on some web site that appears to resonate with you, and you just assume it's face, without bothering to find out if it is or not, then you repost the claims here as facts. Much of the time, it's so easy to show the claims false, with just a few minutes of googling, that I can't imagine why you didn't bother to check them out. A few of them need "deeper" research, and perhaps some more education in physics, astronomy, geology, etc.

My question is: don't you want to KNOW? Do you want to go through life just "believing" things you're told, without learning for yourself whether they're factual or not? Are you going to rely on other people to feed you information (which, ironically, is part of your claim about "the media," and which you're doing yourself), without critically examining the claims, checking them out, finding out for yourself?

Me, I want to KNOW. I don't care about believing. The mormon church operates on "believing" outrageous claims with no supporting evidence or that have plenty of evidence to show them false. I got out of mormonism by learning how to check out claims and evidence for myself, and determine their truth value, instead of just being fed stuff and "believing" it.

Maybe that doesn't work for you. That's fine. You're certainly entitled to make your own way through life, and "believe" whatever you want to. If you keep those beliefs to yourself, nobody will ever bother you about them.
But if you post your beliefs in public, like here, and make factual claims about them, and so many of them are so easy to show false, they're going to be criticized -- and rightly so. And it frustrates me personally that you appear to do so SO OFTEN without doing any legwork on your own to determine their validity. Knowing takes work and effort, learning. "Believing" takes none. It's easy and lazy. And not very useful.

I actually do do some research, and usually post links to source documents (when I'm not being too lazy ;)) but it is highly likely that you and I will never agree on many topics because we reject each others info sources. For example, I tend to reject anything published by the federal gov't. out of hand, as I have just seen too many fabrications and lies published in pursuit of their various agendas. You, on the other hand, may feel that the gov't. is the best source for many kinds of info. The UN is another source of data that I am highly skeptical of, and yet you may think they represent the best of the world's experts on many important topics. Not saying that's true, but as examples of how two people may disagree due to problems with source data put out by "authorities". One man's benign authority is another's malign would-be dictator.

"See, now you've just gone over the deep end. I paid close attention to those stories then. The vast majority of the media reported what the President was saying, but most were *very* critical of it. A large number of big-name anchors and lots of regular reporters flat-out stated that evidence didn't support the administration's claims. The argument about the claims were BIG NEWS. How did you miss all of that? Not paying attention?"

Do you have links to back that up?

Hello, Hello

It is odd how they all have the same talking points and all use the same buzz words all at the same time on a daily basis.

How many times has CNN been busted using green screen?

Here is one where bush admits to the propaganda and my all time favorite where the BBC reports world trade 7 has collapsed while it is still standing in the background! Oops!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHDDQVZ-A98

I've seen several links over the years that Michael Bay's "Transformers" movies are military propaganda. Of course its possibly rumors. But could they be on to something here!???

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > I am happy to see that today, new networks have
> > begun to arise to offer alternative reporting
> to
> > counter the constant stream of propaganda from
> the
> > US "mainstream media".
>
> Calling it "propaganda" is rather outrageous, and
> not supported by evidence. You lose credibility
> that way, and that's where your claims (besides
> the incorrect numbers) fall flat.


Calling it propaganda is not outrageous, and it is supported by evidence. I did graduate study in psycholinguistics, and so I read Chomsky and Edward Bernays, the father of American PR and propaganda, and others. I encourage you to read these authors and then see if you still agree there is no propaganda in today's media. Here's a link to a vid of a Chomsky talk that gives a good primer on this topic:

Noam Chomsky
Propaganda and the control of the public mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoNOQ7LMR8c#t=22

"I stand all Amazed" ----- the only thing I can say.

I or others bring this type of information and news up frequently in the saunas or hot tubs where I go work out. Not everyone participates or has the exact same opinions but they are pretty close.

I am a recovered exmo but the one thing that draws me to read a few posts is where exmos are in awareness of what is going on Spiritually and temporally on this earth.

Granted my Spiritual views are certainly at the far extreme of this board I get that ------ I really do. I do not expect to try to enlighten anyone on this board again (by starting posts) unless I really get something special. I wouldn't have these beliefs if I didn't experience what I have.

Thanks to all who posted for the insights I gain.

Never before, in the history of mankind has there been so much easy and varied access to facts and opinions about what is going on in the world today. Never before.

So what could be the problem? Many people are not curious about things beyond their immediate concerns. Many people don't have the time/luxury to spend becoming educated on varied subjects. And lastly, many people lack the critical thinking skills it might take to sift the facts from the BS.

Has anyone on this thread read Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Hermann? The book discusses this topic, and I think does a good job analyzing how propaganda works in a non-totalitarian (or inverted totalitarian) society.

Also helped me to understand my BIC programming when I first read it. Highly recommend.

molly

Thanks Molly, I'll look that title up in our library system. I'm the sort of person who thinks the movie, "Wag the Dog", is a documentary. :)

The cool thing about corporate media is its "off" button. I haven't watched TV in about three years (only exception being bad weather bulletins). I've been to 3 movies in 4 years. Also tossed the local liberal paper when I caught it in one too many lies.

In short, just turn the damn junk off!

darac Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The cool thing about corporate media is its "off"
> button. I haven't watched TV in about three years
> (only exception being bad weather bulletins).
> I've been to 3 movies in 4 years. Also tossed the
> local liberal paper when I caught it in one too
> many lies.
>
> In short, just turn the damn junk off!

Good call! :)