The media only talks about those whom they want to win.

This isn't going to be avery long post, just something I've been thinking about lately that I wanted to get out there.

Something I've noticed since the 2008 election cycle with Ron Paul is that the media tends to ignore the people who are an actual threat to the establishment. The less exposure they give these people, the less likely their chances of winning become.

Who do we see 24/7 on the MSM? Trump and Clinton, and to a lesser degree Sanders. So does this overexposure say anything about their ties to the establishment? I think it does, because even bad publicity is good publicity (as we see so clearly with Trump) for someone who is running for president.

I think this means that Trump and Clinton are establishment puppets, otherwise the MSM would ignore them like they did with Paul in 2008. It's possible that Sanders may be establishment as well but he doesn't get as much airtime as the other two so I think he is still kinda up in the air.

What do you guys think? Do those who are a threat to the establishment get less airtime than those who are for it? I think so, and the barrage of Trump and Clinton news stories speaks volumes about their true motives.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It has gotten to the point that it doesn't matter how you vote someone
has already been chosen to win.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm not sure if "the media" has a political agenda. I do know that they compete for outrageous stories and personalities to boost ratings. Program directors are more interested in market share than political agendas. follow the money...

..."if it bleeds, it leads" All media seems to be more motivated by profit and to appeal to a chosen demographic to hang targeted the advertisement on.
This is just the impression I get from being a very low level media person, stringer with a camera.

a reply to: mamabeth

I agree, it's all just a charade and circus show to make the people think they have a choice in who wins and who loses.

I can't help but watch these debates and see how the productions around them look like a game show where celebrities fight for your vote.

The elections have turned into reality TV shows, and we all know reality TV shows are anything but real.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

YES! And no, kinda.

The media absolutely can push and steer the American people towards a candidate, blacking out whom they choose. We saw repeated examples of this with Ron Paul. It was constant.

Rand got sick of exactly this and boycotted the last debate.

In Trump's case, he is kind of generating his own headlines. The media almost cant ignore his statements.

But you are right, sorta kinda, for sure.


a reply to: mamabeth

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm confused that you focus on the media, looking at this from outside the US, on ATS the vast majority of the conversation is on Trump, Clinton and Sanders. If you didn't care to look much deeper you wouldn't know there even were other candidates - and that's ATS.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The media only talks about those whom they want to win.

Indeed, this is the hard truth of the times in which we live and it's not just confined to politics... though, this being an election year, it is the most obvious.

Personally, I know no one who trusts anything offered by our domestic news sources. More to the point, this distrust crosses all boundaries in the political arena. Left, right, up, down and in the middle; the obvious is just too doggone obvious to deny for anyone.

Today, only common sense can prevail when seeking to find truth.

a reply to: uncommitted

Most stories that are posted about Trump come from MSM sources, so if the MSM wasn't writing articles about it ATS wouldn't be talking about it in my opinion. ATS is a form of social "media" and has shills that are paid to post here about certain topics in a certain light, so I don't think ATS is exempt from this either. Sanders, Trump, and Clinton are the most talked about people on this site at the moment, so maybe that says something about all 3 as well?

I'm not knocking ATS, I love this place, but I know there are shills here just like any other alternative news forums.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yah, unfortunately, theres your sign… airtime.

RT carried a factoid that Sanders has ten minutes on air, Trump over four hours.

Call that favoritism what you will.

some history about the MSM....a major turning point.

J.P. Morgan Interests Buy 25 of America's Leading Newspapers and Insert Editors

U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947

Congressman Calloway announced that the
J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and
inserted their own editors, in order to control the media.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: uncommitted

Most stories that are posted about Trump come from MSM sources, so if the MSM wasn't writing articles about it ATS wouldn't be talking about it in my opinion. ATS is a form of social "media" and has shills that are paid to post here about certain topics in a certain light, so I don't think ATS is exempt from this either. Sanders, Trump, and Clinton are the most talked about people on this site at the moment, so maybe that says something about all 3 as well?

I'm not knocking ATS, I love this place, but I know there are shills here just like any other alternative news forums.

Sources on ATS fairly much have to come from some type of 'mainstream' on this subject as they would be around public appearances, interviews, comments made on social media etc., where else could they come from? Unless you had a trusted private source there's not many other places to look.

Not sure about the shill thing, people on here accuse others of that when their opinion clash, as in 'you disagree with me so you're a shill' so I tend to be somewhat sceptical.

originally posted by: xuenchen
some history about the MSM....a major turning point.

J.P. Morgan Interests Buy 25 of America's Leading Newspapers and Insert Editors

U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947

Congressman Calloway announced that the
J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and
inserted their own editors, in order to control the media.

1917? Really, how is that even relevant?

That's interesting but today's media conglomerates are controlled by mainly corporate republicans, not lefty's like the right wing likes to blame.
www.businessinsider.com...

I don't find it unusual that Trump get's most of the attention; he's very entertaining and has a huge following. Just the right kind of programming to hang advertising of Depends, Viagra, and arthritis medication on.

I feel like they use Trump for ratings, they really don't want him to win. Finally this week they acknowledged that he may be the frontrunner, duh, anyone with a brain cell knew that long ago just like any intelligent person knew that Mitt wouldn't beat Obama.

a reply to: olaru12 I partially agree but watch Rachel Maddow or her little twin Chris Hayes, they are absolutely not controlled by any republican. Rachael Maddow would support Obama if he raped her mama.

a reply to: olaru12



Yes of course.

The Big3andFree broadcast stations (ABC, CBS, NBC) are all right wing outlets.

That includes all the news and shows too.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I think from the start the media was backing Clinton. I think they tried to down play Trump from the beginning but had no choice but to give him coverage when they noticed how much support he was receiving.

I also think they were focusing a lot on Bush from the beginning until the polls showed the public didn't want another Bush in office.

They kept saying Sanders was unelectable and tried to ignore his gradual increase in support. When his poll numbers started to become a threat to Clinton is the only time they started taking him serious and giving him more air time.

The media only gives more air time to the leading candidates. They really don't give the same amount of air time to candidates with low poll numbers. They're just catering to the flavor of the day.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The media only talks about those whom they want to win. -

Yes your right, we can always tell who the media supports by who they barrack for. Its easy to see when you know what to look for.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I agree with your basic sentiment, but here....

I think this means that Trump and Clinton are establishment puppets, otherwise the MSM would ignore them like they did with Paul in 2008.

I think Trump is the exception, just because if they DIDN'T cover him, they'd appear out of the loop, so they kind of reluctantly are forced to.

It's really no great conspiracy. The media is owned by relatively few corporations, and these entities are of course VERY tied to the establishment, so of course they will dictate who gets airtime. Trump's existing celeb status though "trumps" this, if you will, forcing them into covering him (instead, they simply just do so in a constant negative light...which of course, is made easier by Trump, lol)..... He's his own worst enemy really.

While I hate some of the things he says and believes, I do think he'd be good for economic factors, and right now, I think any of the normal establishment candidates are just too "do nothing" to avoid an impending financial collapse, whereas Trump, for better or worse, would make bold moves to head it off.