Why the MSM is a threat to society

Apparently the MSM doesn't like Trump calling them an enemy of the people, and I agree it may be a slight exaggeration, they are no more of an enemy to the people than any other private corporation owned by a handful of billionaires. A company such as Monsanto is no more of an enemy to the people than the MSM, they both do a lot of good work, but if they choose to use their power in a way that isn't in the best interest of society, and they most certainly do, it can have very bad repercussions and destabilize society.

When nearly every news outlet, every talk show host, every celebrity, are all repeating the same message over and over again it has an effect, it has a very large effect on how people think. The repercussions can ripple through the economy and other aspects of society. If this message is something like "your president is completely insane and will destroy the nation" then the effects will tend to be negative and have undesirable consequences.

Society is easy to manipulate

The core point I'm making here is that just like any other corporation with a great deal of power over society, they should not be immune to criticism, if anything they deserve the most intense criticism should they truly want to live up to the name "free press". I'm calling them the MSM because I don't view them as free to report the unbiased truth, I'm sure most have seen those compilation videos where a bunch of reporters from different stations are all reading from the exact same script. We know only what they want us to know.

I'm also sure most ATS members are aware of this fact seeing as we rely on sources besides mainstream news sources. Of course they report a lot of truth but we have to pay attention and realize when they are trying to illicit a certain response from the population by distorting and suppressing facts. Criticism is not the same thing as an attack, I want anyone to show me exactly when Trump has done anything to impair the ability of the MSM to say what ever they want, they clearly don't hold back on criticizing the sitting President.

Now I could easily point out numerous cases where true independent media organizations on the right have been demonetized, censored, banned, or otherwise had their business growth impaired due to political bias, but I'm sure most people know what I'm talking about. Apparently that's of very little concern or consequence though, proving they care more about words than actions. Exactly why is it so forbidden for the president to criticize the MSM, especially when they are clearly so biased against him? What affords them this divine protection?

I'll never understand why people treat these corporations as if they're the sole source of news and sole arbitrator of truth, why is it exactly that society relies so heavily on what the MSM tells us, can no one see the amount of power this bestows upon them and how they might use it in a questionable way? For many people, their world paradigm revolves around what they hear on the news every night, and as we know everything they hear is carefully crafted and scripted to invoke a certain response from the population.

Would you let Walmart dictate your world view? No I didn't think so, because we all understand that businesses care more about profits and generating new customers than they do about the truth. We don't hold back when criticizing corporations when they do the wrong thing so why is it any different for the MSM? Of course the MSM is more than just a bunch of corporations, it's the single greatest tool the deep state has for molding the way people think and the way they perceive the world, and they're well aware of that.

Intrepid's 1st Law: The media's threat is directly proportional to the stupidity of the masses.

a reply to: intrepid

Hahaha that's great and very true.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Now, here is the thing.

It simply is not true that EVERY media source reports the same stuff, in the same way. Fox News for example, and its MASSIVE number of affiliates, all of which together make up a substantial amount of the consumed news media from a television perspective, report entirely differently to the CNN camp and others similar, to the point of ignoring facts entirely in order to do so.

While Fox News and its affiliates exist, there can be no threat that the MSM will become too one sided, because Fox and its affiliates have greater reach than most people realise, especially in terms of the local channels, so even though they are outnumbered in terms of the number of companies churning out one kind of news, the fact that Fox has so many outlets means that those other companies, those more "liberal" channels are still on the back foot, when it comes to penetration.

You watch someone watching Fox news, and their eyes are rapt to the screen, glued, drool hanging from the corner of the mouth, attention hooked on every word, as the awful, spray painted, freshly stretched face flesh of Judge Pirro, or some other misbegotten, freedom hating devil spawn, is displayed telling the viewer what they want to hear, fluffing the viewers ego to rigidity, and guarantees they tune in tomorrow to have their xenophobia validated for another day.

The same cannot be said of the slightly more left wing news (although, news is reported for money, and nothing done for money can be said to be of left wing origin), because its background crap that people put on while they are having a coffee and washing dishes, or to keep the cat company while errands are run. Why? Because critical thinking is common amongst lefties, and so is distrust of those who have, or act in the name of making a heap of coin.

a reply to: TrueBrit

If you actually believe the BS you just vomited onto the internet, then the media has done a thorough job indeed of manipulating the masses.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Why? Because critical thinking is common amongst lefties.

Not in America they're not. They are driven by their emotions and have absolutely no concept of money.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yep if Trump was not president I would hope he would sue the pants off of CNN and other MSN outlets for proven slander and out right lies. But as president his hands are tied.

There are really some sick puppies that are called news casters and until the midterms are over I doubt it will get any better.. They will just regroup for the 2020 elections.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

First and foremost, again, no one is "manipulated" without their consent and cooperation. And to that extent, the very fake news media are simply giving those people the ammunition to bolster the position they've already taken. If it were otherwise, then there would be no disagreement, no division, no debate. EVERYONE would think the exact same thing because they had all been programmed to do so. But it doesn't work that way.

Instead, we are played. Both sides against the middle. One side gives the news that "their" side wants to hear... the other side gives the news that "their" side wants to hear. And the people believe what they will and take it from there.

Having said all that, I have never seen or heard Trump attack freedom of the press. What he has attacked is the misuse and abuse of the free press. The fake news that the news media abuses our freedom of the press to promote.

Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the First Amendment is not referring to people by the term "the press," but rather to the machine: The printing press. In other words, anyone and everyone has a right to print whatever they so choose, along with our freedom of speech to say what we choose. It's an important distinction. And if we fail to recognize this and address the issues accordingly, then that right is threatened for all of us. Journalists don't have any special "rights" to the news. They have the same exact rights as the rest of us.

The media in and of itself is not a threat to society. But society is a threat to itself when the people choose sides instead of truth. And that's called partisanship -- which is the greatest threat we face.

a reply to: TrueBrit

It simply is not true that EVERY media source reports the same stuff, in the same way. Fox News for example, and its MASSIVE number of affiliates, all of which together make up a substantial amount of the consumed news media from a television perspective, report entirely differently to the CNN camp and others similar, to the point of ignoring facts entirely in order to do so.

In the end, it almost doesn't even matter. When I used to have my old job (I got a new one right after the election, so things may have changed), I used to switch between the news networks (they were going to be on anyways) and see the difference between them.

All the cable entertainment "news" networks have a political lean. For the most part they all ignore real news, or hide it in the bar IMO. They run with things they know will get the most traction and people stirred up.

So Fox puts a right wing spin on the essentially propaganda they all decide they're going to run that day. Some bimbo that Trump allegedly slept with is going to get way more coverage than botched Saudi bombing campaigns in Yemen that happen regularly, and that we provide support for. No one reports (or really follows up) on the US presence in Africa even though we were promised that would be reduced.

I feel like they get to delude the debate about no one really reporting on the news because if someone is partisan, instead of bitching that the "news" is entertainment with a few facts here and there, they call out the ones they don't like for not having their lean. It's just like the US two party system, there barely are any differences at all, at the end of the day, foreign projection is the same.

a reply to: Boadicea

The media in and of itself is not a threat to society. But society is a threat to itself when the people choose sides instead of truth. And that's called partisanship -- which is the greatest threat we face.

The media is a threat to society if it's lying about what it's reporting. Partisanship is not a threat as long as no one is lying to support their cause. It's all about the lies. By the way, half truths are lies.

a reply to: TrueBrit

It simply is not true that EVERY media source reports the same stuff, in the same way. Fox News for example, and its MASSIVE number of affiliates...
While Fox News and its affiliates exist, there can be no threat that the MSM will become too one sided, because Fox and its affiliates have greater reach than most people realise,

Fox is one of the only large MSM outlets I would consider to be right leaning, clearly the landscape is very one sided. The fact so many watch Fox despite having so many alternatives might tell us something, like they are starved for a source of news which doesn't constantly hate on their president, maybe they are sick of listening to cry babies and find people like Tucker to be refreshing, maybe they have just lost so much trust for sources like CNN that they are willing to see what the "other side" has to offer, maybe they did just that and found that there's more to it than a bunch of "drooling" idiots and they often do some very good reporting on things that other sources will never touch.

The same cannot be said of the slightly more left wing news...
Because critical thinking is common amongst lefties, and so is distrust of those who have, or act in the name of making a heap of coin.

The level of arrogance and irony is just outstanding... left is full of intellectuals while your generalized opponents are sitting in front of the TV drooling. I'm not even sure how to response to this without breaking the T&C. I'll just refer to this thread I made last year: The Rise of Intellectual Insanity

a reply to: Boadicea

First and foremost, again, no one is "manipulated" without their consent and cooperation. And to that extent, the very fake news media are simply giving those people the ammunition to bolster the position they've already taken. If it were otherwise, then there would be no disagreement, no division, no debate. EVERYONE would think the exact same thing because they had all been programmed to do so. But it doesn't work that way.

I like the way you worded that.

To add to it, who's going to talk about Lockheed Martin funding establishment campaigns regardless of party while they're doing huge commercial campaigns? Who's going to talk about their lobbyists writing laws and having congress members sponsor them?

Does Lockheed Martin really need to advertise to the citizens? Of course not, and that's just one example of how commercial campaigns buffer them from bad publicity.

originally posted by: intrepid
Intrepid's 1st Law: The media's threat is directly proportional to the stupidity of the masses.

Good god, now I'm really scared.
The masses are pretty fricken stupid...

a reply to: Deetermined

The media is a threat to society if it's lying about what it's reporting.

Um... no. The threat to society is the gross lack of transparency and our dependency on "the media" for information, which can be and is presented as propaganda via mis-truths, half-truths, and un-truths UNDER COLOR OF LAW. Government propaganda is "legal" now, thanks to Team Obama. At this point, we have no way of knowing which lies came from "the media" and which lies came from government.

If we the people had full access to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for media to lie about anything.

Partisanship is not a threat as long as no one is lying to support their cause. It's all about the lies.

No. We are citizens of the United States of America... not the Republican party or the Democrat party. At this point, we're just fighting over who's going to impose their will on the people in direct violation of our rights -- both Natural and Constitutional. Neither brand of tyranny is acceptable.

The mainstream media has been around a lot longer then social media. Those of us that are older have known for a long time the media is biased. It's nothing new I remember a time before Fox news even existed. People now with their social media act like it's some kind of mass awakening that the media is full of bs. Every news organization since the beginning of time has slanted opinions to what ever their agenda is.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I like the way you worded that.

Thank you! And thank you for seeing it!!!

To add to it, who's going to talk about Lockheed Martin funding establishment campaigns regardless of party while they're doing huge commercial campaigns? Who's going to talk about their lobbyists writing laws and having congress members sponsor them?

Because does Lockheed Martin really need to advertise to the citizens? Of course not, and that's just one example of how commercial campaigns buffer them from bad publicity.

Excellent point. Crony capitalism at work. And I can't add anything, so I'll let your words stand on their own.

Good god, why should the MSM be a "thread to society"!
How do you come to this conclusion - just because the MSM are criticizing someone? Should grow a thicker skin, in my opinion.

IF you take away any independent and critical coverage of the GOVERNMENTS DOINGS and WRONGDOINGS, how could those bastards be kept under control of the people?

Do not criticize your media as a whole.
You can criticize any single opinion broadcasted but be thankful that you are priviledged (in the best way, not in some US-American SJW bogus crap way) to read so much dirt about your government!

The moment every news-source is synchronized and brought into line with the Powers That Be, you have lost the right. Every right. And it goes down a very slippery and steep slide from there on!

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

a reply to: Boadicea

Um... no. The threat to society is the gross lack of transparency and our dependency on "the media" for information, which can be and is presented as propaganda via mis-truths, half-truths, and un-truths UNDER COLOR OF LAW. Government propaganda is "legal" now, thanks to Team Obama. At this point, we have no way of knowing which lies came from "the media" and which lies came from government.

While you may be correct to some degree, isn't it the media's job to investigate and follow up to make sure that lies and propaganda aren't happening? None of that is happening today because the media is more interested in being the first ones to report on something rather than investigate it first. To me, that is a threat to our society.

a reply to: wantsome

Every news organization since the beginning of time has slanted opinions to what ever their agenda is.

Even if they didn't have a partisan or political agenda, their agenda would still be ratings.

If you're running a 24/7 network, you're gonna have to find a way to keep viewers, pretty much by making non stories sensational while ignoring the boring ones that are actually more important.