Corporate Takeover Of News Media And The Extinction Of Journalism.

a reply to: karl 12
I try to stay clear of to much conspiratorial speculation as I have found that those rabbit holes can drag one in and a person can lose their way. However, I watched this going down under Reagan and Clinton and the concerns of those days seem to have played out.

I remember that bit about the converter boxes for grandma and grandpa that didn't want to give up their old faithful 24 inch Sylvania. What a joke.

The rabbit hole I am trying to avoid right now is how we raced past the converter box frenzy with the advent of large screen TVs for under a grand. Now I guess all TV watchers have them. All get good reception and cable and satalite companies fill all those needs. And now with the smart TVs they can stream any number of channels for a fee with a wide variety of ''entertainment'' programs to suit peoples desires.

Even documentaries are all over the place.

And now we have at least two generations of young people who have been trained from birth to be all that they can be and for many of them the goals that have been set have been to be a star on the screen. The actors guild is filled to overflowing with semi skilled pretty faces that can sum up enough talent to play a cop or a nurse over and over again in the string of shows. And when they are between gigs they can do commercials. I even saw ''Booger'' from Revenge of the Nerds'' the other day after a modest career hawking pizza. See? I digress into that hole

And now, what do we have? People with theater sized screens all getting high rez with unlimited programming and those without who have it all on their phones. And what happens. Social distancing and stay at home. And do what? Watch that big screen. Get more addicted to the drugs they pump out. Oh, my see? There I go again.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

I try to stay clear of too much conspiratorial speculation as I have found that those rabbit holes can drag one in and a person can lose their way. However, I watched this going down under Reagan and Clinton and the concerns of those days seem to have played out.

Yes lots of conspiracy rabbit holes to go down mate (but then again this is a website exploring exactly that) - nice to hear you feel your suspicions played out in real life with regard to Reagan and Clinton.

You mention documentaries and did think this was a very good one - it argues that if a single corporation was regarded as a single human being then that person would be a sociopath.



Also, when it comes to relevant films about the news media then I think the worldly advice given in this clip gets it pretty spot on - also do love this clip from the same film.



Cheers.

a reply to: karl 12

You know, talk about rabbit holes. That move was nominated for best picture, actor, actress, supporting actor supporting actress and director. It won in all but one category, supporting actor, that Ned Beatty role. Even as the best actor and actress roles were so great the woman who won for best supporting actress had but one scene yet won the Oscar. Beatty did not. For the one scene that broke through the fal d rall that the rest of the movie laid out. That always made me wonder. The rest of the movie of course was excellent and deserving. The way it laid into the business of TV was of course relevatory but to have shunned not only Beatty but almost the entirety of the much larger message of the film was a great disappointment.

I was stunned watching Network when it was released. That even that much of what I had already surmised about media could even get to the ''big stage'' like Network did. But even then it was trivialized by the focus on the more carnival thrill of Mr. Beale's theatrics.

a reply to: ElGoobero

Of course, you believe that. It's what your favorite media taught you to believe.

What you don't know is that the corporatization of media has reduced news to the level of take-out dinners. The six corporations that control your media want you to believe that your version of the truth is real and factual. It is not. Your news, like everyone else's news, is the result of targeted marketing.

The executives who run media companies all live in the same neighborhoods, send their kids to the same private schools and attend the same top-secret meetings of world leaders and power-brokers (owners).

Independent media starts unshackled and if it gets any traction and spikes in popularity, it is purchased and integrated immediately. See also, Vice media (2013) vs. Vice media (2019).

The independent media voices who produce compelling and truthful reporting but who cannot be easily integrated are neutered. See also, Google's decision to demonetize most independent creators on YouTube and their current demonetization of any video that contains the word, "Coronavirus." The object of the game is to keep the big deal news in as few hands as possible. Independent reporting threatens that hegemony.

The farce sold to all comers in journalism is the narrative of "liberal" vs. "conservative" media. The differences are like toppings on a pizza and heavily targeted to various demographics according to algorithms created by some of the smartest people the world has ever known.

In this light, certain pundits and commentators may appear to "switch sides" or do a major reversal of what their outlet is reporting. This is called, "fine-tuning."

There is no overarching conspiracy. At least not one that most of us can relate to. Left, right, lib, con is all targeted silos for advertising delivery via a trusted mechanism (the "news") and conditioned response (the human need to self-sort).

The root of the problem is corporatism and corporations as they are currently defined and regulated. If you were one of them you'd use the mechanism outlined above to "guide," "steer," "control" us to.

We are practically begging for it.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: karl 12

I was stunned watching Network when it was released. That even that much of what I had already surmised about media could even get to the ''big stage'' like Network did.

It's a stunning film mate and considering it won all those Oscar's it's a great shame that nowadays a great many people have never even heard of it.

Today, Network feels as fresh and vital as it did 36 years ago, and not just because Finch, Faye Dunaway and Beatrice Straight won Oscars for acting in it.

It's because the movie predicts everything about modern media in the 21st Century—from reality TV and YouTube to Glenn Beck and the tabloid news format. And it did so 20 years before the internet even existed.

It's spooky how much the movie got right about the direction of the news business specifically, and the media generally.

link

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Appreciate the insightful post 0zzymand0s and there's some really relevant information about the future of 'news', how it will be policed and who's funding it in the video below if you haven't seen it before.



Cheers.

As well as the CIA, it also looks like the Pentagon likes to engage in mass media manipulation:

Pentagon used psychological operation on US public, documents show


..In a January 2005 memorandum to active members of both offices from then-Pentagon press office director, Navy Captain Roxie Merritt, who now leads the community relations office, emphasized the necessary “synergy of outreach shop and media ops working together” on the military analyst program.

Merritt recommended that both the press and community relations offices develop a “hot list” of analysts who could dependably “carry our water” and provide them with ultra-exclusive access that would compel the networks to “weed out the less reliably friendly analysts” on their own.

“Media ops and outreach can work on a plan to maximize use of the analysts and figure out a system by which we keep our most reliably friendly analysts plugged in on everything from crisis response to future plans,” Merritt remarked. “As evidenced by this analyst trip to Iraq, the synergy of outreach shop and media ops working together on these types of projects is enormous and effective. Will continue to examine ways to improve processes.”

link

Also that it's perfectly legal for news channels to bullsh•t the general public:

"We paid $3 billion for these television stations, we'll decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." 

Fox General Manager

Court Rules: News Media Can Lie

Two extremely relevant statements taken from the videos posted in this thread

"Intelligence officials should infiltrate online forums and chat rooms focusing on 'conspiracy theory' communities"

Cass Sunstein - Lawyer /Judge /Obama Admin /DOJ

And:

"It's not what you put on the news that changes the world, it's what you don't put on the news that changes the world"

Roger Ailes - former presidential media advisor / founder of Fox News

a reply to: karl 12

They were just letting you know that the bullet was in. Operation successful.

When you started seeing the Apple notebook computers displayed prominently on the news desk.
When you started to hear that you absolutely must get a facebook account it's the new thing.
When you started hearing that you must "follow" on twitter so you could be hip and cool.

That's when you knew they were all in the same group. On a mission.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: karl 12

We don't have a choice, don't know if we've ever had a choice, what we have is the illusion of choice.

Well said; you described the way of things just like one of my favorite villains from the Matrix:

the Marovingian

originally posted by: Generation9
That's when you knew they were all in the same group. On a mission.

On a mission indeed - it's an older one but thought this was a nice pic and when it comes to agendas it seems underwriters masquerading as advertisers could also be a thing.

Propaganda is the intentional dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. Even so-called "public" television is "underwritten" (commercials in disguise) by the likes of Halliburton and The Heritage Foundation..

link

Also when it comes to corporations wanting to be legally regarded as (and reaping all the legal benefits and rights of) 'one person' then thought this guy made a good point.

a reply to: karl 12

Back in 96 I happened upon a book by Stuart Ewen titled ''PR, a Social History of Spin''.

Mr. Ewen chronicles the rise of the industrial magnets of the last half of the 19th century and the push back by the American people though their actions in the streets and ensuing restraints put on the monopolistic ''robber barons'' by our representatives in Washington.

He goes into the outright aversion of the American people to the first world war, how it was considered a ''rich mans'' war and not one we should be involved in. He discusses how the government sought to sway citizens though early propaganda in movie houses and how that helped to make that war more palpable.

He also does a nice little history on Bernays as a symbol of the birth of Madison Avenue techniques to achieve the goal of ''convincing'' the public that the ideas presented by the advertisers were really the ideas of the person themselves.

And behind it all, though the first half of the 20th, the restrictions placed on monopolistic enterprise held the dreams of ''kingship'' of corporate enterprise in check. But with the development of more and more skills in the advertising field it was only a matter of time until they would manage to tip the scales of public opinion in their favor.

According to Mr. Ewen, the lynch pin in the decades old battle came with the discovery that what was needed was a ''face'' that could rally the people to nationalism favorable to corporate enterprise. It was when they placed their bets on a soap salesman with a cowboy image that they had the ''face'' that was needed. Reagan.

And that was the first half of the book.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Great post Terry and now I've got a bit of time on my hands will certainly endeavour to read that book (honestly).

I think the biggest wool that's been pulled over everyone's eyes is the corporate media's absolute promotion of absolute division in society (political, generational, sexual etc. ) so it's a great shame that nowadays we can't even shake hands or gather in large groups to protest about it.

Also, even though this article is quite an old one I really did think it made some mighty fine points about the subject.

Is it no coincidence, then, that the United States has become a nation whose masses no longer question authority or the propaganda that passes for news? Is it any wonder why we seem so ignorant as to what is being done to us and incurious as to what is happening in the world, readily and naively accepting as true everything that is spewed out of our televisions and newspapers? We have allowed the oligarchy to hide the keys of democracy while we carelessly follow it on the road to fascism, where the elite have control of all aspects of our lives, including our mind.

The Stupefaction of a Nation

a reply to: karl 12

That is a good quote. I pretty much hold with it. Sometimes I allow my own extrapolations to carry me off into what might happen. Taking that quote, or a general agreement with it I wonder just how like the Eloy we might become sometime down the line. Or for that matter, have become.

That Stupification tale? Yep, though quite hyperbolic I think. Maybe that's just me though. One thing that I appreciated about that article was how the media is not referred to as the MSM or the liberal govenment controlled media as so many here see it. It is referred to as the International Corporate Media, or just the Corporate Media. This to me is the greatest leap in comprehension of our bleak situation that has yet to be made by so many of our friends. And that of course it at this time a major realization that the oligarchs do not want the people of the US to have. They prefer that half of us believe that the media is ''liberal'' so that none of those people will want to overthrow the system, just any part of it that wants to change the profit centers that control it.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

"...so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system..."



The true meaning behind the Matrix is the last frontier of online free speech and it is also the biggest problem with discussions here. These people have been so conditioned to hate their opposing pinatas that they don't even feel the bats beating the candy out of their own arse.

The corporate media has done its job well, but alternative media was and still is the nail in the coffin.

It gave us even more free* silos to fight over.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2

LOL,takeover they are the original financiers and developers,they have always controlled..

Maybe you're right and it's always been controlled and manipulated mate - thought this quote about journalists being 'intellectual prostitutes' was an interesting one (more info at link).

One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the pre-eminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:



"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

"There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."


Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.

link

This Rockerfeller statement is also an interesting one - it was (allegedly) made when addressing the 1991 Bilderberg gathering and obtained by French intelligence agents tasked with monitoring the meeting:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” 

David Rockefeller

link

Outstanding thread karl, particularly this last post containing the link to the New American piece on the Bilderbergs; a star-worthy post if I've ever seen one.

This idea of the "free press" as a benevolent, objective guardian that watches over those in power on behalf of the public, is a SHAM. It drives me mad when journalists (and those of us who are still enthralled with the concept of a "free press") screech about ill treatment of the media in some quarters (particularly the current occupant of the White House). How can anyone sympathize with coarse treatment of journalists once you understand that they exist NOT to act as impartial scribes and recorders of facts, as they and their sycophants often portray journalists, but to convey a prefabricated, preapproved Narrative to shape the hearts and minds of the public, according to the whims of those with the true power ("industrialists, bankers and politicians" as I believe was worded in the New American piece).

I understand that there are still independent minded journalists out there, plying their trade with an honest and open point of view, but they sure as hell ain't working at one of the alphabet news networks, and their stories are just faint whispers, drowned out by gale force opinions blowing from the major news and media outlets.

There was a time that the New York times was considered politically neutral, the "paper of record" in the US, implying that the words in print in that publication carried the significance of historical fact. I used to read it quite a bit myself. Over time, I began to feel that more and more, the articles on the cover were indistinguishable from the opinion pieces, and that there were never any dissenting voices that described current affairs any differently than cable news networks, talking heads on Sunday political shows, or other printed publications. One Narrative; one story; one accounting of current affairs. One Opinion to Rule Them All.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s

These people have been so conditioned to hate their opposing pinatas that they don't even feel the bats beating the candy out of their own arse.

Classic post Ozzy and a monumental feat of conditioning indeed - also not that difficult to achieve when you realise there's only 6 groups (or is it 4?) controlling the entire news media apparatus.

Have been reading quite a few quotes about news media propaganda and these two really did stick out.

Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves." 
Eric Hoffer 


"The political machine triumphs because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority." 
Will Durant

Also some relevant docos if anyone's bored:

Spin - Footage You Were Never Supposed to See

Artist Brian Springer spent a year scouring the airwaves with a satellite dish grabbing back channel news feeds not intended for public consumption. The result of his research is SPIN, one of the most insightful films ever made about the mechanics of how television is used as a tool of social control to distort and limit the American public's perception of reality.

-

'What really goes on behind the big news stories of the day?

-

Toxic sludge is good for you: 

While advertising is the visible component of the corporate system, perhaps even more important and pervasive is its invisible partner, the public relations industry. This video illuminates this hidden sphere of our culture and examines the way in which the management of the public mind has become central to how our democracy is controlled by political and economic elites. Toxic Sludge Is Good For You illustrates how much of what we think of as independent, unbiased news and information has its origins in the boardrooms of the public relations companies.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Thanks for the posts guys - were you aware of this piece by Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein (I know I wasn't) - quite an enlightening read on the CIA/media connection (published in Rolling Stone magazine - 1977).


The CIA And Media


Excerpts:

The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were "taught to make noises like reporters," explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management.

'These were the guys who went through the ranks and were told, "You're going to be a journalist," the CIA official said. Relatively few of the 400-some relationships described in Agency files followed that pattern, however; most involved persons who were already bona fide journalists when they began undertaking tasks for the Agency.

Don't know if anyone here has interest in the subject of unidentified flying objects but did find the year in the paragraph below very relevant as it's also the same time the CIA convened the Robertson Panel which also (ab)used the news media.

The Agency's dealings with the press began during the earliest stages of the Cold War. Allen Dulles, who became director of the CIA in 1953, sought to establish a recruiting-and-cover capability within America's most prestigious journalistic institutions.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: ElGoobero

Of course, you believe that. It's what your favorite media taught you to believe.

What you don't know is that the corporatization of media has reduced news to the level of take-out dinners. The six corporations that control your media want you to believe that your version of the truth is real and factual. It is not. Your news, like everyone else's news, is the result of targeted marketing.

I don't deny that news/journalism today, especially on tv, is low-calorie compared to the real meaty stuff we saw in the past.
but we still have one media group shilling a political party and cause, selectively reporting, and promulgating 'fake news' to the point that nothing they say can be believed. the people are left out of the loop.
what happens when the sixth corporation sells out, financially or ideologically? it will be like the 90s when everybody in the media shilled for one side.
these 'corporations' are leftist advocates who forgo profits to promote their agendas.
its not about 'corporations', its about bias and ideologism in the media.