It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Framing the "Fair & Balanced" Conspiracy Against Democracy (Equal Time for Fringe Fanatics)

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   


One aspect of what I call "opinion-building" that mustn't be forgotten is that a good number of people don't demand balanced reporting because it's boring. When watching the news, we're not only citizens, we're also consumers of entertainment... and the news outlets like CNN and Fox know this. I would bet that a lot of people watch Bill O'Reilly or Tucker Carlson not because they want to get an informed opinion on a topic, but because they want to see a good show - a bit like Conan O'Brien's dog Triumph. So in the end, information on cable news networks tends to be not about who can give the best information... but who can put on the best show.


This thread is excellent because it eloquently points out the serious problems in our political system today.

WRT Fox News (and now, other news channels), their strategy will not work with me because I routinely turn them off when I object to their content. If the problem escalates, I will begin writing to their advertisers to point out that people I know will not buy their products if Fox News shows continue to be so 'fair and balanced.' /sarcasm

I find the internet is the best news source today. That's where I get my news. Unfortunately, today's cable news channels are killing the medium for the mass market. So be it. No doubt they will continue broadcasting their propaganda via big bucks contributions from those who want to twist public thinking to the fanatic.

That's pretty much how I view those channels - propaganda - and I exercise that 'filter' whenever I watch.




posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Thanks for bumping it. LMGNYC even used the phrase "sob sister!" That rocks!!!

Hadn't read this in a while and missed most of the recent contributions. Thanks again.

Man, what was in my coffee on that first post and where can I get more?


We should update and keep track of new falsely framed issues as they take over the news and get shoved down our throats.

And I'll bring Pickle Girl and Rapture Boy out of retirement.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Thanks for bumping this thread. Its important to be aware of when fanatics hijack the national discourse.

A recent example is Karl Rove's attack on "liberals"--and I put "liberals" in quotations because in Rove's red and blue world of divisive partisan politics (as per his speech last week), a liberal is anyone that disagrees with the President. It's "you're either with us, or against us" all over again.

But who are the "us" he is refering to? He speaks about "liberals"--specifically those that "saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Considering that in 2001 and 2002, 90% of the country supported the attack on Afghanistan, Rove is weaving tall revisionist history tales to suit his fanatical bent.

It is interesting to note that in late 2001 through 2002, when the savagery of 9/11 was fresh in the minds of liberals, conservatives, independents--all Americans, every poll showed overwhelmingly strong support for war with Iraq. An ABC News poll in 11/01 indicated that 78% of the country favored military action. Of course, at that time over 70% of the country also believed that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in flying planes into buildings and had stockpiles of WMDs too.

Considering that by November '04, over 56 million patriotic Americans exercizing their Democratic responsibility expressed their dissatisfaction with George Bush and according to recent polls conducted by AP/Ipsos, Zogby, CNN/USA Today/Gallup, CBS News/NYTimes, Harris, Gallup (independent), ABC News/Washington Post, NBC News/Wall St. Journal, and Time, the majority of the country now believes that invading Iraq was a mistake, has served to worsen our long-term security, and was not worth the loss of human life or financial cost, Rove and those who rushed to defend his remarks are clearly outside the mainstream.

Also, I would say that one would have to be quite the lunatic to give a speech, especially in New York where we are known to lean to the left, and say that after watching the Twin Towers crumble, liberals wanted to send terrorists to therapy.

As a liberal and a New Yorker that didn't need a television to watch the towers fall, I can tell you that Rove doesn't speak for me or anyone I know--especially the families of my friends who died that day. I can also tell you it will be a cold day in hell before Rove is welcomed back in NYC.

But even if his comments are classless and incendiary, this does expose Rove and those that support him as extremists. The only purpose of his brand of Manichean value system is to create friction and to compel people to pick a side.

Reminds me of a quote that I read in Avlon's "Independent Nation"...


"Far right kooks are just like the nuts on the left; they're doorbell ringers and balloon blowers, but they turn out to vote. There is only one thing as bad as a far-right liberal, and that's a damn right-wing conservative."


Ironically, that was Richard M. Nixon, author of Karl Rove's playbook. If anyone knew how to manipulate the silent majority, it was Nixon. Interesting to note that Rove's first mentor was Nixon's chief political strategist, Donald Segretti... who wound up in prison as part of the Watergate scandal.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc

"Far right kooks are just like the nuts on the left; they're doorbell ringers and balloon blowers, but they turn out to vote. There is only one thing as bad as a far-right liberal, and that's a damn right-wing conservative."


Ironically, that was Richard M. Nixon, author of Karl Rove's playbook. If anyone knew how to manipulate the silent majority, it was Nixon. Interesting to note that Rove's first mentor was Nixon's chief political strategist, Donald Segretti... who wound up in prison as part of the Watergate scandal.



Prior to Reagan, you could always count on the Goldwater era conservatives to tell it like it is just as you could liberals before Carter. Once being an "evangelical" and "just like me" became a requirement for the Presidency however, it became harder to tell the kooks from the Presidents.

Given the impact of media in framing this necessity for Presidential kookiness, I also wonder how much thanks we owe to permanent presidential fixtures like Billy Graham for this trend.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I come very late into this thread.. and I acknowledge that I will not be popular to saying this..

But reading the reading the origional post and some of the repies for it.. I am amazed. THe "evil" fair and balanced against the "majority opinion" is a old debate. But that was a very well written post about how the decision of Roe Vs Wade be part of the mainstream opinion and the efforts of those against it is destroying democracy etc.

The simple fact of it is.. the Roe Vs Wade decision should be decided as getting it passed as a consitutional amendment period. If it is to stand then it must become law and not be part of a "decision" of the court to make it a law.

Democracy in its basic form is a Mob Rule form of government. If the numbers presented make it the dominate form. Then WHY is the supporters not pushing it to become a defacto law? This would solve all debate and end the political rift that is presented.

I am a soveriegn individual. I have my own opinon about Roe Vs Wade and NO one can change my mind on that fact. But my belief is that the Roe Vs Wade decision has been a political football that needs to end.

Both sides of this debate needs to work together and work out the proper form of action on the subject instead of the finger pointing and name calling that has happpened for years.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Rant makes some very intresting points many of which I am in agreement. I have thought to myself for some years now that the primary purpose of polls was to mold public opinion not to report public opinion.
Though I had been thinking this for some time it was confirmed for me after the Monica Lewinski scandal passed from public view. Prior to this and during the events the public was literally innundated by one poll after another poll another and another and another till it became sickening ..several per day. Then like turning off a light switch..when the events were concluded the polls disappeared. The polls had accomplished what they were intended to do..mold public opinion.
It is my belief that the polls so innundated our daily lives that much of the public actually tired of the events and became neutral..which was the effect intended. To get the public at least not to oppose the direction someone wanted to go with this. Lack of opposition is a victory to this kind of body politic.
It is my belief that this is why Rant uses the illustration of the people caught in the middle being so important. It is this group that the body politic needs to sway or at least remain neutral while events around them transpire. This is a left/right dichotomy by public media poll bombarement. It is Hegalian Dialectic. Thesis antithesis synthesis. Most of the public is clueless.
This is also why so much of our media coverage has become sort of emotional tabloid like. As the public we are more easily swayed by the emotional appeal than reasonable logical thinking. Reactionary rather than thinkers. Both left and right do this. It becomes quite obvious on many of these posts that people are caught up in thier emotional satisfaction on any issue...not thinking.
Since Phil Donahue ..the public has become so caught up on emotional justification/victimization and polls to stroke this belief system rather than allow us to use observation and thinking this through by reason and logic or simple common sense.
Incidently...this is also a clear illustration of how television and now talk radio are used as a control mechanism to condition people while they are unawares of what is happening to them. There are people and groups who obviously watch television and radio for events and indicators that a new trend with control potential is occuring and useful to the body politic. Of this I have no doubt. Out of this understanding of control came more of the Phil Donahue format and whatever it evolved into...and eventually more sitcoms to mold public opinion by humor. Many sitcoms became highly political under the guise of humor/satire...very effective on a unawares public.

The problem is always how to sway this group caught between two radical elements... the Left and right ...to go one way or another or at least stay neutral....allowing the left or right to play through. Television,polls, education, news media and even churchs are not immune to this kind of conditioning.
Another word or term for this is " State sponsored Confusion" It is just not as obvious as it is under a hard line Socialist or Communist government but it is just as effective. It gets you to volenteer your belief system...not at the point of a gun or threat of jail.....Yet!!!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kitanis
Democracy in its basic form is a Mob Rule form of government.


Exactly. And media presentations against the will of the people are "Fair and Balanced."

Which is why I can say I'm holding my breath until the man that got more votes than anyone in history to run the free world comes to my house with an original birth certificate to prove he is qualified to govern my fringe opinion, and STILL get a prime time slot on Fox News.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by Article11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join