Gullible Society

As part of a Gullible Society project, i would like to know if any FG member can remember ever being mislead by the media, (News story, Film, TV show ect) something that claims to be fact but is indeed false, eg....

Blair government caught out in plagiarism and lies over latest Iraq dossier
www.wsws.org...

. what do you think of Advertising?
. do you believe TV creates good roll models for children?
. any thoughts on Celebrityism?
. should the Tabloids be less intrusive and more responsible in print,
. do you think it's acceptable to be conned by TV shows? eg....

Most Haunted caught faking activity live on Camera
www.youtube.com...

Any info or video clips of the media misleading the public would be very apreaciated...

all the best... ian

You can watch almost any documentary about any war and find footage that does not belong with the narration and thereby gives credence to the narration for those who don't know an AK from an M-16 or a tank from an artillery piece.

Journalists are always reporting on things they don't know about and deceive the viewing public because they are as uninformed as the journalist. Then, there are the cases in which deception is purposeful.

As for the clip you posted, I couldn't tell what was going on.

[edit on 2006/8/8 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by iamian
mislead by the media

Misled? That can only happen if you let yourself lead by the media in the first place, right?

I think few of them do what they do on purpose, they just mix the facts because they don't know better. Media is a profit-oriented business, how can you expect in-depth research and analysis of hard facts if things have to go as quick as possible, because some other TV channel could spread the news a few minutes earlier? It's just easier and more comfortable (and less risky and less costly) to quote news agencies, to comment well-known "facts" or to interview victims and politicians on most subjects instead of confronting the consumers with inconvenient truths.

The best way to stir people is by language. The choice of words is the most subtle form of propaganda. One very good example of that is the current coverage on Iranian president Ahmadinedjad. Even the "Spiegel", a german magazine with a once-good reputation (probably comparable to the "Time") had a first page a few months ago that read: "Irans president Ahmadinedjad: the man the world is afraid of" (Der Mann, vor dem sich die Welt fürchtet). The "Bild", german leading tabloid newspaper, constantly titulates him as "The maniac" (der Verrückte). Again and again we hear the phrase Teheran wants to "wipe Israel off the map", which soon became even more dramatic when it was claimed that Ahmadinedjad wanted to "extinguish Israel". Although it may be true that Teheran is not too Israel-friendly and that they question Israels right to seize land in the Near East, and although I am not at all a supporter of the iranian regime, the truth is that Ahmadinedjad never said such thing. It's a deliberate mis-translation. The Middle East Media Research Institute (Washington) provided the following translation:

Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart?

Not even a word about "map"! A word-by-word-translation would read: Khomeini said, that the occupying regime has to disappear from the "arena of time", in other words, that there is no place for it. Please note, although it may sound picky, that Ahmadinedjad never talked about the STATE of Israel, but the REGIME.

This speech, in the New York Times (10/30/05), became:

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front.

From there, it spread all over the media. Each and every single german newspaper I know of picked up that phrase and translated it into "von der Landkarte tilgen" (not just wipe of the map, but even to extinguish), which is even more reminiscent of speeches by some infamous german dictator 60 years ago, to whom Ahmadinedjad is now constantly compared with: Adolf Hitler).

Now, how can you verify these claims I made? I don't speak Farsi, so I have to rely upon what I've researched on the web; I'll have to believe the MEMRI translation. Otherwise, I'd have to believe that truly Ahmadinedjad wants to wipe Israel off the map. Maybe he wants to. But he never claimed he would wipe Israel off the map in that particular speech that put the whole western world into a frenzy.

But of course it's more convenient to slowly reassure us bit by bit that a new Hitler has arisen in Teheran, so we are more likely to support a war on Iran.

That's how media mislead their consumers.

[edit on 8-8-2006 by Akareyon]

Everyone does it. Ethics are arbitrary. There is an invisible line which only makes itself present once you have crossed it. I am sure many of you have heard about nanotechnology. You have seen articles in magazines, read about a professors research or a company's product. The word nanotechnology is lie. The proper term is chemistry. But no one seems to care that researchers, universities, private companies, their mom, their teacher are all calling chemistry nanotechnology.

Honda gave away a hydrogen fueled car to a family in California. #1, television execs want you to believe that everyone from California is a hardcore enviromentalist/hippie or that they are very educated, #2, Honda wants you to believe this, #3 Honda wants you to believe anything other than the car is a concept car which will never be sold. But they sure as hell want you to think that because they are giving hydrogen fueled cars away that it means they will sell these cars, and sell them cheap, and that everyone who cares about the environment will buy one.

From a little more broad perspective, I feel there is a genetic component to "gullibility" in that some people are born followers and are more likely to believe what they are told by authority figures. This could be what makes a society cohesive but in turn, uncreative and stagnant.

On the other extreme, outlaws that always reject and question any and all authority figures and are disruptive to the general society.

Hopefully we as a society fall somewhere in the middle, but there surely is an ebb and flow as with all biology, but mass communication has become such a science, it may be more influential in opinion creation than we could have ever imagined.

Subliminal coercion could play a big part in population manipulation too.

Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99

Number of TV sets in the average U.S. household: 2.24

Percentage of U.S. homes with three or more TV sets: 66

Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes

Percentage of Americans that regularly watch television while eating dinner: 66

Number of hours of TV watched annually by Americans: 250 billion

Value of that time assuming an average wage of S5/hour: S1.25 trillion

This pretty much tells why the media is manipulated and interest groups control the medial outlets.

No to tell how they pay millions to keep it that way.

Yes with so many Americans watching their TVs is a big market out there and manipulation can be use by unscrupulous groups. . .for a fee.

www.csun.edu...&health.html

I never ceases to astonish me how US citizens can be so easily influenced by the "cult of personality". I find it so ironic to see young Native Americans that live in adobe pueblos dressing and talking like ghetto black youth, gansta rap artist.
Mass marketing at it's finest.

But it's not just the youth that are easily influenced my mass media; it's everyone that buys into the American nightmare of illusion.

It's a brave new world; welcome to the monkey house.

RE: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems to me that you are the one mincing words. Translating languages requires the use or conversion of idioms and that seems to be what the German papers were doing and the English-language papers, as well.

To say, "the occupying regime must be wiped off the map," or "'this regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history" seems to express the same desire and I don't see any difference in referring to Israel as a nation or a regime. They both mean the same thing. Israel must not only be removed physically, but must be removed from the pages of history. Either way, it is both vicious and intolerable.


[edit on 2006/9/20 by GradyPhilpott]

I have often been misled by the media when reading articles about scientific (mostly astronomical) discoveries, etc. The media is apallingly ignorant about anything scientific. They don't seem to intentionally mislead the readers though, it's just that they don't have any understanding of what they are writing about.