It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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



page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 05:35 PM
people don't belive all that the media says
sometimes the actual news stations say what the goverment wants them to say
it's kind of like an under the table type of thing. Especially when is a major war issue the goverment put's limits or controls what the media says.
another thing that i find interesting
is that when they do give out information is like they are telling the enemies everything
like for example why tell on the media where the Carl Vinson is going next
wouldn't that just be telling our enemies information
i just feel that sometimes the media gives out information which in the end may hurt us
well that's all i have to say

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 05:46 PM
As the old saying goes: "Our media can't TELL you what to think, but it can tell you what to think ABOUT"

no signature

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 06:08 PM

I don't believe all the conspiracy mythos about the gloomy control of media by government.

The "media" are of for-profit companies engaged in not much more than entertainment. What you believe to be "control" is nothing more than pandering the lowest common denominator of the idiot American public for the purpose of getting the most eyeballs, and thus, the highest ratings.

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 09:29 PM
the media has become a source of lies and deceit. the media is nothing but a tool of the nwo to distract us from their real plan.

posted on Nov, 15 2002 @ 10:01 PM
And TP911... your evidence is... um... uh... what?

posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 09:57 AM
Most Americans don't buy the screamin'-left bias, yet they package most of their news in such a manner.
Time and time again, books like Sean Hannity's, radio programs like Rush Limbaugh and the popularity of Fox News prove that people here do not subscribe to that bias spun on news at places like CNN and CBS, and if they would just report the news, and all the news (in other words, don't place bias by selecting what to show and not show in order to sway opinions) then they would make more money by selling what we want. They don't, however, so that makes one suspicious.

posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 10:26 AM
...and then there's the devotees of NPR and BBC, which proves that people don't necessarily subscribe to the biases presented by Rush Limbaugh and his colleagues.

posted on Nov, 16 2002 @ 10:54 AM
Yup, but we can't really use NPR as it is taxpayer-subsidized and isn't a for-profit media outlet.

BBC. Doesn't Rupert own it now?

posted on Nov, 17 2002 @ 12:41 PM
The press is driven by several factors. People want to make money. Journalists have egos to feed. These are proud people. They want to become famous. Find the big story. Reporters are herd animals. If one of them jumps off a bridge, they all jump off a bridge. It's not important for them to be right as long as they're first.

posted on Nov, 17 2002 @ 12:44 PM
hey william this is for u

News is a business. It's a business to make money. It's not a public service to keep society informed as to what's going on. Although the news media talks about journalistic integrity, that is just a concept and a marketing line and has no more to do with the real world than the Justice System has to do with Justice. The media is nothing but a business that can be bought and be used for any means of conspiracy.

posted on Nov, 17 2002 @ 12:47 PM
It's more profitable to tell the public a lie when everyone else is lying to the public than to tell the public the truth. If the press won't admit they are wrong when they find out they were wrong, the public won't trust what the press says.

William u got to see that the media is not always right and their job is not necessarily to tell the truth but to report wat sells.

posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 09:28 PM
@ TC its true the media is left wing and i wish there was more right wing with the truth not this BS that they left tries to feed us

posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 06:35 PM
why are ppl so dumb to buy into the crap that the left gives us

posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 10:47 PM

Originally posted by malicious
News is a business.

And an entertainment business at that.

No conspiracy... no orders from the nwo... no government control... just entertaining drivel for the lowest common denominator 0.2 second attention span American to increase ratings and charge more for a 30 second advertising spot or full-page ad.

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 02:37 AM
I think that your part in the media business has clouded your vision. Just answer a couple of questions,ok?
Who decides what is cool? (ie, fashion, music, fads, isms, etc.)
Where do most people get there opinions?
Have you ever seen the movie Network? LOL
Could you please find the root word for Fashion and post it?
I have it, and its purpose, but I would like your research.
Should be easy for an old, venerable, aging pro like you. LOL

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 07:56 AM
Oh Ma-Ha...

We've been through this before... tisk tisk. But, for the eager followers of this thread, lets set the stage....

Your part in research and opinion against Freemasons, "Illuminati", and "Bilderbergs" has clouded yours.

I formed my assessment of "the media" long before I became involved in the Internet technology side of advertising.

A couple of givens:

1- Some media giants have very opinionated persons running things from the top or in influential departments. This often can and will form internal policy. However, these are for-profit ventures of which many are public corporations with investors to appease.

2- I never claimed that "they" don't feed the media interesting tidbits from time to time. News outlets being the competitive ventures they are, will run with these tidbits in the effort to scoop the others. On the surface, this often appears as "them" controlling "the media."

As such, since "the media" are all competing for your eyes and ears, they must do their best to attract you to their version of events, ideas, and presentation. This is much more "entertainment" than information. Our collective opinions are fashioned by the combinations of events and fiction composed to attract your eyes and ears.

This does not preclude that, from time to time, certain media outlets will collude with "them" either on purpose or by accident. But on the whole, their own agenda of coffers building drives the totality of what combination of nonfiction and fiction is fed to the eager public.

The complexities of culture decides what is "cool." Or do you have in mind a master puppeteer who is deciding for us?

The etymology of "fashion" is from the Middle English facioun, and deeper from the Old French faon, appearance, manner, which comes from the Latin facti?, facti?n-, a making, from factus, a past participle of facere, to make, do. How does this apply?

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 09:13 AM
There is where the contradiction is found. If the mainstream media were merely fighting over our patronage, then wouldn't they be more willing to give us what the majority of us want? Fox News, which claims to be fair and balanced but actually tilts to the right (but not as bad as the rest tilts to the left), has taken a big chunk of the viewers from the rest of the news casters. Conservative authors blow away liberal authors, yet the conservatives aren't given much notice at the large publishing houses.
As my favorite pundit wrote, "A competitive marketplace in speech has the ominous effect of creating Rush Limbaugh. Only a monopoly could produce Dan Rather."
If it were strictly left up to public opinion, there'd be alot less left bias and more of the facts, sir, just the facts.

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 09:25 AM
Thomas, alas, the public is not like you and I, nor many of our fine posters here. They sit in their easy chairs with their remote controls and want to think happy-happy-joy-joy thoughts. And when something bad happens, it's like a bright shiny object, they can't look away. Keeping their eyeballs glued and their fingers off the remote control is a very valuable thing today.

We're in a transitional stage of cultural evoluion. The 28-40 crowd has had their mind numbed by the lowest-common-denominator media, and the advent of rapid-shift attention span. Those under 25 have an advantage, for the first time in history, our children are more comfortable with advanced technology than we are. The digital evolution is just getting started. Wait for it, it'll get better.

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 07:22 PM
The media has always been more than just a money making thing. Consider the fact that media has always been a tool with which to form public opinion. We are always so tunnel visioned in our concepts of what media is. The earliest religions used media in the form of 'plays' that were enacted out as ritual, put on for the 'uninitiated'. Then, we have the advent of travelling minstrels, who told stories and created ballads that, when performed, engendered new strains of thought into the minds of the onlookers. Previous to even 'minstrel' types, we have 'Jesuit' theatre, travelling theatre companies, financed by the Catholic Church to foment unrest amongst the populace against the Protestant orders of aristocracy in Europe. The grandfather of all of them is the use of advanced principles of science to create 'light shows' etc. (including images of gods that had 'glowing eyes' and smoke coming out of the moving mouth aperatures) in Egypt, and it was followed by ancient Greece and the 'oracles' who used various theatrics to impress the inquisitor. What we have to remember is that it is only in the past 125 years or so that the average person could read. Literacy was a priveledge for the priveledged, and thus, scepticism had no base. In order to be sceptical of information you receive, you have to have some sort of knowledge base, or developed thought process with which to juxtapose the information to. In short, the public were real suckers for the media back then, and way back then, as much, to the same extent as we are now. To simply think that a mechanism as powerful as media is to forming the opinions of the public was just given over to the aims of the almighty dollar is silly. To think that such a powerful device used for thousands of years to control and manipulate the public has just been handed over and over the past century has gained independence from its creators is silly. To think that the affect that the 'lowest common denominator media' on the 28-40 crowd wasn't known before hand and therefore intended, is like saying that psychology was invented after the T.V.
I see the guy with the remote as being the same as you see him. A deer caught in the headlights just waiting for the future to hit him. I just don't think the collision is going to be as bloodless as you do.

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 10:36 PM
Actually the media does distort and misquote thing that are said and seen by them. My brother is working on a government contract and his work was shown on C-span and they said that they had totally screwed up the whole thing and inserted mistruths into the story. I dont trust the mainstream media farther than i can drop kick it.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in