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 fa┴on
, 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?