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.

 

Mainstream media with an agenda?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Does the mainstream media have a political agenda, and, en force, are they using their media position to create a lopsided public mindset by using their control over what the public has access to in regard to information? And, by asking loaded questions to their favorite choices, are they biasing opinions?
Read this and have an open mind. Whether or not you agree with their political position, if you agree with the stastical documentation, you must agree that the situation is not good for the "democratic process".

www.mediaresearch.org...




posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
The Rothschilds and Rockefellers decide what the media says.



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
But it's far from the Liberal enpowerment that this sites thesis is trying to push.
Biased analysis by MRC.
First, it does not acknowledge critical factors that would make this analysis unbiased. In 1999, there were two Republican candidates for the lion's share of the year challenging a Dem Administration incubment. Folks like Quayle and (who? Buchanan maybe?) were categorized in the Dennis Kuccinich class - NO SHOT IN HELL!
Of the two GOP candidates, Bush ran a Shwartzenegger campaign - only appear where you know the questions up front, hence, the minimum mainstream face time.

Second, it's covering three shows! It does not account for outright GOP ownership of: Sunday morning political shows, Fox news 24/7, Corporate syndicated political radio, and evening political shows. Of the biased sampling, John McCain got more face time than 8 of the 10 Democrats & is on par with the leaders. Using the numbers provided, McCain got a full minute more in his appearences to state his case than Dean & Clark - long time in TV land.
The site is a conservative mouthpiece extolling their viewpoint through the guise of statistical objectivity, nothing more. Proof? a) count the number of times & the way the word "liberal" is used from their home page onward. b) Cal Thomas is the quoted endorsement !!!!! c) after a theisis on biais, here's their reader poll question " Does it surprise you that the 2003 Democratic presidential candidates received more air time than the 1999 Republican field?" ( like asking " Have you told your Mom that you masturbate on her underware in the bathroom hamper, Yes or No?"



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Message to self: Say it louder, they didn't hear what you said before!



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I do buy that corporations own the opinions we are exposed to, regardless of the fire of the individual, from McCain to Dean to the Teamster on the line.
Great threads on th 7 or so compaines that own all of the global media.



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Why not?

so tell me who owns the corps?

or sits on the boards?

or runs the CFR or Bilderbergers or...

you will see that I am correct.



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I think ALL media has an agenda...

CNN and other sr=tuoid media are Bush bashers...

Fox and like or For Bush agenda...

but still its good to take alittle CNN andmix it with Fox...

that way you get the REAL NEWS!



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   
NEO, I see and understand your point, and agree with it. But you'll find the point not taken in the political forums. Don't ask me why.

BT, very good points, but understand that Fox is not seen as mainstream media, but competition to it, and is allegedly trying to counterbalance the liberal mainstream media. Regardless, if the roles were reversed, the problem would still be there. Russian has the best point in that people should view both sides, but that is not what the press is supposed to be about!



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   
But what if a person only gets one side? Then they are not truely informed. Can a person make a thoughtful decision if their lack of access doesn't give them all the positions?



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
But what if a person only gets one side? Then they are not truely informed. Can a person make a thoughtful decision if their lack of access doesn't give them all the positions?


I think you answered your own question,no they can't.

Yes the media does have an agenda. The media put Clinton in office for his second term. They also had a lot to with Bush getting into office. If Dean somehow makes it to the Whithouse,the media put him there.
In all of the case above the media pumped each of those canidates more than anyone else. Look at Dean now,you hear more about him than any other democratic canidate. If you combined all the airtime,news print, and internet news for Kerry,Lieberman, and Gephart, it still is not as much coverge as what Dean is getting. What I don't know is why? Why do one or two people get all the coverage?
I also believe the news does not tell us everything. Only enough to keep us happy.



posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 07:48 AM
link   
......with charter & standards expressly forbidding a stance? Let it be architected by the true stalwarts of journalism while they're still alive, because they are old.

There should be no one who is a direct employee that is a millionaire in the news profession. Sure, sell novels, but be an independent.
The brass ring has been grabbed, and like professional athletes, the bar's not going down.
I agree with Thomas: run a little self tes & watch a "news" broadcast, specifically a discussion based one. See how long it take to identify an opinion within what is being discussed.
In a nut shell, we've had"pundits" in place of news people for more than a decade now.



posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
And, by asking loaded questions to their favorite choices, are they biasing opinions?

I heard about this report yesterday and, like another poster to ths thread, I am annoyed that it was based on the morning shows only. That's extremely selective... come on...

It's always interesting to watch a live or uncut press conference, because you see what questions were asked. Often they are LOADED, out in left field, or TOTALLY out of context. Often, the official giving the press conference is taken by surprise - due to the idiocy of the journalist or blatent loading of the question. Then post-press conference, it's even MORE interesting to see how each news agency spins it. It seems that 95% of the press conferences topics are convienently ignored.

An example: I live in Indiana and last year our governer had a sudden stroke and never regained conciousness and DIED a few days later. the local news went nuts over the story, of course. My wife is in a registered nurse and was interested in the press conferences with the physicians involved. It was OBVIOUS to even ME that the pysicians were saying he would be LUCKY to regain conciousness, "let alone be governer again". So what does the press report? That the physicians thought that the governer had a chance of taking office. Not that his condition was grave. Not that most people don't survive this type of stroke. Not that he'd probably die. But that he'd probably live, rule, and everything could be back to normal. He died a few days later, and the press was SURPRISED!!!

Yeah, i believe in a media elite. Yeah, I believe in the power of the press to sway the masses. But I also believe that journalism is filled with idiots. These people need some real world (ie professional) exposure to science, medicine, and other fields, imo.



posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
From the mouth within the belly of the beast:

An Independent Press? It No Longer Exists
---------------------------------------------------

Back in 1953, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York
Times, was asked to give a toast to the independent press before the New
York Press Club. What follows is a portion from his toast:

"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. 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 the paper, before twenty-four
hours my occupation would be gone. Or quite possibly, I'd be dead."

"The business of 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. What folly is
this, toasting to 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, whores. Nothing
more."

More:
www.apfn.net...



posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   
GREAT quote... I've been hoping for something like that for a long time. THANK YOU!



posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Interesting, though, that a journalist would be viewing his opinion as part of the news. I was not aware that the news was to be commentary, but thought commentary was to be separate from news, especially in 1952.
As much of a problem as warping information, another way of influencing the opinion of the public is through ommision of certain information. Examples of this are numerous and widespread.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what your position on issues is, if you aren't very careful, you can be led astray of the facts by biased media that is designed to do just that.

Another example of how things are not as they oght to be in this country.



posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BelowtheRadar
GREAT quote... I've been hoping for something like that for a long time. THANK YOU!


Ubetcha.


The best way to sort it all out is to read as many different news and opinion sources as you can (local, national, international). It's at that point you can shake out fact from fiction. The devil is truly in the details. If you run a google search on one story, you'll find hundreds of articles that are virtually the same, thanks to the wire. (eyes rolling into my head.) However, you will gleen tidbits of different details from news source to news source.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Does the mainstream media have a political agenda, and, en force, are they using their media position to create a lopsided public mindset by using their control over what the public has access to in regard to information? And, by asking loaded questions to their favorite choices, are they biasing opinions?
Read this and have an open mind. Whether or not you agree with their political position, if you agree with the stastical documentation, you must agree that the situation is not good for the "democratic process".

www.mediaresearch.org...


yeah, baby. this is one of the cornerstones of control. it's hard to believe people don't see it, or REFUSE to see it, even once it's been pointed out. people fall back on the notion that humanity is interested in the best interests of humanity.
they continue to ignore the elephant in the room. a handful, and ultimately one, people run the world, and 'they' don't have humane as a character trait.
the idea that reporters are no good is sheltered. reporters know that you don't bring an article in that proves the owner of the company is a baby-eatin' satanist. it won't be printed. good articles in general won't be printed, as newspapers don't really like to tell the truth, and the truth trail always leads back to the source(the 'owners of the system', which of course, includes big media). they just like to spin it and watch the world spin along.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
From the mouth within the belly of the beast:

An Independent Press? It No Longer Exists
---------------------------------------------------

Back in 1953, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York
Times, was asked to give a toast to the independent press before the New
York Press Club. What follows is a portion from his toast:

"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. 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 the paper, before twenty-four
hours my occupation would be gone. Or quite possibly, I'd be dead."

"The business of 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. What folly is
this, toasting to 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, whores. Nothing
more."

More:
www.apfn.net...


Do you see how crazy it is? How deep the brainwashing goes? Here is a quote straight from a huge media guy (Swinton) and people still don't want to believe it. Can you say DENIAL?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join