Media abandons America

reply to post by jokerdazey2

---

I'm not quite sure what The Doors have to do with this thread especially the song "touch me" that you quoted..
But thanks for sharing.

Of course media is a business, and one that is out more and more for entertainment and profit rather than anything else.

However, can we really blame them?

I say no because any group or company will get away with what we allow them to. Coupled with the sad educational system and American's disdain for reading or critical thinking, I think there is a huge problem.

US media the most biased and most indoctrinating of all media. Western-European media follows shortly after although their bias is different. For example, they have a slighly more critical approach of the Israel-Palestine conflict and they are far more liberal.

And yes, Asia and North-Africa largely lack this sort of indoctrination, give or take a few more totalitarian countries.

reply to post by OutoftheBoxthinker

---

If only this were true. Sadly, it is not.

Following the recent coup in Mauritania, there are no democracies in North Africa, though Morocco may be said to be partly free. The media are not free in any North African country, not even Morocco.

In Asia, the situation is a little better, but only a handful of countries have media that are truly free. Its remaining billions must make do with whatever facts and lies their governments dish out.

This map from Freedom House shows which of the world's countries have free media and which do not. You may find it eye-opening. Remember that the definition of freedom here is 'not owned, controlled or restricted by the state'. By that definition the American and Western European media are free; thralldom to non-state interests (whether commercial or conspiratorial ones) is not indicated.

There are very few free and trustworthy media sources in the world. In the final analysis there are none that are wholly so; the media of the Europe and North America enjoy great freedom, but most have agendas of their own, so unbiased reporting and comment is rare.

If I had to choose, I would say the BBC World Service media are the most trustworthy, followed by CNN International and Al-Jazeera in English.

One does not need a "democracy" to have an accurate media. In fact, "democracies" often have the least accurate media.



That's why those ratings are pointless. Besides, a state-owned media doesn't imply inaccurate media.



Somehow I doubt that. Neither BBC or CNN are close to objective.

Dying for Information

I will not attempt to argue with my friend who thinks outside the box; to him, I recommend a knapsack, a passport and a stout pair of boots.

For those who may think inside the box but do not live inside one, it will suffice to point out that, of some 700 journalists killed in the line of duty since 1992, fewer than twenty died in wealthy, developed countries. Among these, four lost their lives at the hands of the Israeli military; the deaths of the remainder were not in any way linked to official interests or legitimate commercial ones.

The other 680-odd martyrs to the public's right to know died, as you might expect, in despotisms both great (Russia) and small (Tajikistan), occupied countries (Iraq and the Palestinian Territories) and failed or failing states (Rwanda, Sri Lanka). The appalling statistics can be viewed in detail here.

You still miss the fact that :
*) a state-owned press doesn't imply less accuracy. You don't need a free press to have an accurate press.
*) just because you don't kill or lock up journalists, that doesn't mean your press is freeer. Defamation, threats and economic boycots are often just as effective in shutting up a journalist.

By the way, I may not have yet had the pleasure to visit nations outside of Europe, but I have met several people who have and I do tend to read a lot about non-European countries. With regards to Europe, I've visited Holland, Luxembourg, France, Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Italy and England. In Poland I even stayed three full months, because I did my internship out there. Hence, I think I can say I know the continent quite well.

In case you wonder, I live in Belgium myself....

Continental European media historically has had a different kind of balance.
Specifically the print media. In most European countries you have several newspapers in play. They're all recognized for their bias. Meaning you have a socialist newspaper, a right wing newspaper, communist, fascist, centrist and so on. In most cases you can tell a person's political ideology by what news paper they read. Combined with television and interned citizens get the factual news and their angle on it through the newspapers.

Just a list of some alternative news sources, not sure of their individual credibility but I am trying to figure that out in a thread started to try to debate or critique alt news sources.
To the OP, greatly thought out post, important issues indeed. From my perspective, it seems as if just finding political chatrooms and making friends of others in various countries is a good way of keeping tabs on what the MSM is and is not talking about in various regions, and varying hypothesis from said regions as to why.

Which all goes right along into The Psychology Behind Mass Subservience to Tyranny...I just started that thread & even mention a bit about the collusion between Centralized Government coupled with Centralized Media.

reply to post by psychedeliack

---

Let's see if I can help augment that list of independent sources...Just a little.
www.alternet.org...
www.americanfreepress.net...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
www.newswithviews.com...
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...
www.wanttoknow.info...
www.worldpublicopinion.org...
www.naturalnews.com...
www.guerrillanews.com...
www.libertymaven.com...
www.worldnetdaily.com...
wikileaks.org...

So how does a system of mainstream media get by with so much outright propaganda?...By colluding with a once-free government on the fast track to tyranny. Just because it's not on MSM News doesn't mean it's not so. Here's some excepts from an article written over 1 year ago.
Source: Natural News


More at Source-link

And guess what? Our taxes (or even more outrageous loans with interest from the Federal Reserve) are paying them to "keep us secure"...Who's going to secure us from them?

Now actual drug-criminals are getting paid to pick & choose which law-abiding Citizens can be subjected to para-military invasions! Is this the kind of "security" America wants? Is this another reason why the government keeps "infringing" our 2nd Amendment, even when expressly forbidden to do so?--You betcha' it is! Whatever you may say, personally I say, "Not only no, but HELL NO!"

But where is the media to cover events like this? In bed with a tyrannical government, of course. By looking at the people who own most of the major networks, you'll be able to see the same names cropping up in other (government-linked) circles, like Bilderburgers & other behind-the-scenes influences in government.

By the Laws of Nature as Set Forth by the Creator (& further expounded in the Founding Documents of the USA), We the People are the only ones who can ultimately provide for our own personal security, whether it be individually or in groups. But it's in the Nature of Governments to violate Natural Laws & so they must no longer enjoy our support (through fear-mongering, deception & coercion) to continue with violating Nature & our Fellow Human Beings.

More that never quite sees the light of day...This one nearly 4 years ago:
Third-grader arrested for disorderly conduct
From 9 years ago: Warrior Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in American Police Departments. This was from the CATO Institute.

Remember Mr. Padilla, a few years ago? Even the Supreme Court declared, 3 years ago, that:
President Bush can lock up anyone forever without charge.

So, where was the Mainstream News Coverage during all of this? None of the above came from "mainstream" sources.

I thank for pointing out some of the details behind the "journalism industry" that don't keep the public informed the way they should be if we're to restore & retain our Inherent Sovereignty against tyranny.

Here's some Commentary excerpted from the Baltimore Chronicle, Copyrighted in 2006 (the only MSM source in this whole post) that directly correlates with what you've been doing, SDog...Talking about the Mainstream Media itself:

-------Continued Below------

---------Concluded From Above-------


That's enough of these excerpts to get the idea, but the article itself is much longer. I liken the whole Mainstream Media Mess as similar to a concept I learned during my education in Electronic Engineering...The "Bells-n-Whistles" approach to marketing: The idea that People will buy anything if it's flashy enough, regardless of how useless the whole piece of equipment actually is.

From Maria_stardust


First off - i would argue that ignorance has always been rampant, in all of humanity. The media only servers as a funnel to bring it into our living rooms.

now of course - i totally agree with the OP on this. its unbelievable how many people only get what they know from the talking heads of Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and other likewise "entertainment" programs.

To give some real pop-culture influence on this line of thinking, i would like to quote the late, and greatest comedian of all time

George Carlin


You can take the premise of that and apply it to almost every story on every network in every household on the face of this planet and realize why people don't know the underbelly of things like politics.

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

---

First, let me thank MidnightDStroyer for his significant, valuable, and thoughtful contribution to this thread.
I would double applaud you if I could.
I'd also applaud AWiggin out of sympathy.




So basically what you're saying is the MSM apply the "Trump" model to the news business, and we're the old ladies pumping in our quarters and eventually our dignity.
The metaphor is apt and damn depressing.

lol whats that supposed to mean

not
a
deuce
liner

SD, thanks for (A) writing this thread and (B) putting it in your signature so that I could find it!!!

Stunningly well done, old man!!! Big double thumbs up.

SO, now we've identified the problem.....how to solve it? That begs the question.

Well, for one thing, we'd have to get rid of the unlawful debt-based economy of the Fed Res out of the way...Money talks & the banks create it out of thin air. When the fake money (in essence, corporate scrip) is no longer influencing government, then corporate lobbyists lose a lot of their power to have legislature go "their way."

Also, bring the government back to Constitutional limits. Originally, the Founding Forefathers knew the dangers of corporations gaining any measure of control & influence...Remember that the English Merchants in the colonies was one of the major problems: Remember the Boston Tea Party? Excessive taxation is what the history books read, as for the cause of that, but the English Merchants were also sucking the people dry with price-gouging too.

This is why they wrote the Constitution to place corporations below government in the "Heirarchy of Sovereignty."
Sort of re-posted from here but greatly condensed, the Hierarchy was designed like this:

#1: The Creator that set forth the Laws of Nature.
#2: Individual. Born free with inherent Rights under the Natural Laws.
#3: Constitution. Laws written by the People
#4: President. The "chief executive" in charge of enforcing the laws
#5: Congress. Charged with making the laws (legislation of Statutes)
#6: Case & Statute Law. As applied by the Judiciary
#7: Public Servants. The Individuals that hold various Offices & positions within the government itself
#8: Corporations. Right where corporations belong...On the bottom!

In short, the government is supposed to provide checks against corporate excesses, but in today's USA, the hierarchy has been completely reversed! Only when the hierarchy is righted can we have a truly free press.

Of course, this (very basic) strategy means to attack the root of the problem...Once accomplished, then a lot of other problems can be fixed.

I know it seems a little selfish, but I just wanted to resurrect this thread and especially the OP. I thought that in these tumultuous times, it was more "a propos" than ever.

SD
I have read and re read this thread but it really does take some concentration to take it all in. Very serious reading. I will re-visit it from time to time.
First impressions:
I think the problem we're facing here is "failure to communicate" the issue is not really that we can't communicate but that true communication is not desired by the target audience.
I would like to give this quote from a thread I started about how many people in the US read. I have not included the posters name as it is not my intention to criticize him but to give an example from an honest participant.

"Books are a rather poor way of passing information from one person to another, it's a time consuming process for both participants. Because of this people have become very efficient at passing information using the printed word. The people that are particularly skillful at writing are most read and those that are particularly good at absorbing are promoted to the top of the academic industry.
Other media is newer and so it is less developed. At the moment the visual media are far more popular for entertainment purposes and in time the ever developing academic visual specializations develop, the printed word will see further decline.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing"

I did have one poster who believes books are for museums.
Others in the thread extolled the virtues of quick news on You Tube and the like as being better than wasting time with books.
One poster decried books as the trappings of the intellectual.

These examples were certainly the exception but they did show that we have some members of society that actively dislike the idea of genuine knowledge through study and want the ADD News network to entertain them and do it quick.
Most of the rest of the masses want to get their breaking news emotional Wow! fix and get on to the less serious aspects of media entertainment. They are not only uninterested in serious thought or discussion but are repelled by the idea that they might have to develop an informed opinion.
I think that it is obvious that we have to find a way to re-engage the populace but I honestly don't know if that is possible with a ratings oriented media.

Nice post by the way. I will be coming back on occasion to read again.
Hopefully some of our deep thinkers will give it a good and thorough read as well.
BP

reply to post by badgerprints

---

First let me thank you for your kind words.

What a person learns is ultimately determined by that person's will and commitment to "look things up." And looking at enough things up to get a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the world requires desire and commitment.

Something shows up on TV that calls itself the "news." The fact is that it is the "news" but is it the news that matters, no. Is it the news for your benefit, no. Is it comprehensive, considered, contextualized, properly vetted, no.

But most people already know this. They accept it as is precisely for the same reason that the majority of them choose not to read books. Not because they are being unwittingly duped but because they choose to remain in a relative state of ignorance.

For the greater one's knowledge the greater one's understanding of the fundamental flaws of our humanity. And that can only lead to two behaviors, one is an ever increasing state of depression, the other is personal accountability and action. And when people feel this the first time they get a glimpse the problematic "big" picture, and they hate the way it makes them feel.

Therefore CNN/MSNBC, local news, is the precise amount of news and information they require and seek out. Or else those media vehicles would not exist in their current form and NPR would be the number one news source. The news media is extremely capitalistic, in the sense that they provide the exact balance of news and ignorance which the public can live with. It is not a good life.