So how exactly does our media "filter" the info we get? It seems to me impossible for them to hide so much "secret" info.



[edit on 7-8-2008 by luxor311]

They simply don't report certain events, while distracting us with other crap. Almost everything makes it onto the internet, but there's so much out there that very few people see it.

Well, they edit every television program, don't they? Even live television isn't "live" anymore. The internet is slightly harder to monitor, and that's why you have sites like this. Unfortunately, any information that isn't blown through our heads via a news reporter is "hogwash" or "crackpot theories".

Yes but I still dont understand "how" its filtered from the source to what we hear. "who" does the filtering? Are their specific people involved?

curious

Originally posted by luxor311
So how exactly does our media "filter" the info we get? It seems to me impossible for them to hide so much "secret" info.

How don't they???

The mainstream media companies have to choose what they want to report... therefore FILTERING it.

Simple example - If the owners of these companies have other corporate interests (they do) which they use their media company to help become more profitable by either over-reporting good points and not reporting bad points... Voila!
Now put this in a larger scale to ridicule issues that go against their corporate interests.


AND this info is obviously not hidden if you can find it on sites like this... its just obscured.

Excellent question!

And you following observation is absolutely correct. It is impossible to hide all the information.

The truth is that the media cannot filter everything, nor do they intend to. However, the paradigm shift from journalism to showmanship, driven by a corporate controlled profit model gives them the tools exercise a different kind of control.

Once profit becomes the principle driver of media, only that which benefits the profitability and sustainability of production will get support from the organization. Imagine, if you will, the now famous 'Watergate' journalists being told, "The people are not interested in this, we have made an editorial decision to pursue a content that is more attractive to our sponsors (advertisers) in order to increase our revenue. This is the direction the CEO of the company has ordered us to take, and he pays my salary, so I doing what I am told." Do you think we would still have learned of the dirty details of the Watergate incident?

Further, the consolidation of ownership of mass media has led to a condition which is easily abused by those in positions to influence editorial policy. For example, if the fact that Rupert Murdoch farted today were reported by all of his media properties tomorrow 1.8 billion people would be reading or hearing about it on the news. Consider that when Mr. Murdoch ordered his 'news' agencies to 'avoid' certain issues, we heard virtually nothing about them.

'Virtually' is the keyword, the internet thwarts most efforts to keep a tight lid on anything that is witnessed by uncontrolled media (like bloggers, and members of the internet community.)

But the most powerful tool used to 'filter' information comes from us. You see we have come to expect to be entertained, and prefer that over real data. Hence you will see huge amounts time devoted to exploring the family lives of celebrities, the outrageous actions of extreme human folly, the 'shocking' examples of deviance, the glory of professional 'sports', and anything else that distracts from the 'real' world.

How much effort that is put into that programming and authorship, compared to exploring the historical roots of Islamic extremism, or the actual process and deliberations that our law-makers engage in. There are several very good productions out there like "The Century of the Self" and others which will demonstrate how we became such consumerist....

Our own pliability and trust in the media is the weapon which made us so.