The coming attack on ATS by MSM , page 11

reply to post by Yoda411

I have to say that there is some truth to what you're saying, but that I don't wholly agree with it.

The fact that they went out of their way to get PhD Psychologists to comment on conspiracy websites amplifying delusional tendencies says something.

It says that they thought it was important enough to do. If they wanted to mock a conspiracy website like ATS, or any other alternative discussion forum, they would have done so.

Instead, they made an effort to get a professional commentary on the issue.

I have a degree in Journalism. I thoroughly know how "fact-checking" works, and also know how the industry works. You don't have to lie or falsify information in order to shape someone's opinion. All you have to do is present the information in a certain way that would evoke a certain response.

For example, if I were to do a story on 'Global Warming' for corporate news, and I wanted to show how it has affected ice volume in the Arctic, I would do the following.

(Following is a fictitious story used for illustrative purposes)

If the execs wanted the story to support the idea of global warming, I would scour statistics, reports, and studies for evidence that would support my view that ice volume has been decreasing rapidly.

Say if I found a statistic that said, "The Hellburger Ice Sheet has lost 30% of its mass in the past 6 months," I would certainly use it. I wouldn't mention that other ice sheets in the world had gained proportional amounts, or I would put that information at the bottom of the story.

I wouldn't be lying because it actually did lose 30% of its mass, but I would be presenting the facts in a certain way that shapes public perception.

People would see the headline "Hellburger Ice Sheet Sheds 30% of Mass: Global Warming?"

Most wouldn't even bother to read the story, because it's already a foregone conclusion that it's caused by global warming.

Possible reactions:

"Of course it's caused by Global Warming. 30%! Wow that's a huge number, it's gotta be global warming."

"I think this is just more evidence that Global Warming is real."

The people that did read the story likely wouldn't read to the bottom, and therefore wouldn't get the whole picture.

I could also bring in some 'expert' that agrees with the story and put his quote in a prominent position.

It might be something like,

"Of course it's caused by Global Warming. An ice sheet like this just doesn't lose 30% of its mass in 6 months under normal circumstances."

I might also have a dissenting viewpoint, but I would stack the article against him in order to make him look stupid.

His quote might be something like,

"It's important to remember that this is only one ice sheet out of a few that lost mass"

Or:

"It's important to note that other glaciers have gained mass in the same time frame."

I would place a statistic before his quote that read something like;

Over the past 15 years the temperature has increased by 1 degree celsius.
While most experts believe this is due to global warming, Dr. _____ seems to think otherwise.

Do you see how this works? You stack the article against the opposing viewpoint, in order to convey a certain message or shape public perception.

This obviously won't fool an expert or well-informed citizen, but the goal wouldn't be to fool them, it would be to fool the majority of people.

EDIT:

I would also like to note that Mainstream Media is much more guilty of amplifying fear and mental illness than a conspiracy website.

Because of the stories they choose to report on, we are fed a false sense of reality, much like ABC would suggest conspiracy websites do.

It's not that MSM lies consistently, it's that they prevent facts in a skewed way to achieve a desired perception or reaction.

ALSO:

With regards to 'Studies,' a media outlet selectively decides which studies to report on, so don't think they randomly choose them. In all likelihood, I think that money dictates which studies they report on, and which they don't.

Reporting on a study is one of the easiest ways to sway public opinion, because you're not actually skewing any facts, you are merely reporting.

This is a more 'guilt-free' method of deceiving the public, because you're not making up the facts, you're just conveying information someone else came up with.

The key is that the media CHOOSES which ones to report on, and therefore can be insidious gatekeepers.

NOTE:

I am not saying all media outlets are like this, or that most journalists are heartless immoral people. I am saying that some are, and that the methods above might be how they influence public opinion.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by JipStix]