So who owns our media sources? - An unanswered ATS LIVE! UK/Euro question

page: 3
75
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
And an extract about his 'dabbling' in politics, from Wiki on Rupert Murdoch,
en.wikipedia.org...


Private meetings with politicians
Murdoch has a history of hosting private meetings with influential politicians. Both parties naturally dismiss such meetings as politically insignificant; social events, informal dinners or friendly drinks. It has however been argued that such meetings are significant because of Murdoch's exceptional influence as a media oligarch, as well as his consistent interest in and involvement with political issues.[43]

[edit] David Cameron
In August 2008 David Cameron accepted free flights to hold private talks and attend private parties with Murdoch on his yacht, the Rosehearty.[44] Cameron has declared in the Commons register of interests he accepted a private plane provided by Murdoch's son-in-law, public relations guru Matthew Freud; Cameron has not revealed his talks with Mr Murdoch. The gift of travel in Freud's Gulfstream IV private jet was valued at around £30,000. Other guests attending the "social events" included the then EU trade commissioner Lord Mandelson, the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and co-chairman of NBC Universal Ben Silverman. The Conservatives have not disclosed what was discussed.




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Have you ever noticed that all three main U.S. broadcasting companies have pretty much the same format? Just like our politics where we two competing "factions". So what does this tell you. I still watch the the MSM just to get a good laugh at how they are trying to deceive the public. Then I think about it and become mad and depressed when I realize that most people are taking it hook, line, and sinker. The PTB have won and there is no going back unfortunately. The police state is already here from what I have experienced first hand.

Kratos40



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
The internet changes the game. As long as we can get news from sources besides the television, newspaper and radio we will remain free.

Be murderously wary of any attempt to restrict and control your internet access. For then you will only see what is wanted for you to see.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
The internet changes the game. As long as we can get news from sources besides the television, newspaper and radio we will remain free.

Be murderously wary of any attempt to restrict and control your internet access. For then you will only see what is wanted for you to see.




... and the program that will change everything, if left unchallenged, is called "Net Neutrality." Yet another disingenuously named concept meant to confuse reality.... like "Pro-Life" and "Pro-choice" or "Marriage Defense" and "Patriot Act."

THANK YOU ALL CONTRIBUTORS....

I had begun to draft a chart describing the inter-relationships... but it looked too much like the infamous Health Care overhaul chart so I had to scrap it.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Pretty much what I think is that the mainstream media is all owned by big corporations and rich guys and they use it for advertising and PR purposes. I think the same interests also own Congress and both political parties in the U.S.

I mean, isn't it kind of obvious at this point that the big money is really running the whole show?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Any information source can be filtered you CANNOT have someone do everything for you unfortunately. Otherwise you will eventually roll into totalitarianism.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I think the possibility that our media is simply doing what sells should be considered. I think it's very possible that the people of this country watch MORE TV when it concerns drama, disagreement, and more recently, Left VS Right drama. What better entertainment than to watch the news to see how your "side" is doing in the public eye? Who looks better than the other? Who gaffed? A republican or a democrat?

So basically the question is, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" in our case, did the media coerce us into becoming aggressive towards our fellows because their opinion differs from ours OR did the media simply tap into the drama that was already there, realizing that the number of viewers went up when they simply pitted left against right and right against left, like TV Drama.

Who wants to talk about some boring politician who said something about some boring legislation when we have someone who said "insert gaffe here" about the left and OH now they said "insert gaffe here" to the right! It's much more entertaining in this much more aggressive society.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by brianmg5
 




I think the possibility that our media is simply doing what sells should be considered.


Absolutely! What sells is the metric by which they measure success. It is the only metric which matters in commerce. And therein lies the quandary; Is commerce a value-added function of communications? Perhaps to a corporation whose function is to harness revenue streams; but it seems not so much to apply to societies and cultures.



I think it's very possible that the people of this country watch MORE TV when it concerns drama, disagreement, and more recently, Left VS Right drama. What better entertainment than to watch the news to see how your "side" is doing in the public eye? Who looks better than the other? Who gaffed? A republican or a democrat?



Compare and contrast is the essence of judgment, it always has been. However, when that which is compared and contrasted against another is subject to the kind of mass media manipulation that applies to commerce, facts become inconveniences to be palliated. Suddenly 'opinion' and 'perspective' become more important than reality itself. In fact, the only way to generate starkly opposing interest is at worst caricaturization or at best sensationalism. Thus everything becomes "theater" and all things are "produced" and "directed."

Under such paradigms judgment becomes a victim of flash and glamor, reason falls prey to vainglory and 'marketing.'


So basically the question is, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" in our case, did the media coerce us into becoming aggressive towards our fellows because their opinion differs from ours OR did the media simply tap into the drama that was already there, realizing that the number of viewers went up when they simply pitted left against right and right against left, like TV Drama.


I disagree with the precept that we are aggressive towards our fellows for any particular reason at all. That potential exists untapped in nature between people and societies which all suffer from libido dominus (the desire to be of primary importance and influence). Media masters simply use that potential drive to their advantage to ensure our compliance with their ultimate intention - to make their 'market' eager to 'consume.' We are not being led, or driven by media, we are simply influenced by it - relentlessly.


Who wants to talk about some boring politician who said something about some boring legislation when we have someone who said "insert gaffe here" about the left and OH now they said "insert gaffe here" to the right! It's much more entertaining in this much more aggressive society.


It is unreasonable to expect anyone to want to listen to something boring. Hence, the industry will 'liven it up' one way or the other - they will tell you what is lively and what isn't. They will tell you what is news. They will 'produce' and 'manufacture' opinion by using all the theatrical and dramatic tools at their disposal.

The evidence surrounds us.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Interesting thread.
Anyone wanting to go a bit deeper into the hole might try looking into the relationship between Murdoch and Ted (The Blond Ghost) Shackley. Murdoch owned a failing paper in Australia before he hooked up with The Blond Ghost. After that, it was off to the races.

As a brief example, Murdoch now owns Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal. Acquired from the Bancroft Family, which at one time included Mary Bancroft, a one-time Allen Dulles "girlfriend" and WWII Swiss agent. Coincidence? Maybe.

You can trace all these media connections back through the Trilateral Commission, Tavistock, Skull & Bones, and the Council on Foreign Relations, which in and of itself shouldn't be surprising since media is a vital component and they're going to have a seat at the table. The question is, are the interconnections circular, or do they form a pyramid with some entity at the apex?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MrDesolate
 


From everything I've looked at, its just a really convoluted cob-web. However, whether the group at the top will ever emerge (or whether one exists) is much harder to figure out. There is evidence of this group, but it goes by many, many different names:

Communist-Capitalist Collective
Deep State
Shadow Government
Global Elites
Illuminati
Zionists
NWO
etc.

A international semi-hidden force led by transnational banking houses, and also consisting of intelligence agencies, secret societies, and multinational corporations.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
great work OP. It just shows, how concentrated the media is. If one company owns a news paper, they are going to advertise there tv programs more, then you watch that and the advertise a new film they are making, next you are buying a new produce from their advert, going to the film, perhaps its a kids film, end up buying merchandise for your kids, the video game, the list goes on and on. The internet is being taken over, every site, youtube, ATS, everywhere has ads now, we cannot escape the media, it practically runs our every day lives for us. Unless we lived in the woods and lived of the land we would be influnced to some degree by the medai

scary scary thought, with so much power in the hand of so few, what can they NOT do?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Major Media is Not Manipulated!


Many people believe major media is being controlled, or influenced, by a select few, in and out of official government. Groups that have been shown to influence media in the United States are: the CIA, the OSI (Office of Strategic Importance), Israeli interests, and various multinational corporations (such as BP). This thread shows how most media is owned by 8 men, and only 5 corporations. It is also controlled through bribes, threats, and (more rarely) action.

The above is part of a point I'm going to make. While journalists write stories, they do not get to actually decide what the headline for the story reads. What does this mean? It means, headlines shape perception as much as the article. What will you remember about this post? The headline, or the story? Try to take in important stories and ignore headlines.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Awesome wealth of information and the topic puts an interesting perspective on the issue of "free-press" and how it relates to the preservation of liberty here in America and abroad too.

Many people like to critisize China, Cuba and North Korea for having state-run news outlets but I fear that our own situation is much more dangerous. At least the people in these countries know that they don't have a free press and that the information they are getting is what the state wants them to have. Most Americans on the otherhand, falsely believe that what we are being told, is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


--airspoon



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
This picture...



...from this movie... www.youtube.com...

...might be relevant.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


i think those who are the consumers of msm are partially responsible for programming. it is the consumers who are buying the product and contributing to the ratings who are determining what sells, and what the msm panders.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


I can grant that without the resources to do so the MSM would collapse... and those resources come from our consumership... however, I believe that consumerism is not a spontaneous part of human character... I think it was evoked in society via the reliance on debt as currency...

All of this to say - I don't blame the victim when the choices of the victim are influenced by the villain.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
however, I believe that consumerism is not a spontaneous part of human character... I think it was evoked in society via the reliance on debt as currency...


i should be reading more of your posts. that made me




All of this to say - I don't blame the victim when the choices of the victim are influenced by the villain.


the victims may be conditioned to pay more attention to the steering wheel and trying to figure out who is at the helm so they can either take over, or blame them.

the victims should also be paying attention to who is making the road that the vehicle is on. imo.

but i like the way you said that, too.

one of my crazier ideas is that there may be those who know exactly what some of the top stories are going to be on the news 6 months from now. but, that is just one of my personal crazier ideas.

nice msm, please make us happier news stories for a few years, thanks,
et



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


the first part of this is about what the msm (mental system manipulation) is actually saying to us:

(some psyop aspect info)





top topics
 
75
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join