It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Political Role of Digital Media During Globalization: TV vs Internet

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:30 AM
This is my work, please do not steal it. It's long, but enjoy if you have the time and motivation.

The Political Role of Digital Media During Economic Globalization
TV vs Internet

All across the developing world linger very subtle feelings of uncertainty and fear over the working populace. People are asking many questions concerning the future state of the economy, war, healthcare, climate change, security, freedom, and society in general as a new and global philosophy of governance emerges; few answers are being provided. Paving the way into this new system is economic globalization, and behind the wheel sits the large-scale communication system; two key ingredients to a [speculated] harmonious global community.

I’m going to begin with a simple metaphor describing this concept of economic globalization called Survival of the Business. In nature, all living organisms compete for survival. Those which evolve the most self-beneficial characteristics, physically or mentally, survive and reproduce in the competitive environments. Similarly, in nature’s antithesis - the monetary system - businesses must outperform others in order to make profits and survive. Like nature’s environmental borders, business has city, state, or national borders - plus ethnic or currency barriers - to overcome in order to expand and increase habituation chances. Of course, very few of these businesses actually have what mankind needs to independently survive and evolve, but they sure do have a keen sense on getting us the toys we want (which seem to do the opposite for us as a general species). There’s only one way to hack into one’s amygdala by persuasion, and that is via a system that is so frequently and generically practiced, it is rarely questioned: communication.

Communication is the process in which information is shared from sender to receiver by any means. I will focus on information that is shared by the government to the citizens through various digital media, mostly television versus internet. Also, many references to the United States Constitution will occur, for I believe it to be the most evolved governing doctrine in existence, should it be protected by a brave and informed population.

The two most important pieces of legislation to journalists and information seekers everywhere are the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Freedom of Information Act. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ Author of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1846) was an expert on the freedom of speech and press. He understood that strategically, the greatest way to defeat a nation was by pacifying the citizens through communication, or lack thereof. In a statement to Archibald Stuart, 1799, Jefferson states, “Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light.” The Freedom of Information Act in America, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966, allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the US government. It was part of a worldwide legislation, intended to maintain smooth information flow among civilians and officials.

Upon this nation’s founding, social values were seen as nonintrusive - to allow mankind evolve at his own pace through self-sustainability by harvesting his own crops and hunting/breeding his own game, and to supply or trade commodities to fellow citizens. However, through increased population concentration over the years, the concept of mass production and supply from few sources has become the norm, increasing man’s dependence on higher entities, such as companies and government. As soon as money and profits is introduced to the system, greed begins to slowly grow, destroying the intended classless society. Along with the incentive to sell comes the communication with intention to sell; here, rhetoric is heavily used in all forms of media today to encourage the masses to invest in a product or service.

RHETORIC is considered the art of persuasion through the effective communication of language using pathos, logos, and ethos – emotion, logic, and character. Starting the exact moment we wake up in the morning, we are bombarded with some form of communication attempting to persuade us into something. The alarm says ‘wake up for work,’ your spouse says ‘kiss me,’ and your refrigerator signals to you ‘buy more orange juice’ by absence of the stuff. If this is too much persuasion attempt on the soul in the morning, do NOT turn on the television. That colorful box on the counter is loaded with persuasion techniques, always attempting to change one’s psychic state. Even if they seem miniscule and unnoticeable, there is a term that fits this description, subtle messaging. Millions of attempts are made per day in commercials, cartoons, news programs and televised sporting events to persuade the viewer to buy a certain product or service, act a certain way, and support a certain individual or group. The television is the congregation of few monopolistic ideals sharing more than just a report to the masses. The idea of attempting to provide completely objective information is scarce, as most of what we see on TV is eristic communication – or communicating with an attempt only to win, not to reveal truth. Comedian George Carlin says it best in his skit “Lying Politicians and Their Words.” It can be seen for free on YouTube.

The first communication media date back to ancient cave drawings and stone tablet writings. As language, techniques, and media evolved, so did the communication business. One clever, social human being decided to make a living by sharing large amounts of information to multiple people; now we have giant corporations dedicated to advertising or reporting current events. So large, in fact, that there are six conglomerates in America from which 80% of Americans collect their national and world news. These companies, listed by highest 2009 revenue to lowest, are General Electric, The Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS Corporation. This market domination by few media conglomerates is called media consolidation. As a result of an entity’s growth of money and power, the threat of competition diminishes as local and independent owners tend to be bought off and eased out of the market, leaving viewers with fewer information sources. When this happens in the news, objectivity – or the expression of facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations – is in peril. Novelist, journalist, and playwright Gore Vidal states, “The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western World… No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity – much less dissent.” Howard Zinn is credited to saying “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Author Nancy Snow states, “The media, our top elected official, and our two dominant political parties rarely criticize the growing power of large corporations because they are bankrolled by them.” Comedian George Carlin argued “The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins.”

Utilizing all forms of media in society is crucial to the sharing of information from citizen to citizen, citizen to authority, or authority to authority. In an interview aired by OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, former MSNBC and Fox News Contributor Jeff Cohen states, “Media is the nervous system of a democracy. If it’s not functioning well the democracy can’t function… What [the people] learn… will be what the media shows them.” This idea is supported by world-known linguist, Noam Chomsky, and journalism documentary producer Jeff Pilger. Within the system of competition in the media, we find campaigning, advertising, censorship and deregulation to win the minds of the audience. The amounts of news manipulation is unbearable, as each channel that we see on our TV clearly shows bias toward their corresponding political party, yet the reporters claim objectivity, fair debate, and unbiased views.

For the past eighty-two years, the television has been the most prominent source of media for news to be supplied to the masses. One common misconception on television-communication is that it is a one way highway of information, but many forms of feedback are not taken into consideration. Today, viewers can provide feedback to the studio or government in many forms, such as phone call, e-mail, text message, handwritten letter, personal visit, or even the subtle discontinuation of one’s viewership. However, within all forms of communication, noise is a highly occurring factor, as there may be hundreds to thousands of other concerns being presented to the source. Obviously, the most beneficial relationships blossom when everyone’s concerns are acknowledged, but the reality of corporate news stations tending to 30% of the population’s needs is, not impossible, but not probable. The television is considered to be, by an increasing number of people, a tool of mass hypnosis. It is constantly relaying a message of what is cool, what is healthy, what is right, and what is good. All of these concepts are relative from person to person, which is why there are so many clashes of interests and emotions in today’s society.

CENSORSHIP is also a threat to free speech and objectivity everywhere. It is speculated to have begun when the first verbal attack was considered thus. Being offended by this statement, certain words or phrases were looked down upon to uphold morals and politics of civilization. Another form of censorship could have begun when one party disallowed the disclosure of certain secrets, giving them power over a certain spectrum of information (knowledge is power). It is the first line of attack on man’s unalienable ‘right’ to express freely. Then, certain powers were given to certain persons or organizations (today’s FCC) to freely determine what words or phrases can be deemed appropriate in society. Then begins the slippery slope of censorship. Certain actions become illegal, despite the harmlessness of the action. The idea of censorship is a concept that begs for trouble. While it may seem healthy for a society to have certain offensive subject matter cleared from its existence, no organization can eliminate it fully without attacking the rights of many individuals. Also, it is an order for falsehood. Banned books now exist. What if a certain book holds true the history of some government? They’ll find it offensive and ban it or exclude it from school teachings. Why should any man hold authority to rewrite history? Sigmund Freud once said, “What progress we are making. In the Middle Ages they would have burned me. Now they are content with burning my books.” The idea is based on a power-trip intended to suppress humanity; even if it was in good intentions, any degree of suppression is a side-effect. Comedian, composer, and musician Tom Smothers believes “The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.” Censorship offends me.

Currently, we are in an information shift for the internet. Development of the world wide web grew from the idea that physicists needed to share information with each other from long distances. Tim Berners-Lee of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) proposed an unpopular hypertext database to hold typed links. It wasn’t until 1993 that Marc Andreessen introduced the earliest form of the internet as we know it today, the Mosaic web browser. The combination of the two exploded the concept’s popularity among computer owners, making the sharing of text files simple. As a result, the number of information seekers began to transfer from television viewers to internet users, and still is today.

If there exists a society where borders are nonexistent, where censorship is monitored by its members, where credibility and emotion are minimal, where truth and reason govern the motives of the people, and where information is instantaneously available with the click of a button, it is on the internet. Through careful and patient investigation, certain domains are reachable where repeat visitors are responsible, respectful, and philosophical. The cyber-language - the tone of text – ultimately eliminates national borders, [sometimes] linguistic barriers, age differences, and gender differences. It is an online community of absolute equality, where content is the only factor that determines separation. Rarely are they rhetorical, as tone of text ultimately eliminates the risk of being swayed by a statement that relies on changing one’s mind through the use of masked credibility and states of emotion. Logic is the way of life in many cases, as sound information is the dominant way for proving one’s point. Censorship from a higher entity is needed not, for when confronted with personally offensive statements or overwhelming profanity, majority of the users can ‘tune out’ this individual. Often times, he is called a troll when guilty of this act or intentionally preaching false information, or disinformation, with no sound argument. It is also possible to automatically ignore this user in the future on some domains. ‘Why?’ and ‘What if?’ are two of the biggest questions in the English language on the internet (‘Por que’ and ‘Como si’ in Spanish). This is where conspiracy theories, also known as alternative ideas to some, are introduced. The idea that most, if not all, major world events are previously planned by the most secretive and powerful people in the world and promoted by the mainstream media are typically dismissed, often thought ludicrous, throughout every-day, tangible society, while these ideas are very popular and usually the only explanation throughout cyber society. ‘Follow the money,’ ‘All roads lead to Rome,’ and ‘The royal bloodline’ are common motifs of explanation for these ideas. Such examples of ideas involving higher-than-national authority range from the assassination of John F. Kennedy and John Lennon to the act of entering war and stripping civil liberties by provoking such events as the Pearl Harbor attacks, Gulf of Tonkin incident (said to be fabricated), and the 9/11 attacks; even the economic collapse of multiple nations since 2008.

As a response to much of history’s chaos, some people make an objective to seek the truth, and the best known source to do that is on the internet, simply because restrictions haven’t hammered down on the availability of information throughout that medium. Those that claim to find the truth create organizations to educate the masses and make social changes, the largest of which is known as the Truth Movement. This movement exists most prominently in the assembly of protestors, the placement of informers into institutions, and behind computer screens. The people behind the screens are known as armchair activists. These people are giving up unprecedented time and effort from their day to educate people on what they believe to be true and morally right. They are often considered revolutionists with intent to overthrow the powers that be, but what many of them fail to do is figure a next step solution. A common, general answer is ‘start over with new government,’ but if this is what happens, the same issues will circulate within another 230 years. Many lean toward the all-wise George Carlin’s spoken doctrine, “I have the right to do anything I please, but if I do something you don’t like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you gonna find a fairer deal than that?”

Often times, while watching the news, a ‘contributor’ will appear to discuss the issue at hand. What people tend to think is that this person supplied the given information to the station, and possibly, this couldn’t be farther from the truth. Yes, while it may be the supplier of the information, its technical term means the person gives something to the station. A contributor can be a journalist, a reporter, a lobbyist, a money donator, a stockholder, or even an lowly accountant for the company. The list goes on; if the company benefits from an individual, he will be a displayed as a contributor on TV. The words FOX News Contributor, in reality, hold no merit and provide empty credibility for the argument. However, it is simply the viewer’s mind and interpretation that gives it the credibility.

Lobbyists have been playing increasingly important roles in the media. One may not believe these public relations weapons to be sneaking around in the studio for the simple fact that no one’s title ever reads ‘lobbyist.’ It has a negative connotation because these individuals are serving special interests for a third party, usually in the act of influencing legislation. Sebastian Jones, freelance writer based in New York City, conducted an in-depth study to dig out lobbyists that regularly appear in the mainstream media. His findings were spectacular. “The Media-Lobbying Complex” exposes seventy-five public relations reps and corporate officials that, without any corporate interest disclosure, have repeatedly appeared on CNN, CNBC, FOX News, FOX Business, and MSNBC. Jones dumped this information to Democracy Now! and The Nation magazine.

Very few people understand the intentions of the Central Intelligence Agency of the USA. Many don’t want to understand, for if someone close is working in the organization, chances are they are doing jobs the typical human being would frown upon. The only individuals disclosing any CIA information are whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are past members of an organization who risk their lives to leak information from that organization. Thousands of said whistleblowers can be found throughout the internet, and some are saying that the CIA is heavily involved with the cover up of critical information regarding our government. In a YouTube compilation of quotes and graphics titled Media Control USA, William Colby, former CIA Director apparently states, “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” While it is only text, this quote can be found on many other sources and raises many questions. Carl Bernstein, journalist on the Watergate scandal, states, “The Agency’s relationship with The New York Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. It was general Times policy to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.” Former CIA William B. Bader, “…there are [CIA] people at the [Time Magazine] management level.”

Millions upon millions of free videos and documents are available and waiting to be viewed online. YouTube is by far the largest video database where users can freely upload and view videos. In order to rate a video and comment, one must create a subscription, which is free of cost. Users may also create a channel or blog where friends and subscribers can constantly be updated by this user’s uploads. In this realm, identities are hidden, unless willingly revealed by the user. Many companies use YouTube as their media of information sharing, such as today’s American news channels ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. It is also a haven for foreign news channels regarding American affairs to reach the masses, such as RTAmerica, AlJazeeraEnglish, and France24English to name a few (I subscribe to these). These companies are not necessarily unbiased, but they provide a much different view on world news than the American conglomerates, by showing and proving their claims more clearly. They do not air on American television, even though there is a studio in D.C. (RT), Miami (France24), and under attack by American government (AlJazeera) since 9/11. Why? The government can’t handle open criticism.

RT’s slogan is ‘Question More,’ and that is certainly what the journalists and reporters do. RT is seemingly open to much more objectivity than American television, interviewing investigative journalists, independent website founders, truthful politicians (Ron Paul), conspiracy theorists, every day citizens in the street, and many more. Gerald Celente, founder of Trends Research Institute, has made many appearances on RT, claiming that American mainstream media twist the facts on major issues such as war and the economy. About Celente, the New York Post stated, “If Nostradamus were alive today, he’d have a hard time keeping up with Gerald Celente.” Alex Jones, operator of,, and the Alex Jones Show (radio) also makes appearances on RT. He staffs a multitude of investigative journalists that take hold of all pieces of government legislation and makes them available to his audience over a convenient medium. Free membership and forum discussion is permitted on his websites. Wayne Madsen, former US Navy Lieutenant and author of the blog Wayne Madsen Report, is an investigative journalist that shares his views on RT as well. He also hosts forums on his site, however for a cost. Webster Tarpley is a journalist, author and critic of US foreign and domestic policies, making common appearances for RT. These four gentlemen do not work together, however they are commonly unknown or considered conspiracy theorists by American mainstream society. They continually wish for their voices to be heard in America, but generally receive no response from the media. Many of their interviews on RT are conversational style, allowing the interviewer and interviewee to freely say what comes to mind, as opposed to typical Q&A as seen regularly on American mainstream. This extemporaneous type of interaction is healthy, for the viewer can witness a more free-flowing channel of information between the subjects he is watching. Chances are much less likely that the interview’s contents are carefully planned than in Q&A format. is another alternative news source to the mainstream, whose slogan is ‘Deny Ignorance.’ It is one of the largest forums found in cyberspace, and it is growing in membership every day. Entertaining separate ideas, not fully accepting them without sound evidence, is the essence of an enlightened mind on this site. Membership is free, and posting a topic or idea is easy. With ten million posts and nine thousand visits every month, it is considered the leading forum for alternative news. While it does have its own investigative staff and press corps, its members rely heavily on news from other sources. When a thread is created, a member posts an idea or news article from a separate website with the intention to be discussed by a possible 210,000 differently thinking members. It is criticized for hosting ‘the crazies’ and the ‘disconnected from reality.’ However, many on the site tend to think otherwise… “This is how people think. This is the rational, irrational mind at work, only played out on the internet of ATS. A combined thought process of all angles of aspect, and it has it all here on ATS. ATS has the left wing, the right wing, the moderate, the insane, the funny, the sad. All are here to look at, IN THE ATS ZOO. A magnifying glass is offered, if you so choose it. ATS, the listening channel at your service.” When criticized for lack of credibility in the discussion, users will scorn the mainstream, claiming that their overall neutrality, discussion of philosophy, and demand for evidence is more valuable than any piece of information that a wealthy organization may claim. Many find big institution to have a hand in the future downfall of society. The active members on this website have recognized the government’s dismantling efforts of the Constitution and fear that the end will begin when/if their forums are shut down.

Those who have internet access to the World Wide Web still have hope and time to gather unrestricted and objective information, unless residing in Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, N. Korea, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Uzbekistan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam. Reporters Without Borders considers these countries’ governments to be enemies of the internet – ‘the worst violators of freedom of expression on the Net.’ Other countries, such as Australia, South Korea, Russia, Turkey, Belarus, United Arab Emirates, and Thailand are on the watch for recent proposals of filter-added legislation, website blocking, blogger arrests and prosecutions. Based on recent American and Swedish legislation and claims, these countries may soon be placed on this watch list.

Please allow me to introduce America’s recently most wanted man in the world, Julian Assange. Assange is the founder, spokesperson, and editor-in-chief for the nonprofit whistleblowing website, Many believe WikiLeaks to be a part of, or similar to, online encyclopedia Wikipedia; however, it is a separate organization whose readers are not permitted to randomly edit information, only discuss. Since its birth in 2006, it has been run by The Sunshine Press - funded by donations from human rights campaigners, investigative journalists, technologists, and the general public – publishing leaked documents, photographs, and videos that would have otherwise remained classified. This anonymously leaked information is then analyzed and verified by a multitude of journalists. According to section 1.3 About Wikileaks, ‘Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations.’ Assange is a Constitutional enthusiast, emphasizing the importance of the freedom of speech and press, anti-censorship, and investigative journalism. He won awards such as the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Award, the 2010 Sam Adams Award, and voted 23rd in British magazine New Statesman’s “The World’s 50 Most Influential Figures 2010.” With these noble acts that Assange seems so attracted to, why is he considered America’s most wanted? On April 5th, 2010 WikiLeaks published video of the US military slaying over a dozen Iraqi citizens from a helicopter in New Baghdad, including two Reuters journalists that were on the scene; name: Collateral Murder. On July 25th, 2010 WikiLeaks published over 90,000 documents from prior US military engagement in Afghanistan; name: Afghanistan War Logs. On October 22nd, the site published nearly 392,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs detailing events from 2004 to 2009. Most recently, over 250,000 US Embassy cables were published, exposing the largest amount of confidential foreign activity documents. Naturally, anyone withholding secretive information would be stirred by its release from a third party. As a result, Assange is considered an enemy combatant by many government officials and picking up steam in the media majority, and the most official case the Swedish government can make against him is ‘consensual sex with a broken condom.’ Where’s the crime? Did he sexually transmit a disease to or impregnate his so-called victim? We still have yet to hear or see. Popular government officials, such as Newt Gingrich (former House Speaker) and Joe Lieberman (Connecticut Senator) claim that these leaks are a massive threat to national security, but continually fail to provide a clear reason why. On the seventh of December, 2010, Assange was arrested, appeared in court, and denied bail. Mark Stevens, lawyer, considers these allegations against his client to be shallow and completely politically motivated for governments of the world, for they are a threat to the image of some governments’ foreign policies, specifically the American. (FOX News 9:00 a.m.) It wasn’t until soon after the leaks that Joe Lieberman introduced a bill called the Shield Act to make such an action - leaking classified documents – illegal. Here we are presented with some confusion: the Senate may soon pass a bill that will make illegal the release of information regarding classified illegal activity… who here is the true evil? Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget communicated to all federal agencies to restrict some employees from viewing any of the leaks. Both the Act and the request are direct attacks on the Freedom of Information Act. Constitutionally, leaking this information has never been illegal; it actually leans more toward encouraged. In addition, Assange is simply the founder of the site and co-publisher of some journalists’ articles, guilty of nothing. He is considered guilty of treason by many officials, but how can he be treasonous if he was never a citizen? We have entered a new age where truth is treason; a new campaign has begun – the War On Journalism. However, it will not be promoted on TV as this phrase will not ring well with the people, contrary to the War On Drugs and War On Terrorism; that is unless the people are convinced that journalists are linked to drugged-up terrorists. Considering the fuss created by the media and the governments’ outcry against Assange, will probably soon be a banned website; then begins the slippery slope. In fact, typing in www.__._ results in “[Your Browser] can’t open the page ‘www....__._/’ because [Your Browser] can’t find the server,” or related. One must enter in the Internet Protocol address… I’m not telling.

I’d like to use a section of my report to rationalize a few issues that are commonly presented - but never solved - on the mainstream media; very few people do this nowadays. My first subject will be government transparency. Of course, every government official says that transparency is a good thing for a free and open democratic society; that’s what we want to hear as citizens. However, through communication studies, we know that different words have difference meanings among different groups of people. This is called dialect. As a population, we assume the word ‘transparency’ to mean openness, truth, and clarity. Through investigation, this clearly is not the same meaning for many politicians. (7 lies in 2 minutes; Pelosi Healthcare) In one of President Barack Obama’s pre-campaign speech, he informs us, “I’ll make our government open and transparent, so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people’s business… No more secrecy; that’s the commitment I make to you as president…” No more secrecy? This lie has already been proven by WikiLeaks releasing hundreds of thousands of secret documents – two years later. The government and media make a large fuss on this subject, but someone has yet to claim the leaked documents as fake. Also, many reports of overnight loans from the Federal Reserve of nine trillion dollars surfaced on December 2, 2010, yet the loans occurred in March 2008. “When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online [to] find out what’s in it before I sign it…” On healthcare legislation, former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi states, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Here we have one of the most controversial bills in the history of our country, and the people must stay unaware of its contents until it is already law. How is this the people’s business? It’s not. How is this type of government so-called ‘transparency?’ It’s transparency by the simple logic that if we aren’t paying attention, we cannot even see it. How many active people in the mainstream media ask for a clear definition of transparency? None. However, on the internet, we question everything…

To this day, the largest military campaign portrayed in the mainstream has been the War On Terror. It was created in 2001 in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, appearing on every news channel nearly every day for the past nine years. Wikipedia claims that “No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists.” Does this mean that claiming terrorism upon an individual or organization is unlawful? US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski claims that ‘…even the US-led international coalition against terrorism does not share a common definition of the terrorist threat.’ Without a clear, concise definition, one violent act can lead to a slippery slope for what can be deemed a terrorist act. Many agree upon terrorism to be any action that instills fear into one’s psyche by threatening property, safety, occupation, or civil liberty. However, in order to define this extremely relative term, we need to understand different perspectives, and I see four big ones: domestic civilians, domestic government, foreign civilians, and foreign government. Let’s start from an American civilian standpoint. A terrorist can be someone who causes mass murder, such as those who are responsible for the 9/11 attacks with the main scapegoat as Islam. Why so general a claim to make? Generalizations and stereotypes are formed from a lack of observation and communication with the particular group. According to a survey conducted by Cornell News in 2004, 44% of Americans queried in Cornell national poll favor curtailing some liberties for Muslim Americans. I’m not an expert, but there seems to be a correlation on Islamophobia promotion in the mainstream media and the phobia within the American community. Is the mainstream media a terrorist organization? As mentioned earlier in this report, thriving corporations can be a threat to one’s job, choice, and property. Are corporations terrorists to the common working man, thus the very country upon which we were founded? To foreign civilians, especially in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, the US military is considered a terrorist organization, along with any civilians that ‘support our troops.’ Are we at war with our own protective establishment? As far as US government officials are concerned, their jobs and lives are increasingly being threatened each day by revolutionary enthusiasts, peaceful protestors, investigative journalists, and competing potential candidates. Are Thomas Jefferson, John Lennon, Julian Assange, and anyone who wants to run for political office considered terrorists? If so, the founding of our great country by declaration of independence was based on terrorism, ideals of love and peace are based on terrorism, open journalism is based on terrorism, and so is – well – government itself. By this logic, the entire concept of terrorism crumbles itself. Perhaps we should start campaigns called War On Freedom, War On Peace, War On Information, and War On Politics. How many active people in the mainstream media ask for a clear definition of terrorism? None. However, on the internet, we question everything…

The War On Drugs is another controversial campaign supported by the media. It was first coined by President Richard Nixon in 1971, but theoretically extends further into history with any type of prohibition. To define drug, according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, it is ‘a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body.’ While the War On Drugs is only against illegal drugs, the argument can be made that the illegal drug market is far less dangerous than tobacco, alcohol, and other approved pharmaceuticals as the legal ones kill hundreds of thousands more people every year, and should therefore be ended or at least diminished. As of December 7th, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., the federal and state-level governments had spent a total of $47,513,000,000 on the War On Drugs within the year, increasing at a rate of $1505.60 per second! Yet, according to the Media Awareness Network, the industry is allowed to spend over $3 billion per year on alcohol advertising – utilizing TV, internet, and magazine media – while the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids states that the tobacco industry spends $12.8 billion per year on advertising. This is a dismal number compared to the War On Drugs costs, but still raises questions about our system’s intentions. Clearly they are not value- or liberty-based, as people are being jailed, costing the taxpayer more money throughout the entire policing process. Instead of the fear-mongering “You’ll get addicted and die!” approach in our media today, drug education and responsible drug use are to be promoted, especially throughout objective discussion forums. Often times a reporter may say ‘we are losing the War On Drugs,’ or related. Does that mean people on drugs are winning? How often in the mainstream media is this issue discussed? Rarely, and maybe during a comedian appearance in which he is taken for a ‘funny-guy’ (or girl) and quickly dismissed. However, on the internet, we question everything…

Recently, headlines and graphics on TV have been showing “Is the World Broke?” How, if there are trillions of dollars circulating in all the world’s economies, can the world possibly be broke? Everyone seems to be in debt to somebody, but if the world is broke, who are we in debt to? Here, our online ‘conspiracy theorists’ would answer, ‘the money is being siphoned upward to the wealthiest people in the world: corporate owners, bankers, lobbyists and government officials; through frauds, scams, looting, theft, insider trading, and/or profitable legislations. Either that, or we owe an extra-terrestrial civilization a lot of space-bucks.’ Such comments are regarded as ‘smart-ass’ comments, but one should never underestimate the intelligence of a smart-ass. It’s in the word.

On August 2nd, 2010, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged US President Barack Obama to an open TV debate. Media coverage was minimal, reporters spoke vaguely and discussions were dismal as Obama tenaciously had no response. Three days later, the topic seemed to be completely cleared from the media. How many people in the mainstream media still want to see this debate? None. However, on the internet, we question everything…

As all cultures across the world gear for globalization, whether or not they know about it, whether or not they like it, strict rules are crashing down on the people’s freedoms in the name of security. It is safe to say that none of today’s issues will be resolved by allowing authority do as they please with the unlimited information there is in the world, letting them run amuck with full bank accounts of cleverly bought money through the use of TV sales. The most effective way to keep government at bay is through active communication of politics and truth by reason. It is the people’s choice to gain the knowledge and wisdom that is available before they are left in the dark. A lot of information is extremely hard to believe, but by asking ‘Why?’ and ‘What if?’ we hold the key to our future as a liberated race. While it does sound crazy, the world wide web is being considered as a future savior, as knowledge is power, and information is unlimited. When we as a race unite by the collection of free consciousness, the matrix of our reality will extend into infinite.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:40 AM
all over the place


log in