Whats with the Casey Anthony "News"?

As much as I deride the MSM,and avoid them most of the time,I do like to see SOME news...every single "News" channel has had nothing but CA on it for days,24/7.....guess that will be the headline minutes before some rock mases us to dust and shes...seriously,I can find news,but id like to keep up with the aily grind on occasion...

reply to post by Homedawg


seriously, this isnt news at all, do they really have nothing else to report on?

I swear only in America can something as important as a trial be shown on tv to improvemratings. How can that even be legal?

These kind of stories always make me wonder...what are they not reporting on??

It's the art of misdirection and the dumbing down of the masses.

Originally posted by Stovokor
These kind of stories always make me wonder...what are they not reporting on??

It's the art of misdirection and the dumbing down of the masses.

"what are they not reporting on??"THAT is why i asked about this...I just did a a channel search....some kind of oprah crap,info ads,and CA.....nothing else

I have to agree, it is disappointing. Why her? There has been crazy women before and after her that have killed thier children. Two weeks before this started we had Anthony Wiener's penis to talk about 24/7. It's discusting the way we're raping this planet and there is nothing else to talk about!

reply to post by parksh


Or something coming or about to happen that they dont want us focusing on

reply to post by Homedawg


Do you actually think that there is no other news to report on, and that they are focusing on CA because they have to? Take a look at the headlines here, the oil spill in Montana is a good example of something that should be reported on with the veracity that they apply to CA.

Keep in mind who who owns the networks that distribute the news. The only unbiased reporting that you will find anymore is from average citizens on sites like this, and people are starting to wake up to that reality.

I strongly suggest that you do the same friend.

The News hasn't been the news in this country for the past 70 years.

They MSM are in the mass distraction business.

en.wikipedia.org...

Distraction types [edit]Distraction by nationalism Main article: Transfer (propaganda) This is a variant on the traditional ad hominem and bandwagon fallacies applied to entire countries.

The method is to discredit opposing arguments by appealing to nationalistic pride or memory of past accomplishments, or appealing to fear or dislike of a specific country, or of foreigners in general. It can be very powerful as it discredits foreign journalists (the ones that are least easily manipulated by domestic political or corporate interests).

Example: "You want to know what I really think of the Europeans?" asked the senior United States State Department official. "I think they have been wrong on just about every major international issue for the past 20 years.".[3] Example: "Your idea sounds similar to what they are proposing in Turkey. Are you saying the Turks have a better country than us?" Example: "The only criticisms of this proposed treaty come from the United States.

But we all know that Americans are arrogant and uneducated, so their complaints are irrelevant." Example: The "Support Our Troops" campaign created by the Republican party during the War on Terror implies that opposing the war effort detracts support away from the individual soldiers fighting the war.

Thus patriotic support of the troops becomes a form of support for the war in general. [edit]Straw man fallacy Main article: Straw man The "straw man fallacy" is the lumping of a strong opposition argument together with one or many weak ones to create a simplistic weak argument that can easily be refuted. Example: Grouping all opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as "pacifists", so they can be refuted by arguments for war in general. As with most persuasion methods, it can easily be applied in reverse, in this case, to group all those who supported the invasion together and label them as "warmongers" or "lackeys of the United States".

Distraction by scapegoat Main article: Scapegoat A combination of straw man and ad hominem, in which your weakest opponent (or easiest to discredit) is considered as your only important opponent. Example: if many people oppose the new law, but one of them, say Tsutomu Miyazaki, is obviously acting out of self-interest, mention mostly Tsutomu Miyazaki. Example: if many countries oppose an action, but one of them, say Andorra, is obviously acting out of self-interest, mention mostly Andorra. [edit]Distraction by phenomenon

A risky but effective strategy summarized best, perhaps, by David Mamet's 1997 movie Wag the Dog, by which the public can be distracted, for long periods of time, from an important issue, by one which occupies more news time. When the strategy works, you have a war or other media event taking attention away from misbehaving or crooked leaders. When the strategy does not work, the leader's misbehavior remains in the press, and the war is derided as an attempted distraction.

Example: US President Bill Clinton's cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in August 1998 has been suggested as a means to distract attention from the Monica Lewinsky affair.[4][5] [edit]Distraction by semantics This involves using euphemistically pleasing terms to obscure the truth. For example saying "reproductive rights", "pro-choice", or "pro-life" instead of referring to the medical term "abortion".

The concept of "states' rights" was invoked to defend the continuation of slavery in the United States on the eve of the American Civil War, and again to fight against the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. [edit]Distraction by regression This method uses the previous state of the opponent propaganda to prevent the negotiation of actual issues. [edit]Distraction by misleading This method injects false issues into the opponent's propaganda or attempts to create connections with falsities. [edit]Distraction by horror This method tries to create a connection between an opponent's propaganda and horrific events. (For example when a minority is being arrested by the police and one attempts to create a connection with past unjust actions) [edit]Other types [edit]Appeals to consensus By appealing to a real or fictional "consensus" the media manipulator attempts to create the perception that his opinion is the only opinion, so that alternative ideas are dismissed from public consideration. Michael Crichton explains: Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.[6] [edit]Fear mongering Main article: Fear mongering Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end.

The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic to frighten citizens and influence their political views. It often states that if something is or is not done, a disastrous event will occur, and that by voting for or against it this can be prevented. The end result is the voter being scared into changing their vote or opinion to one more favorable to the person that is fear mongering. In a good marginalization, there is reason to believe the claim because the professional says the claim is true.

This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within his area of expertise. Example: "If we don't approve the McCarran Internal Security Act the Soviets will take over America." Example: "We cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." (US President George W. Bush, making the case for declaring war on Iraq)[7][8] Example: "If we don't get rid of Workchoices, your employer will sack you or cut your pay in half." [edit]Demonisation of the opposition Main article: Propaganda#Techniques of propaganda generation This is a more general case of distraction by nationalism. Opposing views are ascribed to an out-group or hated group, and thus dismissed out of hand.

This approach, carried to extremes, becomes a form of suppression, as in McCarthyism, where anyone disapproving of the government was considered "un-American" and "Communist" and was likely to be denounced. Example: The consignment of almost all dissent to the "International Jewish conspiracy" by Nazi Germany. Example: Labelling those with any sort of right-wing views as "Nazis", or those with left-wing views as "commies", etc. Example: Dismissing attendees of tea-party protests opposing government spending as racists. [edit]

Please contribute to this existing thread on this topic...

Closed.