Social Psychology of Mainstream media

So today i hear the news piece "Sarkozy and Obama caught on tape saying some embarrassing things about Israeli PM Benjamin Natanyahu"

I had it on CNN all day. Over and over again wolf blitzed repeated the catch phrase "embarrassing" over and over again. But is that what people pay attention to?? Or perhaps "Natanayahu is a LIAR"...i think the liar tidbit is all that matters about this news piece, and this is all the mind picks up upon. To mention that it was"embarrassing" is to cement the idea that it was a mishap, a slip that shouldn't have happened. But, nonetheless, Sarkozy and Obama both agreed that Israels Natanyahu was a LIAR. a LIAR.

This could easily be a media stunt designed to generate more anti-Israel and anti-zionist propaganda. Even Sarkozy, a POLITICIAN (and thus equally a liar) calls Natanyahu a liar, and Obama agreed to it! He even implied that he was being pressured to tolerate more then he was willing to handle....

This is merely further evidence - if people really understand how the mainstream media operates when it is interested in affecting a socio-political agenda - that the mainstream media, particularly the BBC and CNN have a clever arsenal of psychological manoeuvres to generate hate for Isrsael. They could do it like this; a mishap, and a slip between two world leaders... Or perhaps something different... I do not doubt for a moment though that this wasn't planned and planted into the media to help generate further disconnect between Americans and Israel.

But why?
2nd

reply to post by dontreally

This is merely further evidence - if people really understand how the mainstream media operates when it is interested in affecting a socio-political agenda - that the mainstream media, particularly the BBC and CNN have a clever arsenal of psychological manoeuvres to generate hate for Isrsael.

I don't think you need the media to generate hate for Israel..
They do a stellar job by themselves.

reply to post by dontreally

Let me give a contrast.

The media, by its very nature, operates on a basis of "Interesting" information. That's its business, its the product it sells. Just like all of the other businesses it like to drum up its products. Videos, pictures, voice recordings stories and all are sifted through and chosen on that basis. To pull in viewership.

Now, think about this for a second. Ever watched the news during a large storm? These segments are not political in any sense. Yet we still get titles like "Snowpocalypse" with only 2 inches of snow to show for it.

How many of you would what the news segment "Puppy saved from tree" Or "Man finds 5 dollar bill"? No. We want to know what caused the most impact. We wanna know how many people died. We wanna know if Cain is a pervert. We wanna know if Weiner did send those pictures.

We want drama. Its the lifeblood of our attention span.

And the media knows its viewership well.

They drum up things to inhuman levels to get you to watch.

While some stations may be there for purely political purposes. Political agenda usually takes a back seat to the drama.

Have you ever considered that they are just reporting the news. I am not suprised that you would like the MSM to avoid reporting anything that shows Israeli in a negative light, but it happened and it is being reported. They are reporting the comments, not making the comments. Not everything is an attack on Israel and the premise of this whole thread is stupid. It is not the MSM driving a wedge between the US and Israel, but rather Israel's foreign policy, which adversely affects America's position in the Middle East.

Reap what you Sow.

Originally posted by Samuelis
But why?
2nd

Because the world has never liked the Jews.

As for the other replies to this thread: "Israel attracts hatred" - yes, and I'm sure they don't need any help from anti-Semites. They don't need a "protocols of the elders of zion", or a dominican or franciscan friar inciting the mobs...Ya - things just "happen", with no political or theological motive behind it.

As for why this particular issue is so glaringly absurd and naive. Just look at the basic premise of the conversation. Two politicians, one of which tells the president of the United States that Natanyahu is a "liar". Doesn't this strike you as absurdly simpleton coming from a politician like sarkozy? Saying Natanyahu is a liar is about as revelatory as one fashion exec saying to another fashion exec that so and so is "vain". NO #ING REALLY.

Politicians lie. It is the name of the game; as the old joke goes 'politics' = many blood sucking parasites. I do not imagine for a second that sarkozy would complain to Obama that Natanyahu is a liar. Its absurd. look at De-gaulle, the same leader of the French nation who promised Israel weapons they PAID for before 1967. As the situation changed, so did their commitment to Israel. Instead of giving Israel the weapons they PAID FOR - they sent those same weapons to Egypt.

Natanyahu is a liar? .. And the sky is blue, the stars are bright, and komodo dragons have abrasive saliva.

The only purpose of publicizing this story was to send out the idea into the public psyche that two world leaders - an annoying frenchman and the president of the US - regard Israels leader as a liar. This helps further the divide between Israel and the world.

reply to post by dontreally

The only purpose of publicizing this story was to send out the idea into the public psyche that two world leaders - an annoying frenchman and the president of the US - regard Israels leader as a liar. This helps further the divide between Israel and the world.

And yet it was reported on a pro Israeli site.. Go figure.

IMO it's Israel again pushing the sympathy vote and calling everyone anti Semitic Jew haters again..
Same old story.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Its not completely monolithic. Indeed, the mainstream media is mostly interested in drama and exaggeration, but that doesn't mean political interests aren't accomplished by means of the mainstream media.

Look at Germany. Before Hitler came to power, Germanys Jew never thought it possible that what Hitler threatened could possibly happen. Germanys Foreign Minister - akin to US secretary of state - was a Jew. It took only a few years of gradual desensitization, which led to worse and worse types of social programming. From having neighbours and friends who were Jews, the Germans living in the broken weimar republic elected a psychopath into power without realizing at the time - because his rhetoric was much more mild - that he intended genocide.

Political agendas always work this way, and in the case of the Jews - a perennial victim of Government sponsored hatred - it always begins gradually, and eventually, when the right conditions prevail - as they prevailed in the broken economy of weimar Germany, the inner chaos is projected outward and aimed at one particular group. A group most people already hold ulterior or latent suspicions towards.

You don't think the Jews are disliked??? Please!!! Ignorance is the greatest weapon of those who intend to harm. Read "The abandonment of the Jews" - and learn all about how FDR and the state department, along with the UK, the Vatican, and many other governments, COLLUDED in the Nazi holocaust of the Jews. They did everything in their power not to act; even refusing, when they were in the region to begin with, to bomb Auschwitz and its facilitates, or at least the railings leading to Auschwitz, Berkenau etc.

They didn't want to for the same reasons that the Russians persecuted the Jews, and why the Papacy decided to lock the Jews of Rome and other major catholic centres in ghettos. The persecution, dehumanization, and hatred of the Jew is NOT, contrary to whats so enthusiastically accepted, the fault of the Jews. Its a Metaphysical-theological-Sociopolitical issue, the theological underpinning the socio-political, and because there is always a separation between these two spheres, the outer political and the inner metaphysical, people can't make sense of why the Jews are abused.