A political quid pro quo

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Here is how the media works.... below is one example of how the duopoly (Rep./Dem.) make their show entertaining and fruitful towards their continued control of the American political system and its hapless citizen audience...

First - the game: Make the current incumbent appear in a negative light; make the current contender appear as a 'remedy' to the highlighted circumstance.

Players:

Barrack Obama, President
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Co-Chairman of the Media Fairness Caucus
Vehicle: News Busters (self-proclaimed defenders against liberal media bias)

Topic: Unemployment statistics....

Offered Premise:


Unemployment rose to 8.2% and underemployment rose to nearly 15%. The Wall Street Journal reported that “U.S. job growth slowed sharply in May, the latest indication that the economy has lost momentum.”


Offered "negative":


Yet, President Obama claimed that “the private sector is doing fine.”


Offered outrage:


On CBS’s This Morning, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman came to the President’s defense and stated “the truth is, the private sector is doing better than the public sector…the real story about this economy is that the cut backs at the public sector are what’s hurting the economy.”

NBC Today co-host Ann Curry spun the statement as being “taken out of context.” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes attempted to define what the word “fine” meant in this context. He compared it to if “you fell and gashed your head and you were bleeding and your friend said, ‘Are you okay?’ And you said, ‘I’m fine.’ It means you don’t have to rush me to the emergency room."


Offered 'concrete" dissent:


Shortly after President Obama’s address on the economy, the Federal Reserve issued a new report that found Americans’ average net worth has dropped by nearly 40% from 2007 to 2010. It is commonsense that this new report would be highlighted by the media in contrast to President Obama’s claim a couple days earlier that the “private sector is doing fine.”

Not the case for CBS. The network did not mention the Federal Reserve’s report on either its morning or evening telecasts. Both ABC and NBC did mention the report, but neither mentioned President Obama in their stories.


------------------------------------------------

The game, in its essential form.

Note the criticism of the "media" personalities and their reporting content. It seems evident that we are not supposed to remember - nor explain - the exact same situation in reverse...

----------------------------------------------

Op note: The media reports what they are PAID to report. Money buys the vehicle.. in most cases the payer decides the content. It has been this way since the late 1800's. How do we think we ended up with a privately owned central bank to whom we owe everything?

The politicians - of all flavors - insist on pretending that we, the citizens, are unaware of the "errors" or outright "lies" the media spreads.... and where those lies come from .

Just making a point of noting it here... so later i can say... "I told you so."

By the way.. this is not in the politics forum because this is not about partisanship. It's about how they "use" information... force it to say what they want it to say when it suits them... and distract us from it, when they can't.




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 




The politicians - of all flavors - insist on pretending that we, the citizens, are unaware of the "errors" or outright "lies" the media spreads.... and where those lies come from .


Most people are unaware of the lies spread by the media. The example you provided in the OP is easy to understand by people that are willing to look under the surface for a bit of truth. But the average Joe swallows information whole, not allowing themselves a bit of time to "chew" on it before they decide to take it all in.

People do not understand that the media does not have to answer to a moral or ethical higher ground. The media answers to the powerful and wealthy that use this medium as a way to effect perception in their favor.

Great thread!






posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
This is partly the reason I don't vote. It's like there is a party behind the parties, a shadow party if you will. Regardless of who gets in, whatever the shadow party wants, it gets. More cuts? No problem. More military expenditure? Absolutely! Tax cuts for the rich? Yupz.

So many here on ATS proclaim that political recourse is our only way to change the system. With the exception perhaps of a woman's right to vote, I can't think of any other major change that has been made in the last century that has really given "us the people" anything we haven't already paid for or worked hard ourselves to provide.

Politics should be reformed. Kick out all the fat cat liars, corporatists, lobbyists and fascists and then get some honest, normal, regular people in there.

ETA Sorry, it's a bit of a rant but I hope at least partly on topic.
edit on 26/6/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
So sorry... I forgot to add a source link .... newsbusters.org...

[don't want it to seem like I made it up!]

MM



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
It's a simple lesson in economics really, and one created by the destruction of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

Revenue for media corporations comes from selling advertising.

A huge potential for advertising revenue is political ads. (In fact, practically ALL of campaign finance is considered a potential revenue for these corporations, as it will most likely be used to buy ad space/time)

The role of media in politics? -real journalism, as it is an essential part of a "free democracy"...
WRONG!
The role of media in politics has become that of a critic of how well a particular political advertising campaign is doing, thus the more scandal and disagreement the better, encouraging more and more spending by political groups on advertising.

It's actually a great business model, as you are in control of both supply and demand!

Now, I wonder whether or not these media corporations were in favor of the Citizen's United decision on making potential ad revenue... uh I mean political contributions unlimited? I'm sure there was "fair and balanced" coverage.

It's no wonder people (all over the world mind you) are getting out and marching against this quasi fascist take-over of governments... as even the institution that was meant to protect us from the tyranny of government is part of the problem.

the Billmeister


edit on 27-6-2012 by Billmeister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 



Op note: The media reports what they are PAID to report. Money buys the vehicle.. in most cases the payer decides the content. It has been this way since the late 1800's. How do we think we ended up with a privately owned central bank to whom we owe everything?



We owe them nothing. Media is paid to tell us we do over and over until its drilled into our pea brains, but WE OWE THEM NOTHING. Well, other than the price of a length of rope. They owe us our country back.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


You'll get little argument from me.

However, the bulk of American entertainment consumers... (people who believe the "news") actually think (and are encouraged to continue thinking) that we do owe the banks for everything.... and the banks certainly maintain we do.

The scam is global... and our nation's citizens are, by no means, the only people out there to be convinced that the world can't function without a framework of debt that the banks monopolize. They even convinced most of the politicians of the world of that... which isn't surprising .. when the "trickling down" of their supply-side (Keynesian) doctrine of faith goes to them and their associates almost exclusively.
edit on 27-6-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


It isn't as hopeless as it seems, but we're running out of time.

Public Banking -- it already works in the United States and is catching on! 18 States now scoping it out.



Map of US states ...



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 




By the way.. this is not in the politics forum because this is not about partisanship. It's about how they "use" information... force it to say what they want it to say when it suits them... and distract us from it, when they can't.


And you have just done exactly that... "used" information to force it to say what you want it to say, in order to distract your readers from the reality of a relatively good set of statistics that pays the lie to one side of the political fence. You do so by trying to shift attention to a relatively ugly set of statistics that you think can be sheeted home to the opposite side of the political fence.

Or perhaps it is your source that is doing the twisting, and you are just too gullible to see their propaganda shouting at you: "don't believe their lies, believe ours".

What ever the case, you open the discussion talking about jobs. The undeniable facts about jobs are that private sector jobs are up, public sector jobs are down. The total is up but not as much as if public sector jobs had stayed steady, let alone gone up. There is only one side of the political fence to blame that on, and it isn't the current President.

Then you attempt to shift the discussion to one of household net worth over a 7 year window, which has absolutely zero to do with short term employment gains or losses and everything to do with housing market crash that occurred in 2007. Of course "household net worth" is down since 2005. People used to have houses that, on paper, were worth a million bucks and are now only worth a few hundred thousand, or they've lost the house altogether. Again, there is only one side of the political fence to blame that on, and again it isn't the current President.

The lesson to be learned, is learn to think for your self, and stop relying on any media outlet (or worse random internet propaganda blogs) as the gospel truth. Identify the propaganda wars. Who is responding to a specific set of facts, and who is trying to distract you with a different set of unrelated facts. Who's fact set is relevant to the specific discussion and who is trying to blow smoke up your excretory orifice?

Now for the real kicker. Have you actually bothered to look at the Feds statistics that your article claims shows a 40% decline between 2005 and 2012? Because I have. It is right here: Balance Sheet of Household and non-Profit Organizations

Interesting definition of 40% decline:

Assets:
2005 = 73366.8 billion
2012Q1 = 76298.2

Liabilities
2005 = 12142.5 billion
2012Q1 = 13432.6

NET WORTH
2005 = 61224.3
2012Q1 = 62865.6

My rudimentary calculation indicates that that is about a 2.5% growth in net worth over those years. Not exactly stupendous, but a darn sight better than a 40% decline, wouldn't you say? Maybe that's why the mainstream media is not pushing that 40% decline story - because it is bovine excrement.

Perhaps you should reevaluate your source material, but more importantly learn how to find out when you are being lied to.

Edit: Oh, sorry. I just reread your post and I see that the 'counter' argument is using the 2005-2010 time frame even though the 2012Q1 figures are available. So they are using unrelated statistics that are 2 years out of date to attack the credibility of a statement about current statistics?

President: "look todays private sector employment figures look good"
Opponent: "yeah but two years ago housing values were way down"

And the 2010 numbers weren't 40% down on 2005 anyway. No where near it. I didn't calculate it but it looks more like 2% to me.

You really, really need to start thinking about what you are reading.


edit on 17/7/2012 by rnaa because: correct time frame
edit on 17/7/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
8

log in

join