Media Trending used for Social Engineering

This is not a thread based on any real facts, just things I've noticed from time to time, especially recently regarding the MSM.
I like to pose this thread as more of a disclaimer to those unaware and a think tank to those that are seeing these trends also. So please, since this is from the perspective of one person in NJ, add similarities if they are happening in your locations also.

I watch the news, it's on all the time. I consider it my modern day lava lamp more then an information gathering tool. I do use it to gauge the financial market, but I tend to not believe much of what is broadcasted over the major MSM stations.
Using the Bundy ranch, then Clippers owner Sterling's racism issue, that just came out a week or two ago as an example. It seems the media focuses its attention on certain 'things' or topics. These issues then sort of trickle down throughout the other media outlets and then grab smaller locally related stories, thus reinforcing the initial stories overall effect. I've seen this happen with the Bundy/Sterling case which is widely broadcast on CNN and the other big channels, then trickle down to local channels like NJ12 and the like with relevant smaller local issues, circling the big story.


Another item I've noticed recently is the negative press targeting Islamic groups - not that in cases like the kidnapping of African girls they shouldn't be targeted! Just that even the expressions on the newscasters faces seem to be much more expressive when dealing with these topics or in simple terms overacting/overreacting when compared to other unrelated, but just as tragic stories.
These are just two examples of many synchronicities I watched, read and heard over the past few months and quite honestly it's probably been more like years. I get that ratings and major MSM outlets have a certain procedure when producing these shows but it seems too much of a coincidence at times for me to digest.

But these similarities I've noticed are all just a symptom to a greater topic - what I'm getting at is control.



With most of us connected to the internet(which all is recorded, you cannot convince me it isn't) and phone calls being tapped couldn't it be rather easy for someone to see how the social majority in this country is thinking? If the government wanted to stray beliefs in a certain direction, blasting certain topics over the media into our brains would grab some of the public. They could keep presenting news related stories until they get the numbers they feel are adequate for whatever they are trying to achieve. This type of conditioning can then easily be used to socially engineer millions of people to like certain products, be more open to specific agendas and even pave a path to war. The repeated exposure to certain issues is congruent to brainwashing and over time could also lead to banning substances, character assassinations and religious biases.


I find this very interesting, in effect if I tell everyone over the media for years, that blue people are dangerous. Then I go and open several gun shops and security businesses all over town. All I would need to do is pay for a family of blue people to move there and then I would clean up!

Now I know this has been touched upon in many other threads, I've read a few myself. But back to the original idea, my concern is what are they conditioning us for right now?
Something is not right in the world. I've had this feeling for a few months and I think some of you here can share in that also. Things seemed to have gone askew recently and I have that pre-911 feeling again.

Thanx. . . AB

I believe that the powers that be are constantly influencing us .They use the Hegelian Dialectic principal to do so and it starts in very subtle ways until it reaches it critical mass .It starts of with inserting certain words and slowly we have to rely on those words as they are meant in the new context . Politicians do it mostly to garner support for their agenda and then write the laws that move a society in the direction they want . The MSM are only parrots of the same game and get their marching orders from the same source the politicians do .

Star and Flag.

What a well thought out and presented post, I loved your ideas! Some of this gave me chills, because I really am starting to believe you are right about a lot of this. The media manipulation, the social conditioning, the pre 9/11 feeling, it is all there and is getting more eerie by the day IMO.

I like your idea about them scanning the internet to find out public opinion. That is brilliant! The Bundy Ranch story breaks - they use special software to track everybody talking about it currently and they get rough numbers of those supporting/against Bundy for example - 60/40%; so thus they ramp up the media effort and news stories until that number is more like 40/60% against Bundy. Then they move on to the next thing.

Thank you for putting this out there - truly is a terrifying reality we live in with all the subtle control and attempts to control.

Great thread - cant wait to see what others think.

I also forgot to add that these issues being thrown at us can also appear in many other forms. Innocuous looking advertising, pictures posted by google and bing, outdoor billboards and even television shows/movies seem to 'follow the leader' here.
At times I find it hard to figure out how and where certain things begin to appear because suddenly it's everywhere!

Good topic and nicely drawn out...

If the intent of a certain group of people was merely to influence a populous into acting a certain way, buying certain things or voting in two different directions, then that group has succeeded here in the US flawlessly. We have turned into the very consumers they directed us into and all without much fuss. It is frightening.

In the past few years, more and more people are glued to their cellphones or entertainment in order to find out their latest news, gossip or ideas. So what would be the easiest way to market or influence people today? Cell phones. As per your graphic, people of all ages use cellphones more now than ever before. It is a perfect tool, and everyone has one. Now comes the conspiracy.

Say a group of people wanted to know all there is to know about a nation. They monitor their social lives, spending habits and even internet browsing history and save all that information to a large database that can be accessed at any time. That information is priceless but believe me, it will be sold to the highest bidder.

No one can convince me these things are necessary for everyday living, yet time and time again, people seem like they can't function without their beloved smartphones. Almost on purpose...as if they are being told that they can't live without them. More and more people are losing the skills needed for living without a system so elegantly designed to control everything we do. And for what?

I believe that we all need to step back and realize who has the true power and begin to allow ourselves to take more control of the very processes that are designed to tear us apart.


*S&F*

a reply to: AnteBellum

Something is not right in the world. I've had this feeling for a few months and I think some of you here can share in that also. Things seemed to have gone askew recently and I have that pre-911 feeling again. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well done!

Couple media manipulation, with psychotropic drugs in the food supply, powerful proven subliminal techniques, satellite technology, cell towers, micro wave transmission, entire think tanks devoted to population/cultural manipulation and a largely unquestioning dumbass populace and it's pretty easy to see the face of the future in 1st world countries.

The question is....to what purpose and by what entities are in control?

Something evil this way comes!!!

a reply to: AnteBellum

Outstanding thread and post! I completely agree and I have been thinking exactly the same thing for at least several years. I had thought about making a thread but I'm not really that great at pulling everything together concisely in a coherent post.

Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that someone is doing it. I believe this is happening and it's so unbelievably devious and subtle that most people just don't notice.

I have often wondered how many big news stories are actually real and how many are complete fabrications, complete with actors posing as real people.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: AnteBellum


Couple media manipulation, with psychotropic drugs in the food supply, powerful proven subliminal techniques, satellite technology, cell towers, micro wave transmission, entire think tanks devoted to population/cultural manipulation and a largely unquestioning dumbass populace and it's pretty easy to see the face of the future in 1st world countries.

Unfortunately, I believe the last factor is probably the biggest one. I'm not really sure they need any mind control drugs or anything. And that would leave the question of why so many of us are not affected. I eat and drink the same stuff as everyone else but I ask far more questions than the average person seems to.

The question is....to what purpose and by what entities are in control?

Well, they are obviously building something. I think this is one reason they like to call themselves "progressives". They build their reality just like a physical structure. One step at a time. Each layer gets built upon the previous layers.

a reply to: AnteBellum

Ooo, I have so much that I would love to throw in on this subject. Overall, yes, absolutely. This particular episode of the Century of the Self discusses the role of "responsive politics", which I think may be of interest to you. The vimeo link is because Youtube has apparently shut down access to this particular episode (while ignoring other episodes that deal with events from long ago):

vimeo.com...

What I've noticed is that particular stories are often drummed up heavily within the media over a variety of subjects and sometimes with a great deal of ferocity. For instance, my best friend and I have known each other for over 20 years and one of those common things between us is that we both attempt to have a more objective view even if it is divergent from the norm. She is normally rather placid and the number of times where she's exhibited any sort of explosive behavior over the last two decades has been zero (explosive behavior doesn't mix well with me so I avoid people like that in my life). So that's been the baseline of normal behavior over the last two plus decades. Just a month ago, while she and I were out to dinner, she exhibited explosive behavior to the point where she was shaking. One would think that kind of response would've been due to my saying something cruel to her--a personal insult. I didn't. All I did was offer one piece of contrary information to a fairly irrelevant news story that was being heavily promulgated within the media. Her response disturbed the hell out of me because it was both severe (she was literally shaking with fury) and it was so incongruous to her normal behavior. It took her several minutes to realize what her behavior was doing to our friendship and another several minutes of her sitting quiet, eyes glued to the table and panting to control herself. I can't explain her behavior and it deeply troubles me.

The scariest part of it was that her arguments were thematic and ones that I had seen promulgated both via the news and social media over the last several years. What makes a person who once was so rational and logical explode? The drums of public opinion can beat furiously.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Thanks for the posts everyone! I'm glad ATS actually reduces my paranoia on such topics, seeing how others can relate to this also, rather then contribute to it.

I too have seen this happen WhiteAlice, recently more then normal. When the governor here in NJ was accused in the 'bridgegate' scandal many were on the fence as to his involvement. Anyone who knows Christie without a doubt knows he ordered some type of attack, just wasn't specific about how, when or where it was to take place. He gave the brief order and his right hand women, in this case, took over the rest. The amount of coverage here was intense to say the least, but I also noticed so was the personal emotional tie to it. Even people who didn't care or follow politics were getting in screaming matches over a simple did he do it or not debate. Very surreal at times, I saw people I knew very well changed and turned into animals over a stupid political incident that happens quite too often in this country. That got me wondering but I couldn't put my finger on it then and to a great degree still can't. Something really has derailed the system, but what?
Are the USA, Russia and other countries teaming up to start a mock war to achieve a collective goal? Most world wars never occur in the major countries fighting them. Post-WW2 made the USA a superpower because all industry was destroyed in Europe and Japan. Is this their way of eliminating all the competition to boost our economies again, just like after WW2?
I wish I had the answers.
It's funny now that I chose my ATS name based on how I felt things were going years ago. Unfortunately, it seems to be more precognition now then premonition, becoming more and more of a reality as we go on.

Interesting idea, and very plausible. Very likely, in fact. You just about can't go to a any big information site, of any sort, without seeing a "trending" section, of some variety or another. One could claim that this is simply a way to highlight bigger stories, but some of the trending stuff isn't even important. It's more like the sites are trying to tell people what to look at, what to read, what to think. Given how much social engineering there is in education these days, and in various forms of media, it would seem foolish to believe that this wasn't part of the whole plan. S&F.

Perhaps you began your analysis with the false perception that everyone cares about the day to day events as presented by the media. Another false perception is the media is here to inform and in some ways influence the public in some way. The media exist to increase the value of the shares of the parent company and therefore make money for the investors in the company. That is it's only purpose.

However, whatever means needed to reach this goal are fair game, and ruining a few lives here and there is just how you pay for the soup. I don't think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people in America could really care less and their own daily struggles are far more important than any news show.

It seems the media focuses its attention on certain 'things' or topics. These issues then sort of trickle down throughout the other media outlets and then grab smaller locally related stories, thus reinforcing the initial stories overall effect - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The 'things' focused on by media are the 'things' that will sell the most advertising and the social status of one or more issues is irrelevant. Media attacks are nothing new for me and I have learned-the hard way-not to take it personally and remember these individual have a job to do-and if they feel any--misgivings-about how they do their job-there are hundreds foaming at the mouth to take their job and could care less about the lives they ruin in the process.

As far as social internet sites I know nothing as ATS is my only connection to the internet world. I have been working on development of a new project about today's teenagers. The girlfriend of one of the kids that worked out here last summer told me something I doubt I will ever forget. She said that on facebook there are 700 other girls with her exact name and age in America. And further related-and I'll never forget it-said ' kinda makes you feel like the things that get flushed down the toilet every morning' Sadly, I must agree.

I'm not trying to poo-poo your post as it's interesting however I don't think you understand that as far as the media is concerned it's all about money. You touched on the fact that some old rich white dude said something infernally stupid and was crucified by the media-however did you notice how it went away just as fast as it came? It's the old western bank robbery analogy that you rob the next bank before they find out you robbed the one before.

a reply to: spooky24

I think you agree entirely, it has everything to do with money. Those that already have all the money they need, like the owners of these companies, then tend to look for power and control next. All owners and high level executives on the following list have strong political ties directly leading to the white house. There are six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today: Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal.
In turn they own:

Time Warner
Home Box Office (HBO)
Time Inc.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
TMZ
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
Cinemax
Cartoon Network
TBS
TNT
America Online
MapQuest
Moviefone
Castle Rock
Sports Illustrated
Fortune
Marie Claire
People Magazine

Walt Disney
ABC Television Network
Disney Publishing
ESPN Inc.
Disney Channel
SOAPnet
A&E
Lifetime
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Miramax Films
Touchstone Pictures
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Buena Vista Games
Hyperion Books

Viacom
Paramount Pictures
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Comedy Central
Country Music Television (CMT)
Logo
MTV
MTV Canada
MTV2
Nick Magazine
Nick at Nite
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Noggin
Spike TV
The Movie Channel
TV Land
VH1

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Beliefnet
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
FX
My Network TV
MySpace
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
Sky PerfecTV
Speed Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
STAR World
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
BSkyB
DIRECTV
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
FOXTEL
HarperCollins Publishers
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Radio Veronica
ReganBooks
Sky Italia
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
STAR
Zondervan

CBS Corporation
CBS News
CBS Sports
CBS Television Network
CNET
Showtime
TV.com
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CBS Outdoor
CW Network (50% ownership)
Infinity Broadcasting
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network

NBC Universal
Bravo
CNBC
NBC News
MSNBC
NBC Sports
NBC Television Network
Oxygen
SciFi Magazine
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
Telemundo
USA Network
Weather Channel
Focus Features
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Trio
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Pictures
Universal Studio Home Video

There are four that control the internet: apple, google, microsoft and yahoo. And about a dozen more control newspapers and cable TV combined. Seems like a small number of companies to me that are in control of everything we see and hear from our cellphones, to our televisions, to our newspapers and magazines.
All with major political ties and friends in the highest positions of our government!

As for money it is a factor, they need it to keep the machine working. The machine is not made to make money though, its greater purpose is control and with it power.

a reply to: spooky24

That's the trick though. Typically, people do care far more about their lives and what they can see in their immediate environ. That's where their emotional investment tends to be in the most--their immediate lives. 10 years ago, you'd expect people to get hot under the color in a political debate. These days, it could be a tv show host, a teenage boy or girl, or what have you that precipitates a rabid response. It's abnormal.

I think that the internet and social media in particular have something to do with that. Since you don't have facebook, you don't see what shows up on feeds. Links to news stories, photos with snarky quips on them, quotes or some politician's atrocious gaffe, links to blogs and more speckled throughout with the occasional photos of friends going places and doing things. The discussions get heated on them to the point where so-called friends will unfriend each other over a news story. There's even little images that I've seen passed around that makes a quip about how they don't give a damn if what they said offended a friend because it's THEIR account. I actually call it anti-social media and a lot of people are on it as am I but I'm just watching their interactions most of the time. It's like a gigantic echo chamber where the heated, the infamy provoking, and outrage is speckled through with pictures of friends and families. It's quite bizarre when one thinks about it. The feed promotes that which has the most activity by default without measuring whether the item is hated or liked. It's not like reddit where things can be downvoted into non-existence. The more ire something produces, the more feeds it hits and the more fighting it promotes. That's the anti-social network.

I agree that it is all about money. Print is going the way of the Dodo and now news agencies are relying upon clicks to garner advertising revenues. The staid story filled with objectivity and "just the facts" isn't going to get nearly as much traction as a story that ticks people off. Those people that read a story and get infuriated who "share" it with others along with a heavy rebuke are only feeding the mercenary fans because guess what? Sharing it means more clicks. Really good journalism has pretty much died and has been transplanted with things that stoke the fires of faction and outrage as the majority is written to promote reactivity versus contemplation.

Is it any surprise that it should bleed out into the streets?

originally posted by: spooky24
Perhaps you began your analysis with the false perception that everyone cares about the day to day events as presented by the media.

Whether or not you care, what is presented by the media does have a serious impact on how people think and what people believe and how they behave.

Another false perception is the media is here to inform and in some ways influence the public in some way. The media exist to increase the value of the shares of the parent company and therefore make money for the investors in the company. That is it's only purpose.

And you know this how?

I don't think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people in America could really care less and their own daily struggles are far more important than any news show.

You should travel around the internet and visit a bunch of forums. You would no doubt find that most political discussions that go on anywhere are directly influenced by the media. There are blatant agitators to be found everywhere who use media stories to get people softened up. There certainly are millions of people who put ideology ahead of money and almost all of them talk about nothing else but what they saw on TV, read in the paper or read on a MSM web site

It is completely obvious that this recent racism theme is ideological and has very little to do with money. They already have all the money. Money is a tool. Not a destination.

Firstly, you are forgetting the divisions between reality and the hyper infatuated.

Internet A. This is the overwhelming majority of people around the globe that use the internet on a daily basis. They communicate, navigate traffic, solve business issues, conduct their purchases and their payments, make social forays and basically use the internet to improve their lives on a daily basis. However, once these things are accomplished they go on with their lives without the world web. This encompasses about 95% of all internet users.

Internet B. These individuals don't use the internet for assistance-they spend their entire social framework within the internet-therefore their entire lives revolve around the interactions and contacts of various social parameters to the point of exclusion of social contact in the physical, and or personal, methods of internet A. This constitutes about 5% of all internet users.

What is interesting about these divisions is the somewhat loosely based groups of Internet B find Internet A as their counter culture that has repressed them and quite frankly never considers their opinion because they feel these people have fallen victim to the unreality of a life being run by the Internet-and not the other way around.

In more realistic terms-Internet B feels Internet A is the reason for their poor social standing that requires them to look to the internet for self respect and acceptance among like individuals.

Internet A does not even know Internet B exist. I'll replete that: Internet A does not even know Internet B exist

Secondly, the persecution and repression felt by users of Internet B is imaginative, however this fails to dawn on them due to their poor social standing, as the constant themes of Government malfeasance, the super rich, any and all authority, infatuation with their perceived 'rights' and want to right wrongs they facilitate are being heaped on them by the 'establishment'.

And again, the 'establishment' know nothing whatsoever about them-the who, what and why are unknown.

Thirdly, lets put the National Media in the middle of these groups as the pressure builds each and every quarter to make the numbers Wall Street expects-and the numbers that determine if like executives have a job tomorrow or not.

All owners and high level executives on the following list have strong political ties directly leading to the white house. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps overstated, however very true. President Rutherford B Hayes owned all the damn newspapers in Washington so these connections are hardly anything new.

To make their number and keep their jobs upper level Media executives need to sell advertisements. Are they going to delegate to management that we should 'be fair' and give equal airtime to those few who make up the counterculture of Internet B. Don't think I have to answer that however it shows plainly how the large foot of corporate media squishes anyone who attempts unfloat the boat so to speak.

This in turn leads to a deeper felling of resentment among Internet B which, in turn, increases the blame game and keeps the divisions firmly separated.

This is a complex assessment of the medias influence on the internet however in context of the OP it explains

wanted to stray beliefs in a certain direction

why beliefs are pushed into an area that makes the most money-and what is 'fair' means very little.