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 Illusion of the Republicans

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 09:51 PM
I will attempt to be as succinct as possible. If it looks like I'm all over the place, keep going, I'm tying it together in the end. I'm not a huge fan of reading blocks of text, so I'll do my best.

In terms of being a political party which attempts to influence public opinion to coincide with it's own in order to gain legal power, the Republicans are currently more resourceful and more willing to take advantage of a situation. In my opinion they have made some bad choices but this hasn't deterred them.

The concept of the liberal media has been around for a bit, regardless of whether it is/was true or not. FOX News is a calculated response to this perspective. The media's 'liberal' lean may have been more subconscious and the result of the type of people who worked these jobs or chose the stories. They still let the news come to them. FOX began with the goal of presenting a conservative point of view and made choices with purpose. They create the news by placing information through a filter which distorts the evidence. Many are well aware of this, but those who support the conservative view are not concerned. Of course your enemies would say these things about you, it doesn't mean they are true, it just reinforces the fact that you disagree.

They call themselves "fair and balanced" but it is obvious that they lack any liberal or democratic anchors, hosts, or commentators. Whether Rupert Murdoch has literally made some deal with the Republican leadership does not matter, in that the result is the same. There is a news network which intentionally, and almost always, supports the Republican party. Of course the leadership didn't object on moral or ethical grounds, they are willing to take whatever advantage they can.

The point is, the party is no longer defined by the will of it's voters and the reflections of a changing culture, they are pre determined at a level that has not been seen before. The Democrats have their agenda and propaganda too but not like the Republicans. The speed of the dissemination of information and party stance is unprecedented. The modern age of communications allows us to witness something that has never been seen. The literal mass programming of a portion of the population in order to maintain power for a select group of individuals. I'm not even trying to bash them or their supporters, it's just that on a general level, this is what's occuring. It just happens to be their group, or the people inclined to believe those ideas.

No King or Emperor has had access to these sort of resources. The potential for abuse is quite frightening. Now it is a matter of seeing how far they are willing to go.

[I'm honestly not trying to speak poorly of the Republicans or well of the Democrats. If we could almost forget for a moment who the people are, and just use a generic placeholder for their presence. Two parties, a country receiving news through media. One outlet purposefully targeting a specific audience with the same point of view. Witnessing the same message being applied to a large sample size of minds. None of this has anything to do with what their point of view is, it's only about a position backed so strongly to one audience. I hope this makes sense, thanks for reading. Oh and I need a better title, doesn't really encompass what I'm saying well.]

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by Parabol

Though I see where you are headed with this, you fogot that MSNBC is the Democratic equivalent to Fox News, so they balance each other out. Except that not as many people watch MSNBC, because it sucks.

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by StinkyFeet

I agree that MSNBC is a FOX equivalent, they just don't go to the extent that FOX does. They're willing to go further and test the waters, and I believe, offer a more narrow point of view than MSNBC.

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:15 PM
For the most part I agree with you, but (don't you hate that word?) when most people here refer to Fox and call them baised they are talking about Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck. Those three have news commentary shows, they aren't news broadcasters. I've watched CNN and Fox and the actual news broadcasts really aren't that much different from each other.

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by Jenna

I disagree, their programming beyond their trinity is pretty slanted as well. Their blond females and Michelle Malkin are insufferable. Who is their 'respected' non biased guy, Hume?

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by Parabol

I really don't watch Fox much (or any cable news for that matter), just on occasion so I'm honestly not sure who the blondes you are referring to are. As for Malkin, I've never watched her on TV but I can't even force myself to sit through reading an article she's written most of the time.

As I said, the actual news broadcasts aren't much different from CNN from what I've seen. Asking for a specific person is asking me to pick a news commentator and they're supposed to be biased, that's their job. The commentators on Fox are no different than the ones on CNN or MSNBC except for which way their bias leans.

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:26 PM
I see the point the Op is making, and it's a good one.

What happens is that after the news report the commentators come on, and I personally know people who don't understand the difference between the two.
They actually believe these people are journalists and they've researched the things they say. They follow and believe every word that comes out of their mouth.

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by Parabol

See this is where Fox gets it and MSNBC doesn't. Fox puts on a bunch of hot blonds and a smoking asian chick, and MSNBC puts on Rachel Maddow. Now there has to be way more horny old men than there is lesbians that watch the news.

Now don't get me wrong, I like Rachel and I think she does a good job in her own partisan way. She is a great interviewer. However, I am not going to kill myself to watch it like I would to watch say Michelle Malkin drop the "news" on me.

Its really no different than if there are two restraunts and one has a bunch of hot, slutty waitresses and the other one has a bunch of old ladies, where are most men going to eat regardless of who has better food.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

[edit on 16-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:43 AM

The Democrats have their agenda and propaganda too but not like the Republicans.

Will you people never get it?!?

Republicans vs. Democrats. Two party system. Them against us. We have a choice.


They're all the same. Do you think that either party is more fair, more caring, more open and honest, has more integrity than the other. They are both corrupt. They are both raping this country. They are both after money and power. They are two sides of one filthy coin.

As long as people continue to be bound by the illusion, the lie, that there are "choices" and that one choice is better than the other, they maintain control.

Let that illusion dissolve, let the sheep awake and see that both parties need to be thrown out, thrown to the wolves, then we, as a country, a society, an economy, might get somewhere.

Until that day, we're just the stupid sheeple of the wicked hireling shepherds, whether they wear a Democrat hat or a Republican hat. They're all the same.

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by incoserv

I agree, but the reality is this is what we are being presented with. I have no control over the news or media, they tell us what they choose and this is what they've chosen.

new topics

top topics


log in