Our Treasonous Media Is a Clear and Present Danger

[Silver Pines]

A lot of the younger voters are getting their information online.

@Suppressed


Beat me by two minutes, lol!

[DiogenesLamp]

And yet, how few conservatives back efforts to develop a conservative media network like The Blaze.

I think many people supported the idea of "The Blaze"  initially,  but then Glenn Beck went nuts in the opinion of a lot of conservatives.   


Having a so called "conservative"  network run by a kook bat is worse than having none at all.   It would be used by the dominant media to portray the whole movement as bat-shit crazy. 

[bigheadfred]

A lot of the younger voters are getting their information online.

I get my information basically from two sources. The internet and my wife.

[Emjay]

Really, now.

Funny how I can, and do, go to places not even found on Google searches.

It's almost as if your statement isn't supported.  Besides, are you telling me that the ascendance of Google had nothing to do with its superior technology, and is all just a government plot?

Google and Yahoo do not control what you see but they do control what comes up when you search for something

For example, if you search for a certain banned drug that kills mosquitoes, you will have to go through 50 articles supporting the banning before you will find anything on the number of deaths in third world countries from malaria that directly relate to the ban.

Also, they can be bought ... so if you search for, say, cancer in dogs, you will be sent to sites proclaiming all sorts of miracle (and expensive) cures.

However, it is a wonderful thing and can be navigated to good sources if you have the patience.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't think you realize that young adults don't watch TV.  At all.  They stream or they get their content online.  Those "tens of millions" are going to go away and there will be no one to replace them.

This does not address the influence that the broadcast news media has over public opinion.   We only benefit if these tens of millions of young adults start getting their news from conservative/neutral websites.    The rest of the game stays as it is. 


The New York and Los Angeles media shape public opinion by carefully crafting stories and censoring information detrimental to Liberal policies and office holders,   and this influence permeates the system.   


Along the way, (even online)  the bulk of the news tracks back to the dominant "news"  sources.   

[DiogenesLamp]

I have to go.   I will resume this later,  probably tomorrow. 

[Silver Pines]

This does not address the influence that the broadcast news media has over public opinion.   We only benefit if these tens of millions of young adults start getting their news from conservative/neutral websites.    The rest of the game stays as it is. 


The New York and Los Angeles media shape public opinion by carefully crafting stories and censoring information detrimental to Liberal policies and office holders,   and this influence permeates the system.   


Along the way, (even online)  the bulk of the news tracks back to the dominant "news"  sources.

Well, then the only option is to create those sites and somehow make sure that's where they get their news.  To do that, you would somehow have to take the liberal sites out of the equation.

Looks like a tall order to me.

[driftdiver]

Really, now.

Funny how I can, and do, go to places not even found on Google searches.

It's almost as if your statement isn't supported.  Besides, are you telling me that the ascendance of Google had nothing to do with its superior technology, and is all just a government plot?

@Suppressed

87% of all internet searches are done on google.  Some of the other search engines even use Google in the background.

This means all websites who wish to be relevant must design their sites for Google.  Failure to do this means your website is invisible on the internet except to the small number of users who enter your url directly.  You can't even use paid advertising without these design requirements because your site will be penalized and won't be given enough relevance.

Through Google, Facebook and similar sites it is possible to track individuals on the web.  Google is even working on ways to track your offline purchases.  Every single thing you do online and soon offline can be tracked. 

If google doesn't like what you do they adjust the search results.  What you see or don't see is determined by these radical leftists.   Any freedom on the internet is an illusion.  Soon it will be even worse as the internet providers will block traffic to sites they don't like.

[Smokin Joe]

Big business and big government have long been in bed with each other and the use of governmet regulations as a method of limiting competition is widespread.   I'm sure that many of the regulations currently in place were promulgated for that specific purpose alone.

From :https://www.rt.com/op-edge/158920-us-ukraine-media-control/

Immediately after World War II three out of four US newspapers were independently owned. But the media-control numbers have been shrinking ever since then due to mergers, acquisitions, and other processes. By 1983, 50 corporations controlled 90 percent of US media. But today just five giant conglomerates control 90 percent of what most Americans read, watch, and listen to.

It is notable and should be emphasized that all the five major media conglomerates are corporate members of the Council on Foreign relations. This organization is a US think-tank whose members have been instrumental in formulating US government policies resulting in sanctions, destabilization efforts, and outright military attacks on nations which have never attacked the US.

Now, that source might be biased, so let's look elsewhere...

From: http://www.storyleak.com/graphic-6-corporations-own-90-percent-of-media/



And from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States

Owners of American media

Over time the amount of media merging has increased and the number of media outlets have increased. That translates to fewer companies owning more media outlets, increasing the concentration of ownership.[1] In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies; today, 90% is controlled by just 5 companies;[2]

On Cable and satellite: check out the chart at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cable_and_satellite_television_networks

and where you see these guys, Discovery Communications  Keep in mind...

DCI both produces original television programming and acquires content from producers worldwide. The company's non-fiction, lifestyle, sports and kids programming is offered through pay-TV and free-to-air networks, among them Discovery Channel, TLC, Investigation Discovery, Animal Planet, OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network, Science, Velocity, Eurosport as well as direct-to-consumer digital offerings including Discovery’s GO suite of apps, Discovery Kids Play and Eurosport Player.[5][6]

Discovery Communications partnered with the World Wildlife Fund to fund conservation of 1 million acres of land for Tigers in Bhutan and India and to help double the world's wild tiger population through Project C.A.T. (Conserving Acres for Tigers) in October 2016.[7]

There is an awful lot of opinion shaping media in the hands of a small number of people.

That isn't saying that there are not individual programs, and even entire series of programs of merit, nor that everything presented by anyone is without merit, either, but that the opinion makers, the real folks who decide what flies and what dies in the realm of 'entertainment' and 'news' and even 'documentaries' is a small group.

[Oceander]

And yet, here we all are on the internet, on a rather small little forum, not simply drinking the koolaid.  So it must be possible to exist outside the box that's being hypothesized here. 

All it takes is your own effort, not some magical mystery juice from the government. 

[Bigun]

From :https://www.rt.com/op-edge/158920-us-ukraine-media-control/

Now, that source might be biased, so let's look elsewhere...

From: http://www.storyleak.com/graphic-6-corporations-own-90-percent-of-media/



And from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States

On Cable and satellite: check out the chart at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cable_and_satellite_television_networks

and where you see these guys, Discovery Communications  Keep in mind...
There is an awful lot of opinion shaping media in the hands of a small number of people.

That isn't saying that there are not individual programs, and even entire series of programs of merit, nor that everything presented by anyone is without merit, either, but that the opinion makers, the real folks who decide what flies and what dies in the realm of 'entertainment' and 'news' and even 'documentaries' is a small group.

And where exactly are the trust busters in all this?

[Smokin Joe]

And where exactly are the trust busters in all this?

Probably waiting for their Wives (or partners) to get home from the board meetings....

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed


Beat me by two minutes, lol!

@CatherineofAragon 

:dropjaw:  Say it ain't so...  I would never beat a lady!   

[Fishrrman]

I don't have to time to read the entire thread, as I spend very little time in the politics sub-forum any more. It's become -the last- place I visit here if I still have any time.

But -- if you want to stop the media from waging its war, you'd better be willin' to do to them what Joseph Smith had done to the Nauvoo Expositor on June 10, 1844.

...and be prepared to handle the consequences.

[Fishrrman]

Catherine wrote:
"Trump's best strategy, then, and the most effective way to insulate himself is to simply govern well.  Enough with the drama---take care of the nation's business and start keeping those campaign promises.  The people will see that and they'll have no patience with the media."

That's actually very thoughtful and sound advice for the man, considering it comes from someone who all-but hates his guts. (at least going from posts I've read in the past)

But again, thoughtful and sound advice.
He'd do well to heed it.

[Silver Pines]

That's actually very thoughtful and sound advice for the man, considering it comes from someone who all-but hates his guts. (at least going from posts I've read in the past)

But again, thoughtful and sound advice.
He'd do well to heed it.

@Fishrrman

Thanks.  But it might benefit you to read the forum in a less emotionally involved state (over a politician).

[DiogenesLamp]

And yet, here we all are on the internet, on a rather small little forum, not simply drinking the koolaid.  So it must be possible to exist outside the box that's being hypothesized here. 

You just aren't grasping the problem here.  The fact that tiny little islands of non censored news exist does not affect the consequence of having 90% of the population fed censored news.   

The bulk of the nation does not get it's news through tiny little conservative backwater websites.   They get their news off of the networks,  and they VOTE ACCORDING TO THE NEWS FED TO THEM BY THE NETWORKS.   

All it takes is your own effort, not some magical mystery juice from the government.

And here you are,  once again assuming that *ONLY*  government solutions to the problem are being proposed.   How about you suggest some non-governmental solutions to the problem?   

[Oceander]

You just aren't grasping the problem here.  The fact that tiny little islands of non censored news exist does not affect the consequence of having 90% of the population fed censored news.   

The bulk of the nation does not get it's news through tiny little conservative backwater websites.   They get their news off of the networks,  and they VOTE ACCORDING TO THE NEWS FED TO THEM BY THE NETWORKS.   





And here you are,  once again assuming that *ONLY*  government solutions to the problem are being proposed.   How about you suggest some non-governmental solutions to the problem?   

Sieg Heil

[DiogenesLamp]

Sieg Heil

And now you are calling me a Nazi even though I carefully and reasonably pointed out to you the reality of the situation.   


Our modern day Media system is far closer to National Socialism than it is to what the Founders envisioned.   (Everyone having an equal ability to speak to the people.)   


You are pointing your Nazis accusations in the wrong direction.   


What is wrong with the idea of a system that is open for everyone to use? 

 
What is Nazi-like about addressing censorship of News and Opinion?   

[Oceander]

And now you are calling me a Nazi even though I carefully and reasonably pointed out to you the reality of the situation.   


Our modern day Media system is far closer to National Socialism than it is to what the Founders envisioned.   (Everyone having an equal ability to speak to the people.)   


You are pointing your Nazis accusations in the wrong direction.   


What is wrong with the idea of a system that is open for everyone to use? 

 
What is Nazi-like about addressing censorship of News and Opinion?   

Wanting to use the government as a weapon against your political opponents - as you do - is sufficiently close to warrant the comparison.  That, or it simply makes you out to be just another liberal like the ones you're complaining about. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

And now you are calling me a Nazi even though I carefully and reasonably pointed out to you the reality of the situation.   


Our modern day Media system is far closer to National Socialism than it is to what the Founders envisioned.   (Everyone having an equal ability to speak to the people.)   


You are pointing your Nazis accusations in the wrong direction.   


What is wrong with the idea of a system that is open for everyone to use? 

 
What is Nazi-like about addressing censorship of News and Opinion?

 

[Bigun]

Anyone who thinks that control of virtually all media in this country being concentrated in a very few hands is not a problem is NUTS!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Anyone who thinks that control of virtually all media in this country being concentrated in a very few hands is not a problem is NUTS!

Meh, it's dinosaur media. Media isn't a finite thing anymore. Lots of option these days.

Putting government in control of the media is a horrible solution. You would think you of all people would know that.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wanting to use the government as a weapon against your political opponents - as you do - is sufficiently close to warrant the comparison. 

Well first of all,   I have asked you and anyone else to come up with non-governmental solutions that will address the problem.   I have also not suggested any government imposed solution to the problem,   so you are making an accusation without any evidence to support it. 


You merely derive the notion that I/we are calling for a "government solution"  to the problem from your own anxiety.   


I have merely pointed out that we have a past history of companies getting so big that Market solutions to bring them to heel are simply impossible.    This is why we created anti-trust laws,   and as someone indicated above,  perhaps we need to be looking at busting up the media system with anti-trust law. 

Is that Nazi like?   Using anti-trust law?   

[Bigun]

Meh, it's dinosaur media. Media isn't a finite thing anymore. Lots of option these days.

Putting government in control of the media is a horrible solution. You would think you of all people would know that.

The problem with what you say is the fact that the government DOES already control a great deal of it!  That needs to change!