The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Bigun on July 22, 2014, 01:17:43 pm
-
These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
This infographic created by Jason at Frugal Dad shows that almost all media comes from the same six sources.
That's consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983.
NOTE: This infographic is from last year and is missing some key transactions. GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn't own AOL, so Huffington Post isn't affiliated with them.
But the fact that a few companies own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice," Frugal Dad says. While some big sites, like Digg and Reddit aren't owned by any of the corporations, Time Warner owns news sites read by millions of Americans every year.
Here's the graphic:
(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4fd9ee1e6bb3f7af5700000a/media-infographic.jpg)
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6#ixzz38CdUtKoo
-
Now you know why it is so very easy for them to "call the tune" as to what is or is not "news"!
-
It also puts into focus, just how possible it is to successfully blackmail the boards of the parent corporations into 'falling in line' on what is reported and what is not.
-
It also puts into focus, just how possible it is to successfully blackmail the boards of the parent corporations into 'falling in line' on what is reported and what is not.
OH yeah! For sure! :beer:
-
And, it demonstrates how easy it is to control the political conversation, both the candidates and their positions.
Now you know why 'amnesty' is a front-burner issue when most people oppose it...
-
And, it demonstrates how easy it is to control the political conversation, both the candidates and their positions.
Now you know why 'amnesty' is a front-burner issue when most people oppose it...
:beer:
-
I was going to write a long rebuttal but one of the comments on this page pretty much sums it up:
http://ivn.us/2012/06/18/did-you-know-that-just-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-infographic/
This infographic is silly. Starting right from the top... "That same 90% is controlled by 6 companies in 2011". What that fails to mention is that "that same 90%" has become vastly less influential and important in 2011. Newspapers, radio, TV...all of those have lost share of the market in a big way to the Internet. Where is Youtube here? What about Facebook, Twitter? Facebook's "readership" is coming up on a billion; Twitter's, ~1/2 billion. (5X and 3X the monthly readership of Time Warner, respectively.) I don't know the stats on how much total YouTube video is watched every day, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's competitive with the amount of TV watched every day. And YouTube has only been in business for a fraction of the 60+ years that the TV industry has.
Also, consider the comparison made between Time Warner and Tumblr/Reddit/Digg/Google News...Time Warner properties have been building an audience for nearly 100 years; those other sources, 10 years or less. So in ~10 years, Tumblr, Reddit, and Digg have developed a combined readership nearly half that of Time Warner; Google News alone, a readership 1/3 that of Time Warner. That's GOOD news, not bad. It's AMAZING PROGRESS in the decentralization of media--not that you'd know it from this bleak and distorted picture of the landscape, which is based on an increasingly-irrelevant definition of "media".
Seriously...an infographic about "media" that doesn't even mention YouTube = irrelevant.
And what about blogs? There are literally millions of blogs, with hundreds of millions of readers every day. An infographic about media that doesn't mention blogs is an infographic about the past, not the present.
Silly pro-regulation propaganda.
"Until regulations return (or they buy each other out of existence), they will continue to control 90% of everything Americans see, hear, or consider important."
Bullsh--. It's already not true, and every year that passes will make it less true.
-
It's already not true, and every year that passes will make it less true.
Which is why 'amnesty' is a front-burner issue when most people oppose it, Hellary is the leading Democrat for president, 'gay marriage' is flourishing, pot is being legalized left and right, socialized medicine is being forced on society, MH17 is being blamed on Russia when the Ukraine's fingerprints are all over it, etc, etc, etc...
-
Which is why 'amnesty' is a front-burner issue when most people oppose it, Hellary is the leading Democrat for president, 'gay marriage' is flourishing, pot is being legalized left and right, socialized medicine is being forced on society, MH17 is being blamed on Russia when the Ukraine's fingerprints are all over it, etc, etc, etc...
May I inquire as to why Ukraine's fingerprints are all over it? Not trying to be a wiseguy but I was thinking about Ukraine/Russia-Soviet thing the other day. As in, the Ukraine was basically the puppet of the Third Reich. That put up some pretty hard scores to settle. Unlike the U.S. and the lack of historical memory, Europe and Asian grudges are held long and simmered.
-
May I inquire as to why Ukraine's fingerprints are all over it? Not trying to be a wiseguy but I was thinking about Ukraine/Russia-Soviet thing the other day. As in, the Ukraine was basically the puppet of the Third Reich. That put up some pretty hard scores to settle. Unlike the U.S. and the lack of historical memory, Europe and Asian grudges are held long and simmered.
Who diverted MH17 over rebel territory? Ukrainian air-traffic controllers.
Whose fighter jet was within air-to-air missile range of MH17 just before it came down? Ukraine's
Whose BUK radar was operating in the area just before MH17 was blown out of the sky? Ukraine's
-
The question becomes who benefits from this and how.
Unshun --
That was a very Soviet mentality.
Shun ---
-
Who diverted MH17 over rebel territory? Ukrainian air-traffic controllers.
Whose fighter jet was within air-to-air missile range of MH17 just before it came down? Ukraine's
Whose BUK radar was operating in the area just before MH17 was blown out of the sky? Ukraine's
Thanks. I really haven't been paying too much attention beyond headlines, if that.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0LCTl3o2kY
This is proof positive that the news cycle is controlled. Anybody that denies it, is willfully...and woefully ignorant.
-
Thanks. I really haven't been paying too much attention beyond headlines, if that.
These allegations have not been reported by the Western media. Just by the Russians and Iranians. I imagine that the lack of rebuttal could be taken as evidence of the truth of the allegations.
Course, this all gets back to the point of the OP of the thread. You only hear what your minders want you to hear. Esp if you aren't searching for other opinions and only read headlines (which many people do).
That's why the manipulation is so effective...
-
This is proof positive that the news cycle is controlled. Anybody that denies it, is willfully...and woefully ignorant.
Downright hilarious when put into context, isn't it?
-
So with these statistics in mind, how important does it become that the President of CBS has a brother who is the National Security Adviser to Barack Obama??
What does this say about the ongoing journalistic malpractice in the US Press, and our continued reliance on overseas press outlets to find out what is really going on in our own country??
-
So with these statistics in mind, how important does it become that the President of CBS has a brother who is the National Security Adviser to Barack Obama??
What does this say about the ongoing journalistic malpractice in the US Press, and our continued reliance on overseas press outlets to find out what is really going on in our own country??
Watch for calls for 'net neutrality' to go beyond simple Google manipulation of search results...
-
Watch for calls for 'net neutrality' to go beyond simple Google manipulation of search results...
Whenever I log on to Facebook...which is rarely...on my stream, I see many items in the political vein, asking for me to "like" or "agree".
NEVER...EVER....participate.
-
Very good points being brought up. No doubt, what we hear in the mainstream media - as Rush vividly points out when he plays the excerpts of a "catch phrase" that is repeated on almost every news outlet - there is no doubt what we hear on the MSM is completely manipulated.
Abaraxas makes an excellent point too with the rebuttal - YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc - aren't even included - yet they have a HUGE audience.
However, I think the 6 giant dinosaurs of media have a definite influence on what is talked about in the new media alternatives and I see, at times, their attempts to control that as well. I'd say there are schemes being implemented right now to take over these new media giants and swallow them up. There's just too much power there to ignore.
-
Very good points being brought up. No doubt, what we hear in the mainstream media - as Rush vividly points out when he plays the excerpts of a "catch phrase" that is repeated on almost every news outlet - there is no doubt what we hear on the MSM is completely manipulated.
Abaraxas makes an excellent point too with the rebuttal - YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc - aren't even included - yet they have a HUGE audience.
However, I think the 6 giant dinosaurs of media have a definite influence on what is talked about in the new media alternatives and I see, at times, their attempts to control that as well. I'd say there are schemes being implemented right now to take over these new media giants and swallow them up. There's just too much power there to ignore.
Excellent points....remember the days when Congress decided when Corporations became too big?? AT&T anyone??
-
However, I think the 6 giant dinosaurs of media have a definite influence on what is talked about in the new media alternatives and I see, at times, their attempts to control that as well. I'd say there are schemes being implemented right now to take over these new media giants and swallow them up. There's just too much power there to ignore.
I think that the 'scheme' was in funding them in the first place.
No need to 'take over' something that you fostered from the beginning...
-
Which is why 'amnesty' is a front-burner issue when most people oppose it, Hellary is the leading Democrat for president, 'gay marriage' is flourishing, pot is being legalized left and right, socialized medicine is being forced on society, MH17 is being blamed on Russia when the Ukraine's fingerprints are all over it, etc, etc, etc...
While it is true that the impact and reach of the MSM is lessening each year, 'new media' still doesn't come close to having the reach of the MSM for a very large segment of society. Those of us that are online frequently every day and are digging out information from very tiny (in terms of reach) places tend to forget that we are still a small fraction of the society.
We see the silly 'man on the street' interviews that reveal the clueless nature of most people walking around, I don't think that they have to try real hard to find these people......
-
I think that the 'scheme' was in funding them in the first place.
No need to 'take over' something that you fostered from the beginning...
If that's true GourmetDan, then it's only a matter of time before "our" viewpoint will be eliminated from this new media. I believe this will happen, and in the not-too-distant future.
-
Watch for calls for 'net neutrality' to go beyond simple Google manipulation of search results...
Absolutely, this little garden of informational delights isn't going remain open for all to wander freely for much longer....
We've seen the drill play out over and over, that little twist on the Hegelian Dialectic: Problem – Reaction – Solution
-
And, it demonstrates how easy it is to control the political conversation, both the candidates and their positions.
Now you know why 'amnesty' is a front-burner issue when most people oppose it...
The political conversations I see on FoxNews differ greatly from those on NBC. If the media are all controlled by some small group, that small group isn't thinking as a team. And as others have pointed out, the print media is quickly falling from any reasonable position of influence in favor of a 24/7 internet.
As for amnesty, almost every poll shows that most Americans want both a secure border and some type of legalization for those already here. Of course some will suggest that all the polls are also controlled and manipulated (by the same small group?), but there just isn't enough tin-foil to go around.
-
The political conversations I see on FoxNews differ greatly from those on NBC. If the media are all controlled by some small group, that small group isn't thinking as a team. And as others have pointed out, the print media is quickly falling from any reasonable position of influence in favor of a 24/7 internet.
Perhaps your definition of 'controlled' requires something so obvious that it would inherently diminish it's value as propaganda?
As for amnesty, almost every poll shows that most Americans want both a secure border and some type of legalization for those already here. Of course some will suggest that all the polls are also controlled and manipulated (by the same small group?), but there just isn't enough tin-foil to go around.
So, it is your position that media doesn't influence polls?
Wake up, dude...
-
The political conversations I see on FoxNews differ greatly from those on NBC. If the media are all controlled by some small group, that small group isn't thinking as a team. And as others have pointed out, the print media is quickly falling from any reasonable position of influence in favor of a 24/7 internet.
As for amnesty, almost every poll shows that most Americans want both a secure border and some type of legalization for those already here. Of course some will suggest that all the polls are also controlled and manipulated (by the same small group?), but there just isn't enough tin-foil to go around.
No tinfoil needed. We've all been played for decades, it is just a matter as to how many start waking up, and when.
(Seriously, the fact that you (and you aren't alone by any means, and I am not criticizing you personally, just responding to your post), immediately reach for the "tinfoil" comments is just an example at how effective the programming has been. Something doesn't make you comfortable?? Ahh, it must be those tinfoil hatters again!! It is just another Normalcy Bias symptom that's been manipulated and honed to near perfection.)
There is rarely much truth on Fox News, it is just the vehicle for the 'right' side of the establishment to get their talking points out to the masses.
-
Perhaps your definition of 'controlled' requires something so obvious that it would inherently diminish it's value as propaganda?
So, it is your position that media doesn't influence polls?
Wake up, dude...
The point that I am making is that there's a hell of a lot of divergent opinions on whatever type of media outlet you want to name. The media influences period. It's why President Adams tried to shut it up, as did Wilson. But to suggest that most of us are just automatons while the few of you smart 'dudes' know the whole story is just silly.
On the internet I read everything from RightWingNews to the North Korean News. I'll go through Drudge and Russia Today. I occasionally look over CPUSA and it's partner, People's World.
But back to your point about most Americans not wanting "amnesty" (whatever that means). What, other than polls, is your source? You don't believe in the media or in polls, so I'm curious where you are getting all of this information you base all of your decisions on?
-
The point that I am making is that there's a hell of a lot of divergent opinions on whatever type of media outlet you want to name. The media influences period. It's why President Adams tried to shut it up, as did Wilson. But to suggest that most of us are just automatons while the few of you smart 'dudes' know the whole story is just silly.
Didn't suggest that most of you are automatons or that I know the whole story.
On the internet I read everything from RightWingNews to the North Korean News. I'll go through Drudge and Russia Today. I occasionally look over CPUSA and it's partner, People's World.
But back to your point about most Americans not wanting "amnesty" (whatever that means). What, other than polls, is your source? You don't believe in the media or in polls, so I'm curious where you are getting all of this information you base all of your decisions on?
The fact that media influences polls doesn't mean you can't get information from polls.
Perhaps you should spend more time thinking and less time reading...
-
No tinfoil needed. We've all been played for decades, it is just a matter as to how many start waking up, and when.
(Seriously, the fact that you (and you aren't alone by any means, and I am not criticizing you personally, just responding to your post), immediately reach for the "tinfoil" comments is just an example at how effective the programming has been. Something doesn't make you comfortable?? Ahh, it must be those tinfoil hatters again!! It is just another Normalcy Bias symptom that's been manipulated and honed to near perfection.)
There is rarely much truth on Fox News, it is just the vehicle for the 'right' side of the establishment to get their talking points out to the masses.
That last sentence is my point. There is plenty of "news" (however you want to define it) from whatever side of the aisle one is on. And there's plenty of other options to get divergent views. I rarely use the term "tinfoil" so if that bothers you, my apologies. But regardless of the accuracy of any particular network or other media outlet about any piece of news or opinion, people have choices. We are influenced, but hardly controlled by this "Group of 6". The information is out there, and if we choose to ignore it, it's not the fault of any media corporation. Someone earlier referred to the downing of the 777, by suggesting we are being lied to by the entire Western media and governments, and that Ukraine is likely the perp. So where did his opinion come from...but from some media source.
-
The fact that media influences polls doesn't mean you can't get information from polls.
Which was my point about immigration.
Perhaps you should spend more time thinking and less time reading...
Well, there are just so few who can reach a valid reasoned opinion without information to base it on. I'm in awe of such ability.
-
That last sentence is my point. There is plenty of "news" (however you want to define it) from whatever side of the aisle one is on. And there's plenty of other options to get divergent views. I rarely use the term "tinfoil" so if that bothers you, my apologies. But regardless of the accuracy of any particular network or other media outlet about any piece of news or opinion, people have choices. We are influenced, but hardly controlled by this "Group of 6". The information is out there, and if we choose to ignore it, it's not the fault of any media corporation. Someone earlier referred to the downing of the 777, by suggesting we are being lied to by the entire Western media and governments, and that Ukraine is likely the perp. So where did his opinion come from...but from some media source.
Don't know about katz, but my point is that people don't have as many 'choices' as they think they do. You may believe you have 'plenty of options' when in fact you do not. Aberrant opinions are labeled 'tin foil hat' and you are actually only presented with a limited number of options by the 'group of 6'.
Choosing to accept any source as being more trustworthy than any other is simply the starting-point of self-deception...
-
Which was my point about immigration.
Except that you can find polls that say just the opposite. Then what?
Well, there are just so few who can reach a valid reasoned opinion without information to base it on. I'm in awe of such ability.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
-
That last sentence is my point. There is plenty of "news" (however you want to define it) from whatever side of the aisle one is on. And there's plenty of other options to get divergent views. I rarely use the term "tinfoil" so if that bothers you, my apologies. But regardless of the accuracy of any particular network or other media outlet about any piece of news or opinion, people have choices. We are influenced, but hardly controlled by this "Group of 6". The information is out there, and if we choose to ignore it, it's not the fault of any media corporation. Someone earlier referred to the downing of the 777, by suggesting we are being lied to by the entire Western media and governments, and that Ukraine is likely the perp. So where did his opinion come from...but from some media source.
"tinfoil" doesn't bother me personally, MAC, so no apology needed (but certainly appreciated!). I just recoil a bit when I see it thrown around by so many (not you) as a knee jerk reaction to anything that they find too "uncomfortable."
I agree that there is still a fair amount of information out there if one chooses to dig for it. But, as I tried to make the point earlier in the thread, people like yourself, myself, and most of us here, aren't typical. We are still oddities in that we make it a point to spend a fair amount of time looking for information (and as Dan mentioned above, actually thinking about it). The vast majority of people in this country are very different, they get some headlines and talking points on the radio and/or TV and may glance at the front page or two of the newspaper on occasion (which are definitely controlled by this "big 6"). (Like I said above, they don't have to search real hard to find the ignorant dolts that you see on the "man on the street" interviews.)
And don't let the user/visitor stats of things like Youtube, Twitter, or Facebook paint too much of an encouraging picture -- a LOT of that traffic is watching cute cats, commenting endlessly on pop culture crap, or letting everyone (that cares!) know about their last vacay....
-
On the internet I read everything from RightWingNews to the North Korean News. I'll go through Drudge and Russia Today. I occasionally look over CPUSA and it's partner, People's World.
Well there's your problem, right there. Just joking. ^-^
-
"tinfoil" doesn't bother me personally, MAC, so no apology needed (but certainly appreciated!). I just recoil a bit when I see it thrown around by so many (not you) as a knee jerk reaction to anything that they find too "uncomfortable."
I agree that there is still a fair amount of information out there if one chooses to dig for it. But, as I tried to make the point earlier in the thread, people like yourself, myself, and most of us here, aren't typical. We are still oddities in that we make it a point to spend a fair amount of time looking for information (and as Dan mentioned above, actually thinking about it). The vast majority of people in this country are very different, they get some headlines and talking points on the radio and/or TV and may glance at the front page or two of the newspaper on occasion (which are definitely controlled by this "big 6"). (Like I said above, they don't have to search real hard to find the ignorant dolts that you see on the "man on the street" interviews.)
And don't let the user/visitor stats of things like Youtube, Twitter, or Facebook paint too much of an encouraging picture -- a LOT of that traffic is watching cute cats, commenting endlessly on pop culture crap, or letting everyone (that cares!) know about their last vacay....
I'm with you on this. Very few people keep abreast of current events, much less the truth behind the headlines.
-
Don't know about katz, but my point is that people don't have as many 'choices' as they think they do. You may believe you have 'plenty of options' when in fact you do not. Aberrant opinions are labeled 'tin foil hat' and you are actually only presented with a limited number of options by the 'group of 6'.
Choosing to accept any source as being more trustworthy than any other is simply the starting-point of self-deception...
So why are your choices and opinions any better or more intelligent and reasoned than us dumbed-down idiots on any given issue? Perhaps you start with the assumption that any piece of news out of the western media must be wrong, so your choices are then simple? Maybe North Korea really is a paradise and we've been lied to all these years...
-
So why are your choices and opinions any better or more intelligent and reasoned than us dumbed-down idiots on any given issue? Perhaps you start with the assumption that any piece of news out of the western media must be wrong, so your choices are then simple? Maybe North Korea really is a paradise and we've been lied to all these years...
Are you referring to my opinion that people don't have as many choices as they think they do and my decision to view the western-msm's failure to even trying to refute alternate claims with suspicion?
-
Are you referring to my opinion that people don't have as many choices as they think they do and my decision to view the western-msm's failure to even trying to refute alternate claims with suspicion?
Well...no. I was referring to the fact that you have reached a number of conclusions about a number of issues including Ukrainian culpability, immigration, and others, apparently from sources other than the western media. You say we don't have the choices we think we do, and when I list just a few from across the board, you say I should read less and think more. I'm trying to think through that logic...and it's tough. :pondering:
-
Well...no. I was referring to the fact that you have reached a number of conclusions about a number of issues including Ukrainian culpability, immigration, and others, apparently from sources other than the western media. You say we don't have the choices we think we do, and when I list just a few from across the board, you say I should read less and think more. I'm trying to think through that logic...and it's tough. :pondering:
Maybe the 'fact' is that I haven't reached the number of conclusion from sources other than western-msm that you think I have.
Just because you reach conclusions from western media sources doesn't mean that I do the same from non-western sources...
-
Now....if that ATC guy happens to have an accident, we'll have our answer.
You've already had one tweeting who subsequently 'disappeared'...
Carlos Spanish Kiev Air Traffic Controller Real. All His Tweets day of MH 17 shot down. (http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.ca/2014/07/carlos-spanish-kiev-air-traffic.html)
OK, moved it...
-
You've already had one tweeting who subsequently 'disappeared'...
Carlos Spanish Kiev Air Traffic Controller Real. All His Tweets day of MH 17 shot down. (http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.ca/2014/07/carlos-spanish-kiev-air-traffic.html)
Sorry that I posted my reply on the wrong thread. LOL Can't keep up with you guys. I reposted it in the proper thread.
-
Maybe the 'fact' is that I haven't reached the number of conclusion from sources other than western-msm that you think I have.
Just because you reach conclusions from western media sources doesn't mean that I do the same from non-western sources...
Well okay. I'm just not sure, other than western media and non-western media what sources you may have used for your various conclusions. If you'd care to share, I'm anxious to see them.
-
Is there anything to be done about these overreaching corporations or do we allow them to manipulate the media and control the flow of information indefinitely?
-
Well okay. I'm just not sure, other than western media and non-western media what sources you may have used for your various conclusions. If you'd care to share, I'm anxious to see them.
I find it interesting that you get stuck on the position that someone can only reach a conclusion if a source provides it.
-
I find it interesting that you get stuck on the position that someone can only reach a conclusion if a source provides it.
Not at all, but you have to admit that a conclusion reached without the benefit of any source of information can be at least questioned. But let's not get hung up on this. You've made your point about the intelligence level of some of us here, so I'll give you that.
-
Not at all, but you have to admit that a conclusion reached without the benefit of any source of information can be at least questioned. But let's not get hung up on this. You've made your point about the intelligence level of some of us here, so I'll give you that.
Now you're changing the position but at least you are correctly stating it...
-
Not at all, but you have to admit that a conclusion reached without the benefit of any source of information can be at least questioned. But let's not get hung up on this. You've made your point about the intelligence level of some of us here, so I'll give you that.
I can't speak for Dan, but I will just say this. Intelligence has very little to do with it, in my opinion. It has more to do with a willingness to accept the reality of things, regardless of how extremely uncomfortable it may make one. The famous Rand quote always come to mind:
You can avoid reality, but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.
It is something that we all struggle with at times, it is a part of human nature. But it hinders us, prevents us from facing things as they are, and forces us to cling to that "which we want to be true." And on many of the topics that we discuss here, there is a very strong tendency for all of us to want to see, and hold on to, any "solution" that promises the least amount of pain and dislocation. But the rub is, that no matter how much we wish to cling to these hopes, reality keeps marching along.
Just my two cents!!
-
I can't speak for Dan, but I will just say this. Intelligence has very little to do with it, in my opinion. It has more to do with a willingness to accept the reality of things, regardless of how extremely uncomfortable it may make one. The famous Rand quote always come to mind:
It is something that we all struggle with at times, it is a part of human nature. But it hinders us, prevents us from facing things as they are, and forces us to cling to that "which we want to be true." And on many of the topics that we discuss here, there is a very strong tendency for all of us to want to see, and hold on to, any "solution" that promises the least amount of pain and dislocation. But the rub is, that no matter how much we wish to cling to these hopes, reality keeps marching along.
You said it well katz. I figured that it was obvious what my point has been.
Misrepresenting my motive is much easier than admitting to individually-held paradigms...
-
Have to say that back when Obama was 1st elected in 2008, I claimed our very nation and fabric were going to be shredded and we were going down the primrose path ala 1930's Germany.
People I highly respect in here tried to assure me that "This too shall pass" and that the beauty of the way our Republic was setup by the Founders guaranteed we'd, "...get through it."
Now...almost 6 years later, my feeling is that putting faith in a 'silver bullet' to ensure we maintain co-equal branch integrity, seems naive at best.
Not scared anymore for myself. Feel I'm privileged and lucky to be alive at this time in our nation's history.
But being concerned for my children and grandchildren is another matter. 'Perilous' seems appropriate.
-
The Internet has created a phenomenon we in marketing call "the long tail" which simply means that in any good or service, the medium has created wider choice to the consumer than ever before. This includes media choice. Early on, people assumed that this would be of benefit to lesser-known brands because the playing field would be level and these low market-share brands would be able to compete against the big boys. For example, it doesn't really cost an Internet retailer much more to offer 10 million songs on his website than one song; whereas, in traditional retailing, space is expensive and limited.
People argued that, thanks to the Internet, there would no longer be superstars like the Beatles. The audience would become too fragmented. And yet today we have superstars who are bigger than ever: Coldplay and Lady Gaga, for example.
In the media industry there are now literally millions of options available to consumers who want access to news. But what wasn't really calculated is the fact that instantaneous global communications also meant that people would arrive at a consensus sooner, and settle on a preferred brand, and there would be big advantages in creating a large community. For example, a retail site that offers thousand of reviews of its products has a big advantage over one that offers only a few.
This "long tail" phenomenon now means that while there are MORE choices than ever before, there is also a consolidation of preferred choices. Take search engines as an example. There are hundreds of them available. But Google gets two-thirds of the market, and if you take the top three (Google, Yahoo and Bing) they control over 95 percent of the market. The same has happened with blogs. The same has happened with other media.
My own opinion of the matter is that, so long as it is market-driven, this trend is neither good nor bad. So long as barriers to entry remain low, innovators will come along and break through. It is not that news consumers have no choice. We have plenty of choice. It is that consumers seem to be making the WRONG choice (ie, getting their news from Jon Stewart) that has us confounded.
I think it would be a bigger mistake to outlaw Jon Stewart, even though I recognize that the other side would outlaw Rush Limbaugh if they could.
-
I can't speak for Dan, but I will just say this. Intelligence has very little to do with it, in my opinion. It has more to do with a willingness to accept the reality of things, regardless of how extremely uncomfortable it may make one.
I couldn't agree more. Accepting the reality of what probably happened in the Ukraine isn't easy for those heavily invested in another outcome.
It is something that we all struggle with at times, it is a part of human nature. But it hinders us, prevents us from facing things as they are, and forces us to cling to that "which we want to be true." And on many of the topics that we discuss here, there is a very strong tendency for all of us to want to see, and hold on to, any "solution" that promises the least amount of pain and dislocation. But the rub is, that no matter how much we wish to cling to these hopes, reality keeps marching along.
Just my two cents!!
I can agree with most of what you so eloquently wrote. I think the issue Dan and I were arguing was at least pretty narrow. And it needn't have devolved into insults, direct or indirect. We all have our biases, and while I respect everyone's viewpoint, if I disagree with some of them, let's agree to not make it personal. In some areas, I'm going to be very much in the minority here, one being immigration reform. In this area, I will certainly try to refrain from questioning posters' values or thinking ability.
BTW, in the issue of the Ukraine v Russia, I have no favorite or hopes other than a hope it doesn't spread. I dislike both governments, but I also can't overlook the geopolitical goals of Mr. Putin. And as I've said a couple of other times, Dan could be correct in his conclusions.
And I guess we have ventured far enough off the topic of this thread.
-
I think it would be a bigger mistake to outlaw Jon Stewart, even though I recognize that the other side would outlaw Rush Limbaugh if they could.
Interesting piece Victor. There is always the possibility that too much information is just as bad as too little. But how many of us would move back in time (media-wise)?
One thing I do notice consistent with that last sentence of yours is that on many if not most of the leftwing forums, a lot of effort is put into going after the conservative media, whether FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh or other rightwing media types. But on the rightwing forums, most of what I see seems more focused on the political opposition and issues. But I could be biased.
-
I think the issue Dan and I were arguing was at least pretty narrow.
The issue I was arguing was foundational to the thread.
That is that control of western media results in mass herding of western societies toward specific attitudes and beliefs promoted by those who control media. These attitudes do no arise spontaneously with media only 'reporting'. No... media leads mass audiences by what is reported, by what is not reported and how those issues are 'discussed'. Thinking that there is 'choice' because different opinions are being expressed on the issues that are reported is simply foolish. Propaganda is much more sophisticated than that.
The relative strengths and weaknesses of the arguments surrounding the 'chosen events' being discussed are not the result of a free and open market of ideas. They are scripted and even the most conservative voices are inexplicably 'unprepared' at critical times on critical events. There is no reason to trust the western media more than any other.
The only way truth can be pursued is to consider all of the evidence being proposed by both sides, both by what is proposed and (more tellingly) by what is ignored.
-
The only way truth can be pursued is to consider all of the evidence being proposed by both sides, both by what is proposed and (more tellingly) by what is ignored.
:thumbsup:
-
Thinking that there is 'choice' because different opinions are being expressed on the issues that are reported is simply foolish.
Well, I'm just a foolish kinda guy...who believes that when differing versions of events and differing opinions are expressed, I do have choices. Whether anyone here believes it or not, we are not being controlled by these 6 mega corps. If we are willing to dig, the information is available. Back in the '50s and '60s we had no such choices. It's why it took many years for the media to catch up with the JFK WH abuses, while Clinton was quickly outed.
The media will always have its biases in both reporting and opinions. But they are hardly together in some conspiratorial scheme. But just as you've drawn a lot of conclusions on a variety of issues including your belief that most Americans don't want a comprehensive immigration law, so too have the rest of us. We don't draw them from being spoon fed by the media, unless we choose to. Point is, the information is out there, whereas for most of our history it wasn't.
-
The issue I was arguing was foundational to the thread.
That is that control of western media results in mass herding of western societies toward specific attitudes and beliefs promoted by those who control media. These attitudes do no arise spontaneously with media only 'reporting'. No... media leads mass audiences by what is reported, by what is not reported and how those issues are 'discussed'. Thinking that there is 'choice' because different opinions are being expressed on the issues that are reported is simply foolish. Propaganda is much more sophisticated than that.
The relative strengths and weaknesses of the arguments surrounding the 'chosen events' being discussed are not the result of a free and open market of ideas. They are scripted and even the most conservative voices are inexplicably 'unprepared' at critical times on critical events. There is no reason to trust the western media more than any other.
The only way truth can be pursued is to consider all of the evidence being proposed by both sides, both by what is proposed and (more tellingly) by what is ignored.
Who precisely are these master propagandists ("those who control media")?
And precisely what is their motivation?
I'll slip in my own opinion, which is these forces are motivated by $dollars and market share, and not political agendas.
And I'll go further, and posit that conservatism as a belief system will only grow, if it takes heed of "marketing" and "better images" and takes on positions which are popular with citizen voters.
-
Well, I'm just a foolish kinda guy...who believes that when differing versions of events and differing opinions are expressed, I do have choices. Whether anyone here believes it or not, we are not being controlled by these 6 mega corps. If we are willing to dig, the information is available. Back in the '50s and '60s we had no such choices. It's why it took many years for the media to catch up with the JFK WH abuses, while Clinton was quickly outed.
The media will always have its biases in both reporting and opinions. But they are hardly together in some conspiratorial scheme. But just as you've drawn a lot of conclusions on a variety of issues including your belief that most Americans don't want a comprehensive immigration law, so too have the rest of us. We don't draw them from being spoon fed by the media, unless we choose to. Point is, the information is out there, whereas for most of our history it wasn't.
Again, it is not about choosing between the different set of opinions that the 'group of 6' gives you to choose from. It is about recognizing that:
That is that control of western media results in mass herding of western societies toward specific attitudes and beliefs promoted by those who control media. These attitudes do no arise spontaneously with media only 'reporting'. No... media leads mass audiences by what is reported, by what is not reported and how those issues are 'discussed'. Thinking that there is 'choice' because different opinions are being expressed on the issues that are reported is simply foolish. Propaganda is much more sophisticated than that.
-
Still waiting to learn WHO is doing the "mass herding" and towards what "END?"
-
I find the conversation which has taken place on this thread VERY interesting indeed and wish to throw something else that I don't think has been previously mentioned here into the mix.
If the media markets truly are competitive in nature how is it that many of the players have been hemorraging huge piles of money for ages yet here they still are. Who is propping them up and more importantly WHY are they propping them up?
-
Still waiting to learn WHO is doing the "mass herding" and towards what "END?"
An elite class of people that owns and controls everything, and is continuing to take steps towards owning and controlling even more. The same people responsible for the polarization of politics. I'm pretty sure I know what Dan thinks about this, but I personally think what all these elites have in common goes beyond their racial background.
-
I find the conversation which has taken place on this thread VERY interesting indeed and wish to throw something else that I don't think has been previously mentioned here into the mix.
If the media markets truly are competitive in nature how is it that many of the players have been hemorraging huge piles of money for ages yet here they still are. Who is propping them up and more importantly WHY are they propping them up?
If I understand the question, yes the print media is certainly hemorrhaging. Earlier in our history the print media was the only source, and even then the various publications were very outwardly biased politically. Then when TV became more and more popular it did have to compete although not seriously with the evening news from the big three. But today it's lost its influence almost entirely and serves only to repeat what has been on the internet sometimes for days. And the evening news is competing with the 24/7 cable news.
But there is no western media cabal that is hiding major stories from the masses for any kind of political or other such purposes. Are they biased? You bet. Do most favor Democrats? Absolutely. Do they tell the whole story on anything? Hardly. But on any issue I can easily get differing sides of everything from the border "crisis" to energy issues to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether anyone believes it or not, ABC, CBS and NBC are competitors as far as the news goes. They are politically biased, but they aren't the only games in town today, and "red meat" is still going to attract almost any reporter.
Don't anyone believe that you will get any more unbiased reporting from Russia Today or Al Jazeera. You will frequently get other sides of an issue, but the reporting will be at least as biased as the western media's, and usually much more so. If I look at the daily KCNA news reports I will certainly get a different perspective of North Korea, but that won't change my opinions of that country or its leaders.
-
If I understand the question, yes the print media is certainly hemorrhaging. Earlier in our history the print media was the only source, and even then the various publications were very outwardly biased politically. Then when TV became more and more popular it did have to compete although not seriously with the evening news from the big three. But today it's lost its influence almost entirely and serves only to repeat what has been on the internet sometimes for days. And the evening news is competing with the 24/7 cable news.
But there is no western media cabal that is hiding major stories from the masses for any kind of political or other such purposes. Are they biased? You bet. Do most favor Democrats? Absolutely. Do they tell the whole story on anything? Hardly. But on any issue I can easily get differing sides of everything from the border "crisis" to energy issues to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether anyone believes it or not, ABC, CBS and NBC are competitors as far as the news goes. They are politically biased, but they aren't the only games in town today, and "red meat" is still going to attract almost any reporter.
Don't anyone believe that you will get any more unbiased reporting from Russia Today or Al Jazeera. You will frequently get other sides of an issue, but the reporting will be at least as biased as the western media's, and usually much more so. If I look at the daily KCNA news reports I will certainly get a different perspective of North Korea, but that won't change my opinions of that country or its leaders.
Most people don't make a habit of watching a bunch of news from a network that leans in a different direction, so most people don't have the opportunity to realize what they are not being told.
-
I find the conversation which has taken place on this thread VERY interesting indeed and wish to throw something else that I don't think has been previously mentioned here into the mix.
If the media markets truly are competitive in nature how is it that many of the players have been hemorraging huge piles of money for ages yet here they still are. Who is propping them up and more importantly WHY are they propping them up?
Mostly, it's other subsidiaries of the same companies that provide the profits. NBC, for instance, was little more than an arm for RCA and later General Electric for decades, allowing them to sell their hardware. Disney has its theatrical film division. National Amusements, which owns CBS AND Viacom, runs a movie theater chain.
From a combination of resale/syndication rights to their products, along with profits from other companies, the major networks can run at a (significant) loss in and of themselves.
-
Most people don't make a habit of watching a bunch of news from a network that leans in a different direction, so most people don't have the opportunity to realize what they are not being told.
Then that's their problem. Doesn't ratify the theory that the Big 6 (the western media) are all controlling the news to keep the masses in the dark.
-
Most people don't make a habit of watching a bunch of news from a network that leans in a different direction, so most people don't have the opportunity to realize what they are not being told.
I agree with MAC: the problem lies with those who are lazy and choose to passively consume what they're fed - as the Founders held, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and these folk aren't paying the bill - and the fact of their laziness says nothing about how the so-called "Big 6" operate.
Furthermore, I find it rather odd that there is this presumption that having just 6 separately owned media sources is somehow evidence of a cabal, a cartel, or a conspiracy. After all, there are really only 7 separately owned auto manufacturers whose products one can purchase in the US: Ford, GM, Chrysler (really should be called Fiat by now), Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota, and Honda - there are some others, e.g., Mitsubishi, but they have very little market share (they're sort of the equivalent of nonconventional, online info sources).
Since there are only 7, are we to conclude that this is evidence of collusion amongst them to restrict the cars that Americans can buy? Puh-leez. And to see why it's absurd to blame the small number of media outlet owners for the fact that many individuals only get their news from one source and so have an unbalanced view - which carries with it the necessary implication that those sources should be forced by government diktat to provide "balanced" programming (assuming one can define "balanced") - consider the number of people who have strong brand loyalty and only buy, say, Fords, without ever considering any of the other manufacturers. It's not unreasonable to say that when you're shopping for a new car you should look at everything that's available - compare and contrast and go with the best, regardless of brand - but the fact is that many don't.
If someone like that ends up buying a lemon because they didn't consider all the alternatives - say they buy a GM only to discover later on that the car they bought has a tendency to burn out the tranny early, a fact that they would have learned about if they'd done their research - whose fault is that? Is it the fault of the auto manufacturers because there are only 7 of them and because the person in question bought based on brand loyalty and not on research?
I don't think so. If someone who buys a car solely because of brand loyalty buys a known lemon, that's his/her fault; just so, if someone gets an unbalanced view of the world solely because he/she chooses to watch only one outlet, that's his/her fault, not the fault of the media industry as a whole.
-
An elite class of people that owns and controls everything, and is continuing to take steps towards owning and controlling even more. The same people responsible for the polarization of politics. I'm pretty sure I know what Dan thinks about this, but I personally think what all these elites have in common goes beyond their racial background.
with all due respect, do you grasp just how trite and cliched that is? First - and on a tangent - if these people already own and control everything, then there's no point in them taking steps to own and control even more, is there?
Second, the belief that there is some shadowy group of elites out "there" who own a lot and are conspiring to own everything else is one of the oldest conspiracy theories in the world; frequently, albeit not in your case, there is a racial aspect to it as well - for example, in Europe it is frequently the Jews who are assigned the role of the shadowy elite. It was just as obnoxious when the Nazis did it as it is when the know-nothings in the various Occupy groups do the same thing with the putative 1%.
Where is the evidence of this shadowy elite and the supposed cabal/conspiracy? Is it merely that there are only 6 separate news outlets? Then what to make of the computer industry, where there are only 2 - that's 2 - separate cpu makers (technically only Intel is a maker, AMD spun off its fabrication plants and is itself now just a design shop). If there are only 2 cpu makers in the world, then surely that must be evidence of a cabal/conspiracy to force everyone to use precisely the same computer, right? The answer to that ought to be self-evident.
-
I find the conversation which has taken place on this thread VERY interesting indeed and wish to throw something else that I don't think has been previously mentioned here into the mix.
If the media markets truly are competitive in nature how is it that many of the players have been hemorraging huge piles of money for ages yet here they still are. Who is propping them up and more importantly WHY are they propping them up?
The fact that many of the players are hemorrhaging money is, in fact, evidence that the media markets are competitive in nature; were they not, then the players would be able to manipulate the markets so that none suffered any losses.
-
Then that's their problem. Doesn't ratify the theory that the Big 6 (the western media) are all controlling the news to keep the masses in the dark.
Uh no! Not at all! It is a HUGE problem for us in fact!
-
Uh no! Not at all! It is a HUGE problem for us in fact!
Of course it is, which is why those of us who care have to do what we can to reach out to everyone else. However, the fault/blame for the issue lies with those who get news from only one source, not from the fact that there are only 6 separately-owned news outlets.
-
Of course it is, which is why those of us who care have to do what we can to reach out to everyone else. However, the fault/blame for the issue lies with those who get news from only one source, not from the fact that there are only 6 separately-owned news outlets.
I agree with the first part of what you said and STRONGLY disagree with the last part. The fact that there are only 6 separately owned news outlets is a HUGE problem in and of itself!
-
Where is the evidence of this shadowy elite and the supposed cabal/conspiracy? Is it merely that there are only 6 separate news outlets? Then what to make of the computer industry, where there are only 2 - that's 2 - separate cpu makers (technically only Intel is a maker, AMD spun off its fabrication plants and is itself now just a design shop). If there are only 2 cpu makers in the world, then surely that must be evidence of a cabal/conspiracy to force everyone to use precisely the same computer, right? The answer to that ought to be self-evident.
For me there is a lot more to it than the news corporations, but I'm not really comfortable getting into it here because in the end people like you will just come to the conclusion that I am a nutty conspiracy theorist. I believe there is evidence all around us, but when it comes to people that have already decided they won't believe it it becomes kind of pointless to talk about, so I usually don't. The polarization of politics is a big one for me, because polarization means there is a common goal somewhere.
-
I agree with the first part of what you said and STRONGLY disagree with the last part. The fact that there are only 6 separately owned news outlets is a HUGE problem in and of itself!
As Oceander stated, the same consolidation of businesses has occurred in autos, energy, computers, retail, etc.
So do you believe a case for a break up could be made in court, such as the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911, using the Sherman Act?
I don't, and I don't think a case could be made that they offer just one opinion, or are biased in the same way, either.
I happen to think most of these types of discussions stem from conservatism's failure to sell and resell itself, with skilled communicators and a compelling message.
-
For me there is a lot more to it than the news corporations, but I'm not really comfortable getting into it here because in the end people like you will just come to the conclusion that I am a nutty conspiracy theorist. I believe there is evidence all around us, but when it comes to people that have already decided they won't believe it it becomes kind of pointless to talk about, so I usually don't. The polarization of politics is a big one for me, because polarization means there is a common goal somewhere.
I don't follow that last one at all. Polarization generally comes from changes in our social attitudes which lead us into political turmoil. The mere fact of that indicates that people are getting their news and reaching conclusions from multiple sources. If the Big 6 are somehow controlling all of that, there would be no polarization which indicates multiple opposing sides. And they are openly in opposition. In countries such of NK and Cuba, the media is truly controlled.
None of this means truth will out, but in politics and social values, what is truth? It's for each of us to decide for ourselves, and the media we spend time with will more than likely just ratify our "truths" not create them.
-
I don't know. Now that I think about it Myst and R4 seem kind of "shadowy" to me. And who but an elitist would own a bull dog?
-
It looks to me like people are forgetting that the title of this thread is that 6 corps. control 90% of the media. Not 100% of it. That other 10% is available to everyone, and I think there is some diversity of thought there. We aren't forced to read/watch the 90%, so it's about people's choices, not about what the media companies are doing.
Why have we become a nation of sheeple who follow blindly what the cutest or most charismatic of the public figures, be it a politician or celebrity, says?
-
As Oceander stated, the same consolidation of businesses has occurred in autos, energy, computers, retail, etc.
So do you believe a case for a break up could be made in court, such as the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911, using the Sherman Act?
I don't, and I don't think a case could be made that they offer just one opinion, or are biased in the same way, either.
I happen to think most of these types of discussions stem from conservatism's failure to sell and resell itself, with skilled communicators and a compelling message.
I think there's something more to be said of why conservatism cannot just “sell and resell itself.” More on that another time.
But on the first point: I might argue that there are actually more choices—and not just illusory ones—than there were in decades past. Ever since the federal government started giving out radio licenses in the 1920s there have always been a few companies that were able to shoehorn in at the ground level, build their foundations, and effectively shut out newer competitors, since there was always a limited number of spots on the broadcast bands to use. But networks have formed.
Let's start with radio: In 1927, there were two networks: NBC and CBS. Even though they didn't own their entire networks, pretty much any station in America had to affiliate with one of the two.
In World War II, the FCC ordered NBC to break up. ABC was born. Also rising was the Mutual network, which was effectively a coalition of independent stations.
Then in the 1950s, attention shifted away from drama and toward music. First, you had top 40. Yes, most of them stuck to a national chart—but at the time, those charts were based on what people were buying, what people were listening to in jukeboxes, etc. Many even developed their local charts. Then came all-news and the light instrumental “beautiful music/easy listening” for those stations that couldn't compete doing top 40.
FM radio came along, and competitors flocked to rock. A few years later, after top 40 had been around enough to build a back catalog, oldies showed up. The FCC opened up more FM licenses around 1990, and country became a legitimate choice outside the South.
Now let's consider television.
In the 1950s, you had a TV band restricted to twelve channels, and because of overlapping markets it was only three (or less) to any given city. You had three networks that controlled EVERYTHING on TV. Then in the 1960s they made TVs include UHF, which wasn't as easy to broadcast with, but it still allowed for independent stations to thrive and compete. In the '70s, the FCC cut out a hole in every TV station's schedule for non-network programs to allow syndicators to compete. (That was eliminated in the 90s, but the hole is still there.) Fox came in the 1980s, cable TV exploded onto the scene in the same decade, and low-power has some presence in the cities.
Then, of course, came the Internet.
Now, is it a little discouraging that with 200 channels on your cable or satellite lineup, 10 companies own almost all of them? Sure. But that's still a lot more than the three companies that controlled your TV and radio back in the 1950s.
-
I don't know. Now that I think about it Myst and R4 seem kind of "shadowy" to me. And who but an elitist would own a bull dog?
Perzactly!
-
Now, is it a little discouraging that with 200 channels on your cable or satellite lineup, 10 companies own almost all of them? Sure. But that's still a lot more than the three companies that controlled your TV and radio back in the 1950s.
Very good background Jmy. Just as in the movies where the independents are making more and more dents in the market, arguably still run by the Big 6. But just as with the news media, the big guys are in competition with each other. Your main point though that there are more choices today than at any time previously is true.
-
It looks to me like people are forgetting that the title of this thread is that 6 corps. control 90% of the media. Not 100% of it. That other 10% is available to everyone, and I think there is some diversity of thought there. We aren't forced to read/watch the 90%, so it's about people's choices, not about what the media companies are doing.
Why have we become a nation of sheeple who follow blindly what the cutest or most charismatic of the public figures, be it a politician or celebrity, says?
The problem is that a majority of people do get their news from these behemoths and then continue to vote for a rigged system that does nothing but make things worse. It never even occurs to most that what they're reading and listening to could be information carefully tailored to control the flow of thought. There are many different ways to tell the truth and report the news, and how they do it can influence what conclusions many people come to. Never turn your mind off to the possibility that everything around you is bullshit.
-
The problem is that a majority of people do get their news from these behemoths and then continue to vote for a rigged system that continues to do nothing but make things worse. It never even occurs to most that what they're reading and listening to could be information carefully tailored to control the flow of thought. There are many different ways to tell the truth and report the news, and how they do it can influence what conclusions many people come to. Never turn your mind off to the possibility that everything around you is bullshit.
Yes, but I get back to the point that it isn't the lack of information sources that's the problem. It's the fact that so many people will just go along with what the most popular celeb or news source says. Why is that? I know people who think the NYslimes is a bible. And that Rachel Maddow is a news source. You could break up all of those major media companies, and these people would still use the same sources they always have.
It's the mind set of the readers, not the propaganda in the "news" sources that's the problem. We have to find a way to educate more people, and not just go along with progressive solution methods which involve shutting down the sources we don't agree with.
-
Why is that?
It's easier to let somebody else do your thinking for you.
-
It's easier to let somebody else do your thinking for you.
OK. But it's not fair to blame the people who do the thinking. The fault lies with the people who refuse to do their own.
-
The problem is that a majority of people do get their news from these behemoths and then continue to vote for a rigged system that does nothing but make things worse. It never even occurs to most that what they're reading and listening to could be information carefully tailored to control the flow of thought. There are many different ways to tell the truth and report the news, and how they do it can influence what conclusions many people come to. Never turn your mind off to the possibility that everything around you is bullshit.
Putting aside all of the assumptions, many erroneous, in your statement, what do you propose to do? Use the government to enforce "diversity" of view on these "behemoths"?
Quite honestly, your problem is that you're preaching to the choir - nobody here passively absorbs news from a single outlet - if this problem really gets at you, you'd be out there trying to waken people from their stupor.
-
OK. But it's not fair to blame the people who do the thinking. The fault lies with the people who refuse to do their own.
A lot of people don't have the time or energy to devote to it, or they're just not intelligent enough to think critically. I think it is completely fair to blame the people that are taking advantage of the naivete/ignorance of other people.
-
what do you propose to do?
I'm not entirely sure what the solution is. I'm hoping that once more people stop taking their medicine somebody more intelligent than myself can come up with a good answer to that question.
-
A lot of people don't have the time or energy to devote to it, or they're just not intelligent enough to think critically. I think it is completely fair to blame the people that are taking advantage of the naivete/ignorance of other people.
It's a short leap from those who believe in their critical thinking skills to embracing conspiracy theories, doing so because the media is lying to us and controlling our inputs. On this forum and its predecessors I've had the fun of debating the "moon landing fraud", the alleged North American Union, several 9/11 insider theories, the Obama birth certificate/natural born citizen issue, the Obama detention and reeducation camp plans, the NDAA which allegedly gave the president unlimited martial law authority, and a number of others, including fake congressional bills that circulate the email community. And most of those folks believe they're critical thinkers because they can think past the news.
But using the analogy of the blind squirrel, there may well have been a second shooter... :pondering:
-
Now, is it a little discouraging that with 200 channels on your cable or satellite lineup, 10 companies own almost all of them? Sure. But that's still a lot more than the three companies that controlled your TV and radio back in the 1950s.
And when you consider that the three all came from the same liberally biased POV, the options now are even more significantly greater.
Even though ABC, CBS, and NBC newscasters had at least the pretense of patriotism and reason, they were still all left-leaning.
I agree jmy. Our options are greater for accurate news than they were in the 1950's.
What has changed, however, is that the entertainment industry (i.e. Hollywood) is now presenting leftist news as entertainment. Movies, TV shows, late night TV all present a leftist POV. In the 1950's, many movie stars were still patriots, and even TV shows led by liberals (e.g. Andy Griffith) presented conservative values.
Younger people, who never viewed TV or movies when they still had values tend to lean far left. They are propagandized by "entertainment."
-
Excellent point, music lady. One with which I agree.