Big Media // Current TV

‘Disney World’ of democracy - Big money and big media have coupled to create - Big Money, Big Media, Big Trouble

Big Money, Big Media, Big Trouble Big money and big media have coupled to create a... more

dadevil
added this
1 year ago
|
1 comment

Will 'Get What You Want' Leave A Cultural Gap?

Get what you want, when you want it. That's the phrase that has dominated the... more

atomiclegion
added this
3 years ago
|
4 comments

Dan Rather On Saving Journalism

Dan Rather talks about how junk news is destroying journalism and why we must save the... more

Future_America
added this
4 years ago
|
0 comments

Worst news stories of Campaign 2008

MSNBC counts down the top 10 worst news stories from Campaign 2008 -- highlighting how... more

Future_America
added this
4 years ago
|
0 comments

Your being lied to....pt.3

3. this brings me to the 'firewall;' the vanguard of the western Propaganda system. this is much less powerful, (and necessary), in the US than in Western Europe or the British Crown, but it is the very thing that keeps most intelligent people, particularly in academia, engaged in the two-party democratic process and away from revolutionary, or truly democratic, forces. by this I am referring to the BBC, NPR, PBS, CBC, certain portions of the NYT, WP, the Globe, and other such surces. These publicly funded semi-governmental news sources with very long leashes. they can do and say essentially whatever they want, provided they follow one rule: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." by this i mean, these media sources, which, to be fair, are still very constrained by the distorted political discourse in these country which make the truth seem like a wacko liberal conspiracy theory, are allowed free range so long as they don't actually make the assertion that the media is part of a controlled system intended to manipulate public opinion. and since only a very small percentage of the population actually consumes this stuff, it has little significant impact.

So there it is. now I'm sure you are wondering 'how does this all work, how can journalists be controlled, how could this 'secret' be kept,' and of course i wouldn't say any of this stuff unless i knew the answer, or at least had a plausible answer that makes more sense, given the facts, than any alternative. but that's a very long discussion, and much less fun for me to write. if you express interest in this stuff, and hopefully are committed to spreading the word or doing something about it (pending a satisfactory explanation for how it all works), i'll devote more time to it.

I've realized recently that posting crap to people on facebook has little to no impact, and that i need to just devote the time and explain stuff to people, and so i'm happy to explain any of this to anyone who, of course, has a good heart, is intelligent, is not weak, and is passionate. and so know that i am doing this not be an intellectual and assert my opinion (which actually is a force that plays a major role in mechanics of the media), which is something i totally detest. i know that you probably get a great deal of joy from reading NYT, watching MSNBC, following the races, and all of that good stuff; but just always be aware of what they are trying to do; and that they are damn good at doing it (I watch all that stuff too, and it was very useful for me to do this during my 'trying on hats' period where I was sort of comparing the above world-view with the righteous-journalist myth).

PART 1:
http://current.com/items/89441813_you_are_being_lied_to_pt_1

PART 2:
http://current.com/items/89441824_your_being_lied_to_pt_2
3. this brings me to the 'firewall;' the vanguard of the western Propaganda... more

gveStudios
added this
4 years ago
|
15 comments

Your Being Lied to....pt.2

The opposing force, of course, is 'the truth.' positive propaganda from Germany and the USSR in the mid 20th century did not work (Positive meaning trying to instill and convince people of things, rather than merely hiding the truth from them). it didn't work because people knew it was propaganda, and ignored it (do you believe everything Sean Hannity tells you?...). and so it is an absolutely necessary prerequisite for any functioning of the American Propaganda System, that the people do are not aware that they are being manipulated. that's why this whole myth of the righteous journalist whose just out there trying to find the truth needs to be constantly reiterated to the public.

The result is a layering effect in the media. you have Fox News and talk radio, a relatively new phenomenon, with no intent of bringing 'moderates' or 'liberals' into the 'conservative' world view, but rather in keeping the 'conservatives' 'conservative,' radicalizing them, pumping them with overt lies and distortion, inciting hatred against 'the other,' and making them very, very afraid. the next layer is everything ranging from USA Today (which is about as informative as a placemat from Denny's), to CNN, to (parts of) NYT, MSNBC, and the Washington Post. this is the meat and potatoes of the media. this reaches the vast majority of the 'thinking' public and, to varying degrees, uses the previously discussed strategies to control and alter public opinion......

2. you then have, in continuance of this discussion on the 'layering' of the media, Distraction, the subsidiary effect. The power of this was first discovered by the Italian Fascists, and later implemented by the US in Japan during post-war occupation. Italy did not make the same mistake as Germany and the USSR with positive propaganda. instead they just set up a government agency to decide what films would and wouldn't get made. They had lots of romantic films, matador movies, fluff comedies, historical peices with some covert propaganda; think 300, a few 'action' type movies ( some of the same basic genres we have today, though we don't have many matador movies anymore).

so when you wonder why most of the movies we have, and even main-stream music for that matter, are total crap, you have to recognize the powerful social transformative potential of films and music and the incentives for those who wish to resist such changes. next time you hear about Britney spears, Paris Hilton, and the like (other than in McCain TV ads), and someone tries to tell you that 'that's what the people want' just ask yourself 'what came first, the ox or the mule,' and think from a perspective where you weigh the incentives of the powerful people who, with extreme attention to detail, design this stuff.

PART 3:
http://current.com/items/89441842_your_being_lied_to_pt_3
The opposing force, of course, is 'the truth.' positive propaganda from... more

gveStudios
added this
4 years ago
|
11 comments

You are being lied to.....pt.1

from a college professor smarter than all of us...

I just want to get through to some people who seem like they might be capable of comprehending the degree to which 'the political reality' , as we know and learn it, is a total facade (e.x. people who might have 'Noam Chomsky' somewhere on their FB profile). that it has been developed, and is continuously developed, to distract passionate and decent people, capable of critical thinking, from understanding what is actually happening and trying to do something about it. (its the media!)

I can back all of this up if you'd like, and so rather than send links that i don't think anybody ever really watches unless i sit them down and watch it with them, I'll just explain how the media operates. there's really 1. two major forces, 2. one subsidiary force, 3. and a firewall.

1. the two primary forces; the pendulum of the American (and UK/Western European) propaganda system are 1. intentional regulation and manipulation of public opinion through a. distortion b. concision (i.e. controlling, restraining debate into such a format that full intellectual discourse is impossible [I don't know if you saw it, but the FOXNEWS interview of Ron Paul last January, where they asked him for 'one word responses' to things like Iraq, Main Stream Media, etc. is an extreme example]) c. asserting the opposite (e.x. the 'liberal media' myth, which is just an assertion of the exact opposite of what decades of academic research has demonstrated; demonstrating the power of the media)

d. promoting incomplete/distorted argumentative paradigms, whereby alternative perspectives, and the broader political reality, are mitigated (think of crossfire. or, in a much larger sense, the concept of 'liberal' and 'conservative' that have emerged not from academic discourse but from the media echo-chamber. liberal actually means someone who supports total free-market Smithsonian 'government', while conservative is a minimalist sort of protestant/environmentalist world-view where the growth of capitalism and economic expansion is seen as subordinate to some larger, natural/spiritual/clandestine process. the media has redefined these terms as conservative meaning blindly religious people who kowtow to authority and tradition, are incapable or afraid of critical thinking, and, as Steven Colbert lampoons, 'think with their gut'; (George Orwell would, no doubt, be proud) . liberal has been redefined anti-American, anti-religious, moral relativist, weak, effeminate, incompetent, loud/orderless, and [somehow] 'elitist.' this was developed through the fascistic paradigm from Italy, Germany, Spain, and the South American Cone, and brought to the US; whereby one side is seen as nationalistic strong, and typical (white, christian, 'archetypal physical form,' heterosexual, strong, subordinate, etc.), the other side seen as the quintessential 'other' (weak, anti-state/country, effeminate, gayish, minority, anti-religious, open-minded). children are taught to fear this side so most become 'conservative' (between 35 and 50% of Americans consider themselves 'conservative'), while the smart people eventually come to their senses and support this marginally better group, but are restrained by the brainwashed folks on the other side and their own fear of going too far (i'll get to that part later). this was really developed for the US in the 70''s and beyond, as it was necessary to redefine the political spectrum so that the anti-war movement, this powerful revolutionary force, would be behind a political party rather than against Johnson and the democrats and without a clear (and controllable) alternative; they obviously weren't going for Goldwater the heartless, Wallace the racist, or Nixon the 'Nixon')

PART 2:
http://current.com/items/89441824_your_being_lied_to_pt_2
from a college professor smarter than all of us... I just want to get through to... more

gveStudios
added this
4 years ago
|
8 comments

Media Bias and the Free Press

Dan Rather and others talk about media bias. This is a preview of the Free Press at... more

Future_America
added this
4 years ago
|
1 comment

Dear media, do your job!

Are America's news media too chicken to ask the tough questions?

Future_America
added this
4 years ago
|
24 comments

Junk News Is Making Democracy Sick

Dan Rather talks about how Americans are starving for real news.

Future_America
added this
4 years ago
|
1 comment

ECONOMISTS AGAINST BAILOUT

* FAIRNESS, AMBIGUITY & LONG TERM EFFECTS NOT ADDRESSED * One of the saddest... more

WhiteNoise
added this
4 years ago
|
19 comments

PENTAGON SCORES A BIGGER RIP-OFF THAN BAILOUT

A FEW THOUGHTS ABOUT THE 1000 POUNDS GORILLA, BEAR OR GODZILLA STOMPING THROUGH CONGRESS, SENATE & DEMOCRACY... EVERYONE IGNORES IT SO ELEQUANTLY !

With All Eyes on the Bailout, House Passes Trillion-Dollar Defense Bill

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$SHOCKING
IT'S EMPIRE BUILDING, NOT DEFENSE SPENDING ! http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/100524/

The legislation came together in a remarkably secret process that concentrated decision-making power in the hands of a few lawmakers.

In keeping with the tradition of recent years, Bush held a gun to his own head and threatened to pull the trigger if his demands weren't met. According to the AP ;To earn President Bush's signature rather than a veto, House and Senate negotiators dropped several provisions he opposed. They include a ban on private interrogators in U.S. military detention facilities and what would have amounted to congressional veto power over a security pact with Iraq.

ALSO...

THE WAR ECONOMY
http://pr.thinkprogress.org/

Congress and the administration are embroiled in contentious talks over on the details of a $700 billion infusion into the financial system, intended to restore liquidity and maintain the flow of credit. But the talks stalled yesterday. "It was an implosion that spilled out from behind closed doors into public view in a way rarely seen in Washington," the New York Times observed. Tonight, Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ) are scheduled to debate foreign policy matters in Oxford, MS. While the subject matter seems disconnected from the situation in financial markets, prescient economists predicted this fall-out from the Iraq war long ago. In 2002, Gerd Hausler, director of international capital markets at the IMF, said that "a serious conflict with Iraq would not be a very healthy development; for the financial markets. Robert Shapiro, undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration stated, If the [Iraq] conflict wears on or, worse, spreads, the economic consequences become very serious." The debt was $5.7 trillion when Bush took office; it will be $10.3 trillion by the time he leaves. While Congress hesitates to appropriate $700 billion for the financial crisis, the administration still is pouring $12 billion a month into Iraq, also raising the question of how the Iraq war funds could be spent better at home.

IRAQ RECESSION?: A significant reason for the current $9.6 trillion federal debt has been the Iraq war, which the U.S. largely financed through borrowing. This week, President Bush said that the crisis began after "a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad because our country is an attractive and secure place to do business," which led to easy credit and to the housing bust. But the problem isn't simply one of excessive foreign investment because of businesses. "It's that the U.S. had to borrow money from foreign nations at an alarming rate, after it dug itself into debt paying for the Iraq War while cutting taxes," The Wonk Room observed. Thus, the United States had to turn to investment from abroad for financing. This, as well as lax regulation and oversight of Wall Street contributed to the credit troubles. Currently, 45 percent of Treasury securities are owned by foreign nations, with the most owned by China and Japan. Other nations owned less than 20 percent of these securities as recently as 1994. Bush left out of his assessment the fact that much of the foreign investment went to finance a war and his tax cuts.A FEW THOUGHTS ABOUT THE 1000 POUNDS GORILLA, BEAR OR GODZILLA STOMPING THROUGH... more