The major outlets are more than conduits. The interests now own the outlet for the most part.
ABC is run by Disney/ESPN. NBC by Comcast. CBS is owned by Westinghouse. CNN by Turner enterprises. Fox by the GOP.
Christian media, western liberal, the old smoke filled room society, southern liberal, and the conservative party respectively.
There has always been owners, but journalistic integrity was more or less there. You see a guy like Greenwald right now, whom you might agree or not, but he's basically an outcast.
At this point though, everything has become so politicized, it's kinda surreal. It used to be that you could go to the BBC or Der Spiegel or El Mundo and get some views from the outside world, but these days it's extremely difficult to get a read from those places.
This is a worthwhile read though, IMO:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1131294.html
Herman and Chomsky made a pretty good case the American media was in the 1980s too.
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing.../dp/0375714499
Official Red Cross stats put the real number around 150,000 died in the POW/work camps.
arguendo, is that not a pogrom of shocking magnitude?
OK Goebbels
speaking of Goebbels
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...hine?CMP=fb_gu
In the same way they seek other venues that are main stream, like eating at McDonald's. It's easy, quick and cheap. When a person turns on their TV to watch news, they can get several CNN channels and perhaps a couple Fox channels, and folks are still accustomed to that one person, the news anchor, telling them what's going on. During the Iraq war (Desert Storm), it began to be theater. It probably started before that but I didn't keep up with it because I was in the military. Then you had Geraldo ing Rivera embedded during Iraqi Freedom. Dude was a Jerry Springer type who created sensationalism through reality TV stunts. It went downhill from that period. Now it's just a huge ing show.
People want to live out their lives insulated from the reality of the rest of the world. They want filtered news, which is why you have things like "E" and you are able to pick your narrative for your life. If you fundamentally believe in conservatism, you might pick Fox. If you believe in liberalism, whether fad or not, you might pick any other news station. They might all report the same event, but they present "news" like a series of opinion pieces. Rarely will you see a list of simple facts not laced with innuendo and "what if" type scenarios that all get conflated into an actual discussion, as if they really happened.I read not that long ago a somewhat provoking analysis that the reason there's a free/ad model for news is basically because they're subsidized by being the direct conduits for certain corporations/interests. And it's an analysis that makes a lot of sense to me in retrospect.
The truth is the population doesn't need to know most of the that gets reported, but they do have a right to know. The onus is on the reader to gather facts if they truly want to be informed but media moguls know the majority of them will take the first line of text as truth and run with it. They didn't create that condition, they just capitalize on it. As a news source who leans so heavily on cons utional rights, they have a responsibility they are not living up to when they intentionally ignore truth just to push a narrative. Same is true for all sides and it's not just in media.Like I said before, the actual news should be the star, not the newscasters or the medium they come through. It's unfortunate that what appears in high demand right now is more op-eds than actual news. It's like a good portion of consumers want somebody else to think for them, I don't really get it.
You know it was bull right and the Jews in Hollywood made it all up so any time Israel did something really bad Jews could say but but muh Holocaust goyim and Jews in the West could use it to profit off of victim hood.
It wasn't even called the Holocaust until the 70s
Don't believe me? Go to a library and find an old 50-60s encyclopedia look up the Holocaust, you won't find it in there
Great find, DO.You know it was bull right and the Jews in Hollywood made it all up so any time Israel did something really bad Jews could say but but muh Holocaust goyim and Jews in the West could use it to profit off of victim hood.
[[[It wasn't even called the Holocaust until the 70s
Don't believe me? Go to a library and find an old 50-60s encyclopedia look up the Holocaust, you won't find it in there]]]
LOL holocaust deniers. We didn't go to the moon either and JFK was shot from the grassy knoll?You know it was bull right and the Jews in Hollywood made it all up so any time Israel did something really bad Jews could say but but muh Holocaust goyim and Jews in the West could use it to profit off of victim hood.
It wasn't even called the Holocaust until the 70s
Don't believe me? Go to a library and find an old 50-60s encyclopedia look up the Holocaust, you won't find it in there
DO has a find there, bum. Show me [Holocaust] before the '70's.
Chop/chop.
at this point we should just be happy Trump acknowledged Holocaust victims at all. Trump's natural progression would have been to go full Culburn and deny it happened or question the numbers. Would anybody really be shocked if Trump had tweeted some about "Holocaust victim numbers don't add up! Hitler a victim of FAKE NEWS! Sad"
I would have been shocked, but only because it would be a slap in the face to one of his core cons uents - the evangelical Christian.
Shoulda known this mother whoring Italian nigger would show up here. Somebody fetch me my knife, I'm going to send this wop into the grave next to Mussolini.
C'mon, mono, do another talk show and we'll hash it all out.
Pack a lunch, BB. You're gonna be a while. I ain't no easy clean.
Bend over. I'll pack your lunch.
Show me "world War 1" before world War 2 started.
You won't, it was called the great War. Labels like this are meaningless. Before the 1930's, "the great depression" referred to what is now called "the panic of 1873"
Until you apologize for calling me a head we'll not converse.
ADDENDUM:::And that's a dirty shame because I've reached the [reply] button for you a score of times.
I'm sure he's sorry you're a head.
the way you hold out, even for those you fancy, is courageous.
Your capitulation is duly noted.
And I called you face, not head. I would never offend the heads around the world.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
