The Truth Behind Media Ownership & Control

[Burnsys]

Then you know that just having rules (even written rules, much less unwritten ones) does not mean everyone will follow them. There are plenty of examples where reporters have been fired for the content of their reports - vitually always its because the content was fabricated. What's more, these unwritten rules you are alleging require judgement calls: the local affiliate would have to somehow know (with perfect accuracy) that the stories it is reporting would be acceptable to the network. That's really, really thin. And we know for a fact that different tv stations will often make different judement calls: see the recent pulling of "Saving Private Ryan" from several affiliates for profanity reasons.

Ok, not everyone follow the rules, but you can't deny that every news station has a political line, for example, i have never seen a critic to bush in FOX news neither pro enviromental news.. i think it's their policy.. ,
----------------------------------------------------------
"An email sent to Jim Romenesko's for posting on the message board of the journalism training center, The Poynter Institute by former Fox News producer, Charlie Reina, explained how bias permeates the Fox newsroom. "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it," he wrote. "

"One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be 'whining' about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital."

""These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them." [4] (http://poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo)

"Reina mentioned an example affecting a story allocated to him. "It was, I would say, about three years ago. I was assigned to do a special on the environment, some issue involving pollution. When my boss and I talked as to what this thing was all about, what they were looking for, he said to me: 'You understand, you know, it's not going to come out the pro-environmental side.' And I said, 'It will come out however it comes out.' And he said, 'You can obviously give both sides, but just make sure that the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word,' he said. Reina declined to do the story. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------

His predilection toward paranoid conspiracy theory. I'm not a psrink, but from what I understand, that is not an uncommon result of emotional trauma: he isn't thinking rationally.

Are you denying this:

six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

and this: He won't even acknowledge that al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, was responsible for his father's death. That implies to me a severe disconnect from reality.

What he says is that it was alqueda, not the afghan people who did the attacks. is more.. bin laden is from saudi arabia. and he get it's money from his family, stablished in saudi arabia.

 

[Burnsys]

Some examples of how the media distort the reality in this case BBC but the technics are the same for all the media, this ones from bbcwatch.
http://www.bbcwatch.com/
-----------------------------------------------
OMISSION OF CULPABILITY

The US and UK military were responsible for many civilian deaths and injuries in Iraq. However, we find that the BBC operates a subtle omission of culpability when reporting on these civilian casualties.

Gulf war…
“…he’s had both his arms blown off…his whole family were killed…his mother was pregnant and they were killed by a bomb…” [Today, 09/04/03]

Israel…
“…he lies in a coma with a bullet in his brain after being shot at by Israeli troops…” [BBC1, 6pm, 14/04/03]

Gulf War…
“…Nine civilians killed in Baghdad blast…” [Online, 08/04/03]

Israel…
“…Six killed in Israeli raids…” [Online, 04/04/03]

Gulf War…
“…At least nine civilians are reported to have died when a bomb hit a residential neighbourhood in central Baghdad…” [Online, 08/04/03]

Israel…
“…At least five Palestinians have been killed in an Israeli air raid on Gaza City…” [Online, 09/04/03]

Gulf war…
“…warplanes…pounded Saddam Hussein’s hometown…” [R4, 6pm, 11/04/03]

Israel…
“Israeli warplanes appeared to be targeting a car,” [Online, 09/04/03]

Gulf War…
“…bombing raids by F-15 and F-16 jets…” [Online, 08/04/03]

Israel…
“…an Israeli F-16 warplane fired two missiles…” [4] [10/04/03]

Gulf war…
“…there's a new sound in the city - rotor blades from attack helicopters…” [Online, 08/04/03]

Israel…
“…Israeli attack helicopters fired missiles into the town…” [Online, 11/04/03]

Gulf War…
“…two journalists were killed by a tank shell, a third died in a strike on Al-Jazeera’s headquarters…” [R4, 6pm, 08/04/03]
------------------------------------------------------------
THE PALESTINE HOTEL
On the 7th April 2003 an American tank fired at the Palestine Hotel – a Baghdad hotel where Western journalists were staying. A number of journalists were killed in this incident. We often find that the BBC correspondents work hard to mitigate this coalition action which killed a number of innocent people. Again, it is a case study in military empathy and mitigation, and it raises the question over whether such efforts are made to understand and humanise the actions of the Israeli army.

“…as I was saying, this is a microcosm for what has been happening and the kind of security challenges faced by the coalition forces in the centre of Baghdad…” [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

“…and cameras can be mistaken for rocket-propelled grenades…in this kind of situation it’s difficult for a tank commander or any kind of infantry vehicle to distinguish between a camera and an RPG…” [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

“…can you give any indication as to whether there could be any confusion within the building in terms of who’s in the Palestine hotel, as to who’s a journalist, who’s a member of the press and who might be representing other interests within that building?…” [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

“…clearly there is a possibility I suppose that somebody could be operating, could be sniping from the top floor of the hotel…” [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

“…Could it be that journalists who are watching the action could be mistaken for snipers, particularly if they’re using binoculars?…” [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

“…it is entirely possible, I mean we are formally not supposed to film from the hotel, we’re only supposed to film from our live positions on the first floor roof…”[6] [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

The above incident contrasts sharply with the BBC’s treatment of a similar incident involving the death of an HBO cameraman on April 3rd 2003 – just a few days prior to the Palestine Hotel incident.

“…an award-winning British journalist has been shot dead by Israeli soldiers as he filmed a documentary in a refugee area in Gaza… cameraman James Miller suffered fatal injuries after an Israeli armoured vehicle opened fire, wounding him in the neck, according to reports…
…Mr Miller had been filming…in Palestinian areas while working on a documentary for the American HBO network…” [Online, 03/04/03]

DISPLACEMENT OF BLAME

The most frequent technique employed in the mitigation of coalition culpability is the displacement of responsibility onto the Iraqis themselves. There is a suggestion that were it not for Iraqi tactics, their trickery, and their persistence in not letting the coalition kill them, risks to civilians would never occur. The Iraqis initiate violence; they invite reciprocation; they “draw” the military into using their biggest weapons. US and UK actions are always seen as a response to an Iraqi action. A pattern of cause and effect is established in which coalition actions are always seen as a response. Coalition forces are cast as trying to play a gentle role and being pulled reluctantly into confrontations.


“…the main reason for these [friendly fire] incidents is the fact that air power is being used in an environment where Iraqi targets are mobile and operating close to mobile coalition forces…” [ Online, 07/04/03]

“…But British troops have been drawn into urban fighting…” [ BBC Online, 04/04/03]

“…but clearly it is really difficult fighting terrain because the British have been drawn into urban warfare…” [BBC Online, 04/04/03]

“…The Iraqis are taking shelter in-between civilian houses and using those houses as places to fire from. This means civilians could be in the line of fire that comes back from the coalition forces…” [BBC Online, 04/04/03]

“…So no matter how well intended the British troops might be, the civilians are trapped in the fighting and they are under severe pressure….” [BBC Online, 04/04/03]

“…This is Noah…he’s twelve and he’s fighting for his life in hospital since a bomb targeting Iraqi fighters hiding in his neighborhood hit his house…”[11] [BBC1, 6pm, 09/04/03]

DEHUMANISATION OF IRAQIS

There are certain moments when the BBC incorporates the language of the coalition military into their narratives. This is frequently military jargon that dehumanises the Iraqi enemy, making it more palatable and less disagreeable for extreme measures to be taken against them
The BBC plays a role in harnessing the public’s support for the death and destruction taking place. They legitimise coalition actions and dehumanise the Iraqi army. They talk of “mopping up”, of “tidying up” of “business” being “tied up.” The human life behind these expressions is glossed over by abstractions.


“…business has according to the British military commanders been tied up[23] now…” [Newsnight, 07/04/03]

“…There may still…be pockets of resistance. Complete celebration may be premature, there may be quite a lot of resistance to mop up…” [09/04/03]

“…These mopping up operations could take days or weeks longer…” [Newsnight, 10/04/03]

“…in parts of the city now there’s a little bit of mopping up going on. But nothing significant…[24]” [BBC1, 6pm, 14/04/03]

“…is it your sense that the war is effectively over and it is just a matter now of tidying up?..” [Today, 08/04/03]
-----------------------------------------
etc etc etc

 

[Zlex]

Oh Jesus, this thread was flawed from the very start.

'The' Money.

 

[jammieg]

Burnsys, I think you give the media and politicians too much credit for doing something intelligent, let me give you my anecdote, my younger sister was charged with a misdemeanour drug charge for a joint found in her car ash tray and she just happened to be sent to court on the same day of another minor drug bust in a small town and reporters just happened to show up that day to court to get the big scoup, in which all the drug dealers just happened to be scheduled on, oh and this town just happens to have an absurd number of police officers and churches on every corner, and guess who is on the front page of this small town paper played up as a big time drug offender? My sister, age 17, "Columbian Connection", basically the police need the press to "show how they've been fighting crime" which really means secure our laid back jobs, and the press needs this story to "get the word to the people" which really means exaggerate as much as possible to secure our jobs with the bestseller-fear, and the courts and the churches are all run by the same group of insane people who feel they need "protection from evil" which is really probably guilty feelings that are being manifested from all the people they screw and they use this to justify manipulating the taxpayers into having too much law enforcement, so it all comes down to everyone's an idiot with some very simple and selfish covert motives with very justfied looking overt ones, except for my little sister she was just trying to mind her own business and get high.
I'll bet if you apply this principle to our politicians and big time media you would find a lot of the same stupidity but on a grander scale, I think the real problem is people watch bias and love it and ultimately pay for it thus we control the media(unless it is a government program, or they provide the source information?), if they loved bland objectivity then we would have more dry and objective news reporting so either people are ignorant in general of bias or they also love bias to support their own views or such. This makes everything more exciting too and people pay high dollar for excitement. Although I don't doubt that our government is the most materially productive in the world because they manipulate their citizens the best in the world, that's probably mostly due to we see more commercials to buy stuff in order to "be happy" than anyone else in the world.

 

[Burnsys]

 

[Charles Darwin]

My research concurs with this: most of the media is owned by the 3 media conglomerates: Time Warner, Disney, and Viacom. This consolidation has been taking place over the last 70 years without much interference from the government, after all, what politician wants objective coverage of their own doings? It's better for the media to consolidate, it's easier to control the content this way without so many independent media.

But, politicians did not anticipate the internet and they are pissed. But, I predict the same type of consolidation of internet resources until only those voices that support the status quo will be allowed. For example, take a look at the Social Sciences section of Physics Forum, many politically incorrect ideas are being discussed that NEVER are in the mainstream media. The internet is relatively free speech at the moment, but after enough consolidation I predict pressure will come to not allow such speech or ISPs will shut down websites. Time Warner/AOL owns a major internet backbone and recently threatened the ISP who uses their backbone. This ISP was providing internet connection to Neo-Nazi advocate Don Black's server which hosts Stormfront.org, the world's largest Neo-Nazi forum, and Time Warner/AOL wanted the ISP to forbid Don Black from hosting several Nazi websites on his server. So, it's not an issue of how retarded Nazis are, it's an issue of free speech.

 

[Charles Darwin]

A quick note: CNN used to be an independent outlet and would provide a little more balanced coverage of the Middle East under Ted Turner, but it was then bought off by Time Warner/AOL. Fox News in the forth largest media conglomerate, I believe, and I am curious to know if the major giants (Viacom, Disney, Time Warner/AOL), will buy them off.

Most of the popular magazines and written media is also owned by these three groups.

Time Warner CEO: Gerald Levin
Disney CEO: Michael Eisner
Viacom CEO: Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein)

What do these three people have in common? Well, they share an identical cultural, political, and ethnic background.

Fox News CEO, Rupert Murdoch, is politically identical to the above three with respect to foreign policy, but differs in some respect regarding domestic policy. There is some evidence though that Murdoch's Mother is of the same ethnic background as the above three, but it is hard to verify.

NBC Universal CEO: Edgar Bronfman, Jr. His father is Edgar Bronfman, Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress.

NBC News CEO: Neal Shapiro, similar background as above examples.

There are a few other big time players as well, like the New York Times, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, etc. All the CEOs have similar backgrounds as above.

 

[Burnsys]

Lobby, Political Contributions, and the revolving door

Source: http://www.openairwaves.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=405
(Nice Charts)

Some FACTS:

WASHINGTON, October 28, 2004 — A new Center for Public Integrity investigation of campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures and other spending shows that the communications industry has spent $1.1 billion since 1998 to affect election outcomes and influence legislation before Congress and the White House.

The report focuses on the three primary communications industry sectors that control the information pipelines in the United States – broadcasting, cable television and telecommunications

A breakdown shows:

-Total lobbying expenditures from 1998 through mid-2004 by the industry were more than $957 million. In comparison, the oil and gas industry spent $396 million over the same period, the Center has found.

-Campaign contributions from 1998 through September 2004 were $145.6 million. The total includes both hard and soft money donations from industry employees, labor unions representing employees in the communications industry and political action committees.

-The Center identified 450 industry-funded trips valued at $704,229 from 2000 through March of 2004


In addition to studying political spending, researchers were able to identify 311 former top congressional aides and FCC officials who have left government service and gone to work in the communications industry

Of the three sectors, traditional telecommunications companies spend far more on contributions and lobbying than broadcasters or cable companies. A sector breakdown shows:

-Telephone companies like Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Corp. spent $498 million on lobbying, $60.5 million on campaign contributions and $276,000 on trips for an overall total of $559 million. (See information on telecommunications spending)

-Broadcasters spent $222.3 million on lobbying and $26.5 million on campaign contributions and $165,000 on trips for a total of $248.9 million. (See information on broadcast spending)

-Cable television providers spent $119.9 million lobbying, $20.5 million on contributions and $226,000 on trips for a total of $140.6 million. (See information on cable television spending)

Among the top spenders on lobbying:

General Electric Co., which owns 80 percent of NBC Universal in addition to a number of cable networks, topped the lobby spending list at $105.2 million. (The total includes all lobbying by the giant conglomerate, even though it draws only a portion of its revenue from broadcast operations. Federal disclosure rules do not require companies to separate lobbying expenditures by subject.)

Second by a small margin was Verizon Communications Inc., the nation's largest phone company. The former regional Bell operating company spent $102.5 million from 1998 through mid 2004. Verizon has key financial interests in local and long-distance phone regulation, spectrum allocation for its wireless division and a multitude of other issues.

Third on the list of top lobby spenders was AT&T Corp. at $75 million.

The partisan preference of the communications industry as a whole has leaned toward the Democratic Party. Total contributions were split 56.2 percent for Democratic candidates and party organizations and 43.2 percent for Republicans. That does not extend to the two current candidates for the White House: President Bush leads Sen. John Kerry by a wide margin, $1.8 million to $1.1 million.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
-- Katherine Graham, Washington Post publisher and Bilderberger

 

[Burnsys]

Directors' Fees

Aparently you are unfamiliar with the idea of a Board of Directors.

I don't mean to be rude, but your statements in the past few posts have suggested you are ignorant about the way corporations work. These questions you ask ("who appoint the CEO") are not deep philosophical issues, but (usually) straightforward matters that are well known to anyone with any understanding of US business.

Would you not agree that these kinds of failures to gather even the most basic knowledge about business practice would be an impediment to forming a reasonable opinion on the matter? I'd like to humbly suggest you give up all arguments in this thread, go expand your knowledge base dramatically, and then reform your opinions. Even if you come to the same conclusions you will have greatly improved the strength of your stance on these issues.

Are there too few media outlets? How compacent is the media? Who has too much power over what they say? Is collusion between the board and CEO's acceptable? Are the laws in place to prevent it enough?

These seem to me to be reasonable questions. However, neither you nor the person you initially quoted seem the least bit equipped to answer them.

I found this:

Source: http://eatthestate.org/03-20/DirectorsFees.htm

Phillips lists the corporations that have ties to the boardrooms of the fourth estate and they include many companies that stand to profit from U.S. policy in Iraq. The most obvious profiteers are the defense contractors, two of whom own TV networks: General Electric (NBC) and Westinghouse (CBS). Among CBS's directors is Frank C. Carlucci III, who happens to have been a deputy director of the CIA under President Carter and was Secretary of Defense from 1987-89, when Saddam Hussein was a valued U.S. asset. (Now that's cashing in on the D.C. revolving door from government to industry!) Both companies share directors with other defense contractors: Allied Signal and Textron for NBC; General Dynamics for CBS.

GE doesn't just own NBC and sponsor news shows on PBS, it also provides a member of the board of directors at the Washington Post, as does Textron. The Post, by the way, owns Newsweek and the Everett Herald, and is the former employer of the Seattle P-I's editorial page editor.

No company got better PR out of the 1991 Gulf War than Raytheon, whose Patriot missiles looked far more effective on TV than they were in reality. Raytheon happens to have two directors on the board of Knight-Ridder, which owns the Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, San Jose Mercury-News, and 49.5 percent of the stock in the Seattle Times.

In last month's bombing, the Navy unloaded several hundred "obsolete" cruise missiles on Iraq at $1 million a pop, coincidentally making room for orders for new ones. The missiles were made in Kent by Boeing, which provides a member of the board at Times Mirror, owner of the Los Angeles Times, Long Island Newsday, and the Baltimore Sun.

The New York Times has a director who also sits on the board at Texaco. At Times Mirror you can find a director from Amoco. Ashland is represented at the Washington Post. Phillips Petroleum has a director at Knight-Ridder. Meanwhile Gannett, the nation's largest newspaper chain and owner of USA Today, has a director from du Pont, which technically isn't an oil company, but you'd be hard pressed to find many of their products that aren't made from petroleum.

The same holds true on the broadcast side. Mobil and Chevron representatives sit on the board at Time Warner, which owns CNN and Time Magazine. CBS has directors from Ashland and Sunoco. Exxon has someone on the board at NBC, as does Goodyear, whose tires are made of synthetic rubber which is made from oil.

The banking industry also benefits from the U.S.'s Iraq policy, as it has from every American military action. The investment banks underwrite U.S. debt to pay for the bombing, which has the added benefit of letting other nations know that they may be next if they try to stand up to western capital. That may come in handy as debt is destroying economies from Indonesia to Venezuela (and, hey, there's oil in those places, too).

The banks and Wall Street firms are well-positioned to have their voices heard in America's newsrooms. J.P. Morgan & Co. has people on the boards of Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post and NBC. That's the same J.P. Morgan that played a major role in getting the United States into World War I because it was Britain's biggest creditor and its loans would have been worthless if Germany had won. Bet you didn't learn that in your high school history class.

Bank of America provides a director for Gannett and Walt Disney, which owns ABC. Chase Manhattan has directors at CBS and NBC. Citicorp has directors at Time Warner and NBC. Banc One is represented at CBS. Lehman Brothers has a director at the New York Times. Salomon and Wells Fargo have directors at the Washington Post. Bankers Trust New York has a director at Fox, and American Express directors can be found at Gannett, the Washington Post, and Time Warner.


Interlocking Directorates
http://www.fair.org/media-woes/interlocking-directorates.html
---------------------------------------------------
“The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”
Morpheus, in the movie ‘The Matrix’

 

[Locrian]

It's cute that you found that, but you will need to be more clear as to its significance.

You seem to have completely given up on the argument you started this thread with.Before you fill up another post, would you like to state your new one? The tactic you are using is a common one: when you can't back up your initial argument, tack on unrelated ideas and hope your opponent attacks them - at which point you can show he is wrong and claim victory.

I'm not so gullible.

 

[Burnsys]

It's cute that you found that, but you will need to be more clear as to its significance.

You seem to have completely given up on the argument you started this thread with.Before you fill up another post, would you like to state your new one? The tactic you are using is a common one: when you can't back up your initial argument, tack on unrelated ideas and hope your opponent attacks them - at which point you can show he is wrong and claim victory.

I'm not so gullible.

My first post of this thread:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been said that only a handful of people own all the money in the world. Many refuse to believe this, but in reality, there are only about six people/corporations that own the ten big media.

If given much consideration, one can discern that the power of the news rests with these head-haunchos who determine what we should be told, how, by whom, and when, and certainly what slant or outright untruths and disinformation should be passed on to us. I find it amazing that educated people today still trust in the media for the truth, and how fallow we are about what really is happening

The Columbia Journalism Review does a commendable of job of trying to keep up with all the media ownership and merger changes. The lists of monopolies and cross-owernships run seemingly endlessly like the roll call of immigrants on Ellis Islands' walls. Therein lie two key problems: 1). domination, and 2). pre-determined information. The global media giants kick us in our pants every time we turn on a radio or TV channel, surf the Net, read a newspaper, magazine, or book by feeding us only what they want us to know, and not what is authentic. Thus, our opinions are built solely on their propaganda."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

i don't see when i given up the argument, the argument is the media is controlled by a small group of people.
But the fact that i can't show who are the top shareholders of those 7 or 8 corporation does not invalidate my other arguments that the media is controlled by a small group of peple to make more profit and gain more power...
And this is not about "Wining a thread" or losing. it's about showing a point...

 

[russ_watters]

i don't see when i given up the argument, the argument is the media is controlled by a small group of people.

The argument is the implication: the level of control. You have failed to prove your claimed direct control over the content we see. You have backed off that and now just keep saying over and over how only a handful of companies run the media - as if that, in and of itself, means anything.

Going back to the first post and checking the source, I realize now I probably shouldn't have even responded: the source is a conspiracy theory website of the worst quality. Chemtrails? Pblackfft.

 

[Burnsys]

The argument is the implication: the level of control. You have failed to prove your claimed direct control over the content we see. You have backed off that and now just keep saying over and over how only a handful of companies run the media - as if that, in and of itself, means anything.

And what about the "Executive memo" delivered each morning in fox news??
------------------------------------------------------------------
"An email sent to Jim Romenesko's for posting on the message board of the journalism training center, The Poynter Institute by former Fox News producer, Charlie Reina, explained how bias permeates the Fox newsroom. "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it," he wrote. "
------------------------------------------------------------------

Or how bbc distort the new to make them look like they want?

 

[russ_watters]

And what about the "Executive memo" delivered each morning in fox news??

I thought we already covered that? Every news service has an executive producer who decides what goes on that day's news: every newspaper has one who decides what stories to research and print: every magazine has one... That's how the media works. Heck, I start each week with an organizational meeting and post a job list/task list for the week! There is nothing conspiracy theory-ish about that.

And btw, the fact that there is such distributed responsibility for the content is evidence against central control.

Or how bbc distort the new to make them look like they want?

The BBC has a pro-Britain bias. Soooooooooo? That implies nothing about anything.

 

[Burnsys]

I thought we already covered that? Every news service has an executive producer who decides what goes on that days news: every newspaper has one who decides what stories to research and print: every magazine has one... That's how the media works. Heck, I start each week with an organizational meeting and post a job list/task list for the week! There is nothing conspiracy theory-ish about that. The BBC has a pro-Britain bias. Soooooooooo? That implies nothing about anything.

You have a little problem with the "conspiracy theory" word...

you are impliyng that bbc has a "Pro-Britain" bias.. that is my point, that the media has bias. all the media, and that "Bias" cames from the top, not from the journalists.. and in the top there is not much people...

Interlocking Directorates
http://www.fair.org/media-woes/interlocking-directorates.html

 

[russ_watters]

you are impliyng that bbc has a "Pro-Britain" bias.. that is my point, that the media has bias. all the media, and that "Bias" cames from the top, not from the journalists.. and in the top there is not much people...

Again, so what? Everyone and every corporate entity has a bias. That fact doesn't imply anything about anything.

You are implying (but no longer saying outright) that bias equals strict central control. This is still ludicrous.

Interlocking Directorates

That is common to most industries and as such does not imply anything sinister about the media.

Again, you're taking outside shots here that you are implying (but not saying explicitly anymore) something sinister. You have shown us nothing relevant to that point. I'm starting to think you don't even understand what you are implying here: do you have any idea what a real central-controlled media looks like? Most autocratic regimes have/have had them and they look nothing at all like western media.

 

[Burnsys]

Again, so what? Everyone and every corporate entity has a bias. That fact doesn't imply anything about anything.

You are implying (but no longer saying outright) that bias equals strict central control. This is still ludicrous. That is common to most industries and as such does not imply anything sinister about the media.

Again, you're taking outside shots here that you are implying (but not saying explicitly anymore) something sinister. You have shown us nothing relevant to that point. I'm starting to think you don't even understand what you are implying here: do you have any idea what a real central-controlled media looks like? Most autocratic regimes have/have had them and they look nothing at all like western media.

i never said all us media is "Central-Controlled" there are 7,8 corporations who control the media, each one of this is Central-Controlled by the board of directors, or the ceo,(with the exexcutive memo for example), the board decides "The bias" of the network, like you said, the "Liberal Bias", like i say the "Right wing Bias" for me they are all "The American Bias", anyway we both admit there is a bias in every network i think

Now of course there is something sinister... how is it posible for a company like, General Electric, who sells misiles being used in irak. to cover the irak war and be impartial? it's imposible, they will never show a kid blown up by their missiles... they manipulate the information, to benefit their interest... and this :"Interlocking Directorates" show you exactly what are their interest... now do you believe that this "Manipulated Information" don't have an efect on people?? it has a direct effect on people. most people make their view of the world only based of what they see on the TV...

So for example if GE, says that all irakis are barbarians.. it's posible that a percentage of their audience will believe it...

****, i can't express my self very good in english.

a couple of cuotes:
------------------------------------------------------------
After World War II, U.S.-led occupying forces enforced strict media ownership rules in Germany, because of the role that powerful press barons had played in Hitler's rise to power and the advance of fascism.
Peter J. Humphreys, Media and Media Policy in Germany: The Press and Broadcasting Since 1945 (Oxford, Eng.: Berg, 1990)

Over the past eight years, FCC Commissioners and staff have received almost $2.8 million in travel and entertainment expenses mainly from the telecommunications and broadcast industries that it is supposed to regulate. The number one travel destination is Las Vegas with 330 trips, followed by New Orleans with 173.
Bob Williams "On the Road Again--and Again: FCC officials rack up $2.8 million travel tab with industries they regulate," The Center for Public Integrity, 13 June, 2003 (This sound sinister to me...)

In the first five months of 2003, when the FCC was debating the media cross-ownership rules that were overturned in June of that year, the commercial TV and cable networks showed "virtually no coverage" of the issue, with the big networks typically airing nothing until a week before the FCC decision.
Charles Layton, "News Blackout," American Journalism Review, Dec./Jan., 2004

32% of local reporters have acknowledged that they have softened the tone of a news story on behalf of the interests of their news organization.
Self Censorship: How Often and Why, Journalists Avoiding the News The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 30 April, 2000.

26% of local journalists say they have been told to ignore a story because it was dull or complicated, but suspect the real motivation to be potential harm to the company's financial interests.
Self Censorship: How Often and Why, Journalists Avoiding the News The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 30 April, 2000

 

[loseyourname]

Okay, it seems we've proven in this thread that all people are biased and all groups of people are also biased. Therefore we should cease to make any decisions for fear that they are nothing but the result of bias. Is that it?

 

[Smurf]

No, fear is what they want you to feel, they want you to remain in indecision and not do anything. Fear is not the answer.

 

[russ_watters]

i never said all us media is "Central-Controlled" there are 7,8 corporations who control the media, each one of this is Central-Controlled...

[cough]contradiction![/cough]

...by the board of directors, or the ceo,(with the exexcutive memo for example)

Yes, and you utterly failed to prove that. Who writes that "executive memo," for example? (Hint: it isn't the CEO or the board of directors)

the board decides "The bias" of the network, like you said, the "Liberal Bias", like i say the "Right wing Bias" for me they are all "The American Bias", anyway we both admit there is a bias...

And Al Jazeera has a ME bias - yes, and you apparently still think that means something. It means nothing. So what?

Now of course there is something sinister... how is it posible for a company like, General Electric, who sells misiles being used in irak. to cover the irak war and be impartial?

As your own evidence has shown: GE does not "cover the war".

Could you please acknowledge the level of control a true state-controlled media has over the content of its stories? If for no other reason, that would be a good baseline from which you can start drawing comparisons - so far all you have is unsupported allegations.

 

[Burnsys]

Yes, and you utterly failed to prove that. Who writes that "executive memo," for example? (Hint: it isn't the CEO or the board of directors)

doesn't really matters who writes the memo, the point is it is the administrations will..

Quotes: "The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo"

"if my boss wasn't warning me to "be careful" how I handled the writing of a special about Ronald Reagan ("You know how Roger [Fox News Chairman Ailes] feels about him."), "

"Editorially, the FNC newsroom is under the constant control and vigilance of management. The pressure ranges from subtle to direct"

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=3500&fcategory_desc=Under Reported

And Al Jazeera has a ME bias - yes, and you apparently still think that means something. It means nothing. So what?

It's more than bias, it's manipulation and disinformation as i shown in the bbcwatch post.

it means something, a lot of peple make up their minds on what they se on tv... Didn't the interin government of iraq shutdown aljazzera becouse it "Incite to violence". It mean that people can be manipulated by the media...

As your own evidence has shown: GE does not "cover the war".

what do you mean?? i don't understand,
(when i say GE i mean NBC, CNBC, etc.)

Could you please acknowledge the level of control a true state-controlled media has over the content of its stories? If for no other reason, that would be a good baseline from which you can start drawing comparisons - so far all you have is unsupported allegations.

I have never denied that.. is more i agree.. Take cuba for example.
They are very much tight controled.. but that does not invalidate any of what i said, Private media is controlled by a small group of rich people, who share the same interests and use this power to mislead and deceit it public, in favor of their interests..

 

[Burnsys]

No, fear is what they want you to feel, they want you to remain in indecision and not do anything. Fear is not the answer.

The Ten Commandments of Propaganda

1. Divide and conquer.
Possibly the oldest political tactic known to man. As long as the people are busy fighting each other, they will never know their real enemy. Hate speech is valuable to this end.

2. Tell the people what they want.
Not to be confused with telling them what they want to hear.You are telling them what they want, and why they cannot live without it.

3. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it
Coined by Joseph Goebbels, this truth has been proven time and time again, especially in times of war.

4. Always appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Abraham Lincoln supposedly said "you can't fool all of the people all of the time." But, if you can fool enough of the people, enough of the time, you can get away with anything. The trick is to find the common hopes and fears of the largest majority.

5. Generalize as much as possible.
Specifics are not very important. Most people would prefer to think in the simplest terms possible - black and white, good and evil, Communist and Capitalist, etc.

6.Use "expert" testimonial.
A degree and screen presence is pretty much all you need to be an authority on anything in the modern world. People like celebrities.

7. Always refer to the "authority" of your office.
Once your authority is established, you need to periodically remind the people of it. It will add credibility to your purpose.

8. Stack the cards with "information".
Statistics and facts work wonderfully, especially when the average person only partially understands them, and when conflicting data is censored.

9. A confused people are easily led.
When a person hears the truth, he won't know it, because it will be lumped together with disinformation, half-truths, and lies.

10. Get the "plain folks" onto the "bandwagon"John Doe is your propaganda agent. Middle Americans will "relate" to him, and so will their friends, and their friends, and their friends, and their friends . . .

And remember, when all else fails, use FEAR.

 

[polyb]

This looks like a good point as any to interject!

I found a site that has a couple of excerpts from Herman and Chomsky work done backin '88 and should be relevant to this discission!

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html

If you get a chance to read the book or see the video, I would highly recommend it if you are to take a 'critical' survey of media in general! If anyhting these two articles will serve the content of this 'discourse' which apparently has been reduced to taking sides or some other rubish like that.

And before anyone gives me lip about Chomsky I have state that he is a professor at MIT, which none of you are, and his work in linguistics is pretty good(understament!) if you are so inclined to look into it.

 

[Smurf]

Yeah, you can diss moore all you want, but no one touches Chomsky

 

[russ_watters]

doesn't really matters who writes the memo, the point is it is the administrations will..

Uh huh - so the CEO and board control the news via a memo that they don't write and probably never read? This would be funny if I didn't know you were serious. Sorry, I just can't continue with this thread - its too off the wall absurd.

One more thing though: Chomsky, guys? C'mon, I'm not a big fan of activist college professors (you do know why they are called activists, right?), so that failed attempt at argument-from-authority isn't going to win any points with me (Pons and Fleischman were professors too...). But hey, if he wants to be The Authority on the most thorougly and rapidly failed political theory in the history of the world, he's welcome to it.

And he is a great writer - and Moore is a great filmmaker.

 

[polyb]

Read the article russ before running amuck and poo-pooing it!

 

[Smurf]

I'm curious as to what you meant by the Pons and Fleischman comment

 

[Burnsys]

Uh huh - so the CEO and board control the news via a memo that they don't write and probably never read? This would be funny if I didn't know you were serious. Sorry, I just can't continue with this thread - its too off the wall absurd.

No. actually the memo is written by the coffee boy, and the board of directors and the ceo are all mentally impaired

damn russ, it'l like talking to a wall.. you can't have a so closed mind...

 

[russ_watters]

I'm curious as to what you meant by the Pons and Fleischman comment

Its an example of argument from authority, exactly like the one posted:

-Chomsky is a professor, therefore he must be right (or, at least, worth paying attention to).
-Pons and Fleischman are college professors, therefore they must have discovered cold fusion.

Read the article russ before running amuck and poo-pooing it!

Having skimmed it (its far too boring and verbose to read all the way through), I don't see anything particularly compelling in it. And what he says doesn't seem to me to support the claim made here: the article says essentially that the media does these things because its natural - not because control is being exercised from somewhere. And I'd tend to agree with that.

 

[Smurf]

I don't see why you could say Pons and Fleischman didn't discover cold fusion, it was them who first performed the experiment. Or maybe your one of the ones that think it was all a hoax.
Cold Fusion Heating Up -- Pending Review by U.S. Department of Energy

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see why you could say Pons and Fleischman didn't discover cold fusion, it was them who first performed the experiment. Or maybe your one of the ones that think it was all a hoax.
Cold Fusion Heating Up -- Pending Review by U.S. Department of Energy

Oh, dear god, Smurf, please tell me you're kidding. The scientific community is very near unanamous in agreeing they did not observe fusion. Further, their actions during the debacle rise to the level of fraud: they intentionally misled the scientific community regarding their research.

That article regarding the DOE review: has the DOE review been published yet? (hint: no) Does it say anywhere in the article that the DOE considers the claims of the people requesting the review have any merit? (hint: no).

 

[polyb]

I don't see why you could say Pons and Fleischman didn't discover cold fusion, it was them who first performed the experiment. Or maybe your one of the ones that think it was all a hoax.
Cold Fusion Heating Up -- Pending Review by U.S. Department of Energy

It is an attempt to discredit by proxy. If he can get you to think that Pons and Fleischman are discredited then obviously Chomsky has no credibiltiy. It is like saying: "Because the sky is blue the (fill in the blank) is true too! Typical sophic method, though in no way enlightening.

Its an example of argument from authority, exactly like the one posted:

-Chomsky is a professor, therefore he must be right (or, at least, worth paying attention to).
-Pons and Fleischman are college professors, therefore they must have discovered cold fusion.

Actually I was coming from a position of credibility which Chomsky has much more of than anyone here! Besides, his critique on media is quite succinct IMHO.

Having skimmed it (its far too boring and verbose to read all the way through), I don't see anything particularly compelling in it.

Which means that you did not read it. Oh well, your loss not mine.

BTW, it is a 'critique' and is not intended to be persuasive or compelling, but then again I am sure you'll argue that as well!

And what he says doesn't seem to me to support the claim made here: the article says essentially that the media does these things because its natural - not because control is being exercised from somewhere. And I'd tend to agree with that.

WOW, where did that come from? Natural?

That article regarding the DOE review: has the DOE review been published yet? (hint: no)

WRONG! http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf is the review. They pretty much conclude the same thing that was concluded in '89. The research will continue regardless though because there is funding and there is some interesting stuff happening to the equipment that is not understood(no it isn't the BS factor either!). My hats off to them and if they actually find some new phenomena, well that is what science is all about and why it is so risky.

 

[russ_watters]

It is an attempt to discredit by proxy. If he can get you to think that Pons and Fleischman are discredited then obviously Chomsky has no credibiltiy. It is like saying: "Because the sky is blue the (fill in the blank) is true too! Typical sophic method, though in no way enlightening.

Actually I was coming from a position of credibility which Chomsky has much more of than anyone here! Besides, his critique on media is quite succinct IMHO.

No, P&F is a counterexample (YOU made the argument, not me) to show that your [continuing] attempt at argument-from-authority is the logical fallacy that it is.

Which means that you did not read it. Oh well, your loss not mine.

WOW, where did that come from? Natural?

That's a key point, repeated and discussed at length! Heh, apparently in skimming it, I read closer than you! Here is the first use of the word:

The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values. [emphasis added]

WRONG! http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf is the review. They pretty much conclude the same thing that was concluded in '89.

Well, I stand corrected - wait, did you just help Smurf or me?

 

[the number 42]

damn russ, it'l like talking to a wall.. you can't have a so closed mind...

Either his mind is closed, or Russ acts as if it is. In my experience, at best you can get a debate with Russ, you don't get to have a proper discussion in which both parties get to learn something, and perhaps develop their position in some way. But does it matter?

 

[Polly]

I don't think Russ is close-minded at all, it's just that he loves and identifies with the best ideals of his culture and tradition so strongly that debunking any of them risks nullifying his very identity. Russ is a big man, and I am not a shrink.