News The Truth Behind Media Ownership & Control

[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.

 

[the number 42]

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.

I'm sure Russ has his fans, but I wouldn't go making any major claims for open-mindedness on his part. 10 out of 10 for arguing his point to the nth degree, yes. But even God took a day off.

Also, to imply that Russ represents the best that US culture has to offer is selling both him and US culture short. I think both parties are capable of much better.

Russ, correct me if I'm wrong but PF is not a debating chamber, and there are no prizes for merely trying to fend off opposing views at any cost. Debating skill is a good thing, but to use such skills to merely shore up a position is to devalue the point you were trying to make. When was the last time you experienced the liberation of finding out that you were wrong about something?

There are no prizes for being the last man standing in a discussion, and it might just mean that everyone else had something better to do.

 

[loseyourname]

This is the last time he found out he was wrong - three days ago:

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

Sorry, I don't wish to join in. I just thought that was funny. No one ever admits the possibility that they are wrong in the politics forum. It's hardly a problem unique to Russ.

 

[russ_watters]

Easy, guys, no need to make this personal.

This forum leans heavily to the left and I lean slightly to the right. This fact means a lot of people will disagree with me on political issues. I'm ok with that.

What's ironic about this particular thread is that I'm being lambasted for defending a liberal institution!

 

[the number 42]

This forum leans heavily to the left and I lean slightly to the right.

Compared to what? We need an accurate yardstick here. To me, 'heavily to the left' implies communist. I don't suppose you are saying that PF funded by Moscow, are you?

This fact means a lot of people will disagree with me on political issues. I'm ok with that.

Well perhaps seeing yourself as the last bastion of slightly right-wing views explains the vigour with which you defend your opinions. But chill out, babe, you're not surrounded by reds. This isn't Custer's Last Stand, its a forum for intelligent and open minded discussion.

 

[the number 42]

When was the last time you experienced the liberation of finding out that you were wrong about something?

Sorry, I don't wish to join in. I just thought that was funny. No one ever admits the possibility that they are wrong in the politics forum. It's hardly a problem unique to Russ.

You are SO wrong! Just kidding. Yep, I have to agree with you. I'm not exactly WC Fields, but can be unintentionally Groucho Marx on occasion.

(On a pedantic note, the fact that you found an instance of Russ admitting he was wrong disproves your own assertion that no one ever admits they are wrong. Sorry, but couldn't resist pointing this out ).

 

[russ_watters]

Compared to what? We need an accurate yardstick here. To me, 'heavily to the left' implies communist. I don't suppose you are saying that PF funded by Moscow, are you?

There are several threads where people posted online political afiliation quiz results. Check one out. I don't think we have any Stalins, but we have plenty of Marxes.

Well perhaps seeing yourself as the last bastion of slightly right-wing views explains the vigour with which you defend your opinions.

No, I'm just stubborn, opinionated, and pedantic. But I also still think I'm more open-minded than average.

This is the last time he found out he was wrong - three days ago:...

Sorry, I don't wish to join in. I just thought that was funny. No one ever admits the possibility that they are wrong in the politics forum. It's hardly a problem unique to Russ.

That's actually something I pride myself on and I consider that to be evidence of open-mindedness. I've been commended professionally for admitting and correcting mistakes on a number of occasions. I once posted a "list your faults" thread and started it off by listing half a dozen of mine invited others to do the same. Instead of listing their own, most people just added more to mine!

The inability to admit a fault is probably the most pervasive and destructive of human faults. It may be obvious in engineering, but I consider it crucial to just about everything people do: if you won't even admit your faults, you have no chance of ever correcting them. In engineering, if you don't admit (or worse, cover up) your mistakes, people can die: http://www.geneng.mtu.edu/eng1101/fall04/ethics/ethics.html

 

[the number 42]

This forum leans heavily to the left

There are several threads where people posted online political afiliation quiz results. Check one out. I don't think we have any Stalins, but we have plenty of Marxes.

Checked out a couple of threads:

1/ Where are you on the Political Compass?
I scored similarly Gandhi & the Dalai Lamha on the Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10
I personally don't feel I am as peace-loving as these guys, I like to think I have better dress sense, and I'm not sure how close our views on sex are (though I've heard Gandhi was a bit of a rogue). I'm not sure what I think of this test yet. I only scanned the blurb, but from a quick look at members' scores it seemed to bias scores a little to the left, which might be the result of not having a neutral mid-value (e.g. "don't know") for an option. I might take a closer look if I get time.

2/ Socialism
Nearly twice as of respondants said that Marxism couldn't work than said it could, so this certainly doesn't support the suggestion that PF is a hotbed of Chairman Mao impersonators. In fact if you go by the Political Compass, PF is more a hotbed of enlightened pacifist vegetarianism

 

[Polly]

One enlightened pacifist chimpanzee here (in terms of eating habit). Nice to meet you 42 . Gosh now that we are introduced, does that mean that I cannot be rude to you?

 

[the number 42]

Score: Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41.

I am a cross between the reverend Dalai Lama and Ghandi.

One enlightened pacifist chimpanzee here (in terms of eating habit). Nice to meet you 42 . Gosh now that we are introduced, does that mean that I cannot be rude to you?

Polly, let's just abandon our vows of celibacy and go about creating lots of little enlightened beings. During the act you can be as rude to me as you like

 

[Polly]

A bold offer like that begets only one thing, a bold acceptance Now be good and return to the thread.

 

[russ_watters]

I personally don't feel I am as peace-loving as these guys...

I'm glad to hear that because a lot of people on this site (in that thread) like to wear that as a badge of honor, but I don't see what is so great about being a Ghandi today. Its a good way to take down a government (and yeah, that is necessary every now and then), but it is not a way to create one. Plus, a lot of the people who tend to identify themselves with Ghandi (or King) aren't faithful to true pacifism: its militant pacifism that you see at a WTO protest, for example. It would be nice if there were more historical figures in that quadrant to gage what it means, but it may just be that there aren't because, its an impractical way to view the world - maybe that's why there aren't any real world leaders there. Which reminds me of Marxism...

2/ Socialism
Nearly twice as of respondants said that Marxism couldn't work than said it could, so this certainly doesn't support the suggestion that PF is a hotbed of Chairman Mao impersonators.

Well, Mao is a Stalin twin, not a Marx twin. If I were to guess, I'd say Marx would be far left, slightly below center. Regarding the poll I posted, maybe I need a follow-up: while people realize that pure Marxism doesn't work, there still seems to be some sort of nostalgia for it and, at the very least, a move toward implimenting as many of the policies that do work (arguably) as possible.

In fact if you go by the Political Compass, PF is more a hotbed of enlightened pacifist vegetarianism

I prefer "militant pacifists" (yes, I know its a contradiction, but its an accurate characterization of the movement), or perhaps, "neo-hippie", but that's my general feeling as well.

In any case, though its fine to consider the bottom-left corner the most "enlightened," its also the most impractical and even self-contradictory. The biggest flaw in Marxism is that its impractical - it does sound great on paper though.

 

[the number 42]

In any case, though its fine to consider the bottom-left corner the most "enlightened," its also the most impractical and even self-contradictory.

Well Russ, people say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. By the way, the 'enlightened' remark was a reference to the spiritual enlightenment of my Political Compass quadrant neighbours (Messrs Lama and Gandhi, and the beautiful Polly) not to political enlightenment.

 

[the number 42]

A bold offer like that begets only one thing, a bold acceptance Now be good and return to the thread.

Shucks, miss Polly. I'm dustin' off mah webcam and puttin' on mah cleanest underpants right now.

 

[Polly]

42, I wish I had something witty to say but I am too dazed.

 

[the number 42]

Wait till you turn on your webcam

 

[Polly]

We have to stop this nonsense, this thread can get closed you know. So bye for now.

 

[the number 42]

We have to stop this nonsense, this thread can get closed you know. So bye for now.

i.e. "Help! I'm being stalked by the number 42! He's going to appear on my TV screen in his underpants while I'm watching the news!"
Don't worry, we can get back to the thread now, though I think I've forgotten what its supposed to be about.

 

[the number 42]

Oh yeah, the truth owners. Nobody is ever going to agree on this one, as people by and large will believe the version of the truth that suits them. I say the BBC are a reliable source of truth (except for all the news that is left out, which is a big caveat), but then again they promote my radical-vegetarianist view of this illusory existence we call life.

 

[russ_watters]

... people by and large will believe the version of the truth that suits them.

So, you're saying, the media doesn't brainwash us?

Nobody is ever going to agree on this one

I disagree - I think we just agreed!

 

[Polly]

i.e. "Help! I'm being stalked by the number 42! He's going to appear on my TV screen in his underpants while I'm watching the news!"

That is so untrue. The sub-text actually reads "let it be generally known that I am ardently in love with 42 and will attend to his every whim with my Oriental meek and submissiveness" *small kisses on 42's cheek*. Oh and also "beat that"

Now turning to the thread, ownership doesn't even have to come to the picture. Everybody just KNOWS what to do, don't we? We know where our investment is, who controls the examination and approval procedures and who can give us a hard time if we don't yield and comply. Here in Hong Kong, we don't get to see any report of the dark side of the PRC until and unless it is first reported in a PRC media.

 

[the number 42]

That is so untrue. The sub-text actually reads "let it be generally known that I am ardently in love with 42 and will attend to his every whim with my Oriental meek and submissiveness" *small kisses on 42's cheek*. Oh and also "beat that"

Wow, that's so nice of you to say those things. (i.e. "Help! I'm being stalked by Polly ! She's going to appear on my TV screen in her underpants while I'm watching the news!")

Now turning to the thread, ownership doesn't even have to come to the picture. Everybody just KNOWS what to do, don't we? We know where our investment is, who controls the examination and approval procedures and who can give us a hard time if we don't yield and comply. Here in Hong Kong, we don't get to see any report of the dark side of the PRC until and unless it is first reported in a PRC media.

Yah-dee-yah. What colour did you say your underpants are?

 

[the number 42]

So, you're saying, the media doesn't brainwash us? I disagree - I think we just agreed!

Russ dammit. How dare you twist my words so much that I appear to agree with you

Actually, you make a good point. My answer is that the media set out to create our opinions. Now this might sound to those not in the know like Houdini-like bit of wriggling, but check this:

"Sigmund Freud's daughter, Anna, and his nephew, Edward Bernays, provided the centrepiece philosophy. The US government, big business, and the CIA used their ideas to develop techniques to manage and control the minds of the American people. But this was not a cynical exercise in manipulation. Those in power believed that the only way to make democracy work and create a stable society was to repress the savage barbarism that lurked just under the surface of normal American life".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self_episode_2.shtml

Naturally I'll be disappointed (though not surprised) if your response is to doubt the source, it being the BBC. The series is directed by Adam Curtis, a very well respected documentary maker. You will probably say he is a wild-eyed red

 

[selfAdjoint]

I personally doubt the source, not the BBC, but that the Freud-Bernays psychology would acieve anything when deployed that way. This was the thesis behind Vance Packard's old book The Hidden Persuaders and that was subsequently shown to be incorrect; people are not in fact swayed by such things.

 

[russ_watters]

Naturally I'll be disappointed (though not surprised) if your response is to doubt the source, it being the BBC.

I don't know why you would say such a thing: I hold the BBC in pretty high regard.

Regarding the theory itself, I don't know much about it, but I don't doubt that in the time of McCarthy, such a thing was considered or even tried. But like SA, I would doubt that such a thing would work.

 

[the number 42]

I don't know why you would say such a thing: I hold the BBC in pretty high regard.

You like the BBC, so... we agree AGAIN? I feel funny...

Regarding the theory itself, I don't know much about it, but I don't doubt hat in the time of McCarthy, such a thing was considered or even tried. But like SA, I would doubt that such a thing would work.

You might be right, but it would be great if you could see the series (4 one-hour documentarys I think) so you could make up your mind one way or the other.

 

[the number 42]

I personally doubt the source, not the BBC, but that the Freud-Bernays psychology would acieve anything when deployed that way. This was the thesis behind Vance Packard's old book The Hidden Persuaders and that was subsequently shown to be incorrect; people are not in fact swayed by such things.

I see the connection, but even if the Hidden Persuaders is wrong it doesn't follow that the Century of the Self is similarly wrong. Would you remind me of what the criticisms of the Hidden Persuaders are, or give a link to same?

 

[Smurf]

I disagree - I think we just agreed!

Unbelievable. First me, now 42... the whole forum is slowly beginning to agree with Russ, THIS MADNESS MUST BE STOPPED

 

[the number 42]

Unbelievable. First me, now 42... the whole forum is slowly beginning to agree with Russ, THIS MADNESS MUST BE STOPPED

I think this is one for Skepticism & Debunking, Smurf. e.g 'Russ Watters is a right wing conspriracy, and actually an conglomerate of shape-shifting B-movie actors' etc.

Anyway, I think you'll find that Russ was agreeing with me

 

[Smurf]

Anyway, I think you'll find that Russ was agreeing with me

THANK GOD!
phew.

Close one

 

[jammieg]

USA today cracks down on Bush's "campaign of propaganda"

Here is a story in USA Today by Greg Toppo about government manipulation of the populace:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050107/1a_bottomstrip07dom.art.htm

I'm not sure exactly how it works but basically people tend to follow sound reasons on issues and a person can sometimes make a good living on having a reputation as an uncorruptable source of truth, but everyone's got a sellout point I suppose, and if USA Today has only detected the Bush administration attempting to manipulate the public in a few things what about all the things they haven't seen them do, there are probably a lot more of those? Anyway it's all lies for the greater good right? Do you think it's right to accept money from government for telling others about this "something you believe in" sort of thing if you were the journalist?
At first I thought it's like a prize fighter taking a dive because they both decide that money is more important than doing what they love to do.