News The Truth Behind Media Ownership & Control

[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.

 

[russ_watters]

Here is a story in USA Today by Greg Toppo about government manipulation of the populace.

Toughie: I see journalistic ethics (oxymoron?) issues there and possibly an allocation of funds issue with the government paying him for it. There is, of course, nothing wrong with the government sponsoring advertising campaigns, but to do it in an underhanded way may be an issue.

Frankly, I see this as more of an ethics issue for the journalist than for the gov't (and if its not a conflict of interest for the journalist, it can't be for the government).

Anyway it's all lies for the greater good right?

Where in that article did it say anything about lies?

Do you think it's right to accept money from government for telling others about this "something you believe in" sort of thing?

Whether from the government or from Merck, it is unethical if you're a journalist to do so. If you're just a random celebrity, there is, of course, nothing wrong with it. That's why I'm not sure about this: is this guy actually a "journalist" or just a talk-show host, and is it possible/ethical to be both at the same time?

From the article:

Williams, 45, a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is one of the top black conservative voices in the nation. He hosts The Right Side on TV and radio, and writes op-ed pieces for newspapers, including USA TODAY, while running a public relations firm, Graham Williams Group.

Op-ed pieces aren't news, but still, it seems to me the guy may be trying to play both sides. Its a fine line, that many (if not most) on-air personalities try to tow. I'm sure you've all heard radio personalities doing little plugs for various products on their shows.

 

[jammieg]

And here's today's repsponse from that story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-08-williams-folo_x.htm

Near the bottom of the story it talks about how our government used a similair method or what they sometimes call "permissible use of taxpayer funds under legal government contracting procedures." to promote medicare and received a scolding from the accountability department- oh my goodness.

Williams says today, "...My judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it."

Like how to make a quick retiremnet fund for yourself by selling out the people who trust and believe in you?
You would think if he actually meant it he would give the money back, I mean that's generally what people do when they learn from their mistakes is correct them, not say a bunch of words to make things appear ok, but then it only takes about $500 to give most poeple a clear conscience.