The truth owners

  • News
  • Thread starter Burnsys
  • Start date
  • #1
60
0
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
369
3
Where did you get this? Did you just write it yourself here?
 
  • #3
60
0
Smurf said:
Where did you get this? Did you just write it yourself here?

noo. i am not that good in english, neither writing things :grumpy:

but i share what it say..

it's from:
Gianni DeVincent Hayes, Ph.D
NewsWithViews.com
 
  • #4
369
3
I had no idea vivendi was so big (I Invested in them! :yuck: ).
Here's the site for anyone who wants to read the bibliography and what not.
 
  • #5
Problem is, we don't know what we don't know. If the media are leaving out important stories, this will make us mistrustful. Then who would we trust to tell us the truth? How would we know whether to believe them?
 
  • #6
369
3
Well, you could always start with someone who's not trying to take over the world.
(guess that leaves me out)
 
  • #7
One of the references in the article above led to http://www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle8.html [Broken]

"Do you believe any of the following?

· Alcoholics Anonymous is effective.
· Hackers pose a grave threat to the nation.
· Former POW Sen. John McCain wants to reveal the truth about POWs and MIAs.
· The Bible contains a hidden code.
· The Big Bang is an airtight fact.
· Thousands of species have gone extinct because of deforestation.
· George W. Bush has never commuted any prisoner’s death sentence.
· World War II was "the Good War".
· All serial killers are men.
· Licking certain toads will get you high.
· The Columbine massacre was planned and carried out by two students acting alone.
· Most terrorists are Middle Eastern.
· Humans have not yet been cloned.

Wake up! You're being lied to".

I can't help feeling intrigued.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
russ_watters
Mentor
20,963
7,585
The CBS vs Bloggers thing has proven pretty conclusively that the media can't manipulate the truth too much and get away with it. My biggest concern is the subtler side of the liberal bias: the live reporting during the election, for example.
 
  • #9
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
Thus, our opinions are built solely on their propaganda.

I don't agree with this 100%. There are many independent thinkers here in America. It is a matter of them being proactive in finding newsources that does their best in reporting a more balanced perspective. You can't place the responsibility of the American viewpoint solely on the media. Americans must take responsibility for their viewpoint ultimately.
 
  • #10
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,082
20
My opinion is that ever since Ronald Reagan decided to give the media a whole bunch of power (in exchange for...), the quality of news reporting has been going downhill, and now it's too late to reverse the trend.

But at least further expansion should be checked. At one time it looked like Bush was going to veto the Congressional bill to check this growth - he did threaten to. I think he finally caved in to pressure from saner heads (never thought that was possible, eh ?)
 
  • #11
60
0
don't you wonder where are the images of the deads in irak??? i se a lot of american movies with deads and stuff like that, but if there are more than 15.000 civilians death (or 100.000 acording to another source) why don't we see even one of those??? why don't we see images of man to man combat in irak? why don't we see the destruction of falujha?? but we see a staged saddam statue tople. and we see the lynch soldier hero bull****.... it't all censored and filtered..

Or if you remember, in 2001, the killers shark panic.

Or just a week before the elections, Bin laden's video..


"On August 15th, 1992, an ITN news-crew led by Penny Marshall shot footage of a reputed Bosnian Serb concentration camp at Trnopolje. The resulting images of emaciated and imprisoned dissident Fikret Alic and other Bosnian Muslims became indelibly etched into the public's mind, sparking moral outrage which eventually led to NATO intervention in the Balkans during 1999.

Except, according to former 'LM' ('Living Marxism') editor Mike Hume, Marshall's footage did not reveal a Nazi-like death camp, but was in fact staged. The Trnopolje camp was, Hume claimed in an 'LM' article, actually a refugee camp, and Marshall's team had filed the material under intense pressure to 'scoop' the world press for the expose.
"

The distinction between propaganda and news is increasingly a tenuous one, but it becomes even more disturbing when libel laws are used to muzzle investigative reporting and marginalize dissident viewpoints.

"WASHINGTON, ATLANTA - For a short time last year, CNN employed military specialists in 'psychological operations' (psyops). This was confirmed to Trouw by a spokesman of the U.S. Army. The military could have influenced CNN's news reports about the crisis in Kosovo.
"

"In short, the major media are corporations "selling" privileged audiences to other businesses.... Media concentration is high, and increasing. Furthermore, those who occupy managerial positions in the media...belong to the same privileged elites, and might be expected to share the perceptions, aspirations, and attitudes of their associates, reflecting their own class interests as well. Journalists entering the system are unlikely to make their way unless they conform to these ideological pressures, generally by internalizing the values.... Those who fail to conform will be weeded out...
-- from the Massey Lectures "
 
  • #12
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
Burnsys said:
don't you wonder where are the images of the deads in irak??? i se a lot of american movies with deads and stuff like that, but if there are more than 15.000 civilians death (or 100.000 acording to another source) why don't we see even one of those??? why don't we see images of man to man combat in irak? why don't we see the destruction of falujha?? but we see a staged saddam statue tople. and we see the lynch soldier hero bull****.... it't all censored and filtered..

i don't see anything wrong with the media withholding images of the dead on the news from the war. my children don't need to see this as the evening news comes on before they go to bed. the american news media is typically on public tv, so you have more children watching. i think the parents of these children would be outraged if you had the dead and seriously injured broadcasted at 6pm.

cable tv does wonders...it's private, people have to pay for it, and those broadcasting it have a little more control of what they can put on for those to see.
 
  • #13
60
0
Kerrie said:
i don't see anything wrong with the media withholding images of the dead on the news from the war. my children don't need to see this as the evening news comes on before they go to bed. the american news media is typically on public tv, so you have more children watching. i think the parents of these children would be outraged if you had the dead and seriously injured broadcasted at 6pm.

cable tv does wonders...it's private, people have to pay for it, and those broadcasting it have a little more control of what they can put on for those to see.

i Can name you a lot of american movies where you can see dead people..
And they can be shown past 10pm. And it's not ok to show the images of the dead iraqis or us soldier, but it's ok to send 18 year old kids to some foreing country to killl people they don't even know.....

Edit: I remember the media showing saddam mass graves, i wonder where all those iraqis civilians (Colateral damage) killed by usa army are buried....
Also remeber the media showing nick berg decapitation, and the hunging of the "Private contractors" (Mercenaries) in the bridge.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
369
3
russ_watters said:
The CBS vs Bloggers thing has proven pretty conclusively that the media can't manipulate the truth too much and get away with it. My biggest concern is the subtler side of the liberal bias: the live reporting during the election, for example.
What liberal bias? explain.
 
  • #15
1,866
222
Firstly, thanks to Smurf for asking for a source for this. In the future, please don't cut and paste without including proper referencing; it's dishonest.

Secondly, the statement

Many refuse to believe this, but in reality, there are only about six people/corporations that own the ten big media.

is one I find misleading. They say "people/corporations," but only include corporations. Since each of those corporations is owned by it's shareholders, of which there are many, it is safe to say that there are many, many more owners of the media than six. A more interesting task would be to observe who owns what shares in those companies and how many people own most of them. The author fails to do this, and so forgoes his only reasonable argument.

What we're left with is an article that is in obvious error and seems to be more conjecture than reasonable fact.
 
  • #16
60
0
Locrian said:
Firstly, thanks to Smurf for asking for a source for this. In the future, please don't cut and paste without including proper referencing; it's dishonest.

Secondly, the statement

is one I find misleading. They say "people/corporations," but only include corporations. Since each of those corporations is owned by it's shareholders, of which there are many, it is safe to say that there are many, many more owners of the media than six. A more interesting task would be to observe who owns what shares in those companies and how many people own most of them. The author fails to do this, and so forgoes his only reasonable argument.

What we're left with is an article that is in obvious error and seems to be more conjecture than reasonable fact.

i don't know why but it's dificult to find who are the top shareholders of this corporations, i was able to find viacom shareholders and just as i imagined, they where mostly banks, and those who has share on the most powerfull corporations of the world, and all members of the trilateral comision and CFR,
betwen them:

Fidelity Management
Goldman Sachs
Smith Barney
J.P. Morgan
GE Asset Management
American Express
Morgan Stanley

if anyone can find shareholders for the other 5 corporations it would be great
 
  • #17
russ_watters
Mentor
20,963
7,585
Smurf said:
What liberal bias? explain.
No. Old ground, thoroughly proven, not up for question. Do a search if you're honestly questioning this.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
russ_watters
Mentor
20,963
7,585
Locrian said:
is one I find misleading. They say "people/corporations," but only include corporations. Since each of those corporations is owned by it's shareholders, of which there are many, it is safe to say that there are many, many more owners of the media than six. A more interesting task would be to observe who owns what shares in those companies and how many people own most of them. The author fails to do this, and so forgoes his only reasonable argument.

What we're left with is an article that is in obvious error and seems to be more conjecture than reasonable fact.
I've seen the argument made that its the management of each (or even the government) that controls the news, but even that doesn't fly: you cannot control what someone says on live TV and you cannot control the stories reported or pursued by the branches of each station. You can't even control the national news: even if CNN in Atlanta (for example) were to be tightly controlled, there are international news sources and the AP wire (and that's before you even consider the internet).

Simply put, there is just far too much information available and far too many places to get it to be able to control the information people get in a free society. It almost seems that people think that if the communist countries can do it, then CNN can do it. Not so, and what's more with the internet, its becomming increasingly difficult for communist countries to do that. The USSR would not have been able to stay in business in the internet age.
 
  • #19
60
0
russ_watters said:
I've seen the argument made that its the management of each (or even the government) that controls the news, but even that doesn't fly: you cannot control what someone says on live TV and you cannot control the stories reported or pursued by the branches of each station. You can't even control the national news: even if CNN in Atlanta (for example) were to be tightly controlled, there are international news sources and the AP wire (and that's before you even consider the internet).

Simply put, there is just far too much information available and far too many places to get it to be able to control the information people get in a free society. It almost seems that people think that if the communist countries can do it, then CNN can do it. Not so, and what's more with the internet, its becomming increasingly difficult for communist countries to do that. The USSR would not have been able to stay in business in the internet age.

Of course they can do it, just check the diversity of the news, from channel to channel, they are all the same news, some have a "Liberal Bias" other "A Right bias" but they all inform on the same subjects, and they all share the same information.. Reuters, AP, Cnn, FOX news..
When you see the 8pm news girl talking, she is actualy reading everything she say, and when the show is live, they know what line to folow.. that happened when on O Reilys show the son of a 911 victim said the us goverment trained the mujadin fighters in afganistan.. O reily had to cut his microphone..

---------------------------------------
TRanscript:

Glick: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro-Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'Reilly: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...
Glick: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...
O'Reilly: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.
Glick: ... escalating...
O'Reilly: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.
Glick: It's marginal -- right.
O'Reilly: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.
Glick: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.
......
Glick: ... is that in -- 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.
O'Reilly: All right. I don't want to...
Glick: Maybe...
O'Reilly: I don't want to debate world politics with you.
Glick: Well, why not? This is about world politics.
O'Reilly: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.
Glick: Well, OK.
O'Reilly: You're -- I want to...
Glick: But you do care because you...
O'Reilly: No, no. Look...
Glick: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...
O'Reilly: Here's why I care.
Glick: ... to rationalize...
O'Reilly: Here's why I care...
Glick: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.
O'Reilly: OK. That's a bunch...
O'Reilly: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.
Glick: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...
O'Reilly: Who killed your father!
Glick: The people in Afghanistan...
O'Reilly: Who killed your father.
Glick: ... didn't kill my father.
O'Reilly: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.
Glick: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?
O'Reilly: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!
Glick: So what about George Bush?
O'Reilly: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.
Glick: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.
O'Reilly: He had nothing to do with it.
Glick: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who ere...
O'Reilly: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.
Glick: Well, I hope she is.
O'Reilly: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.
Glick: OK.
O'Reilly: In respect for your father...
Glick: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?
O'Reilly: Shut up. Shut up.
Glick: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.
O'Reilly: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...
Glick: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...
O'Reilly: Out of respect for him...
Glick: ... not the people of America.
O'Reilly: ... I'm not going to...
Glick: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.
O'Reilly: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.
We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.
Glick: That means we're done?
O'Reilly: We're done.
--------------------------
Full transcript: http://www.bushpresident2004.com/oreilly-transcript.htm
Video: http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/oreilly.wmv [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
russ_watters
Mentor
20,963
7,585
Burnsys said:
Of course they can do it...
HOW? This isn't the USSR where there is only one TV station in the entire country. Controlling an American media conglomerate requires an extrordinary level of integration between network affiliates and the home office - a level of integration that quite simply doesn't exist.

I know you aren't really going to answer that question, so some simple examples you can address:

I live outside of Philadelphia, PA. The NBC affiliate is NBC10. Who wrote the stories on the website (even the local stories)? Someone from the affiliate or someone from the network office in New York? If someone from NBC10 wrote the stories, did someone check them and approve them from the network office in New York? Who and how (since there are dozens of stations, that'd be a big infrastructure)? NBC10 does live broadcasts: is someone monitoring and censoring these broadcasts at the national level? Who and how? Is the script written, approved, or even read by someone at the national office? If the NBC10 office sees a story on Al Jazeera, does it require approval from the national office before it is aired? Can the national office stop them from airing it? How? Are you starting to understand the magnitude of what you are alleging?

Your O'reilly example doesn't help you any: its obvious that the mic was cut not because of the idea espoused, but because of the tone of the argument. You're using the same wrong censorship argument that people we ban use - we don't ban people for their ideas, only for their attiude.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
60
0
russ_watters said:
HOW? This isn't the USSR where there is only one TV station in the entire country. Controlling an American media conglomerate requires an extrordinary level of integration between network affiliates and the home office - a level of integration that quite simply doesn't exist.

I know you aren't really going to answer that question, so some simple examples you can address:

I live outside of Philadelphia, PA. The NBC affiliate is NBC10. Who wrote the stories on the website (even the local stories)? Someone from the affiliate or someone from the network office in New York? If someone from NBC10 wrote the stories, did someone check them and approve them from the network office in New York? Who and how (since there are dozens of stations, that'd be a big infrastructure)? NBC10 does live broadcasts: is someone monitoring and censoring these broadcasts at the national level? Who and how? Is the script written, approved, or even read by someone at the national office? If the NBC10 office sees a story on Al Jazeera, does it require approval from the national office before it is aired? Can the national office stop them from airing it? How? Are you starting to understand the magnitude of what you are alleging?

I am not from USA, i live in argentina but i can imagine that NBC has a hierarchical order, what i think is that NBC10 director or top manager is apointed by someone of more range in the New york office, who is acountable for everything that appen in NBC10, of course they are going to "Promote" to higher ranks to those who share the main editorial line. and this is about the critical subjects, like war, economi, elections.. the rest is random fill with unimportant news...
 
Last edited:
  • #22
russ_watters
Mentor
20,963
7,585
Burnsys said:
I am not from USA, i live in argentina but i can imagine that...
Indeed you do have an active imagination, but I'm sorry, your imagination is not a substitute for reality. You're taking shots in the dark here. Your imagination isn't evidence of anything.

And you didn't address a single one of those questions - are you having trouble even imagining how it could be done?
 
  • #23
1,866
222
Burnsys said:
they where mostly banks, and those who has share on the most powerfull corporations of the world, and all members of the trilateral comision and CFR,
betwen them:

Fidelity Management
Goldman Sachs
Smith Barney
J.P. Morgan
GE Asset Management
American Express
Morgan Stanley

Those are not actually banks (as the word is used in the US), but are instead investment firms. The reason those firms own a particular company is because investors have asked them to purchase that particular company for them. If the investor took his money out, the firm would then sell the share. Therefore, calling those companies owners of the stock would be misleading; in fact, they are just holders, the real owners are a much larger and diverse group.

Of course, this brings up another possibly interesting topic: how much control do shareholders have? Obviously they get to vote (see ya Eisner), but how much control does someone who is investing through a mutual fund his company offers have? This is another option the original writer of the posted article could have taken, but I suspect the details are beyond him.

The reason you are having trouble finding the stock holder's names is because the list is enormously long. I suspect a few people own large shares and would love to find out who they are, but it is still a long enough list to miss mainstream attention.

Overall, I still find the original conjecture - that the media is owned and controlled by few parties - extremely difficult to accept. For reasons Russ has given it is difficult to control. For reasons I've given it is difficult to own. A much stronger case would need to be made than has been presented.
 
  • #24
369
3
russ_watters said:
Your O'reilly example doesn't help you any: its obvious that the mic was cut not because of the idea espoused, but because of the tone of the argument. You're using the same wrong censorship argument that people we ban use - we don't ban people for their ideas, only for their attiude.
I've watched the video and I don't see how his attitude was bad at all just that O'Reilly didn't want to listen to him talk about the USA being the bad guy.
 
  • #25
Smurf said:
I've watched the video and I don't see how his attitude was bad at all just that O'Reilly didn't want to listen to him talk about the USA being the bad guy.

I haven't seen the video, but if anyone has a link...?

The attitude that stood out from the transcript was O'Reilly's. I thought it sounded pretty insulting that he used 'respect for the memory of Glick's father' as an excuse to shut Glick up.
 
Top