Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Gettin' there
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As I get older and especially now, during this most important election for the United States in my voting time, I have realized that the media (in all forms) is as much to blame for our chaotic mess as the two party system is.

The media gives no time or attention to any other candidate besides the two parties, Republican & Democrat.

The internet is huge and anyone can make a web page spouting off what they want. But if the big boys refuse to give equal time to third party candidates, we all lose. Not everyone, as much as we can't imagine it, has internet access.

If CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX and any other news organization gave the third party (or 4th, or 5th, or 6th) the time of day, most Americans would not think they only had two choices.

It is censorship at it's best. When you don't allow other candidates to get their message out through the same outlets as the Republicans & Democrats, it is censorship. When you deny another party the ability to compete in national televised debates, it is censorship.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? How can we pressure the news/media outlets to let others have a voice? Is it already too late? Will this election be the last as we know it?
 

·
Information is Ammunition
Joined
·
22,122 Posts
well, there is NPR, but as far as TV- forget it. When that deadline passes and no analog signals can be sent without being filtered through a government regulated cable system, say goodbye to whatever UHF stations were left as well as any small time independent stations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
As I get older and especially now, during this most important election for the United States in my voting time, I have realized that the media (in all forms) is as much to blame for our chaotic mess as the two party system is.

The media gives no time or attention to any other candidate besides the two parties, Republican & Democrat.

The internet is huge and anyone can make a web page spouting off what they want. But if the big boys refuse to give equal time to third party candidates, we all lose. Not everyone, as much as we can't imagine it, has internet access.

If CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX and any other news organization gave the third party (or 4th, or 5th, or 6th) the time of day, most Americans would not think they only had two choices.

It is censorship at it's best. When you don't allow other candidates to get their message out through the same outlets as the Republicans & Democrats, it is censorship. When you deny another party the ability to compete in national televised debates, it is censorship.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? How can we pressure the news/media outlets to let others have a voice? Is it already too late? Will this election be the last as we know it?
T.V. is a propaganda T00l(why is T00l a bad word?), plain and simple. I haven't watched t.v. in 3 months and i don't miss it. I get my news from different sources, so I can compare the facts. The media is controlled and if you put your faith in it then your controlled to a degree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
I personally believe that the reason is that the same people/companies that finance the campaigns (buy the politician) are the same people that own and/or pay for advertising on the main media outlets so they don't want to rock the boat and mess up their money flow. We don't have many journalist anymore just propagandist and marketers.
 

·
Wild Edibles Expert
Joined
·
10,167 Posts
well, there is NPR.
Last year I had to do a large research report on the media, and one of the findings was that the majority of people questioned in one large poll said NPR was the most untrustworthy of all media. No doubt station policies like what NPR did last Christmas contributes to that view. Last Christmas NPR refused to use the word "Christmas" on the air in that the word was considered offensive. So they used the term "C-Day." Oh and Easter festivals are out as well. Spring festivals are in.

The problem with the media is many sided, one of which is that the vast majority of journalists are women and they tend to be liberal. The national face may be male, but the writers, the researchers, the story line developers are female and that puts a bias spin on the news. Female journalists tend to be agenda driven and males fact driven. Not only that but the vast ajority of the hundred thousand journalists across the nation in every city are female, and that slants the news from facts to agenda.

I can give you two good example of agenda news vs facts news: Every fall there is a candlelight vigil for all the females killed by men in the local area. Life-size silhouettes are cut out and carry the name of the victim. The media make a lot of it. Yet in the same year and area, more children are killed by mothers than women are killed by men. There is no vigil for the children killed because the agenda is to show women as victims, not victimizers. And then there is the annual superbowl. Some 20 years ago a female professor did a study that showed there was LESS domestic violence on Superbowl Sunday than any other day of the year. The California's chapter of N.O.W. held a news conference and deliberately announced exactly the opposite, absolutely lied. Now, every January we see news stories on how domestic violence is up every superbowl Sunday, when in fact it is still down. That is female-run agenda journalism.

This is not the first time this kind of major shift downward in standards has happened. Women took over education and it has been dumbing down ever since. Their influence in journalism's poor performance is showing and they are poised to take over medicine and law (since less males are going to college because education has a female bias.)

So that is one problem, and related to that is the problem is that most males do not finish high school and cannot read. That stems from using female-friendly methods of learning in schools rather than male friendly. Boys and girls learn very differently and we now emphasize those methods that help girls learn and discourage boys. Girls learn by cooperation and flexible guidelines, boys learn through competition and strict rules. Forcing boys to learn like girls means they don't learn, they get discouraged, and drop out. ) If the majority of girls were not finishing high school it would be considered a national tragedy. That the majority of boys are not finishing high school is conveniently overlooked.

In a 2006 study a quarter of the white males, 18-years old, high school graduates, with college educated parents, could not read a newspaper story and understand it. That's supposedly the cream of the crop and 25% couldn't do it. Which is unfortunate because bias and agendas aside, newspapers are till the most credible source of information of all the media.

This is why everything is getting shorter in the media and given completely out of context. Sound bites, two-paragraph "stories" in USA today, 13 second news on radio. In fact, newspapers have been loosing readership in percents since the 1920's and are essentially on their way out. Females are now the majority reader and readership is dwindling among them.

Television, which in my opinion mis- and mal-informs, is severely threatened by the internet. (Misinforming is unintentional, mal-informing is intentional... something CBS has elevated to an art form.) Cable news was the first big body blow for TV now it is the internet. And as pathetically poor as the standards are on television, it is far higher than the absence of standards on the internet. There are a lot of political posts here from internet sites that have virtually no basis in reality and have no credibility, yet they are believed intensely.

Lastly, the issue is generational. Those over 40 say newspapers are the most credible media, those under 40 say it is the Internet, which is the least credible, is the most credible. Regardless of where one lands on the issues, think about that for the moment: Objectively, the least credible source of information will soon be viewed by the majority of the population as the most credible source of information. That is a formula for an even more mis- and mal-informed public, and that is a threat to democracy.

News organizations used to pride themselves on fairness and quality. Now they pride themselves on championing their agenda (which excludes things like feminine women, non-gay male artists, Black racists, housewives, conservative Christians leading good lives, et cetera.) As a former journalist of the old school I find that disgusting. I always strove to give a balanced presentation of equal weighted views. Now you can see a serious news show present a point counter point between NASA and the Flat Earth Society. It is all rather pathetic.
 

·
*** Forgives, I don't
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
NBC is owned by General Electric. The 3 top people at GE (all male) decided to use NBC as part of Obamas campaign. There is no truth in journalism anymore, everything is slanted to fit the reporters view.
We have sit on our collective asses to long, I have been preparing for whats coming a long time but I really don't want to see it. Going into 'nam I wasn't scared. I thought it was sort of cool. That changed when I saw what happens to real people when real bullets/booby traps hit them. I don't want to see this again but I'm concerned its coming.
Unless America steps up and really demands change we won't get it.
We have a "million man" and a "million women" marches but none to protest corruption in our Goverment. Go figure.
 

·
Information is Ammunition
Joined
·
22,122 Posts
this post should be in the contraversial bin, but have you guys ever REALLy taken a good look at the CBS logo?

 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top