Thread dealing with the history of gradual corporate takeover and
ownership of the Western media.. and how nowadays the news seems far more 'managed' than reported.
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/hg5e20c906.jpg)
Despite its political slant really did think the documentary 'Orwell Roll In His Grave' was a good one and contained some important facts and interviews with 'appalled' journalists concerning the elimination of the 'Fairness Act'; the 'perverse move' of giving media corporations 'free speech rights' and the complete domination of small independent stations - the corporate implementation of 'ideological warfare' is also discussed in the full unabridged three hour version so it's a great shame it keeps on being deleted.
'Orwell Rolls In His Grave'Abridged:
https://youtu.be/iA4OTsb7Fho
Quote]Could a media system, controlled by a few global corporations with the ability to overwhelm all competing voices, be able to turn lies into truth?
The Telecommunications Act.Quote"You will not see this story on any television or hear it on any radio broadcast"
Sen John McCain
Also, when it comes to realising complete monopoly over the fourth estate it's nice to reexamine some of the other mechanisms employed and think it's fair to say when Bill Clinton passed the 1996 'Telecommunications Act' many folks were completely unaware of it (over the course of 9 months it got only 19 minutes news coverage).
Apparently all existing safeguards were flushed down the toilet and 'rules of the airwaves were rewritten and all regulation thrown out'.
QuotePassed in 1996 under President Bill Clinton, the Telecommunications Act has resulted in large-scale deregulation of the entire US media industry, removing many limitations on the number of different media outlets that can be owed by a single company.
Today, six corporations control 90 percent of all of the media output in the United States. As we will see, this has affected the quality, variety, and accessibility of US media in a number of ways.
10 Ways Mass Media Ownership Hurts The Public (http://listverse.com/2016/10/06/10-ways-mass-media-ownership-hurts-the-public/)
Know that many folks these days feel the corporate media is an absolute joke and maybe in an ideal world the Fairness Act would be restored, the Telecommunications Act revoked and the (very few) corporate entities who own the media held accountable to the people.. don't suspect that will happen very soon though.
Anyway here's a nice definition of a
Mediaocracy (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mediaocracy&=true&defid=2399081) and a relevant quote straight from the Nazi playbook:
Quote"What you need to control the media is ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity"
Joseph Goebbels
Intelligence Agency connection.
Vid exploring the (very) close connection between the corporate media and intelligence agencies like the CIA (citing specific examples).
https://youtu.be/EIA7sl827iQ
QuoteMedia Control & Mockingbird Today.
Even after all these years, Operation Mockingbird, the CIA program to infiltrate and control U.S. journalism, is still not well known. Officially, Mockingbird ended in the 1970s after it was exposed. In reality, control over our establishment media is deeper and more insidious than ever before.
Also some interesting claims from a quite well respected news editor and author (https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474) about NCOs (Non-official cover) which occurs 'when a journalist is essentially working for the CIA'.
https://youtu.be/sGqi-k213eE
Quote"I was bribed by billionaires, I was bribed by the Americans to report...not exactly the truth."
– Udo Ulfkotte, a former editor of one of Germany's main daily publications, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
Some readers will see this and immediately dismiss it as Russian propaganda since the interview appeared on RT. This would be a serious mistake.
Whether you want to admit it or not, CIA control of the media in the U.S. and abroad is not conspiracy theory, it is conspiracy fact.
link (https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/10/08/non-official-cover-respected-german-journalist-blows-whistle-on-how-the-cia-controls-the-media/)
Also seems some folks thought his untimely death smelled a bit fishy.
https://youtu.be/SXlhz_7keEY
The problem is that it's very difficult to keep media independence on a relatively or completely capitalist system, as the money needed to fund the companies may (and is) seen as "I help you, you help me" transaction, so they end up helping those that provide the money, so they can get more money.
Cronyism is a problem, but it's not the worst one. The most fundamental issue, and the one which we can not overcome, is the fact that critical thinking is an acquired skill which must be taught, whereas stupidity and blind deference to perceived authority are innate.
You can't have free speech or freedom of choice in a cancel culture society (Well...rephrased...you CAN, but your going to pay for it in one way or another).
Glenn Greenwald, who helped publish Snowden revelations, RESIGNS from outlet he founded after editors censor his Biden reportingQuote... the pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality that led to the bizarre spectacle of my being censored by my own media outlet are ones that are by no means unique to The Intercept. These are the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom.
https://www.rt.com/news/504967-greenwald-resignation-intercept-biden-censorship/ (https://www.rt.com/news/504967-greenwald-resignation-intercept-biden-censorship/)
I recently realised something very important about the psychopaths.
They only really care about something, and try and step on it, if it gets to the top of the proverbial network effect bell curve. If it becomes sufficiently viral that it has the potential to influence large numbers of people.
I can use Slackware Linux from 2013, for example; or TempleOS, even though they are non-standard operating systems, and the psychopaths don't care about that, because even though they might be making a miniscule amount of money less from me than they otherwise would, those operating systems allow me to do very little, and I am also only one person using them, so it doesn't matter.
If that changed to me turning TempleOS into something which millions of people could use, however, then that would be different, and I would have to be suicided, because I would be interfering with Apple's profits and the ability of the psychopaths to enslave people.
So in reality you can still do almost whatever you want, as long as (if it has the potential to be disruptive) you don't influence large numbers of other people to do it. In this respect however, the psychopaths are also protected by human stupidity and laziness. Another computer operating system might conceivably be developed which was much more advanced than either Windows or Linux, yet if it is more difficult to use than a toaster, for the most part it won't gain popular critical mass, and therefore it is also not a threat.
Quote from: petrus4 on October 31, 2020, 10:11:32 AM
If that changed to me turning TempleOS into something which millions of people could use, however, then that would be different, and I would have to be suicided, because I would be interfering with Apple's profits and the ability of the psychopaths to enslave people.
No need to "suicide" you, they would either buy your system or sue you to make it impossible for your system to be used.
QuoteAnother computer operating system might conceivably be developed which was much more advanced than either Windows or Linux, yet if it is more difficult to use than a toaster, for the most part it won't gain popular critical mass, and therefore it is also not a threat.
Most people do not care about learning something new, that's too much work, they just want to get things without any work from them, even if the results would be better.
But I think your use of "psychopaths" is not correct, as real psychopaths don't care about any thing, and the people you are talking about do care about one or two things, money and/or power.
Quote from: ArMaP on October 31, 2020, 03:24:29 PM
But I think your use of "psychopaths" is not correct, as real psychopaths don't care about any thing, and the people you are talking about do care about one or two things, money and/or power.
Lizard people? I know you'll say that lizard people don't really exist, and I agree; but the main reason why I don't think they exist, is because the humans I'm talking about here, behave enough like them themselves, that the lizard people don't need to exist. So as jargon or metaphor, it could work.
I do have a problem with people using the wrong names for things. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on October 26, 2020, 08:32:31 PM
The problem is that it's very difficult to keep media independence on a relatively or completely capitalist system.
Fair point mate although I do wonder about the agenda behind the systematic dismantling of existing safeguards.
When it comes to 'following the money' then thought the article below made some good points.
QuoteThere is no need for me to point out the JP Morgan (major institutional holder of Time Warner) / Rockefeller connections, which also played a big role in the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1912. So what does all this have to do with the United Nations?
Well, the same ones that own all of our mainstream media networks, also own, run and created the United Nations. The owners of the United Nations use their media networks to influence the perception of billions of people.
Not many people know that our mainstream media networks are owned by less than 5 multinational corporations, and all of these corporations have ties to the Rothschild and Rockefeller families..
Our planet is owned by a small group of families and the corporations they run, this is no longer a secret, no longer a conspiracy theory. It's becoming evident that these "people" do not have our best intentions at hand.
And
QuoteBy promoting themselves, I am referring to the UN's use of mainstream media networks, like CNN. CNN is owned by Time Warner (1), which is owned by JP Morgan Chase and Company and Dodge & Cox Inc, to name a few (2). It also has a select group of direct holders, like Jeffrey L. Bewkes. Mr. Bewkes sits in the head office of Time Warner's two towers built in 2001 -buildings purposely built to resemble the once standing World Trade Centers of New York City.
Bewkes is also a member of The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (3),which is headed and funded by the Rothschild and Rockefeller families (4)(5). In fact a large majority of mainstream media network owners are all members of the CFR, as well as the trilateral commission. Another example of this is Richard D. Parsons. who served as Time Warner's Chairman of the Board from May 2003 to January 2009. Currently Mr. Parsons is a member of the Board of Trustees and is a Senior Advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation(6).
I could even go on to look at Frank J. Caufield, another major direct holder of Time Warner Corp, who is also a member of the CFR(7). Let me remind you again, that CNN is owned by Time Warner Corp, which is owned by a number of individuals and corporations that are run by a few families.
link (https://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/26/the-united-nations-exposed-who-is-in-control/)
Cheers.
When someone says something like "owners of the United Nations" I become suspicious of their intentions. When someone keeps focus on one thing (in this case CNN) I become even more suspicious.
'It's not your job': Debate sparked on 'unbiased' journalism after news broadcasters cut away from Trump's election fraud speechQuoteA fierce debate about the role of journalism has emerged on the internet, after multiple media outlets cut away from a live address in which US President Donald Trump leveled allegations of voter fraud.
In an unprecedented move, MSNBC, NBC News, CNBC, CBS News, ABC News, and even publicly funded NPR, cut their feed from the White House as Trump began to speak about alleged voting irregularities during the 2020 contest. Among the major broadcasters, only Fox and CNN chose to air the full speech. A CNN chyron shown during his speech read: "Without any evidence, Trump says he's being cheated."
During his Thursday night address, Trump pointed at alleged "election interference from Big Media, Big Money and Big Tech," and claimed that "we were winning in all the key locations by a lot" and that only later "our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret."
Outlets defended pulling the plug on Trump's provocative remarks, arguing that they didn't want to spread unsubstantiated claims about the election.
"Here we are again in the unusual position of not only interrupting the president of the United States but correcting the president of the United States," said MSNBC host Brian Williams as his network cut away from Trump. Anchors at other networks made similar remarks.
USA Today's editor-in-chief said that it ended its livestream of the address because the outlet's job is to "spread truth – not unfounded conspiracies."
"We're not going to allow it to keep going, because it's not true," stated CNBC's Shep Smith on air.
Many argued that such incendiary allegations from the US president were inherently newsworthy and merited live coverage. Twitter users further pointed out there was no way for networks to know with certainty that Trump was lying or spreading misinformation, noting that their job should simply be to relay, without bias, what Trump had said.
https://www.rt.com/usa/505828-networks-cut-trump-speech-election-fraud/ (https://www.rt.com/usa/505828-networks-cut-trump-speech-election-fraud/)
The media's job is to publish news, but they have the right to choose what they publish.
To me, the best option would have been to keep on showing Trump's speech and then point to the facts.