Do You Trust Mainstream Media

studiorat

espinolman wrote: »

The main stream media has been using mind control techniques , such as getting you to feel guilty and remorse , just like reliigions do , don't you bad about climate change , same control techniques they are using thats been used for thousands of years , people are very easy to control if you can get them to feel guilty , so of course the media uses those mind control techniques all the time on you sinners .

And zeitgeist is doing that as well , see they want to get rid of the controlling religions , but keep their mind control , zeitgeist are using mind control in their movie .

Doesn't seem to be working very well though. I mean are they controlling your mind?

TalkieWalkie

studiorat wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be working very well though. I mean are they controlling your mind?

I would be inclined to agree espinolman on this. By releasing only certain information about certain events the media can make the masses feel a particular way about something or toward someone, groups or events. Perhaps it's not so much "mind control" but rather thought control or opinion control. It becomes quite obvious when you look into the fear campaign related to the war on terror or the swine flu fear campaign. Though espinolman and myself are most likely not affected by these forms of control because we are aware of it's intent, probably 80 to 85% of the masses are.

studiorat

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

By releasing only certain information about certain events the media can make the masses feel a particular way about something or toward someone, groups or events.

Like this for example : http://www.prisonplanet.com/

Or this: http://www.truthnews.net/world/2010060555.htm

Two opposing views both presented as true.
They are in fact the top two hits when I "Googled" the words truth and news. Oddly enough prison planet was the top hit.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Though espinolman and myself are most likely not affected by these forms of control because we are aware of it's intent, probably 80 to 85% of the masses are.

How are you so sure that the awareness of this intent has not been engineered in some way?

Why are you so sure that you are not one of "the masses"? Do you have access to a different media than they?

TalkieWalkie

studiorat wrote: »

Like this for example : http://www.prisonplanet.com/

Or this: http://www.truthnews.net/world/2010060555.htm

Yes, exactly like that.

studiorat wrote: »

Two opposing views both presented as true.
They are in fact the top two hits when I "Googled" the words truth and news. Oddly enough prison planet was the top hit.

It's not so odd considering PP is the worlds top conspiracy forum. And 911 truth is the biiggest conspiracy.

studiorat wrote: »

How are you so sure that the awareness of this intent has not been engineered in some way?

Obviously I can't be. But I doubt it somehow.

studiorat wrote: »

Why are you so sure that you are not one of "the masses"? Do you have access to a different media than they?

I never suggested that anyone should get their news from any one source, nor would I. The masses, 80-85% of people do get it from one source, the 6 o clock news. I on the other hand don't and think I have a pretty good notion of whats really happening in the world because of it. Mention flu vaccine to the masses and they think it's a wonderful idea, i on the other hand don't because I have gotten information from many sources.
Though some of the masses sneak in here to the CT forum to get the real story, the truth behind the mainstream news, so maybe the actual percentage should be about 79-84%

That said, I would be interested to see the same poll in the media/news forum, Im sure the results would be reversed. Also, I'd like to see a poll.. "do you trust alternative media", it would probably be a resounding NO

studiorat

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It's not so odd considering PP is the worlds top conspiracy forum. And 911 truth is the biiggest conspiracy.

And the second highest is practically the exact opposite in terms of analysis?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I never suggested that anyone should get their news from any one source, nor would I. The masses, 80-85% of people do get it from one source, the 6 o clock news.

Say's who?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I on the other hand don't and think I have a pretty good notion of whats really happening in the world because of it. Mention flu vaccine to the masses and they think it's a wonderful idea, i on the other hand don't because I have gotten information from many sources.

And what exactly was your criteria for deciding which was fact?
The manditory vaccines the scaremongers were whining about never materialised did they? Despite 14,000 reported deaths from the virus.

65 million people were vaccinated, what has happened to them? Are they now "brain washed' masses too?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Though some of the masses sneak in here to the CT forum to get the real story, the truth behind the mainstream news, so maybe the actual percentage should be about 79-84%

That said, I would be interested to see the same poll in the media/news forum, Im sure the results would be reversed. Also, I'd like to see a poll.. "do you trust alternative media", it would probably be a resounding NO

The poll is irrelevant, the amount of visits to the thread and the amount of votes should indicate that, did you bother to vote?
You also suggest that the media/news forum is somehow part of the masses. Why is that? Surely people with an interest in news and media would either be a) privy to the "brainwashing" or b) part of that system.

the_syco

By "mainstream", you mean sites/TV shows that have lots of followers who follow blindly, no matter what sh|te they tell you, such as CNN, FOX, Indymedia, etc?

I take them all with a pinch of salt. Once you know which side of the fence they are on, however, you can see follow what they like to omit from the reports.

Brown Bomber

Israeli Blockade 'Eased' Only in English, but U.S. Media Eat It Up

06/18/2010 by Alex Kane The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement yesterday that promised to "liberalize the system by which civilian goods enter Gaza." The announcement from Israel's security cabinet came after widespread international pressure on Israel following a deadly Israeli naval raid on a humanitarian flotilla trying to break the three-year old blockade of Gaza.


U.S. media echoed the Israeli press release in headlines like "Israel to Ease Gaza Land Blockade" (New York Times, 6/17/10) and "Israel Eases Restrictions on Goods Bound for Gaza Strip" (Washington Post, 6/18/10). (CNN--6/17/10--at least attributed the claim in its "Israel to Ease Blockade of Gaza, Cabinet Says.")


But corporate news coverage in the United States omitted an important aspect of the story that undermines the narrative that Israel is "easing" its blockade of Gaza. The Israeli daily Ha'aretz (6/17/10) reports:

The prime minister's office announced on Thursday that the security cabinet had agreed to relax Israel's blockade on the Gaza Strip, but as it turns out, no binding decision was ever made during the cabinet meeting.
The prime minister's office issued a press release in English following the meeting, which was also sent to foreign diplomats, was substantially different than the Hebrew announcement--according to the English text, a decision was made to ease the blockade, but in the Hebrew text there was no mention of any such decision.

U.S. corporate media have apparently decided to ignore the Hebrew press release that told a far different story about the blockade of Gaza. Even if their correspondents in Jerusalem don't speak Hebrew, the online English version of Ha'aretz reported the news about the dual statements loud and clear yesterday afternoon.


Only time will tell which statement is true and whether Israel is really easing its land blockade of Gaza. (The naval blockade will remain in place, according to the New York Times story on the Israeli statement.) Even if the English version were true, though, it doesn't seem like it will squelch criticism of the blockade--Israeli human rights organization Gisha (Guardian, 6/17/10) called the announcement "cosmetic changes," and said that "we need a policy that recognizes the rights of Palestinian residents of Gaza not just to consume but also to produce and to travel."



Such viewpoints, however, are unlikely to get much of a hearing in the U.S. press.

http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/06/18/israeli-blockade-eased-only-in-english-but-u-s-media-eat-it-up/

Brown Bomber

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kureFeGmoDI

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Declassified files from a Senate investigation into Israeli-funded covert public relations and lobbying activity in the United States were released by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) on July 23rd, 2010. The subpoenaed documents reveal Israel's clandestine programs for "cultivation of editors," the "stimulation and placement of suitable articles in the major consumer magazines" as well as U.S. reporting about sensitive subjects such as the Dimona nuclear weapons facility.

Documents are now available for download from http://IRmep.org/ila/azc include:

Dimona (excerpt): "The nuclear reactor story inspired comment from many sources; editorial writers, columnists, science writers and cartoonists. Most of the press seemed finally to accept the thesis that the reactor was being built for peaceful purposes and not for bombs." http://www.irmep.org/11-121960AZC.pdf

Content placement and promotion (excerpt): "The Atlantic Monthly in its October issue carried the outstanding Martha Gellhorn piece on the Arab refugees, which made quite an impact around the country. We arranged for the distribution of 10,000 reprints to public opinion molders in all categories… Interested friends are making arrangements with the Atlantic for another reprint of the Gellhorn article to be sent to all 53,000 persons whose names appear in Who's Who in America…Our Committee is now planning articles for the women's magazines for the trade and business publications." http://www.irmep.org/09101961AZC.pdf

Pressure campaigns (excerpt): "It can be said that the press of the nation…has by and large shown sympathy and understanding of Israel's position. There are, of course, exceptions, notably the Scripps-Howard chain where we still need to achieve a 'break-through,' the Pulliam chain (where some progress has been made) and some locally-owned papers." http://www.irmep.org/11-121960AZC.pdf

Magazine Committee achievements (excerpt): "We cannot pinpoint all that has already been accomplished by this Committee except to say that it has been responsible for the writing and placement of articles on Israel in some of America's leading magazines...." http://www.IRmep.org/10301962_AZC.pdf

According to Grant F. Smith, director of IRmep, "It is frightening how easily some in the American news media surrendered to a foreign public relations campaign that spent the 2010 equivalent of $36 million over two years. Time has proven most of the planted content to be misleading, if not dangerous. These historical documents hold many important lessons for Americans who have long needed—but rarely received—straight reporting on key Middle East issues."

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is the nation's record keeper. It retains 1%-3% of the most important documents of business conducted by the United States Federal government. The Israel Lobby Archive, http://IRmep.org/ila is a unit of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington.

SOURCE Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/declassified-senate-investigation-files-reveal-clandestine-israeli-pr-campaign-in-america-100976089.html


RELATED LINKS
http://IRmep.org/ila

TalkieWalkie

Several RTE staff voted yes

Talk E

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Please watch this.

I just accidentally came across a longer version of this. Quite hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg

Naikon

Nope

nyarlothothep

Apparently newpapers are just propaganda mouthpieces. They'll say an expert says x but what they'll really do is go onto the website of the institution or corporation said expert is affiliated with and quote them from that source as opposed to going to them directly and getting their non funded non institutionalized opinion. There's a whole book on it but I can't remember the name. Then there is the convenient not reporting on certain issues aspect. To be honest I can't logically say one can rely on any new organization with any degree of certainty. I watch RT and Press TV for critique on the US and US sources for critique on say China but I can't necessarily believe any of it. You have to place a bet and roll the dice.

Naikon

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Apparently newpapers are just propaganda mouthpieces. They'll say an expert says x but what they'll really do is go onto the website of the institution or corporation said expert is affiliated with and quote them from that source as opposed to going to them directly and getting their non funded non institutionalized opinion. There's a whole book on it but I can't remember the name. Then there is the convenient not reporting on certain issues aspect. To be honest I can't logically say one can rely on any new organization with any degree of certainty. I watch RT and Press TV for critique on the US and US sources for critique on say China but I can't necessarily believe any of it. You have to place a bet and roll the dice.

Or in the case of the tabloids, make unsourced **** up as you go along.

nyarlothothep

Naikon wrote: »

Or in the case of the tabloids, make unsourced **** up as you go along.

absolutely. At the end of the day its just humans reporting on what they see. Humans are fallible. Humans have opinions. Humans see the world in a certain way. Humans therefore cannot be trusted, even though they'll fabricate a reputation of trustworthiness through monolithic institutions which are just larger manifestations of the group opinion/mentality of humans.

Naikon

nyarlothothep wrote: »

absolutely. At the end of the day its just humans reporting on what they see. Humans are fallible. Humans have opinions. Humans see the world in a certain way. Humans therefore cannot be trusted, even though they'll fabricate a reputation of trustworthiness through monolithic institutions which are just larger manifestations of the group opinion/mentality of humans.

I think you see things the same way as I do. I don't really trust anything that does not come from an academic journal. Even then, caution must be exercised. :P

Dude111

nyarlothothep wrote:

Apparently newpapers are just propaganda mouthpieces.

Yup which is how i put two and two together and realised WIKILEAKS is a false flag govt site to release information to the public that THEY WOULD NOT RELEASE OTHERWISE! (I saw it mentioned in an MSM paper several times)

Brown Bomber

Our latest analysis of news bulletins reveals how Israel continues to spin images of war

The propaganda battle over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a new level of intensity. In 2004 the Glasgow University Media Group published a major study on TV coverage of the Second Intifada and its impact on public understanding. We analysed about 200 programmes and questioned more than 800 people. Our conclusion: reporting was dominated by Israeli accounts. Since then we have been contacted by many journalists, especially from the BBC, and told of the intense pressures they are under that limit criticism of Israel. They asked us to raise the issue in public because they can't. They speak of "waiting in fear for the phone call from the Israelis" (meaning the embassy or higher), of the BBC's Jerusalem bureau having been "leant on by the Americans", of being "guilty of self-censorship" and of "urgently needing an external arbiter". Yet the public response of the BBC is to avoid reporting our latest findings. Those in control have the power to say what is not going to be the news.

For their part, the Israelis have increased their PR effort. The Arab spring has put demands for democracy and freedom at the heart of Middle East politics, and new technology has created more problems for the spin doctors. The most graphic images of war can now be brought immediately into public view, including the deaths of women and children. When Israel planned its attack on Gaza in December 2008, it developed a new National Information Directorate, and the supply of possible material was limited by stopping reporters from entering Gaza during the fighting. In 2010, when Israel attacked the Gaza aid flotilla, it issued edited footage with its own captions about what was supposed to have happened. This highly contested account was nonetheless largely swallowed by TV news programmes. A UN-sponsored report, which later refuted the account, was barely covered.

These new public relations were designed to co-ordinate specific messages across all information sources, repeated by every Israeli speaker. Each time a grim visual image appeared, the Israeli explanation would be alongside it. In the US, messages were exhaustively analysed by The Israel Project, a US-based group that, according to Shimon Peres, "has given Israel new tools in the battle to win the hearts and minds of the world". In a document of more than 100 pages (labelled "not for publication or distribution") an enormous range of possible statements about Israel was sorted into categories of "words that work" and "words that will turn listeners off". There are strictures about what should be said and how to say it: avoid religion, Israeli messages should focus on security and peace, make sure you distinguish between the Palestinian people and Hamas (even though Hamas was elected). There is a remarkable likeness between these and the content of TV news headlines. Many journalists bought the message. Hamas was being attacked, and somehow not the Palestinians: "The bombardment continues on Hamas targets" (BBC1, 31 December 2008); "The offensive against Hamas enters its second week" (BBC1, 3 January 2009).

There were terrible images of Palestinian casualties but the message from Israel was relentless. Its attack was a necessary "response" to the firing of rockets by Palestinians. It was the Palestinian action that had started the trouble. In a new project, we have analysed more than 4,000 lines of text from the main UK news bulletins of the attack, but there was no coverage in these of the killing by the Israelis of more than 1,000 Palestinians, including hundreds of children, in the three years before it. In the TV news coverage, Israeli statements on the causes of action overwhelmed those of the Palestinians by more than three to one. Palestinian statements tended to be only that they would seek revenge on Israel. The underlying reasons for the conflict were absent, such as being driven from their homes and land when Israel was created.

Journalists tended to stay on the firmest ground in reporting, such as the images of "innocent victims", and there was little said about why Palestinians were fighting Israel. We interviewed audience groups and found the gaps in their knowledge closely paralleled absences in the news. A majority believed Palestinians broke the ceasefire that existed before the December attack and did not know Israel had attacked Gaza during it, in November 2008, killing six Palestinians. Members of the public expressed sorrow for the plight of Palestinians but, because of the Israeli message so firmly carried by TV, they thought the Palestinians had somehow brought it on themselves. As one put it: "When I saw the pictures of the dead children it was dreadful, I was in tears but it didn't make me feel that the Palestinians and Hamas were right … I think the Palestinians haven't taken the chance to work towards a peaceful solution. Hamas called an end to the last ceasefire." This participant was surprised to hear Hamas was reported to have said it would have stopped the rockets if Israel had agreed to lift its economic siege. The source was Ephraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad intelligence service.

Images of suffering do not now in themselves affect how audiences see the validity of actions in war. People see the images as tragic, but judgments as to who is right and wrong are now firmly in the hands of the spin doctors.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/31/israel-pr-victory-images-war?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fmedia%2Frss+%28Media%29

Brown Bomber

This dramatic time cover is from a Serb "concentration camp" taken from footage from an ITN award winning report. The report was crucial is transforming public opinion into supporting the subsequent NATO bombings of Serbia.

However, all may not be as it seems. A Serb camera crew was shadowing the ITN group that particular day and this is what they filmed. Must watch film IMO.

This will give you an idea on the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biufVd0R90g

Judgment! 1/3 - The Bosnian 'Death Camp' Accusation: An Expose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xox7TR11evI

Judgment! 2/3 - The Bosnian 'Death Camp' Accusation: An Expose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQpUlh51xU

Judgment! 3/3 - The Bosnian 'Death Camp' Accusation: An Expose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPiAWbIbAyM