• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill O'Reilly recently admitted corruption in the media

creativedreams

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
2,730
Reaction score
239
Location
Timbuktu
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I have always been talking about the corruption and connections with the U.S. media and the corporate U.S. government.

Through Republican and Democrat marketing teams putting out articles, publications and news stories that plant seeds into the sheeples brains on what opinions to have on who.

This is especially evident with the media blitz's on any third party trying to be in control of the U.S. Presidency.

Bill O'Reilly recently even stated there is corruption in the media.

Why won't Bill O'Reilly investigate the depths and details of the media corruptions even though he acknowledges its existence?

The American media used to investigate everything under the sun....especially things to do with the U.S. government.

This has changed somehow and now the U.S. media is nothing more than a propaganda beacon for the U.S. government and both political parties.

This is especially evident in how the American people now get bought and paid for "debunking" propaganda to sway the minds of the American people instead of new and real investigations asked for by the American people with government officials under oath.
 
Last edited:
I have always been talking about the corruption and connections with the U.S. media and the corporate U.S. government.

Through Republican and Democrat marketing teams putting out articles, publications and news stories that plant seeds into the sheeples brains on what opinions to have on who.

This is especially evident with the media blitz's on any third party trying to be in control of the U.S. Presidency.

Bill O'Reilly recently even stated there is corruption in the media.

Why won't Bill O'Reilly investigate the depths and details of the media corruptions even though he acknowledges its existence?

The American media used to investigate everything under the sun....especially things to do with the U.S. government.

This has changed somehow and now the U.S. media is nothing more than a propaganda beacon for the U.S. government and both political parties.

This is especially evident in how the American people now get bought and paid for "debunking" propaganda to sway the minds of the American people instead of new and real investigations asked for by the American people with government officials under oath.

CD:
You would be taken more seriously if you would quit the name calling (Sheeples). I think you have some interesting things to say, but as soon as you start with this name calling, I loose all respect for what you have to say.
So do whatever. You can debate with yourself. I would encourage other to ignore your posts when you use this tactic.

I'm not taking it personal, it just is my opinion it weakens what you
want to say.
 
CD:
You would be taken more seriously if you would quit the name calling (Sheeples). I think you have some interesting things to say, but as soon as you start with this name calling, I loose all respect for what you have to say.
So do whatever. You can debate with yourself. I would encourage other to ignore your posts when you use this tactic.

I'm not taking it personal, it just is my opinion it weakens what you
want to say.

It gets to a point where I roll my eyes at any of it. To listen to them; everything is conspiracy. Its not a conspiracy that it isn't covered in prime time on Fox or MSNBC; its bad TV!

If there were a story; the print media would be following it. All media is hurting and the ideal that somehow the press would ignore something that would sell papers or get viewers is simply the stuff of ignorants.
 
It is a bit conveluded. One one hand they use new sources to prove a point, yet then say the news is in bed with the govt or corporations.
 
It gets to a point where I roll my eyes at any of it. To listen to them; everything is conspiracy. Its not a conspiracy that it isn't covered in prime time on Fox or MSNBC; its bad TV!

If there were a story; the print media would be following it. All media is hurting and the ideal that somehow the press would ignore something that would sell papers or get viewers is simply the stuff of ignorants.

If I wasn't on the verge of crashing right away, I'd go a little bit deeper and source, but anyway.

There's 6 big companies that control a 95% of the market shar of the media, whose advertising money comes in majoritarily from fortune 500 companies, their subsidiairies, etc... So, great care is placed not so much to make it so that the 'important' news (or news that might affect the bottom line of their advertisers) does not appear, but rather that these stories appear in parts of the newspaper that 90% of the readers will never read.

I would urge you to look at Project : Censored and see their top 10-20 stories that meet their criteria as being all but blacked out over the past 10-15 years...

When you see the threads of the topics these censored stories (I don't mean explicitly censored, but media self-censorship of topics that really are of of public interest).

So, yes... 6 companies control about 95% of the flow of information for about 90% of the people, and for a surprisingly high number of people, if it doesn't appear as a mainstream source, it for all intents and purposes does not exist.

All this to address your point : I agree with you that what you say is the way it SHOULD be, but in reality it's not quite that simple.

It is a bit conveluded. One one hand they use new sources to prove a point, yet then say the news is in bed with the govt or corporations.

Yes, the media is in bed with government and other corporations... that doesn't mean that the information printed in the media is necessarily false, just that what appears there suits an agenda.

Also, one MUST use mainstream sources to make their point, because NOT using mainstream sources means that it's fabricated... as though none of the mainstream news is fabricated ever... maybe not fabricated, contrived might be a better word.
 
If I wasn't on the verge of crashing right away, I'd go a little bit deeper and source, but anyway.

There's 6 big companies that control a 95% of the market shar of the media, whose advertising money comes in majoritarily from fortune 500 companies, their subsidiairies, etc... So, great care is placed not so much to make it so that the 'important' news (or news that might affect the bottom line of their advertisers) does not appear, but rather that these stories appear in parts of the newspaper that 90% of the readers will never read.

I would urge you to look at Project : Censored and see their top 10-20 stories that meet their criteria as being all but blacked out over the past 10-15 years...

When you see the threads of the topics these censored stories (I don't mean explicitly censored, but media self-censorship of topics that really are of of public interest).

So, yes... 6 companies control about 95% of the flow of information for about 90% of the people, and for a surprisingly high number of people, if it doesn't appear as a mainstream source, it for all intents and purposes does not exist.

All this to address your point : I agree with you that what you say is the way it SHOULD be, but in reality it's not quite that simple.



Yes, the media is in bed with government and other corporations... that doesn't mean that the information printed in the media is necessarily false, just that what appears there suits an agenda.

Also, one MUST use mainstream sources to make their point, because NOT using mainstream sources means that it's fabricated... as though none of the mainstream news is fabricated ever... maybe not fabricated, contrived might be a better word.

And those 6 companies are making $0.00 on their press products which is why they are closing newspapers, cutting back on news telecasts, etc...

Whats always hilarious about you all is that you sit there and say that theres no difference between the two parties yet when it comes to the press, they have a need to keep one or the other in power so they don't investigate.

If that were true, tell me a good reason why the press won't blow open this story on you all's supposed evidence of conspiracy and sell 10X as many papers or commercial time at 10X the normal rate? All that is going to happen is that a president--likely out of power or a Party will go away as a result and maybe a few hangers on will lose their jobs and freedoms as a result. Since there is no difference in the power center from blue to red; why would the press hold back and not cash in on the billions they would make?

Woodward and Bernstein are still raking in dough from their Water Gate coverage 40 years ago. Your thesis that no reporter would like to have that sort of history is laughable.
 
And those 6 companies are making $0.00 on their press products which is why they are closing newspapers, cutting back on news telecasts, etc...

Can you elaborate on the relevance of these papers making no money when they are still the controling arm of these newspapers?? I would attribute what you're saying to more something along the lines that people are simply 'tuning out'.

Whats always hilarious about you all is that you sit there and say that theres no difference between the two parties yet when it comes to the press, they have a need to keep one or the other in power so they don't investigate.

You're mixing several issues into one.... the two parties are essentially the 'left and right wing' of the big government party.

So, by keeping one or the other in power, then nothing CAN change because both parties are bought off by the same individuals, so they are essentially working for the same agenda, if only from opposing perspectives.

If that were true, tell me a good reason why the press won't blow open this story on you all's supposed evidence of conspiracy and sell 10X as many papers or commercial time at 10X the normal rate?

That's a good question... those newspapers are all owned by larger media conglomerates. So, while there might be some individual jouranlists writing these stories, the editors that understand the connections more won't allow the stories to be printed. Or, if it does get printed it's hidden in a 5 line ad buried in the back of the newspaper.

All that is going to happen is that a president--likely out of power or a Party will go away as a result and maybe a few hangers on will lose their jobs and freedoms as a result. Since there is no difference in the power center from blue to red; why would the press hold back and not cash in on the billions they would make?

Because the press is there to maintain the illusion that there IS a significant difference between these two parties.

Woodward and Bernstein are still raking in dough from their Water Gate coverage 40 years ago. Your thesis that no reporter would like to have that sort of history is laughable.

Because Nixon had crossed a line and was setup to fail, in essence, he broke ranks with the core power structure, and so the scandal was contrived, although back then media power was much less concentrated, and individual journalists were much more of a 'journalistic' mind then simply printing the stories they are told to write.
 
CD:
You would be taken more seriously if you would quit the name calling (Sheeples). I think you have some interesting things to say, but as soon as you start with this name calling,

Sorry for the insults. I usually try not to offend anyone.
 
Sorry for the insults. I usually try not to offend anyone.

But you do such a good job at offending people. The more you realize that we are not suppose to be against each other when fighting evil the more you will realize on how to defeat evil.

Also William Colby the former head of the CIA said this....hmm that is odd I cannot find the quote anywhere. Anyways the quote went something like this" "there isn't a single media outlet that isn't controlled by the CIA."

So I do understand that the media is somewhat controlled by the federal government even if it is done indirectly. The media exes and people have comed to realize that they cannot report on serious issues because not only will the government come down on them but the vast majority of people do not want to be disturbed. Besides most CT's are just plain ridiculous.

EDIT" "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
 
Can you elaborate on the relevance of these papers making no money when they are still the controling arm of these newspapers?? I would attribute what you're saying to more something along the lines that people are simply 'tuning out'.
Here is what I said:

And those 6 companies are making $0.00 on their press products which is why they are closing newspapers, cutting back on news telecasts, etc...

Whats always hilarious about you all is that you sit there and say that theres no difference between the two parties yet when it comes to the press, they have a need to keep one or the other in power so they don't investigate.

If that were true, tell me a good reason why the press won't blow open this story on you all's supposed evidence of conspiracy and sell 10X as many papers or commercial time at 10X the normal rate?

You took a partial quote. It makes sense when you read the whole thing together.


That's a good question... those newspapers are all owned by larger media conglomerates. So, while there might be some individual jouranlists writing these stories, the editors that understand the connections more won't allow the stories to be printed. Or, if it does get printed it's hidden in a 5 line ad buried in the back of the newspaper.
So your stance is that every editor is killing stories?

I'm curious...Ted Koppel, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw (just to name a few) no longer work for any major media corporation. What is keeping them from investigating? All are financially comfortable beyond any compelling measure to argue otherwise. Why are these men not investigating or leading an investigation?

What about Frontline? Nova? Any one of the dozens of cable news channels? Reputable foreign news papers? Reuters?

All of these people are on the take?


To get back to my point, your "good question" blast above deserves an answer.

My answer is that there is no "untold story" of any consequence to tell.


What is yours?
 
Here is what I said:

"And those 6 companies are making $0.00 on their press products which is why they are closing newspapers, cutting back on news telecasts, etc...

Whats always hilarious about you all is that you sit there and say that theres no difference between the two parties yet when it comes to the press, they have a need to keep one or the other in power so they don't investigate.

If that were true, tell me a good reason why the press won't blow open this story on you all's supposed evidence of conspiracy and sell 10X as many papers or commercial time at 10X the normal rate?"

You took a partial quote. It makes sense when you read the whole thing together.
I'm not catching the relevance because your mixing three seperate, albeit related, topics.

I mean, you're saying that these companies make no money off their paper news and so they're cutting back, then throw in that if there was no real difference between the two parties they'd have to keep each other in power, and then say that the prospect of blowing open these types of stories would sell more and make them more money.... but these are really 3 seperate situations.

a) There are several reasons why newspapers are not making money. They are closing papers because there are fewer people reading, or they get their news from the internet, more people are seeing that the media isn't telling the whole story most of the time, etc... so we could debate all the facets of why these situations are occuring on their own merits.

This does NOT despute that the controling power of the media, ALL MEDIA by market share, is concentrated withing VERY FEW individuals.

B) The two party system... in north america there exists so many duopolies. You want something to drink, it's coke or pepse. You want a computer, it's windows or apple. You want fast food, it's Mcdonalds or BK. You want a political party, it's republican or democrat.

It's like if communist russia had a 'two party' system, people would vote for the hammer or the sickle... meanwhile both remain overlayed on the flag. Between the two parties, they may have disagreeements on petty issues, but when it comes to REAL issues they are more alike then you would expect.

C) Don't bite the hand that feeds seems to be an adequate sentiment going on... if the newspapers going to sell 20 thousand newspapers because of a particular story that jeopordizes a multimillion dollar advertising contract with a major sponsor.... what would take precedence if it came down to YOUR decision?

So your stance is that every editor is killing stories?

It's not that black and white. Do editors kill stories or give them a lack of an editorial response... OF COURSE. Are these people ALL knowingly part of this overarching media control, OF COURSE NOT.

I'm curious...Ted Koppel, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw (just to name a few) no longer work for any major media corporation. What is keeping them from investigating? All are financially comfortable beyond any compelling measure to argue otherwise. Why are these men not investigating or leading an investigation?

You'd have to ask them... I can't speak for all individuals nearly as much as I can speak for trends that I've seen and can demonstrate.

Really, if they've retired, there's a good chance that they feel they've done their jobs and want to enjoy their golden years... I wouldn't blame them.

What about Frontline? Nova? Any one of the dozens of cable news channels? Reputable foreign news papers? Reuters?

All of these people are on the take?

Are all those companies reliant on advertisement revenue??

Everyone of those news agencies you just mentioned fall under the umbrella of 'the big 6' anyway... so yes.

Does that mean that every individual working for them is a bad person??? NO, of course not... the vast majority of them are just people doing their jobs because they want to keep their jobs, or because they like their jobs.

To get back to my point, your "good question" blast above deserves an answer.

My answer is that there is no "untold story" of any consequence to tell.[/quote]

Here's a couple that seem tobe of consequence that didn't make it far in the newspapers :
- # 21 NATO Considers ?First Strike? Nuclear Option | Project Censored
- # 19 Indigenous Herders and Small Farmers Fight Livestock Extinction | Project Censored
- # 14 Mainstreaming Nuclear Waste | Project Censored (That's right, radioactive waste gets dumped in regular landfills)
- # 13 Tracking Billions of Dollars Lost in Iraq | Project Censored
 
Back
Top Bottom