Do you dislike the mainstream media?

Jesse:

I watched the video which you posted. I had to watch it twice. It made little sense to me over both viewings. It seems to be selling the notion that a culture of vapid humour, irrational absurdity and little real content is sweeping the globe and this essential intellectual vacuum will somehow reshape humanity's global gestalt imminently. The combination of Iwemdu and meme-culture is so out there that it leaves me completely befuddled. It seems to me more like a precocious, pretentious cultural void rather than a new culture of substance void of elitism and pretence. Maybe I'm just too old to grasp the value some see in this digitally disseminated meme-culture. To me it seems hollow and empty, like a global generation locking its collective self in its room and having a bit of a silly tantrum over the interwebs in order to demonstrate to all who watch that it rejects all which has come before it. Non cogito, ego Nemo! Global absurdism which contributes nothing to human culture and distracts the young from taking the reins of leadership and effecting real change on a world which my and previous generations have pretty well screwed up.

I apologise to all and especially to Lurker for the tangent but I needed to get this out so my head will stop hurting. Too much eggnog or meme-poisoning, I'm not sure at this point.

Cheers and Season's Greetings to all.
A bewildered Evilroddy wandering in the digital wilderness.

antiquity said:

I find the biggest problem with the MSM is not what they report but what they don't report or under report.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, they're just plain being dishonest though.

Like when you have the mainstream media saying that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda.

This article right here debunks that claim:

Translated Doc Debunks Narrative of Al Qaeda-Iran ‘Alliance’ | The American Conservative

The Lurker said:

I would say that I do. I find them quite dishonest and sensationalistic. I think it's healthy to be a skeptic of what they say. 90% of the mainstream media is controlled by six companies. That's worrying.

Likewise, it seems the American public is growing increasingly distrustful of the mainstream media.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/ameri...dia-plunges-to-record-low-gallup-poll/5545920





Remember: they got us into the Iraq war.

Watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9F-cHc5Qog

And watch this if you want to see it in full:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&t=21s

Click to expand...

The media has taken sides in political disputes instead of just reporting the facts on those political disputes. Especially the cable news channels. That wouldn't be a worry if one recognizes that fact instead of taking what those cable news channels reports as straight news. It isn't. Now I have watched a news broadcast on the over the air networks for at least 20 years. So I prefer not to speak of them.

I don't have a problem with on news network representing the GOP and the other two cable news networks representing the Democrats. Each caters to their audience. Because of that, one should take what is reported on cable with a grain of salt. Not truth unless one is willing to do a bit of research once a story has broken. I suppose I have given up getting just the news, reporting of an event or happening with just the facts at hand. Not through guest hosts or speakers or being told by them what this or that event means. Just report it and move on. Let the analyst of that take place on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Perotista said:

The media has taken sides in political disputes instead of just reporting the facts on those political disputes. Especially the cable news channels. That wouldn't be a worry if one recognizes that fact instead of taking what those cable news channels reports as straight news. It isn't. Now I have watched a news broadcast on the over the air networks for at least 20 years. So I prefer not to speak of them.

I don't have a problem with on news network representing the GOP and the other two cable news networks representing the Democrats. Each caters to their audience. Because of that, one should take what is reported on cable with a grain of salt. Not truth unless one is willing to do a bit of research once a story has broken. I suppose I have given up getting just the news, reporting of an event or happening with just the facts at hand. Not through guest hosts or speakers or being told by them what this or that event means. Just report it and move on. Let the analyst of that take place on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Click to expand...

Media has always had a bias.

Perotista said:

The media has taken sides in political disputes instead of just reporting the facts on those political disputes. Especially the cable news channels. That wouldn't be a worry if one recognizes that fact instead of taking what those cable news channels reports as straight news. It isn't. Now I have watched a news broadcast on the over the air networks for at least 20 years. So I prefer not to speak of them.

I don't have a problem with on news network representing the GOP and the other two cable news networks representing the Democrats. Each caters to their audience. Because of that, one should take what is reported on cable with a grain of salt. Not truth unless one is willing to do a bit of research once a story has broken. I suppose I have given up getting just the news, reporting of an event or happening with just the facts at hand. Not through guest hosts or speakers or being told by them what this or that event means. Just report it and move on. Let the analyst of that take place on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Click to expand...

Hmm... You've got me thinking. If they at least applied this sort of reporting to geopolitical conflicts, we wouldn't be seeing so many lies coming out about Syria, Iran, or Russia.

Unitedwestand13 said:

Media has always had a bias.

Click to expand...

sure they have. Even from Eisenhower when I first became interested in politics the bias was there. But for the most part that bias has been covert. Hidden, not flaunted, but there. Once the 24 hour news channels appeared. That bias has become more open for all to see if one is willing to open their eyes.

Over time the bias has increased to a point where one could think he is either watching GOP TV or the Democratic Party network. At least on cable.

Perotista said:

sure they have. Even from Eisenhower when I first became interested in politics the bias was there. But for the most part that bias has been covert. Hidden, not flaunted, but there. Once the 24 hour news channels appeared. That bias has become more open for all to see if one is willing to open their eyes.

Over time the bias has increased to a point where one could think he is either watching GOP TV or the Democratic Party network. At least on cable.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is not the media that has changed, but the people themselves.

The Lurker said:

Hmm... You've got me thinking. If they at least applied this sort of reporting to geopolitical conflicts, we wouldn't be seeing so many lies coming out about Syria, Iran, or Russia.

Click to expand...

Where do most of reports come from when talking about Syria, Iran or Russia. From government sources. Unless the news networks have reporters on the ground in those countries, the government and governmental officials are about the only source available. Those three countries aren't about to allow a western or U.S. reporter free reign in their countries. Each have state run media and a more or less dictator in charge.

Perotista said:

Where do most of reports come from when talking about Syria, Iran or Russia. From government sources. Unless the news networks have reporters on the ground in those countries, the government and governmental officials are about the only source available. Those three countries aren't about to allow a western or U.S. reporter free reign in their countries. Each have state run media and a more or less dictator in charge.

Click to expand...

I view Syria, Iran, and Russia as basically free countries (at least about as free as the United States), so I don't know if I believe that they wouldn't allow outside journalists in their countries. For a long time, I've seen much of the MSM as basically war propaganda. Maybe you can trust them on other matters, but when it comes to geopolitics? Chances are they're going to get it wrong more than they get it right, often with a bias for the United States over its "enemies."

Media has always been biased to some extent and has always skewed its reportage due to those biases both personal and institutional. Bias is not the real problem now. Bias can be identified and its affects discounted by skeptical viewing and critical analysis. But now mainstream media outlets have become overtly and shamelessly partisan mouthpieces for vested political and economic interests. What has changed is the marketing of information from a soft-sell of slightly skewed information delivered with a pretence of impartiality to the relentless hard-sell of political and social conditioning in order to sell partisan platforms, and outright lies.

We are being told one thing while the opposite is really happening on the ground in front of our noses. As some cases in point, Americans are told that the US Government wants peace in the Pacific but Marines and soldiers from Okinawa to Norway are being told by their senior officers to prepare for imminent high intensity war in the Pacific in the very near future. Americans are told that they must reduce deficits but then they are handed a secretly crafted budget which greatly benefits the well off with generous tax cuts while those cuts balloon the deficit and debt by trillions of dollars over the next few years. Americans of modest means are told that they will get a much needed (albeit temporary) tax cut but then forced to pay fast rising medical insurance premiums which leave these modest earners poorer than before the tax cuts, in order to enrich a profit-driven healthcare system which kills many of those who can't pay such high premiums. Americans are told the swamp will be drained by an administration which has rolled out the red carpet to crony-capitalism, influence peddling, legalised graft (lobbying) and overt nepotism like never before.

Lies and contradictions are pounded into listeners' and readers' minds by relentless repetition and disingenuous punditry parroting party lines in the guise of responsible journalism and balanced news commentary. The marketing has become so blatant, so relentless and at the same time so pervasive that there is nowhere to go to get away from it, unless one retreats into isolation and ignorance. Then the electorate is left with two choices, brainwashing or disengagement, both of which make it impotent in the political process and open the door to authoritarianism and political oligarchy.

Cheers?
Evilroddy.

Unitedwestand13 said:

Maybe it is not the media that has changed, but the people themselves.

Click to expand...

You may have a point. Without the viewer, it's certain the cable news channels who are in the news business to make money. they provide what the viewer wants. One sided news seems to be what they want, call it reinforcement of their political views and ideology.

The two major parties have become more hard core ideological. I attributed that to their shrinkage. From around 75-80% of the total electorate to just over 50% today. Both have shed their moderates, the GOP has gotten rid of its liberal wing, the old Rockefeller Republicans. The Democrats, their conservative southern wing. There is no doubt those who run for office are more hardcore one way or the other.

Perhaps it is no so much that the people has changed. It's that the more ideological hard core have taken control of both parties. Those unchanged folks are now in the middle, called independents, non-affiliated which today make up the largest segment of the electorate. They make up the largest segment, but have little to no say whom the parties nominate or an ability to affect their ideology as they no longer belong or associate with the two parties. They are heard from only on general election day. Usually voting for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidates in their minds.

The Lurker said:

I view Syria, Iran, and Russia as basically free countries (at least about as free as the United States), so I don't know if I believe that they wouldn't allow outside journalists in their countries. For a long time, I've seen much of the MSM as basically war propaganda. Maybe you can trust them on other matters, but when it comes to geopolitics? Chances are they're going to get it wrong more than they get it right, often with a bias for the United States over its "enemies."

Click to expand...

Certainly one has to expect one's own country to shape the news to favor that country be it us, Syria, Iran or Russia. It could fall into the category of keep the people peeved at an outside enemy so their will leave the one's in charge alone and funnel their anger at any situation to the outside. Each country when it comes to geopolitics always does what is best for each country. If it's in the interest of a country to portray another country as evil, they will do so.

eohrnberger said:

I don't disagree.

The real loss, I think, is that you take great newscasters from the past, say Walter Cronkite for example, you never really knew or got the impression what his political leaning was from his reporting. He even kept his political views private while not broadcasting (as far ass I know), and I applaud that.

I'd like to see ALL news broadcasters take the same position and behavior. The closest that I can think of today is Chris Wallace, who delivers equally tough interviews regardless of the interviewee. Yes, I have since come to know that he's a Democrat, and that's fine. At least it isn't portrayed in his reporting and interviews, and that's the significant aspect.

Click to expand...

I always wondered about that. I would say that I had his father pegged to be a diehard Democrat but I always assumed that Chris was a Republican and found that kind of a weird contradiction. But, you're right, he is about as fair as you can get for one of those news programs. And, he usually always has a panel that is 2 and 2. That is my favorite news show on television. The rest of Fox can go in the trash bin. They used to be about 25% legitimate but since all of the recent changes, they might just as well be the National Enquirer.

Perotista said:

You may have a point. Without the viewer, it's certain the cable news channels who are in the news business to make money. they provide what the viewer wants. One sided news seems to be what they want, call it reinforcement of their political views and ideology.

The two major parties have become more hard core ideological. I attributed that to their shrinkage. From around 75-80% of the total electorate to just over 50% today. Both have shed their moderates, the GOP has gotten rid of its liberal wing, the old Rockefeller Republicans. The Democrats, their conservative southern wing. There is no doubt those who run for office are more hardcore one way or the other.

Perhaps it is no so much that the people has changed. It's that the more ideological hard core have taken control of both parties. Those unchanged folks are now in the middle, called independents, non-affiliated which today make up the largest segment of the electorate. They make up the largest segment, but have little to no say whom the parties nominate or an ability to affect their ideology as they no longer belong or associate with the two parties. They are heard from only on general election day. Usually voting for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidates in their minds.

Click to expand...

Man is that true. I've been in the twilight zone for many years now. Every year that goes by I get more and more disgusted until this last year when I finally decided NOT to vote for the lesser of two evils and wrote in John Kasich, who I had voted for in the primary.

Moderate Right said:

I always wondered about that. I would say that I had his father pegged to be a diehard Democrat but I always assumed that Chris was a Republican and found that kind of a weird contradiction. But, you're right, he is about as fair as you can get for one of those news programs. And, he usually always has a panel that is 2 and 2. That is my favorite news show on television. The rest of Fox can go in the trash bin. They used to be about 25% legitimate but since all of the recent changes, they might just as well be the National Enquirer.

Click to expand...

Yup.

The other thing that I've noticed is that journalists are interviewing other journalists who give a few facts and then rendering their opinions, as if it were something more than that.

Need to get back to Joe Friday, 'The facts, just the facts'.

Moderate Right said:

Man is that true. I've been in the twilight zone for many years now. Every year that goes by I get more and more disgusted until this last year when I finally decided NOT to vote for the lesser of two evils and wrote in John Kasich, who I had voted for in the primary.

Click to expand...

I voted third party instead of trying to figure out which major party candidate was the lesser evil. When one does vote for the lesser evil, one is still voting for evil. What's the difference, whether one hits a brick wall at 150 MPH or at 130 MPH. The 130 MPH is the lesser evil, but one is still dead.

I voted third party in 2012 also. I had lost faith in Obama and didn't trust Romney. But I never considered either one evil like I did Trump and Clinton. I would have been comfortable regardless of who won in 2012. No problem with Obama winning. feeling comfortable is not something I associate with either Trump nor Clinton.

Last year was a good news, bad news election. The good news, Clinton lost. The bad news, Trump won.

Moderate Right said:

Man is that true. I've been in the twilight zone for many years now. Every year that goes by I get more and more disgusted until this last year when I finally decided NOT to vote for the lesser of two evils and wrote in John Kasich, who I had voted for in the primary.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Kasich in the primary.

I think the same exact results would come from: