Mainstream Media

MJK · Post by **MJK** » 09 Jul 2003 22:45

I think this is a very interesting topic that I would like to get everyone's opinion about. Do you trust the mainstream media? I don't, for two reasons:

1) They are all owned by American corporations with interests to protect, and we all know who the corporations favor.
MSNBC - Newless dribble brought to you by Microsoft and General Electric.
CNN -Spoon fed corporate propaganda by the AOL Time Warner Company.
ABC News -Mickey Mouse news from Disney.
FOX News -Newsless right-wing, shock news filled with no hope and hate. Fox is just one of many news outlets owned by Rupert Murdoc, who profits directly from the financial success success of the Bush administration.

2) Their coverage of the post-war situation in Iraq. Our soliders are treating the Iraqi people like shit and making them angrier and angrier, we haven't sufficiently restored any services, and we haven't protected anything from looting except the oil ministry. Would you know this from listening to Fox News? No. You'll hear that we liberated the Iraqi people!

American News companies, besides having interests to protect, are clearly intimidated by the Bush administration, and have as of late completely failed to adequately cover any issues that involve the environment. My news source of choice is the British Broadcasting corporation. They never cover one side of a story without equally covering the other, and they don't have the conservative bias that our news companies have developed in the past couple of years.

BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 09 Jul 2003 23:42

Bear in mind the public (I doubt many on these boards though) elected his dumbass into office. So therefore, he leads them around like a shepard leads sheep around. It's sick and disgusting, but at the same time, it's a good comedy show.

And I agree with the US troops pissing the Iraqi people off. We came in, fucked up their entire lifestyle, ousted a dictator (the only good thing that came out of this shit), and basically told them the chance overnight. Perhaps these people who go and kill 2 american soldiers then get killed aren't leftovers from Saddam's regime. Maybe they are just regular people, tired of being forced around by some arogant nation who "liberated" them.

Some fucking liberation.. we god damn near killed them. If only our president wasn't such a warmonger...

</rant>

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 10 Jul 2003 03:18

...............that wasn't the question........................

Panda Licker · Post by **Panda Licker** » 10 Jul 2003 07:47

US media is crap. I was watching this show on fox news, like this guy is supposed to be a reporter, and not be biast, but he was the most annoying right wing blowhard ive ever listened to. I had to change the channel just because he hurt my brain.

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 10 Jul 2003 12:41

Excuse my friend for being so paranoid and uptight about everything

Chris Holden · Post by **Chris Holden** » 10 Jul 2003 13:15

media has guidelines which is must follow that is laid out by the government. This shouldn't come as any big deal or surprise to anyone. News isn't designed to make people panic or be anti-usa during war times.

Some of these are like, when showing footage of protesters, show hippie/beatnick/dirty/poor looking people. When showing pro-usa protester, show well dress, family looking individuals. During the recent iraq war, they were told to show more footage of happy, cheering iraqi people as opposed to those against it.

Is it right or wrong to show ONE side? Not necessarily (either way). If you're in a war time, it's in your countries best interest to have the general population seeing positive feedback.

I remember one great example was the caption for the same picture in an isreal and palestine paper. The picture was of an iseali priest appearing as though he was guarding or striking at a boy (it was a context image, you couldn't tell from looking at it either way). Anyhow, the iseal paper said he was protecting the boy from attackers, the palestine paper said he was attacking the boy who was palestinian.

Propaganda can be a funny thing, this is what all news media is, something designed to attempt to sway your opinion in the direction the creators want. As I stated earlier, this shouldn't be any big surprise to anyone, unless you're completely shelter or gullible.

If you're looking for outright lies, this usually comes from government heads' speeches.

As in, the lead speaking representative of Iraq during the war. Everything he said was a total joke, and made us all laugh. Like after the US took over Bagdad, and he was saying no US troops were even in bagdad. He's not lying just to sound like a jerk, he's trying to keep the moral of the iraqi troops high. It's what he had to do.

I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong either way, but I do understand it's purpose.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 10 Jul 2003 13:17

but there is a lot of right-wingedness in fox news, there is no denying that. I recently saw (at about 5 in the morning a week or two ago) some really, REALLY nerdy dude on Fox and friends, their morning show. I was thinking, "Hey, he looks knowledgeable, got to be a democrat!"

FUCK NO! He was promoting his book (the morning show seems to be doing that for a lot of people) that was against Clinton. My jaw dropped as soon as he started talking about that.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » 10 Jul 2003 13:25

MegaFighter_X wrote:...some really, REALLY nerdy dude on Fox and friends, their morning show. I was thinking, "Hey, he looks knowledgeable, got to be a democrat!"...

I don't have anything to add to the original topic. But I'd like to let you know that statement there really destroyed the validity of your statement. Talking about how nerdy someone looks and using that against them? Grow up.

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 10 Jul 2003 13:36

the network that brought us Family Guy and Married with children being accused of right wingedness, oi.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 10 Jul 2003 14:15

Have you ever watched Fox News? Specifically the National station, not the local ones.

"In other news, millions of uninformed protestors marched against the liberation of the oppressed Iraqi people. Now, for your fair and unbiased (they say that phrase every other sentence) perspective on this, we go to [I don't remember who]." To the best of my recolection, that is verbatum. I trusted CNN until they failed to even mention that the EPA, in a large press conference, said that this was the least environmentally firnedly administration in America's history. You know where I read that? The BBmotherfuckingC! That's where! It's funny to think that Fox News is unbelievably right-wing, because the Simpsons is chocked ful of funny left-wing undertones, but this was before Rupert Murdoc had an agenda.

I was thinking, "Hey, he looks knowledgeable, got to be a democrat!"

That's a bit immature too..

BrianW · Post by **BrianW** » 11 Jul 2003 09:08

ya see, the best news show is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. they do two things. 1. kind of tell you whats going on. 2. Make fun of the news. i think they have a good idea going, you shouldnt be to serious with the news. because why should we, we dont know what is REALLY going on anywhere unless we are there. for all we know, Iraq could be a verry happy place because of the U.S. invading it, or all the people could hate the u.s. but none of us live there, so none of us know for sure.

and can you really trust the media? everyone beleaved the articles writing in the NY times by that guy (the one that was making stuff up) untill they found out he was making it up. im pretty ignorant about that whole situation (the ny times guy) so someone please correct me if he wasnt making things up. but how do you know that news stations arent just making things up to make us happy?

nei-tan · Post by **nei-tan** » 11 Jul 2003 21:32

[quote="MegaFighter_X"]Bear in mind the public (I doubt many on these boards though) elected his dumbass into office."

If you believe the mainstream media then this might be true. The office was STOLEN. He didnt win the popular vote.
Mainstream media is total fucking bullshit. Dont believe a word.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 17 Jul 2003 02:43

I belive very little... Very little. And belive me, when I use elected for GWB, I use the term loosely. Just for the record. It's been a while since I've watched fox news at 5 AM.. I think I need to do that today. I need a good laugh.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 17 Jul 2003 10:56

MJK's list included only cable networks, there are others that are even more meaningless(broadcast news).

MSNBC - Microsoft and General Electric. Hopefully goes out of business. What was Bill thinking in the first place? At least they usually come out and preface their reporting about Microsoft by saying "We actually are Microsoft". To much like CNN.

CNN - Hate Jews, love Arafat. Pissed off cuz they had a monopoly on Gulf war one.

ABC News - a broadcast network, irrelevant. The Big Three are identical to each other and every major newspaper and news magazine. When they all march in lockstep, you only have to read or watch one(or none).

FOX News- new kid in town, had niche in the market. Started out kinda to the right, but is slowing bringing in all the same know-nothing, pinko pundits from CNN and MSNBC.

When they all have the same commentators and pundits, they're really all the same.

War coverage:

Every day, soldiers shot in the back, people protesting about water and electricity. I rarely read any positive stories from MSNBC or CNN.

When the water does get turned back on, that's not worth reporting.
When the total number of missing artifacts ended up being 4 or 5, with the majority being safely hidden by museum staff, that's not worth reporting either.

And what's the deal with so much concern over a few trinkets?

What's more important? protecting servicemen and civilian lives, or protecting old trinkets that nobody has seen in 30 years, and won't ever see after they go into a rich Frenchman's private collection?

-n

MJK · Post by **MJK** » 20 Jul 2003 22:05

I don't understand why everyone is so upset about the two-hundred some American casualties when there were more than 4000 Iraqi casualties. Grow up people...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 21 Jul 2003 00:33

I don't understand why everyone is so upset about the fifty-thousand some American casualties when there were more than 2 million dead Vietnamese casualties. Grow up people...

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 21 Jul 2003 12:22

the answer lies in our belief that we are right.

MJK · Post by **MJK** » 02 Nov 2003 18:37

This proves my point very well I believe:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 03 Nov 2003 05:43

In todays world of 'Psy-opps', where practically everything we read or see on TV could be a lie or government properganda, we should take everyting with a pinch of salt. There's a quote (That i can't find to quote accurately) that goes something like: "Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear".
I think that relates well to television and the internet. We can't live by the "it must be true, cos I read it on the internet" mentality.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Nov 2003 23:36

For whatever this means:

Monday, Nov. 3, 2003 10:35 EST
Nation's 20 Biggest Newspapers Get Circulation Report Card

The Associated Press reported the average weekday circulation of the nation's 20 biggest newspapers for the six months ended Sept. 30.

The Audit Bureau of Circulations released the figures Monday. The percentage changes are from the comparable year-ago period:

1. USA Today, 2,246,996, up 0.7 percent

2. The Wall Street Journal, 2,091,062, up 16.1 percent (a)

3. The New York Times, 1,118,565, up 0.5 percent

4. Los Angeles Times, 955,211, down 1.1 percent (b)

5. The Washington Post, 732,872, down 1.9 percent

6. New York Daily News, 729,124, up 2.1 percent

7. New York Post, 652,426, up 10.6 percent

8. Chicago Tribune, 613,509 (NM)

9. Newsday of New York's Long Island, 580,069, up 0.2 percent

10. Houston Chronicle, 553,018, up 0.2 percent (b)

11. The Dallas Morning News, 525,441, up 0.7 percent

12. San Francisco Chronicle, 512,640, up 0.1 percent

13. Chicago Sun-Times, 481,798, up 0.5 percent

14. The Boston Globe, 450,538, down 3.7 percent

15. The Arizona Republic, 432,284, down 3.7 percent (b)

16. The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., 408,672 (NM)

17. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 382,421, up 0.2 percent

18. Star Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul, 380,354, up 0.3 percent (b)

19. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 376,493, up 0.7 percent

20. The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, 365,288, up 0.4 percent (b)

Notes:

(a) Beginning with this reporting period, The Wall Street Journal's total paid subscription figure includes subscribers to its online edition that meet the qualifications for paid subscription under ABC guidelines. In this period, 290,412 online subscribers qualified under the ABC's definition. Without the online subscribers, the amount of paid print subscribers - 1,800,650 - was essentially unchanged from the same period a year ago.

(b) Includes Saturday circulation

(NM) Change from year-ago period too small to be meaningful in percentage terms.

© 2003 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Mainstream Media

Do you trust the mainstream American news networks?

Mainstream Media