Propaganda – Manufacturing Consent, The Death of Free Press and Free Thinking
This article has come about for 2 reasons, one being an article at beforeitsnews.com about propaganda, and secondly an article involving Tim Pool proposing a monopoly on audio broadcast during the NATO summit in the event [like many people thought was going to happen] that internet data transmissions went down and live video feeds were not possible.
I was going to just re-post the beforeitsnews.com article, but felt there was alot more to say and wanted to address why we feel so strongly that even talking about a monopoly in media is enough of an offense, that it destroys the very fabric of what independent journalists working against mainstream media is all about. Not to mention what that sounds like to any journalist in a collective space where people are donating their time and energy for ZERO profit, just for the sake of getting news out to people.
The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that states how propaganda, including systemic biases, function in mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies are “manufactured” in the public mind due to this propaganda. — beforeitsnews.com
– see video below Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” Well worth the time.
Today the “news” is all but bought and paid for by wealthy elitists that have every interest in controlling what you think, buy, do, say, act, wear, eat, and even how you go about your day to day life in a way that is unprecedented in scale. Just look at the fact that 5-6 companies own every major broadcast network in the U.S. and how much money is being flooded into commercial advertising.
Originally, the airwaves that these corporations broadcast on were the property of the public. The stations were allowed to broadcast for a license fee, and as a service to the public had to run a News Broadcast for the public good. That was in the days before Reagan did away with the Fairness Doctrine.
time.com By Dan Fletcher Friday, Feb. 20, 2009 - In 1987 the FCC abolished the policy, which dictates that public broadcast license-holders have a duty to present important issues to the public and — here’s the “fairness” part — to give multiple perspectives while doing so. Now, more than 20 years later, a group of legislators are calling for it to be brought back to life. “I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves,” said Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow.
Today, even the search engine you use on the internet makes a huge difference in the information that is available to you. Searching on a computer that you do not normally use with the same search engine, and same search parameters will yield vastly different results to the computer you use daily.
The new computer is not programed to your sensibilities, and will have results that are vastly different than the computer you use on a daily basis that is storing the results of what you click on after a search. The fact that Al Gore [former V.P. under Clinton] is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple Inc., and a senior adviser to Google tends to beg the question, how involved are these advertisements, companies and the government in our day to day affairs ?
How detrimental would that be to our society, and way of life if only 1 company or entity had a monopoly on the information you were allowed to access?
There have been surveys for over a decade, that all show the same results. Done by many different agencies. The basic conclusion that they keep running into is that people who watch FOX “news” do far worse on answering simple current events questions than those who watch no news at all.
The basic breakdown of the first such study I remember a friend telling me about was people that watched FOX “news” got about 80% of current events questions WRONG, simple questions like : ” Are we invading Iraq [during the 2nd persian gulf war]“ had been so distorted in the FOX viewers mind that they said, “NO, we aren’t invading Iraq, we are liberating them.” – I wonder what the Iraqi’s would say to that.
Look at the way things are worded, that was a simple question, yes or no. The answer came down to the way the viewer had been brainwashed into seeing the invasion and undeclared war as a ‘liberation.”
The majority of other news sources where people stated they got their news from were about as good, maybe slightly better than people who watched no news at all, about 50-60% of current events questions right.
The last group was people that got most of their news from public radio, who got 80% of current events questions right. I saw this study that is referenced above a little less than 10 years ago and am finding some similar studys now that Glenn Beck is trying to denounce as biased towards Republicans. Stating “The Blaze noted that the methodology oversampled Republicans “to get a better estimate of the Republican voting process,” but also increased the Republican margin of error. glennbeck.com”
Why Republicans or Democrats being sampled in whatever number, or stating that they would obviously watch different news networks is beyond me, and I see NO factual basis for the argument Beck is trying to make.
The point of this whole article being, we the people, need to question EVERYTHING we are being force fed from the T.V., Internet, Radio, Video Games, etc. etc.
We need to stand up and demand accountability in the media we are consuming. We need to realize that in the producer’s mind, THE ADVERTISING IS THE CONTENT, the show or ‘news’ broadcast you are watching, is just filler material until the next ad. We need to get MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES, and FORM OUR OWN OPINIONS.
Uploaded by 306cas on Mar 4, 2011