Exactly how powerful is the media

I think they have a great deal of power over an uneducated populace that has not been trained to think critically via public education. However, there are some limits. Case in point is the war in Syria. Before Obama came out to go to war the media demonized Assad as a mass murdered via chemical weapons, while ignoring the atrosities that the rebels fighting him have inflicted. They were trying to lay the ground work for public support for going to war but it failed. Then when the public was not being swayed they kind of raised the white flag, so to speak. This is the exception to the rule. Next thing you know Obama was doing the unimaginable, he was asking Congress for approval and in doing so actually recognized other branches of government. LOL.

People are just sick to death of these endless wars than help bankrupt the US. They can only take so much of this crap.

 

hmmm. not sure i agree with everything you say.

 

50 years ago, all powerful. To the point a a fake alien invasion broadcast had people panicking from coast to coast.

20 years ago, still really powerful. To the point thinking men and women actually believed "their guy" winning would change anything.

Presently, struggling to remain relevant. To the point only idiots trust anything they see on TV. True, idiots are still a large demographic. But with access to so much information not of establishment control, mixed with proven lies being told through the media over the course of recent decades, networks would be wise to simply cancel their news spots for shows that people might actually watch. Or make all newscasters comedians, as they seem to be the only ones allowed to speak the truth on cable.

 

They have plenty of power. The best recent examples are the Zimmerman trial and the amazing lack of criticism of Obama. If you look at the big 3 and major papers and magazines, like the NYT or Time, the bias is obvious and undeniable. There's bias on cable and radio, but like others have stated, they still don't have the audience as the major networks. Many people don't get their news from multiple sources. They just watch or read what they like.

Just look at the 1000s protesting Zimmerman, holding signs of a 13yr old kid. A perfect example of extremely stupid or just ignorant, easily manipulated people.

 

Fox News and the conservative monopoly on talk radio trick millions of people into voting against their own interests. It's powerful election fraud.

 

What is MSNBC then?

 

Like I said, idiots are still a large demographic. To know who they are, look for those who support either party.

 

And here is the other end of the bandwagon. Whether it's TV or radio, it's someone telling you to support a Republicrat. There is much ado made about "the liberal media" or "Faux news" and conservative talk radio. But pull back the veil and it's all saying the same thing: support the establishment. Left establishment, right establishment- doesn't matter. Just keep thinking your vote counts and that there is a real difference between the 2 major parties beyond the barely significant token issues they distract you with.

 

So what about all the liberal news sources? Are you saying they are helping their followers?

 

They got an unaccomplished Barack Obama elected and they certainly can get us involved in wars.

Ugly, isn't it? Obama supporters should be shaken by this.

 

What liberal news sources?

MSNBC is 1/100 the size of Fox News and the talk-radio monopoly.

Nearly all media is dependent on advertising revenue from conservative corporate decision makers.

 

The media which is actually far more diverse than people think gets less and less powerful every day when it comes to intelligent watchers of things. Debunking news sources has become a career in and of itself. The internet allows people to read, up-to-the-minute information, at times not even filtered by reporters. In the grand world of information, intelligent people seek out truth. However many think people like Rush, Hannity, Ed Schultz, and even Rachel Maddow are news sources. (Rachel has in fact reported news but of course with a far left leaning approach).

But just think about it. Sec. of State Kerry is in England and spoke today. I can find the quotes online in seconds. In the past one would wait until the evening paper or news to learn what he said unless there was a radio on in the office with news at noon and 3pm. Today, I can get a link sent to a two by five inch phone in my pocket and many times watch video of the event in question. The media is only powerful if we let it be that way. When someone lies to you challenge them or stop listening to them, but it is now up to you to detect the lie, but guess what, you have lots of help doing it. Bing, Google, Yahoo are your friends. Or you could throw AOL a bone.

 

Seems advertising revenue doesn't drive content on the big 3. They are NOT conservative by any means, as evidenced by the difference in coverage during Bush's 8 years and Obama's. If you can't tell the difference..../head in sand

 

@OP: The media includes newspapers, radio, television and now online news. The inescapable aspect which led to the downturn of reporting and upturn of sensationalism was when 24 hour news channels came into existence. This was because of money from advertisers. Viewers = money. This has been noticeable in the newspapers as well since they're barely scraping by compared to their heyday, they're relying much more on sensationalism as well, though not to the extent of the networks. The internet is also influenced by the money as most of them are sister companies to the papers and television channels and therefore operate under the same models (which is why lots of them have pop up videos you have to deal with before getting to the actual story you're looking up). Radio is dying overall due to the advent of internet music stations, satellite subscription radio and other factors, so people like Rush Limbaugh saying the most insane things in attempts to get listeners reinforces this sensationalism and drama the media plays up in favor of real stories (however, in Rush's case it nearly backfired on him several times now since he doesn't know where to draw the line correctly between drumming up controversy and being downright moronic).

This in turn fosters drama over reporting. Many readers and viewers tend to fall along partisan lines, addicted to the battle vs 'the other guy' and so when media plays upon this angle by labeling what literally were previously unbiased outlets such as local news as 'liberal media', they targeted an audience they know would be loyal by falsely accusing generally unbiased sources as having a 'liberal bias'. After this was proven to be a successful format to make money, stations and papers one by one fell towards one bias or another in an attempt to replicate the success of stations like Fox News.

These days, bias has become the norm. It's nearly inescapable.

As far as influencing overall thought process, this heavily is true. Things the IRS non-scandal are perfect examples of this. Other examples are news outlets reporting on Snowden himself as a 'criminal' instead of the ethical journalistic terminology which is to call him accused of criminal activities and is set to be charged under the Espionage act. Instead, 'journalists' fell in line and called him a criminal outright before any trial before a jury, which not only is disruptive and obviously biased and could be contested to be controlled by government, but as well it's sloppy and irresponsible journalism overall.

There's an interesting documentary about the media on youtube circa 1996 that features lots of 'outtakes' if you will behind the scenes of presidential interviews, debates, 'big stories like the Rodney King riots, etc. that clearly illustrate how drama was played up and how journalists 'play ball' with politicians to push certain stories over others, though it doesn't draw the conclusion that it's money based, but one could argue it is since politician airtime = viewers in many cases and dramatic stories are also viewer magnets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez4zVwxCCtc

Good topic and one that many people on the forums here could benefit of from really looking at their point of view and whether they think what they think due to institutionalized sensationalism of media and ball-playing by journalists to keep their 'access' and thus ratings for their selected medium.

 

They have quite a bit of power.

The average American doesnt care about politics at all.

They only decide to find out who to vote for in the last month or so, and most of that comes from the media, and what their friends say, the media said.

They really have no idea, until the media tells them what to think....

 

People are so misguided by the media.

 

America newsmedia is so obviously majority lies that the people who are manipulated by it would be manipulated by something/someone else if it were not there.

 

Horrible, horrible logic!!

 

I can't actually believe anyone would think that the media doesn't have massive control over the formation of people's opinions, let alone no control. One thing that people on this thread haven't mentioned yet is the unbelievable influence fictional TV programs and films have on the mind of the population, especially the young. We're told (and I agree with this) that the early stages of your life are critical in forming a lot of your opinions, and it's at this stage of your life that you are told what you can and can't watch on TV, what you can say and even what you can think.

I've lost count of the number of fictional TV programs I've seen where a black person suffers discrimination because of white people. TV programs about the slave trade etc. But not once on TV have I seen white people portrayed as the victims of racism in a fiction or non-fiction TV program. Yet in reality, from what I see around me, this is exactly how it appears. For me, the only way I can see people being so obviously blinded into holding such phoney opinions is because of those often shown fictional TV program that show things like some black kid coming to Britain or America from Nigeria and being beaten up and picked on by the white kids at school. One of the only reasons white people willfully implement such racist affirmative action policies against other white people in the United States and in Britain is that from a young age, everyone is subjected to these lies.

 

More than logic. Cold hard facts. Like I said, if you can't spot the bias in the big 3 when it comes to Obama, you're lying or haven't watched TV since Bush was elected.

 

This is actually very important. I have noticed certain trends. Socialistic ideals in movies from Avatar to Star Trek. The female love interest saving the lead males butt at the end of every movie's fight scene. Almost every show having a gay character, when in all actuality, gays are 4% of the population, and there are far larger demographics who don't receive such attention. I don't see a Mexican in every show. At one time pushing the envelope, now every movie is PG-13. To the point no one leaves truly satisfied. Not a kids movie. Not an adult movie. Not a chick flick. Not a guy movie.

A very important comment. I think most with a brain know news just reports the government's official version of everything, when at one time they would challenge such. So they can't be trusted. Fiction infects more brains at this point than pseudo reporting.

 

Yes, quite a few people will immediately put their guard up when watching the news but won't deem it necessary when watching fiction because supposedly "it means nothing". Fiction with decent and convincing actors can appeal to people's emotions much more than a documentary or news report that just gives cold hard facts. Most people are quite easily influenced by these fictional dramas etc and as stated earlier, children are particularly vulnerable targets.

There's no way people will get a fair hearing or representation while the current media and political system (which is anti-white) continues. The people responsible for deciding what goes on TV have an agenda to stick to and know that refusing to toe the line - especially with regard to racial matters - will result in their dismissal. Even if they agreed in private that TV reporting and TV dramas are heavily biased against white people, fear holds them back from saying it in public. The truth is, most people on this forum who complain about anti-white racism won't do it in public for the same reason, I don't really blame them for that though.

The only way that this can change anytime soon isn't by debating and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing on some talk show about how unfair the situation is for white people because the show will always be set up to make you fall. You've all seen it, a white, right wing panellist comes on a talk show and debates with a liberal. The crowd boos and hisses at everything the right winger says while they cheer and support every word that comes out of the liberals mouth. Then people from the audience start chipping in with their own comments telling the right winger how he's hateful and is trying to divide communities etc. The crowd then cheers that person for commenting. This mob-like behaviour of the crowd in itself is extremely powerful in influencing people watching it on TV at home because people have a natural tendency to not want to be against the majority- it's a tough position to be in. So the system continues.

The only way to change this is to take action and if necessary, break the law and be aggressive/violent. Make the authorities fear you and what you're capable of. One example I like citing is the case of the Taliban. These people go around laying mines not giving a (*)(*)(*)(*) who steps on them, throwing acid in girls faces who want to go to school. Some of you might have seen a picture on the front of Time Magazine of an Afghan girl who's had her nose cut off by the Taliban, also probably for going to school. They have killed countless coalition soldiers by pretending to be genuine Afghan reformers who want to join the Afghan army to fight the Taliban, only to turn on coalition troops when they least expect it. Yet the American government want to give these people jobs and even political representation when the wars over for some reason. To me it's pretty clear that they're doing this because they don't think they can contain the Taliban and in spite of all the disgusting things they've done to coalition troops and normal Afghans, the US knows the Taliban aren't going to give up. Do you think the US would bargain with them like this if they thought the Taliban could be controlled and easily defeated?

Another good example could be the civil rights movement. The Americans might well have given black people equal voting rights eventually, but it was most likely to be the civil unrest and problems to business and everyday life that black people's rioting caused that made them change it when they did. Do you think politicians would have given a (*)(*)(*)(*) about injustices to black people if black people had just carried on as before without complaining or using aggression to get what they wanted?

 

Thats absurd.

The Left and the anti-war groups stopped the Vietnam war, with critical help from television footage of the carnage from places like Cronkite and CBS. The Pentagon made sure this type of coverage ended since the 1991 Gulf War. Since then we have govmnt embedded, censored propaganda news.

But now all the TV news does is promote war and only has pro-war supporters from Cable and network as well as BBC, NYT, WSJ, even the OP-ED pages of places like the Chicago Tribunes Eugene Robinson supports bombing of Syria, so does the OP-ED pages of LA Times support Syria bombing, because they are conglomerates and run by multi-national board members of corporate America, and in some cases profit like GE/NBC. Also, most papers are run by Council on Foreign Relations members, the architechs of most of the U.S. wars.


[video=youtube;QJNgm4kM24s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJNgm4kM24s[/video]