Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
In another thread I brought up the media. I didn't want to hijack it so here is a better place if someone cares to discuss this, flame me or call me a nut. (notice I made a distinction between flaming me and calling me a nut) :-)
The media here is so utterly controlled by big money it is ridiculous. They advertise dangerous drugs, and then lawyers to sue when the problems come. It really is getting ridiculous. The only other contender in the most advertising category is car insurance.
Everyone wants to discard conspiracy theories, but when you got companies in related fields all owned by huge conglomerates, who actually used other people's money to buy companies or controlling shares of stock, it gets hard to dismiss as a coincidence.
Why, for example, does the local electric company advertise on TV ? Actually there is alot less of that going on now, but it used to be quite pervasive. Why did they spend those millions when they were already a monopoly ? I have talked to TV station reps in the past because at one time I wanted to make a TV commercial. I had some editing equipment and a couple of camcorders and I was informed of a few things.
If it was made on a standard color under (consumer) VCR they wouldn't air it because of the poor quality. They want it on D-beta. Even back then, it was also thousands of dollars a second certain times of the day. He told me that basically you need a product that you can markup 300-400% for this to be a viable option. It is alot more if you want to advertise during the local evening news. At four in the morning it is cheaper, but since you need their equipment and time to produce the commercial in the first place, or buy a whole bunch of expensive equipment, it is expensive from the gitgo.
In Cleveland we have electric company A and electric company B. A advertises and has higher rates. B is only available in certain parts of the city, or if you decide to open a Ford plant or something. The people to whom B is unavailable have no choice but to go with A, so why would A advertise ?
Well, there was an iron grate downtown a while ago, and somebody fucked up, it must have got grounded to the wrong wire in a delta wye electric circuit somehow because it electrocuted someone. Of course they reported the story, and then followed it with some sensational piece, distracting from it's importance in the viewers' minds. This ploy is used all the time. Meantime they'll give you a detailed update on some body the was found in bumfukt Zimbabwe somewhere, and then cut to the commercials.
Hmmmm, I remember watching TV stations sign off. Around the time they played the national anthem there was a notice, voiced and printed on the screen. It said something like "Our license renewal comes up in.... grievances can be filed with ... " something like that. do they still do that ? And even if they do and a million of us wrote angry letters, would the FCC listen ? I think not.
I am not an anarcist because I find it to be impractical. You can't just step on other people's toes. There is a channel three. If I got a stronger transmitter would that entitle me to swamp out channel three and have my own channel three ? That would not only be unfair, it would be impractical.
Thing is though, as more and more Americans get their news from the internet, they will start to see how screwed up the media is here.
In the protocols, the words "from the pulpit" appear. They appear to mean something different now. People used to get into their Sunday best and walk, crawl, ride a horse, or do whatever it took to go to church. Then they got reduced to televangelists who pretty much wrecked religion. Now they need to watch the news. I mean some NEED to watch the news. I mean you are an old friend and you haven't seen each other in a year, he says "Shut the fuck up, the news is on". Has the news become the pulpit ? It seems to have for some.
But then if you think about it, control of the media is control of the country. Even if it is not the neo-pulpit, it is where the people think they get informed. Wrong information leads to wrong conclusions.
People are moved by the news. Some get emotional and cry, and send money. Some develop hatred for the "towelheads" who hate our freedom. Who would show up here in a split second, take over the US and subject us all to Islamic law if only they could.
By selective reporting, they hold sway, quite a bit of sway. So I hear in England they got like regular people who review this stuff, and probably review news from aroud the world like many more are doing today, and these regualar people are what keeps the BBC news honest.
Meanwhile back in the states, the supreme court has ruled that the media has the right to lie. Outright.
=
Don't ask me if this is a question or a comment, it is both. Opinions are welcome, that's why I posted it.
T
Compliance is futile,
You must resist.
|
Fair and balanced - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread