Posted on 10/27/2002 9:44:19 AM PST by yonif
The suggestions on how to complain are right on. The BBC is Anti-Semitic in their entire editorial policy, but any reminder of that gets tossed in the "hate speech" bin over there. You have to fight them on facts when their bias causes them to actually alter things and make things up -- "calling names" is ineffective even if the name is true.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
FGS
It makes me wonder if a good strategy wouldn't be to stay focused on a few issues and look for specific ways these issues are mishandled by the media. In looking for media bias, although we get a feel for it and its pervasiveness, it seems best to stick to those things that can easily be shown to be true or false and not argue about the subtler methods used by the media to distort the news, even though that's eventually where the battle must won.
You might be on to something. The K.I.S.S. principle at its best? I think Peacerose has done a pretty good job with the CCRM site when calling for shots across the bow of the mediots. Generally pretty straightforward issues for the most part. Wouldn't hurt to reinforce the idea though.
FGS
"It makes me wonder if a good strategy wouldn't be to stay focused on a few issues and look for specific ways these issues are mishandled by the media."
An excellent suggestion & one worthy of discussion among CCRM's organizers & decision makers.
Simply put, individual people -- or groups -- who choose to monitor & track a specific form of media bias.
Doing so based solely upon & motivated by their personal tastes, likes, & dislikes might be a fun, feasable, & hopefully a more efficient way to spot all manner of lamestream hijinx; which, up to now has been going undetected.
Such a breakdown of tasks plays to an a person's strengths; be it finance, technology, or whatever.
The bits & pieces of info collected is funneled to CCRM *central* to be filed under specific catagory names which in turn begins a really neat & comprehensive data base.
A data base providing a whole, big picture; moreover, if this project were set-up as a data base?
We just might then be in a position to let the computer compare all the information as it looked for the subtle clues & commonalities of a pattern now escaping even the most discerning eye.
~eh?
From these classifications we might be able to locate, identify *components* of a modus operandi contributing to a further indepth understanding of what mechanics might be in-play & just how the different facets making up the Lamestream operate among themselves, before information is dished-up for we the unwashed masses, to consume.
Of particular interest would be deducing whether or not there're varifiable examples of concerted, deliberate efforts to coordinate our information *sources*, if it in fact exists.
That kind of powerful, damning proof a "conspiratorial relationship" exists between the nation's urinalists really has to be one of the more important "smoking guns" missing from our efforts to collar our single-sided media.
Individual efforts of bias exist enmasse; but, not the *arrangement* many of us suspect has been the case for a very, long time.
One part of our "information" must be buttressed in all other parts in order for a societal paradigm to be established & then, be successful.
...I almost missed this posting; glad I didn't!
IOW, marching orders are coming from somewhere??? How and why do all these network news outlets in particular serve up the same pablum night after night?
I've rolled these questions around the empty space between my ears for a long time, and it occurs to me the culprit may lie somewhere with the ratings/audience-market research/demographics people. The whole operation may be nothing more than a giant con game albeit with some willing marks. I will be forced to do some more research on the subject.
Also Lan, you have more that adequate research skills of your own. If you get a couple of minutes(heh,heh) would you see what you can find on, say, Nielsen, Pew, and the monster from the Netherlands of all places, VNU(parent of Nielsen). Maybe we could compare notes in a couple o' days?
FGS
Forgive me for not making myself a good deal clearer, FGS.
IMO we already know how the "news" outlets come up with the same crap day-in & day-out.
"The Associated Press," "Royters," etc...
The one common denominator tieing it all together on the local levels with the national & global are the personalities [read: producer/editors] at the thousands of places in the *business* of selling news.
Think of the *profile* of these people for a moment: all roughly the same age (+/- 5 yrs), some ideological background (Socialist), coming from the same indoctrination centers we're calling "universities."
Each in & of itself merely one cell of a bigger organism?
In fact, that description would serve quite well as an interesting definition of what's expected of a "good," Socialist, eh?
~The sum of their parts; ironically, just how the strength of this nation used to be described?
No.
What I had to make a good deal clearer was the common, politically correct themes which're found running through the entire magilla of the Lamestream-creaated "Pop Culture" which let's face it, is a "reality" for the huge majority & all they've ever known.
Included prongs of the same attack are; "sports," "entertainment," & most recently the presence of [junk] science.
There's a larger -- albeit simpler -- connection responsible for the recurring themes I've noticed even in our advertising.
"I've rolled these questions around the empty space between my ears for a long time, and it occurs to me the culprit may lie somewhere with the ratings/audience-market research/demographics people. The whole operation may be nothing more than a giant con game albeit with some willing marks. I will be forced to do some more research on the subject."
Well you might be correct; insofar, as these outfits are merely doing what musicians have done for eons -- IF they wanted steady work? -- which is what's commonly called simply, "Playing the room."
If that's what's happening?
Then what we're getting is the carefully combined result of everything you've mentioned above, "ratings/audience-market research/demographics people."
With one extra, all-important kicker; there's a definete political twist being actively added.
But here again, I feel as though I'm experiencing a Deje Vu in that we've (you & I) spoken about this several times, before.
I can tell you this much with certainty; there're some mighty powerful, knowledgeable *sociologists* who're responsible for the *formula* being employed against the nation's people via our communications media.
Maybe not quite subliminal suggestion by the strict definition of the term; but, something damned close & right along the lines of that.
"Also Lan, you have more that adequate research skills of your own. If you get a couple of minutes(heh,heh) would you see what you can find on, say, Nielsen, Pew, and the monster from the Netherlands of all places, VNU(parent of Nielsen). Maybe we could compare notes in a couple o' days?"
Well, I'll write those things down, do a Google, & give you an opin.
But in all honesty, I wonder if I have to go to the trouble.
Really.
I can see, hear & experience the results of their actions & influence in almost everything I do on a daily basis; we all can, actually.
providing one's old enough to have attained some sense of perspective.
Or else, one's just another raving lunatic tilting at windmills whenever they point this stuff out.
...to those seduced & under the influence of these powers.
True enough, but WHY is the question that needs an answer. This is the heart of the beast; the rationale for them vomiting on us daily.
Included prongs of the same attack are; "sports," "entertainment," & most recently the presence of [junk] science.
Right again. Sports, various forms of entertainment , evening/world news, whatever. All designed to keep the couch potatoes glued to the teevee. I would submit all couch potatoes are not created equal, but that's another story. Let's set aside the sports/entertainment con for the time being.
So the network news moguls are charged with delivering an audience to the people that pay the bills, the sponsors. And not just any audience. The sponsors have a product that will generally appeal to a limited demographic; the mark, er, target audience. I would submit conservatives as a group are generally not part of this demographic, and I'll tell you why I think that's so....touch-feely, warm and fuzzy, feel-good, emotionally charged ads.
I'm sure you remember the early days of teevee advertising where the appeal(s) were for the most part made to our reason and logic. XYZ soap is better than ABC soap because [fill in the here with appropriate benefit]. And that was that. Fast forward to today. XYZ still claims to be better soap, but that's almost lost in the attendant hype. Nowadays if one uses XYZ soap, not only will their whites be whiter, but they'll likely end up cavorting on the beach with a gaggle of Chippendale's hunks. And the hunkiest of the hunks will probably sweep 'em away in his Ferrari Testosterone'(grin), to his villa where they will be waited on hand and foot, and they'll never have to use soap again anyway! Well, you get the drift.
So along with the emotionally charged ads, what naturally follows would be emotionally charged....news. Warm and fuzzy, etc. Now, hard hitting news just doesn't fit very well in this scenario; touchy-feely does. You've got a friend in warm and fuzzy government. They're here to help, but they must have the proper personnel(Dims!) and adequate funding(lotsa taxes) to accomplish their task. Trust us! I've really gone off the deep end ; )
Fer Chrissakes, where was I going with this anyway??? I don't type NEARLY fast enough. I'll have to gather my thoughts off the floor and have another go at it tomorrow.
FGS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.