Is the corporate media really concerned with covering stories of true importance and bringing the truth to the masses? OR...are they more concerned with obtaining profits and in general promoting elite/corporate interests?

Why is there this widespread and deeply-held belief among many that the corporate and so-called "mainstream" media is the only credible and reliable source of news and information? And why would people believe that big corporations have the best interests of the masses at heart...as opposed to primarily representing an elite corporate and financial interest?

It's almost subconcious and engrained into people's minds. Many people apparantly believe that in order for something to be true, have occured, be of importance, etc...the "mainstream" or corporate media must cover it, endorse it, give it acceptance, etc...and that anyone who holds a viewpoint on a major issue that differs from that espoused by the "mainstream" media is automaticlly wrong.

Is it because those in the corporate/mainstream media have more money, wear suits, hire attractive news reporters, and generate a polished/flashy product? Does it have to do with the fact that from childhood we are groomed and taught to trust those perceived as "authority figures"? Sure, the corporate media has more money and can therefore produce flamboyant newscasts/newspapers, but that doesn't mean they are more likely to tell the truth or cover truly important issues than any average Joe Scmoe. Actually, it means they are less likely to do so.

The vast majority of the so-called "mainstream" media news organizations in the United States (including the major television networks and major newspapers) are ultimately owned by a handful of gigantic corporations (eg, TimeWarner, Disney, General Electric, etc). Corporations and businesses, of course, exist primarily to make money and profit (and that profit is made at the expense and exploitation of the masses). That's their main goal....not necessarily covering issues that are truly important, telling the truth, etc. Further, these enormous corporations would have an interest in disseminating information that would be in their coporate/business interests or otherwise to the advantage of elite interests connected to these giant media corporations. So, for example, a coporation with controlling interests in the media and interests in, say, arms manufacturing companies (or banks for that matter), would stand to gain by promoting armed conflict and war.

All that said, confidence in the corporate/"mainstream" media as a source of news and information is currently plummetting....due in large part to the internet and the rise of alternatives to the MSM media, resulting in the exposure of the massive MSM deception and propaganda on many issues (eg, war in Iraq, 9/11, Oklahoma City bombing, etc).

3/5/2007 1:01:32 PM

More concerned with profits

3/5/2007 1:03:22 PM

Quote :

"Is the corporate media really concerned with covering stories of true importance and bringing the truth to the masses? OR...are they more concerned with obtaining profits and in general promoting elite/corporate interests?"

The premise that these are mutually exclusive is wrong, and kills whatever else follows after this sentence.

3/5/2007 1:20:56 PM

^I agree but don't think thats completely true...I think there are definitely times when they choose to run a story because its intriguing, whether or not they have checked their facts...but I agree that they are related...for example you want to break the news to the public...but you also know if you break it first/best you will get the ratings/money...so even if you dont have all your facts, just run in head first...I always think back to this story



I remember watching CNN live when this happened throughout...at first it was a lot of miners who had been trapped...thats where I got on board...I was watching CNN late that night as I tried to get sleepy but the story was intriguing...a rescure effort, miners, their families, etc...but it seems CNN, so hungry to be the first to release any breaking news, falsely reported that there were 12 survivors of the 13 miners...they basically listened in on rescue teams' radio frequencies to "break the story first" without checking their facts...and because of this, the family members of the dead miners not only have to go through with facing their dead husbands/brothers, but they have the false hope from the driveby media for a 20 minutes window or whatever...they didnt care about checking facts to give accurate news...they wanted to be the first to break the "sensational breaking news"...fuck the media

3/5/2007 1:27:06 PM

Quote :

"All that said, confidence in the corporate/"mainstream" media as a source of news and information is currently plummetting...."

I would say dependence on the usual printed and/or broadcast media is going down because of the internet. Can't really say about the confidence.

Quote :

"Is it because those in the corporate/mainstream media have more money, wear suits, hire attractive news reporters, and generate a polished/flashy product?"

Professional appearance is usually regarded as a sign of quality, yes, in just about everything. Media, print, services, products. Something that looks high quality is generally perceived as high quality. This isn't a secret. Would you buy food from the grocer that keeps his store and appearance professional and clean, or the one who looks like he just rolled out of bed?

Quote :

"Does it have to do with the fact that from childhood we are groomed and taught to trust those perceived as "authority figures"?"

Aside from what I just mentioned about professional appearance being viewed as high quality, how else would we be groomed from childhood to trust these sources?

Quote :

"Corporations and businesses, of course, exist primarily to make money and profit (and that profit is made at the expense and exploitation of the masses). That's their main goal....not necessarily covering issues that are truly important, telling the truth, etc."

Outside of the issues that are regularly covered in your threads (9/11, Jewish conspiracy, Holocaust, Iraq/Iran, previous terrorist bombings, etc), where would you say and be able to prove that the major news companies have lied or misled?

3/5/2007 1:35:38 PM

Quote :

"Professional appearance is usually regarded as a sign of quality, yes, in just about everything. Media, print, services, products. Something that looks high quality is generally perceived as high quality."

So-called "professional appearance" is perceived as a sign of credibility, but it certainly doesn't mean that such credibility exists in fact.

Quote :

"Outside of the issues that are regularly covered in your threads (9/11, Jewish conspiracy, Holocaust, Iraq/Iran, previous terrorist bombings, etc), where would you say and be able to prove that the major news companies have lied or misled?"

The MSM deception goes to nearly every issue of importance in society. But if you want specific issues...off the top of my head....there's the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Pearl Harbor attack, the safety and requirements regarding vaccinations, the legality of federal income taxation, misleading statistics used to promote "gun control", deception on legislation that erodes civil liberties, etc.

And as I have alluded to, the primary way the corporate/mainstream media misleads people is not by overt lying, but rather my ommission and suppression of key evidence/issues. I would estimate that 15% of the problem is lying, and 85% is suppression of key evidence/issues/subjects. And in many ways, the corporate MSM does not do any real investigation on serious issues any more. It merely acts as a mouthpiece for the government, merely repeating government press releases and whatever government officials say as if it were fact.

3/5/2007 2:13:04 PM

Quote :

"It merely acts as a mouthpiece for the government, merely repeating government press releases and whatever government officials say as if it were fact."

If thats true, how come the President's approval rating is so low? Wouldnt the "government mouthpiece" be spreading positives about the government? How come most of the country (according to polls) doesn't approve of the govt as a whole?

(not to get off subject but) its kind of like some of your sources in your 9/11 thread...some of them claim evidence is so damaging, it has been removed from certain sites because the govt is scared of it getting out...yet they allow your blog sites to stay up...why?

if the govt has as much control over the media's content, why do they allow all this negative crticism of themselves?

3/5/2007 2:16:07 PM

To salisburyboy: Could you post some shorter shit sometimes, man? I'm being serious. I would give your stuff more of a chance if it weren't so damn long at first--start a little light and then give us the manifesto. I'm just sayin'. . . .

3/5/2007 2:31:08 PM

Quote :

"If thats true, how come the President's approval rating is so low? Wouldnt the "government mouthpiece" be spreading positives about the government? How come most of the country (according to polls) doesn't approve of the govt as a whole? "

1. There are now major alternatives to the MSM...ie, the internet. That has a lot to do with the general public disapproval of government in general (eg, the exposure of the government lies about the war in Iraq by the alternative media).

2. Even if the MSM were the only major access to news and information, the MSM/establishment/govt propaganda is only going to work up to a point. People are daily affected by the shitty economy, can see the thousands of illegal aliens in their communities, etc. No amount of pro illegal alien, pro war, or other propaganda by the MSM is going to have much of an effect.

Quote :

"if the govt has as much control over the media's content, why do they allow all this negative crticism of themselves?"

It's not the government per se that controls the media. Rather, the same interests/people that control our government also control the "mainstream"/corporate media. And they will, no doubt, work to gain control over the internet in order to eliminate alternatives to the "mainstream"/corporate media which they already control. For example, there are efforts ongoing now to eliminate "net neutrality", which would essentially allow the internet to be taken over by large corporations (because everyday people and those with small amounts of funds would be unable to afford maintaining a website).

Quote :

"Could you post some shorter shit sometimes, man? I'm being serious. I would give your stuff more of a chance if it weren't so damn long at first--start a little light and then give us the manifesto. I'm just sayin'. . . "

Yeah, I'll work on that. Valid criticism.

3/5/2007 2:52:40 PM

Quote :

"Many people apparantly believe that in order for something to be true, have occured, be of importance, etc...the "mainstream" or corporate media must cover it, endorse it, give it acceptance, etc...and that anyone who holds a viewpoint on a major issue that differs from that espoused by the "mainstream" media is automaticlly wrong."

You've created a false dichotomy with absolutely no substantiation.

Quote :

"Corporations and businesses, of course, exist primarily to make money and profit (and that profit is made at the expense and exploitation of the masses). That's their main goal....not necessarily covering issues that are truly important, telling the truth, etc. Further, these enormous corporations would have an interest in disseminating information that would be in their coporate/business interests or otherwise to the advantage of elite interests connected to these giant media corporations. So, for example, a coporation with controlling interests in the media and interests in, say, arms manufacturing companies (or banks for that matter), would stand to gain by promoting armed conflict and war."

As you often do, you are jumping to an conclusion after you think you have a motive. Do you really believe that the execs at GE go to board meetings and decide that even though profits are good, it would be in their best interests to incite war via NBC?

The title of this thread is blatantly wrong to begin with. By definition, several separate corporate entities cannot hold a monolopy in the same field. They are competing companies. If one of them made a habit of consistently lying to their viewers/readers, another company would out them solely to hurt the credibility of the competition.

Your entire worldview is incorrect. You see all forms of organization - government, corporate, religious, etc. - as monolithic entities that can accomplish nearly anything. The truth is that all forms of organization are made up of imperfect systems orchestrated by individuals like you and me that utterly lack the omnipotence that you like to attribute to them.

By the way, is al Jazeera part of the media conspiracy?

3/5/2007 3:35:00 PM

Quote :

"They are competing companies. If one of them made a habit of consistently lying to their viewers/readers, another company would out them solely to hurt the credibility of the competition"

The mainstream media in the U.S. and the West is owned and controlled by a small group of elite Jewish interests...that are all pushing the same agenda (ie, the globalist/socialist "new world order" agenda). This is why all the major networks (with the exception of FoxNews) push an openly socialist/left-wing agenda...and why none of them will expose the truth about 9/11, and perpetuate and support the "war on terror" fraud...and why all of them went along with and supported the Iraq war initially, and are only giving lip service to "opposing" it now.

They compete to some extent among each other, but it's a competition among people who all have the same agenda. Compare it to, say, the competition that may exist among many pro-abortion groups to be the "top dog" of pro-abortion activist groups. These groups compete among each other, but none of them would switch to an anti-abortion stance and begin producting anti-abortion literature, etc.

3/5/2007 4:33:02 PM

I THINK I WILL ENJOY A FRESH GLASS OF ORANGE JEWS RIGHT NOW

3/5/2007 4:36:09 PM

Quote :

"The mainstream media in the U.S. and the West is owned and controlled by a small group of elite Jewish interests"

Who? I couldn't find a single jewish controlled media company.

GE:
http://www.ge.com/en/company/companyinfo/executivebios/executive_bios.htm

Westinghouse Electric:
http://www.hoovers.com/westinghouse/--ID__57858--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml

Disney:
http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/management_team.html

Viacom:
http://www.viacom.com/view_release.jhtml?inID=10000040&inReleaseID=227302

Time Warner:
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/management/executives_by_business/time_warner_cable/index.html

News Corporation:
http://www.newscorp.com/management/board.html

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/about/dotcom_executives.html

While there are jewish board members at several of those companies, not a single one is "jewish controlled".

3/5/2007 4:47:25 PM

he's going to go on about how rupert murdoch is like 1/16th jewish!!!!

3/5/2007 4:56:05 PM

Yeah, you can't even detect the slightest bit of Jewish influence over the television networks. AT ALL. I mean, it's not like there are all these Jewish producers and writers. I mean look at the credits.

And Hollywood. It's not dominated and controlled by Jewish interests either. NO WAY. That's just a conspiracy theory.



[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 5:06 PM. Reason : 1]

3/5/2007 5:05:45 PM

I attempt to have a rational discussion with you. I bring facts.

You switch to sarcasm when the facts don't support your accusations.

3/5/2007 5:12:20 PM

3/5/2007 5:13:10 PM

Another salisburyboy loss. You're on a pretty bad losing streak here pal.

Perhaps suicide is the only way you win?

3/5/2007 5:29:41 PM

Quote :

"Disney"

Who was both the Chairman and CEO of Disney for over 20 years until very recently ? Michael Eisner, a Jew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner

Quote :

"Viacom"

Who's the head of Viacom (as well as CBS)? Oh, a guy named Sumner Redstone (born Sumner Murray Rothstein).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumner_Redstone

Quote :

"Time Warner"

And just who were the Warner brothers? Oh, Polish Jews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros.

Quote :

"CNN"

Riiiight, the network dominated by Larry King and Wolf Blitzer.


And that's only scratching the surface of the Jewish control of these networks.

3/5/2007 5:40:36 PM

havent we done this thread like 5 times?

Quote :

"Riiiight, the network dominated by Larry King and Wolf Blitzer."

are you kidding me? the best you could do with cnn is that two of thier anchors are jews? OMG THEY RUN THE WHOLE NETWORK!!

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 6:14 PM. Reason : adsf]

3/5/2007 6:11:55 PM

Quote :

"Michael Eisner, a Jew."

He doesn't ever work there anymore. How does that amount to jewish control of the Disney Corporation?

Quote :

"Who's the head of Viacom (as well as CBS)? Oh, a guy named Sumner Redstone (born Sumner Murray Rothstein)."

Please point out the jewish influence that has existed under his watch. (FYI, it was under his leadership that Paramount created the zionist epic Braveheart)

Quote :

"And just who were the Warner brothers? Oh, Polish Jews"

And who owns Warner Brothers now? Oh, the good christian folk at Time Inc bought it in 1990. (FYI, before being bought they created the zionist epic The Oulaw Josey Wales)

Quote :

"Riiiight, the network dominated by Larry King and Wolf Blitzer."

How does the presence of two jewish tv personalities indicate that a network is dominated by jewish control? By that same rationale I could argue that NBC is dominated by blacks like Bryant Gumbel and Al Roker.

Quote :

"And that's only scratching the surface of the Jewish control of these networks."

Please, go on! I want to see it all instead of just watching you find jews employed in the media and then struggling to connect that to a global jewish media conspiracy.

3/5/2007 6:17:49 PM

Quote :

"are you kidding me? the best you could do with cnn is that two of thier anchors are jews? OMG THEY RUN THE WHOLE NETWORK!!"

Quote :

"And that's only scratching the surface of the Jewish control of these networks."

3/5/2007 6:18:30 PM

Quote :

"Please, go on! I want to see it all instead of just watching you find jews employed in the media and then struggling to connect that to a global jewish media conspiracy."

3/5/2007 6:20:07 PM

Quote :

"So-called "professional appearance" is perceived as a sign of credibility, but it certainly doesn't mean that such credibility exists in fact."

No, it doesn't. However, it does present a better case for the possibility. If a company can properly present their product or service in a clean and professional manner, I'm content to believe that they've put the same time and effort into the product and service itself. The same can be said of the media.

Quote :

"Corporations and businesses, of course, exist primarily to make money and profit (and that profit is made at the expense and exploitation of the masses)."

You know, when I think of it, you really lose me here. There is an implication here that all profit is made at the expense and exploitation of the masses. Is that really what you're trying to say? Because if so you're making a really really large claim there and I'm having trouble accepting the rest of your viewpoint with that in the picture.

I mean damn, sorry to take the implication to the extreme, but just to make a point, are you honestly saying that even my barber is exploiting me for profit?

3/5/2007 6:30:40 PM

Another salisburyboy loss. You're on a pretty bad losing streak here pal.

Perhaps suicide is the only way you win?

3/5/2007 8:35:35 PM

Just accept the fact that salisburyboy has the monopoly on credibility and truth.

3/5/2007 8:47:57 PM

He's jewish?

3/5/2007 8:52:54 PM

dun dun duuuuuuuuuuun

3/5/2007 9:06:28 PM

anyone else find it ironic that salisburyboy is talking abut truth and credibility?

3/5/2007 9:42:12 PM

Quote :

"Why is there this widespread and deeply-held belief among many that the corporate and so-called "mainstream" media is the only credible and reliable source of news and information?"

Probably for the same reasons that all of your 40 page threads have you citing CNN or the BBC 40 times.

3/6/2007 1:59:59 AM

this might be my only post every in a salisburyboy thread

Quote :

"Please, go on! I want to see it all instead of just watching you find jews employed in the media and then struggling to connect that to a global jewish media conspiracy."

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 8:37 AM. Reason : df]

3/6/2007 8:36:44 AM

One of the easiest ways to tell people are nutbags is this: when they do cite sources, it's usually themselves.

Quote :

"And that's only scratching the surface of the Jewish control of these networks."

OH NO. NO ARGUING WITH THAT.

3/6/2007 8:40:41 AM

Quote :

"Probably for the same reasons that all of your 40 page threads have you citing CNN or the BBC 40 "

I use MSM reports for the fact that so many people (at least at one time) had such faith in the MSM as a source of credible information. So...when MSM sources report information that contradicts the establishment accounts of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, etc...it is useful to cite those reports. It is using their own reports against them. They slip up and leak out the truth about these issues/events from time to time (usually early in the development of the story...eg, Oklahoma City bombing), but it is hushed up, buried, and hardly discussed again.

3/6/2007 9:28:08 AM

Quote :

"They slip up and leak out the truth about these issues/events from time to time (usually early in the development of the story...eg, Oklahoma City bombing), but it is hushed up, buried, and hardly discussed again."

Why should inaccurate initial reports be considered the real truth? Do you think that news anchors forget to read their scripts in the excitement and accidently report what really happened?

There were multiple reports of car bombs going off at the state department on the morning of 9/11, reports of 12 miners being found alive in West Virginia, reports of Dewey beating Truman, etc etc. The fact that they were early reports doesn't make them true.

3/6/2007 2:17:59 PM

Looks like another salisburyboy domination.

Speaking of credibility, to you have a name or face to go with this lunacy?

3/6/2007 2:38:39 PM

The MSM is done. It's through. They have zero credibility, and no one is buying their bullshit anymore. This will become more and more apparant as time goes on. Thanks mostly to the internet, the MSM has been thorougly exposed as a tool of mass deception, used by the Jewish establishment to socially condition the population according to the agenda of the powers-that-be.

They really overplayed their hand with the 9/11 cover-up, and underestimated the potential power of the internet. And now people have begun to question nearly everything being advocated and pushed by the MSM....including the whole gamut of left-wing/multiculturalist propaganda, political correctness, and any and everything in between.

The days of people buying up the Jewish/MSM propaganda are over.

3/6/2007 3:03:27 PM

Repeating your own rhetoric is no substitute for defending your ideas when people question them.

If anything it just shows the weakness of your position.

3/6/2007 3:10:43 PM

Is the so-called "mainstream" media really, in fact, mainstream anymore? Certainly not in the areas of illegal immigration, gun control, and the "diversity"/multiculturalist/PC propaganda. If so in other areas, it's only because the masses are influenced to follow the trends and standards espoused by this corporate/Jewish-controlled media through sheer repetition of the establishment viewpoint and the suppression of alternative viewpoints (eg, false beliefs in the legitimacy of the official 9/11 story, the threat from "al Qaeda", the war on terror, etc).

The corporate media does not look to the masses for direction and then reflect the mainstream views on issues. Rather, it is a social conditioning and propaganda tool....a mouthpiece for the establishment & elite.

3/7/2007 10:17:22 AM

Repeating your own rhetoric is no substitute for defending your ideas when people question them.

If anything it just shows the weakness of your position.

3/7/2007 5:41:04 PM

Quote :

"Is the corporate media really concerned with covering stories of true importance and bringing the truth to the masses? OR...are they more concerned with obtaining profits and in general promoting elite/corporate interests? "

the answer to that question should be pretty obvious when cnn is running a day long escapade about the stupid astronaut bitch

3/7/2007 6:52:07 PM