How many here believe what they read/hear/see in the media?

[Cerridwen]

WARNING: This post is part snark (snide+remark=snark) and part advisory; please, hold jerking knees then breath then think then research and then learn.

Story continues -----


*crickets* *tap, tap, SHREEEK!*

Is this thing on?

*silence*

How many here believe what they read/hear/see in the media?

*pause*

Ah, I see a couple of tentative hands in the back. Hi, welcome to DU! :D Ahhhh, I see a couple of "old-timers", too. Go ahead, raise your hands high! Okay, relax.

How many here think the media is NOT (dial up warning) corporate owned? Same new DUers. Hi! again. Check out the link I posted. Go ahead. I'll wait.

*theme from Jeopardy plays in the background*

Welcome back. :D

So, except for the couple of new people and a couple of "old-timers", most of us posting at DU believe the media to be corporate owned?

*hands flying into the air* (Hey, my story, my scenario) :evilgrin:

So, you believe the media is corporate owned. Yes?

*watches hands waving with enthusiasm*

And you believe that corporations are for profit entities?

*more enthusiastic (wry?) hand waving*

And you believe for profit companies are supposed to, by law, do what is best for their shareholders rather than for the public good?

*waits for that idea to sink in - watches faces as the "light bulb" goes off*

So, if corporately controlled media is for profit, and for profit entities are supposed to do what is best for the shareholders...what does that mean for the "rest of us"?

*confused silence* (still my story)

Will the corporately owned media report objectively; or only that which will enhance profits?

*silence*

If the media does not report objectively, what do they report? Is it reality? Truth? Slanted? Spun? Selective?

*silence*

If it is spin; is it all the time, most of the time, some of the time? All of the reports? Some of the reports?

*pause*

I presume spin, most of the time and most of the reports.

*no dissent noticed (still my story) smiles sweetly*

If the corporate media reports spin most of the time - when are they telling the objective truth?

When they report about shrub? When they report about republicans? When they report about Democrats? When they report about election fraud? When they report about britney/paris/whomever-the-fuck?

*pause to drink water and wet whistle*

If, you don't believe the media reports the truth most of the time in most of the cases; why do you rush to post media reports against...Democrats, Socialism, Chavez, Edward's new house/haircut, Gore's house/haircut, "Hilary's" (pick your favorite reason for hating the woman), Pelosi's whatever, any Democrat's house/haircut/environmental impact/language/dialect/accent/vote or "quotes" in the press, "illegal" immigration, the economy, U.S. citizens losing jobs!? Pick a gawd-forsaken topic.

*pissed off silence*

Ooooo, tough crowd.



Here's my point for those who still didn't get it...if you believe the media lies to us, how can you believe what you do about anything which is based on the media reports? Because you have to; because you want to; or because it supports your argument; or because you're too lazy/fed up/tired to do the freakin' research which takes time and effort?

I'm usually "late" to threads because I research. I look for primary sources. Am I "the know all, be all and end all" of posters? Fuck no! But, I hate being wrong so I look for facts. It don't make me popular. It don't increase my post count. But, it means I usually have a fracking clue when I post and I learn, let me repeat that, I learn from my research.

I invite you to learn with me. Add knowledge to your "knowledge base". C'mon; it's entertaining. What's that old marketing, sound-bite crap? "Learning CAN be fun!" I'm all aquiver! /snark

*steps down from soap-box, returns to lurk-mode*

[elocs]

1. I do not believe everything that I read/see/hear at DU either.

I try and use a little discernment. I am sure that everything here at DU is not as pure as driven snow either. There are posters who have their own issues, prejudices,opinions, and points of view to push. There's no reason to swallow everything like it is from the mouth of god either in the media or here.

[Cerridwen]

3. Thank you. That's my point.

It used to be "question authority". Now, I'd argue, it's "question everything."

I hope for critical thinking, of everything! - of my posts, too - though it's painful as hell! /wry grin

:hi:

[emilyg]

11. Excellent point.

[liberal N proud]

2. Welcome to the Grand Illusion

[Cerridwen]

8. Grand? Not so much.

Illusion? Yeah. Definitely!

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Not all media is created equal.

If it's reported by a reputable group (e.g. The Guardian) and it doesn't send my bullshit detector buzzing, I will repeat it. I'm not smart enough to second guess Greg Palast, for instance. If it's bullshit, someone who can do additional research will point it out.

[Cerridwen]

6. And so you argue for a miniscule percentile while ignoring the

overwhelming percentile exhibited in my link in the OP.

While you accept "as gospel" those things from "our allies", "our allies" can turn on a profit's dime.

*sigh*

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. If I'm limited to primary sources, most things never come to my attention.

Once they come to my attention, the topic gets the additional research it merits.

[dave_p]

5. It goes deeper

It isn't just a matter (unless they're Murdoch's) of their promoting "only that which will enhance profits": their business / corporate nature determines the very way they see ther world. They don't even need to distort intentionally, they're so deeply entrenched in the status quo that they can't see or even imagine other perspectives.

It isn't just the corporate media, the same blinkeredness extends through politics, academia, culture and through to our own thought processes. Freeing your mind ain't easy.

[Cerridwen]

7. No kidding.

But, that would have been a much longer post.

:D

[dave_p]

9. I know - there's my first 1.5 paragraphs

... just give me a couple of years, I'll be right back.

[Cerridwen]

10. :D

If you quote me, make sure to spell my username correctly.

:rofl:

Long novel/book/treatise/research article?

[dave_p]

12. Maybe all three

... with a history of the world and unauthorized autobiography thrown in for good measure. So much to do, so little time...

Maybe I'll just watch some more Father Ted instead. :D

[Cerridwen]

13. Fine! So you "made" me go Google.

And there I find something NOT specific to the U.S. How dare you make me think beyond the boundaries of my own ethno-centric country of origin?! LOL

Thanks! That was fun!

Wow, there's a world out there beyond the U.S.?! Whoda thunk?!

/snark at myself

[dave_p]

16. Don't go too near the edge!

Ireland's safe though, it's kinda like Massachusetts with more rain and cows.

[Cerridwen]

18. "Saints preserve us!"

You mean my Irish great-great-grandmother left her homeland and in doing so, left behind the "safety" of Ireland?

I'm a couple of generations removed from my "Irish roots" or I'd claim my Irish heritage and leave behind the shores that once welcomed the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free".


Dia dhuit, dave_p.

[dave_p]

20. That and 300 days of rain

Lots of YouTube Ted to console you for your loss, btw. Enjoy!

[Cerridwen]

22. Thanks for the link! I'm bookmarking.

I moved from the desert to the Pacific Northwest to get more rain; only about 155 days per year :(

I get very, uh, "fussy" when it's bright and sunny. Guess my Irish roots are showing? :big-wide-assed-grin-smiley:

[Greyhound]

14. More recommendations required here, this needs to be up front on the Greatest Page.

It should be on the home page, but I'm afraid it is too direct for that, mustn't disturb the flock too much.

I love the way you take us through the thought process step by painful step. Maybe it will open a few of their eyes.

Thank you.

[Cerridwen]

15. Naw. Ain't gonna happen.

Nothing more painful than admitting to being bamboozled. Bamboozled...anyone still use that word?

:rofl:

[chknltl]

28. Yep, hoodwinked and brouhaha too.

You said "fracken"... it'd be nice if that caught on.
I read the OP, I am not a bit mad or embarrassed. Enlightenment does not deserve either. You deserve my thanks though. Thank You.
c

[Cerridwen]

35. :D I hoped someone would catch that.

And you're welcome.

:D

[ConsAreLiars]

17. Good post, recommended. People need to understand that "for profit" inherently means

"for extending corporate power" in today's economy when you get beyond Mom&Pop enterprises. And that underlying goal determines which programs get put on the media, and which programs and media outlets get corporate (advertising) money to stay on the air. And, unfortunately, that means that a lot of what people, including many who post on boards like DU, "learn" about the world is completely formed by and thus consistent with those same objectives.

[EFerrari]

19. I called out the NYT on OH 2004 and got a response.

And I guess I had to be that mad to do that.

Believe the Noise Machine? No way.

[Cerridwen]

21. Didn't think for one second, that you believed the Noise Machine

sfexpat2000 - not for one second. Unfortunately, those who *do* believe, are too pissed off at me right now, to even tell me so.

:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

23. I guess we're going to get even more cranky before this is over.

Hang in.

:hi:

[Cerridwen]

24. You, too. Hang in.

We're gonna need each other.

If you'll pardon the familiarity

:hug:

[John Q. Citizen]

25. How do you go about researching quotes attributed to people in a non-recorded

interview, one that uses a reporters notes?

Anyway, I think you should write this up for an okcupid.com test.

I remember when it first dawned on me that, at least sometimes and in some situations the media does in fact lie, and lie outright.

Many years ago my friend and I were hitch hiking to the first Rainbow Gathering. The last ride we got the radio was on in the car, and the announcer was saying that the gathering had been cancelled and that it wasn't happening, that the site was blocked and nobody was allowed in.

Well low and behold, the report was completely false.

I remember thinking, wow, those guys totally lied.

[L. Coyote]

33. PURPOSEFUL PROPAGANDA - YOU PAY FOR IT!!!

An editor of an Ivy League level studnet newspaper told me reporters consider
it acceptable to create quotes, if the quote is close to what was said.
She urged me to do the same in my book when she edited it, since everyone does it.
That's one issue. Do the best of journalists fudge or transcribe recordings?

PURPOSEFUL PROPAGANDA - YOU PAY FOR IT!!!
The second issue is intentional propaganda bought and paid for by you the taxpayer.
This aspect of American government is particuarly evident in the "mission" to convert Iraq.

Next STOP Iran? More BUSH LIES and Surging Toward War With Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x980363#981252

TOPICS:
Pentagon pays Iraqi papers to print its 'good news' stories
U.S. Journalist Quits Pentagon Iraqi Media Project Calling it U.S. Propaganda
BUSH's LIES: "federal agencies spent $1.6 billion on what some Democrats called 'spin.' "
Pentagon OK's Propaganda for Iraq (and Possibly Elsewhere)
The Sword Employs the Pen
Pentagon Paid Reporters for Stories Overseas
Bush, Cheney Stovepiping Intelligence On Iran, Hiding Information From CIA

[Cerridwen]

34. In some cases, depending on the person quoted and who's

doing the quoting, you can at least look at a quoted person's words on the issue.

You can also research and investigate the reporter. Do they have a history of making up quotes or bashing a particular person? If they continually mis-quote, bash (or the inverse, support) a person, that, to me, makes their "reporting" questionable.

I watch for patterns. And, as you noted, sometimes they outright and unapologetically lie; I've also had first hand experience with that. I've even been the one who was "paraphrased" and the meaning of what I said completely taken out of context and twisted.

The main point is; question everything and everyone. We all have our "pet issues" (you're posting in a thread about one of mine :D ) and we all have our "pet peeves" (same thing?) so we all could benefit by considering, at the very least, information on important issues, to be suspect until the words or ideas have been "proven".

[misanthrope]

26. Always be skeptical...

...I'm a member of the media and I can tell you not to patently trust what you're handed.

The falsehood of the "liberal media" is one of the greatest myths of contemporary America.

The bigger the outlet, the more they have to lose. One of the best truisms in journalism is "follow the money" and it applies to the media as well.

[eridani]

27. You just missed a very important factor

Namely, what you DON'T see in the corporate media.

[IChing]

29. It is like the Millers Analogy Test for grad school

Obscure relationships, what is said, what is not
and how they can or cannot relate to each other
where real journalist can put the pieces together.

I scored very high on that test
but I'm an obscure human being.

The news is something that is biased by the observer
even in "so called " balanced journalism, which now
I think only exists in reporting science. (global warming anyone?)
Actually it only exists in practicing science.


It truly is

AN ASSAULT ON REASON

[Cerridwen]

40. At the risk of being even more "obscure"

Even the practice of science has a bias; who decides to study which scientific theory or law and why do they? What is the scientist's motivation for pursuing a particular field of study and research? Hopefully they're willing to have their own bias brought into question should the results of their study be in opposition to what they postulated would be the outcome. Then factor the financial component into the equation and "obscure relationships" can turn even science into a field which is difficult to trust. And, just because it might read that I question global warming; I'm not. I am, however, thinking of the field of pharmaceutical research which has given us such horrific outcomes.

Such a world we now live in.

[Cerridwen]

36. Yeah, it was in my head, but didn't make it to the "page"

If I'd gone into every permutation I thought of, I'd still be typing the OP. :(

Sad, isn't it?

I also didn't mention how often what is reported is then re-reported and re-reported until it looks as though something is of major importance while truly important issues, say outing a covert agent, garner nary a blip on the corporate media radar.

Oh well, one piece of the puzzle at a time, I guess.

[NuttyFluffers]

30. nice post, good lesson

hopefully it is not wasted among the shrill hysteria and soapbox oration going on around here.

[Cerridwen]

37. Thanks. Oh, it probably is "wasted" on many

But, if I've reached a couple here and there and caused them to pause and think for a moment, I'll try to be happy with that. I'd love to move the mountains made of mole-hills around here but I'll settle for moving or disrupting a mole or two. :evilgrin:

[blogslut]

31. I never blindly trust articles I read or reports I see

That's how I was brought up. My dad was a newspaperman. Browsing for bullshit was a family pastime.

[Cerridwen]

38. LOL "Browsing for bullshit" That has a funny ring to it.

Thanks. That make me LOL.

:hi:

[DFW]

32. Sometimes, despite the rain and foul weather,

I'm glad to have a job that keeps me in Europe much of the time.
this way, I get my news, such as it is, not only from the American
press, but also from the German, French and British press.

It definitely beats a steady diet of Wolf Blitzer.

[illinoisprogressive]

39. depends. I tend to trust certain people (KO) over many others.

[robcon]

41. I believe most of what I read and hear.

Most media outlets are honest, and are trying to get to the truth, IMO.

[Cerridwen]

42. Well, then - Welcome to DU

Your profile doesn't say, anything at all, but I looked to see how long you'd been reading and posting here. Based on your post, I'll have to guess you're fairly new here since there is much discussion, debate (and the occasional flame war) about media bias and their resistance to reporting the truth.

Just last night someone here posted about a story in the Washington Post in which they criticized "the dictator" Chavez for passing a "new" law; only problem, the "new" law has been on the books since 1964. That's just one example of one report from one newspaper.

Though it may have its own bias, MediaMatters.org does some good research in this area. There are other sites but that was the first that came to mind.

[GeorgeGist]

43. Knowing what to think ...

is easy but knowing how to think requires work. :thumbsup:

[Greyhound]

44. That's the key, isn't it?

When and how did we become so incurious? Remember the "intellectual threads" a few months back? The mere suggestion that some people are, in fact, brighter than others inspired some of the most vicious bile I've ever read here.

We have become and anti-intellectual society, and don't want to do the hard work of thinking. It is much easier to just do and believe what somebody else tells us. Even when faced with mountains of evidence to the contrary, we cling to these beliefs.