Sicko

Indeed, the US health care system is not perfect and may not be as good as some others, but Michael Moore is notorious for having a very slanted viewpoint. Forcing his viewpoint is a strong term since there is no means of force other than misinformation, and misinformation is a powerful tool, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you are on. I have a very jaundiced view of media in general.
 
<span class="postlistquotedtext"><blockquote>quote:<center><hr width="100%"/></center>Mayfield669 wrote:
I have a very jaundiced view of media in general. <center><hr width="100%"/></center></blockquote></span>

Me too. And that's good. One should always scrutinize what the mass media is trying to inseminate.

This example may be totally inappropriate but it illustrates what I mean:

Recently there was a reporting on a German TV newsmag (Frontal 21) which is usually just covering political news. On that day they commented on "Grand Theft Auto IV".

They totally perverted the truth by claiming things like "one of the goals of the game is to beat up passengers, among them retirees and women!" While saying that they faded in a scene in which the main character beats someone up with a baseball bat.

And what was the clueless viewer thinking? "What a vile game! So THIS is the garbage which causes all the school killings. Now I understand!"

Of course GTA is MUCH more than this.

On the homepage of the computer magazine which they were visiting before in order to get some information about GTA the editors wrote that they were shocked that the Frontal 21 reporters didn't even know the difference between a PC game and a console game. They even never heard of the terms "XBOX 360" and "Playstation 3". They never heard these names before!!!!

So these are the facts I can ascertain for myself. But what about all the political issues? Who tells me that the same way of distorting news coverage isn't used in this connection?
 
Exactly. No I think your example is well made. It may be a problem inherent with being a journalist, but they often are not as well informed as they should be on the subject they write about. Perhaps the frantic nature of their jobs precludes this, but sometimes I think they are lazy or have an agenda.

I had a very terrible boss once who did inadvertently managed to teach me one or two invaluable (why does that word basically mean the same as valuable?) lessons. This guy was such a liar that you could never take his statements at face value. You had to always make sure you got all the facts on any discussion you had with him.
 
The media...ain't it great? Mass hysteria over Sars...then...nothing...Mass hysteria over H5N1...then nothing...Global warming...that's the newy.

Well, I've done media studies and all the perspectives they cover. Of course we are subjected to our own state propaganda - though we like to believe we're not.

One example I will use (and I'm sure Ray will know about this) is Building 7, World Trade Centre complex, on 11th September.

Total free fall collapse in on itself. It was a controlled demolition. We know this because Larry Silverstein, the lease holder, is on camera stating he told them to 'pull it'. A term used in controlled demolition to collapse a building with explosives.

Now. Because of the events of 9/11, the twin tower's collapse dwarfed this collapse. But imagine it's any other day. Say, tomorrow. All of a sudden, news comes through. In New York a skyscraper totally collapses in on itself. Steel framed structure, from a few small isolated pockets of fire. It would cause mass hysteria. Architects would be demanding how in the heck did it happen? A 47 story steel framed structure! But. The news was broadcast on 9/11 - and ONLY on that day. It's never been mentioned by the media since. They aren't allowed to mention it. It is also TOTALLY ommitted from the official inquiry!!! In all of the documentaries you can buy in shops about that day (and I have many official releases) there's not ONE documentary that alludes to it. The unofficial ones all do, and quite obvious why. Nevermind it was reported as collapsed when it stood behind the reporter!

Silverstein makes me sick.


Whatever your views of the events of 9/11, this is a simple question: Why is it totally ignored and never referred to?
 
9/11 is a good example of how the mass media fails to report factually and objective even 7 years after. The ironic thing is that this extreme disregard of inconsistencies only nourishes the conspiracy theories which they originally want to prevent.

Building 7 is just one of hundreds inconsistencies remaining. There are enough inconsitencies to fill books (I've read 3 of them until today). They pulled it. We all heard Silverstein saying it. On a financial basis, 9/11 was a great day for Mr. Silverstein, wasn't it? So why was it pulled? The speculation goes on. Was it the command base for two remotely piloted aerial vehicles? Who knows...
 
The Wall Street investigations have to be a contender...

Someone said on a documentary: On that day there were 3 huge events. It's accepted, that they are, seemingly, all connected. Correct? Al Qaida orchestrated 9/11...etc...

So, does it then follow that if we find that ONE of those events are proven to be let's just say 'flawed', or not as it seemed, does it also mean there is a knock-on effect to the other events of that day?

Of course, the only point I'm making is about the media and it's coverage of important events. If you look at footage of the day (which would be via the unofficial DVDs) it has hours and hours of all of the 'as-it-happened' footage with eyewitnesses, TV presenters' views etc... The official DVDs have nothing.
 
Damn, are those Reptilians going to mutilate my horses, too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top