media is a joke

[HomeInspect]

I am not into the conspiracy theory, but this really shows what a joke the media is

 

[Pogo]

I am not into the conspiracy theory, but this really shows what a joke the media is



https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7G-UNwE1pWU

OK HomeInspect, I read your OP and watched your entire video, and I'm still lost as to what your point is here. Can you articulate it?

Thanks.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The media is an extension of the liberal Democratic mob.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Yeah, CNN is a joke. All they do is read off the Teleprompter.

Their ratings are so bad they have to invite the people they make fun of just to boost ratings.They're a Paper Tiger.

Case in Point: Piers Morgan. Blogs are read by more people than watch his show but when he has a "Conspiracy Theorist" on his ratings skyrocket!

If you want to swallow the official gov't line just keep watching CNN.

But if you want a story investigated and reported about from all possible angles (with research to back it up) you need to go somewhere else.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, CNN is a joke. All they do is read off the Teleprompter.

Their ratings are so bad they have to invite the people they make fun of just to boost ratings.They're a Paper Tiger.

Case in Point: Piers Morgan. Blogs are read by more people than watch his show but when he has a "Conspiracy Theorist" on his ratings skyrocket!

If you want to swallow the official gov't line just keep watching CNN.

But if you want a story investigated and reported about from all possible angles (with research to back it up) you need to go somewhere else.

Once agan -- "ratings" have absolutely zero to do with news value. Doesn't prove or disprove squat. Ratings have to do with attention, and that usually means LCD entertainment (LCD= "lowest common denominator). It has no relationship to whether it's objective or not. None whatsoever.

I still don't know what the point of this thread is. The OP sez it doesn't buy the conspiracy theory, so that's not it, yet the video seems to promote it. On the other hand the video picks and chooses clips from the same media to make its argument, which in effect disputes its own point. So if there's a point being made here I still don't know what it is.

 

[Spoonman]

the media is disgusting. there is no responsible journalism. it is all sensationalism. it is all about generating ratings and yes, in many cases, trying to promote an agenda. it's become strictly opinion pieces

 

[HomeInspect]

"I still don't know what the point of this thread is"

The point is in the title. The media is a joke. If you can't see that point after watching the video.. ask your mom or dad.

 

[AmyNation]

The media is an extension of the American people. When Americans want real facts, without the dog and pony show or the biased spin, the media will give it to them.

 

[Leweman]

The media is an extension of the American people. When Americans want real facts, without the dog and pony show or the biased spin, the media will give it to them.

how will Americans ever want it without the media telling them they do?

 

[AmyNation]

The media is an extension of the American people. When Americans want real facts, without the dog and pony show or the biased spin, the media will give it to them.

how will Americans ever want it without the media telling them they do?

Luckily we don't live in a world where we have to rely on TV news networks for our information.

 

[Leweman]

The media is an extension of the American people. When Americans want real facts, without the dog and pony show or the biased spin, the media will give it to them.

how will Americans ever want it without the media telling them they do?

Luckily we don't live in a world where we have to rely on TV news networks for our information.

correct ... there is also Facebook and Twitter.

 

[Pogo]

"I still don't know what the point of this thread is"

The point is in the title. The media is a joke. If you can't see that point after watching the video.. ask your mom or dad.

Mom and Dad are dead, thanks for asking. But they didn't ask for an explanation of this inscrutable thread. I did.

You named it "media is a joke", which is why I clicked in. But you didn't develop the point at all, and post a video that seems to have make no point. If the video is supposed to present a conspiracy, it's not related because you already said you're not on board with it. Therefore the video has no function. So where is your argument? What is your argument?

Can you not articulate what you're trying to say? Do you know what your point is?

 

[HomeInspect]

"I still don't know what the point of this thread is"

The point is in the title. The media is a joke. If you can't see that point after watching the video.. ask your mom or dad.

Mom and Dad are dead, thanks for asking. But they didn't ask for an explanation of this inscrutable thread. I did.

You named it "media is a joke", which is why I clicked in. But you didn't develop the point at all, and post a video that seems to have make no point. If the video is supposed to present a conspiracy, it's not related because you already said you're not on board with it. Therefore the video has no function. So where is your argument? What is your argument?

Can you not articulate what you're trying to say? Do you know what your point is?

Geeeesh... did you watch the video? Did you see all the inaccuracies, stumbling and misinformation by everyone trying to make a story before they knew the facts. I don't have an argument. I just made a statement. The media is a joke... and this video is a perfect example. Try arguing with yourself for a change, and leave the adults alone.

 

[Pogo]

"I still don't know what the point of this thread is"

The point is in the title. The media is a joke. If you can't see that point after watching the video.. ask your mom or dad.

Mom and Dad are dead, thanks for asking. But they didn't ask for an explanation of this inscrutable thread. I did.

You named it "media is a joke", which is why I clicked in. But you didn't develop the point at all, and post a video that seems to have make no point. If the video is supposed to present a conspiracy, it's not related because you already said you're not on board with it. Therefore the video has no function. So where is your argument? What is your argument?

Can you not articulate what you're trying to say? Do you know what your point is?

Geeeesh... did you watch the video? Did you see all the inaccuracies, stumbling and misinformation by everyone trying to make a story before they knew the facts. I don't have an argument. I just made a statement. The media is a joke... and this video is a perfect example. Try arguing with yourself for a change, and leave the adults alone.

"Adults" usually know how to make their point. What's going on here is obscure.

As I said in the first post, I watched the whole video. It seems to be making a vague suggestion of a media conspiracy, which you said at the beginning you don't believe in, so for the third time, what's it there for? The video isn't persuasive; it takes a clip from here that supports its point and a clip from there that undermines it, from the same sources. Over it all you have Anderson Cooper emceeing the conspiracy, and nobody draws a conclusion.

What you have here is a heavliy-edited YouTube upload. Anyone can make any point they want with creative editing.

I mean, why didn't "the media" cover this school shooting?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNgnTvKu9kc]Heavily edited video - YouTube[/ame]

Did you mean to title this thread "YouTube is a joke"? Because as it is you're making no point here. Articulate what the point is if you can, and stop hiding behind the "adults" ad hominem like a coward.

 

[HomeInspect]

Mom and Dad are dead, thanks for asking. But they didn't ask for an explanation of this inscrutable thread. I did.

You named it "media is a joke", which is why I clicked in. But you didn't develop the point at all, and post a video that seems to have make no point. If the video is supposed to present a conspiracy, it's not related because you already said you're not on board with it. Therefore the video has no function. So where is your argument? What is your argument?

Can you not articulate what you're trying to say? Do you know what your point is?

Geeeesh... did you watch the video? Did you see all the inaccuracies, stumbling and misinformation by everyone trying to make a story before they knew the facts. I don't have an argument. I just made a statement. The media is a joke... and this video is a perfect example. Try arguing with yourself for a change, and leave the adults alone.

"Adults" usually know how to make their point. What's going on here is obscure.

As I said in the first post, I watched the whole video. It seems to be making a vague suggestion of a media conspiracy, which you said at the beginning you don't believe in, so for the third time, what's it there for? The video isn't persuasive; it takes a clip from here that supports its point and a clip from there that undermines it, from the same sources. Over it all you have Anderson Cooper emceeing the conspiracy, and nobody draws a conclusion.

What you have here is a heavliy-edited YouTube upload. Anyone can make any point they want with creative editing.

I mean, why didn't "the media" cover this school shooting?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNgnTvKu9kc]Heavily edited video - YouTube[/ame]

Did you mean to title this thread "YouTube is a joke"? Because as it is you're making no point here. Articulate what the point is if you can, and stop hiding behind the "adults" ad hominem like a coward.

Edit or not, the video showed the media is a joke, and any adult could have seen that, Just because you can't see simple points, it doesn't mean I'm not making them

 

[Pogo]

Geeeesh... did you watch the video? Did you see all the inaccuracies, stumbling and misinformation by everyone trying to make a story before they knew the facts. I don't have an argument. I just made a statement. The media is a joke... and this video is a perfect example. Try arguing with yourself for a change, and leave the adults alone.

"Adults" usually know how to make their point. What's going on here is obscure.

As I said in the first post, I watched the whole video. It seems to be making a vague suggestion of a media conspiracy, which you said at the beginning you don't believe in, so for the third time, what's it there for? The video isn't persuasive; it takes a clip from here that supports its point and a clip from there that undermines it, from the same sources. Over it all you have Anderson Cooper emceeing the conspiracy, and nobody draws a conclusion.

What you have here is a heavliy-edited YouTube upload. Anyone can make any point they want with creative editing.

I mean, why didn't "the media" cover this school shooting?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNgnTvKu9kc]Heavily edited video - YouTube[/ame]

Did you mean to title this thread "YouTube is a joke"? Because as it is you're making no point here. Articulate what the point is if you can, and stop hiding behind the "adults" ad hominem like a coward.

Edit or not, the video showed the media is a joke, and any adult could have seen that, Just because you can't see simple points, it doesn't mean I'm not making them

Yeah actually that's exactly what it means.

You've got a video of the media (not "the media" but one guy of it) acknowledging that there's a conspiracy nut making hay of 26 shooting victims --- then it goes on to show various cuts between CNN and the YouTube editor, never telling which is which... all of which means what exactly??



Sorry Emperor but if you're going to put up threads with no clothes on I'm going to point out that you're naked.

 

[HomeInspect]

"Adults" usually know how to make their point. What's going on here is obscure.

As I said in the first post, I watched the whole video. It seems to be making a vague suggestion of a media conspiracy, which you said at the beginning you don't believe in, so for the third time, what's it there for? The video isn't persuasive; it takes a clip from here that supports its point and a clip from there that undermines it, from the same sources. Over it all you have Anderson Cooper emceeing the conspiracy, and nobody draws a conclusion.

What you have here is a heavliy-edited YouTube upload. Anyone can make any point they want with creative editing.

I mean, why didn't "the media" cover this school shooting?
Heavily edited video - YouTube

Did you mean to title this thread "YouTube is a joke"? Because as it is you're making no point here. Articulate what the point is if you can, and stop hiding behind the "adults" ad hominem like a coward.

Edit or not, the video showed the media is a joke, and any adult could have seen that, Just because you can't see simple points, it doesn't mean I'm not making them

Yeah actually that's exactly what it means.

You've got a video of the media (not "the media" but one guy of it) acknowledging that there's a conspiracy nut making hay of 26 shooting victims --- then it goes on to show various cuts between CNN and the YouTube editor, never telling which is which... all of which means what exactly??



Sorry Emperor but if you're going to put up threads with no clothes on I'm going to point out that you're naked.

You have the right to your opinion.. but I don't think anyone gives a hoot about it.

 

[Pogo]

Edit or not, the video showed the media is a joke, and any adult could have seen that, Just because you can't see simple points, it doesn't mean I'm not making them

Yeah actually that's exactly what it means.

You've got a video of the media (not "the media" but one guy of it) acknowledging that there's a conspiracy nut making hay of 26 shooting victims --- then it goes on to show various cuts between CNN and the YouTube editor, never telling which is which... all of which means what exactly??



Sorry Emperor but if you're going to put up threads with no clothes on I'm going to point out that you're naked.

You have the right to your opinion.. but I don't think anyone gives a hoot about it.

Actually it's not an "opinion", it's a query. Depending on how you mean the subject line I may strongly agree, or even disagree, but since I'm the only one asking, apparently the point of the thread is a mystery to everyone else too, so I give up.

 

[HomeInspect]

Yeah actually that's exactly what it means.

You've got a video of the media (not "the media" but one guy of it) acknowledging that there's a conspiracy nut making hay of 26 shooting victims --- then it goes on to show various cuts between CNN and the YouTube editor, never telling which is which... all of which means what exactly??



Sorry Emperor but if you're going to put up threads with no clothes on I'm going to point out that you're naked.

You have the right to your opinion.. but I don't think anyone gives a hoot about it.

Actually it's not an "opinion", it's a query. Depending on how you mean the subject line I may strongly agree, or even disagree, but since I'm the only one asking, apparently the point of the thread is a mystery to everyone else too, so I give up.

Since you were the only one asking, it is evident that you can't see the simple point. Why don't you just give up ? It is your opinion that the video doesn't support the fact the media is a joke, it is my opinion that it does. I'm certainly not losing sleep over your opinion.. LOL

 

[MisterBeale]

They keep moving this article on me, it's been mirrored though. I recommend you book mark it though.
Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3302-elites-push-government-funded-public-media

Here's just a small sample of this terrific piece that they keep on moving and trying to shut down. If they do again, the articles image, title and content is completely archived at Ron Paul's blog site.

. . .The Pratt House Matrix and "Ruling Class Journalists"
Big Media has been the handmaiden to Big Government for decades. Now that the Internet and independent media are challenging the statist game plan, Big Media and Big Government are desperately seeking to formally legitimize their longstanding illicit affair. To longtime observers it is not in the least surprising that the key players in this perverse Big Government-Big Media-Big Foundation symbiosis seem to hale disproportionately from the membership roster of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Like the slime trail that leads to the slug, most of the major efforts to centralize, nationalize, and cartelize political and economic power over the past century can be traced back to the CFR and the matrix of corporations, foundations, think tanks, and universities its members dominate. So it is with the current push to have the federal government fund and control more and more of the media. Dr. Bollinger (of Columbia University and the Federal Reserve) is a CFR member. As are Alberto Ibarg?en, president and CEO of the Knight Foundation and Walter Isaacson, president and CEO of the Aspen Institute, key operatives leading the FOCAS campaign.

Listed as "FOCAS 2010 leaders and experts" are CFR members Marcus Brauchli (the Washington Post), Alberto Ibarg?en, (besides heading the Knight Foundation he is also chairman of both the World Wide Web Foundation and the Newseum in Washington, D.C.), Vivian Schiller (National Public Radio), Paul Steiger, (ProPublica), Ernest J. Wilson III (Annenberg School for Communication), Norman Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute), Charlie Firestone (Aspen Institute), Barbara Cochran and (University of Missouri School of Journalism).

and,

The CFR's "Profile of the Membership" in its 2008 Annual Report lists 398 members as journalists, correspondents, and editors. That includes members such as:

Michael P. Hirsh (Newsweek)
Jim Hoagland (Washington Post)
Fareed Zakaria (Time, CNN)
Thomas Friedman (New York Times)
Erin Burnett (CNBC)
Ethan Bronner (New York Times)
Paula Zahn (Discovery cable channel)
Heather Nauert (Fox News)
Norman Podhoretz (Commentary magazine)
Tom Brokaw (NBC)
Lesley Stahl (CBS)
Andrea Michell (NBC)
Elaine Sciolino (New York Times)
Diane Sawyer (ABC)
Deroy Murdock (Scripps Howard News Service and National Review Online)
David Ignatius (Washington Post)
Alan S. Murray (Wall Street Journal)
Jim Lehrer (PBS)
Margaret Warner (PBS)
Judy Woodruff (PBS)
Christopher Dickey (Newsweek)
Mortimer Zuckerman (U.S. News & World Report)

The above list barely scratches the surface of the elite media folks tied to Pratt House, the New York headquarters of the Council, located at 58 East 68th Street in Manhattan. The nearly 400 "Journalists, Correspondents, and Editors" counted on the CFR rolls does not include the many additional CFR members who are the executive officers of major media corporations. They may or may not be publicly well known but they are the bosses of the more visible members of the Fourth Estate. These include CFR members such as:

Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York City, founder/owner Bloomberg L.P.)

Rupert Murdoch (chairman, CEO News Corporation)

Jeffrey Bewkes (Chairman, CEO of Time Warner, in which capacity he oversees Time, CNN, TNT, HBO, TBS, Warner Bros., etc.)

Christopher Isham (CBS News vice president), and Barry Diller (IAC/InterActiveCorp and Washington Post).

In addition to the above-mentioned individual members there are CFR Corporate Members, which are major financial supporters of the CFR and its programs and agenda. The media organizations that have become CFR Corporate Members include Time Warner, ABC Inc., Bloomberg, News Corporation, General Electric (NBC Universal), Google, Thomson Reuters, and the Washington Post.

The Washington Post's ombudsman and columnist Richard Harwood detailed the CFR's domination of his own profession in an October 30,1993, column tellingly entitled "Ruling Class Journalists." In what was a rare admission (and/or boast) from a CFR establishment journal, Harwood characterized CFR members as "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States."

Harwood wrote:

In the past 15 years, council directors have included Hedley Donovan of Time Inc., Elizabeth Drew of the New Yorker, Philip Geyelin of The Washington Post, Karen Elliott House of the Wall Street Journal, and Strobe Talbott of Time magazine...

The editorial page editor, deputy editorial page editor, executive editor, managing editor, foreign editor, national affairs editor, business and financial editor and various writers as well as Katharine Graham, the paper's principal owner, represent The Washington Post in the council's membership.

The executive editor, managing editor and foreign editor of the New York Times are members, along with the executives of such other large newspapers as the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, the weekly news magazines, network television executives and celebrities, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer, for example, and various columnists, among them Charles Krauthammer, William Buckley, George Will and Jim Hoagland.

Harwood noted that the CFR's Ruling Class Journalists (CFR-RCJ) "do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy; they help make it." And not only foreign policy, of course; they have also had (and continue to have) a huge hand in making domestic policy as well. They are not content, however, with the illicit power they already wield. They are upset that millions of Americans refuse to accept their direction and continue to seek news and information from sources beyond the control (as yet) of the CFR-RCJ thought cartel. So they are trying to build a fake public consensus in favor of taxing the American public to provide the CFR-RCJ cartel with tens of billions of dollars in government funding to force us to hear and see and read what they think is important for us.

The problem with the media is it is in service to those that control the culture. The cultural, political and financial elites that run the show are the same ones that run the media, so they are the ones that determine what goes on in the media. This then explains their attempts to control the internet as well. I once was a member of a different forum. I used to continually rail on this subject, and the topic of non-profit foundations and how they fund media, think tanks, and universities. These foundations have been founded by the same elites that have made are making the most money in the system, so they necessarily are the ones that want to control how the system works. They ARE the social engineers. Don't ever go on to a science forum and remind scientists that the ancient origins of all colleges and universities were founded by the world's major religions, and that they are today completely biased in their administrative and political working.

Let's even take this site. Can this site claim to be unbiased? Surely not. It has advertisers. The world is a business. That means we are are slaves, producing content, generating revenue for it's advertisers. We have a sub-forum labeled, "conspiracy theories," that right there de-legitimizes and rational discussion might tarnish the advertisers image. It is a scam and it is crap. Rational people know now that Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise, they know the Maine wasn't attacked by the Spanish, they know JFK wasn't hit by a lone assassin, they know so much more. . . . but really, we can't say that, we are slaves to business interests. The nation and the world is a business, and we are it's slaves. The media are the elites mouth piece.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jxiT30N6ti4]The world is a business, Mr. Beale! - YouTube[/ame]​