DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Fake news
Media Bias
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
PT Stewie
"Big Fella"
Some more Philly Vernacular FU
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Ok bring your wife
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Thanks for posting proof your previous comment was fake news.
alex jones who i think is dishonest but possibly better than the mainstream news (at times anyways) is going to court for defamation for his conspiracies of sandy hook texas brainsaw massacre.
"
Well, the story continues. And check this out – The Court has ordered that Alex Jones must appear and testify at at a deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by the parents.
A deposition is sworn testimony, given under oath, in preparation for a trial. Jones is not happy – he has previously moved to dismiss the lawsuit (unsuccessfully), and has objected (unsuccessfully) to a previous order that he turn over financial records of Infowars.
And now, he’ll be questioned, under oath, about his statements that the slaughter of these children was faked and a hoax. Good. Let’s see what he has to say when he has to tell the truth."
Fighting Back | The American Museum of Tort Law
"
Well, the story continues. And check this out – The Court has ordered that Alex Jones must appear and testify at at a deposition in the defamation lawsuit filed by the parents.
A deposition is sworn testimony, given under oath, in preparation for a trial. Jones is not happy – he has previously moved to dismiss the lawsuit (unsuccessfully), and has objected (unsuccessfully) to a previous order that he turn over financial records of Infowars.
And now, he’ll be questioned, under oath, about his statements that the slaughter of these children was faked and a hoax. Good. Let’s see what he has to say when he has to tell the truth."
Fighting Back | The American Museum of Tort Law
I know, let's implement socialism. Don't worry about China and India, I'm sure we can guilt them into doing better.
lets follow the golden rule, and spread out power more evenly so less corruption.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
True, we can't do it alone.
If only there were some kind of international agreement aimed at reducing carbon emissions that we could be a part of....
As if that can be enforced. If they're so sincere about reducing emissions why don't they just do it?
alot of the capitalist media is people not following the golden rule ie treating people and they wish to be treated.
i remember maury teen bootcamps the guards yelling at the kids
american idol simon cowell humiliating the contestants.
survivor people lying to each other and manipulating.
nowadays i see ads for police state propaganda.
the news is pathetic.
i remember maury teen bootcamps the guards yelling at the kids
american idol simon cowell humiliating the contestants.
survivor people lying to each other and manipulating.
nowadays i see ads for police state propaganda.
the news is pathetic.
Noam Chomsky: Take a standard story. There are reports on what’s happening. So, if you look at the New York Times today, for example, there’s a pretty good article on the new discoveries on the melting of the polar ice caps which happens to be, as usual, more drastic than the (earlier) estimates; that’s been typical for a long time. And it discusses the probable impact on sea level rise, albeit conservatively, given how dramatic it has obviously been. So, there are regular articles that appear — it’s not that global warming is ignored. On the other hand, if you look at a standard article on oil exploration, the New York Times can have a big front page article on how the U.S. is moving towards what they call energy independence, surpassing Saudi Arabia and Russia in fossil fuel production, opening up new areas, Wyoming, the Midwest, for fracking. They do a long article, maybe 1,000 words — I have one particular example in mind — it will mention environmental consequences, it may harm the local water resources for ranchers, but literally not a word on the effect on global warming. And that happens in article after article in every outlet — the Financial Times, the New York Times, all the major newspapers. So, it’s as if on the one hand, there’s a kind of a tunnel vision — the science reporters are occasionally saying look, ‘this is a catastrophe,’ but then the regular coverage simply disregards it, and says, 'well, isn’t this wonderful, we won’t have to import oil, we’ll be more powerful,' and so on.
So, they’re not making the connection?
It’s a kind of schizophrenia, and it runs right through society. Take the big banks, JP Morgan Chase, for example. They’re the biggest bank and CEO Jamie Dimon is an intelligent man. I’m sure he knows the basic facts about the dire threat of global warming, yet at the same time they’re pouring investments into fossil fuel extraction, because that’s the business model. They have to make a profit tomorrow.
So, the overall role of the corporate media has been to fail to connect the dots?
Of course, I’m talking about the liberal media. If you go to say, Fox News, it’s quite different: global warming is just not happening. And in fact, that shows up in public opinion. About half of Republicans simply deny that global warming is taking place. And, of the other half, a slight majority thinks humans may be involved. Take the hearings, just a couple of days ago, for the new head of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, who is a guy with a background in the coal industry. A senator asked him, 'What do you think about global warming?' He says, 'Yes it’s probably taking place, humans are probably involved.' And he was asked, 'How urgent do you think it is?' And his answer was, 'It’s probably eighth or ninth in the level of urgency, so it’s something out there.' And the effect is that nothing is being done.
In terms of the media themselves, do the kinds of filters you’ve identified in the propaganda model help explain their shortcomings, or are some other factors at work as well?
Yeah, but it’s almost transparent. They are wedded to the corporate business model which is: you have to make a profit tomorrow. And society has to grow. They don’t care what kind of growth, it just has to grow. And that’s just kind of internalized. So, yes, the advertisers have an effect, and the fact they are a corporation has an effect. But deeper than that, is a point that George Orwell made, one which I think is underestimated (and which we didn’t actually discuss in our Manufacturing Consent book). I don’t know if you ever read the introduction to Animal Farm — probably not, because it was suppressed — but it came out after it was discovered in his papers about 30 years later, and it’s kind of an interesting introduction. The book is addressed to the people of England and he says this book is, of course, a satire about the totalitarian enemy, but he says we shouldn’t feel too self-righteous about it because — I’m quoting now — in free England, ideas can be be suppressed without the use of force.
Orwell gives some examples, and about two sentences of explanation. One is that the press is owned by wealthy men who have every interest in not wanting certain ideas to be expressed, but the other is just essentially a good education. You go on to the best schools, graduate from Oxford and Cambridge, and you just have instilled into you the understanding that there are certain things it wouldn’t do to say — and you don’t even think about it any more. It just becomes what Gramsci called "hegemonic common sense," you just don’t talk about it. And that’s a big factor, how these things simply become internalized. People who bring them up sound like crazies.
Noam Chomsky: 'In a couple of generations, organized human society may not survive.'
So, they’re not making the connection?
It’s a kind of schizophrenia, and it runs right through society. Take the big banks, JP Morgan Chase, for example. They’re the biggest bank and CEO Jamie Dimon is an intelligent man. I’m sure he knows the basic facts about the dire threat of global warming, yet at the same time they’re pouring investments into fossil fuel extraction, because that’s the business model. They have to make a profit tomorrow.
So, the overall role of the corporate media has been to fail to connect the dots?
Of course, I’m talking about the liberal media. If you go to say, Fox News, it’s quite different: global warming is just not happening. And in fact, that shows up in public opinion. About half of Republicans simply deny that global warming is taking place. And, of the other half, a slight majority thinks humans may be involved. Take the hearings, just a couple of days ago, for the new head of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, who is a guy with a background in the coal industry. A senator asked him, 'What do you think about global warming?' He says, 'Yes it’s probably taking place, humans are probably involved.' And he was asked, 'How urgent do you think it is?' And his answer was, 'It’s probably eighth or ninth in the level of urgency, so it’s something out there.' And the effect is that nothing is being done.
In terms of the media themselves, do the kinds of filters you’ve identified in the propaganda model help explain their shortcomings, or are some other factors at work as well?
Yeah, but it’s almost transparent. They are wedded to the corporate business model which is: you have to make a profit tomorrow. And society has to grow. They don’t care what kind of growth, it just has to grow. And that’s just kind of internalized. So, yes, the advertisers have an effect, and the fact they are a corporation has an effect. But deeper than that, is a point that George Orwell made, one which I think is underestimated (and which we didn’t actually discuss in our Manufacturing Consent book). I don’t know if you ever read the introduction to Animal Farm — probably not, because it was suppressed — but it came out after it was discovered in his papers about 30 years later, and it’s kind of an interesting introduction. The book is addressed to the people of England and he says this book is, of course, a satire about the totalitarian enemy, but he says we shouldn’t feel too self-righteous about it because — I’m quoting now — in free England, ideas can be be suppressed without the use of force.
Orwell gives some examples, and about two sentences of explanation. One is that the press is owned by wealthy men who have every interest in not wanting certain ideas to be expressed, but the other is just essentially a good education. You go on to the best schools, graduate from Oxford and Cambridge, and you just have instilled into you the understanding that there are certain things it wouldn’t do to say — and you don’t even think about it any more. It just becomes what Gramsci called "hegemonic common sense," you just don’t talk about it. And that’s a big factor, how these things simply become internalized. People who bring them up sound like crazies.
Noam Chomsky: 'In a couple of generations, organized human society may not survive.'
El Correcto
god is dead
You ok brother? It looks like that hurt!
El Correcto
god is dead
BrownFlush
Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
1 million people protested in india, led by the indian communist / marxist party.
one of the worlds all time biggest protests. i havent heard too much about french protests either on twitter (not that im using twitter much these days thank god), relative to occupy wall st coverage in 2011.
one of the worlds all time biggest protests. i havent heard too much about french protests either on twitter (not that im using twitter much these days thank god), relative to occupy wall st coverage in 2011.
