Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
In 2016, the internet was used by 73 percent of the U.S. population as a source of news, in contrast to 66 percent who used television. The traditional sources of news were lagging well behind, with 26 percent of Americans consulting print media and 23 percent tuning in to the radio for the news.
...
ABC emerged as the organization with the most credibility as 27 percent of respondents trusted it a lot. In comparison, only seven percent of respondents felt the same way about Breitbart.
As of 2015, Comcast Corporation was the largest media conglomerate in the US, with The Walt Disney Company, News Corp and WarnerMedia ranking second, third and fourth respectively.
"Our literature is equated with dynamite. This is a great honour for us, I think"Zagadka wrote:So your infographic's numbers are slightly misleading, at least in terms of sheer numbers of media versus actual use.
There ARE plenty of right-wing media outlets. They just aren't as popular.
There is no Deep State repressing conservative broadcasting rights.
No one really cares.
This entire thread is evidence to the contrary. You should go through it before posting any more of your ignorant opinions. The national security state and the corporate oligarchs have spent billions upon billions of dollars and many decades constructing their mass propaganda machine, they definitely care about information warfare. If they didn't care they wouldn't be pushing so hard to get control of social media, it's a huge problem for them.News is far more consumed by social media and online sources, so your newspaper rates up there are kinda worthless, and a lot of those radio stations are AM-based conservative syndications.
Most people get their news from the Google and Yahoo aggregators and that's mostly all corporate fake news.
They aren't as popular because they don't have access to mass platforms on tv, radio, and print.
but it's more than that, the system is designed to impose enormous barriers to entry to keep out rabble-rousers and discontents
Zagadka wrote:But I'm sure that doesn't bother you.
Do you know what an aggregator is?
Do you really think dozens of different software companies built in political bias in an algorithm
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
In early January, numerous websites discovered that they were suddenly removed from the directory of Google News, a process known as “delisting,” with no feedback from Google. Some hypothesized that the removal of smaller news sites could be ascribed to the latest SEO changes. Then on 8 January, Google reported that it was ready to rectify its “mistake” and restore the pages by of these smaller new sites. The vast majority were not restored. Still, a large number news sites have been abandoned and editors have been making updates daily since January on Google’s ProductForum with many users still noting, even this week, of ongoing problems
The delistings have ostensibly occurred because of violations of Google’s rules which have been constantly changing and causing upheaval for smaller news sites to keep up with the changes. However, many smaller media sites are quite skeptical given that several of Google’s updates on the situation that did not square with what larger news companies were being told. And some, in fact, only found out recently that they had been delisted months earlier.
Regardless of the reasons, Google’s alterations in recalibrating search algorithms for quality improvement, advanced trading algorithms for its Cloud Platform, and even ongoing issues with the algorithm for Street View, Google maintains tremendous influence in shaping and making intelligible databases of news and information, effectively being the medium through which news stories are found. The recent delistings have affected many independent news websites such as that of Yale Global, Yale University’s site dedicated to special reports and news on globalization, IN.com, an Indian-based news site, and A Redação, an independent Brazilian news site.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/20 ... formation/
Are you totally anti-corporation?
I just opened Google News and the top story is from Fox.
What is stopping them from selling a newspaper?
And AM radio is completely dominated by the likes of Limbaugh and Jones. They make serious bank off of it, and they tout their popularity.
When has the liberal deep state lizard people conspiracy blocked access to radio or newspapers?
I think you are mixing up "free market capitalism" with "the deep state".
Sivad wrote:Retarded straw man.
I think you're confused about the system you live under, the state and the market are deeply intertwined. It's called crony capitalism, look it up.
"Our literature is equated with dynamite. This is a great honour for us, I think"Sivad wrote: The tankies are as dishonest as the US corporate media.
Zagadka wrote:It was really more sarcastic hyperbole, but you haven't addressed it.
But your contention is that there is an organized group with power doing something other than just getting as much money as possible
John Pilger wrote:HOLD THE FRONT PAGE. THE REPORTERS ARE MISSING
The death of Robert Parry earlier this year felt like a farewell to the age of the reporter. Parry was "a trailblazer for independent journalism", wrote Seymour Hersh, with whom he shared much in common.
Hersh revealed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the secret bombing of Cambodia, Parry exposed Iran-Contra, a drugs and gun-running conspiracy that led to the White House. In 2016, they separately produced compelling evidence that the Assad government in Syria had not used chemical weapons. They were not forgiven.
Driven from the "mainstream", Hersh must publish his work outside the United States. Parry set up his own independent news website Consortium News, where, in a final piece following a stroke, he referred to journalism's veneration of "approved opinions" while "unapproved evidence is brushed aside or disparaged regardless of its quality."
Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has changed in recent years. Dissent tolerated when I joined a national newspaper in Britain in the 1960s has regressed to a metaphoric underground as liberal capitalism moves towards a form of corporate dictatorship. This is a seismic shift, with journalists policing the new "groupthink", as Parry called it, dispensing its myths and distractions, pursuing its enemies.
Witness the witch-hunts against refugees and immigrants, the wilful abandonment by the "MeToo" zealots of our oldest freedom, presumption of innocence, the anti-Russia racism and anti-Brexit hysteria, the growing anti-China campaign and the suppression of a warning of world war.
With many if not most independent journalists barred or ejected from the "mainstream", a corner of the Internet has become a vital source of disclosure and evidence-based analysis: true journalism. Sites such as wikileaks.org, consortiumnews.com, ZNet zcomm.org, wsws.org, truthdig.com, globalresearch.org, counterpunch.org and informationclearinghouse.com are required reading for those trying to make sense of a world in which science and technology advance wondrously while political and economic life in the fearful "democracies" regress behind a media facade of narcissistic spectacle.
In Britain, just one website offers consistently independent media criticism. This is the remarkable Media Lens - remarkable partly because its founders and editors as well as its only writers, David Edwards and David Cromwell, since 2001 have concentrated their gaze not on the usual suspects, the Tory press, but the paragons of reputable liberal journalism: the BBC, the Guardian, Channel 4 News.
Their method is simple. Meticulous in their research, they are respectful and polite when they ask why a journalist why he or she produced such a one-sided report, or failed to disclose essential facts or promoted discredited myths.
The replies they receive are often defensive, at times abusive; some are hysterical, as if they have pushed back a screen on a protected species.
I would say Media Lens has shattered a silence about corporate journalism. Like Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent, they represent a Fifth Estate that deconstructs and demystifies the media's power.
What is especially interesting about them is that neither is a journalist. David Edwards is a former teacher, David Cromwell is an oceanographer. Yet, their understanding of the morality of journalism - a term rarely used; let's call it true objectivity - is a bracing quality of their online Media Lens dispatches.
I think their work is heroic and I would place a copy of their just published book, Propaganda Blitz, in every journalism school that services the corporate system, as they all do.
Take the chapter, Dismantling the National Health Service, in which Edwards and Cromwell describe the critical part played by journalists in the crisis facing Britain's pioneering health service.
The NHS crisis is the product of a political and media construct known as "austerity", with its deceitful, weasel language of "efficiency savings" (the BBC term for slashing public expenditure) and "hard choices" (the wilful destruction of the premises of civilised life in modern Britain).
"Austerity" is an invention. Britain is a rich country with a debt owed by its crooked banks, not its people. The resources that would comfortably fund the National Health Service have been stolen in broad daylight by the few allowed to avoid and evade billions in taxes.
Using a vocabulary of corporate euphemisms, the publicly-funded Health Service is being deliberately run down by free market fanatics, to justify its selling-off . The Labour Party of Jeremy Corbyn may appear to oppose this, but is it? The answer is very likely no. Little of any of this is alluded to in the media, let alone explained.
Edwards and Cromwell have dissected the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, whose innocuous title belies its dire consequences. Unknown to most of the population, the Act ends the legal obligation of British governments to provide universal free health care: the bedrock on which the NHS was set up following the Second World War. Private companies can now insinuate themselves into the NHS, piece by piece.
Where, asks Edwards and Cromwell, was the BBC while this momentous Bill was making its way through Parliament? With a statutory commitment to "providing a breadth of view" and to properly inform the public of "matters of public policy", the BBC never spelt out the threat posed to one of the nation's most cherished institutions. A BBC headline said: "Bill which gives power to GPs passes." This was pure state propaganda.
There is a striking similarity with the BBC's coverage of Prime Minister Tony Blair's lawless invasion of Iraq in 2003, which left a million dead and many more dispossessed. A study by the University of Wales, Cardiff, found that the BBC reflected the government line "overwhelmingly" while relegating reports of civilian suffering. A Media Tenor study placed the BBC at the bottom of a league of western broadcasters in the time they gave to opponents of the invasion. The corporation's much-vaunted "principle" of impartiality was never a consideration.
One of the most telling chapters in Propaganda Blitz describes the smear campaigns mounted by journalists against dissenters, political mavericks and whistleblowers. The Guardian's campaign against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is the most disturbing.
Assange, whose epic WikiLeaks disclosures brought fame, journalism prizes and largesse to the Guardian, was abandoned when he was no longer useful. He was then subjected to a vituperative - and cowardly - onslaught of a kind I have rarely known.
With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous". They also disclosed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables.
With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh".
The Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore wrote, "I bet Assange is stuffing himself full of flattened guinea pigs. He really is the most massive turd."
Moore, who describes herself as a feminist, later complained that, after attacking Assange, she had suffered "vile abuse". Edwards and Cromwell wrote to her: "That's a real shame, sorry to hear that. But how would you describe calling someone 'the most massive turd'? Vile abuse?"
Moore replied that no, she would not, adding, "I would advise you to stop being so bloody patronising."
Her former Guardian colleague James Ball wrote, "It's difficult to imagine what Ecuador's London embassy smells like more than five and a half years after Julian Assange moved in."
Such slow-witted viciousness appeared in a newspaper described by its editor, Katharine Viner, as "thoughtful and progressive". What is the root of this vindictiveness? Is it jealousy, a perverse recognition that Assange has achieved more journalistic firsts than his snipers can claim in a lifetime? Is it that he refuses to be "one of us" and shames those who have long sold out the independence of journalism?
Journalism students should study this to understand that the source of "fake news" is not only trollism, or the likes of Fox news, or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a false respectability: a liberal journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in reality, courts and protects it, and colludes with it. The amorality of the years of Tony Blair, whom the Guardian has failed to rehabilitate, is its echo.
"[It is] an age in which people yearn for new ideas and fresh alternatives," wrote Katharine Viner. Her political writer Jonathan Freedland dismissed the yearning of young people who supported the modest policies of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as "a form of narcissism".
"How did this man...", brayed the Guardian's Zoe Williams, "get on the ballot in the first place?" A choir of the paper's precocious windbags joined in, thereafter queuing to fall on their blunt swords when Corbyn came close to winning the 2017 general election in spite of the media.
Complex stories are reported to a cult-like formula of bias, hearsay and omission: Brexit, Venezuela, Russia, Syria. On Syria, only the investigations of a group of independent journalists have countered this, revealing the network of Anglo-American backing of jihadists in Syria, including those related to ISIS.
Supported by a "psyops" campaign funded by the British Foreign Office and the US Agency of International Aid, the aim is to hoodwink the Western public and speed the overthrow the government in Damascus, regardless of the medieval alternative and the risk of war with Russia.
The Syria Campaign, set up by a New York PR agency, Purpose, funds a group known as the White Helmets, who claim falsely to be "Syria Civil Defence" and are seen uncritically on TV news and social media, apparently rescuing the victims of bombing, which they film and edit themselves, though viewers are unlikely to be told this. George Clooney is a fan.
The White Helmets are appendages to the jihadists with whom they share addresses. Their media-smart uniforms and equipment are supplied by their Western paymasters. That their exploits are not questioned by major news organisations is an indication of how deep the influence of state-backed PR now runs in the media. As Robert Fisk noted recently, no "mainstream" reporter reports Syria, from Syria.
In what is known as a hatchet job, a Guardian reporter based in San Francisco, Olivia Solon, who has never visited Syria, was allowed to smear the substantiated investigative work of journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett on the White Helmets as "propagated online by a network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the Russian government".
This abuse was published without permitting a single correction, let alone a right-of-reply. The Guardian Comment page was blocked, as Edwards and Cromwell document. I saw the list of questions Solon sent to Beeley, which reads like a McCarthyite charge sheet - "Have you ever been invited to North Korea?"
So much of the mainstream has descended to this level. Subjectivism is all; slogans and outrage are proof enough. What matters is the "perception".
When he was US commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus declared what he called "a war of perception... conducted continuously using the news media". What really mattered was not the facts but the way the story played in the United States. The undeclared enemy was, as always, an informed and critical public at home.
Nothing has changed. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's film-maker, whose propaganda mesmerised the German public.
She told me the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the "submissive void" of an uninformed public.
"Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?" I asked.
"Everyone," she said. "Propaganda always wins, if you allow it."
http://johnpilger.com/articles/hold-the ... re-missing
They also disclosed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables
the anti-Russia racism
the growing anti-China campaign
The Guardian's campaign against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is the most disturbing
Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy
redcarpet wrote:Wikileaks is clearly a pro-Russian intelligence propaganda outlet. That's why nothing anti-Putin is ever investigated & exposed by them.
Also Assange isn't the angel he portrayed himself as. Like that files are filtered (he's threatened to release wholesale documents as blackmail without filtering) and he is not an 'editor-at-large' but uses Wikileaks as a cover for a playboy lifestyle. If he was in business or a politician, he'd be at least before a court for wilful misconduct, if not more serious corruption charges.
Sivad wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW_x74-opN4
- By Tainari88
Let's set the philosophical questions to the side[…]
It's the Elite of the USA that is "jealous&q[…]
- By Tainari88
The dominant race of the planet is still the Whit[…]
- By Rancid