[Decky]

No, they won't sell -- or tell -- you the truth about capitalism, at any price. There was a very instructive case in Canada about 15 years ago. Rafe Mair was the most popular radio talk show host in the country, with the biggest audience. But he started asking questions that were inconvenient to the financial interests of the network's owners, and was fired without a moment's regret. He has had a chequered career since then, and has never again come close to his former level of audience influence. That was the moment I knew media ownership wasn't about profits or audience or advertising at all. It was about controlling thought.

You could argue it is the same thing Truth. Controlling thought through the media is done with the express purpose of enabling profit making for the rich in a society as a whole, and we all know who is making those profits.

[MB.]

No. There is an enormous amount of information, you simply have to have make the effort to find it and read it.

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/news.html

This site contains links to a number of global newspapers.

The real problem is that most people are too ignorant to bother reading, and certainly don't feel they need to, or can possibly, commit the time required to inform themselves from multiple viewpoints.

Here is another source with links to thousands of newspapers. I regularly read through these, and thus am able to stay well informed about current events from many nations and countless perspectives. With translation technology it has been possible to read newspapers in practically any language as well.

http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/ (you may need to view the cached version), here is another link:
http://www.world-newspapers.com/

You can even use this app:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... pers&hl=en

There is no excuse besides ideological rigidity, rote stupidity, toxic ignorance, and endless distraction from video games, entertainment media, and bullshit work to prevent anyone with access to the internet from informing themselves of the events of the world from tens of thousands of perspectives, thus eliminating any perceived bias.

Any complaint of media "bias" therefore should be immediately appreciated as a red flag denoting the laziness and stupidity of the complainer. The only possible exception I can imagine is for individuals who live in countries that have strict internet firewalls preventing access to the digital newspapers of the world, notably as is the case in China.

[Truth To Power]

No. There is an enormous amount of information, you simply have to have make the effort to find it and read it.

There is an enormous diversity of misleading, distracting, confusing, incomplete, and FALSE information. That is very much the point.

There is no excuse besides ideological rigidity, rote stupidity, toxic ignorance, and endless distraction from video games, entertainment media, and bullshit work to prevent anyone with access to the internet from informing themselves of the events of the world from tens of thousands of perspectives, thus eliminating any perceived bias.

Ah, no. Which of those tens of thousands of newspapers tell the truth about land? Banking? IP monopolies?

See the problem?

[MB.]

You're right, Truth to Power. Every single newspaper on the planet is misleading you.

[Nonsense]

I'm not sure there is a lack of 'diversity', probably too much of it.

What there is, is too much 'control' of the media & not enough freedom to articulate the diverse thoughts that people think or have concerns about.

Years ago, one could express their thoughts on so many websites, not so today.

Ever tried the BBC?

If so, one is limited to using a set number of characters, just how that works in a 'free' society, where the BBC is paid for by the public, who pay for the 'FAKE' news\ LIES therein ,yet cannot be allowed the freedom to express themselves is a mirror image of any dictatorial regime anywhere in the whole wide world, is beyond my comprehension.

When New Labour were in power, they had a 'relationship' with Bill GATES, in return for contracts, he gladly banned thousands of bloggers from the MSN website forums by blocking people's IP addresses.

Those websites, apart from a few that still allow such expression, like the rest of us, everything that they express is recorded through data gathering in collaboration with government's like ours, that act worse than any 'repressive' regime is by snooping wholesale on it's people.

[QatzelOk]

No, they won't sell -- or tell -- you the truth about capitalism, at any price. There was a very instructive case in Canada about 15 years ago. Rafe Mair was the most popular radio talk show host in the country, with the biggest audience. But he started asking questions that were inconvenient to the financial interests of the network's owners, and was fired without a moment's regret. He has had a chequered career since then, and has never again come close to his former level of audience influence. That was the moment I knew media ownership wasn't about profits or audience or advertising at all. It was about controlling thought.

Yes, media ownership is one huge problem. Rich people (from a very narrow range of backgrounds and life experiences) decide what gets into your eyes and ears, and they have the resources to know how to manipulate your thought process using emotionally-evocative imagery and themes.

There are four more "media filters" according to Herman and Chomsky, but this one is the most important one by far, as it gives rise to the others.

[youtube]34LGPIXvU5M[/youtube]

[Red Rackham]

Given the result of the poll taken about three years ago, I wondered if opinion had changed, my opinion has not. In 2016 when the poll was taken I thought minorities were overrepresented in the media, today the number of black people in the media particularly on TV is almost an embarrassment to the very people it was designed to appease. Where I live there are no black or BAME people, I'm not suggesting that's good, or bad, it's just a fact. Yet switch the TV on and you could be forgiven for thinking you had somehow tuned into Jamaican or Nigerian TV, it's ridiculous. A while back I commented to my wife that we had just watched the national news, read by a black newsreader. We then watched he local news, read by a black newsreader. Followed by the weather forecast read by a black weather 'person'. It's totally disproportionate.

I have every confidence that outraged lefties will insist I'm a racist, the word of our epoch, and the word professionally offended types hide behind. But it's worth mentioning that Dr Samia Shah who sits on the BBC board of directors asked in The Times newspaper - "why are there so many black faces on TV"? He went on to say - "I don't think that such over-representation is a brilliant idea". Given todays minority appeasing environment, if a white Englishman had said that, then the professionally outraged would have demanded he was a racist bigot and arrested for hate crimes. On this occasion however, professionally offended lefties did not shout him down as a racist bigot because he is Asian, and in politically correct 21st century England you can only be a racist if you're white and English. And that ladies & gents is the reason why the massive overrepresentation of black people in the media continues apace... the majority are frightened to comment.

[QatzelOk]

... In 2016 when the poll was taken I thought minorities were overrepresented in the media, today the number of black people in the media particularly on TV is almost an embarrassment to the very people it was designed to appease.

Here, you are talking about the diversity of skin color among the TV actors who are paid to read the news and act out their lines in movies.

But more important than this is the diversity of message and of values being shown.

It doesn't help the plight of minorities to have a few token members of their own group reading out the same corporate propaganda that everyone else is also reading out. In fact, it actually might do harm to minority groups to have their own members telling White lies (like Obama did for most of his presidency) because it may have the effect of negating the credibility of other narratives - like one that actually comes from the experience of living as an oppressed human.

[late]

I was a kid in the Sixties.

There were 3 stations, and mostly they toed the line.

Now there is more diversity, although a lot of it is infotainment like Fox.

But the media universe has exploded. Hop on the internet, and you can see what Al Jazeera, Russia Times, Guardian, Asia Times, or even a Turkish newspaper is saying.

If you're complaining about a lack of diversity, you're too lazy to click a mouse button.

SciAm, New York mag, New Yorker, Guardian, the Economist, Wapo (I subscribe), Asia Times, Evonomics, that's just a sampling of sites I visit.

https://www.bradford-delong.com/2019/11 ... s-105.html

[QatzelOk]

But the media universe has exploded. Hop on the internet, and you can see what Al Jazeera, Russia Times, Guardian, Asia Times, or even a Turkish newspaper is saying.

If you're complaining about a lack of diversity, you're too lazy to click a mouse button.

There were 25,000 radio stations in the early 1900s in the USA, and the, through legislation, this was cut down to many fewer and many fewer.

There used to be more and a greater diversity of printed newspapers. Not any more.

YouTube is eliminating non-commercially-viable videos on Dec of this year.

And the Internet can abolish all foreign news sources in the wink of an eye. They're already doing it all over the world, so the technology to limit news sources is already perfected.

Techology can't open up media diversity because the exact same technologies can suddenly limit the scope of a market's information. Our style of competitive, controlling capitalist governance will always shut down any democratic institution: it is designed to have no other options to survive.

[late]

And the Internet can abolish all foreign news sources in the wink of an eye. They're already doing it all over the world, so the technology to limit news sources is already perfected.

You mean in countries where freedom is severely restricted. Which Trump would want to do.

But he hasn't, and I don't think anyone will.

https://rsf.org/en/2019-world-press-fre ... cycle-fear

[SSDR]

You mean in countries where freedom is severely restricted.

It is good to restrict those who are verbally abusive.

[late]

It is good to restrict those who are verbally abusive.

What you want to do is strike a balance between competing interests.

[SSDR]

What you want to do is strike a balance between competing interests.

Criminals should not have any access to any form of "balance."

[late]

Criminals should not have any access to any form of "balance."

Civilisation is all about balance.

[SSDR]

Civilisation is all about balance.

Civilization cannot survive with criminals roaming around freely, causing destruction towards their environment.

[QatzelOk]

Civilization cannot survive with criminals roaming around freely, causing destruction towards their environment.

Commercial media encourages people to destroy their environments with huge smiles on their faces.

So I'm not sure what "balance" late is talking about when he says that "civilizations are made of it." They're made up of masking the lack of balance that unnatural technologies cause, is more like it. And media is unable to provide any balance because it must lean towards its powerful sponsors, and gobble up the eyeballs of potential suckers.

[SSDR]

Commercial media encourages people to destroy their environments with huge smiles on their faces.

So I'm not sure what "balance" late is talking about when he says that "civilizations are made of it." They're made up of masking the lack of balance that unnatural technologies cause, is more like it. And media is unable to provide any balance because it must lean towards its powerful sponsors, and gobble up the eyeballs of potential suckers.

Liberal media does manipulate people into beating up random people (violence in media), verbally abusing people (offensive language in media), raping people (violent culture in media manipulates men into using women as sexual objects to relieve their exposures from violence in movies or television shows), and acting socially competitive and hyper masculine (capitalist "rap" culture).

[late]

Commercial media encourages people to destroy their environments with huge smiles on their faces.

So I'm not sure what "balance" late is talking about when he says that "civilizations are made of it." They're made up of masking the lack of balance that unnatural technologies cause, is more like it. And media is unable to provide any balance because it must lean towards its powerful sponsors, and gobble up the eyeballs of potential suckers.

There is often a statue of Lady Justice inside or outside a courtroom. She is depicted blindfolded and carrying a balance scale.

The meaning, of course, is that justice should be impartial, and will balance competing rights and interests.

A famous show about this was titled: The Constitution, That Delicate Balance. The idea extends beyond the courtroom.

[late]

Civilization cannot survive with criminals roaming around freely, causing destruction towards their environment.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.