Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Justinr on February 05, 2016, 04:25:15 am
-
I suppose that we shouldn't be surprised by the fact that a well respected German journalist has let on that the government controls the news agenda in his country -
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/02/top-german-journalist-admits-live-on-air-national-news-agenda-set-by-government/
I think many of suspected that the news is manipulated but now we are getting something more definite to go on other than suspicion and nagging doubts. Here in Ireland where we are firmly under the Teutonic thumb I have tripped over several instances of events and trends that are certainly not being reported as one would expect, and back in the UK I found myself right up against a a wall of lies, or misinformation, being told by the press, 15 or so years ago.
I think it was on here that somebody told the joke about Russian Television having just two channels. The first was the main government propaganda channel while on the second was a KGB officer telling you to turn back to the first.
So who's laughing now?
-
Although it may not be so far from the truth really, Breitbart is paranoid central. The internet is now full of pseudo news sites spulling the beans on the universal conspiracy in which all the media are complicit... except them, of course.
-
Here in the UK, we're seeing a blatant blanket wall-to-wall anti-Corbyn* agenda in the news media. Whether you agree with his politics or not, it is disgraceful how the news media is treating our politics. Interestingly, news of Bernie Sanders is almost absent in any coverage of the US presidential race. All we seem to hear is Trump, Trump, Trump. Now that might be a matter of perverse morbid fascination with with the obscene level of idiocy the man offers, but the only opposition to him appears to be mainstream, establishment-friendly Clinton. Of course, showing a serious US potential presidential figure with the politics of Sanders, would offer too much support to the idea of Corbyn being taken seriously too. That would never do.
So, the idea of a free-press, speaking truth to power, holding the establishment & government in particular to account, is something we most certainly do not have. What we do have is a press that is part of the corporatist agenda, and willing to lie to the people to support those aims. And it's getting so blatant that even some right-wing commentators are starting to question it.
*UK Labour Party leader, standing in opposition to the neoliberal consensus & corporatism, and therefore a Maoist-Stalinist lesbian Muslim terrorist. Or something.
-
We used to have newspaper cartoon sketches to provide comic relief and amusement .... now they are the conveyance of a sardonic truth and the news pages the crossword puzzle of misinformation.
Frank
-
Although it may not be so far from the truth really, Breitbart is paranoid central. The internet is now full of pseudo news sites spulling the beans on the universal conspiracy in which all the media are complicit... except them, of course.
Is he, you can prove that? Or are we just meant to believe what you say because you were the first to accuse someone else of being paranoid?
-
Is he, you can prove that? Or are we just meant to believe what you say because you were the first to accuse someone else of being paranoid?
Hi Justin,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News_Network
Breitbart News Network (known simply as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a conservative[3] news and opinion website founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart (1969–2012). It identifies itself as on the political right.
In August 2010, Breitbart told the Associated Press that he was "committed to the destruction of the old media guard."
Their website has its own agenda. I'm not suggesting that the "retired media boss at a major German state broadcaster" is not telling the/his truth, but we cannot verify it either.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Justin,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News_Network
Their website has its own agenda. I'm not suggesting that the "retired media boss at a major German state broadcaster" is not telling the/his truth, but we cannot verify it either.
Cheers,
Bart
Thanks for that Bart. The trouble is that what he says does chime with what I've seen in the past. The Foot and Mouth outbreak of 2001 in the UK had all sorts going on which was flatly contradicted by the press, I was sort of involved and knew many of those affected. It's left me somewhat cynical as have other events since.
-
Thanks for that Bart. The trouble is that what he says does chime with what I've seen in the past. The Foot and Mouth outbreak of 2001 in the UK had all sorts going on which was flatly contradicted by the press, I was sort of involved and knew many of those affected. It's left me somewhat cynical as have other events since.
Justin, Critical is good, cynical is being defeated. As one of the reporters in that radio interview says, they are not spokespersons for the government, as passers-on of propaganda, but are supposed to work on the information that is provided by various sources and make their own well investigated report about events.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm a believer in the theory that laziness and incompetence are more plausible explanations than conspiracies. If you work for Murdoch, it's simply easier to go with what the boss wants... if Rupert wants to help the government, it will look like the government is calling the shots. If not, not.
Certainly the foot & mouth outbreak could have been stopped by vaccination rather than the apocalyptic destruction of herds... but hey, they're only animals, right? Yet it would be politically unthinkable to round up and slaughter 20% of the dogs or cats in the UK. I'd say that is a matter of the media not wanting to open Pandora's box and upset the agro-industrial lobby.. just as French courts have followed the US lead in prohibiting use of photos and videos showing whhat happens in industrial animal raising and slaughterhouses.
Tickling people's prejudices makes more money than hard questions, in brief.
-
... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News_Network
Their website has its own agenda..
Probably, but trusting Wikipedia be an objective source!?
-
You guys who grow up in the West are such a spoiled bunch. You expect truth to be delivered to you on a silver platter. Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We, who grew up in the two-channel environments, learned to decipher the truth from the government propaganda early on. When living there, we would fall off the chair laughing when told that three quarters of the American public believe what they hear on TV.
Free press is a goal, not a fact.
Which brings me to the disdain for the Fox News and, say Breitbart, by the left, and Huff Post, etc. by the right. I one watches, say, Fox or Breitbart, and dares to quote it as a source, it is immediately dismissed as partisan and thus unreliable, and the said person ridiculed as an idiot. However, the only way to make up your own mind in the environment of the "free" press is to audiatur at altera pars.
-
Probably, but trusting Wikipedia be an objective source!?
;) Who can trust anybody any longer?
But do you have any indication that in this case Wikipedia is wrong???
Get informed by multiple sources (but have an antenna out for personal agenda's), and form your own opinion, that's my motto.
Cheers,
Bart
-
My problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit an entry. So you don't like what some entry says? Login and change it. It helps if you have some source material to cite, but the worst that can happen to you is a mod will flag something you wrote as needing a citation. In today's world, you must be skeptical and able to do your own research free of the HuffPos of the world.
-
... Get informed by multiple sources (but have an antenna out for personal agenda's), and form your own opinion, that's my motto.
Agreed.
But that is, at at the same time, the very reason why Wikipedia can never be fully trusted - we can't figure out personal or political agendas behind anonymous articles.
-
Probably, but trusting Wikipedia be an objective source!?
Wikipedia is the ultimate curates egg. Excellent in parts but quite untrustworthy in others. It's knowing which is which that is the key. When it comes to matters like this I'd check out the sources first before taking it too firmly on board. However, recently I was watching a programme by a presenter whom I normally admire before doing a bit of research on the subject myself, I found that he could easily have lifted his documentary pretty much whole from the site!
-
My problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit an entry. So you don't like what some entry says? Login and change it. It helps if you have some source material to cite, but the worst that can happen to you is a mod will flag something you wrote as needing a citation. In today's world, you must be skeptical and able to do your own research free of the HuffPos of the world.
An Irish government lackey was found to be doing just that the day before the Prime Minister announced the general election!
I have edited a few of items on Wikipedia myself, the latest added to the list of companies that had experimented with a pressure wave supercharger on their engines which is just the point of Wikipedia and demonstrates how it should work. It's all a question of developing a sense for what can be trusted and what should be questioned. As a starting point for research it can really be very useful.
-
Here in the UK, we're seeing a blatant blanket wall-to-wall anti-Corbyn* agenda in the news media. Whether you agree with his politics or not, it is disgraceful how the news media is treating our politics. Interestingly, news of Bernie Sanders is almost absent in any coverage of the US presidential race. All we seem to hear is Trump, Trump, Trump. Now that might be a matter of perverse morbid fascination with with the obscene level of idiocy the man offers, but the only opposition to him appears to be mainstream, establishment-friendly Clinton. Of course, showing a serious US potential presidential figure with the politics of Sanders, would offer too much support to the idea of Corbyn being taken seriously too. That would never do.
So, the idea of a free-press, speaking truth to power, holding the establishment & government in particular to account, is something we most certainly do not have. What we do have is a press that is part of the corporatist agenda, and willing to lie to the people to support those aims. And it's getting so blatant that even some right-wing commentators are starting to question it.
*UK Labour Party leader, standing in opposition to the neoliberal consensus & corporatism, and therefore a Maoist-Stalinist lesbian Muslim terrorist. Or something.
That's pretty much the nail hammered squarely on the head. Even over here the press has stuck their oar in and in the end one comes away with the impression that they are scared of something and you want to find out what.
-
Adding to Slobodan's observations, we in the West are IMO too complacent about how we get news…and far too gullible when it comes to evaluating news sources and thus the substance of what they offer. Being well informed is an emergent process. It certainly doesn't happen solely by having our predispositions & biases echoed back at us by sources we're inclined to trust. It's necessary to hear & read a spectrum of voices. From that we can get a feel for the relative values of the various voices…who's intending primarily to inform, or primarily to propagandize, or merely to titillate & muckrake for profit and/or kicks. All of this is, of course, filtered through our predispositions & biases—and, if we're sufficiently self-aware and self-analytical, an understanding of what those predispositions & biases are—and a hopefully malleable & always preliminary formulation of "the truth" takes shape. And is molded & even altered by further input.
In the West powerful & wealthy people with self-serving agendas are a large part of the mix. Often in other regions heavy-handed governments occupy a similar position. Be aware of who owns the various media sources and consider what their interests & ambitions likely are.
All this requires effort, a critical mindset and a lack of willingness to be shepherded.
-Dave-
-
Interestingly, news of Bernie Sanders is almost absent in any coverage of the US presidential race. All we seem to hear is Trump, Trump, Trump. Now that might be a matter of perverse morbid fascination with with the obscene level of idiocy the man offers, but the only opposition to him appears to be mainstream, establishment-friendly Clinton. Of course, showing a serious US potential presidential figure with the politics of Sanders, would offer too much support to the idea of Corbyn being taken seriously too. That would never do.
You should never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion!
Who is Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders? BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34532136
Inside the mind of Bernie Sanders: unbowed, unchanged, and unafraid of a good fight The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/19/bernie-sanders-profile-democrat-presidential-candidate
EXCLUSIVE: Bernie Sanders' very 1960s love life revealed Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3155396/Bernie-Sanders-1960s-love-life-revealed-wife-woman-son-sugar-shack-home-lived-revolutionary.html#ixzz40kvjqLil
Bernie Sanders: Democratic Candidate Profile Sky News http://news.sky.com/story/1632335/bernie-sanders-democratic-candidate-profile
10 reasons why voters are turning to Bernie Sanders The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/12/bernie-sanders-voters-supporters-10-reasons-why-us-election-2016
US Election 2016: How Bernie Sanders captured the hearts of America's idealists The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-2016-how-bernie-sanders-captured-the-hearts-of-americas-idealists-a6856876.html
I could put a ton more but I think you get the idea!
-
I don't want to weigh in on whether an anonymous source is telling the truth or not about German media having to do what the government tells it to do but if you were curious to find out how trustworthy Breitbart is then the following link might prove interesting reading.
Big Falsehoods: An updated guide to Andrew Breitbart's lies, smears, and distortions
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/21/big-falsehoods-an-updated-guide-to-andrew-breit/168051
-
Wikipedia is the ultimate curates egg. Excellent in parts but quite untrustworthy in others. It's knowing which is which that is the key.
I have a very simple rule vis-a-vis Wiki(anything): if it agrees with me, it is correct; if it disagrees, then wrong. This way, I don't have to bother with annoying little facts or such.
-
You should never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion!
Who is Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders? BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34532136
Inside the mind of Bernie Sanders: unbowed, unchanged, and unafraid of a good fight The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/19/bernie-sanders-profile-democrat-presidential-candidate
EXCLUSIVE: Bernie Sanders' very 1960s love life revealed Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3155396/Bernie-Sanders-1960s-love-life-revealed-wife-woman-son-sugar-shack-home-lived-revolutionary.html#ixzz40kvjqLil
Bernie Sanders: Democratic Candidate Profile Sky News http://news.sky.com/story/1632335/bernie-sanders-democratic-candidate-profile
10 reasons why voters are turning to Bernie Sanders The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/12/bernie-sanders-voters-supporters-10-reasons-why-us-election-2016
US Election 2016: How Bernie Sanders captured the hearts of America's idealists The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-2016-how-bernie-sanders-captured-the-hearts-of-americas-idealists-a6856876.html
I could put a ton more but I think you get the idea!
The BBC link is to the BBC's US & Canada service, and not part of the UK coverage, hence bbc.com, not bbc.co.uk. The Daily Hatemail piece was a hatchet job. And our mainstream news is all about Trump.
-
Well, here in the U.S. of A. we had many months of the media providing outsized coverage of the Trumpster in the Republican nomination contest, to the extent that he spent virtually nothing on advertising. This includes the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, both of which seem to legitimately hate him. As the field has narrowed down to now five candidates with only three being seen as potential winners, my own sense is that coverage is more even across Trump, Rubio and Cruz.
My guess is that the media covered Trump extensively for the simple reason that it drove readership and viewers. Trump is a master at self promotion; he is, after all, a reality TV star and a brand licensing operator (at one time he tried to be a big real estate dealer, but he seemed to mostly loose money at it, especially for others).
I don't believe for a minute that the government was in anyway incenting the media to report on Trump; the Democrats who control the executive branch clearly don't like him, and the Republicans who control the Congress like him even less.
-
The BBC link is to the BBC's US & Canada service, and not part of the UK coverage, hence bbc.com, not bbc.co.uk. The Daily Hatemail piece was a hatchet job. And our mainstream news is all about Trump.
And now it's all about that clever 'bumbler' Boris; risking the country for his own future as a wannabe political party leader.
Quite why the UK media would give so much space to US games amazes me: our 'special relationship' hasn't meant anything in decades - if there really ever was one in the first place. It appears that seeking US help in WW2 wasn't that easy to do or achieve; the financial realities certainly did exist for a helluva long time after the event.
In fact, the same US 'I love you best' has been sung to numerous countries of late, including la belle France.
It's a mistake to confuse personal relationships with the political. Think Running Bear and Little White Cloud.
Rob C