I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Major FACE PALM.
Mainstream media is owned by 6 corporations. I'll say it again. Mainstream media is privately owned by only six corporations. And just because they win Pulitzer Prize does not mean they're not biased, nor accurate!
Seriously, do your own research and find out the truth. These media stations that you cite as reputable, prize winners, non-biased? You are being fooled into thinking such a thing. Wake up. This is why we have so many people believing what they hear on the news.
Can you provide some examples of where you get your reliable news from?
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
You believe profits are incompatible with a quality product? Yes news organizations are there to make money, but if they don't deliver a quality product, consumers don't trust them and their revenue declines.
The fact that 6 companies deliver 90% of the news media is a testament to their reliability, not some conspiracy to deliver misinformation.
The problem is that 'quality' is not always the exclusive (or even most significant) factor in a customer's buying decision - it starts out with asking why a customer buys a product. A customer buys a phone for any number of reasons (either perceived or real): quality, aesthetics, the status associated with owning it, its expandability with apps, and (crazy as it is) its quality of actually phoning people. A customer buys into the media and tunes in regularly for two main reasons that I can think of (either perceived or real): education, and entertainment - both of which can be of high or low quality. Unfortunately, I think it's been ages since the media has focused on true education for any number of reasons (the diminishing attention span of my generation, the "how does this affect my life" mentality of humans, the unhappiness brought upon by learning that you are wrong and the smug satisfaction brought upon by learning that you are right - aka confirmation bias, and many others).
The potential for profit per person for a media organization, just like the potential for votes per person for a politician, are equal regardless of level of intelligence. If the intelligentsia are seeking education and the non-intelligentsia (I don't know what other word to use there) are seeking entertainment, and the media organizations don't feel a moral obligation to educate (and I don't think that they do), then the focus will inevitably become appealing to the largest audience. You can guess which group I feel that is.
Edit: In addition to this, media organizations looking to both entertain and educate also align themselves with a specific subset of the sociopolitical spectrum because they understand the value of confirmation bias, in creating recurring customers.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The fact that 6 companies deliver 90% of the news media is a testament to their reliability, not some conspiracy to deliver misinformation.
and this right here is sad ... you honestly don't see a problem with a weapons manufacturer owning a media company!?
I missed this if it was stated earlier, which media company is this?
NBC was owned by GE who is probably in the top 20 in sales in weapons manufacturing ... now - you have to look into the coporations that own the media companies and their ties to the council of foreign relations which is a think tank that drives US foreign policy ...
What does NBC & GE have to do with NPR, BBC AP, Reuters?
Also, GE makes about 70000000 products besides weapons. I don't know what the profit margin is on a missile, but I imagine GE would rather be selling washing machines.
Furthermore, the companies that profit the most from arms sales aren't even affiliated with media companies: Lockheed Martin BAE Systems Boeing
The fact that 6 companies deliver 90% of the news media is a testament to their reliability, not some conspiracy to deliver misinformation.
and this right here is sad ... you honestly don't see a problem with a weapons manufacturer owning a media company!?
I missed this if it was stated earlier, which media company is this?
NBC was owned by GE who is probably in the top 20 in sales in weapons manufacturing ... now - you have to look into the coporations that own the media companies and their ties to the council of foreign relations which is a think tank that drives US foreign policy ...
What does NBC & GE have to do with NPR, BBC AP, Reuters?
Also, GE makes about 70000000 products besides weapons. I don't know what the profit margin is on a missile, but I imagine GE would rather be selling washing machines.
Furthermore, the companies that profit the most from arms sales aren't even affiliated with media companies: Lockheed Martin BAE Systems Boeing
* NBC was one of the media companies on your trust circle * Do you believe in war profiteering and the military industrial complex? If not - then fundamentally, we have different viewpoints of how global geopolitical issues work and really does not allow for us to come to an understanding. * Boeing has ties to the Council of Foreign Relations which the media companies are all part of. This think tank drives US foreign policy and in general its all about profiteering and economic imperialism. * The way to convince the public its ok to fund Syrian terrorists, bomb Yemen and negotiate with the Taliban is through public propaganda campaigns and for this you need media companies on board. You need them to craft the story such as Iraq and WMD.
i know i continue to participate in a slight derailing of this thread but really ... all these threads are tied to the same thing ... fake news, syria and us motives, us hypocrisy and us dumbing down ...
it all speaks to how governments use media outlets to control information and how ultimately governments are doing the work for corporations ...
Which do I have a better chance of seeing? A. Pearl Jam play in Jerusalem 12.31.16 opening with speed Wash Or B. Two of these seven questions answered?
1/ The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that?
2/ If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned killchain2server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft?
3/ Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate?
4/ Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or “Fancy Bear” and APT 29 or “Cozy Bear.” But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on the most powerful country on earth?
5/ It has been reported in the New York Times, without attribution, that U.S. intelligence has identified specific G.R.U. officials who directed the hacking. Is this true, and if so, please provide details (Witness should be sworn)
6/ The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks, etc, saying only that the leaks were “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.” Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time regarding Russian involvement in the leaks?
7/ Since the most effective initiative in tipping the election to Donald Trump was the intervention of FBI Director Comey, are you investigating any possible connections he might have to Russian intelligence and Vladimir Putin?
Answer to 1-4 is quite simple, plausible deniability. The others require an independent counsel to look into as well as Trump, Trump, trump's campaign for either advanced knowledge, quid pro quo and/or Russian, Russian, Russian financing of Trump projects.
The fact that 6 companies deliver 90% of the news media is a testament to their reliability, not some conspiracy to deliver misinformation.
and this right here is sad ... you honestly don't see a problem with a weapons manufacturer owning a media company!?
I missed this if it was stated earlier, which media company is this?
NBC was owned by GE who is probably in the top 20 in sales in weapons manufacturing ... now - you have to look into the coporations that own the media companies and their ties to the council of foreign relations which is a think tank that drives US foreign policy ...
NBC now owned by Comcast......
Comcast intended to buy out the rest of GE's stake of NBC Universal over the following seven years. Ownership remained split at 51%–49% for four years. Then, on February 12, 2013, Comcast announced its intention to complete the purchase all at once and assume 100% ownership of the company by the end of March.The acquisition was completed March 19, 2013.
#7 like there have never been spies, moles, double agents or induviduals within US intelligence that have been flipped. Quite possible and it should be fully investigated. Hansen, Hansen, Hansen.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Major FACE PALM.
Mainstream media is owned by 6 corporations. I'll say it again. Mainstream media is privately owned by only six corporations. And just because they win Pulitzer Prize does not mean they're not biased, nor accurate!
Seriously, do your own research and find out the truth. These media stations that you cite as reputable, prize winners, non-biased? You are being fooled into thinking such a thing. Wake up. This is why we have so many people believing what they hear on the news.
Can you provide some examples of where you get your reliable news from?
earthweareone memes on facebook, I'm guessing.
That's what I suspect. It's also telling that Free ignored the question. Lot's of talking down about how others get their information, but won't tell us where they get theirs from.
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief! Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
I say keep posting it. Free speech for all!!
He can do what he wants, but he told me to ask him to stop and that if I did, he would. So I asked.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Major FACE PALM.
Mainstream media is owned by 6 corporations. I'll say it again. Mainstream media is privately owned by only six corporations. And just because they win Pulitzer Prize does not mean they're not biased, nor accurate!
Seriously, do your own research and find out the truth. These media stations that you cite as reputable, prize winners, non-biased? You are being fooled into thinking such a thing. Wake up. This is why we have so many people believing what they hear on the news.
Can you provide some examples of where you get your reliable news from?
earthweareone memes on facebook, I'm guessing.
That's what I suspect. It's also telling that Free ignored the question. Lot's of talking down about how others get their information, but won't tell us where they get theirs from.
The fact that 6 companies deliver 90% of the news media is a testament to their reliability, not some conspiracy to deliver misinformation.
and this right here is sad ... you honestly don't see a problem with a weapons manufacturer owning a media company!?
I missed this if it was stated earlier, which media company is this?
NBC was owned by GE who is probably in the top 20 in sales in weapons manufacturing ... now - you have to look into the coporations that own the media companies and their ties to the council of foreign relations which is a think tank that drives US foreign policy ...
NBC now owned by Comcast......
Comcast intended to buy out the rest of GE's stake of NBC Universal over the following seven years. Ownership remained split at 51%–49% for four years. Then, on February 12, 2013, Comcast announced its intention to complete the purchase all at once and assume 100% ownership of the company by the end of March.The acquisition was completed March 19, 2013.
interesting “Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,”
We know from Comeys Clinton email testimony it is very very very very very very very very very very very very hard to prove intent.
“In recent days, I have had several conversations with members of Congress, providing an update on the status of the review as well as the considerations that need to be taken into account as we proceed. Many – but unfortunately not all – members understand and appreciate the importance and the gravity of the issue, and they are very supportive of the process that is underway.”
So a bunch of retired intel people who wouldn't have access to the current information being reviewed by the FBI & CIA?
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.) Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.) Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.) Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)
“All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.
In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example …
NSA is able to identify both the sender and recipient when hacking is involved….The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any “hacked” emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network…
The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked.
The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider – as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC.” (“US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims“, Consortium News)
Bottom line: Leaked not hacked. Thus, the MSM “Putin did it” version = Bullshit.
David Swanson– When you say you’ve met the leaker; was that of the DNC emails or the Podesta emails?
Craig Murray– I cannot give too much detail on that…but I have met one of the people involved. …The person is American and not connected to Russia at all….(Julien Assange has confirmed that the leaker was not Russian)
David Swanson– Your claim is not that the Russians would never hack into a computer, right? Your claim is that you know who did this and it isn’t Russia?
Craig Murray– Right, I was involved in handling top secret material myself for over 20 years, and all the spy services spy on each other all the time. So the Russians could have done this, but they didn’t. I happen to know that they didn’t. In both the Podesta and the DNC emails came from sources that are not Russian, but were American inside sources. And that could be inside the organization itself or it could be American agencies that are monitoring people’s communications….Inside the DNC or inside the NSA. (“Talk Nation Radio: Craig Murray: Russia Didn’t Do It“)
So, the ‘hacking story’ has nothing to do with hacking and nothing to do with Russia. It’s just another attempt by establishment elites to distort the facts in order to subvert the democratic process and overturn the election results. Isn’t that what this is really all about, regime change in the USA?
This charade has Hillary’s bloody fingerprints all over it.
David Swanson– When you say you’ve met the leaker; was that of the DNC emails or the Podesta emails?
Craig Murray– I cannot give too much detail on that…but I have met one of the people involved. …The person is American and not connected to Russia at all….(Julien Assange has confirmed that the leaker was not Russian)
David Swanson– Your claim is not that the Russians would never hack into a computer, right? Your claim is that you know who did this and it isn’t Russia?
Craig Murray– Right, I was involved in handling top secret material myself for over 20 years, and all the spy services spy on each other all the time. So the Russians could have done this, but they didn’t. I happen to know that they didn’t. In both the Podesta and the DNC emails came from sources that are not Russian, but were American inside sources. And that could be inside the organization itself or it could be American agencies that are monitoring people’s communications….Inside the DNC or inside the NSA. (“Talk Nation Radio: Craig Murray: Russia Didn’t Do It“)
So, the ‘hacking story’ has nothing to do with hacking and nothing to do with Russia. It’s just another attempt by establishment elites to distort the facts in order to subvert the democratic process and overturn the election results. Isn’t that what this is really all about, regime change in the USA?
This charade has Hillary’s bloody fingerprints all over it.
This remains unconvincing. Murray offers no evidence of any kind and no detail. Not saying he's lying or wrong but why are we not skeptical about this?
Also...I thought wikileaks leakers were anonymous? How would Assange know whether the source was Russian or not?
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
David Swanson– When you say you’ve met the leaker; was that of the DNC emails or the Podesta emails?
Craig Murray– I cannot give too much detail on that…but I have met one of the people involved. …The person is American and not connected to Russia at all….(Julien Assange has confirmed that the leaker was not Russian)
David Swanson– Your claim is not that the Russians would never hack into a computer, right? Your claim is that you know who did this and it isn’t Russia?
Craig Murray– Right, I was involved in handling top secret material myself for over 20 years, and all the spy services spy on each other all the time. So the Russians could have done this, but they didn’t. I happen to know that they didn’t. In both the Podesta and the DNC emails came from sources that are not Russian, but were American inside sources. And that could be inside the organization itself or it could be American agencies that are monitoring people’s communications….Inside the DNC or inside the NSA. (“Talk Nation Radio: Craig Murray: Russia Didn’t Do It“)
So, the ‘hacking story’ has nothing to do with hacking and nothing to do with Russia. It’s just another attempt by establishment elites to distort the facts in order to subvert the democratic process and overturn the election results. Isn’t that what this is really all about, regime change in the USA?
This charade has Hillary’s bloody fingerprints all over it.
This remains unconvincing. Murray offers no evidence of any kind and no detail. Not saying he's lying or wrong but why are we not skeptical about this?
Also...I thought wikileaks leakers were anonymous? How would Assange know whether the source was Russian or not?
guy could be bullshitting, be skeptical. no idea, i thought it was strange that he commented on the leaker and then went further and said not russian, even further wikileaks put out a reward for info leading to seth rich murder mystery. wikileaks has certainly broken its norms these past few months.
Another nefarious Clinton plot, plot,plot to attain power and with one ring, ring, ring rule them all. My GodAllah, is Chelsea going to have to deal with this shit too? "Hillary's bloody fingerprints" isn't instilling a lot of confidence in your open mindedness. It's not Russia, Russia, Russia but it's definitely Hillary, in the absence of direct evidence, mind you. Wow, wow, wow, just wow!!!
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
Can't wait till Bafoon has to deal with Syria oh yeah I forgot his master is already in cahoots with the monster in Charge !
If Hillary was so evil, powerful, and connected to the illuminati she would not have been beat twice by a freshman senator with a Muslim name and this orange clown
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
Can't wait till Bafoon has to deal with Syria oh yeah I forgot his master is already in cahoots with the monster in Charge !
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
The potential for profit per person for a media organization, just like the potential for votes per person for a politician, are equal regardless of level of intelligence. If the intelligentsia are seeking education and the non-intelligentsia (I don't know what other word to use there) are seeking entertainment, and the media organizations don't feel a moral obligation to educate (and I don't think that they do), then the focus will inevitably become appealing to the largest audience. You can guess which group I feel that is.
Edit: In addition to this, media organizations looking to both entertain and educate also align themselves with a specific subset of the sociopolitical spectrum because they understand the value of confirmation bias, in creating recurring customers.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Also, GE makes about 70000000 products besides weapons. I don't know what the profit margin is on a missile, but I imagine GE would rather be selling washing machines.
Furthermore, the companies that profit the most from arms sales aren't even affiliated with media companies:
Lockheed Martin
BAE Systems
Boeing
* Do you believe in war profiteering and the military industrial complex? If not - then fundamentally, we have different viewpoints of how global geopolitical issues work and really does not allow for us to come to an understanding.
* Boeing has ties to the Council of Foreign Relations which the media companies are all part of. This think tank drives US foreign policy and in general its all about profiteering and economic imperialism.
* The way to convince the public its ok to fund Syrian terrorists, bomb Yemen and negotiate with the Taliban is through public propaganda campaigns and for this you need media companies on board. You need them to craft the story such as Iraq and WMD.
it all speaks to how governments use media outlets to control information and how ultimately governments are doing the work for corporations ...
A. Pearl Jam play in Jerusalem 12.31.16 opening with speed Wash
Or
B. Two of these seven questions answered?
1/ The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that?
2/ If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned killchain2server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft?
3/ Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate?
4/ Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or “Fancy Bear” and APT 29 or “Cozy Bear.” But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on the most powerful country on earth?
5/ It has been reported in the New York Times, without attribution, that U.S. intelligence has identified specific G.R.U. officials who directed the hacking. Is this true, and if so, please provide details (Witness should be sworn)
6/ The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks, etc, saying only that the leaks were “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.” Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time regarding Russian involvement in the leaks?
7/ Since the most effective initiative in tipping the election to Donald Trump was the intervention of FBI Director Comey, are you investigating any possible connections he might have to Russian intelligence and Vladimir Putin?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.c5f22f68f3da
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
“Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,”
We know from Comeys Clinton email testimony it is very very very very very very very very very very very very hard to prove intent.
CIA Director John Brennan
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)
Do your best to keep up, you're falling way behind.
“All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.
In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example …
NSA is able to identify both the sender and recipient when hacking is involved….The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any “hacked” emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network…
The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked.
The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider – as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC.” (“US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims“, Consortium News)
Bottom line: Leaked not hacked. Thus, the MSM “Putin did it” version = Bullshit.
David Swanson– When you say you’ve met the leaker; was that of the DNC emails or the Podesta emails?
Craig Murray– I cannot give too much detail on that…but I have met one of the people involved. …The person is American and not connected to Russia at all….(Julien Assange has confirmed that the leaker was not Russian)
David Swanson– Your claim is not that the Russians would never hack into a computer, right? Your claim is that you know who did this and it isn’t Russia?
Craig Murray– Right, I was involved in handling top secret material myself for over 20 years, and all the spy services spy on each other all the time. So the Russians could have done this, but they didn’t. I happen to know that they didn’t. In both the Podesta and the DNC emails came from sources that are not Russian, but were American inside sources. And that could be inside the organization itself or it could be American agencies that are monitoring people’s communications….Inside the DNC or inside the NSA. (“Talk Nation Radio: Craig Murray: Russia Didn’t Do It“)
So, the ‘hacking story’ has nothing to do with hacking and nothing to do with Russia. It’s just another attempt by establishment elites to distort the facts in order to subvert the democratic process and overturn the election results. Isn’t that what this is really all about, regime change in the USA?
This charade has Hillary’s bloody fingerprints all over it.
Also...I thought wikileaks leakers were anonymous? How would Assange know whether the source was Russian or not?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
no idea, i thought it was strange that he commented on the leaker and then went further and said not russian, even further wikileaks put out a reward for info leading to seth rich murder mystery. wikileaks has certainly broken its norms these past few months.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©