Is the media trying to control us?

[Jerm]

Is anyone else sick of all the 'slight of hand' that the media pulls? For example is it me or did Katrina just give the media something to take our minds off of this blood-for-oil war. Don't get me wrong, I think that what occurred is a tragedy, but notice that almost none of the news channels are covering the war as much as they were. So we've traded one senseless tragedy for another.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the attempts at control and manipulation by the media. The other purpose for this thread is to point out and discuss devious advertising designed to manipulate us into buying crap we don't need. So come on people, lets hear some opinions and observations.


"I kneel and I pray everyday to my TV to tell me what's true.. ...Im surrounded by plastic and sunshine, it's just too good to be true." - 'Hollywood' by Floater (obviously sung with sarcasm)

[Jack]

Yes. Go back to sleep. Everything is under control here.

[Jerm]

Jack, if I recall corectly didn't you quote some Bill Hicks wisdom on a different thread? He was probably the greatest truth teller there has been in these modern times.

"Go back to bed America, Here, watch American Gladiators.. " -Bill Hicks

He was a genius! And he will be missed.

Remember 'It's Just A Ride..'

[sandy82]

Jerm, it's an excellent topic--but you knew I'd say that. :)

I like the way that you have divided the subject between the news media and the advertising. Each news media outlet used to have more power to manipulate because there were fewer of them. For a long time it was ABC, NBC, and CBS. There were three news magazines. Newspapers in small and medium-sized cities cut and pasted the wire services (still do). Only the large metropolitan newspapers had their own reporters in foreign capitals. The media output was limited. From what I've read, the media all said about the same thing. On the plus side, however, was the fact that each network had an independent news division. ABC and CBS were independent corporations. NBC was owned by RCA.

Now, news divisions are folded in with entertainment. ABC is owned by Walt Disney. CBS is owned by Viacom. NBC still has its original arrangement; RCA was bought out by GE. (I don't even mention the newer broadcast networks: Rupe's SkyImeanFox, UPN, WB, PAX.)

Do you think these corporate owners care about news? They care about profits. And with the cable news outlets there's a lot more competition than there was. We've got at least one propaganda network: Fox "News". A big honcho at Fox told his newsreaders that their stuff was too negative on Iraq and instructed them to emphasize troops' repairing schools and painting hospitals. So, while battles raged and IEDs exploded, Fox News showed eager enlistees doing repair work while happy Iraqis looked on.

On Iraq/Katrina, the news professionals in the various outlets are captives of the ratings and of corporate headquarters personnel who care about profits and golden parachutes. News? What's that? They switched from Iraq to Katrina because of ratings. Unfortunately, the ratings game means that they aim at the broadest common denominator--which may also be the lowest common denominator. Joe Blow understands hurricanes. He understands Scott Peterson and murders. He understands Fox News's favorite recent story: the co-ed who was killed in Aruba. None of those stories have implications for the future of the country, the prospects for the economy, the likelihood that the educational system is preparing anyone for foreseeable jobs. Joe Blow doesn't understand all that; and the ratings are everything. To my knowledge, no American media outlet has said why many of the urban poor will never live in New Orleans again: depreciation and building codes.

I bet somebody out there could tell us whether The Today Show and Good Morning America ever carried serious news. Or have they always been the fluff of Matt Lauer, the compulsory blonde, a screaming weather man, and National Enquirer-style interviews?

Thank God for PBS (the non-commercial Public Broadcasting System). Where I am, I'm lucky to get four PBS feeds..which include the BBC News, Deutsche Welle News in English, Japanese news in English, even Beijing news in English. (Beijing's propaganda is now almost believable--very skillfully done.)

The American news media are mediocre and sinking. The news on BBC World covers many American stories better than American networks do.

The advertising in American media is in an entirely different category. It's genuinely pernicious. Convincing people to buy things they don't need and can't afford. The average savings rate for the typical American household is down to -0.6 percent per year. Yep, the American savings rate is now a minus number. (You want to see the savings rate climb? The remedy is easy. Require that every actor in a commercial have dirty, greasy hair, acne, and crooked yellow teeth. A snotty nose, a drool, and an itch would be helpful. It's hard to sell unneeded stuff without sex.)

Did I mention that the Bushies are in the hip pocket of the big advertisers? Drug companies anyone? Jerm, I bet you remember when it was illegal to advertise prescription drugs on television. Doctors hate the advertising because patients come in and demand medicines they don't need. How about Lamasil? For toenail fungus. While the happy actor is wiggling his photogenic toes, the voice-over is rapidly saying--in a forgettable monotone--that Lamasil can cause liver damage, stroke, heart arhythmia and (for all I know) gangrene, beriberi, cancer of the tailbone, headaches, insomnia, baldness, dandruff, and rotten teeth. But that actor can really smile and wiggle those toes.

Jerm, you got me started! :wink:

But now we have a new story. Harriet Miers. The perfect pin-up girl for braille calendars. The personality that can't quit (because it never started). Her biggest qualification is that the Shubbery knows her well. Yikes! But I like them bangs--real purty. Above the waist, bubba! Harriet is a God-fearing born-again single lady lawyer. She don't do nooooooo bangs below the waist. And she's really Shirley Maclaine reincarnated as Mamie Eisenhower. We're gonna miss Hurricane Katrina. 8O

[gurlbidesign]

The media are just going along with the "Short attention span theater" mentality that is so apparent in our culture these days. "Old news" doesn't sell. And with this short note, I have to leave for work.

[goldragon_70]

Edit: sorry, yea, had too many open at once. :oops:

[sandy82]

Could you make a Subliminal of Curse CCP?

Goldragon, I think you want General Hypnosis--->Post Sub File Requests Here. Try this url: http://www.warpmymind.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=460&start=75

GBD, your comment on short attention spans is right on target. Because all our news broadcasts (except PBS) are geared directly to audience size and ratings, the quality of the news has declined in synch with the attention spans. In addition, a 30-minute commercial-broadcast TV segment now contains 11 minutes of commercials.

[Jerm]

gurlbidesign, quite true. The concept of journalistic integrity has been dead for at least the last decade or so. Corporate needs are steadily out weighing human rights. In these times that we as a race (meaning humanity) are in need of some form of unity and understanding, all that continues to matter is the almighty dollar. Despite the obvious need for growth and change, the public keeps shoveling in the corporately sponsored brainwashing. "I wonder what Viacom wants me to think today..."

Sandy, I couldn't agree more. But you knew I'd say that. I doubt the Today Show or Good Morning America feels the need to do a story on anything edgier then celebrity diet fads or the perfect recipe for (insert pointless holiday tie-in here...). Yes, of course they have the token blonde and the wacky yet slightly overweight weatherman. A perfect, plastic world to distract us from the cage they are slowly building around us. That world is what all of us morons relate to, or so they think. Besides, who in their right mind is that cheerful in the early morning hour. The coffee on those shows must be laced with some super potent form of corporate crack. I guess I should thank the morning news shows. I'd sure hate to have to think about something even remotely relevant.
11 minutes of commercials each half hour. Why even bother putting shows on? Whats next, the Tide laundry detergent commercial marathon? Let me get my popcorn ready...
Now you've got me started! :o

[gurlbidesign]

I think it is more a issue of giving people what they want. Journalistic integrety fits in there somewhere I guess. I try to ignore the bias and spin and take the grain of information that is there. The current fad of Reality shows is a sad comment on our society.....just like the bread and circuses of ancient Rome.

[missypuss]

An English University did a survey on some ten year old schoolkids.
Asking them what they would like to be when they grew up.
They all answered they wanted to be famous.Well the majority anyhow.
Not a famous musician,
Not a famous actor,
Not famous for inventing a cure for Aids or the common cold.
Just famous.
Thats what the media sells more than anything.
Fame.
If you have that nothing else seems to matter.

[sandy82]

Missypuss, that's a very interesting angle. The 10-year-olds want fame, but disconnected from success, or generosity, or discovery. That's the way it's portrayed on television. Of course, the children automatically assume fame is something good--they see that, too. If there were still public hangings, as Charles Dickens described them, maybe people would be more careful about merely wanting to be famous.

Fame ties right into advertising. It's great to be seen by strangers; it's great to eat Burger King burgers (note: a British-owned company :) ) because the subsurface is that if you eat BK burgers, you might become famous like the actor with ketchup artfully placed on his/her chin. The parts of the cycle reinforce one another: 19 minutes of obvious news, 11 minutes of commercials, and an over-all tone of "fame is good for you."

And as you put it so clearly, Missypuss, "nothing else seems to matter."

[missypuss]

Yes they see that fame is good Sandy,
Through advertising,through the programmes they watch,
Through the papers and magazines they read.
I asked my child to tell me who President Bush and Tony Blair were
At Eight years old my child thinks that they are famous ,
"they are always in the papers and on the TV mommy".
but not what it is they are famous for....
Maybe thats my parenting.....
But my child knows who they are now.
Another interesting media concept is that as fast as someone can become famous,
They can have it all taken away from them,
With just one wrong move.
Look at Kate Moss right now.............

[goldragon_70]

The media, is just trying to keep the ratings, Business opens the door to greed. The media is not the only body that is using smoke and mirrors. There are things going on and around that are being paid no attention to by the media that they are just now seeing.

[drydreamer]

Gurlbidesign hit the nail on the head. The media is just trying to give us what we want (depending on who we happen to be.) Fox News is definitely handing out right-wing propaganda, but that's because there is a large segment of the population who wants that. They are undoubtedly the ones who voted for President Bush, who is also feeding those same people what they want to hear. So far, it has been successful for his political career, which has always been his paramount concern. Lately, his popularity is on the decline, so maybe the old pendulum of public opinion is about to swing in the other direction. But politics has always been driven by what the voters want; and I believe the media is also driven by the same concern. The Fundamentalist Christians have their own TV stations and news programs to ensure that all news is described according to their beliefs. They want to keep their heads safely buried in the sand so they can continue to live in their own little make believe world where everyone quotes scripture and behaves like sweet little angels. They are just as deceived as the heathen they despise. For everyone basically believes WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE! We each develope opinions about the world around us because of the experiences we have in our lives. Some of these opinions are based on lies and misperceptions; but we have bought into them so heavily that it would turn our lives upside down to deny them! Therefore our friendly media is ready to give us whatever slant we want so we can continue to believe whatever we want to believe. Some people sincerely believe we are being invaded by beings from another planet or dimension. Others believe that there is some kind of mysterious force called LUCK that drives everything in the world. Still others believe in ghosts and other strange paranormal energies. And to each of them, these beliefs have taken on a life of their own - regardless of whether there is any real TRUTH in them! So it is my belief that we each pick and choose the things we want to believe, and THEN we go looking for evidence to support our beliefs. The Christian Bible says that faith is the evidence of things NOT SEEN, and the substance of things HOPED FOR! I submit that that kind of blind faith is what everyone, including the atheists, are living by! If your faith is not in God, then it is given to luck or some other mysterious concept, AND THEN you go looking for proof. The media is giving us the "proof" for whatever we want to believe. Just change the channel until you hear what you want. Objective TRUTH has nothing to do with it (or very little, at best!) drydreamer

[sandy82]

.
Missypuss, it's not your parenting. Don't even think that. It's the power of marketing both products and people. News programs, at least on commercial TV, have become advertisements for events. Hence the hype. "Hurricane!! News at Six!" "Blair and Brown Square Off! News at Seven!"

I remember writing a term paper in high school that dealt with media hyping the news. The first line was a made-up headline:

"MASS OF HUMANITY PERISHES IN OHIO!"

The much smaller sub-heading was:

"Retired circus fat lady dies in Cleveland old-age home."

Even the news advertises itself. For the moment, Blair and Bush are celebrities. They are marketed, even to children, much like the rows of candy next to the check-out lines in American supermarkets. Children know what's inside the packages, they recognize the packages, and they want it. Recognition sells both Snickers and Blair. In the case of Bush, special deal. The snickers are free.

Andy Warhol said that everyone was entitled to 15 minutes of fame. Kate Moss and Karl Rove have had more than their share. Missypuss, Kate Moss has been all over US television news, too.
.

[Ceot]

My school thought I was a retard in kindergarden, couldnt tell the diffrence between depression and a learning dissorder and kept takeing me down into the boiler room for speech theropy.

God I miss grade school.

As for the T,V.
I wanted to be a fireman because of toys.
Race car driver cause of my dad.
Sceintist because of disney.
Medic because of cubscouts and boy scouts.
But I wanted to be a marine most of all because of the t,v
, Not to mention bank robber.

But now a days. I just want to be me.
Pitty I,ve forgotten who that was.

Oh well. Turns on the telly and looks for a memory.

[gurlbidesign]

Daydreamer, I watch Fox about as often as every other news agency and have heard this administration get slammed more then once on assorted issues. I would have to give them at least a C+ when it comes to being fair. After considering our local fish wraps that claim to be "news" papers I would maybe bump that grade up to a B+. If the current administration came up with a new germ killing soap the Times and P.I. in Seattle would run a headline reading "Millions die due to Bush!!!" nor would there be one positive thing said in the main body of the story.

[sandy82]

Gurlbidesign, the one thing you can say for the Post-Intelligencer is that the name was not designed by Madison Avenue. :wink: I have no doubt that Rupert Murcoch's Fox/Sky coverage can be more complete than Seattle's newspapers. In many American markets the papers run news stories as "glue" to hold the Wal-Mart ads together. But Rupe's slant is sometimes hard to take. Some people get all their news from Rupe, and that is cause for concern. BTW, we can expect a wider range of views on Fox, at least for now. Harriet Miers has split the conservative wing of the GOP down the middle. Fox stalwarts like William Kristol are very much opposed to her nomination. Fox has to accommodate its loyal audience and their favorite mouthpieces. Much of the difference of opinion will be within the Right (Miers, budget deficits, legal-illegal immigration, globalization, etc.), but there will be some bubbling and some more criticism of the Administration.

Drydreamer, you always bring up a lot of interesting points. I agree with most, and I almost agree with the rest. Let me highlight a few points on which we almost agree. The right wing does like Fox News, but Fox News also sways their opinions on matters in general. From hard right to harder right. From friends and colleagues I am treated to the latest "revelation." My reply is often, "But did Fox News show the rest of the footage and explain the background. They were...." And the reply is "I wonder why Fox News left out half the story?" I limit myself to responding that Fox News editors are not dumb; chances are they did it because they intended to. Net result: the hard right Fox News watcher moves back toward the center. So, it's sometimes a little more than what the viewer wants. It's also what he gets served.

Same sort of behavior can be seen in Ted Turner's now multi-conglomerated CNN. And selective editing occurs across the spectrum. From the left: everybody has now heard one line from Bill Bennett's recent statement. Many have heard neither the question that preceded it nor his full reply.

The next point is a good one, and I generally agree.

"For everyone basically believes WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE!...Some of these opinions are based on lies and misperceptions; but we have bought into them so heavily that it would turn our lives upside down to deny them!"

I can tell you a case where that's not accurate. Me. I would have voted Republican in 2000 and 2004, except for two principal things. The first was the smaller but the most important. The Bush campaign in March 2000. Bush ran against McCain in the SC presidential primary. McCain had just won in New Hampshire. The Bush people feared that if they lost South Carolina, their candidate was finished. You have never seen such a cascade of lies, half-truths, and filthy innuendos aimed at a reasonably honest man like McCain. Two items will suffice to give you a flavor. Republicans for Clean Air denounced McCain for being against the environment. Ads and planted news stories in the SC press only. I wondered how a senator from Arizona, where the economy is partly built on retirees and tourists, could be "against the environment." It turned out that Republicans for Clean Air had one member. A Pioneer giver to Bush. A Texas Republican. The former chairman of a nationwide chain of craft stores. (An honest tactic from our born-again president? Maybe he didn't know--that's certainly plausible.) The other March 2000 tactic was even worse, and it was left to the politico-fundamentalists to peddle it. The McCains had reportedly adopted an East Asian orphan, a worthy act in my view. But when those "Christian" preachers got through winking, pausing, and pitching their voices just so, many SC voters were convinced he had purchased a live-in prostitute. Post-voting comments like, "What did his wife think when he brought home that [one-syllable vulgarism for Chinese] whore?" Another one spread around was "the mark of McCain." Potent stuff in certain hands and hearts.

Keep in mind the voters in question. Some may have believed McCain's license plate number was 666.

The larger item is that the politico-fundamentalists have taken over the Republican Party in many states. The PF friends of Rev. Pat Robertson, who heads Christian Broadcasting. The supposed man of God who thinks the US government should assassinate the President of Venezuela and, in Monday's news, said that Venezuela plans to build/buy an atomic bomb aimed at the US. The Republican Party of 2005 is a very different organization from the party of 1992, 1988, etc.

Drydreamer, I have a theory about why the Bush White House looks like it's on the rocks. Karl Rove has been the thinker in the WH since January 2001. All policy decisions and news spins were cleared or concocted by him. Recently, his mind has been focused on whether he will be indicted for a felony before the end of this month. He has not had the time or the mental discipline to look at problems like Harriet Miers or spending $50 billion/milliard on the aftermath of a hurricane. Now people are seeing the real Bush White House, and lots of them don't like what they see. Is the WH-friendly Media manipulating us? Not nearly so well as it was.

Your general views and mine are very close. I think that one of the best defenses/innoculations against Media manipulation is memory. Personal memory. For instance, the Iraq War. I am not naturally drawn to the outlets that opposed the war in Iraq even before it began. But it turns out that they were right, and I was wrong. I was gulled by claims of WMDs. I have remembered who was right and who was wrong, When new reports appear in those media outlets I didn't like before, I have to read them through an upwardly adjusted credibility prism. On matters of spotting baseless pro-war propaganda, their track record is better than mine. Another defense and means of self-checking one's own prejudices is multiple,credible sources...which cite sources. We all have one of the best tools available for accessing those. The Internet. Free newspaper coverage from major American cities, from London, continental Europe, Singapore, and on and on. BBC radio live, 24 hours a day.

At no time in history have varied viewpoints been so easy to obtain. And probably at no time in history has the typical citizen been so uninterested or self-satisfied that he can't bother to punch a few buttons.

The epitaph for us all may be: "They got what they deserved."

[gurlbidesign]

I have to say I don't agree with the common Left wing view on WMDs, just because they weren't there when we had finally had an honest chance to look for them doesn't mean they were never there. I seem to recall a find of tens of thousands nerve gas shots for the treatment of those exposed to nerve gas, you don't keep that around unless there is nerve gas to respond to. That is just one example. As for the missing WMDs, I would start looking in Syria. There were all those trucks heading in that direction just before we got on the scene, not to mention the intercepted calls to their commanders about getting rid of the stuff. I can't accept the premise that because they haven't been found they were never there.

[Mallic]

Frankly, I don't believe that the media is involed in some sort of global consricy (sic), but unintentionally they are influncing our view on whatever issue.

[sandy82]

.
If there's a common left-wing view, I disagree with it...whatever it is. On the other hand, an uncommon one might be interesting to read about. I do admit that my range of reading material is broader than it used to be. I'll even read Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. :wink: In the past I looked only at the cartoons.

Chemical and biological weapons had been in Iraq. No question about that. There were large stockpiles at the time of Gulf War I. Saddam Hussein had killed hundreds of Kurds at Halabja in 1988 with nerve gas. (The Kurds had a website with pictures of the bodies. It may still be operational.) Saddam Husssein had used the same weapons against the Iranians in their 1980-88 war. You're right: if he had the weapons, he certainly had the antidotes.

One of the questions is, when did he have them and when did he get rid of them. I don't know what the shelf life is for sarin and the others, but there has to be one. Our own inspectors found evidence of such weapons (in the sense that one finds traces of gunpowder) before they were kicked out in the mid- to late-90s. Hans Blix and Mohammed El-Baradei's people found nothing recent/substantial after that. After the May 2003 "victory" in Gulf War II, David Kaye went in, convinced he would find something; and he left, convinced there was nothing there. I recall the discovery of the stored antidotes, but they were old...contemporaneous with the chemical and biological weapons that Iraq had formerly possessed.

Syria is a live possibility. Transit across Iran in exchange for assistance in other fields is possible, too. There were two retired Russian/Soviet generals in Iraq advising Saddam Hussein's government/army on useful tactics against the Americans and British until several days before March 20, 2003. They were given medals. (And the tactics did change. Remember the pictures of hundreds of surrendering Iraqis in GW1? It didn't happen in GW2.) US troops also took some shots at the Russian diplomatic caravan leaving Iraq for Syria shortly before GW2 started--written off as "a big mistake." But, all that said, nobody found significant traces of anything.

Part of the atmospherics is expectations. We said we were sure that the weapons were there, and we were going to find them. We set the bar too high. We couldn't meet our own loudly proclaimed expectations. Having set the standard, we couldn't meet it. If there were a "smoking gun", we would be shown the smoke twice a day.

I tend to discount the notion that we had such clear evidence in 2002-03. One reason is that, if we genuinely had been so certain, we wouldn't have felt the need to rely on the outlandish notion of Nigerien uranium. George Tenet reportedly told Condi Rice and Steve Hadley twice not to use that information, which he said was at best doubtful. It found its way into the January 2003 State of the Union address anyway. People wanted to say it very badly, and apparently they wanted to stop others from disputing it. Hence Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald and the present grand jury. Whether or not Fitzgerald finds out who ruined Valerie Plame's career is a different matter.

It seems clear to me that the Iraqis never bought yellow-cake uranium in Niger. The claim was later whittled down to the Iraqis' "seeking to buy" yellow-cake. "Seeking to buy"...that reminds me of Jimmy Carter's claim that he had "lust in his heart." Sounds good, but how do you fashion a standard to measure the...what?...intensity of the seeking or the lust? The notion of any foreigners entering Niamey unnoticed is a non-starter. And who would they have "sought" the uranium from? Nigerien uranium is a French concession from the mines to the refining to the export. One overall entity in ultimate control from start to finish. As I understand it, all the employees are French. It is very unlikely that the French would sell uranium to Saddam Hussein after the sanctions were put in place in the 1990s. If nothing else, they wouldn't have wanted to get caught. They also have their independent force de frappe, and they produce the highest percentage of electricity from nuclear power plants of any developed country.

No question that Saddam Hussein had had biological and chemical weapons, certainly through the 1980s and in 1991. After the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981, the atomic program was necessarily postponed. In 2002-03 our people said that the chemical and biological weapons were there and that we would find them. We didn't find them.

GBD, I hadn't heard about the intercepted phone calls. I'm sure you did hear about them. My skepticism is not directed toward you. It's more general in nature. In order to satisfied, I wouldn't accept transcripts, much less translations. I would want my own experts (American and Iraqi; technical, linguistic, military, cultural) to listen to the original tapes for accent, dialect, profession-related abbreviations and slang. Then I would want to do stress tests on the recorded voices, broad-scope analysis of background noises, see the originals of the chain-of-custody documents and interview everyone in the chain(s). On and on. It would be ideal if one could trace the actual contents of those reported phone calls from original, verified tapes through all the various intermediate steps, unbroken, until the contents reached whatever media packaged the final information and delivered it to the public. Otherwise, it is possible that the phone calls were reported but, in fact, were never made. Just like the yellow-cake uranium or the meeting in Vienna between an underling of Saddam Hussein and an underling of Osama bin Laden. The meeting was widely reported, but then it was recanted.

Frankly, my disillusionment with the war is not based solely on the WMDs that weren't there. There are many other things. The happy crowds that weren't there, the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that weren't there. The oil pipelines that we can't keep the insurgents from attacking. Why don't we ask the Turks how they prevent insurgent attacks on pipelines? The same pipeline goes through southeast Turkey where the Kurdish guerrillas waged a years-long insurgency. Why could the Turks protect the same pipeline that we can't?

And after yesterday's fantastic (in every sense of the word) teleconference with the 11 soldiers in Tikrit in which our "great progress" in Iraq was extolled, tonight all of Baghdad is black. The insurgents have cut the electricity. According to the polls released in the past several days, more than half the American public reportedly believe the war was a mistake. Small wonder.

Jerm, I think this has been a case where the media both manipulated and was manipulated. As with the Iraq war, so with NBC's Matt Lauer. Why was he the only newsie allowed to interview Bush down on the Gulf Coast at mid-week? He was also the only one to be invited on a helicopter ride with the Governor of Texas when he inspected hurricane damage from the air. When it comes to manipulation, is Matt an -or...or an -ee? :wink: Or is it that his hair won't blow in the wind?
.

[gurlbidesign]

Sandy, I don't think you are listening to the soldiers who are there. They say that real progress is being made and there is gratitude. The schools opened and the hospitals that are back in business don't seem to get the press that suicide bombers do (none of whom are Iraquis by the way). The source of the African uranium story was reported in the famous speech and the British still stand behind that claim (and I believe I have heard about some corroborating evidence that has since surfaced).

[Mr_Oblivious]

Even Mr. Oblivious knows that nobody ever claimed Saddam had succeeded in buying yellowcake from Niger, so there was no claim to whittle down. That Valerie Plame had been working openly as a CIA employee at the Langley headquarters for years, so there was no covert career to ruin. That CIA officials have testified that Joe Wilson's report supported the intelligence of Saddam trying to buy yellowcake from Niger, unlike what Joe Wilson claimed his own report said when he went public in the New York Times. That blackouts often occur in American cities as well. That "happy crowds" in many locations of Iraq were broadcast live across the world during the war, even though many seem determined not to remember them today. That the Turks can use brutal tactics against guerillas that the Americans cannot, if only because the world media doesn't really care so long as it's the Turks that are doing it instead of the Americans.

Mr. Oblivious could go on, but even he can't stop people from being Willfully Oblivious.

[sandy82]

Even Mr. Oblivious knows that nobody ever claimed Saddam had succeeded in buying yellowcake from Niger, so there was no claim to whittle down. That Valerie Plame had been working openly as a CIA employee at the Langley headquarters for years, so there was no covert career to ruin. That CIA officials have testified that Joe Wilson's report supported the intelligence of Saddam trying to buy yellowcake from Niger, unlike what Joe Wilson claimed his own report said when he went public in the New York Times. That blackouts often occur in American cities as well. That "happy crowds" in many locations of Iraq were broadcast live across the world during the war, even though many seem determined not to remember them today. That the Turks can use brutal tactics against guerillas that the Americans cannot, if only because the world media doesn't really care so long as it's the Turks that are doing it instead of the Americans.

Mr. Oblivious could go on, but even he can't stop people from being Willfully Oblivious.

Mr. Oblivious, according to press reports, Valerie Plame returned to the US from an undercover position in 1998 and then worked in the public eye as a private consultant, thereby seeking to retain her cover. Lots of people do lots of testifying. And some high-level officials even made hand descriptions of mushroom-shaped clouds, saying that we didn't want this to happen. One of those officials is the same one who said several months ago that the Iraqi insurgents were in their final death throes. (If so, which it's not, the last illness is a very long and lingering one.) Would a French monopoly sell to Saddam Hussein or to a surrogate when the French have legitimate uses for that uranium themselves. That's one of the reasons why they're in Niger. Blackouts do occur in American cities. Yesterday's blackout in Baghdad occurred in the run-up to a significant national plebiscite, and Iraqi technicians have identified the precise area where the insurgents sabotaged the electric lines. "Happy crowds" waved during the war, as you say, and they even tore down Saddam's statue, but those crowds were portrayed by Adm officials as being a part of the cakewalk that we would experience in Iraq. The May 1 "Mission Accomplished" ceremony was part of that same mindset. Turks could use brutal methods in their southeast because there were few or no foreign journalists there to see it or to talk to the witnesses or victims. We unfortunately have the will to use brutal tactics. The recent 90-9 vote in the Senate wasn't taken for nothing. We don't have the ability as the Turks may have had because, for us, there's the possibility that people might send emails or take pictures--whether they are journalists or soldiers. As in Abu Ghraib, where--if your information on the Turks is correct--the conduct of the handlers and jailers may have looked like that seen in a Turkish prison. By the time the uranium claim had gone through some of its whittling, the 2003 State of the Union address said that <<the British had received intelligence that...>> That statement did not include any specific US endorsement of the intelligence or any claim that the British endorsed the intelligence. It's word-by-word the equivalent of "John Doe has received information that..." But the inferred message was largely different from the spoken words.

GBD, I saw some happy soldiers on Thursday saying how glad they were to be doing good work in Iraq. If you like, I can find for you the AP story on the event. I hope you will allow me this comment. I'm not certain that the British stand behind that claim anymore. If you believe you've heard corroborating evidence, that's great; but you can see that the statement in itself remains a hopeful one. As for the suicide bombers, it may be true that none of them are proved to be Iraqis, but I bet the point would be rather hard to prove from forensics when the remains of the bomber are scattered all over the blast area. Also, according to press reports, the insurgents are largely Sunni Muslim ethnic Arab Iraqis.

The fascinating thing about this discussion is that has amply proved Jerm's central point. The media can and do have the power to manipulate--whoever here is right or wrong here. You pick your media and you take their choice.

[gurlbidesign]

Note to self, never get into a quagmire political discussion while trying to clean house. If somebody wants to come over and fold laundry while I continue to vacumn and dust, I will concede to any points they wish to make....the sky is green, Bush is an idiot, blood for oil, any silly thing they want to push, I will be all for it.....honest. 8O :D

[Mr_Oblivious]

Mr. Oblivious doesn't even know where to begin with Sandy's post, except to say that he is amazed Sandy would rely on "press reports" as the basis for so much of his argument in the same post Sandy ends with words about the media's power to manipulate. That he truly doubts someone worried about preserving her cover would work openly at CIA headquarters. That the American criminals at Abu Ghraib were turned in by other American soldiers and were under investigation before the story ever appeared in the media, and that they are now going to jail themselves, unlike what you would find in a Turkish prison. Still, Mr. Oblivious is glad that Sandy now admits there were "happy crowds" in Iraq.

Mr. Oblivious could go on, but he senses more anger and cynicism than honest analysis of a complex situation.

[sandy82]

Mr. Oblivious doesn't even know where to begin with Sandy's post, except to say that he is amazed Sandy would rely on "press reports" as the basis for so much of his argument in the same post Sandy ends with words about the media's power to manipulate. That he truly doubts someone worried about preserving her cover would work openly at CIA headquarters. That the American criminals at Abu Ghraib were turned in by other American soldiers and were under investigation before the story ever appeared in the media, and that they are now going to jail themselves, unlike what you would find in a Turkish prison. Still, Mr. Oblivious is glad that Sandy now admits there were "happy crowds" in Iraq.

Mr. Oblivious could go on, but he senses more anger and cynicism than honest analysis of a complex situation.

LOL, I think you're seeing things. I am enjoying our exchange. The anger and presumptive statements seem to be coming from you.

One relies on press reports in the absence of being there. Better than one press report on a particular topic are reports from various media.

I frankly can't understand much of what you're saying above, due to the punctuation. I can't tell whether you're saying something or whether you're trying to say that I'm saying it.

[morrcomm]

I have to go with gurlbidesign on this one. I have family that will most likely be in Iraq shortly, and I've had friends serving there from the start. What I've always heard from them is a very different picture than what I always see presented in the media. Without them, I would probably believe that Iraq was nothing more than car bombs and hopelessness as well, rather than that being just one sliver of what's really going on there.

This really got driven home to me during their election earlier this year. I remember seeing reporter after reporter and so-called expert after so-called expert being shocked at what they were seeing. They'd missed what had been right in front of them all the time, but what the people many of us know there had been telling us all along.

"Hotel Journalism" at its finest... :wink:

[gurlbidesign]

Let me savour this....I actually have people agreeing with my point of view. Morrcomm, are you married???? Do ya want to be? I like a guy who thinks I am right once in awhile. :D

[morrcomm]

Sorry, gurlbidesign, I'm already married, but I'm flattered by the offer! :wink:

[gurlbidesign]

Always the bridesmaid............ :? :wink:

[sandy82]

I have to go with gurlbidesign on this one. I have family that will most likely be in Iraq shortly, and I've had friends serving there from the start. What I've always heard from them is a very different picture than what I always see presented in the media. Without them, I would probably believe that Iraq was nothing more than car bombs and hopelessness as well, rather than that being just one sliver of what's really going on there.

This really got driven home to me during their election earlier this year. I remember seeing reporter after reporter and so-called expert after so-called expert being shocked at what they were seeing. They'd missed what had been right in front of them all the time, but what the people many of us know there had been telling us all along.

"Hotel Journalism" at its finest... :wink:

You have to go with gurlbidesign on this one.

Have to?

What you've always heard from them...

Always?

(Latest polls show that over half the American public thinks the war is a mistake. Those pollsters aren't talking to the right people, are they?)

morrcomm, you have some predictable and lovable traits. You know what they are. :wink:

By the way, we have at least one active-duty veteran of the Iraq/Afghanistan theater on this site as a regular contributor. I'll let him reveal himself, if he wants to. He could tell us, first-hand, what he really thinks of the war zones. But these days, he may not want to do that. He's had some harsh words for the Bush Administration, and he may realize that freedom of speech only goes so far these days. And he's still on active duty. More's the pity.

[sandy82]

Always the bridesmaid............ :? :wink:

GBD---skot hasn't been seen since Wednesday...
I wonder where he went.

By the way, Mr. Oblivious said he could go on. At least, he was truthful.
He seems to have..er..went.

I hope he'll be back, and under the same name. :wink:

I have my doubts on that one, but I also have my hopes.
.

[gurlbidesign]

Sandy, you have been pretty vocal against the President....I haven't heard of any knocks on your door. Not getting to us via WiFi from some gulag are you? What freedom of speech have you lost? Active duty military have always been under different rules....The Uniformed Code of Military Justice. As a retired service member I lived under those rules for many years.

[sandy82]

Sandy, you have been pretty vocal against the President....I haven't heard of any knocks on your door. Not getting to us via WiFi from some gulag are you? What freedom of speech have you lost? Active duty military have always been under different rules....The Uniformed Code of Military Justice. As a retired service member I lived under those rules for many years.

I've been vocal about the president, along with a number of others. And, as you know, I've been a life-long Republican...although I've wavered with the current bunch. They make me want to laugh or cry. My positions haven't moved one inch. I hope that one day we can all get our party back again.

I'm well familiar with the UCMJ...which reminds me of the active-duty JAG officers who were concerned about various procedures not being followed in the past several years.

On freedom of speech. A different topic. Let's have a rest. Then we can go through the various people (sitting in the audience) who were arrested at campaign rallies in the fall, library books, scripted "town meetings" by invitation only, and some other stuff.

Later, not now. You can have the last word for now, if you want.
.

[morrcomm]

(Latest polls show that over half the American public thinks the war is a mistake. Those pollsters aren't talking to the right people, are they?)

I think we both realize that polls are a snapshot of public mood at a given point in time. Poll numbers also change over time, and especially with how the questions are worded and with what choices are allowed for a response. Polls can't tell you whether a policy or a decision is right or wrong; they can only tell you how popular it is at that specific moment. So unless you believe the majority is always correct -- and I would guess that you don't -- I'd be wary of using polls as a way to prove your point about anything. (Latest polls show a majority of the American public against gay marriage and for teaching Intelligent Design along with evolution in schools. Would you accept those polls as an argument for those positions being correct? I hope not. :wink: )

By the way, we have at least one active-duty veteran of the Iraq/Afghanistan theater on this site as a regular contributor. I'll let him reveal himself, if he wants to. He could tell us, first-hand, what he really thinks of the war zones. But these days, he may not want to do that. He's had some harsh words for the Bush Administration, and he may realize that freedom of speech only goes so far these days. And he's still on active duty. More's the pity.

I'd be interested in what he thinks. I've heard harsh words as well from the people I know who are and have been there over how things have sometimes been handled, but again, blunders and missteps are far from the entire story. I've also heard great reasons for hope, and first-hand accounts that have convinced me even more that the war was not a mistake, even given our blunders and missteps. I don't think anyone has ever said that Iraq is all sweetness and light, or that no mistakes have been made and no predictions have been wrong, only that the media (for whatever reason) haven't been giving us the full picture of what's going on there.

morrcomm, you have some predictable and lovable traits. You know what they are. :wink:

Sorry, Sandy. Bait not taken... :wink:

You have to go with gurlbidesign on this one.

Have to?

What you've always heard from them...

Always?

Again, sorry, Sandy. I'm happy to debate the issues with you, but I'll pass on the game of "gotcha"... :roll:

[gurlbidesign]

What freedoms have you personally lost, speech or otherwise. I certainly haven't lost any. And "those people at rallies who were arrested", what was the charge against them? I doubt they were just sitting there minding there own business.

[sandy82]

What freedoms have you personally lost, speech or otherwise. I certainly haven't lost any. And "those people at rallies who were arrested", what was the charge against them? I doubt they were just sitting there minding there own business.

On freedom of speech. A different topic. Let's have a rest. Then we can go through the various people (sitting in the audience) who were arrested at campaign rallies in the fall, library books, scripted "town meetings" by invitation only, and some other stuff.

Later, not now. You can have the last word for now, if you want.

[sandy82]

Morrcomm, very interesting post. Many thanks.

[Mr_Oblivious]

LOL, I think you're seeing things. I am enjoying our exchange. The anger and presumptive statements seem to be coming from you.

One relies on press reports in the absence of being there. Better than one press report on a particular topic are reports from various media.

I frankly can't understand much of what you're saying above, due to the punctuation. I can't tell whether you're saying something or whether you're trying to say that I'm saying it.

Mr. Sandy,

Mr. Oblivious does envy the upper body development in Skot's avatar, but Mr. Oblivious is not Skot. Mr. Oblivious was confused by your fixation on this Skot until Mr. Oblivious went back deeper into the posts on this site. Mr. Oblivious soon saw that you have often looked for secret identities of posters, and he has decided this must be some strange form of hazing that all new site members must undergo. Mr. Oblivious now feels welcome here!

When Mr. Oblivious refers to someone else, he uses the person's name or "you." Mr. Oblivious refers to himself as "Mr. Oblivious" or "he," following in the august footsteps of other scions of third-personhood, like Vanilla Ice and Nixon. He can see how you might have been confused by his last post, even though he had thought the context would have made the pronoun references clear. Yet even Mr. Oblivious realizes that a focus on deeper semantical meanings beneath the words of posts can sometimes obscure the plain meaning of posts. So, Mr. Oblivious was speaking for himself in the second and third sentences of his last post, and in the future, he will strive to be more clear.

Mr. Oblivious also holds no anger in this thread or toward you. He has corrected incorrect facts, tried to provide context that was lacking, and questioned your conclusions. Even Mr. Oblivious knows that disagreement is not the same thing as anger. Mr. Oblivious has, however, found much anger in addition to disagreement expressed in your posts toward many political figures, and often in very personal rather than policy-oriented terms. Mr. Oblivious still wonders if that same anger might not be coloring your analysis of their policies and the complex events in this area.

[Mr_Oblivious]

.
GBD, I hadn't heard about the intercepted phone calls. I'm sure you did hear about them. My skepticism is not directed toward you. It's more general in nature. In order to satisfied, I wouldn't accept transcripts, much less translations. I would want my own experts (American and Iraqi; technical, linguistic, military, cultural) to listen to the original tapes for accent, dialect, profession-related abbreviations and slang. Then I would want to do stress tests on the recorded voices, broad-scope analysis of background noises, see the originals of the chain-of-custody documents and interview everyone in the chain(s). On and on. It would be ideal if one could trace the actual contents of those reported phone calls from original, verified tapes through all the various intermediate steps, unbroken, until the contents reached whatever media packaged the final information and delivered it to the public. Otherwise, it is possible that the phone calls were reported but, in fact, were never made.

Mr. Oblivious wonders how Sandy feels he can rely on press reports for much of anything, if this is the standard he requires.

Just like the yellow-cake uranium or the meeting in Vienna between an underling of Saddam Hussein and an underling of Osama bin Laden. The meeting was widely reported, but then it was recanted.

Even Mr. Oblivious knows that the meeting was alleged to have taken place in Prague, that as many as four meetings have been alleged, and that the meetings are alleged to have involved the leader of the 9/11 hijackers (hardly a simple "underling") with an Iraqi intelligence operative.

And even Mr. Oblivious knows that this intelligence came from the Czechs, and that they have stood by it to this day. And Mr. Oblivious knows that although the New York Times once reported that President Havel phoned President Bush and said that on further consideration, the meeting had not actually taken place, Havel's spokesman has called that New York Times report "a fabrication."

Mr. Oblivious also knows that CIA has been unable to confirm that the meeting took place. Mr. Oblivious does not know if the meeting did take place, but given that organization's track record at missing things over the decades, he would consider it the height of obliviousness to take the CIA's view as the final word on this.

[MsOblivious]

Ms. Oblivious thinks that it's not polite for users to use multiple accounts to harass certain users. Ms. Oblivious knows that Mr. Oblivious is really Morrcomm and she thinks people ought to know. Ms. Oblivious thinks that it should be noted how Mr. Oblivious seems to harass Sandy at every turn. Ms. Oblivious knows that Mr. Oblivicomm knows damn well that Sandy is female, yet Mr. Oblivious seems to enjoy referring to her as a he. Before Mr. Oblivious goes jumping to conclusions, no Ms. Oblivious is not Sandy, but Ms. Oblivious does have your ip and she checked both of your accounts.

Mr. Sandy,

Mr. Oblivious does envy the upper body development in Skot's avatar, but Mr. Oblivious is not Skot. Mr. Oblivious was confused by your fixation on this Skot until Mr. Oblivious went back deeper into the posts on this site. Mr. Oblivious soon saw that you have often looked for secret identities of posters, and he has decided this must be some strange form of hazing that all new site members must undergo. Mr. Oblivious now feels welcome here!

When Mr. Oblivious refers to someone else, he uses the person's name or "you." Mr. Oblivious refers to himself as "Mr. Oblivious" or "he," following in the august footsteps of other scions of third-personhood, like Vanilla Ice and Nixon. He can see how you might have been confused by his last post, even though he had thought the context would have made the pronoun references clear. Yet even Mr. Oblivious realizes that a focus on deeper semantical meanings beneath the words of posts can sometimes obscure the plain meaning of posts. So, Mr. Oblivious was speaking for himself in the second and third sentences of his last post, and in the future, he will strive to be more clear.

Mr. Oblivious also holds no anger in this thread or toward you. He has corrected incorrect facts, tried to provide context that was lacking, and questioned your conclusions. Even Mr. Oblivious knows that disagreement is not the same thing as anger. Mr. Oblivious has, however, found much anger in addition to disagreement expressed in your posts toward many political figures, and often in very personal rather than policy-oriented terms. Mr. Oblivious still wonders if that same anger might not be coloring your analysis of their policies and the complex events in this area.

[morrcomm]

Ms. Oblivious thinks that it's not polite for users to use multiple accounts to harass certain users. Ms. Oblivious knows that Mr. Oblivious is really Morrcomm and she thinks people ought to know. Ms. Oblivious thinks that it should be noted how Mr. Oblivious seems to harass Sandy at every turn. Ms. Oblivious knows that Mr. Oblivicomm knows damn well that Sandy is female, yet Mr. Oblivious seems to enjoy referring to her as a he. Before Mr. Oblivious goes jumping to conclusions, no Ms. Oblivious is not Sandy, but Ms. Oblivious does have your ip and she checked both of your accounts.

Actually, I don't know damn well that Sandy is a female. Especially since I've even had EMG refer to Sandy as a "he" in a PM.

But yes, I admit I was Mr. Oblivious, which started as a one-night lark of exhausted punchiness after seeing the whole Mallic/That_guy episode with no intention of having anything to do with Sandy. The temptation to begin a political post with "Even Mr. Oblivious knows..." turned out to be too great, however, and the character soon took on a life of its own.

I think even Mrs. Oblivious will agree that actual points were being made as well -- and that *skot* most likely ended up with more grief directed his way than Sandy ever got from Mr. Oblivious. In fact, I was about to come out as Mr. Oblivious because of the skot fixation, which quite honestly surprised even me.

I apologize for letting this lark get carried away -- and I especially apologize to skot -- but if Ms. Oblivious truly worries about user's being harassed at every turn, I'm surprised she waited till now to voice any displeasure. When it comes to recent forum "harassment," I'm a rank amateur considering the tweaks of Mr. Oblivious.

[skot]

Ms. Oblivious thinks that it's not polite for users to use multiple accounts to harass certain users. Ms. Oblivious knows that Mr. Oblivious is really Morrcomm and she thinks people ought to know. Ms. Oblivious thinks that it should be noted how Mr. Oblivious seems to harass Sandy at every turn. Ms. Oblivious knows that Mr. Oblivicomm knows damn well that Sandy is female, yet Mr. Oblivious seems to enjoy referring to her as a he. Before Mr. Oblivious goes jumping to conclusions, no Ms. Oblivious is not Sandy, but Ms. Oblivious does have your ip and she checked both of your accounts.

Mr. Sandy,

Mr. Oblivious does envy the upper body development in Skot's avatar, but Mr. Oblivious is not Skot. . . .

Sandy or Ms. Oblivious or whoever you are or aren't - do you not have a life? I mean a real one? I've got to admit that I'm more than a little amused to read that someone has actually checked on the ip of a person they will most likely never meet. I'm also just a little disturbed by it. It takes paranoia to a whole new level. But really, to not only have stooped to the level of checking ip's, but to also then say right out loud that you've done it? Oh my. I'm certain that NOW Mr. Oblivious, or Mr. Oblibicom, or whomever, is really frightened that you know his ip, and will more certainly take care with his words. Knowing the ip probably narrows the potential user down to less than 100,000 people. That's almost the same as knowing who the user really is, isn't it? Again, oh my. I get frightened just imagining the power of someone that might discover my ip. Please don't do it. Oh, please, please, please. please, please?

(Putting his fear to one side for just a moment, skot is going to add that he appreciates the kind words of Mr. Oblivious regarding skot's upper body.)

[missypuss]

I think you should entitle this whole thread." Is a certain forum member trying to control us ?" and be damned at the fallout from it...... :twisted:

[skot]

Actually, I don't know damn well that Sandy is a female. Especially since I've even had EMG refer to Sandy as a "he" in a PM.

Actually, I also thought that morrcomm was female until the memo from EMG referred to her/him as he. To avoid confusion, from here on out maybe it would be best to refer to her/him (Sandy82) as TOWIMTHA (The One Who Is More Than Half Annoying).

. . .
I think even Mrs. Oblivious will agree that actual points were being made as well -- and that *skot* most likely ended up with more grief directed his way than Sandy ever got from Mr. Oblivious. In fact, I was about to come out as Mr. Oblivious because of the skot fixation, which quite honestly surprised even me.

I apologize for letting this lark get carried away -- and I especially apologize to skot -- but if Ms. Oblivious truly worries about user's being harassed at every turn, I'm surprised she waited till now to voice any displeasure. When it comes to recent forum "harassment," I'm a rank amateur considering the tweaks of Mr. Oblivious.

Oh please. Look at his picture up there in the corner. skot's a big boy. And besides, you have nothing to apologize for. I enjoyed your lark, morrcomm. From my perspective, you didn't get carried away at all. Methinks that maybe it's TOWIMTHA who gets just a little carried away with itself.

[skot]

GBD---skot hasn't been seen since Wednesday...
I wonder where he went.

By the way, Mr. Oblivious said he could go on. At least, he was truthful.
He seems to have..er..went.

I hope he'll be back, and under the same name. :wink:

I have my doubts on that one, but I also have my hopes.
.

How did I miss this one? Hmmm. Maybe it was that I was busy with what most people refer to as life. I know I forget to mention on this site that I had a life, but silly me, I figured you had already divined that for your own selfr from googling and contacting my IP(s).

In truth, sweetie, I never really left at all. I've been here. It's just that I'm not quite as obsessed as you. There are actually entire strings of posts that I don't feel a compulsion to post anything to. It's called "restraint".

Almost as pressing - maybe you need to rethink your modes of research. How did you miss that I had been here? And only under the name of skot? Who IS it hiding behind that curtain. Could it be that Sandy82 is actually *not* all-powerful?

Nah...

[sandy82]

Morrcomm, very interesting post. Many thanks.

After finishing the post above, I left the site for a little over 15 days. I didn't sign on again until now. During that time, I note that 81 posts were made--although multiple posts in individual threads are not counted separately.

I have no idea who Ms. Oblivious is, but I appreciate her efforts to expose someone who could do with considerably more exposure.

I hope to get with EMG and find out what rules, if any, now govern behavior on the site and whether they apply to everyone equally.

In the meantime, a Happy Hallowe'en to everyone!
.

[Ceot]

Just so were at it i,ve been on and off for a couple years now.
Enjoy finding my long lost posts under all my stupid names.
Shouldnt be to hard, I dont use punctiation.

I,ll let you know if you found me or not.
That should take you some time.
Enjoy....Ken...

[thisguy]

i was browsing first posts on this topic and i'm amazed.. not because people still keep themselves "informed", but because whatever this media does on you, you still seem to have no direct understanding HOW or WHY. it's still about details, not the purpose or method.

even the first question: whether "something is going on" .. everything is going on right now.. and sad part is not whether you or me TRY to understand it.. sad part is, that it WORKS on majority of people who don't even have such question in their head, nobody put it there!

as you should know everything you do affects you. under hypnosis the effects are just stronger, but effects are everywhere. Pushing messages and pulling toughts is ALL THERE IS about media. no info - no thought, fake info - fake thought.

I was writing a piece few years ago labeled (translated) "When did you last time think your own thought?"

this controlling thing begins much MUCH earlier than in media.. media is just one form of it.. it's really everywhere.. at one point it's just society keeping tiself functioning, but the same information pathways can be and are constantly used for different agendas.. and it's truly futile to engineer yourself out of this mess.. because it's also advertised from the same channels, that being "too much different" in anything, is something that needs to be corrected.. so infected information carriers spread it further.. and beginnings of those pathways are very well guarded for obvious reasons..

..so only way is to build your own channels. you know if you did it right, when the "official" channels start labeling you.. after that it's quickly over. and i'm not being even slightest bit paranoid, just honest :)