The Collusion of Media and Politics - A lot Closer than you Think!

I'm sure we are all aware of the media black out that Senator Sander's, and the rest of us, has so very much enjoyed through out most of this election season. And I'm sure your aware of the shenanigans that have transpired in various voting locations (Howdy Bill!), primaries, caucuses, like voter purges, oh the alleged "Bernie Bro" violence in Nevada, and just the whole gambit of "questionable" events, accusations, suspicious exit polls, that anywhere else on this planet the US, and almost every other country, would call constitutes glaring election fraud!

And let us not forget the DNC and how they, DWS, has help rig this election. We have the damn e-mails as PROOF.

We complain about the media being biased, and we find clips all over youtube substantiating our claims, but more often than not we are scolded we are just spreading CT crap, and we just need to STFU. The media keeps repeating it's "official narrative", there is no alternative. And from the amount of free advertising and promotion of Trump that they have engaged in, I don't think one would be too far out there to conclude that they (media) want a Trump presidency. (The money is too good!)

The cache of leaked and hacked e-mails, not only from Hillary, the DNC, but people she e-mailed back and forth, have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the DNC had it in for Senator Sanders from the very beginning, as we had complained about, but were scolded and told we're full of it, or we're BernieBros yadie yadie ydada...or just STFU.

Check out this video from RT, featuring legal and media analyst Lionel of Lionel Nation, joins RT’s Simone Del Rosario, listing numerous married couples who both work in media and politics, such as former ABC News exec Ian Cameron, who is married to Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor in the Obama administration. Lionel continues to explain that marriage between people in the media and politicians can lead to biased reporting.

Think for a moment about our former Chairman of the FED, whose wife is Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC. How this insidious collusion works, as reported by Wall Street on Parade:

"Leave it to NBC to remind us that corporate media is tone deaf when it comes to facing up to outrageous conflicts of interest. The final presidential debate before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary aired last night on NBC and was co-moderated by Lester Holt and Andrea Mitchell. Given the public focus on Hillary Clinton’s financial ties to Wall Street, it was clear that hard-hitting policy questions on reforming Wall Street would need to be asked during the debate.

So why put Andrea Mitchell on that stage instead of an objective media moderator? Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan, the man whose 18-year stint as Fed Chairman included a two-term appointment by Bill Clinton’s White House. Greenspan was correctly dubbed by Time Magazine as “25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis”; was the man who played a key role together with the Clinton administration’s Wall Street sycophants Robert Rubin and Larry Summers in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act that ushered in the devastating deregulation of Wall Street and subsequent collapse in 2008; and the man who attempted to lend credence to the nutty “selfishness is good/government regulation is the enemy” theories of Ayn Rand, Greenspan’s long-time economic mentor."

Snip...

"Despite a lifetime of evidence, including the rigging of the Nasdaq stock market by Wall Street players that came to light in the late 90s, the corrupted research and pump and dump schemes that led to the 2001 dot.com crash on Wall Street, Greenspan actually never did let the facts on the ground change his views.

Andrea Mitchell demonstrated just how conflicted her role as moderator was, when she needled Senator Bernie Sanders about his remark that Bill Clinton’s behavior in office was “disgraceful.”

Mitchell posed her question as follows:

“Senator Sanders, let me ask you a question. You called Bill Clinton’s past transgressions, quote, ‘totally, totally, totally disgraceful and unacceptable.’ Senator, do you regret saying that?”

Sanders said he had only made that statement when pointedly asked the question and was sticking to his larger promise to focus on the big issues that concern the American people.

Mitchell pressed ahead with more needling, saying: “You didn’t have to answer it that way, though. Why did you?”

Sanders said words to the effect that it would have been a front page story if he had refused to answer the question, adding: “Yes, his behavior was deplorable. Have I ever once said a word about that issue? No, I have not. I’m going to debate Secretary Clinton, Governor O’Malley, on the issues facing the American people, not Bill Clinton’s personal behavior.”

Bill Clinton was the man responsible for giving Mitchell’s spouse an extra eight years as the second most powerful man in the U.S. Bill Clinton was responsible for making Greenspan and Mitchell a power couple in Washington D.C. A sitting President of the United States having sex with a young intern is disgraceful, unacceptable and deplorable. Most Americans understand this. That Andrea Mitchell thinks Bernie Sanders’ view on this topic needs to be examined on network television shows just how unsuited she was to moderate last night’s debate."

Of course then there is Chris Matthew's wife getting bucks from Hillary donors, who don't even live in the same city or state as she does. From the DailyCaller:

"research by The Daily Caller reveals that Hillary’s biggest donors are backing Matthews’ wife — Kathleen Matthews — in her congressional race in Maryland, even though many of them don’t even live in the same state, much less the same district, that Matthews is seeking to represent.

Kathleen Matthews, who worked closely with the Clinton Foundation for four years during her time at Marriott (which she just recently left to enter the congressional race), has blown away her primary opponents in terms of fundraising. By the end of 2015, Matthews had raised $1,569,092, FEC records show. Only one of her eight primary opponents — state Sen. Jamie Raskin — had raised more than $1 million by year’s end.

Many of Matthews’ biggest donors have close ties to either the Clinton foundation or the Clinton's themselves. As noted by Bloomberg two years ago, 12 families have donated to every single Clinton campaign and charity. Of the 12 families, the two families that have donated the most to the Clinton's are both funding Matthews’ campaign. Four families from Bloomberg’s list of biggest Clinton donors have given to the Matthews’ campaign. None of the four live in Maryland, where Matthews is actually running."

Unknw I don't know if banning marriages between political / federal / government people and media anchors is a solution, but I tell ya, to me right now it seems like a huge part of the problem with our media. The insidious ways in which the elite manufacture consent requires us to be extremely vigilant in our efforts to uncover and expose their practices.

As a result of those hacks and e-mail leaks, we know that Mrs. Clinton and her staff at the State department were arranging favors and jobs for donors to her charity foundation (ahem, money laundering machine), that also happened to have donated to her election campaign or SuperPAC.

Obviously Mrs. Clinton, the cheerleader of the 1%, is lining up her cronies to take over once Obama is out of office, and she and her wall street buddies can continue pressing forward with the Neoliberal economic project.

Climate change be damn, there is a gold mine in selling off US assets, forcing the US public into more debt and removing what constitutional rights we have left.

Oh, but wait there's more. Remember the internet? Yeah, well it looks like Google might be in on the act as well. Shok

As pissed off and disgusted with this whole thing that I am, I came across this article in Sputnik that revels how Google has been "filtering" (rigging) search results, too, dare I say it, white wash, Hillary's history. At least that's the gist of what a new Sputnik Exclusive, (another one of those Putin propaganda PR machines, if you believe the MSM), is reporting.

I will assume a few here think Sputnik is Putin propaganda, and it may very well be, but, one can't know about something, unless one is open to "different" information for analysis. If one only gets one source of information, do you really think you'll have all the facts? FYI, what I do like about Sputnik, is they will cover topics the MSM won't touch. It's not gospel fact, but a different source of "data" for analysis, M K?

From Sputnik

In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US.

Biased search rankings can swing votes and alter opinions, and a new study shows that Google's autocomplete can too. A scientific study I published last year showed that search rankings favoring one candidate can quickly convince undecided voters to vote for that candidate — as many as 80 percent of voters in some demographic groups. My latest research shows that a search engine could also shift votes and change opinions with another powerful tool: autocomplete.

Don't be Evil. Yeah, I remember that advertising slogan (propaganda) when google first started out. Like they were going to become some kind of eco-friendly, righteous benevolent corporation.

Are you kidding me?

From the Youtube page of SourceFed:

Google has responded to this video via an email statement to the Washington Times:

"Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms."

Read the full article here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

While researching for a wrap-up on the June 7 Presidential Primaries, we discovered evidence that Google may be manipulating autocomplete recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton. If true, this would mean that Google Searches aren’t objectively reflecting what the majority of Internet searches are actually looking for, possibly violating Google’s algorithm. According to a research paper cited in this video, that kind of search result manipulation has the potential to substantially influence the outcome of actual elections.

Sources:
Google Search Results Can Change Elections: http://bit.ly/1MTSboF
Wikileak’s Julian Assange Links Google and Clinton Camp: http://bit.ly/25LaEPF
Eric Schmidt, Head of Pentagon Board: http://bit.ly/21HREvG
Eric Schmidt Funds Groundwork: http://bit.ly/1FWIXar
Official 'Groundwork' Website: http://bit.ly/1WP53z3

Music By:
@ronaldjenkees, @Hagemeister, Discovery Music Source

Well gee, what was that, Don't be Evil?

More from the Sputnik article:

Generally speaking, we are finding that Lieberman was right: It is somewhat difficult to get the Google search bar to suggest negative searches related to Mrs. Clinton or to make any Clinton-related suggestions when one types a negative search term. Bing and Yahoo, on the other hand, often show a number of negative suggestions in response to the same search terms. Bing and Yahoo seem to be showing us what people are actually searching for; Google is showing us something else — but what, and for what purpose?

As for Google Trends, as Lieberman reported, Google indeed withholds negative search terms for Mrs. Clinton even when such terms show high popularity in Trends. We have also found that Google often suggests positive search terms for Mrs. Clinton even when such terms are nearly invisible in Trends. The widely held belief, reinforced by Google's own documentation, that Google's search suggestions are based on "what other people are searching for" seems to be untrue in many instances.

Personally, I have configured my browser to not allow search suggestions, because I am sick to death of "auto-fill", auto this, auto that, holy (expletive) I have a brain and like to use it. (Smart phone my dying ass, how many phone numbers can you remember?)

But, if one thinks about it, Google, Bing and Yahoo "control" what we find, who owns them?

An excerpt from the report by Robert Epstein:

Internet search rankings have a significant impact on consumer choices, mainly because users trust and choose higher-ranked results more than lower-ranked results. Given the apparent power of search rankings, we asked whether they could be manipulated to alter the preferences of undecided voters in democratic elections.

Snip...

We present evidence from five experiments in two countries suggesting the power and robustness of the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). Specifically, we show that (i) bi-ased search rankings can shift the voting preferences of un-decided voters by 20% or more, (ii) the shift can be much
higher in some demographic groups, and (iii) such rankings can be masked so that people show no awareness of the manipulation. Knowing the proportion of undecided voters in a population who have Internet access, along with the proportion of those voters who can be influenced using SEME, allows one to calculate the win margin below which SEME might be able to determine an election outcome.

In a much broader sense, and considering all these "1%" MF's all hang out at the same places (Limo Liberals & Cocktail Party Progressives with their country club donors), which doesn't have to mean there is some "conspiracy". Hell, they sit and chit chat and discuss how to "sway" public opinion on one issue after another.

This "internet filtering" that Google appears to have / is engaging in, is just another filter to add to the 5 in Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model from their seminal work, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, published in 1988.

Amy Goodman explains how this “manufacturing of Consent” has actually help create the Trump phenomenon, and has been behind the media black out of Senator Sanders presidential campaign.

Have you not heard the clips or read the articles about the MSM CEO's talking about (to paraphrase) about how Trump is really bad for democracy, but hey, they're making money hand in fist!

From Mediaite.com:

At a Morgan Stanley investors’ conference in San Francisco today, the chief executive officer of CBS, Les Moonves, found the silver lining of this year’s tumultuous election season as only a businessperson can. The latest chairman of the company said, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,” and called Donald Trump‘s presence in the race a “good thing.”

Gee, almost a year ago Thom Hartmann discussed the “Wave of Silence” by major media on Senator Sanders.

Think about it, with only 6 corporations controlling the vast majority of TV, printed and radio media, as well as acquiring a growing segment of online properties, we are facing an ever growing threat to our democratic republic and loosing perspective of what reality actually is. We live in a virtual echo chamber of “elite” consensus, if you don’t go outside of the MSM.

The media, through elite consensus, is denying the American people, ALL the relevant information about our political candidates, not their chosen preference. I seem to remember somewhere that this was OUR country, not theirs?

Where is the debate on the policy issues? And not this clowning around horse shit, about the size of someone’s thingy or whether someone can hold their bladder or not?

Google, Bing, Yahoo, are all a part of this "media" environment (propaganda filtering), not to mention FaceBook, Youtube, and every other corporate owned social media site. How many times has FB censored it's users? How many times has YT cracked down on political activists for being too political in their videos? Who gets preference on Twitter for trending topics?

Of course Snopes.Com reports:

While the claims posited in the video displayed above may sound like the workings of a conspiracy theorist, SourceFed didn't fudge any of its evidence. We double checked the videos findings and confirmed that Google does return different results than Bing and Yahoo for searches such as "Hillary Clinton Cri" and "Hillary Clinton Ind." For instance, Google completes the search "Hillary Clinton Cri" as "Hillary Clinton Crime Reform", while Bing and Yahoo complete the search as "Hillary Clinton Criminal Charges" and "Hillary Clinton Criminal." Google provides this result despite the fact that "Hillary Clinton Crime Reform" is a less popular term on Google Trends.

But, gee, right off the bat, the story is equated to CT. "may sound like the workings of a conspiracy theorist".

I reckon in the big scheme of things, distort all information (information dominance), and you get a lot of confused people, wandering in the wilderness, gee who do I vote for? Does Hillary need depends?

Considering these media organizations, and let's face it FB, YT, twitter, all of them are "media organizations", who are nothing more than "corporations", and that they ...

"serve to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state and private support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity." (p.1).”

All of these corporations are collecting huge amounts of "personal data" about us, and serve up advertising, and who know what other crap, based on that data.

Now think for a moment, with all the crimes that corporations have engaged in over, I dunna know, the last 50 years, it's quite possible, most likely probable (speculation) they (internet companies) are skewing the search results, not to mention what "ads" or other relevant information gets either served up, or filtered out (Bernie), because of some "corporate policy" about some BS excuses, as Google as offered about "filtered" searches of that, female dog (no offense...), that we know Hillary Clinton to be, and the crimes (against humanity) she is associated with.

After all, all these people all donate to one another charity, political campaign, make massive ad buys in on one anothers "advertising platforms". (generalization)

Google, Bing, Yahoo, FB, YT, Twitter, all are multi-national corporate growing monopolies, gobbling up our data and severing it back to us, spoon fed and stripped of meaning, history, everything relevant so we can remain, obedient workers and claim our status as knowledge workers......

I wonder Scratch one-s head if we just took the Forbes 400 list and just started connecting the dot we would be able to determine who is really controlling the world, because obviously, these 400 people have the most money to do so, and probably own all the media on the planet (speculation).

These 400 people, are they not the ones who have help lead us to where we are today? (I'm just saying.....are they not the "money" behind the politicians in governments, all over the world?)

I know things are bleak, but ...

(PS: Shameless self promotion, Click Here.)

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

lotlizard's picture

Search any of these “richest” lists in vain for the names and fortunes of Saudi and Gulf royals, the Sultan of Brunei, or members of the old European aristocratic families — that sort of information isn’t available to us hoi polloi.

up
0 users have voted.
Pricknick's picture

and long essay from a damned chicken.
Bravo!
If I could please make one suggestion?
Can we hope for a collision instead of a collusion?
I want honesty from the media. I wants facts. I want an unbiased medium of mendacity and truth.
Sorry. I'll go back to my daydream.

up
0 users have voted.

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

RantingRooster's picture

insert lame excuse here Scratch one-s head

up
0 users have voted.

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance;" - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

...

I want honesty from the media. I wants facts. I want an unbiased medium of mendacity and truth.

...

But we do get mendacity from the media - or did you want a mix of lying and truth from them?>

And drat - all of these videos in the OP when my room-mate just went to crash in her room with a wall adjoining mine... I'll bet I never get around to hearing them...

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

RantingRooster's picture

and now I feel even more like an idiot. (I despise language....can't we just substitute guitar or some other musical instrument for language?)

up
0 users have voted.

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance;" - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

mimi's picture

aditting that we get comments wrong, we are the majority and nobody, I say nobody, can make us idiots.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

messing up on my laptop for their pitiful competitive wars of "who is the prettiest search enginge" out there, I could easily trash my computer. Have already trashed 95 percent of my TV coverage of anything.

No fucking worth it. And well, an old saying is, that "love" makes you "blind" and getting in bed with some strange fellows makes you money but not happy. You bet these "couples" protect their interests.

As they say work and trade skills run in the family from generation to generation, you can see that everywhere from left to right, like father like son and girlies learn their sexism shtick from mommy. So, nothing that would surprise me.

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

up
0 users have voted.

"There is no good future for the US if neoliberalism, and neoliberal elites, continue to rule." -- Ian Welsh

RantingRooster's picture

way of expression and communication!

RR Drinks

up
0 users have voted.

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance;" - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

lunachickie's picture

I don't know if banning marriages between political / federal / government people and media anchors is a solution, but I tell ya, to me right now it seems like a huge part of the problem with our media. The insidious ways in which the elite manufacture consent requires us to be extremely vigilant in our efforts to uncover and expose their practices.

I had no idea that this was so widespread. I also don't think there's any way there could be such a ban--even though yes, it's a complete and total conflict of interest. But wow. I wonder how long this depth of collusion has been going on? I remember back during the 2012 POTUS debates, a (much) young(er than us) couple friends of ours went to the third one down in south Florida. They had volunteered for the Obama campaign that cycle, and somehow ended up being selected as part of a team to escort people to their seats at the facility. This is how they get to see the debate in person, of course, and they were very excited about this. So once everyone was seated, they were to take seats near the "backstage VIP" area--and they were not permitted to leave until the debate had concluded, due to security specs. So at some point, they were able to see where there was a VIP sort of "backstage" thing, and some of the people mingling back there (an area which of course they could not enter), and they swore to us that who do they see chilling over beer and cigars but Lawrence O'Donnell and Sean Hannity? First thing I said, of course, was "Did you take a picture?? (oh, pleeeeease, FSM, tell me you took a picture", lolz). They didn't try--security was hyper-vigilant--but one of them did note "It was like they were old friends..."

I do have one slight disagreement, that the media wants Trump--I am just not seeing that for some reason? While they talked him up during the primary, hindsight now says to me that it was simply another good way to keep the focus off Sanders. And then there's the War Criminal faction of DoD that just can't wait to work with Her Heinous to bomb Syria. So, well...nah...Trump wants to be all nationalist and shit, if he ever even really wanted the job at all....? Other than that, this post has some tasty reading in the links. The whole "Left media/Right media" thing is such bullshit. It seems to be possible that they've been gaming us for decades with that crap...

up
0 users have voted.

The whole "Left media/Right media" thing is such bullshit.

About your debate story. I think it was Glenn Greenwald who wrote an piece long time ago commenting on some article an up-and-comer had written about attending a party of the Washington DC media, political elites. The up and comer noted how the room was filled with these weird pairings like your post mentioned. Greenwald used the article to show how the up-and-comer inadvertently showed the country club incestuous nature of the relationships of power and the media regardless of the outward political labels. It seemed at any moment it would not be surprising to see Coulter in a corner blowing some liberal senator.

up
0 users have voted.
Alphalop's picture

and if those on the right would have used, "Corporate Media" instead of the more divisive "Liberal Media" possibly more would have woken up sooner.

I always dismissed the "Liberal Media" claims from the RWNJ's as just another piece of bullshit propaganda, but it turns out they were actually half right.

There is indeed a media bias, but it sure as shit isn't in the direction of Liberalism, it's actual bias is towards Corporatism.

As much as it pains me to admit it, we progressives could, and should, take a few lessons from the TP'ers playbook.

They might largely be assholes, but that doesn't mean they are always wrong...

up
0 users have voted.

"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me

CambridgePulsar1919's picture

'Back in the day' when I used to frequent the message boards of a certain newspaper, initially for the sports talk, there was a wonderful and rancorous politics board where the topic of 'liberal media bias' was often argued to a standstill.
I made the point to some of the wingnuts on the board that they must've noticed how often the supposedly 'liberal' media would do and say things that weren't actually in the best interests of liberal politicians or liberal politics, and in fact harmed their supposedly shared cause. I asked these wingnuts to consider that perhaps there was another overarching goal to the often contradictory behavior of supposedly 'liberal' media, and that said goal was serving very specific corporate/plutocratic interests.
Not surprisingly, I made several converts to my way of seeing the MSM. I suspect that were I able to connect with many of those old message board adversaries, far more of them would be in agreement with me after the blatant antics of the MSM this election season.

up
0 users have voted.
RantingRooster's picture

I'm not as up to date with the latest on Trump. I avoid him like the plague, I'm afraid I might Crazy on him....(focus grasshopper focus...I tell myself..)

And I agree about the left right paradigm. Oh man, what, Operation Mocking Bird? CIA, / Press, planted stories, wow.... Shok

I get weary sometimes trying to keep up.

(edited for planted stories, not planets stories Unknw )

up
0 users have voted.

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance;" - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

give a shit who wins as long as it is someone from the duopoly. They just want a close horse race to keep the masses tuned in to their bullshit. Les Moonves said it best " it may not be good for the America, but its damn good for CBS".

up
0 users have voted.

get marching orders from network heads or heads or network news or somewhere. I don't pretend to know the mechanics, but it's obvious. Compare a newsreel from WW II, depicting stuff being blown up, to the reporting of war now. Now, war news runs the gamut from sanitized and sentimentalized to non-existent.

I don't know how anyone who watched TV during the run up to the Iraq War or shortly after it began can think it was just coincidence that every single person in the msm was so eager to show that we just absolutely had to, for our very own survival, start another Korea Vietnam war of choice in a Middle Eastern country the size of what? Idaho? whose dictator had literally asked us for permission to invade Kuwait over his nation's own borders. Not one reporter on network news shows, from the early morning shows to midnight said, "Are you kiddding me?" Really? That was objective journalism in action? Are you kidding me?

And then, the embedding? wtf? Press had to be embedded for their own safety in Iraq, where the head of the country was chomping Doritos in some hide-y hole and there was zero organized resistance, when they didn't need that in WW II, with all the bombing? Would WW II reporters have put up with that kind of threat to the completeness and objectivity of their reporting on the war? I saw a TV reporter who had just returned from Iraq in the early days of the war acting downright euphoric and referring to himself and the military as "we," as he joyously reported on the actions of the troops in the tank in which he rode while "embedded."

The first Memorial Day after we invaded Iraq, I thought, okay, today, we'll hear some stuff about the war on the news. I turned on the Today Show, I heard a man talking above a helicopter. Turned out it was Matt Lauer in a copter above a highway, giving us a traffic report on the start of the long weekend. The only war news in the show? The show had set up phone calls between members of the military and their loved ones in the US. Real tearjerker stuff. That was it. One Sunday show gave the weekly casualty count at the close of the show.

Are you kidding me?

P.S. I love your promotion of this site.

up
0 users have voted.

During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. 'I have to tell you,' said their spokesman, 'that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don't have that. What's the secret? How do you do it?'[81]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger

up
0 users have voted.
RantingRooster's picture

John Pilger. I spend hours watching his documentaries. Exceptionally informative.

up
0 users have voted.

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance;" - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

All Russians knew their "news" was government propaganda and mocked and disregarded it accordingly. Many Americans still believe that our mainstream media is objective and therefore our msm is more successful in its brainwashing than Izvestia and Pravda.

up
0 users have voted.

When I tell somebody (well another American) that some piece of "common knowledge" is propaganda people wince and dismiss me. Propaganda is what Al Queda does; what the Nazis did; what Baghdad Bob did. Not what CBS does. Well, and now certainly not what Google does with its search engines, nor FB with trending subjects.

When we look back, upwards to 80% of the American people supported Bush's invasion of Iraq. And now, we have some politicians saying no more boots on the ground in the Middle East. It took about a decade of reality to intrude over the propaganda before Americans realized the folly of the invasion.

But you know, the same propaganda process is being repeated with the Russian/Chinese threat and it is working in the same way the propaganda against Saddam and for war worked in the last decade. Only the dems are leading the charge. As a nation, we don't learn--our short term nation memory is easily wiped out.

up
0 users have voted.
RantingRooster's picture

Where is Phil Donahue? He was like the only major cable talk show host to really question the war, and where did he go? Well, they fire him for not being patriotic enough. (I'm paraphrasing...)

I think only the Seattle Times was the only major news paper in the country, to seriously question the war. But that didn't last long....

up
0 users have voted.

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance;" - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Unabashed Liberal's picture

all of whom are tried and true neoliberals.

I've heard on XM, that Trump was initially given so much 'free' time because he sold--IOW, the Cable TV/network ratings went through the roof when he was a guest.

As they put it, 'it's the money, honey.' None of the reporters are apologetic, or shy away from pointing out that the 'news business' is a business first--not a public service.

It seems that the PtB weren't concerned about what the exposure might lead to, because they--the Network Brass, and the Republican Wall Streeters/corporatists--completely discounted Trump as a serious candidate.

In the end, it appears that the Republican Party never came close to exerting the same degree of top down control, as the Democratic Party routinely exercises.

Nice essay, RR!

Mollie


“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption

Update: Misty May has been adopted. Yeah!

Misty May - NMDR

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

lotlizard's picture

As a first approximation, you might think, well,

Republicans = top-down power, like in the army, or a big corporation ?

Democrats = bottom-up, go with the voters, grassroots, people power ?

And it’s just the opposite.

The Republican elite is forced to (at least pretend to) run with whatever their fractured base says, while

Democrats think power must be centralized, or else the enlightened insiders won’t be able to get things done — “for the good of all of us,” of course —

Democrat insiders
We do what we must
because we can
For the good of all of us
Except the ones who are dead

But there's no sense crying
over every mistake
You just keep on trying
saying “let them eat cake”
And compliance gets done
As you train a police gun
on the people who are
still alive.

Edit: minor word change in parody lyric

up
0 users have voted.

plan all along was Hillary v. Trump in the general. Trump was supposed to horrify us so much that we'd vote for Hillary, even though no one trusts, believes or likes her.

I have Morning Joe on in the background a lot. From back before Trump even announced, there was so much Trump love coming from both Mika and Joe, it was astonishing. The only thing even more astonishing was how many good things former Republican Congressman Joe had to say about Hillary Clinton, including how likeable she is when not on TV. (And not cursing out anyone who annoys her.)

Then it morphed into, "Omigosh,Trump might win the nomination, we'd better start taking him seriously.
Almost the second Trump got the nomination, however, everyone on Morning Joe, including former Republican Congressman Joe, was horrified, horrified I tell you, by the prospect that someone as ill preparted and nutty as Trump might actually win this election.

up
0 users have voted.

Trump is possibly the only person on the planet that Hillary has a chance of beating. And I never forget the Bill/Donald phone call before Trump announced.

up
0 users have voted.
RantingRooster's picture

we're learning all about the alarming "connections" between all these politico's, the media and the powerful, it wouldn't surprise me if Bill and "the Donald" hacked a plan for Donald to run, so Hillary would get the job.

Trump was supposed to horrify us so much that we'd vote for Hillary, even though no one trusts, believes or likes her.

I think my "shock" meter is broken, it is certainly overloaded ..... Dash 1

up
0 users have voted.

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance;" - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Unabashed Liberal's picture

that I observed was noticeably different than you referenced.

Joe and Mika are both associated with 'No Labels'--the nonpartisan (replacement) organization for the DLC, founded by Bush and 'C' operatives.

BTW, Joe is very much the 'corporatist' Repub--as opposed to a heavily 'culturally' conservative one. So, (IMO) FSC would be a natural fit for him. (We have property in the Florida panhandle district that he represented, so we're relatively familiar with his antics. His replacement was Republican Jeff Miller--another corporatist--who negotiated the partial privatization of the VA health care system in 2014.)

Again, I agree with your assessment that it,

it morphed into, "Omigosh,Trump might win the nomination, we'd better start taking him seriously.

But, from the confluence of events, beginning with Romney's scathing speech against Trump on March 3, I've observed a different timeline. (I posted the following video/transcript about a month ago, when a similar topic came up.)

From my observation, Romney's March 3 speech marked the commencement of the intense 24/7 attacks on Trump--which was a departure from their previous mocking/joking coverage of him by the Cable news channels. Many talking heads/hosts were quite vocal that he got so much 'face time' because he made the networks rating spike--even the Republican Debates set records for viewship, IIRC.

Anyhoo, the derision and pile on got real serious, real fast, after Romney's March remarks. All the journalists, and most of the talking heads and lawmakers--representing both parties--frantically did everything they could from that day on, to derail his nomination. And, of course, as you mentioned--it continues to this day.

Here's a couple of links about the March 3, 2016 speech. IMO, it lays out what the bipartisan Establishment is most freaked out about:

. . . 1) his anti-free trade stances, and proposal to impose tariffs; and, 2) his refusal to get on the cut 'entitlements' bandwagon.

Here's an excerpt from that speech that describes the PtB's main concerns about a Trump presidency:

And let me put it very plainly. If we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.

Let me explain why I say that.

First on the economy. If Donald Trump’s plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession. A few examples. His proposed 35 percent tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee America.

His tax plan in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt. So even though Donald Trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for American workers and for American families.

I truly believe that the bipartisan PtB wanted two acceptable legacy Party candidates, to ensure that their agenda would not go off track.

So, to my mind, deliberately pushing a Trump nomination would be something that the Republican Party Elites (neoliberals) would never risk--for several reasons, including that some of his policies/proposals go against the austerian Paul Ryan wing of the Republican Party. (Not to mention the other questionable issues surrounding him.)

Again, that's just my read. Not sure that we'll ever know all the facts.

Mollie


“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption

Update: Misty May has been adopted. Yeah!

Misty May - NMDR

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

lotlizard's picture

when he retired from his logo gig for VARA (the public broadcaster originally founded by the Dutch workers’ movement).

You can see the rooster’s various appearances as the VARA logo in this very short video clip:
http://vara.nl/media/355328

♪ ♫   Keep on ranting, rooster, ranting on down the line.

up
0 users have voted.

Anyone paying attention can see the collusion. When they aren't pushing Trump in front of us, they are handling Hillary with kid gloves. Meanwhile, real alternatives like Bernie then and Gary Johnson and Jill Stein now get the benign ignorance treatment. They might get name checked once in a while, but little notice is given nor expected by the readers/viewers.

I'm reminded of a line from The Devil Wears Prada, in which the season's colors were described as being "chosen for you". It is no different with our political offerings. Our "betters" have decided for us who we are going to have as our choices. The media's job is to sell them to us.

up
0 users have voted.

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

up
0 users have voted.
Phoebe Loosinhouse's picture

that I think anyone reading this essay will appreciate, I know I did.

American's Trust in Mass Media Plunges to Record low which opens with the author quoting from his own article from the day before called The Death of Main stream Media

At the end of the day, I have concluded that my focus on Hillary as of late (vs. Trump) has as much to with my disgust for the mainstream media as anything else. To see these organs, which have destroyed this country by keeping the people uninformed for decades, now rally around a sickly, corrupt, oligarch coddling politician as the empire enters the collapse stage is simply too much to stomach...

The only positive thing to happen during this election season is the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully exposed, there is no coming back.

Both articles are great reads.

up
0 users have voted.

" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "

orlbucfan's picture

Long overdue iffen it's true! REC'D!!

up
0 users have voted.

Some yahoos make me want to change species!

RantingRooster's picture

link. Love those guys at Zero hedge.

up
0 users have voted.

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance;" - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

CambridgePulsar1919's picture

Anyone who watched PBS Newshour on Tuesday and caught the baseless hit-piece that Judy Woodruff and some hack from WaPo did on the Trump Foundation can see the strings that make the puppets dance.

A sitting SOS knee-deep in influence peddling? Yawn, no story there...let's move on...

but...

A scuzzy businessman uses a charity 'foundation' as a way to make connections and create profits, perhaps the oldest .1 percenter 'networking' scam extant, and 'we must get to the bottom of this very important story'.

It's pretty clear that the DNCleaks scandal involving their paper hasn't in any way affected the $$Hillbots working at WaPo.

up
0 users have voted.
ggersh's picture

attack Trump for doing something somewhat similar to the clintons foundation, but you now the clinton foundation is on the up and up.
Rather pathetic, and I'm not sure it works anymore.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-n...

up
0 users have voted.

this time it's different

empty suit on Kapernick

"“Kapernick needs to think about the pain he’s causing military families."

this time around. Their bias favoring Hillary has just been too freaking obvious. I'm no longer a faithful view of Washington Week in Review of the News Hour.

up
0 users have voted.

First Amendment protection and taxpayer dollars?

up
0 users have voted.
Oldest Son Of A Sailor's picture

After the Revolution, how small are the remains of this media monopoly going to be?

up
0 users have voted.
"Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."

~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
fakenews's picture

Behold, the mainstream media brainwashing in the laughable collection of media pundits touting the “powering through” of Hillary Clinton:

This is how brainwashing so exclusively serves the corporate and political plutocrats — vast swaths of the public have no idea what they’re being subjected to.

Content selection from Washington Free Beacon

Peace
FN

up
0 users have voted.

"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN

Lenzabi's picture

And the M$M are under reporting on the 3rd parties, blacking them out so to keep voters focused on corporate choice A and Corporate choice B

up
0 users have voted.

So long, and thanks for all the fish

RantingRooster's picture

that independents are even being excluded from polling, so the "polling" we are being fed, doesn't even include independents, fully a 3rd (not sure of exact count) of our population. Considering the small number of people that actually vote, less than a 3rd of our population decides the fate of the planet.

up
0 users have voted.

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance;" - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Lenzabi's picture

These polls are smoke screen as they are getting nervous as to the growth of the numbers of Independents who used to be "established party" voters. This could very well be the year of the 3rd party break out, and that scares the crap outta them, hence why the massive disinformation and misinformation and blackouts.

up
0 users have voted.

So long, and thanks for all the fish