How To Spot When You're Being Manipulated By The Media

Here's how to know when you're being manipulated:

When journalism majors cite statistics that they claim "proves" their political agenda.

Here's the context:

Sam Brownback, Governor of Kansas, lowered taxes. Kansas borders Missouri. The city of Kansas City is on the border of the two states.

Reporter an op-ed writer Yael Abouhalkah has been opining for some time against Brownback.

So when jobs data was released, Abouhalkah couldn't wait to use the data to "prove" his point that tax cuts in Kansas were not working.

He cited these statistics:

The Missouri side of the Kansas City area grew four times faster over the last year, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

▪ The Missouri side of the region added 8,400 workers on nonfarm payrolls between November 2013 and November 2014, not seasonally adjusted.

▪ The Kansas side of the region gained only 1,900 employees in that one-year span.

There it is!!

PROOF that tax cuts didn't work!! Right???

Only two problems with that....

One, the Kansas side is mostly farmland. The data was for nonfarm payrolls.

Two, look at the map.


source

The metropolitan area on the Kansas side is about 1/4 the size as the Missouri side.

Is it really surprising that and area 1/4 the size would produce 1/4 the jobs?

Really?

This is what happens when journalism majors with agendas control the information you get.

You're always being manipulated by the media. Good rule of thumb is to simply assume that every single word is total bull#.

Because it is. Their jobs are in propaganda, not information. There is no such thing as "unbiased" journalism.

And I'm not talking about just the "mainstream media" (what is that anymore, even?). It's all UDSA-approved bull#, top to bottom. Raw Story is just as guilty as Fox News as is MSNBC as is Salon as is RT as is Gannett.

Take every single word with a grain of salt and remember that the only reason they exist is to manipulate you. If you're not buying the products, they want you to buy the culture. And they're so good at it, they will get you to buy it if you let your guard down.

All propaganda. On all sides.

a reply to: Jamie1

Is it really surprising that and area 1/4 the size would produce 1/4 the jobs?

Percentages help to gauge the situation much better than fractions.


While I agree that 1000+ jobs in an area 1/4 the size of an area with 9000+ jobs does sound about right...


Then you look at this part:

▪ The Missouri side of the region added 8,400 workers on nonfarm payrolls between November 2013 and November 2014, not seasonally adjusted.

That’s a growth rate of 1.5 percent.

▪ The Kansas side of the region — dominated by Johnson County — gained only 1,900 employees in that one-year span.

That’s a growth rate of .4 percent.

This evidence does give support to the claim...
But they're not divulging population, nor the types of job opportunities available.
So it's not proof...


Given that fact, it's still difficult to assess if the tax cuts worked or not.

The biggest "smells" show the propaganda, too. The media "campaigns" against this or that because they want you to accept the conditioning about a subject.

Guns, ISIS and Ukraine, for instance. The never ending war is mirrored by the never ending media storm. You will be bombed until you believe it.

These issues are foremost in our minds because they have been placed there.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Jamie1

Is it really surprising that and area 1/4 the size would produce 1/4 the jobs?

Percentages help to gauge the situation much better than fractions.


While I agree that 1000+ jobs in an area 1/4 the size of an area with 9000+ jobs does sound about right...


Then you look at this part:

▪ The Missouri side of the region added 8,400 workers on nonfarm payrolls between November 2013 and November 2014, not seasonally adjusted.

That’s a growth rate of 1.5 percent.

▪ The Kansas side of the region — dominated by Johnson County — gained only 1,900 employees in that one-year span.

That’s a growth rate of .4 percent.

This evidence does give support to the claim...
But they're not divulging population, nor the types of job opportunities available.
So it's not proof...


Given that fact, it's still difficult to assess if the tax cuts worked or not.

Great point. Let's figure out the actual numbers.

8,400 is 1.5 % of 560,000. That means there were already 560,000 jobs on the Missouri side.

1,900 is .4% of 475,000. That means there were already 4750,000 jobs on the Kansas side.

So the reality is that in a metropolitan area roughly 1/4 the size, the Kansas side 45% of the nonfarm jobs, and the Missouri side has 55% of the nonfarm jobs.

So taking the area into account, and the total number of jobs, it looks like the Kansas side is kicking ass.

a reply to: Jamie1

Exactly, those percentages show that while growth has been affected in Kansas, by size they still have much more opportunity in the Job market than Missouri...


Thanks for doing the legwork there

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Jamie1

Exactly, those percentages show that while growth has been affected in Kansas, by size they still have much more opportunity in the Job market than Missouri...


Thanks for doing the legwork there

I'm a statistics geek. No problem.

When I see people try to use data to manipulate people to promote an agenda, I find it super uncool. I'm not really a pro government intervention fan, but if there are laws against false advertising there should be some consequences for intentionally misleading the public.

Unfortunately, most people listen to what they want to hear. That's why we have Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

That's why I love ATS. It's the no bullsh!t zone. If you want to put something on the table, it's going to get called out, and all sides will be looked at!!

a reply to: Jamie1

I appreciate your thread, but to me its simple.

Every time I hear or see media I figure I am being manipulated.

a reply to: Jamie1

There's a big difference between people attempting to persuade by manipulating more or less true factoids and true media manipulation/collusion. No matter how you cut it up, people opining on things is not media manipulation at all. I've had people accuse me of presenting disinfo for presenting opinion that caused them dissonance in that swiss cheese they call a brain. Very different from manipulation.

I think it's important enough to point out here so people can keep it straight.

The most sinister media behaviors are:
1. Reporting factoids as true without researching.
2. Reporting known factually false information.
3. Colluding with the state to cover up or deceive
4. Colluding with multiple media outlets to self censor critical information or outright deceive.
5. This one is super secret but you may notice it. Media presenting conflicting or highly ambiguous information in a rapid fire manner to intentionally cause the mind to shut off critical thinking. Pay close attention a week or two before the US elections.

ALL media is state run .. its entire purpose is to maipulate the public ... psyops 101 ..

a reply to: Jamie1
I can simplify your OP:

How do you know when you are being manipulated by the media?

Your TV is on.
Or you are reading a newspaper/internet news page.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Jamie1

There's a big difference between people attempting to persuade by manipulating more or less true factoids and true media manipulation/collusion. No matter how you cut it up, people opining on things is not media manipulation at all. I've had people accuse me of presenting disinfo for presenting opinion that caused them dissonance in that swiss cheese they call a brain. Very different from manipulation.

I think it's important enough to point out here so people can keep it straight.

The most sinister media behaviors are:
1. Reporting factoids as true without researching.
2. Reporting known factually false information.
3. Colluding with the state to cover up or deceive
4. Colluding with multiple media outlets to self censor critical information or outright deceive.
5. This one is super secret but you may notice it. Media presenting conflicting or highly ambiguous information in a rapid fire manner to intentionally cause the mind to shut off critical thinking. Pay close attention a week or two before the US elections.

Yes, totally agree!

One other thing you'll notice.

When there is a controversy, and pundits are invited to speak, both side will be given equal time. The manipulation this creates is that somehow both sides are equally valid.

This is used to create a false equivalence.

I remember watching a news report about some priest who molested a child. There was a child advocate guest, and some representative from the church. Both sides were presented in a way to make it look like the case was somehow balanced. It wasn't.

Another example is when Bloomberg decided to ban the soft drinks. In the real world, 99% of the people in NY were like, "Are you f#(ing kidding me???" but when the pundits were in television, one advocated for the ban, and the other was on the "Are you f$*@)ing kidding me" side.

That's why I would rather watch Rachel Maddow and listen to Rush Limbaugh. I would rather here their unabashed opinions and viewpoints, and judge them on their own, than to listen to somebody who is trying to promote their agenda, but pretending not to have an agenda.

What I'm going to post is on topic to your thread title, but has very little to do with your OP. But I still want to share

Sort of a follow up to Expat888's post.

.

The universities, for example, are not independent institutions. There may be independent people scattered around in them but that is true of the media as well. And it’s generally true of corporations. It’s true of Fascist states, for that matter. But the institution itself is parasitic. It’s dependent on outside sources of support and those sources of support, such as private wealth, big corporations with grants, and the government (which is so closely interlinked with corporate power you can barely distinguish them), they are essentially what the universities are in the middle of. People within them, who don’t adjust to that structure, who don’t accept it and internalize it (you can’t really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don’t do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don’t do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren’t lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions like, say, Harvard and Princeton and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization. If you go through a place like Harvard, most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thoughts, and so on.

Okay, you look at the structure of that whole system. What do you expect the news to be like? Well, it’s pretty obvious. Take the New York Times. It’s a corporation and sells a product. The product is audiences. They don’t make money when you buy the newspaper. They are happy to put it on the worldwide web for free. They actually lose money when you buy the newspaper. But the audience is the product. The product is privileged people, just like the people who are writing the newspapers, you know, top-level decision-making people in society. You have to sell a product to a market, and the market is, of course, advertisers (that is, other businesses). Whether it is television or newspapers, or whatever, they are selling audiences. Corporations sell audiences to other corporations. In the case of the elite media, it’s big businesses.

Well, what do you expect to happen? What would you predict about the nature of the media product, given that set of circumstances? What would be the null hypothesis, the kind of conjecture that you’d make assuming nothing further. The obvious assumption is that the product of the media, what appears, what doesn’t appear, the way it is slanted, will reflect the interest of the buyers and sellers, the institutions, and the power systems that are around them. If that wouldn’t happen, it would be kind of a miracle.

WHAT MAKES THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MAINSTREAM - Noam Chomsky

So by Chomsky's rational, the way I know that I am being manipulated by the media is to understand that is why they exist in the first place. To NOT be manipulated by the media would constitute a "miracle".

a reply to: Jamie1

Thanks for the analysis. I knew there was something deeper, but I didn't want to do the leg work. I never take anything at face value. I usually do my own research on positions before forming an opinion on something.

Part of the problem is that the general public isn't that bright. They don't understand statistics, correlations, proportions, etc. This is why the media can get away with headlines that say 50% increase in X and the average idiot thinks it is a crisis but too stupid to realize that the base numbers may be going from 2 to 3 which is hardly an epidemic (think Black lives matter).

While conservatives are certainly guilty, I see this kind of manipulation of facts and figures more on the liberal side.

Ya I agree with everyone else that all of them manipulate all the time.

Love the topic you decided to show it with, not political at all

How To Spot When You're Being Manipulated By The Media
Are you watching television, listening to a radio, reading a newspaper or viewing a mainstream news website?

In the answer is yes, then you are being manipulated by the media.

a reply to: Jamie1

1) If the power switch on your internet, tv or radio is in the "on" position, consider yourself manipulated.

a reply to: Jamie1

Turn on your tv....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Jamie1

Turn on your tv....

My advice is always to turn it off!

Do you own a tv?
Yes?
Then you are manipulated, its that simple!