Why is there no longer unbiased news on TV ?

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
reply to post by timidgal

 

Charlie Rose is awesome. glad to read that you look into things more deeply. There are many here that
blacklist him because of his CFR connections. Which is really silly because EVERY group,association,
membership,club,organization,etc.etc. has a mixture of members. Good,bad,and somewhere in between.
that all depends on the angle of ones judgement.

I have to disagree wiith Charlie Rose these days. I was watching his POTUS State of The Union special edition and he clearly asked if Obamas views and agenda went along with the NWO agenda set forth by previous presidents. Now this was an eye opener for me. I found out he was Bilderberg along time ago and I was like oh well. But this one show told me somthing is up with Charlie. As a matter of fact I was on ATS watching it and I made a comment on someone's thread about it.

Every news organization is and always has been biased. Stock profits run the show.

reply to post by Wildmanimal


This is what happens when roughly 95% of the media in a country is controlled by 5-6 giant corporations - and all of those corporations and headed by members of the same club (the Council on Foreign Relations).

The CFR has its own stated set of goals and desires, so the various media outlets of course might play against each other to present the illusion of differences, but as far as I can tell this is all controlled opposition.

It's so sad that the media, as a result, has utterly failed what Kennedy asked of it in his 1961 speech to the press (will embed below), but it's a perfect illustration of the monolithic conspiracy he warned about in the same presentation:

Hopefully we'll learn and stop giving the media so much credence until it gets its head out of its rear. I strongly prefer alternative media and aggregate coverage as a result....

Be well.

Sponsors and advertising control news. If a station had none, they'd go bust.

What happens is big corporations advertise with and sponsor only media willing to push their agenda.

The decline of impartial news goes hand in hand with the increasing revenue of censorship and cost of broadcasting.

There's whole books on this stuff. Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky would probably be the most famous

reply to post by Wildmanimal

Well as far as "What about me," I would have to say that I scan dozens of media sites on the web
daily. I am a rapid and avid reader. Some of the sites are questionable, but I have learned to scan through
their material for the random "Diamond in the Rough" so to speak. What I find to be almost comical, is that
some and I repeat Some, of the best news and fastest delivery is right here on a so called "Conspiracy Site."

I used to scan all of the different media sites but became increasingly disillusioned as the commercialism and puppet-string pulling insiduously overcame any value. There's only so many dumbing down attempts a person can ward off before saying "enough of this #". I no longer have enough patience to sift through the crud in order to get to what might be "news" (which has become a relative term) and I give you credit for your tenacity; your comment about being tired of being lied to and ripped off by the talking heads reverberates my own sentiments (great video of the real TH's BTW). Then there's the added frustration of being a parent and trying to raise self-thinkers in a society that's been continuously diluted by all of the white noise - it's challenging and exhausting and I come to ATS to prevent total brain atropy.

Last statement and then I'm coming down off my soapbox - this is what I hear when I try to watch the news:

I'm not sure this solves the issue, but it's worth keeping in mind while discussing media bias.

Hostile Media Effect

Those with strong opinions on political matters often perceive coverage as biased against their perspective, even where those with the opposite opinion find the exact same coverage biased against them.

If you couple the natural tendency to find bias against one's interest in media reports with the natural tendency to prefer gathering information from sources that support one's own perspectives and opinions, interpret that data in a manner biased in favor of your own views, etc. (aka Confirmation Bias), you could argue that news viewers are responsible for some of the increasing polarization in news media.

Neo-conservatives/Moral Majority types gravitate toward Bill O'Reilly and the left-wing likes to get information and interpretation from Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz due to confirmation bias, and they perceive reports from the counterpart news station as biased — even if they might be reasonably fair — due to the Hostile Media Effect.

Commentary programming shouldn't be dismissed as useless vitriol or the politics & current events equivalent to shock jocks broadcast just to boost primetime ratings. If media outlets simply reported the facts and facts alone (i.e. a report consisting only of, "The US is bombing Libya with NATO allies to enforce a no-fly zone in support of rebels."), many viewers might not be experts on North African affairs or military policy and thus might lack the knowledge and experience to fully interpret the implications of those bare facts. If commentators are there to offer their interpretation of the news, we should expect that not everyone will interpret the same facts in the same manner. Thus, O'Reilly and Maddow will offer largely different interpretations of most stories due to their own (subconscious) confirmation biases and worldviews — which is perfectly reasonable — and the confirmation biases of viewers will direct them to the commentator that agrees with them most. There might be less polarization between MSNBC and FOX as a whole if they each had some conservative and some liberal commentators. However, in that case everyone who tuned in to see the person they agreed with (because of confirmation bias) at 8 would probably switch to the other channel at 9 to see the other one they agreed with, and generally news stations hope to keep you on their channel as long as possible rather than agree to some kind of MSNBC-FOX viewer trade and each lose some viewers to animal planet, ESPN, etc.

It seems like the more biased/polarized news media is the result of a combination of the need for interpretation of news stories, the reality that subconsciously biased humans with their own opinions have to interpret it, the confirmation bias of viewers leading them to watch the guy they agree with, the basics of the tv business wanting to keep viewers tuned in, and the hostile media effect create the real but probably overstated bias and partisan nature of news programming today.

I think it's probably benign as I don't see much difference between 3 politically neutral cable news channels v. 3 channels evenly distributed across the political spectrum. Moderates, libertarians, and others who don't fit into one of the two major political camps (like myself) have a hard time sticking to one channel, I think, but other than that I don't see it as major problem.

reply to post by Wildmanimal


It takes a LOT of money to fund real investigative journalism - and stories don't unfold overnight.

So two reasons leap out:

1. The money isn't there any more, partly because of competition from new media; and

2. The focus has shifted to "live" coverage without investigative analysis - because that's what most people want (or think they want).

I won’t go to deep into what’s wrong with the news, but rather key in on two things that have been bothering me for a while.
(1) Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and some others are not only national, but also on different levels international. Why is it with this level of audience there are stories of a bus crash in Dallas or a high speed chase? Surely there are enough things going on at a national level that easily shadows these events. I live in New Orleans and I can think of numerous corruption topics here that are of greater importance to the Nation than a bus crash. Stories like that should stay local unless someone on the bus can be linked to something greater. The News is a TV show that pushes for ratings just as hard as American Idle.
(2) Whenever there is a debate on a subject, especially political, the anchor acts like a referee dedicating time to the guest who are walking the party line tight rope. They never stray from their party’s rhetoric and the host rarely peruses any line of questioning that will cause them to think on their own.

I won’t go into how transparent they are with the angles they can take on different stories.
When you start to read between the lines you start to see the middle finger they are giving you.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by timidgal

 

I have to disagree wiith Charlie Rose these days. I was watching his POTUS State of The Union special edition and he clearly asked if Obamas views and agenda went along with the NWO agenda set forth by previous presidents. Now this was an eye opener for me. I found out he was Bilderberg along time ago and I was like oh well. But this one show told me somthing is up with Charlie. As a matter of fact I was on ATS watching it and I made a comment on someone's thread about it.

Every news organization is and always has been biased. Stock profits run the show.

I have to admit that I didn't see that special edition and am behind on my viewership. Are you saying that it was your impression that Charlie was advocating the perpetuation of the NWO agenda? That would be disappointing but I'll save my comments until I can watch it myself. As for news organizations/stock profits - yep, they're a business just like any other and are always going to put their greed-based desires before the greater good. Politics and organized religion - the two most profitable and dangerous industries in the world IMHO.

Timidgal

reply to post by timidgal


I went to Charlie Rose's website. Here you go, mentioning the new world order starts at 1:48 or so. I am not going to listen to the whole thing again. Enjoy. I do not know what it is but everytime I hear Charlie say New World order, it makes me take a closer look. Some say it is nothing. I say it is something, but what I do not know.

www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11431

Money (sponsorship/advertising/underwriting) and personalization (you chose what story you want to see / let's see what so-and-so on twitter has to say / here's the new poll). These probably destroyed unbiased journalism.

Money is controlling interest. When GE pays to advertise (or directly pays your pay check through ownership), you are less likely to say anything negative about GE.

Personalization to create a niche audience: FOX is for Republicans and God-Fearing Patriots; MSNBC is for Democrats, vegans, minorities, and image-liberals filled with righteous indignation; CNN is for self-identified centrists and unassuming middle-of-the-road types (also potentially those people who just don't care).

Polls are not hard math. Polls can be skewed however you'd like and with combining of answers (Hate, really don't like, have a not-so-great perception can all be meshed into "AGAINST") and margin of error, as well as the wording of the question itself and the limiting of possible answers.

The third thing that most likely has destroyed journalism is the blurring of the line between entertainment and information. Of course, there is room for education to be fun. But sometimes information makes you uncomfortable and to strip that element from all stories, all the time allows little room for one to re-examine their opinions...in other words, instead of allowing the nation to hold up a mirror every once in a while and see something we might not like, the MSN seem to hold up a personalized fun-house mirror to make sure you get the reflection you want...the one you pay for.

You will never hear what is really going on because the New World Order has complete control of Hollywood, all the news, commercial television, the recording industry, magazines and the list keeps on going, i'll put a couple of quotes here with links to the pages so you can see for yourselves, see if any of the names look familiar

The Council On Foreign Relations and What It Has To Do With Corporate Control Of The News CFR Seal What do Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, Jim Lehrer, Rupert Murdoch, Tom Brokaw and the late William F. Buckley have in common? They are all members of the CFR, The Council On Foreign Relations. The stated goal of the CFR is to manipulate the News to bring about a new world order or corporate control of everything. This is not some weird conspiracy theory, it is stated in their original charter. Who else belongs to the CFR, Disney's Michael Eisner and ABC's Thomas Murphy, Tom Johnson, CEO of CNN, Time Warner's Gerald Levine, and many, many more media CEO's who have merged their empires under the CFR's guidance.

The Globalist Goals of the CFR The CFR's "1980's Project" evolved from a Council Study Group on International Order, which had met from 1971-73. They sought to duplicate the success they had achieved with the War and Peace Studies, and their concentration was to be on creating a new political and economic system that would have global emphasis. Miriam Camps, former Vice-Chairperson of the State Department's Policy Planning Council, recorded the group's discussion in a report called The Management of Independence, which called for "the kind of international system which we should be seeking to nudge things." In the fall of 1973, the 1980's Project was initiated, and to accommodate it the CFR staff was expanded and additional funds raised, including $1.3 million in grants from the Ford, Lilly, Mellon and Rockefeller Foundations. The Coordinating Committee had 14 men, with a full-time staff; plus 12 groups, each with 20 members; in addition to other experts and advisors who acted as consultants to the project. Some of the reports produced: Reducing Global Inequities, Sharing Global Resources, and Enhancing Global Human Rights. Stanley Hoffman, a chief participant of the Project, wrote a book in 1978, called Primacy or World Order, which he said was an "illegitimate offspring" of the Project. Basically, it was a summary of the Project's work, and concluded that the best chance for foreign policy success, was to adopt a "world order policy." When Jimmy Carter was elected to the Presidency in 1976, some of the Project's strongest supporters, such as Cyrus Vance, Michael Blumenthal, Marshall Shulman, and Paul Warnke, went to the White House to serve in the new Administration. In 1979, the Project was discontinued for being too unrealistic, which meant it was too soon for that kind of talk. The CFR headquarters and library is located in the five-story Howard Pratt mansion (a gift from Pratt's widow, who was an heir to the Standard Oil fortune) at 58 E. 68th Street, in New York City (on the corner of Park Ave. and 68th Street), on the opposite corner of the Soviet Embassy to the United Nations. They are considered a semi-secret organization whose 1966 Annual Report stated that members who do not adhere to its strict secrecy can be dropped from their membership. On the national level, the Business Advisory Council and the Pilgrim Society are groups which form the inner circle of the CFR, while on the international level it's the Bilderberg Group.

Who Owns The News

The Council Of Foreign Relations

reply to post by zroth


LOL Good one there! That's what James Coburne said anyway.

Thanks for the laugh,,,,I needed it.

Laughter really does heal ALL.

why is there news at all on tv?

The msm exists to shape public opinion, nothing else. What would you expect them not to be biased?

reply to post by timidgal


You are right on target with that one. Beware of the subtitles. For the truth there is all the more easily
lost in translation.

Thanks for your reply.

reply to post by ironfalcon


Yes, it is called ATS.

The MSM hate it and do their best to discredit as well.

This is because they are scared.

The "Truth" has become such a hot potato, that they can only pass it around their fellow networks and
competitors for a limited time before someone gets burned.

Again, the "Controllers" have not only underestimated "The Greatest Common Denominator" of viewers,

but have jeopardized their own "Least Common Factor" as well.

Best regards,,,

But have

reply to post by Billmeister


Here, Here, Thanks for your inserts and reply.

Yet ,again, I I feel assured that they are running scared on a last ditch effort at this point.

I guess they will try "The Big Lies" method again.

Just like Poker. The good story(facial expressions) and The Big Bluff is all they got.

But their holding an 2,3,5,7,8. What does ATS hold? How about Ace,10,7,Ace,10, s a v v y?

reply to post by ironfalcon


To be fair, The Christian Science Monitor still receives excellent ratings.

Thanks for your thoughts...

reply to post by R_Clark


Well Thank You Kindly for sharing. Your words are unfortunately true.

Need I mention, your Avatar says it all . Best to you

reply to post by liejunkie01


I respect your opinion your honesty to differ. You may very well be more accurate than I am at that.

I am confident that dissent and dischord occurs at the highest levels of their musical scale.

After all, a symphony is written by one genius, not by a large table of opportunists.

Best regards to you, , and thanks for your reply.
Wildmanimal

reply to post by Praetorius


Well , you alarm me. For The CFR was created to promote AMERICAN INTERESTS.

So, clearly they have somehow failed along the way.

In great and many ways.

Internal dissent and external critique leads to the path of correction.

Thanks