The Power of the Media

[Grewks]

Is anybody else concerned about the power the media now has with regards to brainwashing individuals?

 

 

 

With all the recent news about the formation of the Islamic State it got me thinking....

 

Why hasn't there been a single media report on the reasoning behind ISIS forming?

 

 

Instead all the media portrays is that it is simply due to a rise in 'Islamic extremism' Bullshit.

Rather than explain how the West's decision to split up the Mubarak/Hussein/Gaddafi regimes gave the mildly low extremist groups present in these regimes a united enemy, the west.

 

 

 

The executions of Gaddafi and Hussein have only ever been portrayed as 'positive'. When in reality, there would be no Islamic state with these two in charge.

[leicsmac]

While I don't wholly agree with what you say regarding the Middle East, you're spot on about a powerful media being a powerful tool. 

 

It's remarkably easy for moneyed interests (be they political or otherwise) to manipulate the populace by careful use of their chums in the media to get around all this "democracy" nonsense. If you get enough of the same story being piped out across many sources, people are going to believe it. 

 

I think the problem is that the media (or at least a fair part of it) used to not be a part of the leading political/corporate establishment, and that as a result it was a useful tool to expose corruption and wrongdoing. Now...all of the leading media figures are part of that very same establishment, and so their interests and that of the establishment are aligned (of course, the particular part of that establishment they follow can differ). 

 

Thankfully, the Internet gives everyone a voice (as discordant and obnoxious as that voice may be), which is why old media hate it. 

 

I guess the only solution is to look at the same thing from several different sources, don't trust one implicitly, and above all - be informed and come up with your own opinion, not one that's been spoon fed to you.

[ozleicester]

For the past 30+ years, Rupert Murdoch has been deciding the government of both Australia and the UK, and to a lesser extent the USA.

 

News Limited is quite simply evil, it serves only Murdoch s own agendas and its shareholders. It/He has no interest in reporting or investigating for the public good, it is ONLY about $$ and as such he and his cronies dont care about facts, dont care about rights, they just want what will sell papers, garner clicks or gather eyeballs, which in turn means they sell more ads which puts more money in his pocket.

 

There will be those that come on and defend him but you have been brainwashed if you think they are serving ANY kind of public duty. they may have done good, but ONLY as it means profit for them.

 

News ltd is about power and money. If anyone cares about the impact of the media especially in the UK, have a read of "Hack Attack" the story of the hacking scandal.

 

News Ltd had the top police blocking government investigations into them, they hacked the phones of the Royal family, i dont care about the royal family as such, but if they can hack them and the police wont investigate, imagine what they will do/have done to you, and how the "system" will help you.

 

With the increase in news coverage (24 hour news stations and online etc) they have to fill space every day and so they present 2 hours of relevant news surrounded by 22 hours of opinion and fluff.

 

True reporters and people with something to say, are currently in prison (Chelsea Manning), or in exile (Edward Snowden, Julian Assange).  These people are heroes and the main stream media continues to lie and manipulate and control the governments in order to keep them locked away.

[Fox92]

Been going on for years, especially in newspapers. I can remember writing an assignment about The Sun. And in '92 The Sun printed about the general election "please turn of the lights" (that one) and then printed "it's the Sun what won it" a few days later. But they're not supposed to actually influence public opinion.

 

Media will always be a powerful tool, and social media plays a massive part too now. Printing press and organisations use tools such as twitter now. Trouble is I'm sure 90% of people only read the headlines and not the actual article then use the headline in arguments and "well I saw this newspaper say". I'd never believe something a newspaper prints.

[Webbo]

What media are we talking about? The mainstream media, the independent media, the right wing media, the left wing media, the liberal media? Is it the medium of tv  and radio or just the newspapers? Are we talking about Russia today, Press tv or CBBC?

 

Thank God we've got geniuses on here who've read what's really going on and are not brainwashed like the rest of us thickos.

[leicsmac]

What media are we talking about? The mainstream media, the independent media, the right wing media, the left wing media, the liberal media? Is it the medium of tv  and radio or just the newspapers? Are we talking about Russia today, Press tv or CBBC?

 

Thank God we've got geniuses on here who've read what's really going on and are not brainwashed like the rest of us thickos.

 

All of it, Webbo. All media has bias. That's why looking from more than one source is important. The more you read, the bigger picture you get.

 

And there's no need to be patronising and sarcastic - you're a smart guy and you can see how much all media affects popular opinion, and can even influence the democratic process.

[David Guiza]

Of course the media has an enormous amount of power when it comes to public opinion. Take the man in my display picture for example, Che Guevara; depending on what source of media you choose to believe, he is either a racist, mass murdering false icon, or a heroic man who decided to give up a life of the aristocracy to free the impoverished working class from the brutal dictator Batista. Or even Gandhi, of course he was an incredible man who changed the world forever, but there is barely any mention of the fact that his hypocracy effectively killed his wife whilst allowed him to live. “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

However, it's not difficult to distance yourself from the 'brainwashing' media and form a balanced assesment on almost every issue. The more folk limit themselves to tabloid press and Fox News, perhaps the more they're likely going to think that anybody who isn't born in this country is the devil and guns are fantastic, but the media is a vast source of information and opinion, of course there's going to be huge extremes and bias thrown in amongst it all.

[MooseBreath]

Ignoring the whacko conspiracy nutjob angle and just focusing on the power of the media, if everyone agrees with that point, doesn't that prove it's not true?

[HitchinFox]

Is anybody else concerned about the power the media now has with regards to brainwashing individuals?

 

 

 

With all the recent news about the formation of the Islamic State it got me thinking....

 

Why hasn't there been a single media report on the reasoning behind ISIS forming?

 

 

Instead all the media portrays is that it is simply due to a rise in 'Islamic extremism' Bullshit.

Rather than explain how the West's decision to split up the Mubarak/Hussein/Gaddafi regimes gave the mildly low extremist groups present in these regimes a united enemy, the west.

 

 

 

The executions of Gaddafi and Hussein have only ever been portrayed as 'positive'. When in reality, there would be no Islamic state with these two in charge.

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. 

The roots of ISIS are in Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood. The seed for what is now called "ISIS" was planted in the 1970s. There has been a desire for the refounding of an Islamic Caliphate for more than 30 years. 

The events since 2008 are relevant, of course, but they aren't the root cause. There's plenty of literature on the topic available - including Wahabi declarations and essays if you understand Arabic. 

[Bettsj2]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there.

The roots of ISIS are in Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood. The seed for what is now called "ISIS" was planted in the 1970s. There has been a desire for the refounding of an Islamic Caliphate for more than 30 years.

The events since 2008 are relevant, of course, but they aren't the root cause. There's plenty of literature on the topic available - including Wahabi declarations and essays if you understand Arabic.

Would you say the regions concerned are more or less stable since the deaths of Hussain and Gaddafi?

[Captain...]

What I find most bizarre is how things are deemed in the public interest or not. We hear almost nothing about the Ukraine and ISIS over the last few weeks, but they are still very much greater concerns than if convicted rapist Ched Evans gets a job.

I don't think it is a great conspiracy just evidence of the contempt with which mainstream media regards its audience. if it can't be reduced to a quick sound bite then they don't report on it.

[HitchinFox]

Would you say the regions concerned are more or less stable since the deaths of Hussain and Gaddafi?

 

Oh, less stable of course, no doubt! And as I said, the events since 2008 have had a massive effect. But what I'm saying is that the drivers of the caliphate where already there - they weren't created by the situation. Now their chance has arrived and they've successfully recruited people to their cause. 

 

[leicsmac]

Ignoring the whacko conspiracy nutjob angle and just focusing on the power of the media, if everyone agrees with that point, doesn't that prove it's not true?

 

Everyone (or most) on here agrees how powerful the media are and is willing to take action to think for themselves...but that doesn't mean that everyone else out there does.

[Bettsj2]

Oh, less stable of course, no doubt! And as I said, the events since 2008 have had a massive effect. But what I'm saying is that the drivers of the caliphate where already there - they weren't created by the situation. Now their chance has arrived and they've successfully recruited people to their cause.

I agree with you. But I think the op was suggesting the ISIS as we know now is only around because the dictatorships were removed allowing them the corridor to rise. I dont think that can be argued.

The media are in a difficult position. They are providing the perfect vehicle for ISIS and other radical organisations to recruit. The negative light it shows the Islamic faith in makes it easy for impressionable young men to be turned.

On QT last night, a young muslim chap said that he was angry that more muslims hadnt been in the press distancing islam from the attacks and condemning them. I think its a shame that he feels that they need to. Any fool knows that its a minority that are using some ancient text to justify their actions.

[HitchinFox]

I agree with you. But I think the op was suggesting the ISIS as we know now is only around because the dictatorships were removed allowing them the corridor to rise. I dont think that can be argued.

The media are in a difficult position. They are providing the perfect vehicle for ISIS and other radical organisations to recruit. The negative light it shows the Islamic faith in makes it easy for impressionable young men to be turned.

On QT last night, a young muslim chap said that he was angry that more muslims hadnt been in the press distancing islam from the attacks and condemning them. I think its a shame that he feels that they need to. Any fool knows that its a minority that are using some ancient text to justify their actions.

 

Couldn't agree more about the last bit. It's sad that people feel that muslims should somehow "distance" themselves from the lunatics and their abhorrent acts. I think it should be a default position to assume that no muslim stands with homicidal psychopaths and their agendas. Only those who vocally support or defend them should be singled out. 

 

[Bettsj2]

Couldn't agree more about the last bit. It's sad that people feel that muslims should somehow "distance" themselves from the lunatics and their abhorrent acts. I think it should be a default position to assume that no muslim stands with homicidal psychopaths and their agendas. Only those who vocally support or defend them should be singled out.

Zackleh.

[Steven]

The roots of ISIS are in Wahhabism ....

Funded by Saudi Arabians and fostered by Saudi laws. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. Yet how often is this emphasised in the media in general, not at all. 

 

Why? The power of the media to ignore what is going on so as to "not offend" powerful oil and arms interests in the West. In other words there is blood on the hands of those that knowingly and willing participate in such behaviour.

[Jon the Hat]

I would be more concerned about the "media" not actually doing much journalism, and instead rehashing shit from twitter and opinion of the public as if that were in fact news or even interesting.

[bovril]

Funded by Saudi Arabians and fostered by Saudi laws. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. Yet how often is this emphasised in the media in general, not at all. 

 

Why? The power of the media to ignore what is going on so as to "not offend" powerful oil and arms interests in the West. In other words there is blood on the hands of those that knowingly and willing participate in such behaviour.

 

Very true. As ever, if you follow the money....

[HitchinFox]

Funded by Saudi Arabians and fostered by Saudi laws. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. Yet how often is this emphasised in the media in general, not at all. 

 

Why? The power of the media to ignore what is going on so as to "not offend" powerful oil and arms interests in the West. In other words there is blood on the hands of those that knowingly and willing participate in such behaviour.

 

Sad but true. 

 

[Guest MattP]

Why hasn't there been a single media report on the reasoning behind ISIS forming?

 

The executions of Gaddafi and Hussein have only ever been portrayed as 'positive'. When in reality, there would be no Islamic state with these two in charge.

 

With all due respect I don't think that you reading the right newspapers or watching a diverse enough media if you didn't see the former.

 

ISIS as an organisation has existed since about 2004 in various forms, I remember the American journalist who was killed a couple of years back by them doing a magnificent piece in the Times in about 2007, they had just merged into Islamic Levant at the time and he was actually allowed to walk with them along the battlefield at the time, as Hitchen Fox has said in an earlier post it always had it's roots in Wahhabi Islamism and existed across various rebel groups for over 30 years before this.

 

To say ISIS just sprung up from nowhere would be like saying the United Kingdom sprung up from nowhere without ever having heard of England, Scotland or Wales before, Saddam and Bashir were very good at keeping these groups down but obviously Iraq was stupidly invaded (you can take the conspiracy theory we did it for these reasons if you want) and they opened an oppportunity for them, In Syria it's a slightly different story as you've got the Al-Nusra front as well who were effectively the ISIS of Syria but have recently merged or are fighting in a seperate part of the country.

 

If you have only ever read the executions of Quaddafi (see what I did there, Western media damn them!) and Hussein as positive then what are you actually reading or watching? I watched the whole debate in the Houses of parliament when the ISIS airstrikes votes were being conducted and numerous MP's from all sides referred to just how appalling this was handled and how much better it was under those people, columnists from across all the papers I read (Times, Telegraph, Guardian online) have written numerous articles casting nothing but a negative light on the injurious situations the actions of removing these leaders has caused.

 

Does the media bainwash? Of course to an extent, but if you read a wide demographic you won't have trouble seeing somewhere where the truth lies usually. The only people who seem to be truly brainwashed are the ones that have there head in the gutter press all day. Don't confused the brainwashed with the stupid.

 

For the past 30+ years, Rupert Murdoch has been deciding the government of both Australia and the UK, and to a lesser extent the USA.

 

True reporters and people with something to say, are currently in prison (Chelsea Manning), or in exile (Edward Snowden, Julian Assange).  These people are heroes and the main stream media continues to lie and manipulate and control the governments in order to keep them locked away.

 

Leaving aside the obvious fact Murdoch owns many publications that actually hold different political opinion, if he's deciding every election of the last 30 years he's not doing a very good job considering his polar opposite is currently serving an 8 year term in the US and a party he has never supported publication is currently involved in the British government.

 

Edward Snowden - I'll give you, I salute him and I think he's a total hero - He clearly did what he did for the good of the World and he should be awarded a nobel prize.

 

Bradley (sorry Chelsea) Manning - He probably thought what he was right but let's not make him out to be some sort of hero, if you join the army you sign up to keeping the information you get secret, you can't just then decide to release all that information and then moan when charge and jail you for it.

 

Julien Assange - Absolutely not, he did his thing for self-gratification. He might have released a lot of things that showed and exposed some corruption and evil but he also released the personal information of thousands of people and put them in danger, would you like your personal life and screts splashed over the internet even when it's nothing to do with anyone? You criticise Murdoch but Assanges' website at times was lower than The Sun. Ridiculous this bloke is now holed up here under the protection of Ecuador as he doesn't want to face sex charges in that absolute bastion of horror and evil when it comes to justice that is - Sweden.

 

Why do people continue to group these three together when they did are actually quite different?

 

The media are in a difficult position. They are providing the perfect vehicle for ISIS and other radical organisations to recruit. The negative light it shows the Islamic faith in makes it easy for impressionable young men to be turned.

On QT last night, a young muslim chap said that he was angry that more muslims hadnt been in the press distancing islam from the attacks and condemning them. I think its a shame that he feels that they need to. Any fool knows that its a minority that are using some ancient text to justify their actions.

 

He said he wanted more done, who are we to tell him what he wants?

 

In reality he's probably more annoyed at the Muslims in the press like the guy on Sky News yesterday that was trying to justify it.

 

When Rigby was killed by Nigerian Muslims the Nigerian community in London had a huge 'Not in our Name' march through Woolwich which was greatly received, maybe he wants to see things like that, they do a long long way.

 

 

Funded by Saudi Arabians and fostered by Saudi laws. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. Yet how often is this emphasised in the media in general, not at all. 

 

Why? The power of the media to ignore what is going on so as to "not offend" powerful oil and arms interests in the West. In other words there is blood on the hands of those that knowingly and willing participate in such behaviour.

 

Again back to my 1st point - this is more about education and making sure you read a broad range of media rather than a consented effort to conceal and deceive, I thought it was quite commonly known (at least outside the US) that the vast majority of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian.

 

I've read it numerous times, they shouldn't have to report that every week.

 

I mean how many times should they report that they were Saudi, I've never actually heard someone say out loud they thought the hijackers were anything else apart from Yemeni.

[Grewks]

With all due respect I don't think that you reading the right newspapers or watching a diverse enough media if you didn't see the former.

 

ISIS as an organisation has existed since about 2004 in various forms, I remember the American journalist who was killed a couple of years back by them doing a magnificent piece in the Times in about 2007, they had just merged into Islamic Levant at the time and he was actually allowed to walk with them along the battlefield at the time, as Hitchen Fox has said in an earlier post it always had it's roots in Wahhabi Islamism and existed across various rebel groups for over 30 years before this.

 

To say ISIS just sprung up from nowhere would be like saying the United Kingdom sprung up from nowhere without ever having heard of England, Scotland or Wales before, Saddam and Bashir were very good at keeping these groups down but obviously Iraq was stupidly invaded (you can take the conspiracy theory we did it for these reasons if you want) and they opened an oppportunity for them, In Syria it's a slightly different story as you've got the Al-Nusra front as well who were effectively the ISIS of Syria but have recently merged or are fighting in a seperate part of the country.

 

If you have only ever read the executions of Quaddafi (see what I did there, Western media damn them!) and Hussein as positive then what are you actually reading or watching? I watched the whole debate in the Houses of parliament when the ISIS airstrikes votes were being conducted and numerous MP's from all sides referred to just how appalling this was handled and how much better it was under those people, columnists from across all the papers I read (Times, Telegraph, Guardian online) have written numerous articles casting nothing but a negative light on the injurious situations the actions of removing these leaders has caused.

 

Does the media bainwash? Of course to an extent, but if you read a wide demographic you won't have trouble seeing somewhere where the truth lies usually. The only people who seem to be truly brainwashed are the ones that have there head in the gutter press all day. Don't confused the brainwashed with the stupid.

 

 

Leaving aside the obvious fact Murdoch owns many publications that actually hold different political opinion, if he's deciding every election of the last 30 years he's not doing a very good job considering his polar opposite is currently serving an 8 year term in the US and a party he has never supported publication is currently involved in the British government.

 

Edward Snowden - I'll give you, I salute him and I think he's a total hero - He clearly did what he did for the good of the World and he should be awarded a nobel prize.

 

Bradley (sorry Chelsea) Manning - He probably thought what he was right but let's not make him out to be some sort of hero, if you join the army you sign up to keeping the information you get secret, you can't just then decide to release all that information and then moan when charge and jail you for it.

 

Julien Assange - Absolutely not, he did his thing for self-gratification. He might have released a lot of things that showed and exposed some corruption and evil but he also released the personal information of thousands of people and put them in danger, would you like your personal life and screts splashed over the internet even when it's nothing to do with anyone? You criticise Murdoch but Assanges' website at times was lower than The Sun. Ridiculous this bloke is now holed up here under the protection of Ecuador as he doesn't want to face sex charges in that absolute bastion of horror and evil when it comes to justice that is - Sweden.

 

Why do people continue to group these three together when they did are actually quite different?

 

 

He said he wanted more done, who are we to tell him what he wants?

 

In reality he's probably more annoyed at the Muslims in the press like the guy on Sky News yesterday that was trying to justify it.

 

When Rigby was killed by Nigerian Muslims the Nigerian community in London had a huge 'Not in our Name' march through Woolwich which was greatly received, maybe he wants to see things like that, they do a long long way.

 

 

 

Again back to my 1st point - this is more about education and making sure you read a broad range of media rather than a consented effort to conceal and deceive, I thought it was quite commonly known (at least outside the US) that the vast majority of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian.

 

I've read it numerous times, they shouldn't have to report that every week.

 

I mean how many times should they report that they were Saudi, I've never actually heard someone say out loud they thought the hijackers were anything else apart from Yemeni.

 

 

 

1. Not a single mainstream media outlet has ever linked the rise of ISIS to the downfall of the Mubarak/Hussein/Gaddafi regimes, and that is the problem.

 

 

 

 

2. If you can honestly say that the mainstream media in this country ever perceived Saddam Hussein as anything other than a corrupt dictator only known for his inhumane war crimes then I have no idea what media you have been using.

 

 

 

 

The problem is, the majority of people only watch the mainstream media e.g. sky news/bbc news etc.

 

Never have I seen a piece of mainstream media in this country linking the downfall of eastern regimes and the rise of eastern extremism.

[Rincewind]

There is a greater outlet for media now. All you need is a phone with a camera on and wherever you are and whatever is happening you could put together a first hand report. At the mall shootings in Africa last year ere was someone doing this and sent on the spot report to Citezens' Eye who put it up on their website. It was from a different perspective to the mainstream media and more personal to the person sending it.

[Webbo]

All of it, Webbo. All media has bias. That's why looking from more than one source is important. The more you read, the bigger picture you get.

 

And there's no need to be patronising and sarcastic - you're a smart guy and you can see how much all media affects popular opinion, and can even influence the democratic process.

The media reflect all different strains of opinion, the idea that they are forcing us to think the same is absolutely stupid as anyone can see due to the wide range of opinions on here.

 

People read these ridiculous conspiracy theories on the internet and because they suit their prejudices they believe them and then when they post their half baked theories on the web and they don't receive the due reverence they deserve the poster decides that we all must have been brainwashed because we don't agree with him. It's extremely condescending and egotistical.

[Webbo]

Funded by Saudi Arabians and fostered by Saudi laws. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. Yet how often is this emphasised in the media in general, not at all. 

 

Why? The power of the media to ignore what is going on so as to "not offend" powerful oil and arms interests in the West. In other words there is blood on the hands of those that knowingly and willing participate in such behaviour.

We don't want to offend the Saudis and they are not generally regarded as part of the West.

 

It's easy to get on your high horse about these things but when that country has the power to wreck the economies of the Western world at a stroke you have to be careful what you say.