I think it was Noam Chomsky who said (to the effect) 'there is no good evidence that the media decides what the news is, but it does decide what news we think about.'

That pretty much says it all about the media. I guess the moral of the story is to gather facts from a wide range of sources and to think critically about a subject rather than emotionally. Unfortunately that's too rare and stately a task for many.

I am too young to know, but I've always heard that Walter Cronkite was the last news reporter we could trust. Was he really trustworthy or were people of that day just too naive to know?

Originally Posted by r.payton@att.net

Hitler (in Mein Kaumpf) pointed this out in the late 20's and named it PROPAGANDA-( a now villianized word). Any time your media depends on advertising you will hear what the advertisers want you to hear. What should be beyond this is the internet-so if it is beyond control you simply flood it with disinformation-then ''make up'' a terrorist attack and pass a bill giving the NSA, CIA,FBI a dna bunch more alphabets the right to read your e-mails and monitor every word you say.

The first thing police take on a search is your PC along with every word you've read or typed on it .

Life as an evil INFO-mericial...

Originally Posted by pm01

I think it was Noam Chomsky who said (to the effect) 'there is no good evidence that the media decides what the news is, but it does decide what news we think about.'

That pretty much says it all about the media. I guess the moral of the story is to gather facts from a wide range of sources and to think critically about a subject rather than emotionally. Unfortunately that's too rare and stately a task for many.

Unfortunately our VOTES have become out dollars. Where we chose to spend them dictates where companies will go with their production. if we buy all the $hit they will keep making it & then hide the fact that it is all evil $hit.

Originally Posted by quinn14

I am too young to know, but I've always heard that Walter Cronkite was the last news reporter we could trust. Was he really trustworthy or were people of that day just too naive to know?

I would say that that is closer to be being true then false as I believe he was a Murrow recruit but he support the expansion of the UN which is really just a Rockefeller creation. We probably won't see a MSM reporter like him again.

Hence the need to draw from many sources and be tough minded. I tend to agree with Spider, maybe I'm a little too naive and you're a little too cynical.

Originally Posted by pm01

Hence the need to draw from many sources and be tough minded. I tend to agree with Spider, maybe I'm a little too naive and you're a little too cynical.

Fair enough...

That's what I am talking about Russell!