Media

I've been noticing something in the media and online that has been happening for quite sometime, but now it's getting to the point that it's so obvious I think it's time to say something. It will come as no big surprise that my big disclosure is that the Media is lying. It use to be every now and then you find discrepancies in facts and figures, but that went out the window along time ago. The kind of lies I am referring to are falsehoods on face value right from the get go and they just build one story after another on the same premise. I was even on a local website and found in the comments section a moderator's reply to a comment that the whole story was false and I remember thinking the employee for the news outlet sincerely believes in the integrity of the released article, but she fails to admit to herself the whole story was based on an opinion rather than fact. I think the story was about crime and the stats read just like you would expect them to where minorities were the major focus of the entire report. I think what the point is that Media has a target audience. I'm not going to say its reported disproportionately, but the bias stands out. You can ask me for instance, "How can a news story based on statistics be biased?" In a liberal site comments about mishandled allegations and investigations are at the forefront of the story. On a conservative stream the same story will add extra information about crime repeated in the same location or attempt to connect one year to the next. I think to myself, "We get it. Stay away from that area because it's a high crime area." That's what I mean by journalism being biased. If certain facts are accepted, why report them consistently to a targeted audience? What I mean is if your in a suburban area and the story is about an inner city urban area what relevance does the story propose to your area? If you go downtown they don't have stories running about grass clippings and the fed ex man being late, do they? You see how my tone changed a little bit there? Well that's what I mean about news stories is that it's slight, but it's noticeable. I keep a steady stream of news feeds for entertainment value. You see it's my personal opinion that most media outlets consider themselves real and legitimate news sources. For local news I watch regular programming. For national news, I enjoy public broadcasting or free journalism that is funded by public funding. News for profit is a steady stream of crux & additive that doesn't really seem to stand out as opinion pieces, but they are. I also use Yahoo News. I open a reader everyday and have just come to accept that all the stories have an agenda, so I read them that way. It's one thing to realize all news is released this way, so I keep twenty or so feeds with a mix of Liberal to conservative reputably good sources on hand. If I want to see a story from different perspectives, I just switch resources and read the same story. It's pretty predictable to observe talking points. I can read Supreme Court case issued in a story from conservative sites. I can read the same story from liberal media outlets. I like to keep a couple of radical sites on hand also. It's like balance between the two extremes. Isn't that funny? I just told you the secret to knowing the difference between news and infotainment is looking at extreme websites. Take for instance the local media story about crime. It gets interesting when you go to radical sites and read the same story. Make no mistake there is no more middle ground and there hasn't been for quite some time. Fair and balanced news is a thing of the past and if a media outlet is claiming it, it's a falsehood unless they are publicly funded and you will hear how other sources claim that public funded journalism is slanted. I'll admit that I know that because free journalism is not free, asking for donations and running stories will be a major feature of the news, but it's not the prepackaged opinion we see on profit sites. News is delivered the same way a favorite food snack is. If they were to modify the ingredients, it would change the flavor more than likely to the distaste of the consumer, so it doesn't happen. You ever notice how Nielsen Ratings aren't emphasized the way they use to be? Now every outlet has their own survey and publicist management firm watching every detail of viewership. They can monitor a twitter or a Facebook site for likes and dislikes as the story is broadcasting. For lack of a better word, it would be bad programming to do it any other way in today's instant feedback era. Consumerism use to be a power that the consumer controlled. It use to be well regarded considering choice and personal preference. Now corporate strength and branding dictates the product and availability. For example, think of an iphone. Consumers will stand in line for hours to purchase it. It's the allure of the limited availability and it's considered a status symbol. Well that's the way the media works only the dictator of choice is not the consumer, but the advertiser. It's the basic concept of money in journalism. If revenue dips then changes are made. If shares climb and it is after all a market science, more variety is added to appeal to a larger audience. So what have you learned from this little discussion so far? Money bad, journalism good? Well it's not that simple. You see I'm engaging in journalism right now. I'm laying out an organized set of information for you the viewer to decide and discover an opinion of your own. The difference in my presentation considers how to phrase the information and it involves a technique of narrative. In a fact finding article, I would propose an overall question at the beginning and re-enforce the fact that I am searching for answers throughout encouraging you to participate. In an opinion piece, I would make a statement and produce evidence that supports the statement and add a conclusion that more than likely would appeal to my audience. This is the major difference between to types of journalism,op-ed opinion and reporting. The line between the two has not disappeared, but the grey area has been replaced with agenda. For instance, let's look at stories of the national presidential election. It occurs to me that the Phenomenon of Outsider versus the Establishment is the overall dominate theme. Candidates in both parties claim several policy platforms to convince the voter they are either for the established government policies or they are against them. Media and news outlets amplify this message on a broad scale throughout the campaign. Without leaning towards one candidate or the other, let me make a simple statement to test in theory if opinion pieces work better than reporting. In my reporting agenda, I will state that all the candidates are technically politicians because they are participating in a political process. In my opinion piece, I would say one candidate is more original in the debate because they propose platform ideas that do not conform to the usual agenda. In both examples I am not biased and I am not attempting to influence the viewer. Where that becomes a clear direction of informing and influencing changes depending on where I go from the beginning. Of course campaigns are several month if not years in the making. The political landscape shifts from time to time and from one location to the other. So in essence the coverage of these campaigns has become a market in itself. What media corporation covered it the most and what strategy did they use to cover it? Is it specific according to the media's audience or it's contributors? See I put back on my journalism hat and asked you to decide. The point I'm trying to make is that revenue flowing in the media circle inherently provides incentive to keep a carnival atmosphere alive during the campaign. It's an evolving story that has characters and narrative riddled throughout the campaign. One candidate has several news stories following every state by state result, as do others but one more so than others. Why do you think that is? For the most part, you might reply because it's an important part of the news story, but in my opinion it's to keep the viewer tuned in. I only have to say the first letter starts with "B," and it rhymes with Ozzie and everyone instantly knows what I'm talking about. So on the other side, we have another contributing story line that goes something like this, the candidate speaks plainly and that appeals to the voters. I would have to say that's also a factual statement that keeps viewers tuned in. Both of these narratives are not exceptional. We have seen this time and time again throughout history. The only difference is that it's being escalated to the point of confusion and chaos. Were seeing mass protest and violence. I would ask at this time, is this fueled by the candidate or the media? You can decide that answer, but I'm in the opinion it's both one working off the other. Both candidates are exceptional in the area of media spin and the media is more than happy to spin in all directions for both candidates. To me, that does not conform to the practice of informing the viewer. Actually it contributes to uniforming the viewer because we never learn anything new. The narrative is false other than it creates hype by being repeated over and over again by the media. This is what has become a common place in our news today and on that fact it's a spectacle. It's not about who can gain the public's confidence anymore. It's about who can scream louder during a chaotic event. The media is creating the chaos because it's good for business and it's their business, but what ever happened to the consumer's choice or the consumer's power? Really folks think about what were talking about here. We don't even vote in primary elections, so why are we counting results like it matters? The only vote that counts is the delegate results in which two parties of the establishment choose a nominee to run in the general election. Even then our vote doesn't count because there is the popular vote and then the real vote. I'm not telling anyone to not vote, don't get me wrong. I'm just reporting the facts. So what do we do about this situation? How do we get straight forward journalism out of this election? For one, I believe we have to realize it's about consumerism and we need to get money out of politics. I think about my elementary days where I learned the pledge of allegiance and I don't recall reciting the words, "I pledge allegiance to the Dollar Sign of whatever corporation is funding me at this moment," so why would we allow are leaders to pledge that? Did you vote for Citizens United? Me either, just in case you don't know what that is it's the court case decided by the Supreme court that essentially defines campaign contributions as Freedom of Speech. It officially legalized Super Pacts where millions if not billions of dollars can be contributed to politicians without a public record of where the money came from. It's Dark money and it leads to nowhere because of the following: "Nonprofit 501(c)4 Social Welfare Organizations. Also often referred to as Super PACs, although not actually Political Action Committees at all, are instead IRS recognized 501(c)4 Tax Exempt Social Welfare Organizations formed for the purpose of improving the Social Welfare of society." Did you get that? Not actually Political Action Committees at all. To add insult to injury, contradictory language with emphasis: "formed for the purpose of improving the Social Welfare of society." Okay that sounds great right? No, because the Supreme Court decided that an institution, a PAC (political action committee) has the same rights as a person. So what does all this have to do with the media? It's simple, dark money and elections are cousins recognized legally now. Media Corporations are owned by Dark Money, hence news coverage is not reporting at all because it's just one 24 hour 365 days a year endorsement of an election cycle. Leaders no longer lead they take turns submitting resumes to corporations to in turn cut tax breaks for them. We the people, the real citizens are not united because the media keeps us divided. It's not rocket science and now that were at a place no other country in the history of the world has more dictatorship than us right now. Think the "Panama Papers," but out of the forty richest people in the world, most of them have investments in the United States. The U.S. is for sale my friends and it always has been. Politicians scream about China and scream about Russia and scream about Saudi Arabia, but where do you think all this dark money comes from? It's theater my friends and we don't get to be the audience because were the extras in the drama. Look at the news stories and tell me who the citizen is today. The voter is the actor and the politician is the director. It use to be the other way around, but through years of legal wrangling and erosion to citizen rights, we've been reduced to pawns in a spectators game where there is no referee and no rules. Anything goes and the worse the better. I don't know about you, but that's not the kind of revolution I had in mind. I Kind of got away from my initial point because the best example of how the Media Lies is in politics. Reporting use to be about information and the transfer of knowledge. It's not about the scoop anymore, but it's about getting scooped or duped whatever you prefer. There is a name for it. It's called, "the Low Information Voter." I ask myself, "How does one become a low information voter?" Currently, if you accept anything on the internet or watch general programming, you will be a low information citizen. That's just how it is and if you care to test this theory, do your own investigation. What you will find is that even after you make an effort to unearth reliable information, you will need to discern if the information is presented with an agenda in mind. I blame this sort thing on the education system. That might sound like a stretch, but hear me out on this one. In my day, education wasn't so much about finding the answer, but teaching the student on how to find the answer. Today and for a long time now, teachers teach to the test. Students are evaluated on answers and not process. In my opinion, that doesn't encourage development because it measures compliance. Think about it. If you are given the answers to a test throughout the school year and you do homework on those answers all year long, what have you learned? You've learned how to follow direction and you will be tested on it. That measures compliance not knowledge. By not teaching students to solve problems, the result is adults that don't investigate and follow the media at it's word. They don't question what information is given and they don't investigate the topics. When you research subjects not only do you find answers, but you find the process used to find answers. That is what leads me to declare the media is manipulating the public for the benefit of sponsorship which makes sense in a capitalist society, but not so much when it comes to freedom of choice and the Democratic principles. We often think, "One man, one vote," and that is a good value to self government, but this blatant theatrical display is a spectacle and a fraudulent contortion of American Exceptionalism. Billionaires buying votes is not a Democracy and it doesn't matter who is buying because this country and it's principles are not for sale. Tell that to the media and the Oligarchs. Values are based on perception and since were coming out of a recession and gone through 63 months of job growth with an added 9.3 million jobs since February of 2010, you would have to investigate the facts and consider the perspective. The overall message according to the statistics is that the American Economy is still recovering. I'm not going to speculate on how much or how fast in that the facts claim recovery. Now if you listen to the media and to be precise if you listen to the conservative media, this administration is the worst the United States has ever seen. The dogma of politics has gone completely out the window. We've gone from speculative to exaggerated to pretty much false reporting in the last eight years. The media could have lied to make it sound better than it is or they could lie and say it's worse than ever before, but the fact of the matter is that they lied to pursue their own agenda. It doesn't matter who wins or who loses anymore because it's about the game not the outcome. As long as anyone with a legal & moral agenda can point to some misinformation and be protected because they can claim that they were unaware that the information was incorrect, we have ourselves a lying contest. It use to be that this sort of behavior was rejected and extinguished from the information spectrum, but as long as their is a consumer audience for it, it's justified. Selective hearing is the new accepted behavior and not because the audience prefers it, but because selective reporting is the only information available. Now you can dismiss that statement if you want to, but consider that in a Left wing versus a Right wing confrontation one of the think tanks has to convince the public the other is lying. In this situation, stating the truth is no longer persuasive enough. It's like lying is infinite phenomenon. In order to uproot the deception, you have to prove the supporting evidence is false. In most cases that would be sufficient, but we rely on media to do that for us and in this case there isn't an entity out in the information super highway available to debunk an fact check a decade worth of misinformation that has the opposing audience as a base. They spent years reinforcing dogma and rhetoric that keeps their audience riled up and loyal. This goes for both liberal and conservative news groups. Over the years, we've seen everything from hiring and firing scandal infotainment chess matches to Brian Williams admitting he wasn't in a helicopter near active military engagement. He was there, but he wasn't near a fire fight light he claimed he had been. So what would be the reason for a normally honest and legitimate news anchor to make such a false claim? If you guessed, "For the story," you are absolutely correct. It proves the point that nothing is off limits or safe. Speculative journalism has replaced reporting. This isn't news and it by far isn't new. Integral values went the way of manual dial rotary phones and T.V. channels. It's push a button preference. Speaking of preference, it makes me wonder "Are we to blame for our own world view?" It's a well known practice that in order to perfect a message it has to be practiced over and over again to maintain delivery of the statement to create a core belief or a value. In that regard, what is the underlying message or value? What is the single most integral part of the practice we see concerning the news and media today? If you answered scandal than you get a prize. What is it called today? Tabloid Journalism? Think about it if a news report once legitimate coverage they opt to release to a tabloid journalism outlet first. TMZ or Brietbart's online media is the medium where people go to first because as crazy as it may seem those once radical news sites are the most reliable today. Like I said in the start of this writing that you have to keep some radical sources available because from there you can get started right away into looking at what might be fact, fiction or speculation. To give you an example, yesterday there was a story about Iran claiming that Kim Kardashian is a spy. Funny as that sounds, all the news outlets picked up the story. Now the liberal sites treated it like it was a joke because more than likely it wasn't meant to be taken seriously but to just to drive traffic to any site that picked up the story, so it might have been a social experiment to see how fast the news would travel simply because of the name or maybe it was a manipulation to test a theory of American Journalism. Whatever the take, it goes to show that outside agitators are aware of this phenomenon I'm mentioning that American news media is an extension of some sort of social political theatrics. All I'm asking, is what is driving those theatrics?