FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


political propaganda





muffinman187
this is a really interesting site for anybody to check it
http://thereyougoagain.org/media.html

it's a collection of intellectual thinking on America's current politics not only that there's a relation with George Orwell as well.

the video for "deceiving images: the science of manipulation is very interesting".
handfleisch
really good link, good review of Fox News propaganda. Obama or no Obama, I wonder if there is any hope or change possible with that 24hour rightwing lie machine on TV.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
really good link, good review of Fox News propaganda. Obama or no Obama, I wonder if there is any hope or change possible with that 24hour rightwing lie machine on TV.

Its the only 'rightwing lie machine' out there, while the others are all 'leftwing lie machines'.

The media should stop pretending to be objective, and simply state what their bias is, then people could choose what to watch accordingly. It would also allow people to get a balanced view of events by watching one of each bias if they want to. Most importantly, it would allow people to better discern between the truth and the half-truths/misrepresentations/ignoring-of-important-facts/et cetera that they see on TV.

Each TV (radio, newspaper, and other media as well perhaps) station should be required to declare their bias at the beginning of their broadcast. They could choose from a list. "None" and "Other" would not be on that list.
Jinx
Which is why I try to mix up my news sources... I tend to flip between Fox, CNN, the BBC, the Canadian news channel, and NPR news, that way I get all the lies and figure the truth is somewhere in between.
handfleisch
Jinx, it's not true. There's nothing remotely comparable on CNN or BBC to the extremes of FoxNews propaganda. I mean you got Hannity calling Obama a socialist on a regular basis. Who on CNN has ever called McCain a fascist even once?

Watch the video from the OP or any other vid about FoxNews, and please show me something comparable from CNN or BBC. At best you might be able to find isolated examples of things that Fox does on an hourly basis. Go ahead, though, try to find one and share it with us all.
Jinx
but I never said that BBC or CNN were biased, I simply said that I try to get the story from several different angles. Perhaps I should have phrased my post a little differently.

Actually I tend to find that the BBC and NPR news tend to have the least bias, in my opinion. Though I don't think there will ever be a new source that is 100% free of bias, since the news is reported by human beings, and humans tend to be pretty opinionated folks.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Who on CNN has ever called McCain a fascist even once?


I don't think anyone on CNN has claimed that John McCain is a fascist. Probably because it's not true.
handfleisch
Jinx wrote:
but I never said that BBC or CNN were biased, I simply said that I try to get the story from several different angles. Perhaps I should have phrased my post a little differently.

Actually I tend to find that the BBC and NPR news tend to have the least bias, in my opinion. Though I don't think there will ever be a new source that is 100% free of bias, since the news is reported by human beings, and humans tend to be pretty opinionated folks.


Sorry Jinx, that part was supposed to be addressed to Ocalhoun, who's seemed to have had a few too many wingnut cocktails tonight, and his statement that the non-FoxNews networks
Quote:
are all 'leftwing lie machines'.
jmi256
I could see how Jinx would assume you are attacking his post. Especially since your rebuttal starts with:
handfleisch wrote:
Jinx, it's not true...
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
I could see how Jinx would assume you are attacking his post. Especially since your rebuttal starts with:
handfleisch wrote:
Jinx, it's not true...

Look up "supposed to" and continue your silly season somewhere else
macacoescalada
I think political propaganda isn΄t an ethical strategy of candidates, because we (the common people) are obligated to manage with all kind of crap in the tv, streets, and even in many discussions with friends and family, when passion is more relevant than thinking in the best way we can solve social and individual problems. Although the last presidencial election in the US may represent a change in our perspective about politics, talking rather than induce ideas and decisions.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Jinx wrote:
but I never said that BBC or CNN were biased, I simply said that I try to get the story from several different angles. Perhaps I should have phrased my post a little differently.

Actually I tend to find that the BBC and NPR news tend to have the least bias, in my opinion. Though I don't think there will ever be a new source that is 100% free of bias, since the news is reported by human beings, and humans tend to be pretty opinionated folks.


Sorry Jinx, that part was supposed to be addressed to Ocalhoun, who's seemed to have had a few too many wingnut cocktails tonight, and his statement that the non-FoxNews networks
Quote:
are all 'leftwing lie machines'.


Check out this:

And a bunch more statistics at this source

Would you care to share with me the magical process by which this bias is kept out of the media, or do you just not notice it because you agree with it?

(And I'm also interested in your definition of a 'wingnut'... I think the term might apply to you nicely, but I need a definition first.)
handfleisch
Hmm, let's see. A wingnut conflates "liberal" and "left wing", and so can quickly jump from the "liberal media" canard to calling everything but FoxNews a "left wing lie machine", and will cite a silly graph from a so-called think tank like the Media Research Center, funded by right wing sources, as proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center#Criticism
Quote:
...the MRC had complained, for example, that there was more coverage of government death squads in right-wing El Salvador than in left-wing Nicaragua, without mentioning that there were roughly a thousand times more extra-judicial killings in El Salvador.


During the campaign, wingnuts considered Barack Obama a Muslim one week, an extremist Christian the next week, a terrorist the week after that, then a Socialist, then a Communist, and pretty much settled on a combination of all of them in their Hannity/Limbaugh-addled brains.

As Stephen Colbert lampoons daily on his show, the Media Research Center, a wingnut organization, thinks facts have a liberal bias. Where there are a thousand times more murders in the US-back El Salvador than in the US-opposed Nicaragua, and the press writes a few more articles about the ones in El Salvador, it's a case of the "liberal media". If you believe that, then yes you are wingnut.
deanhills
I have always been cynical and sceptical of news reporting, and after September 11, stopped looking at news on the regular basis I had before, i.e. reading three newspapoers a day, and watching the news on BBC, CNN, Skynews, etc. Going from one newspaper to another, the factual information about stats would vary considerably, not to mention the bias and opinions. It was the TV reporting that got to me though, with the repeated crashing into the twin towers, and I then decided to do without a TV for the immediate future. That was seven years ago. I only watch news when I am on vacation or at a pub with a TV turned onto news. I get my news from the bill boards, and if I am interested in a subject, check up on the Internet.

I have no faith in journalists or journalism of the world. How can we verify their sources of information, and how do we know whether they are being manipulated by people who may benefit directly from their reports?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Hmm, let's see. A wingnut conflates "liberal" and "left wing", and so can quickly jump from the "liberal media" canard to calling everything but FoxNews a "left wing lie machine", and will cite a silly graph from a so-called think tank like the Media Research Center, funded by right wing sources, as proof.


Could you refute that graph with a more reliable source then?
(And let's stick with discussing the biases of the American media, since we're also referring to American politics, shall we?)

*getting really tired of this pattern:*
-handfleisch: republicans/conservatives/and/or/right-wingers are wingnuts and awful...
-me: but so are democrats/liberals/and/or left-wingers
-handfleisch: you make me laugh because you are so wrong! you have no proof.
-me: proof
-handfleisch: your source is bad, so everything you say must also be bad
Related topics
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Outrage as Australian Leaders Tell Muslims to Fit In
Brainwashing by our enviroment
The Devil
Why the Holocaust?
Do Historians live in the past
Outrageous: Denmark re-publish Mohammud cartoons
Making fun of a country
New York State AG declares war on fraud?
General census seems to be Definately no God.
Arizona sheriff blames political 'vitriol' in shooting
Army of Fake Social Media Friends to Promote Propaganda
Troops in Iraq have to pay for armor?
Rigid School system in Asia
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.