Does anyone watch anything other than the crappy news we have in the U.S.?
Since dumping Time Warner for, well, nothing, I have taken to watching online TV stations from overseas.
Does anyone ever watch any news from overseas? It's completely different from what we see here. Watch our news and you'd think we were the only country in the world that's in trouble. Watch the news from pretty much any other country in the world and they're talking very seriously about WORLD economy collapse.
You also learn things about our own government that you will never hear from news here. And it's delivered completely different. None of the sensationalist BS you get here. It's just refreshing, and I can't even put my finger on all the reasons why.
The sad part is, a lot of countries idolize us here and follow every stupid Hollywood star and every new song on the pop charts. Yikes! :eek:
All fact based:There is no more "free unbiased media"
9. How Advertising Pressure Can Corrupt a Free Press
Source: Center for the Study of Commercialism, 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Ste. 300 Washington, DC 20009-5728, Date: March 1992, Title: "Dictating Content: How Advertising Pressure Can Corrupt a Free Press," Author: Ronald K.L. Collins (Foreword by Todd Gitlin)
SYNOPSIS: The free press in America isn't free at all -- at least from the influence of advertisers on the content of the news. While people fear governmental control of the media, a far more subtle yet pervasive influence comes from advertiser pressure. "Dictating Content: How Advertising Pressure Can Corrupt a Free Press," a report by the Center for the Study of Commercialism, documents dozens of examples of advertiser censorship in the media.
One of the crudest forms of censorship is defined as "direct economic censorship," which occurs when an advertiser overtly dictates to the mass media what the public shall or shall not hear. Examples include the impact on consumer reporting on the automotive industry, which throws around its weight with huge advertising budgets. "We don't even bother with auto-related stories anymore," says Seattle reporter Herb Weisbaum. "Even a simple consumer education story on how to buy a new car can draw the wrath of local car dealers." He adds, "Stories are being killed ... watered down; and saddest of all, stories are not even being attempted because reporters know they'll never make it on the air."
Similarly, the major ad revenues spent on the local level by realtors and retail stores influence coverage of their industries. The extraordinary influence of tobacco advertisers on the coverage of smoking and its connection with cancer is also documented.
Other forms of media bias include reporter self-censorship (when the specter of an advertiser's reaction dissuades a reporter from even suggesting a particular story); reporting fake news (advertiser created reports or news segments presented as legitimate, unbiased news accounts); using stories as bait (stories that purposefully flatter current or potential advertisers); using puff pieces to increase ad revenues.
Achieving editorial independence is difficult, given the pressure for advertising income. And those who try to maintain journalistic integrity often face a real threat to their livelihood. According to the journalists responsible for the "Dictating Content" report, "When interviewed for this report, reporters caught in the crossfire between advertisers and editors requested anonymity for fear of losing their jobs or being blacklisted." One editor confirmed he was fired after clashing with his publisher over advertiser influence; the publisher added that he would jeopardize his future in the industry if he talked for the record. One long-time reporter was fired for apparently embarrassing his publisher when quoted about his paper's "sensitivity to car advertisers."
COMMENTS: Many media critics have accused the press of being vulnerable to advertiser pressure in the past. Until now, however, there hasn't been broad evidence of how that dynamic works. Thanks to the Center for the Study of Commercialism, in Washington, DC, such evidence is available, albeit still ignored by the press itself. Author Ronald K.L. Collins describes the study and how it was received by the news media:
"To the best of our knowledge, 'Dictating Content' was the First report of its kind addressing the topic of how advertising pressure may affect editorial content in the print and electronic media. The report cited more than 60 specific instances of print and/or electronic media, advertising-related censorship, including over two dozen never before revealed. ('A remarkable achievement, considering how terrorized are most newsrooms when the question is broached,' wrote Doug Ireland of the Village Voice, 3/24/92.)
"For the first time, the report told Americans -- particularly consumers -- how the content of the media information may be influenced by direct or indirect advertising pressure. Such information may have a significant impact on some of the most important decisions Americans make, from the homes and the cars they buy to the pharmaceutical drugs they may need. Moreover, public knowledge of advertising pressure connected to alcohol and tobacco is vital to the public health and safety.
"Some media (the Washington Post, for one) did not cover the story of our report because, according to one reporter, the problem was purportedly 'well known' within the journalism community (i.e., in the newsrooms, in the scholarly journals, etc.). Even if true, such arguments overlook an important fact: the public has been kept in the dark about this form of private censorship affecting freedom of the press.
"In short, information of the kind set out in 'Dictating Content' is a crucial part of the public's Right To Know, without which the high goals of the First Amendment are unattainable.
"Over 200 print and electronic media news organizations received press releases and press conference invitations concerning our report, 'Dictating Content.' While the report received limited to fair coverage in newspapers, it received absolutely no coverage by network TV and no coverage in any major magazine. The only TV coverage was a short March 12, 1992, Fox Morning TV News (Washington, DC) report. All major networks and magazines were sent advance press releases and/or copies of the report. Still, no network TV or major magazine reporters were assigned to cover the story-and none did.
"Unless the sunlight of the media is shed brightly on the topic of advertising pressure affecting the press, then the problem is likely to continue and will probably grow worse. Too many editors and producers will remain timid in the face of ad pressure; too many reporters will remain reticent about doing stories that may be killed or may result in their firing; and all too often the public will be denied information vital to informed decision-making in the marketplace. Meanwhile, a vicious cycle of censorship will continue, trading the short-term gains of commerce for the long-term gains of uninhibited communication.
So if corporations have the media by the nads,
government has been fully transparent, cooperative, honest and communicative to the media?
MOST of "journalists" and talk show soul-sellers still employed after the government's purge are those who puke up the govt-approved and heavily-edited talking points.
One of the major signs of a fascist dictatorship? Government control of the media and if you think we STILL have a "free press," you're damned lucky to be in a "happy land" where Bill O' Reilly and Rush and your friends and everything the smiling and screaming people on the TV,
the whining through the radio and the happy, happy newspapers and magazines-Everything you see, hear and read, respectively is TRUE in happy land, where the American dream is still alive and well and our system of government works just great!