Why are 'they' scaring us away from the news?

[rothbardian]

<br>Lizzy-<br><br>I don't watch Boston Legal but they had this spectacularly anti-war/anti-Bush 'court scene'--<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://media.putfile.com/Boston-Legal">media.putfile.com/Boston-Legal</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>--so I guess they can't be all bad.<br><br><br>By the way, since a couple folks here are making some sweeping statements about their presuppositions (not a bad thing at all)-- I'll make a few of my own.<br><br>I, for one, DO believe there are smoke-filled backrooms where evil people plot world domination. I don't know why anyone would rule out such a possibility(?). <br><br>I also believe it is possible for a particular cabal to become..."overarching" and predominant. Again, it is unclear to me which 'principle' would preclude that possibility--<br><br>If it is possible for a corporation to become a globe-spanning 'international' corporation...then it is possible for a criminal syndicate/corporation to become an 'international' criminal syndicate/corporation.<br><br>I tend to see it as a 'family' of cabals that are out there vying for world domination. Which one of these cabals gets to be the head honcho if or when they achieve their dream (short-lived) of worldwide totalitarianism...is a matter of intense (and sometimes even deadly) competition. <br><br>But I still think it is a "family" of some sort. It may be a very dysfunctional family (like a bunch of ugly, snarling Orcs in "Lord of the Rings") but there seems to be some sort of bond. I mean, are the Bilderbergers an indication of...nothing? <br><br>These hardcore 'movers and shakers' who have perpetrated savagery, bloodshed and mayhem across the planet in their relentless quest for power and riches are gathering for these international meetings (such as the Bilderbergers) just to...chit chat and learn secret handshakes? Come on.<br><br>There is some kind of interacting/intersecting<br>/interrelating going on between these groups. With the founding of the USA, something secretive and creepy was going on. All these secret symbols in the currency, in the monuments (the obelisk of the Washington monument; the 'Illuminist' undertones and overtones regarding the Statue of Liberty etc.) all these secret designs in the layout of the nation's capital.<br><br>These people have a creepy, concealed agenda (a concealment that remains intact to this day)-- a quest for power and domination.<br><br>And this creepy, concealed agenda was IMPORTED to the US. In other words, there is something 'overarching' about this. Something "arched" "over" the Atlantic Ocean, and the Brotherhood of Secretive Creeps based largely in Europe...now became the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>International</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> Brotherhood of Creeps.<br><br>Having said that, I DO NOT believe in a mindset of doom and despair. I believe the 'good guys' are going to win in the end. I have no doubt. But that's another post for another time. <p></p><i></i>

[greencrow0]

Normalizing Violence is what the current crop of TV shows is all about. <br><br>I rarely watch TV now but for one reason or another caught short snippets of the following three shows:<br><br>Grey's Anatomy<br>24<br>The Sopranos<br><br>Grey's Anatomy's message is that there are no laws relating to rights of the individual anymore....an 'investigator' can show up at your door and arrest you on the suspicion of some crime and take you away...and you have to go with him.<br><br>24's message is that there are very skilled killers roaming around the country who have a 'license to kill' they are sort of working for the government and have to be 'respected' for the difficult work they do. If it were not for them...there would be incredibly bad guys on the loose. Again, there is no right to a lawyer or a trial for these 'bad guys'. If found they must be summarily executed no matter where...busy street, public building, no matter.<br><br>The Sopranos' message is that gangsters are really just regular folk with personal stuff going on in their lives just like us. They get to go about their 'business' uninterruped and unhindered by 'justice' which is virtually powerless against them. Organized crime is normal and is 'cool'.<br><br>Makes you wonder who is putting up the money to put on these very expensive shows that don't really earn back their cost through advertising dollars anymore because the tv audience has dropped so dramatically.<br><br>GC <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Makes you wonder who is putting up the money to put on these very expensive shows that don't really earn back their cost through advertising dollars anymore because the tv audience has dropped so dramatically.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Those who see a vast agenda to normalize violence via TV programming are deluded.<br><br>The only agenda in the minds of the television executives is making as much money as possible. It just so happens that violence and gruesome crimes are an easy way to lure and titillate viewers. And if you don't believe TV shows are not profitable, you don't know anything about the business.<br><br>Do TV shows pick up on resonant themes? Of course they do. The writers don't live in a vacuum, and storylines about terrorists, mobsters, and serial killers have resonance with viewers. But believing that television shows are written and produced with a hidden agenda is not supported by the facts. <p></p><i></i>

[johnny nemo]

Respectfully, I agree and disagree with you, professor.<br><br>I disagree, and I believe that Jeff has shown overwhelming eveidence, that there are, in fact, "sinister cabals" out to run the world.<br><br>The fact that groups like the Bilderbergs vehemently denied their existence, until a BBC film crew, acting on the word of a "conspiracy theorist", caught them carousing at a resort in Lisbon, Portugal, proves this.<br><br>If they were just a "social club for rich people", why is there the need for secrecy?<br><br>Why aren't G8 summits open to the public?<br><br>The answer is simply (and here's where I agree with you, professor) that these meetings are held by imperialists, in an effort to further there agenda: namely making as much money from the exploitation of the masses as possible.<br><br>The Rothschilds built their empire by literally going from rags to riches and earned their fortune by inventing coin collecting.<br><br>Imperialism is an old foe and has had many faces over the centuries, and the oppressed often become the oppressors.<br>Whether we're talking about Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire, Brittania at the height of its' power, Hitler and SA, or the Bilderbergs; motivated groups of individuals have always changed history, for good or, more often, for bad.<br><br>At the end of the day, it's all done in the name of greed and empire.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[rothbardian]

As Jeff has pointed out before (and I have read elsewhere) there is hardly a big city newspaper left that is actually profitable. They're financial 'sinkholes' whose primary purpose is to control and influence.<br><br>These two things, money AND power, are inextricably linked. Power IS money. Power translates into financial gain. The idea that 'upper crust' types are "uninterested" in power, doesn't add up. All these 'captains-of-industry' are constantly lobbying for more power.<br><br>Are we to believe they draw a line and politely refuse to acquire any more power than they need to simply conduct their business? <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Johnny,<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I disagree, and I believe that Jeff has shown overwhelming eveidence, that there are, in fact, "sinister cabals" out to run the world.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I never said there weren't cabals, sinister or otherwise. I have stated that there is very little likelihood that there is one overarching, all-pervasive, all-powerful cabal influencing everything from diet sodas to Disney cartoons to little league sports teams.<br><br>Of course there are elite groups pulling strings and making backroom deals. Only a fool would deny that.<br><br>But there's a difference between ackowledging those cabals and seeing the workings of THEM (Illuminati, reptilians, Bilderbergers, the Queen of England, etc.) in every aspect of modern life, from warmaking to fixing the scores of the neighborhood T-ball league. That is a symptom not of rigorous insight, but of paranoiac delusion. <p></p><i></i>

[greencrow0]

professorpan<br><br>Your strawmen are cluttering up the thread, set fire to them or move along lol<br><br>I did not say that 'everything' was part of the cabal. My argument is that the common denominator in the uptick in violence on TV is an effort to 'normalize violence'.<br><br>why would the television networks want to 'normalize violence'? well, first off, they're owned by a few gynormous corporations like general electric who are also arms makers and dealers. Their big moneymaker is war.<br><br>therefore they have to inculcate the young with a violent mentality so they will learn to 'enjoy war' so they will not protest against it in the street but go sign up to become cannon fodder. And that's why tv is so violent these days. <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Sorry, Mr. Crow, but I'm not in the game to set up straw men.<br><br>Was William Shakespeare in the employ of G.E.? Was Chaucer? Dante? Are the Iliad and the Odyssey products of modern corporations?<br><br>Violence and sex in entertaniment are nothing new. In fact, most great literature is full of Eros and Thanatos -- the two poles of human existence.<br><br>To posit that all of the creators of mass media content -- from the writers to the producers to the advertisers -- are in cahoots to "normalize violence" is absurd. Violent spectacle is nothing new, nor is it part of an organized plan of control.<br><br>Does violenct entertainment have a negative effect on society? That's another issue entirely. But to suggest the content of entertainment is designed to create cannon fodder is simplistic and baseless. <p></p><i></i>

[anotherdrew]

hey pan, I don't think you're setting up strawmen, but... the local stations are generally not locally owned. In fact, more and more, regional and even national media holding companies control a large number of these 'local' stations. These same media holding companies are now starting to try to buy newspapers and have long also owned local radio licences, which they can then just turn over to a clearchannel for content.<br>If you assume that they are just doing what they think will gain them ratings, then the 'lever' needed to swing them exists simply in provinding them with slanted ratings info. As far as I know the ratings info they get comes from ONE company. Then there is the ever growing amount of off-site third party produced 'news' segments they are running. Groups with unclear funding sources produce these 'fake news' segments, then the local editors, rather than bother producing their own local content, just run these segments. They know they're not going to get in trouble with their bosses because the distribution stream of such content is 'pre-aproved'.<br><br>I guess my view is it's a combination - the editors and producers think they're just following market dictates and only rarely get a call from their boss to kill a story or spin a story (it does happen tho). the higher up's control their fiefdoms by indirect means as much as possible, false ratings info, bogus industry trade magazines pushing more of the same, the herd instinct (for missing blondes and shark attacks for instance) does the rest. Plus it's quite clear to everyone working in the 'news industry' that no reporter/editor has gotten rich telling unwelcome truth. In the local news business I'm fairly sure they are full of nothing but contempt for their audience and it shows. They completly identify with the people who provide the funds for their paychecks. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=anotherdrew>anotherdrew</A> at: 5/1/06 4:21 pm<br></i>

[professorpan]

I've been a critic of media monopolization for a long time, and I'm in agreement with you about the problems and abuses of consolidation. News programming is terribly biased and compromised, and is increasingly dictated from top-down (FOX outlets are the prime example). But suggesting that the content of entertainment -- like sitcoms, dramatic shows, and "The Sopranos" -- is part of a deliberate plot to create bloodthirsty soldiers and obedient fascists is not supported by facts. <br><br>This thread has mutated and several of us are talking about different things, hence the confusion. <p></p><i></i>

[greencrow0]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But suggesting that the content of entertainment -- like sitcoms, dramatic shows, and "The Sopranos" -- is part of a deliberate plot to create bloodthirsty soldiers and obedient fascists is not supported by facts.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>I did not say that producing sitcoms was part of the mix, professorpan. You over-generalize in your re-statement/interpretation of my argument and thus the accusation on my part of your 'creating strawmen'.<br><br>Are you saying that there has not been [in the last couple of years] a noticable increase in the number and degree of violent acts in the damatic shows on TV?<br><br>My position is that there have been and it is too focused and ideological to be random and coincidental. The violence is not of the 'cowboys and Indians' variety, nor is it the 'outer space' variety.<br><br>What it is is 'urban warfare' variety and 'lawlessness on the part of law enforcement' variety.<br><br>Two kinds of violence that mentor violent behaviour in impressionable youth.<br><br>It is disturbing and indicative of our increasingly valueless and controlled [by non democratic powermongers] society.<br><br>GC<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[bvonahsen]

"The only agenda in the minds of the television executives is making as much money as possible. It just so happens that violence and gruesome crimes are an easy way to lure and titillate viewers."<br><br><br>Yes, we are violent, murderous primates. Simply acknowledging that explains a lot.<br><br>I appreciate your comments professor. You are a much needed counterpoint. <p></p><i></i>

[anotherdrew]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>...a deliberate plot to create bloodthirsty soldiers and obedient fascists...<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>but that is the way it seems to work out isn't it? I'm not sure it's better that it's 'accidental' or intentional. It's probably more of a symptom than it is a primary causal disease agent. I'd say it was a predictable trend. Even a counted-upon trend. One that may have had some little pushes in some few cases. <br><br>whether they were trying to just go with the spirit of the time and make a buck or trying to influance it is of secondary importance. They could have chosen to go another route and they didn't. The producers and editors that have gone along with the bushgang world view could have resisted, they didn't and that's all I need to know about them.<br><br>==<br><br>there's still a hell of a lot of very good positive content out there in the media, more than ever before, I gotta think it's going to outway the bad eventually. <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Are you saying that there has not been [in the last couple of years] a noticable increase in the number and degree of violent acts in the damatic shows on TV?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I don't watch enough TV to know, honestly. I do scan TV programs and catch an occasional preview for an upcoming show. And I read about entertainment in all forms.<br><br>What I've noticed is a lot more CSI-type shows. And a tendency to show more gruesome imagery (one program's trailer featured a severed finger). I don't see any concerted focus other than TV mirroring the public's interest in the usual bloody enetertainment.<br><br>I don't detect any obvious themes, and I consider myself a pretty competent analyst of such things. Programming is trendy, and varies from year-to-year -- witness the glut of "reality" TV, which, I'm sure, someone has construed as a plot by the PTB to weaken viewers' sense of reality in order to make them into easily-leds soldiers.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Two kinds of violence that mentor violent behaviour in impressionable youth.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>That's debatable. And kids don't make up a large audience for the programs that air in the evenings anyway -- most viewers of the violent, dramatic shows are adults, which contadicts your argument that the purpose is to create obedient soliders.<br><br>Sorry, but I don't buy into an orchestrated plot by G.E. and other corporate entities to desensitize young viewers to violence to make them into good soldiers. It might be an attractive idea to you, but there is zero evidence to back it up. If you can provide something other than an opinion, I'll be happy to consider it. <br> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Pan does the FACT that many board members of GE also sit on the boards of the media and of the companies like Haliburton and Bechtel help inform you on exactly how this "conspiracy" is being managed. Yes, it is collusion. A few hundred people are deciding that they will make a big killing off the rest of us with their wars and violence. They doing this in many different guises. They need to make sure it is palatable to us by preparing the young. War has always been lucrative and fun. Now we have mind control as well, and the uses of a hynotic, judgment suspending robot in every home. <p></p><i></i>