Skip to main content

View Diary: Research Study Explains How U.S. Media Brainwashes The Public (288 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Shrug. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Nada Lemming

    I don't get it.  I really don't get it.  Why anyone would have one of those things even turned on in their general vicinity VOLUNTARILY completely escapes me.

    Intelligent people watch little or no TV.  They pull what video they want from the internet or buy disks, avoid the ads, and live their lives in peace from the continual background noise.  They get news from the internet, or some of them do like the Amish and just do without news.  Having done this for a couple of months when I was moving, out of the country, or up at the electricity-less cabin, I have to say, they're not missing anything useful except the weather reports.  The rest is nothing but gossip, and gossip is only useful if you actually know the people.

    Personally, I think that instead of attempting to take over or break into the tools of corporate domination, we should work to make them irrelevant.  Don't contest an overwhelming force for possession of a territory that is only made important by their occupation.  Holding the main road and the main pass is only important if you want to move tanks and heavy guns.  Light infantry can go anywhere.  Rumor moves at lightspeed by Twitter, requires no Authorized Source, and isn't subject to liable suits.

    Entrenched power is a tool of entrenched power.  But meeting force with force is very messy.  Guile, subterfuge and evasion takes less power and is much easier on the landscape.

    •  you probably don't listen to talk radio either (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, Pluto

      hopefully intelligent people feel  the need to know what's going on around them- ignoring it doesn't make it go away. eventually it gets to where it can't be ignored, like more tornados, bigger hail, drought, flooding, guys with semi-automatic weapons, tomatoes with fish genes, pine beetle infestations, forest fires, janitors carrying handguns in schools, senators who don't believe in evolution or global warming , etc.

      This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

      by certainot on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:43:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Someone was pointing out to me (4+ / 0-)

      that a post at Emptywheel got 148,000 views.

      I then pointed out that the mass-reach media can, and does daily, give an identical impression to 300,000,000 people in a day or two.

      The ratio, then, is 1 : 0.0004 in terms of reach. The speed, of course, is much greater.

      Even if you don't watch tv or don't have a radio you'll be talking and thinking about whatever they say. Because almost all that appears about politics on the net is based on what the mass-reach media puts out.

      And mind you, with mass-reach, it doesn't matter what faction you identify with, unlike the internet. Liberals go to their DKos ghetto, rightwingers go to there World Net Daily ghetto, and never the twain shall meet.

      Divide and rule, the 1%'s technique since bloody Rome? The internet is perfect for that.

      The idea that Twitter will replace mass-reach media is just a demonstration of how powerful advertising is, having made it almost a reflex in people's mind that when they hear "new" it automatically means "better."

      Well, it's going on 20 years of the internet's availability. And go look at every nation where twitter, facebook, blogs, etc reached a point where the status-quo was threatened, and then you'll have a list of the nations which simply pulled the plug on it.

      Go look at how, in the real world, the position of the people has steadily degenerated through the entire life of the internet. Then ask how this came to be?

      And, what? Suddenly 150 million Americans are going to STOP watching TV? And everyone will use the internet exclusively, sometime in the next 20 or 30 years? But still atomized. And that's going to lead to real change? Not likely, is it?

      Mass-reach media and internet have only "communication means" in common. Outside of that it's a comparison of elephants and molecules. Not nearly the same effect and power in political life. Not in anyone's wildest imagination.

      Revolution 101's basic rule going back hundreds of years now? "First, seize the Presses." We keep losing the war if we don't change mass-reach Media's monopoly control of wide-spread narratives and content.

      Markos! Not only are the Gates Not Crashed, they've fallen on us. Actual Representatives are what we urgently need, because we have almost none.

      by Jim P on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 12:56:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador

        I still find direct interpersonal communications enlightening.  And one of the things I learn from them is that even those who watch lots and lots of TV believe less and less of it.

        •  Just consider that the 1% are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador

          happy to let us have as many subjective reactions as we care to have. And those reactions can be anything, positive or negative, about politics or not, it doesn't matter to them.

          The one thing they really care about is making sure we're as atomized as possible. And atomization is the very nature of the internet.

          Being "connected" [sic] on the web is  an entirely different thing from all communities, factions, and subsets, getting the identical info on the same day, whether any of them seek it out or not.

          Markos! Not only are the Gates Not Crashed, they've fallen on us. Actual Representatives are what we urgently need, because we have almost none.

          by Jim P on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:59:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site