Think about it though. Virtually all newspapers in Britain have their own political affiliations and do have great influence over many people. When they massage statistics, or publish embarrising and unfair stories of the politicians they oppose, it serves to reinforce the subjective bias many people have against certain parties and individuals. This is the media interfering with politics on a grand scale, merely because sensationalising and exaggerating a story (and taking it completely out of context into a misleading mire of slander in the process) will make more money than telling people the raw truth.

True, but the way I see it is that if a newspaper x is affiliated to political party X,
then it is read by people who are with party x. Party Y people will just hear about
it and think twice. Then that politician of party Y who got his story published by
newspaper x, will go on Tv and try to BS his way around the story.

Bottom line, politicians have the upper hand. They will always do.

(sorry if the above is twisted and turned)



--vavoom--

Yes! In our PSE lessons in school we found out liek the same person owns most media.
like wtf.
It's scary.
They could put in anything they wanted to spin things and we wouldn't know.
O_o


Hand in hand is the only way to land.

Hi there all, I'm new here and don't know a lot about this forum yet, but I'm learning.

Lasher

hi new meber

The media exerts a powerful influence over the masses; however, when it comes to the government it is the other way around. The pre-war debate in America is perfect illustration. Every sunday morning you would have all the Government officials going to the sunday shows(Meet the Press, This week, Fox news Sundays, Face the nation, and so on), with the same talking points; and which would dominate the whole news cycle for the rest the week.

The media is just a tool being used by the government to get its message out.

Error: accidental double post

The American media is preoccupied with what is referred to as "soft news", such as paris hilton going to jail and the activities of celebrities in general. There is "hard news" in there, but it is overshadowed by the meaningless bulls**t. The owners of the corporate media outlets are friends with the leaders of government, so of course they will be as fair as possible to them in it's coverage of government issues. The government spends billions of dollars each year to get favorable news coverage and spread their propaganda. They are trying to fool us all, so the sheeple out their need to wake up.

Then there is 9/11 where the media was complicit in the cover-up of the truth of that tragedy. Some of them messed up like when they reported multiple explosions after the planes already hit the towers. One reporter for Fox News said he couldn't find any sign of an airplane at the Pentagon. The BBC scewed up the most, because they reported the collapse of WTC 7 about 20 minutes before it happened. When Jane Stanley was giving her report, you could clearly see WTC 7 still standing after she moves her head from blocking it. She even said," as you can see behind me, the trade center is still burning". If all the buildings had collapsed at this point, then what was still burning? The media likes to cover for the government, but sometimes their efforts aren't perfect.

SUPPORT RON PAUL!!!!

Peace

I think we need another tin foil hat warning.


Those who don't believe in evolution haven't benefited from it.