Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • 14
    Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 2 months ago
    Hello LibertyPen,
    Yes. They have been doing so for a long time. They may not always be successful, but they always keep trying. Only in the fictional world of the Fountainhead does the newsman come to the realization that his ink is futile... and change course.
    “If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.” Mark Twain
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by term2 8 years, 2 months ago
      Depends on the person who reads/watches the media. Media today transmits emotion, not facts. Facts are selected and used to support their pre-arranged agendas. Those people who are swayed by emotional arguments are convinced by the media. Those people who are objective and tune out emotion are NOT swayed by the media.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 2 months ago
        In that emotion reflects ones accepted knowledge and view of objective reality, emotion should not be tuned out. It is ones key to whether the media has relayed something that is contrary to ones beliefs. An objective person would then find it necessary to use some logical thinking on whatever data is available to fix anything wrong with the knowledge which resulted in the emotion. If not fixable, then a mental question mark is needed to indicate future evidence and thought are needed. If there is no emotion about what media conveys, then beware of being religious about it as with being a true believer. If one views the media as separate from personal emotion, then one has just accepted what the media states. Repression of emotion will come back to haunt a person later. Emotion will tell you how you evaluate reality with respect to your knowledge and beliefs about that knowledge. Objectivism does not say that one should become an emotionless Spock, but that it is the way one decides whether one may or may not need to act depending on choice on whether to do so. It is also, in many cases, a key to whether one has to inhibit some action.

        The media does not transmit emotion, it transmits information, in many case, whether it is true or false. Be vigilant as always when dealing with reality, it can turn and embarrass you or even give a painful bite.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 2 months ago
        Your right, if one can discern what is the truth in the propaganda that holds it tenuously together, you might be better informed as what is going on.
        Point two...it ain't easy.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by mminnick 8 years, 2 months ago
    The Main stream media (or as some say, The lame stream media) are certainly trying to do so. Hillary can do no wrong and Trump can do no right according to them. for example, CNN blasts trump for :Fat Shaming Miss Universe when they did the same thing.
    They don't point out it was not just a second e-mail account, it was a total server package when Hillary makes that statement
    They jump on the 20 yr old tax return as evidence of wrong doing when Trump too a $900M loss (perfectly leagal BTW). Accounting firms can't properly Audit the Clinton foundation because the cross links and other actors cannot be properly followed (according o some reports).
    The list is endless (almost
    I not saying there are no problems with Trump but the main stream media would have you believe there are no major problems with Hillary which is clearly not true.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by LibertyPen 8 years, 2 months ago
      The problems with Trump revolve around what he has said. The problems with Hillary revolve around what she has done. Big difference.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mminnick 8 years, 2 months ago
        Agree. but the press doesn't address what she has done or what she says. For example the statement she made to West Virginia coal miners about shutting down the mines and puting them out of work.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 8 years, 2 months ago
        Big difference. We KNOW what Hillary would do if elected- she even tells us openly. With Trump, at least he opposes what we know is a crooked establishment. He doesnt have to run for president, given the facts he has a business, a great family, and more money than he can possibly spend. I think that he is really running to try and help the country and its people. Hillary is running for personal power only.

        Running for president, and in fact BEING president is a terrible job in todays culture. You are under the gun 100% of the time. You turn right and you are denigrated. You turn left and you are denigrated. You go straight and you are accused of doing nothing. I feel for Trump- he really doesnt have to do this. He has little to gain personally. Hillary has everything to gain personally- just power.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 2 months ago
    Two sides to this: the classical media seems to be arrogantly oblivious to the impact of online social media influence. The MSM has been a powerful propaganda tool for progressive politicians, with growing influence, and have become confident they can essentially decree who shall be elected. It's evident some in the MSM community have become aware, and some even alarmed that their monolithic hold on the public consciousness is slipping, due to the flow of information over the internet outside of their control.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 2 months ago
      A cogent point.
      Everyone seems to be aware of the power of social media, but few are discussing it. Somehow, social media discussion is looked down upon, sort of like using the word "ain't."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 8 years, 2 months ago
    They've pre-determined the candidates, the issues, and the election - not as to what's best for the nation, but what's best for their ratings for the next 4 (or 8) years. Why do you think they axed Johnson, other than he's too serious, presidential, and not a controversial nut.

    It's only sad that they stopped trying to hide it - and yet the sheeple consumers continue to buy their BS as if it was a legitimate election. And they'll accept whoever the media announces (unlike Al Smith) as gospel, no matter what the real evidence says.

    The sad part is you will NEVER know what the REAL results are. Because it's already decided...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 8 years, 2 months ago
    Absolutely. Too many (and I know a few) still get their news at 6:30pm from the major networks. Given the slant of those networks, then of course they can influence the election. I sat through my first NBC newscast in years after dinner with friends. There were three hit pieces on Trump in the first 10 minutes, and one puff piece about Hillary. When I pointed this out, the reaction was: "So?" To these same people the NBC anchor, Lester Holt, is admirable, and "Mr. Objective". They saw not a hint of bias in his debate moderation. Of course the MSM influence is shrinking, but not nearly as fast as it should.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by ProfChuck 8 years, 2 months ago
    "It's the P word stupid." When a reporter believes the job is to influence rather than inform they have abandoned journalism and have become propagandists. The so called "Main Stream Media" is no longer an objective source of information (assuming that it ever was). It has become (and maybe has been for a long time) the propaganda arm of the liberal-progressive movement. As a result there should be no hesitation in calling them out for what they are. Propagandists in the same sense that Gobbels was for the third Reich. The use the same techniques of misinformation and slanted reporting with the intent to sway the electorate which results in democracy being nothing more than a carefully crafted illusion. When the sheep patiently wait in line to be shorn, or worse yet slaughtered, the tyrant has achieved his goal. Propaganda plays an essential role in establishing this kind of unwitting compliance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 2 months ago
      It is something that I and many other have been railing against for years. No matter that their prejudicial coverage has become blatant to the point of embarrassment the MSM jes keep rollin' along.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 2 months ago
    Insofar as people listen to and believe them, yes. With more and more people turning to online news sources, the traditional news outlets which rely primarily on television are seeing their influence lessen dramatically.

    What I am more concerned about, however, is their ongoing reporting bias in favor of progressive political agenda. The Founders always saw a free Press as the single biggest factor in helping the People act as a check on government. A corrupted Press is just as dangerous to a free society as a corrupted government.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by EdGoldstein 8 years, 2 months ago
      The media has always been corrupt. The difference is that now the media has a single propaganda narrative.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 2 months ago
        TV media maybe. Before TV the newspapers were relatively reliant on a broad readership and actually upheld journalistic standards and integrity. Now - and especially the television ones - are more entertainment outlets than news outlets as our society has increasingly become like the ancient Romans - demanding the arena blood sports while their civilization collapses around them in debt and moral decay.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by dukem 8 years, 2 months ago
    I must admit that I have ventured recently outside of my Fox and other conservative/libertarian bubbles (been in there for over 8 years), balanced by reading newspapers (most of whom use as their sources the MSM (AP, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WP, etc.).
    I am astounded (yet not surprised) at the two totally different worlds in which each side resides. It is as if I had landed on another planet, different languages, cultural assumptions, etc., yet all using a common language. I see it in my local smaller community all the time, which is moving from the center (whatever that is0 to the left very rapidly, with almost no comprehension on the part of citizens that this is happening.
    Whatever happens, we are in for a very difficult period in the future, and it's not hard to notice that others are also preparing for it.
    And this was such a good country, warts and all.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 2 months ago
    Even though a Hillary administration would be anxious to eliminate private control of all media, they flock like lemmings to their own destruction by blindly advocating the liberal cause. I cannot explain the complexity of their motives without writing a book, BUT, contributing factors are: Being taught by liberal teachers for the last several decades starting in primary school and right through college, seeking power and riches, assuaging guilt for being OK while the world isn't, and never, never trying to find the truth of why things are the way they are.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 2 months ago
    The media can sway the election by what it doesn't cover. For example, freezing Libertarian candidates out of the debates (and some polls). Gary Johnson would be doing much better if the media had allowed him to participate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 2 months ago
    Absolutely. If all the masses hear is about how bad Trump is, they will sway the ignorant ones with their emotional messages. Its propaganda, pure and simple.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyPen 8 years, 2 months ago
    My take: The media does NOT have the power to sway the 2016 election, though they may die trying. As much as they despised him, they could not dispatch Bush. The media is widely identified as transparently partisan and polls show they are not trusted, and have become more known for driving a narrative than reporting news. Evidence exists that the lockstep establishment-worshipping mainstream media is more likely creating a backlash than proving itself an effective advocacy tool that can sway this election. In the final analysis, they don’t have enough sugar-coating for the turd they are peddling this time around.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo