What is your opinion on the political agenda behind mainstream media?

Posted on April 26th, 2010 by admin1 in republican advertising strategy

There is a big difference between the mainstream media and just the media. The mainstream media is controlled by a few large companies that own other companies like CNN, CBS, ABC, Fox, NBC, etc. These companies own a lot more than just that. They own the majority of newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, magazines, movies, they sponsor sports and now they control the google and yahoo search engines. They get their money from their business partners or “special interests”; companies like GM, GE and Boeing. GE pays let’s say CNN only if CNN’s news benefits them (just like how people say there are liberal stations (CNN, ABC, etc.) and then the “Republican” station (Fox)); if GE benefits greater from CNN’s “liberal” news, than GE will advertise on that channel. So, for CNN to make money, they have to make news that benefits their special interests (i.e. GE’s interest). Beneficial news also includes showcasing the candidates that benefits them the most. The candidates that benefit companies like GE the most are the candidates that agree to pass legislation, in return for campaign money. This becomes an almost unstoppable triage of power. Company = Money, Money = News, News = Candidate, Candidate = official, official = legislation, legislation = money for company, and back around again. GE gets billions of dollars in war contracts with our government that the officials push (for re-election money). That’s our tax money going into official’s campaigns (and pockets) that you don’t even vote for. So, for GE to get the contract the officials need to persuade the public to get them in the right mindset for things like war. How do they do that? Well they have CNN/the mainstream media report “good news” such as: “we need a presence in Iraq”, “Palestine is our enemy” and “terrorists are coming”, etc. That scares the heck out of the public. So, what do people do? They find someone that’s strong on foreign policy, right? “John McCain, strong on foreign policy; just what America needs!” They give Americans just what they want right when they need it. What happens then is the political web called politics. They try and stick you with one issue or another until you consent (vote) with them. If it’s not his “strong” foreign policies, then it’s his “pro-life” stance, if not it must be his “tax breaks for the middle class” or his strategy for “energy independence” or just his personality. Then McCain or whoever gets elected and WAM, more policies to help the companies that got him elected in the first place. Are you starting to understand the process? It’s a giant monopoly. All these companies that profit from war are doing it because they are guaranteed contracts, including companies like (Carlyle Group) that President Bush, Bush Sr., and the Binladen’s were in; Halliburton that Dick Cheney was CEO of and Chevron that Condoleezza Rice was in. When a CEO of a company sits on a top position in government, that should literally make them a conflict of interest and the company is supposed to be excluded from any ability to contract with the government. That’s not the case here. Time and time again conflicts of interest sit at the top positions of our government and their company gets the contract. The mainstream media assists them, their company gets the contract and again the people are left with nothing but a sign standing outside the white house protesting their corporate-war.

The non-mainstream media is basically everything that wasn’t produced by these large companies or their subsidiaries. They are usually people that write for their own causes just like I’m writing this. There usually isn’t any money involved and definitely no conflicts of interest. The rest of the media usually covers stories that the mainstream won’t cover and that is the beauty of it. It’s important to hear both sides of the story and not just both sides of the mainstream view, as we already know is loaded with commercialized propaganda that supports the views of billion dollar corporations and truly the views of the people on the board of directors that steer that company (conflicts of interest). People write for all sorts of purposes whether it’s for humor, or to direct attention to an important cause that isn’t getting any support. This is the rest of the media, usually made by small independents that believe in something other than profit.

So, to merge this with the rest of what I’m saying… The R’s and D’s. “They” have found a way to split Americans in half. They have actually found ways to split us in many ways. Why? Because the real conflict is between the company owners and workers; unions versus companies, or people versus bosses. Race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, political status, etc. have nothing to do with it, they are all distractions. The fight between R’s and D’s is just another division amongst PEOPLE to keep them divided and when people are divided they don‘t have the strength th
they once had. Also, now people are fighting each other instead of the big bosses that are running the show. There is no solution to the problems that the bosses have brought up. This is the distraction that keeps the real issues from being solved. The real issue is how much should I pay my workers versus how much profit should I, the CEO be allowed to keep? What is morally right when it comes to making profit? This is the trunk from the tree of issues. It splits off later but if we fix the base, the rest should heal properly. Let’s go over a few examples… Slavery… Was it a black/racist thing or was it for profit for the owners? The fight against communism… Why would we care how other sovereign countries are run? Well, communism is the opposite of capitalism. Communism never worked because we wouldn’t let it. In a capitalist country the companies own/run everything; in a communist country the government owns/runs everything. That means that if the world increasingly become
becomes communist the capitalists are losing out in potential profit. That is where the CIA comes into play and over-throws their leadership and we plant our puppet governments to spread “democracy”. The war on terror… I already explained this on-going war. There is no end to it; the bombs we drop to stop it are also creating it, mean-while the rich business owners who happen to be the same people in our government that is propagating it make money. The war on drugs… What started the war on drugs? The workers in South America were being abused by their owners, i.e. cheap labor, no benefits, harsh working conditions, etc. Well, these people (workers) were the majority of South America. They got together (creating a union) and decided to nationalize their own countries lands. So, when the people took their land back, the corporations fought back. The company leaders went to the white house and told the president that the countries that they were doing business in were turning c
communist. We then sent in the CIA to check things out, the CIA killed the union leaders, the unions and families became pissed and decided to attack oil pipelines, the US then sent our mainstream media to show the American population how violent these “communists” were, then we sent in bomber planes to kill these communists. Well, since these communists were regular people and not aliens, they lived in regular urban villages, and so normal cities were bombed flat. The people that lived through the bombings formed groups like the FARC to defend their homeland. Since their farms, their jobs and homes were blown to pieces they needed ways to make money. Drugs were legal to grow there so they grew drugs to make money. That is where the war on drugs came from. It’s not about the drugs. The drugs are the peoples money source and there is no better way to defeat someone than to stop them financially. So, the whole anti-drug stuff originated from the US attempting to put a stop to th
the unions in South America. It’s either slave away in these corporation sweat shops or fight back. Well, anyone who is patriotic enough and is against enemies will fight back. The problem now is how far should we go to destroy these lives? On one hand we could stop the bombings and save billions of tax payer dollars but people world wide will know that the machine can be stopped. That could encourage a world wide outbreak of unionizing and nationalization of natural resources. That would be bad for business. On the other hand we could keep fighting the S. Americans, make private company CEO’s billions of dollars from supplying the war but at the cost of human lives and American tax money. That would be great for the businessmen, bad for the regular American. It’s the same situation as the war on terror, actually it’s nearly the exact same war only a different name and in different locations.

I can go on and on but I will leave it here. So, the mainstream media is the media
which is owned by a few large corporations; is edited to well suite their interests, is used to manipulate the public and to propagate anything for profit as well as entertainment. While plain old media is any form of media that isn’t owned by the main companies that own everything else. When using a video as reference, it is a pretty raw cut of action when there aren’t billion dollar companies editing the material. You will get a better real-life perspective using regular media and your opinion is completely up to you at that point and not slanted to fit a political agenda.

The liberal media had a major part in getting Obama elected.

I will never watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or NBC ever again. And the ‘no bias. no bull’ slogan CNN had? Bullsh*t!

3 Comments on “What is your opinion on the political agenda behind mainstream media?”

  1. chilebreath

    Dude, too much to read! You really need to take a course in salesmanship and how to pitch an idea/product; I fell asleep half way through your tome.References :

  2. DffrncMkr

    I believe the media exists to sell its product, which is itself and its advertising time. I believe that many journalists have a slightly left lean because they are more open-minded (isn’t that the definition of liberal?) I don’t think there’s a grand conspiracy to poison our coffee by the MSM. I think that in general they try to be factual. It’s when they talk about their analysis that they become biased.

    We all have biases, recognizing them is not easy. Getting them out of the way when we think or speak is not easy. Acknowledging them is the only way to address them.References :

  3. Oh. My.GOD.

    The liberal media had a major part in getting Obama elected.

    I will never watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or NBC ever again. And the ‘no bias. no bull’ slogan CNN had? Bullsh*t! References :

Leave a Reply