Duly Consider: Media Hype but Who the !@#$ Cares? »
Posted by: trnscndr 6 months, 3 weeks agoThe photo/screenshot from Propeller only highlights the passion, or apathy. Do we really care the same about trends among future chefs as Obama's "runaway" win in SC? The media would like you to think something amazing is going on, when frankly, all was predictable and quiet in SC.
Read Full Story at dulyconsider.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 87
-
0%
trnscndr6 months, 3 weeks ago
I am sick of the media telling me how excited or insulted I should be. As if I can't decide for myself what an "attack" is or what is "Race-bating" and who is really starting it? The media, that's who!
Reply-
0%
Beeboppin716 months, 3 weeks ago
It's all a diversion. I'm wondering what the Administration is doing while all of this is going on.
Reply -
0%
Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
Unfortunately, the media know well what sells. The people--that vast majority of the public that watches TV reality shows and loves to judge Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, are looking for a fight. They gobble up media-created hype.
The polarization of public opinion that began a few decades back has tied in perfectly with the tendency of media toward provocation--that's been what's made divisiveness so successful, and so hard to combat--human nature.
Reply -
0%
ETproductions6 months, 3 weeks ago
trnscndr, You've been tarring and feathering Obama in so many threads now that I wonder if the race baiting isn't close to your own heart.
The Clintons quite deliberately started the race baiting in carefully selected code words. http://www.blackperspective.net/index.php/dick-...
Of course the press picked up on it. It sells. But for Bill and Hill to now chide the press for reporting what they have been traveling all over the country saying is the height of hypocrisy.
If you want another president like George W. Bush who uses every divisive technique known to man to get whatever he wants and split the nation apart in the process, Hillary is the right choice. We all already know how honest Bill was. Hillary seems to be a carbon copy.
Reply-
0%
trnscndr6 months, 3 weeks ago
Why is it when you oppose a candidate who is black, you instantly get accused of racism. This is exactly why the media has been patting Obama on the back for his unsubstantial run and his lackluster voting record.
As someone who worked on staff for Julian Bond (current head of the NAACP) I am not really worried about one's perception that I am racially driven. Conversely, I hold him to the same standard as I hold others.
There are two kinds of racism, one is when you hate someone because of their race; the other is that you love them for it. In this case, to put on the kid gloves for Obama, does him no favors. I only wait patiently for his substance and for him to actually vote his conscience as a senator.
As for "Tarring and feathering" and "race bating", that's just hype. No one has come close to "attacking" Obama yet, but be sure, if he is the nominee, they will.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
trnscndr6 months, 3 weeks ago
Well, ameliog, you and I both know that's true, try talking about 911 in a non-approved way and see what happens. Right?
Reply-
0%
ameliog6 months, 3 weeks ago
I was contemplating just this notion about an hour before noticing the posted article. For all the honest discourse - and we still have enough of it to maintain some sense of hope - there are many issues that I suspect are so sensitive, so radical, so borderline-conspiratorial that most of us back away from that flame and chew on the more-or-less safe issues.
Maybe it's part of a group dynamic at work. I don't know.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
dexlovex26 months, 3 weeks ago
I agree with ameliog on this one. The mainstream corporate-consolidated media now can pound its message more efficiently. Television has conditioned the masses to be open to what they see on it to be the truth. This is also happening on the internet. This is creating sheep and we know what happens to sheep in the end.
Reply-
-
0%
ameliog6 months, 3 weeks ago
It does take extra effort, though. Not sure if I'm just spouting so-called conventional wisdom, but the average person probably gets nearly all their news from television, possibly drive-time talk radio, and a newspaper of choice. It's all they have time for. They might not even be aware that the same corporation might own most or all of those news sources. So people think by taking in news from differing media that they have a broad selection of information but it's essentially the same stuff, different media type.
Those who don't exercise proper care and feeding of their own mind will default to whatever their MSM source provides, turn this into a right/left issue, or something equally removed from the real issues.
Reply -
0%
Radiofreeeuropa6 months, 3 weeks ago
That is true of fairly intelligent people, yet we encounter those who insist opinions expressed and rumors invented on MSM with no sources are true beyond questioning. Truth has always been something attempts are made to conceal yet today because of consolidation and perhaps the volume of repetition it is rarely even glimpsed. Media, the 4th estate, is crucial to keeping tyranny at bay. The pre Reagan "anti trust" style FCC regulations must be returned. No one should own more than 1 media outlet in a given market.
Reply
-
-
0%
sumptuousdigs6 months, 3 weeks ago
"...and we know what happens to sheep in the end."
I watched a local piece on KERA (DFW) public TV about the history of the Ft Worth stock yards.
One of the old timers, a slaughter crew member, noted that unlike the hogs and the cattle, that kicked up quite a fuss when slaughtered, the sheep didn't make a sound.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
What exactly are you asking for perspective on? The story itself (that weapons manufacturers are donating to Clinton), or how the fact that the story can be found fits into this discussion?
I'm not sure how to address the second question, but you can be sure weapons manufacturers--and most large corporations--will donate to both Democrats and Republicans in order to buy access to the winner.
Reply-
0%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
Beau7890
I think you saw right thru me.
The reason I posted this story here:
It is not the type of story one would see on TV.
Nor is it the type of story many would want to be widespread.
It is one however that could influence how I would vote.
I was curios what the response would be.
Reply -
0%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
I tend to waste most of my Sunday mornings watching the full array of talking heads available on network TV.
I can not recall any discussion about the campaign contributors,
And very little about voting records.
The Pundits, many of whom I like, seem to spend their time with entertaining insights about the Charisma and appearance of the politicians.
I they are lucky one of the Politicians will have said something dumb or laughed at the wrong time.
Little clips and sound bytes.
And I Eat it.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Amazing16 months, 3 weeks ago
Media is not short for "medium" for it certainly does not reach to even that level. A failing grade is more like it. It is corporate owned, corporate controlled pap. Part of the bread and circuses with which they hope to pacify the people. Send the people a check for $600.00. They can watch TV and eat Big Macs. That will help the economy. Or maybe lull them to sleep while the government and the corporate elite tries to wring the last ounce of spine out of us.
It is an absolute necessity that if we are to preserve any of our freedoms, that we exercise them now with free speech. That we try in some way to establish our own sources of news. Show me where to sign up. Because I don't give a crap about the non-news of Obama's rout and the love life of Paris Hilton.
Reply-
0%
1-2-Oscar6 months, 3 weeks ago
"Media" is not short for anything--it is the plural form of "medium." Surely someone who has "worked in management and writing for many major publishing groups and broadcasters, he has been a lecturer of Critical Thinking and has worked as a linguistic consultant overseas at universities and with corporations" could have told you that. Maybe he was too busy having another hissy fit.
Free speech is certainly an essential right, but it carries with it the obligation to think before you speak.
(Do I need to define "hissy fit" for you?)
Reply-
HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
1-2-Oscar6 months, 3 weeks ago
Bryan Hall's blog entry is as bad as any of the main-stream media he criticizes. Untruths, half-truths, unwarranted conclusions--they're all there, ready to be picked apart. In sum, it's just an ill-tempered rant by someone who appears abysmally uninformed. But rather than simply admitting that he knows nothing, he chooses to go off on his straw "enemies."
What a waste! Frankly, I doubt that anyone considers his opinions significant enough to earn him any serious consideration. Let's move on. We have some serious choices to make this year, and we don't need to devote much of our time to childish tantrums.
Reply-
0%
trnscndr6 months, 3 weeks ago
Mine doesn't pretend to be news. Everything I write is OpEd. Media Criticism and Political Analysis generally tend to be from many years of experience in media and campaigns, of which I have 30 years. It is not a term paper, take it or leave it.
As usual, you will leave it as you have always made yourself clear that you are not a fan. But I will say specifically, for someone who accuses me pf being uninformed and ill-tempered, I would have to ask where is your argument of the points rather than ad hominem attacks.
No one could possibly read this article without knowing specific examples of media exaggeration. This one is about only one in a series of many.
As for childish, please see the comment above mine.
Reply
-
-
0%
Poulenc6 months, 3 weeks ago
Well, first, it isn't either/or: one can be interested in BOTH the SC primary results AND trends among chefs. It's a big world--one that embraces much. And as good ol' St. Augustine said, "The high and the low together are greater than the high alone."
Now, to the larger "media issue": the job of same is to sell, which is to say, to encourage advertisers to drop bucks in their pockets.
In our media-saturated culture, it takes a lot to get our attention. Ergo hype. Discriminating consumers automatically filter out the crap. Less discriminating consumers don't as readily, if at all.
I find turning off the TV permanently very head-clearing. I recommend it.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
0%
4cprocess6 months, 3 weeks ago
"They no longer have to attribute their quotes; just simply saying, "some sources have said" or "he has been quoted as saying...".
Very well stated.
I have posted on here several times about this tactic and how ambigous the media has become. Journalism has taken back seat to sensationalism thanks to "corporate" America. It's not about the truth anymore, it's about the numbers.
I, for one, have taken the blinders off and see the media for what they truly are. I refuse to watch the tabloid-driven shows that depict the daily cannibalizing of politicians, Hollywood types and sports stars. It's absolutely ridiculous how much of this crap there is out there.
cont.
Reply -
0%
4cprocess6 months, 3 weeks ago
I can only wonder if someone would believe me or actually have me committed if I made the following statement in the 1950's...."I'm not letting my 7 year-old son wear those shoes, someone may kill him for them!"
This is where we have arrived after 50 years of deluded feeding from the MSM's trough of dementia.
Sad but true.
May God have mercy on his world.
Reply -
0%
joeblowe6 months, 3 weeks ago
Anyone who thinks the main media outlets don't edit the news to suit their own purposes, or spin it to make it SEEM more ENTERTAINING - need only take note that in the Nevada primary, when Ron Paul placed SECOND, they skipped right over his name and only announced the third place. It was hard to find any stories anywhere in the MSM that took any note whatever of how significant that was. Further, you NEVER hear the MSM mention that Dr, Paul has beaten Rudy in every primary so far except New Hampshire. And yet --- you sure hear the name Giuliani on the news a LOT - don't you? Is this what you would consider REPORTING? Not in my book - it's EXPLOITING and SENSATIONALIZING. And - more than a little - subtle politicizing.
Reply -
HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
icono16 months, 3 weeks ago
I find it interesting that the media has become as duplicitous, self centered and money hungry as some of the very people they rant and spin about; politicians.
Reply -
0%
Truzseeker6 months, 3 weeks ago
I also am sick of the media telling me how excited or insulted I should be. Probably its good that I no longer watch much TV, and am consumed with being productive.
Reply
Submitted By:
trnscndr
1)Of all my political tenets the one I know to be true is that emotional politicians who ignore logic are enemies of the state ...
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Helixbuilder
ciera-marie
berkeley
bonaroo- TGrass3001
ameliog
Eagle_Eye
tehranchik
dandt1612
Dobes_Rule
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
