Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSE
Thank you. That was very insightful.
I will take issue partially with the media is doing the social engineering. The media, in my opinion, is simply focused on running stories that will make them money. Sadly, they have to fill 24x7 streaming. Used to only have to fill 3 or 4 hours a day, now they have to come up with 168 hours of "news". sigh. So, they put out snippets with inflammatory headlines - all trying to get your attention to click. They get paid by the click and how long you stay to watch. They appear to have little regard for the consequences of their streaming, as long as they make money.
Keep in mind that to maximize profit, they need to focus their articles on THEIR base. Sort of like politicians. The Media picked a base to market to and have to feed that base articles the base will click to see and watch. It is a vicious cycle. I expect CNN has no business plan to try to take Fox watchers, and Fox has no plan to try and take CNN watchers. Each focuses on doing everything possible to capture their views attention.
That said, I feel it is a safe bet that some articles are "encouraged" by various outside (not part of the media company) interests. This is true of all media Fox and CNN. I am fairly sure it is a safe bet that some politicians have contacts that they "suggest" stories to, and the media runs with them so they can get "insider" stories in return.
In addition, even back in the day when Howard K Smith et al, actually had NEWS shows, that told the NEWS. politicians "played" the media - things like releasing bad news on Fridays. etc.
I get a lot of my new from BBC and other world news sources, for exactly those reasons.
Now, is social engineering being pushed. I don't know, could be. But, I doubt seriously that any of the major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, OAN, NewsMax, et all) would put a social engineering piece over profit. But, I am also sure they will "fill" in that extra 144 hours they have to fill with social engineering that their particular audience wants to hear.
|
Well, as H.L. Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public". That also goes for American media. Especially for American media. The days of Howard K. Smith and Uncle Walter (the most trusted man in America) Cronkite are ancient history. News "reporting" today is more on the level of National Enquirer bilge than it is responsible reporting.
My own personal opinion is that media inevitably reflect the politics of the medium in question. You can see that in the reporting, especially in how words are used. Two mediums might be reporting the same story in virtually the same manner. Let's say that, for the sake of example, the story is about a person nearing the end of his career in the public eye. One story refers to the person as a "venerable statesman", the other as an "aging politician". Those are the ONLY two words that are different. I don't know about you but the first gives me the impression of, say, a Winston Churchill. The second? Teddy Kennedy. We both have the same information, but our emotional reaction may be decidedly different based on those words.
There are numerous other examples of how our emotions are channeled. Media is dangerously expert at it. There are a lot of obvious ones. The ones that are really scary though are the ones that we CAN'T spot. It is why, like you, I get most of my news from foreign sources.
...or just shut news out altogether.