Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is the media so intentionally manipulative?

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why is the media so intentionally manipulative?

    Current New York Times aritcle concerning gun conrol adds this little tidbit.

    In 2006, lawmakers allied with the National Rifle Association enacted a provision making the position of A.T.F. director, which had previously been a political appointment, subject to Senate confirmation.
    Let me check...

    FBI Director= Senate Confirmation
    US Marshal Service= Senate Confirmation
    Homeland Security Secretary = Senate Confirmation

    The ATF was the ONLY federal law enforcement agency that didn't require senate confirmation. But it was the NRA that pushed for that change so that NRA could control it.

    Fuck pos media manipulation.

  • #2
    Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post
    Current New York Times aritcle concerning gun conrol adds this little tidbit.



    Let me check...

    FBI Director= Senate Confirmation
    US Marshal Service= Senate Confirmation
    Homeland Security Secretary = Senate Confirmation

    The ATF was the ONLY federal law enforcement agency that didn't require senate confirmation. But it was the NRA that pushed for that change so that NRA could control it.

    Fuck pos media manipulation.
    ATF thus far has no power. Just go cry somewhere else that they are coming for your guns now that biden has given them some power.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post
      Current New York Times aritcle concerning gun conrol adds this little tidbit.



      Let me check...

      FBI Director= Senate Confirmation
      US Marshal Service= Senate Confirmation
      Homeland Security Secretary = Senate Confirmation

      The ATF was the ONLY federal law enforcement agency that didn't require senate confirmation. But it was the NRA that pushed for that change so that NRA could control it.

      Fuck pos media manipulation.
      How is that manipulation? Did the NRA push for the change? Yes. Has NRA successfully blocked every administrator except one since the change? Yes. Is ATF the only agency out there that routinely gets its administrator blocked for political points? Yes.

      15 years with a senate-confirmed administrator position. 11 years of acting administrators. You do the math.

      Comment


      • #4
        Also, for the record, I know DSM isn't some Trumper douchenozzle, but he is more conservative than he's liberal, so with that in mind I'd like to at least offer up the other side of the story here -

        The "MSM" is heavily biased for conservatives. I know that feels weird to read, but it is true. A beat reporter is assigned to cover an election for the local dog catcher. Candidate A is a former dog catcher who knows dogs and offers a reasonable plan to reduce the stray dogs in the community by 60% over the next 24 months and budgets a reasonable but expensive cost to the taxpayers to fund this. Candidate B says he'll round up all of the stray dogs in 1 day and make the town over pay for it. He goes further by saying that he has the best dogs. People can't believe how great his dogs are. And he further adds that if they elect Candidate A, who is in the pocket of China, caravans of stray dogs will maul your kids in their cribs at night.

        The beat reporter has two options here - they can cover the story as "two candidates offer opposing views on city's stray dog problem in last night's debate" or they can cover the story as "Candidate A is a reasonable choice, Candidate B is not serious and an obvious troll who will make the situation worse".

        If they go with the former, they are doing a disservice to their readers who may not dig deeper beyond the headline. If they go with the latter, they will be accused of bias for appearing to endorse one of the candidates over the other and thus they are "fake news".

        So they generally go with the former because the conservatives in this country consistently work the refs in their favor.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DPR View Post
          Also, for the record, I know DSM isn't some Trumper douchenozzle, but he is more conservative than he's liberal, so with that in mind I'd like to at least offer up the other side of the story here -

          The "MSM" is heavily biased for conservatives. I know that feels weird to read, but it is true. A beat reporter is assigned to cover an election for the local dog catcher. Candidate A is a former dog catcher who knows dogs and offers a reasonable plan to reduce the stray dogs in the community by 60% over the next 24 months and budgets a reasonable but expensive cost to the taxpayers to fund this. Candidate B says he'll round up all of the stray dogs in 1 day and make the town over pay for it. He goes further by saying that he has the best dogs. People can't believe how great his dogs are. And he further adds that if they elect Candidate A, who is in the pocket of China, caravans of stray dogs will maul your kids in their cribs at night.

          The beat reporter has two options here - they can cover the story as "two candidates offer opposing views on city's stray dog problem in last night's debate" or they can cover the story as "Candidate A is a reasonable choice, Candidate B is not serious and an obvious troll who will make the situation worse".

          If they go with the former, they are doing a disservice to their readers who may not dig deeper beyond the headline. If they go with the latter, they will be accused of bias for appearing to endorse one of the candidates over the other and thus they are "fake news".

          So they generally go with the former because the conservatives in this country consistently work the refs in their favor.
          You could have just said that the vast majority of all media is owned either directly or indirectly by corporatist interests and are run as for profit businesses. They are therefore firmly rooted in promoting capitalism and therefore conservative by definition.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Spartan View Post

            You could have just said that the vast majority of all media is owned either directly or indirectly by corporatist interests and are run as for profit businesses. They are therefore firmly rooted in promoting capitalism and therefore conservative by definition.
            They also have a vested interest in suppressing the truth when it causes problems for their financiers. Sure, they take pot shots at the occasional billionaire, but who the fuck really thinks Fox News is going to do a hit piece on Rupert Murdoch? Their entire staff could walk in on him eating babies and none of them would say shit.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tOSUfanboi2 View Post

              They also have a vested interest in suppressing the truth when it causes problems for their financiers. Sure, they take pot shots at the occasional billionaire, but who the fuck really thinks Fox News is going to do a hit piece on Rupert Murdoch? Their entire staff could walk in on him eating babies and none of them would say shit.
              That, or one of them would take a video, release it, get fired, make tons of money, etc.

              Comment


              • #8
                For clicks...Like the thread title here...It worked, and you got your views.



                Comment


                • #9
                  I’m not sure if intentionally manipulative is the right phrase. That insinuates that the media is actually working to shape people’s opinions by making compelling — if disingenuous — articles. But, that takes work.

                  I think that most media companies — particularly in their editorial wing — simply chose their target demographic and ran with it. Fox’s opinion shows aren’t trying to change anyone’s mind. They’re unabashedly biased. Which is fine, because so are the opinion shows on CNN.

                  A long time ago, as the media became more about being a for-profit model and less a public service, they simply cordoned off the country, with each playing to their respective audience’s confirmation bias. And again, the reason is simple.

                  Righteous indignation is a proven model to get people to tune in, and keep tuning in. When presented with over-the-top takes on issues on which viewers already have opinions, it gives people something about which to bitch, complain or occasionally, rejoice. But, it’s mostly just negative.

                  We live, today, in a hyper-partisan world. And no one relishes in that more than the media. Do most have respectable news rooms? Yes. Even Fox’s actual news room is legit. But, like CNN, those folks get drowned out by the cacophony of Carlson and Lemon, of Hannity and Maddow.

                  But, as they say, that’s what keep the lights on on their CEO’s private islands.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Deschet View Post
                    I’m not sure if intentionally manipulative is the right phrase. That insinuates that the media is actually working to shape people’s opinions by making compelling — if disingenuous — articles. But, that takes work.

                    I think that most media companies — particularly in their editorial wing — simply chose their target demographic and ran with it. Fox’s opinion shows aren’t trying to change anyone’s mind. They’re unabashedly biased. Which is fine, because so are the opinion shows on CNN.

                    A long time ago, as the media became more about being a for-profit model and less a public service, they simply cordoned off the country, with each playing to their respective audience’s confirmation bias. And again, the reason is simple.

                    Righteous indignation is a proven model to get people to tune in, and keep tuning in. When presented with over-the-top takes on issues on which viewers already have opinions, it gives people something about which to bitch, complain or occasionally, rejoice. But, it’s mostly just negative.

                    We live, today, in a hyper-partisan world. And no one relishes in that more than the media. Do most have respectable news rooms? Yes. Even Fox’s actual news room is legit. But, like CNN, those folks get drowned out by the cacophony of Carlson and Lemon, of Hannity and Maddow.

                    But, as they say, that’s what keep the lights on on their CEO’s private islands.
                    Deliberately playing into the confirmation bias of your readers, viewers, or listeners is both intentional and manipulative. DPRs tereible analogy aside, he's wrong that the media is inherently conservative.

                    The harm in the media purposefully playing into and feeding the confirmation bias of people is that it leads to people pushing for harmful ideas to right wrongs they don't fully understand or are nonexistent. If you want an example. I'll go back to the 80s. With initial antivaccination stories. Or the 90s with the increase in anti pitbull media. Or the way they report on (or completely ignore when it doesn't feed the confirmation bias) police shootings.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Deschet View Post
                      I’m not sure if intentionally manipulative is the right phrase. That insinuates that the media is actually working to shape people’s opinions by making compelling — if disingenuous — articles. But, that takes work.

                      I think that most media companies — particularly in their editorial wing — simply chose their target demographic and ran with it. Fox’s opinion shows aren’t trying to change anyone’s mind. They’re unabashedly biased. Which is fine, because so are the opinion shows on CNN.

                      A long time ago, as the media became more about being a for-profit model and less a public service, they simply cordoned off the country, with each playing to their respective audience’s confirmation bias. And again, the reason is simple.

                      Righteous indignation is a proven model to get people to tune in, and keep tuning in. When presented with over-the-top takes on issues on which viewers already have opinions, it gives people something about which to bitch, complain or occasionally, rejoice. But, it’s mostly just negative.

                      We live, today, in a hyper-partisan world. And no one relishes in that more than the media. Do most have respectable news rooms? Yes. Even Fox’s actual news room is legit. But, like CNN, those folks get drowned out by the cacophony of Carlson and Lemon, of Hannity and Maddow.

                      But, as they say, that’s what keep the lights on on their CEO’s private islands.



                      wut

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Fresneck View Post




                        wut
                        Exactly.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DSMoneypit View Post

                          Deliberately playing into the confirmation bias of your readers, viewers, or listeners is both intentional and manipulative. DPRs tereible analogy aside, he's wrong that the media is inherently conservative.

                          The harm in the media purposefully playing into and feeding the confirmation bias of people is that it leads to people pushing for harmful ideas to right wrongs they don't fully understand or are nonexistent. If you want an example. I'll go back to the 80s. With initial antivaccination stories. Or the 90s with the increase in anti pitbull media. Or the way they report on (or completely ignore when it doesn't feed the confirmation bias) police shootings.
                          LOL dude what? You're mad that the NYT (correctly) points out that the NRA is lobbying members of Congress to neuter the ATF so that any serious gun control measures are never implemented. I didn't need the NYT to tell me that as the NRA will happily do that for me.

                          While you remain mad at some sort of weird game of semantics, I'm mad that we're STILL doing interviews and thought pieces on Trump supporters. I saw one in the NYT literally this week in trying to understand the Capitol terrorists.

                          We have thousands of media bits on Trump supporters in diners across OH/PA/WI/NY/NJ/IA/MN/IN etc. How many do we have of Biden supporters anywhere? Were there more than a handful?

                          Then you have the questions Biden got the other day about corporate taxes. The reporters asked him an intentionally misleading question that was something like "aren't you worried that raising the corporate tax rate will have negative impacts on the economy?". There is no evidence that raising taxes a small amount has any negative impact overall on the economy. There are countless examples of it not doing that. That is a conservative-angled question. A better question would be "do you think raising the corporate tax rate will fully fund the infrastructure package and how do you see that investment bringing a full return to the US taxpayer?"

                          I mean, it was the media that helped manipulate all of America into thinking Reagan was an economic savant:



                          Shit, just look at this interview on Fox News. They grabbed a few entitled white farmers to talk about how angry they were that, for the first time in forever, non-white farmers would actually get a slice of the gov handout pie:

                          https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/s...38900347789313

                          Zero context there though. Just leave the viewers to think that tired old trope of lazy entitled blacks getting the white man's money.

                          https://twitter.com/HelenKennedy/sta...57230594400262

                          Even the AP does it. The GOP rammed through tax cuts while giving Democrats the finger. But Democrats try to gain GOP votes on COVID stimulus, are met with immediate hostility, and pass necessary legislation and it gets titled "shoved".

                          Just look at any Sunday Show. This was from 2018 and it only got worse after Nov 2020.



                          https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/com...ss_ejfinal.pdf

                          When the first two years of both presidents are combined, Figure 3 shows that overall, the Sunday shows featured more Republican guests than Democrats. CBS’s “Face the Nation” and ABC’s “This Week” actually featured more non-affiliated guests than those from a single party.
                          Republicans are always booked on cable news and are rarely challenged. They get their talking points through easily. The senior publishers/producers/editors of these outlets are all overwhelmingly conservative.

                          You're just empirically wrong.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            As an added bonus, here is conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger outlining how the 2A is the biggest fraud perpetuated on America. Hmmm...how would this fraud be so successful? They would need a lot of methods, or mediums, to get this fraud to the American People. How would that occur....

                            https://twitter.com/RobertMaguire_/s...85218744127491

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/u...t-packing.html

                              Oh what's this? Let's dive in!

                              President Biden on Friday will order a 180-day study of adding seats to the Supreme Court, making good on a campaign-year promise to establish a bipartisan commission to examine the potentially explosive subjects of expanding the court or setting term limits for justices, White House officials said.
                              They didn't need to use "explosive" here. That seems a bit manipulative, right? Expansion of the court has happened multiple times before and expansion of lower courts used to happen frequently up until the late 70s. At the state level, it has happened countless times and currently there are "conservative" proposals to gerrymander and expand/contract state supreme courts across the country to give Republicans a partisan edge after losing a few races. Hell, in Georgia they literally fucking canceled a state supreme court election when it looked like a Democrat might win. That was just last year!

                              The president acted under pressure from activists pushing for more seats to alter the ideological balance of the court after President Donald J. Trump appointed three justices, including one to a seat that Republicans had blocked his predecessor, Barack Obama, from filling for almost a year.
                              Quite the framing and we're only in paragraph two!

                              It is not clear that the commission established by Mr. Biden will by itself clarify his position. Under the White House order establishing it, the commission is not set to issue specific recommendations at the end of its study — an outcome that is likely to disappoint activists.
                              This was a NYT breaking news alert. "breaking news, not clear anything will happen here...". Also, notice the pre-emptive framing that progressive activists will be disappointed? Setting it up already...

                              I agree with DSM that the media can be manipulative. However, this has been true for years and DSM only seems to notice when it impacts his pet projects (guns) and because of that, thinks the media has a liberal slant. That is just not true.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X