10 Compelling Reasons You Can Never Trust The Mainstream Media -Health & Beauty Informations. This article, entitled 10 Compelling Reasons You Can Never Trust The Mainstream Media, we have prepared this article carefully for you so you can retrieve information therein. Hopefully you understand the contents of this article that we put under the category conspiracy, well, happy reading.

Title : 10 Compelling Reasons You Can Never Trust The Mainstream Media
link : 10 Compelling Reasons You Can Never Trust The Mainstream Media

10 Compelling Reasons You Can Never Trust The Mainstream Media

A survey last year showed that confidence in the media is increasing, which should worry all who value truth, integrity and freedom of the press. Why? Here are 10 disturbing things everyone needs to know about the giants of the global media that control our supply of information, wielding immense power over people-and even the government.

1. the mainstream media exists only to make profits

How the purpose of the media? To say that the press to inform, educate or entertain is like saying that the main function of the Apple Corporation is making technology that will enrich our lives there. In fact, the industry of the media is the same as any other in a capitalist society exists to make a profit. Medialens, a site of the British campaign, criticizing the main (or corporate) current journalism quoted business journalist Marjorie Kelly as saying that all companies, including those related to the media, only exist to maximize returns to its shareholders. It is said, 'the law of the land ... universally accepted as a kind of divine truth', unquestionable. Without pleasing shareholders and a board of directors, simply would not exist companies mass media. And once you understand this, you'll not see the news the same way again.


2. advertisers dictate content

'journalist' Andrew Ross Sorkin and
connection Goldman Sachs
Flickr / WilliamBanzai7 / Colonel Flick

So how the pursuit of profit affects news we consume? media corporations make the vast majority (usually around 75%) of its profits from advertising, meaning advertisers are dictating same content- not journalists, and certainly not consumers. Imagine that you are a publisher of a newspaper or television channel success with high circulation or audience figures. To attract revenue from big brands and multinational companies such as airlines UAE BP, Monsanto and. How you can then deal with important issues such as climate change, genetically modified food or disastrous oil spills in a manner that is both honest to your audience and favorable to their clients? The answer is simple: you can not. This could explain why Andrew Ross Sorkin, the New York Times sponsored Goldman Sachs has much interest in defend twisted corporation. Andrew Marr, political correspondent for BBC , sums up the dilemma in his autobiography : 'The big question is whether advertising limits and reshapes the news agenda. It does, of course. It is difficult to make additional sums when you are hitting the people who write the checks. ' Enough said ...

3. billionaire tycoons and media monopolies threaten real journalism

image credit - Flickr / Mike Licht

the monopolization of the press (fewer individuals or organizations controlling the increase of the shares of the media) is growing year after year, and this is a serious threat to press ethics and diversity. media mogul Rupert Murdoch neoliberal personal policy are reflected in its 175 newspapers and approved by experts (see Fox News) about 123 television stations it owns in the US. UU. only. Whosoever is not concerned about this view one man's world consumed by millions of people around the globe US from the UK, New Zealand to Asia, Europe to Australia-NOT thinking enough about the consequences. Grotesque's an all-encompassing monopoly, leaving no doubt that Murdoch is one of the most powerful men in the world. But as News International phone hacking scandal showed, being certainly not the most honorable or ethical. Nor is Alexander Lebedev , a former KGB spy and politician who bought the British newspaper The Independent in 2010. With Lebedev's fingers in many pies (the billionaire oligarch is in everything, from investment banking to airlines), you can really expect news coverage of this publication, once respected to continue on the same line? Obviously not: the paper had always carried a banner on its front declarándose'free party political bias, free from influence 'owner, but interestingly, this was reduced in September 2011.

4. corporate press is in bed with the government

The first party with Rebekah Brooks
Photo British Prime Minister David Cameron
: Dafydd Jones (telegraph.co.uk)

Aside from the obvious, one of the most disturbing facts emerging from phone Murdoch's News International hacking scandal (background information here ) it was the exposure of connections with shadow between senior government officials and tycoons press. During the scandal, and throughout the subsequent investigation Leveson ethics of the British press (or lack of them), we learned of secret meetings threats Didn't by Murdoch to politicians to do what he wanted, and Prime Minister David Cameron, has a very close friendship with Sun's then editor in chief (and CEO of News International) Rebeca Brooks . How can journalists do their job of keeping politicians to consider when you are on vacation together or rubbing shoulders at private dinners? Clearly, NO intention to do so. But government support works both ways- Cameron's tried helps son Murdoch's winning bid BSkyB while curiously, Prime Minister Tony Blair, former warmonger is godfather to Murdoch ' s daughter Grace. In addition to securing an overwhelming bias in news coverage and election campaigns, periodic flooding with cheap and easy items unquestioned government sources, and gagging writers criticize those in power, these secret connections also realize most part of the corporate media's incessant hawking of patriotism lie - especially in the run up to the attacks against other countries period. Tope here's an interesting cover analysis of The New York Times's of the current situation in Syria, for example, demonstrating how corporate journalists are failing to reflect public sentiment on the issue a full -scale attack by the US Assad and its allies.

5. important stories are overshadowed by trivia

image Credit: heavy.com

you could be forgiven for assuming that the most interesting part of the Edward Snowden's status as a whistleblower was your trip by plane from Hong Kong to Russia, or its long season of waiting at the airport in Moscow for someone-anyone-to offer him asylum. Because with the exception of The Guardian who published leaks (read in full here ), the media have generally preferred not to focus on Snowden's damning revelations about freedom and tyranny, but rather banal trivia - his personality and background, if your girlfriend misses him, if he is actually a Chinese spy, and ahhh, didn't reminding us all Where's Waldo as he drew in the world as a fugitive? The same could be said of Bradley Manning's gender reassignment, which are located in eclipsed the enormous injustice of his sentence. And Julian Assange? His Profile on world-respected BBC is devoted almost entirely to a subtle fouling of character, rather than detailing Wikileaks's profound impact on our world view. In all cases, the main stories are forgotten as our attention, lost in a sea of ​​curiosities, deviates by experts from the real issues at hand. Which invariably, the government wants us forget

6. The main means Indifferent questions

image Credit / web.archive.org

'check their sources, check your facts' are golden rules of journalism 101, but I guess that would not be reading the press corporate or watch TV channels. At the time of this writing, Obama is beating the drums of war in Syria. Following US accusations and Britain that Assad was responsible for a nerve gas attack in their own civilians last month, most newspapers-the mainstream as the aforementioned New York Times - has Error to require evidence or call for restraint in a large-scale attack. However, there are several good reasons why journalists should question the official story. First, the British newspaper The Daily Mail published right a reality News back piece in January this year, publishing leaked emails from a British arms company showing the US I was planning a fake chemical attack on the civilian population of Syria's flag. They then blame Assad to win back public support for a full-scale invasion. The article has been deleted in a hurry, but a cached version still there . Another recent evidence supports the unthinkable. It has been found that the chemicals used to make nerve gas were indeed sent Britain, and German intelligence insists Assad was not responsible for the chemical attack. Meanwhile, a hacktivist presented alleged evidence of the agencies participation 'US intelligence in the killing (download itself here ) with growing body of evidence suggesting this vile plot was hatched by Western powers. Never overlook the media's corporate ties to big business and big government before accepting what they are Told- because if journalism is dead, you have the right and duty to ask their own questions.

7. corporate real journalists hate journalists

Michael Grunwald, senior national correspondent Time tweeted que'can't wait write a defense of the drone is carried out Julian Assange. ' Salon writer David

Image Credit / intellectualrevolution.tv

Sirota rightly points out irony this: 'Here you have a reporter who expressed excitement at the prospect of the government running the editor information it became the basis of some of the most important journalism in the last decade. 'Sirota points to several examples of what he calls los'Journalists against journalism Club ', and gives several examples how The Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald has been attacked by the corporate media for publishing Snowden's leaks. The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Greenwald arrest , while NBC's David Gregory stated having Greenwald Snowden''aided complicity. As for the question of whether journalists can indeed be frank, Sirota pinpoints that all depends on whether their views serve or challenge the status quo, and goes on to list hypocrisy from critics Greenwald's in depth: 'Grunwald has reviews saber rattling we are proud to support government airstrikes and surveillance. Sorkin opinions promote the interests of Wall Street. (The Washington Post's David) Broder had opinions that supported, among other things, the trade agenda that serves corporate governance "free". (The Washington Post's Bob) Woodward has reviews supporting an ever larger Pentagon budget that enriches defense contractors. (The Atlantic's Jeffrey) Goldberg promotes generally pro-war military-industrial complex opinions. (The New York Times's Thomas) Friedman is all together, promoting both "free" trade and "suck on this" militarism. Because these voices loyally promote unstated assumptions that serve the structure of power and dominate American politics, all of their private opinions are not even typically portrayed as opinions; usually they presented as objectivity. ' noncontroversial

8. Bad news sells, good news is censored, and celebrity gossip trumps important issues

Justin Bieber -
image Credit / Wikimedia

is sad but true: the bad news really have to sell more newspapers. But why? Are we really so pessimistic? How can we enjoy the suffering of others? Are we secretly glad that something terrible happened to someone else, not us? Reading the corporate media as an alien visiting Earth is possible to assume yes. Overall, news coverage is sensational and depressing as hell, with many pages devoted to murder, rape and pedophilia and yet none of the billions of good deeds and incredibly inspiring movements taking place every minute of every day around the globe. But reasons consume bad news is perfectly logical. In times of peace and harmony, people just do not feel the need to educate themselves as much as they do in times of crisis. That is good news for anyone beginning to despair that humans are apathetic, hatred and dumb, and could even argue that this instructive and simple fact is a great incentive to industry media mass for do something worthwhile. They could start offering the angle positive and hopeful for a change. You could use dark periods of increased public interest to convey a message of peace and justice. They may reflect humanity's desire solutions and our pressing concerns for the environment. They could act as the voice of a world population that has had enough of violence and lies to campaign for transparency, equality, freedom, truth and real democracy. It would have to sell newspapers? I think so. They might even contain some politicians to account on behalf of people, would not that be something? But in the foreseeable future, aesthetics, probably the corporate press will just distract our attention with another image of Rhianna's rear, another rumor about Justin Bieber's habit of coke, or other article about Kim Kardashian (who she is again? ) with heels methacrylate with swollen ankles during pregnancy. That by missing $ 21 billion, what was I thinking?

9. Who cares controls the language controls the population

Flickr / Jason Ilagan

have you read George Orwell's classic novel 1984 yet? It's become a cliché reference dystopia today, that's true, but with good reason. And there are many parallels between Orwell also many- imaginary dark future and our present reality, but an important part of their vision language in question. Orwell coined the word " Newspeak 'to describe a simplistic version of the English language with the aim of limiting the freedom of thought on issues that call into question the status quo (creativity, peace, and individualism, for example). the concept of Newspeak includes what Orwell llamó'DoubleThink'- how language is ambiguous or even reversed to convey the opposite of what is true. in his book, the Ministry of War is known as the Ministry Love, for example, while the Ministry of Truth handles propaganda and entertainment. Sound familiar yet? Another book that delves into this issue is deeper Unspeak , for anyone interested in the language and power and, specifically, how the words are distorted for political purposes a must read. Terms such como'paz keep missiles', 'extremists' march y'No zones', weapons como'assets known' or euphemisms misleading commercial como'downsizing 'for y'sunset redundancy' for termination- these, and hundreds of other examples, show how language can be powerful. In a world of increasing monopolization of the corporate media, who exercise this power can manipulate words and therefore the reaction of the public, to promote compliance, maintaining the status quo, or cause fear.

10. freedom of the press no longer exists

Flickr / watchingfrogsboil

the only press that is free (at least for now) is the independent publication without corporate advertisers, the board of directors, shareholders or CEOs. The details of how the state has redefined journalism were observed here and are mentioned in # 7, but the best recent example would be the government's treatment of The Guardian on publication of Snowden leaks. As a side note, iT possible this work touches us, as well as any other- The Guardian Media Group is not petty, after all. But on the other bearing hand in points 1 to 9 of the mind why we find it hard to believe that after the archives of the NSA were published, editor Alan Rusbridge was said by the powers' you've had fun, now return the files', which government officials broke into his newsroom and crushed up hard drives, or associated Greenwald's David Miranda arrested for 9 hours at a London airport under the anti-terrorism Act while documents related to the history columnist's be delivered? Journalism, Alan Rusbridge lamented Say for example is facing a kind of threat. ' Existential As CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather wrote : 'We have some princes and counts today, but they certainly have their equivalents today in the very rich who want to manage the news, make the facts unpleasant disappear and elect representatives who are serving their own economic and social agenda ... the "free press" is no longer a brake on power. Instead, it has become part of the apparatus of power itself. "

Sophie is an award-winning writer function, investigative journalist, activist and author. She is a staff writer for True activist on issues of peace, justice, society, environment and activism. You can find more information or contact her here .

Source: trueactivist.com

"10 Compelling Reasons You Can Never Trust The Mainstream Media", article source: riseearth.com

Thanks for Reading 10 Compelling Reasons You Can Never Trust The Mainstream Media

Thank you for reading this 10 Compelling Reasons You Can Never Trust The Mainstream Media, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article 10 Compelling Reasons You Can Never Trust The Mainstream Media Url Address https://healthnbeautyarticles.blogspot.com/2014/01/10-compelling-reasons-you-can-never.html