• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

911 and the Propaganda Model

mjd1982 said:
3. The reasons why it would have been imploded are irrelevant. We have the known suspicion, rgarding the tenants/contents, but logically, this matters not at all
.


Well, it does matter if you ever present your "evidence" to anybody. You will be aske about motive and you will say:


"We have the known suspicion, rgarding the tenants/contents"

And then your problem will be waiting for the laughter to die down.
 
i did it today at Speakers Corner in London, and the reaction was as unanimous as it always is. Very very simple, though it does require a) intellect, and b) intellectua honesty, Your movement is lacking for certain in one, and most probably in the other. Sad though it is to say.

OK I will go through it very slowly for you now,
........ Why would citizens of London....., Remember a property loss...... that happened in another country...... six years ago?
 
I will repeat the point, to address all the others, which is very simple, and which none of you choose to address- the indicator of censorship is not whether you, or i think it should have been reported, rather what the public thinks. Go out, and tell people that there was a 3rd bulding to fall on 911, a 47 story skyscraper, or better yet, show them the video. Then you will see the newswothiness of this or not. I am going out to do this today; you chaps can do the same.


Frankly, mjd, your contention that everyone should remember all the details of a highly newsworthy event years after it occurred is laughable, and simply serves to demonstrate your desperation to proclaim the likelihood of a US government conspiracy. Here are two examples that thoroughly disprove your contention:

From time to time, over the last 12 years, polls have been taken asking a sample of Americans to name as many justices of the United States Supreme Court as they can. The results have been fairly dismal; in the first poll taken, more people were able to name the original Three StoogesWP than were able to name three or more (out of nine) Supreme Court justices.

Two results are particularly on point here. First is the case of Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, George Bush the Elder nominated Clarence Thomas to fill the seat of retiring justice Thurgood Marshall. Thomas's nomination was controversial to begin with; many considered him unqualified, and felt that Bush had merely selected Thomas because he is black and conservative (Marshall was black and liberal). Toward the end of Thomas's confirmation hearings, however, a former subordinate, Anita Hill, came forward with sensational charges that Thomas had sexually harassed her. Thomas categorically denied the allegations, and both of them (along with supporting witnesses) testifed before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hill's testimony was extremely graphic, including much crude language which she attributed to Thomas. The hearings were broadcast live on national television, and network news programs repeated the highlights. The controversy was a huge news story; everyone was talking about it. Eventually Thomas was narrowly confirmed by the United States Senate, as Hill and her supporters had failed to make a sufficiently convincing case.

Now, four years after Thomas was confirmed, the "Supreme Court/Three Stooges" poll was taken. What percentage of Americans do you suppose could name Clarence Thomas as a justice of the United States Supreme Court? Only 30% could. Bear in mind that the "mainstream media" regularly reports on Supreme Court decisions, often including discussions of which justices voted to uphold or to overturn lower-court rulings. Was Thomas a victim of the "propaganda model," or do people simply tend to forget "yesterday's news" over time?

In a similar vein, the current Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, was confirmed in September 2005. What is particularly noteworthy is that Roberts was originally nominated by Bush the Younger to fill the seat of retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but after the sudden death of then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination and renominated him to become the next Chief Justice.

This was a major news story at the time, but just three months later, only 16% of Americans could name Roberts as a Supreme Court justice.

Source of poll numbers
.
 
Good spot on Zola. It is unfortunate that there are anti semites and neo nazis in my movement. I am certain that there are also such in yours. This is completely irrelevant to any sort of argument here. You, and the rest if your movement, need to learn focus.

I could read the headline. However, I am sure you find that not one in 1000 people could recognize the photograph. History is like that. Even as recent as 6 years ago.

As far as being certain about neo nazis and anti-semites in "my movement," I am astonished by that comment. Again, you are truly deluding yourself.
 
Frankly, mjd, your contention that everyone should remember all the details of a highly newsworthy event years after it occurred is laughable, and simply serves to demonstrate your desperation to proclaim the likelihood of a US government conspiracy. Here are two examples that thoroughly disprove your contention:

From time to time, over the last 12 years, polls have been taken asking a sample of Americans to name as many justices of the United States Supreme Court as they can. The results have been fairly dismal; in the first poll taken, more people were able to name the original Three StoogesWP than were able to name three or more (out of nine) Supreme Court justices.

Two results are particularly on point here. First is the case of Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, George Bush the Elder nominated Clarence Thomas to fill the seat of retiring justice Thurgood Marshall. Thomas's nomination was controversial to begin with; many considered him unqualified, and felt that Bush had merely selected Thomas because he is black and conservative (Marshall was black and liberal). Toward the end of Thomas's confirmation hearings, however, a former subordinate, Anita Hill, came forward with sensational charges that Thomas had sexually harassed her. Thomas categorically denied the allegations, and both of them (along with supporting witnesses) testifed before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hill's testimony was extremely graphic, including much crude language which she attributed to Thomas. The hearings were broadcast live on national television, and network news programs repeated the highlights. The controversy was a huge news story; everyone was talking about it. Eventually Thomas was narrowly confirmed by the United States Senate, as Hill and her supporters had failed to make a sufficiently convincing case.

Now, four years after Thomas was confirmed, the "Supreme Court/Three Stooges" poll was taken. What percentage of Americans do you suppose could name Clarence Thomas as a justice of the United States Supreme Court? Only 30% could. Bear in mind that the "mainstream media" regularly reports on Supreme Court decisions, often including discussions of which justices voted to uphold or to overturn lower-court rulings. Was Thomas a victim of the "propaganda model," or do people simply tend to forget "yesterday's news" over time?

In a similar vein, the current Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, was confirmed in September 2005. What is particularly noteworthy is that Roberts was originally nominated by Bush the Younger to fill the seat of retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but after the sudden death of then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination and renominated him to become the next Chief Justice.

This was a major news story at the time, but just three months later, only 16% of Americans could name Roberts as a Supreme Court justice.

Source of poll numbers
.
Is there some pathological problem tht you d'uh's have that prevents you from swallowing anyting that's remotely unpalatable to you? Is there a critical mass of repetitions that you need to be bombarded with before you are able to understand? You must have been pretty terrible at school, my days...

The point about the newsworthiness of a fact can be gauge very simply. Tell people of the existence of a fact, and see if they are surprised that they are nto aware of it. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, no one will be surprised that they dont know the names. In the case of wtc7, everyone will be. I know I was when I found out, and I'm sure you were too. We all were. This is indicative of censorship. End of story.

Another reminder that you should attack the argument, NOT THE ARGUER!
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know I was when I found out, and I'm sure you were too. We all were. This is indicative of censorship. End of story.

So you get to pick which news items should be remembered and which should not, which news items are suspicious when they are remembered and which news items aren't, and declare censorship when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

Roger.
 
So you get to pick which news items should be remembered and which should not, which news items are suspicious when they are remembered and which news items aren't, and declare censorship when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

Roger.
Oh for (rule 8) sake!!!

I will start off by saying that this is too important a issue to be idiotic. Think! Reflect! Use your brain!

I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not. If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Think!
 
Oh for (rule 8) sake!!!

I will start off by saying that this is too important a issue to be idiotic. Think! Reflect! Use your brain!

I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not. If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Think!



I am sorry, but finding someone who is so uninformed of WTC7 and then having that person blame "mass media" for his ignorance is not a good barometer of censorship, champ. The information is freely available, widely available (and is being grossly distorted by your anti-semetic friends in the CT movement, among others, but that is a thread for another time).

By the way, your "THINK" nonsense is as annoying as it is immature.
 
Last edited:
Oh for (rule 8) sake!!!

I will start off by saying that this is too important a issue to be idiotic. Think! Reflect! Use your brain!

I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not. If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Think!

Just because ANYBODY regards ANYTHING as suspicious doesn't mean it is really suspicious. That includes YOU, or this 'they' you talk about.

What you don't seem to get is you are arguing from your own bias while accusing us of the same, and then being arrogant about it. Every subject you have ever posted about all came down to the way you personally interpreted something.

That's all well and good until you come across somebody just as smart as you who interprets the same thing, having every bit the same or even more information about it as you, totally different. In this forum there are dozens of them.

Oh, then God help him because now you get all arrogant and condescending, calling him names, shill, sheep, herd, calling him stupid. "How DARE ANYBODY HOLD A CONTRARY OPINION TO ME!?", you scream.

LOL

It's childish. And frankly idiotic. And this issue is too important to be childish OR idiotic, right?
 
One aspect of your propaganda/censorship theory that hasn't been discussed here yet is evidence that extensive censorship can be carried out in secret.

I'm assuming that this censorship is carried out in secret, as otherwise you would be able to present evidence of it, such as documents describing the program, printed guidelines on what is to be censored, memos giving instructions to censors for particular cases, court cases challenging the censorship, and so forth. If you cannot present such evidence, then either you're not willing to support your own theory (in which case it's of no further interest), or the evidence is not available because the program is secret.

Historically, large-scale censorship is common enough, but are there any examples where the existence of the censorship program was itself secret? Censorship requires the cooperation of large numbers of people, starting with the people whose communications are being censored. Unless there is a general shutdown of all communication (which has clearly not happened in the U.S.), a few censors can control the communications of large numbers of people only if most of them are cooperating.

The cooperation does not have to be willing. If appeals to patriotism aren't effective, threats will also do. But to be effective such appeals and threats must reach the entire literate population. This means it's not possible to keep the appeals and threats themselves secret. For them to be effective they must be proclaimed loudly and repeatedly.

But let's suppose someone wanted to set up an unprecedented secret censorship program in the U.S., in which some number of secret participants must enforce limits on what everyone else publishes, without that interference being detected.

Not being in on the secret, a reporter for a normal city newspaper in the U.S. decides to do a story on WTC7. He researches, does some interviews, writes the story, sends out a photographer for present-day photos of the site, and then... what happens? At what point in the process does the secret censorship intervene?

Does the reporter's editor stop the story? That scenario would require every national news editor at every city newspaper and local TV news staff be in on the censorship program. Thousands of people who have chosen to make disseminating news their life's work have to be secretly enlisted, convinced, communicated with, and corrected when they err, without creating any paper trail in the process. That itself would take hundreds of people, who themselves must remain loyal, and so forth. This is impossible.

But perhaps, instead, only certain people "at the top" are in the know. After all, a small number of coroporate moguls own a large fraction of the mass media outlets. So, it's not the reporter's editor who kills the story, it's some top Viacom executive (who is mysteriously omniscient about everything his tens of thousands of employees are doing) who intervenes instead. But how? If he passes the word down the chain of command, then everyone in the chain of command will wonder what's going on, and we're back to the previous case. If he acts more directly, then the reporter goes to his colleagues and his boss and says, "Hey, a top Viacom executive killed my story about WTC7; what gives?"

So, the colleagues and editor start investigating what now appears to be an even bigger story. Until the exec contacts them and tells them to stop or they'll be fired, oh and by the way, don't tell anyone else either.

So the reporters and editor tell their freelance buddies, "Off the record, the Viacom execs killed our WTC7 story and told us we'e be fired if we tell anyone about it. There has to be a bigger story here. Why don't you look into it? Remember, you didn't hear it from me."

And the freelance writers start working on their stories, only to find that no U.S. magazine will buy them (due to more interference from top execs). So they go to their friends in the foreign press and say, "every media outlet in the U.S. is censoring stories about WTC7. There must be a really really big story here. Why don't you look into it? Here's all the material we've collected so far, plus a timeline of how each story was killed before publication." The big story isn't even the WTC7 anymore, it's the censorship program itself, which isn't going to remain secret very long.

It just doesn't work. No matter where in the chain of command the knowing censorship participants are located, at some point they must step on the toes of those who are not in on the secret in order to carry out their agenda. And in today's media environment, there is no way to stop those whose toes are stepped on from hollering about it.

Secret censorship of information that a large percentage of the population is already aware of is not plausible.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
I am sorry, but finding someone who is so uninformed of WTC7 and then having that person blame "mass media" for his ignorance is not a good barometer of censorship, champ. The information is freely available, widely available (and is being grossly distorted by your anti-semetic friends in the CT movement, among others, but that is a thread for another time).

By the way, your "THINK" nonsense is as annoying as it is immature.
It is freely and widely available, but not in the MSM, which is the point.
 
One aspect of your propaganda/censorship theory that hasn't been discussed here yet is evidence that extensive censorship can be carried out in secret.

I'm assuming that this censorship is carried out in secret, as otherwise you would be able to present evidence of it, such as documents describing the program, printed guidelines on what is to be censored, memos giving instructions to censors for particular cases, court cases challenging the censorship, and so forth. If you cannot present such evidence, then either you're not willing to support your own theory (in which case it's of no further interest), or the evidence is not available because the program is secret.

Historically, large-scale censorship is common enough, but are there any examples where the existence of the censorship program was itself secret? Censorship requires the cooperation of large numbers of people, starting with the people whose communications are being censored. Unless there is a general shutdown of all communication (which has clearly not happened in the U.S.), a few censors can control the communications of large numbers of people only if most of them are cooperating.

The cooperation does not have to be willing. If appeals to patriotism aren't effective, threats will also do. But to be effective such appeals and threats must reach the entire literate population. This means it's not possible to keep the appeals and threats themselves secret. For them to be effective they must be proclaimed loudly and repeatedly.

But let's suppose someone wanted to set up an unprecedented secret censorship program in the U.S., in which some number of secret participants must enforce limits on what everyone else publishes, without that interference being detected.

Not being in on the secret, a reporter for a normal city newspaper in the U.S. decides to do a story on WTC7. He researches, does some interviews, writes the story, sends out a photographer for present-day photos of the site, and then... what happens? At what point in the process does the secret censorship intervene?

Does the reporter's editor stop the story? That scenario would require every national news editor at every city newspaper and local TV news staff be in on the censorship program. Thousands of people who have chosen to make disseminating news their life's work have to be secretly enlisted, convinced, communicated with, and corrected when they err, without creating any paper trail in the process. That itself would take hundreds of people, who themselves must remain loyal, and so forth. This is impossible.

But perhaps, instead, only certain people "at the top" are in the know. After all, a small number of coroporate moguls own a large fraction of the mass media outlets. So, it's not the reporter's editor who kills the story, it's some top Viacom executive (who is mysteriously omniscient about everything his tens of thousands of employees are doing) who intervenes instead. But how? If he passes the word down the chain of command, then everyone in the chain of command will wonder what's going on, and we're back to the previous case. If he acts more directly, then the reporter goes to his colleagues and his boss and says, "Hey, a top Viacom executive killed my story about WTC7; what gives?"

So, the colleagues and editor start investigating what now appears to be an even bigger story. Until the exec contacts them and tells them to stop or they'll be fired, oh and by the way, don't tell anyone else either.

So the reporters and editor tell their freelance buddies, "Off the record, the Viacom execs killed our WTC7 story and told us we'e be fired if we tell anyone about it. There has to be a bigger story here. Why don't you look into it? Remember, you didn't hear it from me."

And the freelance writers start working on their stories, only to find that no U.S. magazine will buy them (due to more interference from top execs). So they go to their friends in the foreign press and say, "every media outlet in the U.S. is censoring stories about WTC7. There must be a really really big story here. Why don't you look into it? Here's all the material we've collected so far, plus a timeline of how each story was killed before publication." The big story isn't even the WTC7 anymore, it's the censorship program itself, which isn't going to remain secret very long.

It just doesn't work. No matter where in the chain of command the knowing censorship participants are located, at some point they must step on the toes of those who are not in on the secret in order to carry out their agenda. And in today's media environment, there is no way to stop those whose toes are stepped on from hollering about it.

Secret censorship of information that a large percentage of the population is already aware of is not plausible.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Sorry, I do appreciate the length of the post, but the first line misses the entire point of democratic propaganda systems. It functions through a filtering system, one of the essential features of which, is that the sort of people who will get to high level positions in corporate media are precisely those people who are disinclined to attack, in any serious way, powerul interests. You should see the Chomsky-Marr interview which I have referenced many times for more on this- he is utterly unaware of basic facts which are detrimental to his paymasters- the UK gov. This is why he is where he is.

So in the instance of 7, you will have a twofold phenomenon- the source of the information being smothered (no cameras on the scene, no press reports, no mention of it from official sources etc), followed by the disinclination of the tools of the system (MSM journalists) to report it. This will not be perfect, but it will function pretty astonishingly, with the result being the utter ignorance of the most rudmentary fact of the most reported on event of all time.

Of course, this is a pattern that can be shown to function in countless different instances- the collapse of 7/911 in general is just a very good one
 
The point is that such facts will not be deemed "news", i.e. facts tht are widely recognised and accepted.

What? By definition, "news" is something that is NOT widely known and accepted.

Do you remember the old cliché defining "news"? "Dog bites man" is not news; "Man bites dog" is.

Why would anyone, mainstream media, internet wackos, or otherwise, waste their time reporting something that everybody already recognizes and accepts?

"And in today's news, the sun rose in the east. A lot of rain has made everyone's grass grow higher. Oh, and this just in...the Pope is Catholic. For more on that story, we go to our correspondent in Vatican City."
 
Sorry, I do appreciate the length of the post, but the first line misses the entire point of democratic propaganda systems. It functions through a filtering system, one of the essential features of which, is that the sort of people who will get to high level positions in corporate media are precisely those people who are disinclined to attack, in any serious way, powerul interests. You should see the Chomsky-Marr interview which I have referenced many times for more on this- he is utterly unaware of basic facts which are detrimental to his paymasters- the UK gov. This is why he is where he is.

Tell you what: I'll accept this proposition at face value, for the sake of argument. I'm not convinced it's true, but I have no experience with the high levels of the corporate media world that would provide me any evidence to the contrary either. So, let's proceed on that basis.

So in the instance of 7, you will have a twofold phenomenon- the source of the information being smothered (no cameras on the scene, no press reports, no mention of it from official sources etc),...

No, this is not a convincing point to me. There were plenty of press reports, consistent with the relative unimportance of an event that caused no injury or death compared with previous events that day that had killed thousands. The lack of photographers in close proximity is adequately explained by the firefighters' understandable desire to search for their brothers who they believed might still be alive under the rubble, as unimpeded as possible.

...followed by the disinclination of the tools of the system (MSM journalists) to report it.

Here, you've lost me. Earlier you were talking about "high level positions in corporate media." Now you're talking about MSM news journalists. These are not "high level positions" by any stretch of the imagination, especially the ones who work on updates and retrospectives of minor aspects of old stories, which is what any MSM story about WTC7 in the past five years is.

So, I was willing to grant for the sake of argument that people in "high level positions" have the qualities you ascribe to them. But that doesn't extend to the journalists. Them, I do have personal experience with, and I've seen no evidence that they've been "filtered" for anything other than willingness to work hard for low starting wages, ability to work to professional standards under time pressure, and ability to consume vast amounts of coffee while hardly ever needing to pee.

So, what I said before still applies: if the "top level" people are trying to suppress stories, that must bring them into conflict with the journalists at some level, and that conflict would itself become a news story.

This will not be perfect, but it will function pretty astonishingly, with the result being the utter ignorance of the most rudmentary fact of the most reported on event of all time.

There's certainly a lot of ignorance out there, but the causes are simpler than any organized conspiracy or filtering process.

State and local government spend billions every year to teach U.S. high school students logarithms. Every high school graduate has studied logarithms and was required to pass tests on them.

So, go ask some average Americans who have high school diplomas what the base 10 log of 1000 is. How many correct answers do you think you would receive? Do you know the answer, without looking anything up? (You can ignore the last question if you're not a high school graduate.)

Is this evident ignorance the result of a democratic propaganda system?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
I have nowhere said that I decide these things, I have explicitly said it is the people who decide on the newsworthiness of this or not.

Nope.

If they regard it as suspicious/surprising, then that is a good barometer of such. Nothing else.

Nope.


This will not be perfect, but it will function pretty astonishingly, with the result being the utter ignorance of the most rudmentary fact of the most reported on event of all time.

Do you know what Buzz Aldrin said when he set foot on the moon for the first time?

Of course, this is a pattern that can be shown to function in countless different instances- the collapse of 7/911 in general is just a very good one

Nope. It's only important for CTists.
 
You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.
Initial reports on various events continually include some details that are omitted later. Consider the story about the Minnesota bridge collapse. Like this one:

Well, a reporter just said a witness saw something puffing out and up before the collapse, then a local anchor used the word "explosions".
How Conspiracies are born...

Eyewitness: "I was driving on the bridge, when clouds of dust began to rise, and the the bridge collapsed"

Talking Head, (Shepard Smith) on FOX: "Well, the quesion is, what caused the EXPLOSIONS?"

Explained here: http://minx.cc/?post=235608

And another quote from the same place:

I heard some initial reports indicating a number of concrete delivery trucks on the bridge - don't remember the number quoted, but it sounds like they would have been on one side of the bridge from the resurfacing lane closure, with two lanes closed and two open to traffic. Can anyone comment on the potential effect of an asymmetric load near maximum capacity?

Why were these initial impressions "censored" in later reports? The death toll, too, was steadily revised downward from the neighbourhood of 40 or 50 to about a dozen. Why the "censorship"? What really happened to the other 30 or 40 "missing" people?

I don't think the OP actually understands what censorship or propaganda really is. I would recommend a visit to any good library to find political science essays on freedom of the press in communist Russia. There have been scores of them written and the contrast between that and simple editorial revision is noteworthy.
 
Sorry, I do appreciate the length of the post, but the first line misses the entire point of democratic propaganda systems. It functions through a filtering system, one of the essential features of which, is that the sort of people who will get to high level positions in corporate media are precisely those people who are disinclined to attack, in any serious way, powerul interests. You should see the Chomsky-Marr interview which I have referenced many times for more on this- he is utterly unaware of basic facts which are detrimental to his paymasters- the UK gov. This is why he is where he is.
A filtering system? Do you mean simple editorial discretion or do you mean deliberate hiding of information in the public's interest?

You are wrong on so many counts about this. Probably the best example is Exhibit "A", the case of Conrad Black. He is a paid-up "Bilderberger" and a newsman at that. His erudition in the case of FDR is widely recognised as the most professional historical biography ever written by an amateur in the field.

But now he is fighting for his economic life and his physical freedom. His story is well documented in the MSM and, if anything, conspicuously ignored by conspiracists. Why? Because his downfall and widely-acknowledged corruption (and outright stealing) confounds every piece of "evidence" that conspiracists have about how the world works.

Of course, this is a pattern that can be shown to function in countless different instances- the collapse of 7/911 in general is just a very good one
By "very good" example, of course, you mean a "very bad" example. The story about the collapse of WTC 7 was carried in the MSM. If it hadn't been, you wouldn't even know about it. It wasn't brought to you by Gerard Holmgren, Dylan Avery, or Michael C Ruppert. It was brought to you by the major media outlets.

And how do you think the conspiracists "discovered" that the SEC had offices in WTC7?

(By the way, the whole conspiracists point about the "demolition" of WTC7 hinges upon the destruction of vital documents held there that were deliberately destroyed to stop the investigations into Enron and Global Crossing, largely. But the investigations were not stopped. Do the conspiracists accept this and provide another reason? No! Why are they censoring the truth?)
 
What? By definition, "news" is something that is NOT widely known and accepted.

Do you remember the old cliché defining "news"? "Dog bites man" is not news; "Man bites dog" is.

Why would anyone, mainstream media, internet wackos, or otherwise, waste their time reporting something that everybody already recognizes and accepts?

"And in today's news, the sun rose in the east. A lot of rain has made everyone's grass grow higher. Oh, and this just in...the Pope is Catholic. For more on that story, we go to our correspondent in Vatican City."
Excuse me. The point was facts that get widely accepted, i.e. propagated (whence propaganda)
 
Tell you what: I'll accept this proposition at face value, for the sake of argument. I'm not convinced it's true, but I have no experience with the high levels of the corporate media world that would provide me any evidence to the contrary either. So, let's proceed on that basis.

No, this is not a convincing point to me. There were plenty of press reports, consistent with the relative unimportance of an event that caused no injury or death compared with previous events that day that had killed thousands. The lack of photographers in close proximity is adequately explained by the firefighters' understandable desire to search for their brothers who they believed might still be alive under the rubble, as unimpeded as possible.

As I have argued again and again here, you may think it is insignificant. I think otherwise, The simple way of settling whether it is an important issue for the public domain, is to go out and asses the publuc domain. I will be doing this in London tomororw. I assure you, when I tell people there was a 3rd skyscrpaer, the reaction is "Holy crap, how the hell do I not know that?!". This is the barometer of significance of a story to public interest- namely the interest of the public.

Here, you've lost me. Earlier you were talking about "high level positions in corporate media." Now you're talking about MSM news journalists. These are not "high level positions" by any stretch of the imagination, especially the ones who work on updates and retrospectives of minor aspects of old stories, which is what any MSM story about WTC7 in the past five years is.

I define high levels as people who have a significant influence on output. This would include, to a large degree, the important news journalists.

So, I was willing to grant for the sake of argument that people in "high level positions" have the qualities you ascribe to them. But that doesn't extend to the journalists. Them, I do have personal experience with, and I've seen no evidence that they've been "filtered" for anything other than willingness to work hard for low starting wages, ability to work to professional standards under time pressure, and ability to consume vast amounts of coffee while hardly ever needing to pee.

This is not correct. Let's take an example. I'm pretty well qualified, but I would never conceivably get employed by the BBC, I would state, since I would not be the kind of person who would label the Iraq war as a quagmire. And if I did happen to slip through the net, it would be systematic that my reports would never make it as "news", no matter how significant they were. A good example is the Downing Street Memo.

So, what I said before still applies: if the "top level" people are trying to suppress stories, that must bring them into conflict with the journalists at some level, and that conflict would itself become a news story.

This does exist. Watch Outfoxed, and see reports on this. Look at the firing of Phil Donahue, or maybe Dan Rather, to see how powerful interests get shielded when journalists dont tow the party line. This is a news story.

There's certainly a lot of ignorance out there, but the causes are simpler than any organized conspiracy or filtering process.

Oh no, very wrong. I would be surprised if there was one Brit on the forum who knew the history of Diego Garcia, for instance. But we all know about the Falklands. Its a very, very refined system of propaganda, and the filtering mechanisms are multiple- filtering of intake and promotion is the main one, but then there are more overt systems such as I have mentioned. These all result in a picture of the world, projected by the MSM, that shields power. And this has been understood by formulators of public opinion for decades. You should read Lippmann or Bernays if you want to find out more on that particular point.

State and local government spend billions every year to teach U.S. high school students logarithms. Every high school graduate has studied logarithms and was required to pass tests on them.

So, go ask some average Americans who have high school diplomas what the base 10 log of 1000 is. How many correct answers do you think you would receive? Do you know the answer, without looking anything up? (You can ignore the last question if you're not a high school graduate.)

Is this evident ignorance the result of a democratic propaganda system?

Respectfully,
Myriad

No, but this has nothing to do with media, rather inefficiency of teaching/learning. The factors involved there are entirely different from those involved in the apprehension of the most rudimentary fact about the most reported on event of our lives.
 
Initial reports on various events continually include some details that are omitted later. Consider the story about the Minnesota bridge collapse. Like this one:



Explained here: http://minx.cc/?post=235608

And another quote from the same place:



Why were these initial impressions "censored" in later reports? The death toll, too, was steadily revised downward from the neighbourhood of 40 or 50 to about a dozen. Why the "censorship"? What really happened to the other 30 or 40 "missing" people?

I don't think the OP actually understands what censorship or propaganda really is. I would recommend a visit to any good library to find political science essays on freedom of the press in communist Russia. There have been scores of them written and the contrast between that and simple editorial revision is noteworthy.

Oh boy.

#1 You are correct- these are revisions. Explain to me how anythign has been revised re msm coverage of 7.

#2 You can find a story (true), quite well known from the late 80's, when a group of russian officials were touring the US. At the end of the tour, they turned to their US counterparts, and commented on how extraordinary it was that the people thought exactly how the government wanted them to. "In our coutnry, we have to send them to the gulags to get that to happen!" (You can see this mentioned in Richard Reeves bio of Reagan, and in Pilger's talk here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AJcxj_Kvu7A

The propaganda system in capitalist societies is different from that in autocratic ones, correct, though it shoud be mentioned that the formulator of our system, Eddie Bernays, had his ideas put into use significantly by Goebbels. But it is far more insidious and effective for the distinction. Let me give you an example.

Rupert Murdoch wishes to project his view of the world onto people. Sol in 1997 he sets up a newschannel, Fox News. He needs someone to run it who mirrors his ideology, and so he picks Roger Ailes, the former media advisor to all GOP presidents from Nixon-Bush snr. He will then, effectively, project the owner (Murdoch's) pov onto Fox's audience. Ailes, will then pick people below him (like JOhn Moody) who mirrir his ideology, who will do the same, who will do the same. And you end up with ideologues like Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannitt, who dont need to be censored, because they think what their paymaster wants them to think. This is the filtering system, and this is how media ownership get their pov's over to the populace. It is how propaganda functions in a capitlist system.

When you then concentrat media ownership, you reduce the gamut of public discourse to a very narrow spectrum. This is what we have in the US today. The point is not that the reporters etc so much get told what to do/say/think, a la Commie Russia, but that they believe every word they say. The point is that if they believed anyting different, they woudlnt be where they are.
 
A filtering system? Do you mean simple editorial discretion or do you mean deliberate hiding of information in the public's interest?

You are wrong on so many counts about this. Probably the best example is Exhibit "A", the case of Conrad Black. He is a paid-up "Bilderberger" and a newsman at that. His erudition in the case of FDR is widely recognised as the most professional historical biography ever written by an amateur in the field.

But now he is fighting for his economic life and his physical freedom. His story is well documented in the MSM and, if anything, conspicuously ignored by conspiracists. Why? Because his downfall and widely-acknowledged corruption (and outright stealing) confounds every piece of "evidence" that conspiracists have about how the world works.


By "very good" example, of course, you mean a "very bad" example. The story about the collapse of WTC 7 was carried in the MSM. If it hadn't been, you wouldn't even know about it. It wasn't brought to you by Gerard Holmgren, Dylan Avery, or Michael C Ruppert. It was brought to you by the major media outlets.

And how do you think the conspiracists "discovered" that the SEC had offices in WTC7?

(By the way, the whole conspiracists point about the "demolition" of WTC7 hinges upon the destruction of vital documents held there that were deliberately destroyed to stop the investigations into Enron and Global Crossing, largely. But the investigations were not stopped. Do the conspiracists accept this and provide another reason? No! Why are they censoring the truth?)
1. I just read his book on FDR. But who is he? What is his relevance? He is one person who, like Nixon, stepped out of line. Power is not threatened by people knowing that he is a crook, no more than it was for Nixon. Powerful interests dont want people stealng money from others. Report on something like Diego Garcia, or the Downing Street memo, or give a true picture of Israel Palestine, or an accurate translation of "wipe Israel of the map", or proportionate reports of US killing of Iraqi civilians.... the list just goes on and on and on. Black going to jail is insignificant in the broader picture of power.

#2 You are wrong. It was from Avery et al that the majority of people have found out about 7. You too, probably. Yes it has been reported. This doesnt mean there hasnt been overwhelming censorhip of it, which is the point.
 
I learned about WTC 7 on 9/11/01. I saw it fall live on TV when I got back from work. I guess the conspirators forgot to not show it on TV.
 
mjd, if you DIDN'T learn about WTC7 from the MSM, then it's because you just never watched or paid attention to the MSM at the time. WTC7 was all over the media along with the rest for weeks.

But because it wasn't the direct target of a terrorist attack, and the loss of life in 7 was minimal, it soon became a footnote in the pages of history.

Nevertheless, not even an hour ago, I saw a commercial for a 9/11 memorial program that showed footage of WTC7 collapsing. So where's that censorship again? All in your head.
 
mjd, if you DIDN'T learn about WTC7 from the MSM, then it's because you just never watched or paid attention to the MSM at the time. WTC7 was all over the media along with the rest for weeks.

But because it wasn't the direct target of a terrorist attack, and the loss of life in 7 was minimal, it soon became a footnote in the pages of history.

Nevertheless, not even an hour ago, I saw a commercial for a 9/11 memorial program that showed footage of WTC7 collapsing. So where's that censorship again? All in your head.
Pleeeeeeease.... Why must I say this again and again??? I say it has been overwhelmingly censored, you say it hasnt. Theres a verysimple way to find out which one of us is right. Go out and ask members of the public, and see teh reaction. We all know what it is. Holy crap, how the hell do I not know about that. That is the standard reaction and this is the point.
 
#2 You are wrong. It was from Avery et al that the majority of people have found out about 7. You too, probably. Yes it has been reported. This doesnt mean there hasnt been overwhelming censorhip of it, which is the point.
No, it was from daytraders.org on SEP 11. This has been removed from their site since but I was watching that, the TV, and my investments that day. You are welcome to authenticate it with daytraders.org if you wish. Remember, these are excerpts. I kept the whole thing:

[07:46:13] <smakagator> no bad news this morning?
[07:46:15] <smakagator> morning all
[07:46:18] *** kk (kaptainkk@207.88.116.201) has joined #daytraders
[07:46:21] *** Jones (asdf@84.hartford-11-12rs.ct.dial-access.att.net) Quit
[07:46:31] *** talon (toddspot@hsa088.pool012.at001.earthlink.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:46:32] *** lele (~Gateway@adsl-208-189-188-201.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:46:33] *** wnr (rick@dsl-65-185-84-125.telocity.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:46:58] <BigWave> the bad news is futures are not locked up so we fall harder
[07:47:24] *** TheMan (Gateway@adsl-20-219-8.mia.bellsouth.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:47:28] <smakagator> bad futures ;0
[07:47:58] <BigWave> the paint is here but not strong for good gaps
[07:48:17] <Red_Span> G&T scenario??
[07:48:30] <dieMSFTdie> I believe so Red
[07:48:38] *** dalroi (bafortstef@D5E0EC95.kabel.telenet.be) has joined #daytraders
[07:48:45] *** oze (Gateway@cc1082596-a.ftpk1.fl.home.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:48:47] *** think_away is now known as think
[07:48:57] <DoubleDown> futures
[07:49:00] *** Panther (~panther@sc-66-27-195-148.socal.rr.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:49:01] *** bk6911 (brian@206.29.28.133) has joined #daytraders
[07:49:05] <dieMSFTdie> I'm just sorry i covered at a loss, should have waited
[07:49:24] <BobbyM> any palladium experts here?
[07:49:33] <BigWave> snp red
[07:49:36] <skunk> what gap?
[07:49:38] *** snookerP (pak1@241643hfc107.tampabay.rr.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:49:41] <twende> tank
[07:49:44] <Str8> woah
[07:49:44] <think> any news...futs dumping
[07:49:45] <Slocum3a> bad news?
[07:49:46] *** temur (~bill372@HSE-Ottawa-ppp157269.sympatico.ca) has joined #daytraders
[07:49:46] <twende> wow
[07:49:47] <BigWave> naz red
[07:49:48] <locust> ouch
[07:49:50] <dieMSFTdie> wow, world trade tower in flames
[07:49:51] <twende> world trade center
[07:49:51] <Ingo> whats up with futs?
[07:49:52] <DoubleDown> oh my god
[07:49:52] <BigWave> oh man
[07:49:53] <Slocum3a> plane hit world trade
[07:49:54] <lele> oh man
[07:49:55] <locust> plane hit world trade center ?
[07:49:56] <twende> hit by plane?
[07:49:56] <SharpEye> WOW
[07:49:58] <neato> someone crashed into world trade center
[07:50:02] <Str8> wow
[07:50:03] <lele> that's horrible
[07:50:09] <manta8> omg
[07:50:12] <alw> check it out, o m g
[07:50:14] <gene-fla> plane crashed into world trade center
[07:50:19] *** chg12 (~cghall@dsl-64-131-162-214.telocity.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:50:38] *** mctomate (mctomate@pD9053BF4.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:50:39] *** scarface (~Gateway@net-text.KQ2-lsb.PT.KPNQwest.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:50:49] *** chuckness (chuckness@user-33qtok6.dialup.mindspring.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:50:50] <alw> thats a no fly zone, how do u hit the wtt's
[07:50:54] <DoubleDown> fire engines goin crazy around my apt.
[07:50:58] <dieMSFTdie> lol alw
[07:51:00] <locust> kamikaze
[07:51:01] *** BruceLee (~bruce@pb-dsl2-049.pacificnet.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:51:02] *** DT sets mode: +v BruceLee
[07:51:18] *** extreme_away (marker1@653227hfc57.tampabay.rr.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:51:20] *** RedHeat (~john@node-402416de.powerinter.net) has joined #daytraders
[07:51:21] *** pzoo (harp@cc790428-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com) has joined #daytraders
[07:51:33] <dieMSFTdie> fire helped out the nq, it seems

Now, later in the day, about WTC7:

[15:10:48] <NDXTRDR> FOX reporting 4th plane was indeed heading to Camp David.
[15:10:56] <KTM250SX> we need to attack them now
[15:10:59] *** ab (~ta@cs6669121-178.satx.rr.com) has joined #daytraders
[15:11:11] <yajyaj> any ml people dead?
[15:11:16] <smakagator> building 7 at wtc on fire, may collapse
[15:11:19] <retzzz> +++the international community is left with but two choices: either to come to terms with one country of two conflicting regimes, albeit, dominated by the Taliban, or to help return Afghanistan to the relatively unified "golden age" of the pre-Communist era.
[15:11:25] *** cheezz (~formagg@66-65-56-199.nyc.rr.com) has joined #daytraders
[15:11:26] <neato> sam is smart to stay away for now imo
[15:11:30] <g-man> Building 7 at WTC on firer, may collapse...CNN
[15:11:34] <doublej2> this crazy I am out
[15:11:42] *** doublej2 (Allstocksc@dialup-209.246.69.236.Dial1.NewYork1.Level3.net) Quit (Leaving)
[15:11:46] <yajyaj> many merryl linch people died??
[15:12:06] <neato> yaj dunno
[15:12:07] -hex- 8,5<*> DTBot {06-27-01} Cmd <*> OFTN ( dmg @ 16:12:02. -- Public notice via DT. Off Topic News.)
[15:12:08] <DT> @ DT-Note: Significant international events (world news) can and do impact the markets. Factual or reasonable analytical observations are welcome, provided that they are not repetitious or argumentative. Ethnic, religious, or nationalistic stereotyping serve no useful purpose and are off-topic. Please take off-topic discussion to #DTOT. Thank you.
[15:12:09] <Vertical> how do Fox know where they were going--did bomber call them?
[15:12:16] <cheezz> my friend works at ML
[15:12:18] <gene-fla> 09/11/01 16:07 PR World Trade Center Attacks Will Be the Most Costly Man-Made Disaster In U.S. History, Says the Insurance Information Institute
[15:12:20] <cheezz> i still did not hear from him
[15:12:21] <cheezz> Akamai Founder, CTO Killed in Jet Crash
[15:12:23] <cheezz> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Internet content distribution company Akamai Technologies Inc. (Nasdaq:AKAM - news) said on Tuesday that one of its co-founders was killed when the jet he had boarded crashed into New York's World Trade Center.

And I believe this is about the BBC report you all use to "prove" controlled demolition:

15:59:55] <Sopwith> <lewing> bbc is reporting the solomon brothers building has collapsed
[16:00:06] *** Garfield (Jenny@pD9040089.dip.t-dialin.net) Quit (Leaving)
[16:00:09] <Sopwith> silly US news services are never efficient
[16:00:16] *** Guty (info@cable-213-132-137-160.upc.chello.be) Quit
[16:00:17] <space> <hb < ? whats the #### in your link ?
[16:00:20] *** dozu (Gateway@dialup-63.214.197.227.Dial1.Philadelphia1.Level3.net) has joined #daytraders
[16:00:21] <NDXTRDR> If it's one of our own thetruth, that would be even scarier to think about imo.
[16:00:23] <GreenIz> i just noticed the bid on one of my stocks is super low now..
[16:00:24] <GreenIz> hmm

And here is the actual collapse and the reaction:

[16:21:35] <smakagator> building #7
[16:21:36] <NDXTRDR> Another tower just collapsed CNN
[16:21:37] <g-man> Building 7 collapsed
[16:21:38] <seamold> Some take this Clancy off the ai another Liberal
[16:21:40] *** stockhound (Gateway@dnvrapanas90poolb115.dnvr.uswest.net) has joined #daytraders
[16:21:41] <smakagator> has collapsed
[16:21:51] <IceDuck> 5:01pm 09/11/01 Morgan Stanley makes statement (MWD) By Tomi Kilgore
[16:21:51] <IceDuck>
[16:21:54] *** SCTrader (~sctrader@adsl-63-200-48-42.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) Quit (Leaving)
[16:22:02] <smakagator> 5 or 7 they saying now
[16:22:07] <locust> scammers on wallstreet will be out in force to steal everyone's shares
[16:22:42] <gene-fla> locust relax
[16:22:46] <locust> shorting should be prohibited after this ecvent until situation settles down
[16:22:53] *** yerki (~trillian@sud-nd-atre-3.vianet.ca) has left #daytraders
[16:22:58] <Blues> BLDG 7 Collapses
[16:23:24] *** Milburne (morganetho@34.sherman-oaks-06-07rs16rt.ca.dial-access.att.net) Quit (Ping timeout for Milburne[34.sherman-oaks-06-07rs16rt.ca.dial-access.att.net])
[16:23:26] <g-man> what if you're already short?
[16:23:37] *** RDMise (bob@cx967907-b.santab1.ca.home.com) Quit
[16:23:40] <locust> already short fine no new shorts
[16:23:43] <seamold> CNN getting homped by Clancy -
[16:23:54] <piester> omg sheesh
[16:23:59] *** Meow-Away is now known as Meowdell
[16:24:00] <locust> the buzzards are circling - only more money to be made to them
[16:24:17] <hure> lets the shorts short, they will get pinched when it settles down
[16:24:31] <Vertical> clancy needs to shut up
[16:24:42] *** BigWave (jon@hh1111234.direcpc.com) Quit (CATCH DA WAVE)
[16:25:07] <lurk1234> klasse rat, hure
[16:25:07] *** wanker (wanker@AC954A70.ipt.aol.com) Quit (Read error to wanker[AC954A70.ipt.aol.com]: Connection reset by peer)
[16:25:29] *** doubbler (doubbler@217.136.132.132) Quit
[16:25:59] *** Joe_Away (~binettec@modemcable092.191-200-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca) Quit (Read error to Joe_Away[modemcable092.191-200-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca]: Connection reset by peer)
[16:26:06] *** turboneger (turboneger@pD9031B26.dip.t-dialin.net) Quit
[16:26:08] *** guru (~guru@208.171.112.61) has joined #daytraders
[16:26:35] *** scarface (Gateway@213.13.2.59) Quit (Ping timeout for scarface[213.13.2.59])
[16:26:37] <gene-fla> people on those planes probably thought it was a simple hijack or the tuff guys would of fought
[16:26:55] <captj> all the refineries here shut down, no fuel deliveries till at least tomorrow
[16:26:56] *** Stephora (private123@AC851E49.ipt.aol.com) has joined #daytraders
[16:27:03] <shoot1st> call 800-GIVE-LIFE to find out where you can donate blood near you

I have the whole file saved and it held the kernels of every single conspiracy theory I've ever seen. It is also chilling to go back to it and be reminded of what really happened and what the fakers like Dylan Avery and you want to make us think really happened.
 
No, it was from daytraders.org on SEP 11. This has been removed from their site since but I was watching that, the TV, and my investments that day. You are welcome to authenticate it with daytraders.org if you wish. Remember, these are excerpts. I kept the whole thing:



Now, later in the day, about WTC7:



And I believe this is about the BBC report you all use to "prove" controlled demolition:



And here is the actual collapse and the reaction:



I have the whole file saved and it held the kernels of every single conspiracy theory I've ever seen. It is also chilling to go back to it and be reminded of what really happened and what the fakers like Dylan Avery and you want to make us think really happened.
sorry, i have no idea what this is. I dont think that the majority of people who found out about 7 did so via daytraders.com, or whoever
 
Pleeeeeeease.... Why must I say this again and again??? I say it has been overwhelmingly censored, you say it hasnt. Theres a verysimple way to find out which one of us is right. Go out and ask members of the public, and see teh reaction. We all know what it is. Holy crap, how the hell do I not know about that. That is the standard reaction and this is the point.
The general public does know about WTC7. They just haven't heard about your distorted version. If you actually paid attention to MSM you'd know this and would not be ignorant to this fact. Everyone I know or speak with is aware of WTC7
 
The general public does know about WTC7. They just haven't heard about your distorted version. If you actually paid attention to MSM you'd know this and would not be ignorant to this fact. Everyone I know or speak with is aware of WTC7
Then you have odd friends

http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006

Further, the question, to repeat for teh 1000th time, is how did these people find out about it. It would nt have been thru the MSM, fr most
 
Further, the question, to repeat for teh 1000th time,

The problem is that we keep giving you answers but you keep clinging to your original concept.

This is utterly pointless. You will never accept anyone else's opinion.
 
1. I just read his book on FDR.
Pretty good, wasn't it?
But who is he?
A wealthy MSM icon. A member of your coveted "Bilderberg" group of insiders who control what you think. Remember? It's in your original post.

Here's more about him: http://www.torontolife.com/blog/conrad-black-trial/2007/may/10/black-watch-todays-top-stories32/

What is his relevance?
Umm--see above. He's a media baron who controls what you think and is immune from criticism or prosecution.

He is one person who, like Nixon, stepped out of line.
No. You are quite wrong. He is nothing like Nixon. He was a thief (a rich thief at that) who got caught. So did Bernie Ebbers. Although, I am not sure why I bring out a litany of rich thieves that have been caught since you don't know who they are anyhow. Why don't you try going to a library some day? They've got books and things that can educate you.

Conrad Black..."Who?" asks the lightly-minded mjd1982: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051120/black_peerage_051120?s_name=&no_ads=

The much-maligned former media baron was once the proprietor of the world's third-largest newspaper company, with hundreds of newspapers in Canada, the U.S., Australia, Israel and the U.K.

Power is not threatened by people knowing that he is a crook, no more than it was for Nixon. Powerful interests dont want people stealng money from others. Report on something like Diego Garcia, or the Downing Street memo, or give a true picture of Israel Palestine, or an accurate translation of "wipe Israel of the map", or proportionate reports of US killing of Iraqi civilians.... the list just goes on and on and on. Black going to jail is insignificant in the broader picture of power.
This is called trying to get your point across in spite of reality. If a rich thief or liar (Black, Nixon) gets caught then it doesn't matter. What matters is that there are other, darker forces at work.

You are also muddying the waters. My criticism of your work was that you claimed that the MSM is in league with some shadowy and unnamed clique to "protect their own". They haven't in the cases of Ebbers, Black, Nixon and others. (How many examples do I need to provide before you admit you're wrong?)

Is your only pathetic plea that these (rather common) exceptions somehow irked "them"? Their actual thefts and lies are of no consequence?

I certainly hope you don't have kids with your moral compass so thoroughly screwed.
 
sorry, i have no idea what this is. I dont think that the majority of people who found out about 7 did so via daytraders.com, or whoever
This is telling.

You have no idea what daytraders.org is. You don't know who Conrad Black is. You make sweeping statements about what people know and how they acquire that information. You claim that every exception to your conspiracy theory is due to some unknown and unnamed transgression. Against unknown and unnamed people.

I would hate to have one of my valuable contributions to JREF consigned to AAH, but I would have to say that you are the most unknowing individual I have ever encountered on the internet. The thing that puzzles me is this: When you have acknowledged, many times on this thread alone, that you don't know what's going on or who the people, places or events are, or how the news was generally acquired, why don't you just admit you were mistaken?
 
Pretty good, wasn't it?

A wealthy MSM icon. A member of your coveted "Bilderberg" group of insiders who control what you think. Remember? It's in your original post.

Here's more about him: http://www.torontolife.com/blog/conrad-black-trial/2007/may/10/black-watch-todays-top-stories32/


Umm--see above. He's a media baron who controls what you think and is immune from criticism or prosecution.


No. You are quite wrong. He is nothing like Nixon. He was a thief (a rich thief at that) who got caught. So did Bernie Ebbers. Although, I am not sure why I bring out a litany of rich thieves that have been caught since you don't know who they are anyhow. Why don't you try going to a library some day? They've got books and things that can educate you.

Conrad Black..."Who?" asks the lightly-minded mjd1982: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051120/black_peerage_051120?s_name=&no_ads=




This is called trying to get your point across in spite of reality. If a rich thief or liar (Black, Nixon) gets caught then it doesn't matter. What matters is that there are other, darker forces at work.

You are also muddying the waters. My criticism of your work was that you claimed that the MSM is in league with some shadowy and unnamed clique to "protect their own". They haven't in the cases of Ebbers, Black, Nixon and others. (How many examples do I need to provide before you admit you're wrong?)

Is your only pathetic plea that these (rather common) exceptions somehow irked "them"? Their actual thefts and lies are of no consequence?

I certainly hope you don't have kids with your moral compass so thoroughly screwed.
D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D'UH BUNKER!!!

I know who Black is jabroni- I read his book, and I do follow the news. The point was that in the grand scheme of things, he is a nobody. Powerful interests are not going to be damaged in any significant way by Black, a crook and a thief, going to jail. The examples Ihave given are instances of real issues of power. Powerful people dont want people stealing from them.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is telling.

You have no idea what daytraders.org is. You don't know who Conrad Black is. You make sweeping statements about what people know and how they acquire that information. You claim that every exception to your conspiracy theory is due to some unknown and unnamed transgression. Against unknown and unnamed people.

I would hate to have one of my valuable contributions to JREF consigned to AAH, but I would have to say that you are the most unknowing individual I have ever encountered on the internet. The thing that puzzles me is this: When you have acknowledged, many times on this thread alone, that you don't know what's going on or who the people, places or events are, or how the news was generally acquired, why don't you just admit you were mistaken?
this looks a little bit silly now, doesnt it?

LMAO... How unknowing of you!
 
As I have argued again and again here, you may think it is insignificant. I think otherwise, The simple way of settling whether it is an important issue for the public domain, is to go out and asses the publuc domain. I will be doing this in London tomororw. I assure you, when I tell people there was a 3rd skyscrpaer, the reaction is "Holy crap, how the hell do I not know that?!". This is the barometer of significance of a story to public interest- namely the interest of the public.


I apologize for not taking your word for it, but I doubt that you are actually getting that reaction very often, from telling people only that there was a third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11. If that's all you're telling them, then the reaction is more likely "Huh, I didn't know that." Which is the same polite reaction you'd get if you told them what the base 10 logarithm of 1000 is.

But more likely, you're actually telling them more than that. You're probably telling them that there was a third skyscraper that was destroyed by controlled demolition on 9/11. Getting the reaction you describe is not surprising in that case. It's easy to get a "Holy crap, why didn't anyone tell me that?!" reaction by telling people stuff you've just made up. Try the one about how Coca Cola can dissolve an inch-thick steak in half an hour. That gets the "Holy crap!" reaction almost every time.

I define high levels as people who have a significant influence on output. This would include, to a large degree, the important news journalists.


This comment had me mystified, until I saw this in your following post:

And you end up with ideologues like Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannitt...


Holy handgrenades, is that what you mean by "important news journalists?" Dude, those guys are television performers. Journalists are people who research events and then write stories about them for publication in print or audiovisual media. The guys who talk on camera are no more journalists than the guys who pour ink into the printing presses at the newspaper.

That sheds a whole new light on your propaganda theory. The phenomenon you're complaining about does indeed exist! But it's not a malevolent system you're up against here, it's human nature. You're right that there's a filtering process, and it's exactly this: the people who get to be top entertainers, such as important television "news journalists," are the ones who succeed in entertaining people. People find some things more entertaining than others, sometimes contrary to those things' relative importance (just as they find some food more appealing than others, sometimes contrary to those foods' relative nutritional value). The ones who best entertain the most people in the ways that they most want to be entertained are the ones who become "important."

If you don't like this state of affairs, perhaps you might suggest a solution besides (1) forcing the audience to listen to more thorough and balanced news coverage even though that's not what they prefer, (2) forcing media producers to provide more thorough and balanced news coverage even though it's not what its audience prefers, or (3) changing human nature to cause people to prefer more wholesome fare. As doing any of these things would require tyrannical measures far more objectionable than the situation they'd be intended to cure, I'd suggest learning to live with the status quo. (The best shot at accomplishing #3 to a limited degree, without tyrannical measures, is to improve education in certain ways. Perhaps that has something to do with us being here at the forums of an educational foundation.)

Is the whole "it's a big conspiracy" a way to pretend that there's another solution to this unfortunate situation? After all, if the problem were not human nature but instead the work of a big conspiracy, then we could solve it by exposing and eliminating the conspiracy! Alas, the problem is not that easily solved. It's clear that the consipracy does not exist because the media that's supposedly protecting the interests of the powerful, is constantly turning against those same powerful figures. (The counterargument that the ones the media turn against are thereby revealed to be not the true powerful interests is, unfortunately, circular. "The democratic propaganda system protects the truly powerful. The truly powerful are the ones that the democratic propaganda system successfully protects.") This phenomenon cannot be logically explained by the propaganda theory, but it can be easily explained by the entertainment theory. It's been known since ancient times that the public finds seeing the reputations of powerful people smeared even more entertaining than building them up.

This is not correct. Let's take an example. I'm pretty well qualified, but I would never conceivably get employed by the BBC, I would state, since I would not be the kind of person who would label the Iraq war as a quagmire. And if I did happen to slip through the net, it would be systematic that my reports would never make it as "news", no matter how significant they were.


When you talk of being qualified, do you mean for journalism or for being a TV entertainer? I can't assess your promise for the latter, but I believe you have some of the needed qualities for the former, while lacking others. Your insistence on defending word usages and turns of phrase that 99% of readers would find confusing or misleading (such as "it would be systematic that my reports...") because they are (in some cases) technically gramatically correct, would be a major handicap, as it indicates contempt for the audience.

This does exist. Watch Outfoxed, and see reports on this. Look at the firing of Phil Donahue, or maybe Dan Rather, to see how powerful interests get shielded when journalists dont tow the party line. This is a news story.


Are you referring to Phil Donahue's firing from MSNBC in 2002? IIRC, there were two reasons for the firing: that he was getting low ratings, and that he wasn't sympathetic with public opinion on the Iraq war. In other words, he was failing to entertain the audience and tell it what it wanted to hear. The firing wasn't to protect the powerful, it was to protect the public from not being pandered to. Entertainers who fail to entertain the audience get fired.

As for Dan Rather, he was by your definition in a high level position, and held that position for decades. Did the conspirators kick out one of their own? That's an awfully slow filtering process going on. I'll also point out that one of his stated goals when he left/was kicked out of CBS was to become more involved in actual journalism. In any case, if Rather himself was "high level" then his firing is not a valid example of the friction that would be inevitable between the "high level" people and the journalists working for them.

So, yeah, the MSM sucks. That suckage is directly traceable to human nature acting through free-market economic forces.

And of course, any shortcomings of the MSM at reporting certain details of some 9/11 events, whether due to democratic propaganda systems or pandering to the audience or circumstances that overshadowed those details and prevented cameras from being nearby, does not prevent buildings from collapsing due to airplane impacts, debris damage, and uncontrolled fire.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 

Back
Top Bottom