|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:16:57 GMT
After reading this thread and doing some more of your own exploration you will find just how fine tuned and complex this "right wing Conspiracy" really is. It is totally amazing. All done by reptilian brained right wingers in their struggle to win and remain THEE dominant force in our society even though they are the minority population wise. Liberals, Progressives and Democrats had better educate themselves as to what is going on here...for their own survival. This is NOT a game any longer. It is a struggle for democracy.
Astroturf
Pretending to be a grassroots movement, when in reality the agenda and strategy are controlled by a hidden, non-grassroots organization. In this manner, a faux show is presented, consisting of robotic individuals pretending to be voicing their own opinions.companion thread: ronstadt.proboards.com/thread/4089/fake-news The Bivings Group is a PR firm whose clients include Monsanto, a company with a long history of harmful practices impacting the environment and human health. They seem to specialize in the creation of fake grassroots Astroturf supporters for their clients.
An article on the Bivings web site, titled "Viral Marketing: How to Infect the World," originally recommended covert and deceptive Internet activity, "there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organisation is directly involved... it simply is not an intelligent PR move. In cases such as this, it is important to first 'listen' to what is being said online... Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party... Perhaps the greatest advantage of viral marketing is that your message is placed into a context where it is more likely to be considered seriously.... Sometimes, we win awards. Sometimes only the client knows the precise role we played." After this message was criticized publicly, Bivings removed the offending passages, placing a note at the bottom of the article that states, "Recently edited for clarification."Bivings and Monsanto
In May 14, 2002, Guardian journalist George Monbiot reported on "invisible persuasion" techniques used by Bivings that included the creation of fictional individuals on the Internet. "Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the Internet," he wrote. ... Detective work by the campaigner Jonathan Matthews and the freelance journalist Andy Rowell shows how a PR firm contracted to the biotech company Monsanto appears to have played a crucial but invisible role in shaping scientific discourse."
Bivings apparently played a behind-the-scenes role in persuading Nature magazine to retract a scientific paper which it had published, claiming that native maize in Mexico had been contaminated by genetically modified pollen.
"On the day the paper was published, messages started to appear on a biotechnology listserver used by more than 3,000 scientists, called AgBioWorld," Monbiot wrote. The first came from a correspondent named 'Mary Murphy.' Chapela is on the board of directors of the Pesticide Action Network, and therefore, she claimed, 'not exactly what you'd call an unbiased writer.' Her posting was followed by a message from an 'Andura Smetacek,' claiming, falsely, that Chapela's paper had not been peer-reviewed, that he was 'first and foremost an activist' and that the research had been published in collusion with environmentalists. ... The messages from Murphy and Smetacek stimulated hundreds of others, some of which repeated or embellished the accusations they had made. Senior biotechnologists called for Chapela to be sacked from Berkeley. AgBioWorld launched a petition pointing to the paper's 'fundamental flaws.' ... The pressure on Nature was so severe that its editor did something unparalleled in its 133-year history: last month he published, alongside two papers challenging Quist and Chapela's, a retraction in which he wrote that their research should never have been published." However, sleuthing by Monbiot and others shows that "Mary Murphy" and "Andura Smetacek" are apparently pseudonyms used by Bivings employees (Update: "Mary Murphy has subsequently been shown to be an e-mail front for Monsanto's PR company, Bivings, while the postings of Andura Smetacek have been traced back directly to Monsanto in St Louis").
Bivings and the Republican Party
Bivings has received $79,811 in 2004 from the Republican National Committee, and designed their GOP Teamleader website.
Bivings defends their role in creating fake letters to the editor via GOP Team Leader. Regarding the consternation one letter writing campaign caused they gloat "The editors of these papers, which include The Boston Globe, The Cincinnati Post, and The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, are crying foul - they feel that they were duped. All major publications have policies against publishing form letters, but these managed to slip through, as they had the look and feel of genuine grassroots responses."
"Republicans spent up to $60,000 to create www.gopteamleader.com, which launched in late March. The site was designed to give more than 90,000 Republican activists information on contacting local radio stations and newspapers to disseminate President Bush's and Republicans' views on issues ranging from energy to terrorism".
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:17:43 GMT
Viral Marketing: How to Infect the World
Viral marketing is the technical term for what is commonly known as word-of-mouth advertising. Although viral marketing is as old as human civilization itself, the Internet has brought its efficacy and reach to a new level, and the technologies that provide the motive force behind this movement continue to evolve. The Internet has become the ultimate coffee shop, where users from around the globe coalesce and share their thoughts on everything, from the potency of their significant other to the quality of the bar of soap that they use every morning in the shower. In short, the Internet has created the first truly global neighborhood, with all of the trappings of a physical neighborhood – including incessant gossip.
Gossip is fundamental to being human, and it is what propels viral marketing. Stemming from the evolutionary need to share information in a sophisticated social species, it is an innate component of our psyches. Viral marketing spontaneously arises from gossip, and an astute marketer can capitalize on this element of human nature by providing the impetus to get the ball rolling.
One of the greatest things about the Internet is that it offers several avenues for viral dissemination. Despite the different pathways that may be taken, the primary vehicle that always carries the message is e-mail. E-mail is the ultimate tool for viral dissemination – it is quick, easy, and you can pass something along to all of your friends at the click of a button. Whether the object being passed along is a link to a cool site, an interesting article, a topical message board, or even another e-mail, it is e-mail that serves as the virtual mouth in the world of the Internet.
The problem with developing a viral campaign is that no matter how much research and planning goes into it, there is never a guarantee that it will work. Gossip by its very nature cannot be controlled. Sure, you can get people to talk about you website, your company, your product, your issue, etc., but there is absolutely no way to regulate what is being said. Sometimes the best laid plans can lead to just the opposite – negative buzz.
So the question arises, how do you create a viral campaign on the Internet that has a reasonable chance for success? The answer varies, depending upon what you are promoting and who your audience is. You should be as transparent in your efforts as possible – even innocuous promotions can anger people if they somehow feel that they are being misled. Just because they know that it is a marketing ploy does not mean that the audience will not pass it along. If you have something good to offer, like a cool branded video game, a relevant topical website, or a coupon for a useful product or service, make sure that it is perfectly obvious that the original messaging is from your marketing machine. People are not stupid, and they will figure it out on their own, so tell them from the very beginning – it will gain their respect, and maybe even their trust.
Message boards, chat rooms, and listservs are a great way to monitor what is being said. Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make relevant postings to these outlets that openly present your identity and position. If carried out successfully, others involved in the conversation will begin to forward your ideas to others. Your message is out there, moving along under its own momentum with no further expenditure of time or money.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of viral marketing is that your message is placed into a context where it is more likely to be considered seriously. If a friend forwards you a link to site and tells you that it is “really cool and you need to check it out,” aren’t you more likely to take it seriously than some advertisement directly from an amorphous company or organization? The bottom line is that viral marketing is a very low-cost option that has the potential to really touch your audience. Any organization can put together a viral program – it just takes careful planning and an assiduous attention to detail.
*Recently edited for clarification
blog.thebrickfactory.com/2002/04/viral-marketing-how-to-infect-the-world/
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:18:08 GMT
Who is Paying Right-Wing Trolls to Dumb Down Online Conversations?George Monbiot Friday, December 17, 2010
By George Monbiot (Excerpt)
The Guardian, December 13, 2010
There are daily attempts to control and influence content in the interests of the state and corporations: attempts in which money talks. ...
I’m not talking here about threats to net neutrality and the danger of a two-tier internet developing, though these are real. I’m talking about the daily attempts to control and influence content in the interests of the state and corporations: attempts in which money talks. ... I first came across online astroturfing in 2002, when the investigators Andy Rowell and Jonathan Matthews looked into a series of comments made by two people calling themselves Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek. They had launched ferocious attacks, across several internet forums, against a scientist whose research suggested that Mexican corn had been widely contaminated by GM pollen.
Rowell and Matthews found that one of the messages Mary Murphy had sent came from a domain owned by the Bivings Group, a PR company specializing in internet lobbying. An article on the Bivings website explained that “there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organization is directly involved … Message boards, chat rooms, and listservs are a great way to anonymously monitor what is being said. Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party."
The Bivings site also quoted a senior executive from the biotech corporation Monsanto, thanking the PR firm for its “outstanding work”. When a Bivings executive was challenged by Newsnight, he admitted that the “Mary Murphy” email was sent by someone “working for Bivings” or “clients using our services”. Rowell and Matthews then discovered that the IP address on Andura Smetacek’s messages was assigned to Monsanto’s headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri(9). There’s a nice twist to this story. AstroTurf TM - real fake grass - was developed and patented by Monsanto.
Reading comment threads on the Guardian’s sites and elsewhere on the web, two patterns jump out at me. The first is that discussions of issues in which there’s little money at stake tend to be a lot more civilized than debates about issues where companies stand to lose or gain billions: such as climate change, public health and corporate tax avoidance. These are often characterized by amazing levels of abuse and disruption.
Articles about the environment are hit harder by such tactics than any others. I love debate, and I often wade into the threads beneath my columns. But it’s a depressing experience, as instead of contesting the issues I raise, many of those who disagree bombard me with infantile abuse, or just keep repeating a fiction, however often you discredit it. This ensures that an intelligent discussion is almost impossible - which appears to be the point.
The second pattern is the strong association between this tactic and a certain set of views: pro-corporate, anti-tax, anti-regulation. Both traditional conservatives and traditional progressives tend be more willing to discuss an issue than these right-wing libertarians, many of whom seek instead to shut down debate.
So what’s going on? ... I’m suggesting that some of the efforts to prevent intelligence from blooming seem to be organized, and that neither website hosts nor other commenters know how to respond.
For his film (Astro)Turf Wars, Taki Oldham secretly recorded a training session organized by a rightwing libertarian group called American Majority. The trainer, Austin James, was instructing Tea Party members on how to “manipulate the medium”. This is what he told them:
“Here’s what I do. I get on Amazon; I type in “Liberal Books”. I go through and I say “one star, one star, one star”. The flipside is you go to a conservative/ libertarian whatever, go to their products and give them five stars. … This is where your kids get information: Rotten Tomatoes, Flixster. These are places where you can rate movies. So when you type in “Movies on Healthcare”, I don’t want Michael Moore’s to come up, so I always give it bad ratings. I spend about 30 minutes a day, just click, click, click, click. … If there’s a place to comment, a place to rate, a place to share information, you have to do it. That’s how you control the online dialogue and give our ideas a fighting chance.”
Who Really Finances The Tea Party?
Over 75% of the funding for American Majority, which hosted this training session, comes from the Sam Adams Alliance. In 2008, the year in which American Majority was founded, 88% of the alliance’s money came from a single donation, of $3.7m(13). A group which trains rightwing libertarians to distort online democratic processes, in other words, was set up with funding from a person or company with a very large wallet.
CPAC 2017 - Activism Bootcamp, American Majority
The internet is a remarkable gift, which has granted us one of the greatest democratic opportunities since universal suffrage. We’re in danger of losing this global commons as it comes under assault from an army of trolls and flacks, many of them covertly organised or trained. The question for all of us - the Guardian, other websites, everyone who benefits from this resource - is what we intend to do about it.
It’s time we fought back and reclaimed the internet for what it does best: exploring issues, testing ideas, opening the debate.
George Monbiot is the author Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/13/astroturf-libertarians-internet-democracy
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:18:39 GMT
www.youtube.com/user/astroturfwars
Astroturf Wars - Taki Oldham
Billionaire's Tea Party, Fake Grassroots Movement, Director Taki Oldham Interview
The Tea Party and the Billionaires - How the Koch Brothers Manipulate Politics
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:19:08 GMT
The Fake Persuaders: The Bivings PR Firm & Monsanto
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The Fake Persuaders - Companies are creating false citizens to try to change the way we think
Persuasion works best when it's invisible. The most effective marketing worms its way into our consciousness, leaving intact the perception that we have reached our opinions and made our choices independently. As old as humankind itself, over the past few years this approach has been refined, with the help of the internet, into a technique called "viral marketing". Last month, the viruses appear to have murdered their host. One of the world's foremost scientific journals was persuaded to do something it has never done before, and retract a paper it had published.
While, in the past, companies have created fake citizens' groups to campaign in favour of trashing forests or polluting rivers, now they create fake citizens. Messages purporting to come from disinterested punters are planted on listservers at critical moments, disseminating misleading information in the hope of recruiting real people to the cause. Detective work by the campaigner Jonathan Matthews and the freelance journalist Andy Rowell shows how a PR firm contracted to the biotech company Monsanto appears to have played a crucial but invisible role in shaping scientific discourse.
Monsanto knows better than any other corporation the costs of visibility. Its clumsy attempts, in 1997, to persuade people that they wanted to eat GM food all but destroyed the market for its crops. Determined never to make that mistake again, it has engaged the services of a firm which knows how to persuade without being seen to persuade. The Bivings Group specialises in internet lobbying.
An article on its website, entitled "Viral Marketing: How to Infect the World" warns that "there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organization is directly involved ... it simply is not an intelligent PR move. In cases such as this, it is important to first "listen" to what is being said online ... Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party. ... Perhaps the greatest advantage of viral marketing is that your message is placed into a context where it is more likely to be considered seriously." A senior executive from Monsanto is quoted on the Bivings site, thanking the PR firm for its "outstanding work".
On 29 November last year, two researchers at the University of California, Berkeley published a paper in Nature magazine, which claimed that native maize in Mexico had been contaminated, across vast distances, by GM pollen. The paper was a disaster for the biotech companies seeking to persuade Mexico, Brazil and the European Union to lift their embargos on GM crops.
Even before publication, the researchers knew their work was hazardous. One of them, Ignacio Chapela, was approached by the director of a Mexican corporation, who first offered him a glittering research post if he withheld his paper, then told him that he knew where to find his children. In the US, Chapela's opponents have chosen a different form of assassination.
On the day the paper was published, messages started to appear on a biotechnology listsever used by more than 3000 scientists, called AgBioWorld. The first came from a correspondent named "Mary Murphy". Chapela is on the board of directors of the Pesticide Action Network, and therefore, she claimed, "not exactly what you'd call an unbiased writer." Her posting was followed by a message from an "Andura Smetacek", claiming, falsely, that Chapela's paper had not been peer-reviewed, that he was "first and foremost an activist", and that the research had been published in collusion with environmentalists. The next day, another email from "Smetacek" asked the list, "how much money does Chapela take in speaking fees, travel reimbursements and other donations ... for his help in misleading fear-based marketing campaigns?"
The messages from Murphy and Smetacek stimulated hundreds of others, some of which repeated or embellished the accusations they had made. Senior biotechnologists called for Chapela to be sacked from Berkeley. AgBioWorld launched a petition pointing to the paper's "fundamental flaws".
There do appear to be methodological problems with the research Chapela and his colleague David Quist had published, but this is hardly unprecedented in a scientific journal. All science is, and should be, subject to challenge and disproof. But in this case the pressure on Nature was so severe that its editor did something unparalleled in its 133-year history: last month he published, alongside two papers challenging Quist and Chapela's, a retraction, in which he wrote that their research should never have been published.
So the campaign against the researchers was extraordinarily successful; but who precisely started it? Who are "Mary Murphy" and "Andura Smetacek"?
Both claim to be ordinary citizens, without any corporate links. The Bivings Group says it has "no knowledge of them". "Mary Murphy" uses a hotmail account for posting messages to AgBioWorld. But a message satirising the opponents of biotech, sent by "Mary Murphy" from the same hotmail address to another server two years ago contains the identification bw6.bivwood.com. Bivwood.com is the property of Bivings Woodell, which is part of the Bivings Group. When I wrote to her to ask whether she was employed by Bivings and whether Mary Murphy was her real name, she replied that she had "no ties to industry". But she refused to answer my questions on the grounds that "I can see by your articles that you made your mind up long ago about biotech". The interesting thing about this response is that my message to her did not mention biotechnology. I told her only that I was researching an article about internet lobbying.
Smetacek has, on different occasions, given her address as "London" and "New York". But the electoral rolls, telephone directories and credit card records in both London and the entire United States reveal no "Andura Smetacek". Her name appears only on AgBioWorld and a few other listservers, on which she has posted scores of messages falsely accusing groups such as Greenpeace of terrorism. My letters to her have elicited no response. But a clue to her possible identity is suggested by her constant promotion of "the Center For Food and Agricultural Research". The center appears not to exist, except as a website, which repeatedly accuses greens of plotting violence. Cffar.org is registered to someone called Manuel Theodorov. Manuel Theodorov is the "director of associations" at Bivings Woodell.
Even the website on which the campaign against the paper in Nature was launched has attracted suspicion. Its moderator, the biotech enthusiast Professor CS Prakash, claims to have no connection to the Bivings Group. But when Jonathan Matthews was searching the site's archives he received the following error message: "can't connect to MySQL server on 'apollo.bivings.com'". Apollo.bivings.com is the main server of the Bivings Group.
"Sometimes," Bivings boasts, "we win awards. Sometimes only the client knows the precise role we played." Sometimes, in other words, real people have no idea that they are being managed by fake ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:19:43 GMT
Scientists Under Attack
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:20:06 GMT
How to Spot Fake News - FactCheck.org
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:20:29 GMT
This woman is one of the most clever right wing propagandists I have ever seen. She makes an excellent case until you learn she is a front for other right wing propagandists and astroturfers herself. She poses as an investigative journalist and peddles an anti Fake News agenda while feeding you FAKE NEWS. She has conservatives eating out of her hands believing what she says as gospel because of their own confirmation bias. She mixes fact with lies and lies by omission to convince her audience. She deserves the Goebbels Academy Award for Propaganda & Fake News.
Sharyl Attkisson
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:20:53 GMT
Here is a PERFECT example of Media Manipulation.
I found this video on youtube saying that the boycott inspired by David Hogg against Laura Ingraham had backfired. It did NOT. This is a fake news story from this location: madworldnews.com/hogg-boycott-backfires-laura/ . Madworldnews is listed as an astroturf fake news site. So they make up and print this story and then the story gets picked up by the FAKE NEWS ROBOT VIDEO MAKERS. In this case it comes from Hot News....another fake news organization most likely aligned with mad world news. And here is the video that is almost word for word in the article:
Hogg PISSED As Boycott Backfires, Companies Leaving Laura Get Nasty Wakeup Call - Hot News
The video itself gets over 100,000 hits/views and over 1000 comments made mostly by stirred up right wingers. Many of the commenters are probably not even real people. They are created to stir up righties into joining in.
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS WORKS? IT IS VERY CLEVER AND MISLEADING. IT IS MEANT TO CREATE CHAOS AND DIVISION WHILE SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION AND PROPAGANA TO KEEP A PARTICULAR SEGMENT AGITATED (USUALLY RIGHT WINGERS) AND IT WILL ALSO AGITATE LEFT WINGERS THAT DON'T KNOW BETTER AS TO WHAT IS GOING ON.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:21:18 GMT
The irony here is that this video is brought to us by RT (Russian Television) which usually feeds my own confirmation bias. Not surprisingly, the most trusted man in America at one time was Walter Cronkite. Then we found out years later he was part of the CIA.
Our Deep State agencies are fascinating. I would really love to know the psychology behind the state itself. Why are they doing this and how can they get away with this stuff so easily and for so long?
6 Corporations That Control Your Perception | Think Tank
Abby Martin goes over the 6 corporations that control nearly everything in the mainstream media, and discusses a few of the most famous cases of media censorship with BTS producer, Manuel Rapalo.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:21:48 GMT
While Trump bashes 'fake news,' these are his media shelters from the storm by Brian Stelter @brianstelter money.cnn.com/2018/04/18/media/president-trump-media-protectors/index.html
April 18, 2018: 11:17 AM ET
To really understand the Trump presidency, you have to understand the pro-Trump media world.
Fox News host Sean Hannity is one of the world's "leaders." He is now in the news for his unusually close ties to President Trump -- even relying on the same man, Michael Cohen, for legal counsel.
Hannity portrays himself as the only media personality telling the truth about Trump's accomplishments. But Hannity's nightly show is just one part of this sprawling world. It also includes dozens of radio hosts, scores of web sites, and big companies like American Media, the owner of The National Enquirer. It even includes extremists like Alex Jones, the Infowars host who espouses conspiracy theories.
Taken together, these are Trump's shelters from the storm.
Shows like "Fox & Friends" and websites like Breitbart defend and protect the president in a variety of ways while simultaneously attacking other media outlets. They provide an alternative universe of information to Trump's base, sometimes even defending flagrant falsehoods about voter fraud and other topics.
Some of the names you probably know: Newsmax. The Drudge Report. The Daily Caller. Some you might not: The Gateway Pundit. Lifezette. Campus Reform.
Many of the sites post similar stories and promote each other, reinforcing a kind of echo chamber. Case in point: On the radio on Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh strongly defended Hannity, leading Hannity to tweet out praise for Limbaugh.
The left has its own media outlets and echo chambers -- but numerous researchers have argued that this phenomenon is much stronger on the right.
Entrepreneurs have tried to tap into this market for pro-Trump news alternatives. There's an entire website called Trump.News that aggregates stories from other sites. Pro-Trump social media users like Diamond & Silk have become widely recognized personalities by cheering him on.
Sinclair Broadcast Group, the owner of local TV stations across the country, is also a part of this world, but not because its news anchors want to be. Instead, Sinclair management requires stations to run commentaries by former Trump campaign advisor Boris Epshteyn. (Most of Sinclair's stations are CNN affiliates -- meaning CNN shares content and resources with them and vice versa.)
Related: How a tabloid shields Trump from troublesome stories
The National Enquirer is another important player. The tabloid, whose owner David Pecker is a longtime Trump friend, reportedly orchestrated hush money payments to bury unflattering stories about Trump. The Enquirer admits that it pays for stories, but denies doing so as a favor to Trump.
What's clear is that The Enquirer thinks it's smart business to appeal to Trump's supporters. The tabloid runs story after story promoting Trump and denigrating his opponents.
To be clear, Trump's boosters sometimes break with him, criticizing everything from his policy choices to his Twitter behavior. Many prominent pro-Trump commentators and social media stars were deeply skeptical of last week's strikes in Syria, for example.
These disagreements oftentimes cause schisms within the pro-Trump media world. But no one really forgets what's at stake. Common enemies like Hillary Clinton and Robert Mueller unite the commentators and outlets.
On the days when there's bad news about the White House, the president can, and does, refer people to this alternative media universe. He takes shelter from these outlets while condemning so-called "fake news."
"The ability of Hannity and the rest of pro-Trump media to build on a counter-narrative to anything that's bad for Trump is invaluable for the president, both because it gives the GOP rank-and-file something to pay attention to that isn't Robert Mueller and because it helps muddy the waters around the Russia investigation," said Will Sommer, who studies the world of conservative media for his weekly newsletter, Right Richter.
"Counter-narratives like the one Hannity has helped build around the Russia investigation -- in part by acting like the real crime is the leaking, or the surveillance, or Fusion GPS, or Uranium One-- also gives Trump loyalists a reason to avoid focusing their scrutiny on Trump himself," he asserted.
Different commentators and companies play different roles. Fox News's Tucker Carlson, for instance, is more "anti-anti-Trump" than "pro-Trump." His colleague Pete Hegseth is more explicitly boosterish of the president, and was mentioned as a candidate for the Veterans Affairs secretary job.
Of course, there has been a vibrant, profitable conservative media marketplace for decades -- with radio shows, books, magazines, and conferences all promoting conservative ideas and feeding off one another.
Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote this in 2010:
"One of the more striking features of the contemporary conservative movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure. Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted."
The difference now is that much of this content is personality-driven, based around promoting President Trump more than the Republican party or conservative principles.
"As long as Trump has the right enemies, he can depend on the conservative media to back him up," Bruce Bartlett said on Sunday's "Reliable Sources."
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:22:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:22:34 GMT
Even the LEFT has their own manipulation going on. This is disturbing if true. That Democratic Presidential candidate Buttigieg would be part of an elite group trying to dethrone Bernie. He was quoted in some anti Bernie articles yesterday saying he didn't think Bernie could beat Trump. And he could? Gimme a break. Lots of antiBernie media happened in 2016 by major media outlets like the Washington Post, right before the California primary. Old guard Democrats fear him enough to sabotage him and it looks like Kamala Harris is their chosen one. Possibly Mayor Pete would be her running mate in his dreams. I don't like the smell of any of this. The DNC had better not pull the same old shit they did last time or they won't have a party to go to.
David Doel calls out media manipulation to enhance Buttieieg's importance.
How Pete Buttigieg's Support Is Manufactured
The Rational National
Published on Apr 22, 2019
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:23:00 GMT
Here is another way corporations manipulate the media. Not only are Republicon politicians corporate whores but so are media types like Sean Hannity (1%er), Limbaugh (1%er) and Dave Rubin who wants to get into the $$$ game and be a Koch Brothers whore himself.
Dave Rubin Reacts To Ana Kasparian Calling Him “A Fraud”
The Rational National
Published on Apr 27, 2019
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 11, 2020 11:23:25 GMT
What I don't get is Jerry Hall. Maybe Mick Jagger can explain that relationship?Thom's blog
How Does America Protect Itself From a 24/7 Billionaire Funded Propaganda News Outlet?
Back in 2011, a study from Farley Dickinson University found that people who watch Fox News are actually measurably less likely to know facts about current events and more likely to believe things that are not true. Now a new poll of Fox viewers versus those who watch everything else confirms that it still the case. More than 2/3 of Fox viewers, for example, say they support trump and aren't are not worried about future Russian election interference, whereas only about a third of viewers of all other news sources agree.
Rupert Murdoch has created a massive propaganda vehicle here in the United States that has actually altered the course and fate of our country, much as he did in the UK and Australia. Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called him and his media empire "a cancer upon Australian democracy." That cancer has metastasized around the world.
Which raises the question, "How, in an open democracy, can the people protect themselves from a massive, billionaire funded 24/7 propaganda operation?"
-Thom
www.youtube.com/user/thomhartmann?sub_confirmation=1
|
|
