7 votes

Journalists are easy to con

http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/journalists-are-easy-to-...

Mainstream journalists are easy to con, it comes from their deep lack of knowledge and eagerness to get a new story or angle.
There are too many journalists working in the US today. Quality has become replaced by quantity.
There are very few mainstream journalists with any meaningful understanding of the subject they write about (there used to be some 40 years ago).
There are even fewer mainstream investigative journalists who would uncover something meaningful that is in the public interest.

The "news" in the US mainstream media today is now padded with about 90% journalistic opinion, not facts or events.
It is also padded with talking heads opinions (media pundits) whose sole purpose is to push their agenda and beliefs.
There is so much "news" published there are not enough facts or events to cover it (except on very rare days when something significant does actually happen).
It is quite often the case that a "journalists story" is more or less word for word dictated to them by someone influential who wants to push a particular story or angle that day.

Example 1
When the big banks are eager to buy after a stock market fall they will get a stock selling show or paper to print a story about the stock market is going to crash, the end of the world as we know it, or an actual advice to sell.
They will get someone with a bearish perspective to go on a bullish show (E.G. Cramer) and present the honest opinion of the bearish person.
You never see bears on these shows near a stock market top.

The banks get a double benefit.
They buy cheap as people sell.
They get the benefit of people who go short, covering their losses when the stock market rises. They have to become buyers as well.

Sometimes they can even get a bearish view to appear on a non financial show with a larger audience.
E.G. This went out in late September 2011. The stock market bottomed very early in October 2011.
BBC has a pundit on, advising the end of the world as we know it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky_rObbiOIU

After 9/11 the same kind of thing happened. Late September 2001 there was TV advice to buy S&P puts (a bet the stock market would go down).
The only ever time to my knowledge that this has ever happened. Guess what happened the very next day.

Example 2
During the Republican nomination elections, just about everybody in the mainstream media, used the delegate counts produced by AP.
These were, by far, the most inaccurate counts of anyone (there were several).
Absolutely nobody (except me and a Democrat supporter who didn't have an agenda) used the delegate counts in the Green Papers.
The Green Papers had by far the most accurate delegate counts of any relatively mainstream source.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-Alloc.phtml

For those who do not know, the Green Papers hold detailed information on the Republican election rules for each state.
They are recognised as an invaluable source of information for this purpose.
They also publish information on main political events, e.g. the dates of elections and of District and State Conventions.
They also publish election information during elections (E.G. a running delegate count).

The Democrat supporter above, used the Green Papers as a main source for his delegate counts.
He only used the AP count as advice for what the public were being told.

N.B. The RNC had already chosen Mitt Romney long before the Republication nomination elections had even started.
At least as early as mid 2011, but probably in 2008 when Romney conceded to John McCain.
Party officials in each state were encouraged to support Mitt Romney.
Information on the state of the Republican nomination election was fed out to the media accordingly.

When Mitt Romney got into trouble by losing the Iowa election, the results published showed a narrow Romney win. It was later retracted to a Santorum win but by then it was of little value.
Romney had already used the momentum builder of an Iowa "win" and it was of little use to Santorum.
It only took the adjustment of a very few votes to switch from Santorum to Romney - the election was VERY close.
The recount showed a Santorum win.
None of the media investigated this story.

Fox always used the AP count, but almost all media did also, e.g the NY Times.
CNN had their own count but this was extremely inaccurate also. The staff producing the CNN count also had very little knowledge.

Do Republican voters really think THEY "picked" Mitt Romney?

N.B. Bain Capital acquired ClearChannel which owns about 90% of talk show radio in 2008, to further Mitt Romney's 2012 election run.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The intention of this post

is to plant a seed in GOP delegates and voters minds that Fox may not be telling the whole truth.
It is difficult to do that in the limited time we have available.

Most GOP people have difficulty in comprehending that Fox might be lying to them.

Any suggestions as to how that might be done welcome.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Happened to hear Hannity blurt that Maggies Thatcher's dead!

yesterday, based on someone's hacked Twitter account.

Not to imply that Sean should in any way be considered a "journalist".

I was using "journalists" in it's widest possible sense

that includes shills for criminals and traitors like Hannity.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Jounalists = REAPEATERS

That's all they are. And so are teachers, repeating what they have been taught in teaching school; doctors, repeating what they've been taught in medical school; historians and scientists repeating the accepted paradigms of history and scientists of the nature of the cosmos and conscious reality. Then when some REAL science comes along to offer credible contrary evidence, like quantum physics is doing now, they just brush it off as "pseudo-science" or the like. Well the fact is that the fucking big bang theory is pseudo science. Dawkins would love for you to accept that theory as truth; contributing to the growing materialistic atheism that is enveloping the scientific and world community.

Hardly anymore do you see REAL unbiased, investigative journalism in this country. Ben Swann is one exception I can think of. Journalists are the greatest repeaters of all; taking what they are told from corporate headquarters who receives their information from military intelligence-connected propaganda agencies and then repeating that disinformation to the public through the "news." They should just change the name of the news to "government mind programming." It just seems more appropriate. :)

I do not think that

I do not think that journalists are being conned; I think most know full well that they are propagating untruths to the hapless masses, but they don't really care because it supposedly is helping them (there career and to be in with the cool kids).

Yep

but taking the angle they are conned is an easier sell.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."