15 votes

To all of the DP-ers who still do this...

Do you make posts like, "Ben Swann On Hannity Tonight - Video!" Or "Is Glenn beck finally coming around?" Or "Even Chris Mathews is fed up with Obama"? If so, you're part of the problem.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but....Wow. You people really still don't get it. The msm is the ENEMY! Period.

When it's not an election year, truth on Tv is not the positive you think it is. It's part of the trick. All "Ben Swann On Hannity Tonight!" accomplishes is further legitimizing the msm as a source for truth in the eyes of the already tv-addicted, couch potato voter. This isn't a plus. It's a negative. Hasn't Ron Paul been on the Hannity show too? How did that work out? The msm doesn't certify anyone. Do you know what the "con" in con artist stands for? Confidence. The msm is run by con artists whose M.O. is "Establish trust now, so we can tell them who to vote for later." That's the trick! Don't get involved.

Some DPers wisely preach daily about the poison that is the msm, but then never hesitate to advertise for them. We don't need to see the good guys on tv. We don't need to "keep an eye" on the msm. We need to think of a way to get people AWAY from the tv. That should be our #1 GOAL! Because no other accomplishments matter, so long as the msm can control public perception in the end. If the msm isn't dead to you then you're still a part of the problem.

EDIT: lead by example. Watching Ben swann on Hannity is for entertainment. Don't kid yourself. It's not "keeping an eye on them." And any benefits that do come from "keeping an eye on them" don't outweigh the cost of keeping them in the public conscious as a legitimate information source. Not to mention, you look like a hypocrite who preaches that, While others should not watch TV, it's okay if you do.

Walk your talk. Prove you're not an addict by erasing them from your world.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Damm good point.

I've seen even the most awake people do exactly this, but those who are semi-awake do this routinely. It's mainly an issue of not understanding the larger picture of the media complex and its goals. I do it sometimes too.

Also, yes, I can see the value of a major media talking-head having a genuine moment(s) of truth speaking. But I always keep in mind that the owners of the broadcast and most importantly the production team is 100% long term committed to furthering the disinfo/disorientation/misdirective/distractive mega-project.

Bump for Good Info.

.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Thanks

Thank Bump ;-)

I don't watch news shows on

I don't watch news shows on TV as a rule, mainly because I prefer to read. I usually try to avoid video or audio sources online. Just my preference. But your post seems to assume that I might not be smart enough to not be fooled by some MSM talking head who's lying or misleading. What you propose is almost like political correctness and the way it inhibits free speech. I agree that most of the programming that you're referring to is garbage, but it's not a good idea to try to discourage people from any kind of information for any reason. If the people are as dumb as you seem to think they are, then the habit of shutting down certain avenues of information from prejudice is probably more dangerous than believing what they hear from the likes of Sean Hannity. Wouldn't you be more effective and have more credibility if you attacked the specific points of disagreement that you have with people like that?

It's not about who's "not smart" or "dumb"

It's about not trying to sneak drugs into rehab. For too many, the msm has a heroine-like effect that they can't seem to control, and that hurts all of us at election time. As for those for whom it does NOT have that effect...It's about inspiring those others by example. Then uniting cohesively against those with bad intentions. Trying something new.

"I agree that most of the programming that you're referring to is garbage, but it's not a good idea to try to discourage people from any kind of information for any reason."

Sounds great. But our election history says otherwise. If the majority of people demonstrated an ability to reach out to MULTIPLE sources for this information then I'd agree. But since they don't, I don't agree. There are drug addicts, you know? Not everyone is that strong.

"If the people are as dumb as you seem to think they are, then the habit of shutting down certain avenues of information from prejudice is probably more dangerous than believing what they hear from the likes of Sean Hannity."

How do you figure "probably?" I would guess probably less dangerous. How is discouraging (even forbidding) someone from subjecting themself to a manipulative source PROBABLY more dangerous than if, as a response to that absence, they sought information elsewhere, from a more neutral, non-agenda-driven, open (albeit wild west) source like the internet?

My mom never allowed us to have junk food. Didn't even allow it in the house. So what did I do? I ate healthy food. It works. Maybe not for everyone. But it's worth a shot. Or, of course, we could try another moneybomb! But this time really really mean it. make it a whopper!!

Seriously, I believe quitting the manipulative media cold turkey is our only shot, and it's the only thing that we haven't tried (or been able to pull off).

nice post

obviously those that still believe in a ruling class don't get it though.

Thanks.

Unfortunately you are correct. :'/

I

Refuse to put any type of media on my TV. They might act like their on our side but come election, watch Rand get attacked & ignored just like they did to Ron. Watch Beck change his mind. I bet you!

Yes. It really is that simple.

.

egapele's picture

If there is one thing I learned after hearing about Ron Paul

is that ignorance is NOT bliss.

Just because you are not aware of what is going on around you doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Besides, it's not anyone's job to dictate whether or not people should be watching TV.

Ok

Are you ignorant about how to make LSD, how best to consolidate debt, how best to lose weight? I'm proud to say I am. Couldn't tell you a damn thing about any of it. Why? Because I don't do drugs, spend money I don't have and I eat pretty healthy. I am "blissfully ignorant" of that negative sh*t, just as you should be of the propaganda they're selling. I don't need a con man's occasional truths to make me "aware of what's going on." Did they make you aware of the NDAA? RP's huge ralleys? WTC7? Senate voting 99-0 in favor of letting Americans continue to die for Israel? Our congress's 29 standing ovations for Netanyahu? Didn't think so. But do keep watching. I'm sure you're not addicted. You can quit anytime. Haha.

"it's not anyone's job to dictate whether or not people should be watching TV."

Like when you "dictated" that people should vote for Ron Paul? Educating ain't dictating. Pause, and consider opening your mind.

got faith?

In what way is Brian Middleton part of any problem by posting the Swann on Hannity vid? I watched it [Thanks Brian!], does that reveal me to be part of some problem too?

Am I supposed to cover my ears any time I hear the voice of Matthews, Hannity, or Beck? Tell others to do the same?

Ron Paul didn't cover his ears, nor did he shy away from speaking with these people. Ron speaks of "The Remnant". I've never heard him suggest that the Remnant should isolate. In fact I remember his suggesting exactly the opposite.

I haven't watched television since the airwaves went digital, and I yanked cable years before that. I'm actually quite grateful for the snippets of MSM I catch from DPers posting youtube bits. That keeps me from slipping into abject ignorance.

Absolute censorship of these "ENEMY!"s is not productive. It might SEEM the right thing to do, but it actually propagates cults of personality. The world is not merely black and white. I could put an alarmed expression on my face, raise my voice, and yell to my kids, "Don't you EVER drink beer!" They'd be thinking, "What's up with that, dad? We know you drank beer when you were thirteen. You seem to have survived the ordeal." I actually gain credibility when I tell my kids that once in a while I had fun when I drank beer. Same is true when I admit Matthews and Hannity are right about this or that once in a while and that I agree.

Yeah, and Beck is quite the mind-fuNk! I do run into people who praise the man. I've lost good opportunity by claiming he's the "enemy" or that he's too evil for me to watch. I've had sane and rich discussions with his fans though, when I've been recently exposed [to Beck], admitted where I agree, and declared where I part ways from his line of thought.

Sure the MSM is dead to me, but I don't close my eyes when driving past the cemetary. Should I close my eyes while driving... well, let's just say I'm not dying to get in there... :D

Great

"In what way is Brian Middleton part of any problem by posting the Swann on Hannity vid?"

In all the ways I mentioned in the OP.

"I watched it [Thanks Brian!], does that reveal me to be part of some problem too?"

It depends. Now that you've put on your hero hat and publicly advocated for it? A bit. Yes. (Jesting, but seriously, yes.)

"Am I supposed to cover my ears any time I hear the voice of Matthews, Hannity, or Beck?

It depends. Are your children watching you?

"Tell others to do the same?"

Yes

"Ron Paul didn't cover his ears"

What if he did? What if we all did? And I don't know that he didn't cover his ears to what the media was saying. He certainly didn't cover his eyes to what the GOVERNMENT was doing. Are you suggesting he'd be ignorant if he did shield himself from the media? That's where he gets his info? Kinda doubt that.

"I haven't watched television since the airwaves went digital, and I yanked cable years before that."

Mazel tov! You rock. Seriously that's great.

"Absolute censorship of these "ENEMY!"s is not productive."

Wrong. Yes it is! The government? No. The msm? Yes. Complete censorship. Maybe you're likening it to Code Breaking during World War II or something?...Knowing the enemy? Unlike Germany, the msm has but one weapon. Propaganda. Turn if off completely, and you've disarmed them completely. Then get on the internet and study...watch what bills are coming up, see EVERYONE who is running for office, etc. Could you imagine such a society?

"...it actually propagates cults of personality."

Too abstract for my brain.

"The world is not merely black and white."

Who is talking about the "world." I'm talking about our foreign-controlled media that has a monopoly on all MSM-channeled information and warning that, even when telling the truth, they are manipulating you to gain trust that will be abused later when it actually matters, like election time. That's all.

"Same is true when I admit Matthews and Hannity are right about this or that once in a while and that I agree."

But do you add that just because someone is telling you the truth it doesn't mean they're not trying to manipulate you? Share that with the youngsters and I'll have more "faith," as you say.

"Beck is quite the mind-fuNk!"

That's my point! Beck is NOT a "mind-fuNk" at all! Once you understand the trick. I used to think he was, but the M.O. is now bright, shiny and clear. I completely understand every thing he and Rush and Hannity and Levin and Savage are all up to (see Orit Gadiesh). It's become quite textbook and predictable. Truth means nothing! It's all about building trust, then manipulating. (See previous point).

The cemetery is a poetic metaphor but really, what the hell's the point? I'm trying to help people realize that Twinkies are terribly unhealthy, and you're focusing on the 1 gram of protein...or something. I mean what's the point?

There. Twinkies. I guess that's my closing metaphor.

So Hannity's a Twinkie.

I get it. So does everybody else here at the Daily Paul. But hey, Ben Swann is steamed broccoli. Brian Middleton served a plate with steamed broccoli and a Twinkie. I ate the broccoli, yum-yum, thanks Brian! I didn't eat the Twinkie. Tonym, if your trying to ban Twinkies from the shelves [censorship] then I'm a bit curious in what attracted you to a site dedicated to Ron Paul. If you are "trying to help people realize that Twinkies are terribly unhealthy", it can be mighty handy to actually have a Twinkie at hand so that people can know what the hell you're talking about. During an attempt to help my kids realize that intravenously administered drugs are terribly unhealthy, I showed them a medical syringe. Do I need to explain to you why I did that?

Back to Hannity [and/or Beck]... Teach people what you know. What do you know? That Hannity is an evil enemy? No one [that needs to be convinced] will take you seriously ...until... until you teach them what you REALLY know... that thing you discovered just before you deemed Hannity to be an enemy... how to spot that moment when he veers from the road of sanity onto dumpster alley.

Would you rather help people think better for themselves or just take your word for everything? Personally, I find there to be more success in watching an episode of Hannity with an ignorant friend [even as squeemish and uncomfortable as Hannity makes me] and sharing analysis, than just blurting to my ignorant friend, "Hannity's an idiot*! Trust me!" The latter technique leaves my friend no less ignorant.

*idiot, evil propagandist, enemy, twinkie, whatever...[your choice]

I didn't come to see Hannity and Beck as enemies because someone got in my face and called them douchebags. Did you? No, my opinions came from my exposure to them.

One aspect I've endlessly enjoyed about watching Ron Paul is seeing how he treats others [including those in MSM]. He's been demonized by many of these "ENEMY"s, but I've never seen or heard him demonize any of these people. I've never heard him demonize anyone. That is "THEIR" tactic. It is also their tactic to have "ENEMY"s.

Your enemy is your god.

All I see going on here is your treating Hannity, Matthews, and Beck as gods.

I don't serve Twinkies. I don't think Brian really serves Twinkies either [maybe as a garnish - to make the other food look better]. He serves a mean broccoli though!

Slaughts31's picture

Slingshot engaged

"Sure the MSM is dead to me, but I don't close my eyes when driving past the cemetary. Should I close my eyes while driving... well, let's just say I'm not dying to get in there... "

I feel the same. I don't watch much TV. But it is on everywhere and people talk about it everyday. Therefore, I do not even have to go out of my way. If someone brings up a current event in casual conversation, I can make them think differently without attacking them. There is always common ground. I have found more than I expected in CA and TX.

This is currently my Remnant goal. I understand the msm hate however. I found benefit in removing myself from it on occasion and returning with a fresh mind.

correct

Ben Swann going on Hannity makes me doubt Ben Swann. It doesn't make me look at Hannity any differently. I fully agree with OP. Ben Swann doesn't need any of Hannity's viewers so why bother going on there? He's supposed to be the anti-Hannity, right? Hopefully he is just playing the game and he is not another trojan horse like Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, et al.

um...

Did RP's going on Hannity make you doubt Ron Paul?

Not at all but Ron Paul was a

Not at all but Ron Paul was a congressman. Ben Swann is a news anchor/media personality, much like Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh. I love Ben Swann, let me get that out first. If going on Hannity exposes him to more people who might be an audience for him, I get it. I personally wish he would distance himself from those types, that's all.

Swann works for a FOX

Swann works for a FOX affiliate. It's his job to appear on Hannity. And why wouldn't he want as many people as possible to hear his message?

I disagree

Ben Swann has every right to look for that kind of exposure. It didn't sully Ron Paul to work amidst the scum of DC and Ben's rare visit on the other MSM networks will not sully him.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

And one more thing...

I don't know if you were around for Ron Paul's '07/08 presidential run, but back then we were BEGGING for shows like Glen Beck or Hannity (it was Hannity and Combs back then) to cover him.

Our numbers were so small and we had no way to get Dr. Paul's message to a wider audience, so we NEEDED MSM coverage. It still DOESN'T hurt.

You may not know that Glenn Beck was actually threatened to the point he had to ask Ron Paul to view (off air) and comment on messages he received. Ron Paul responded he believed in the peaceful teachings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi, for example, and at the end GB asked if he felt he got fair coverage in the interview he said yes.

Sean Hannity got snowballs (and almost rocks) thrown at him by Ron Paul supporters at one event.

So YES MSM coverage DOES serve a purpose. Although I also understand what you're trying to warn about.

I'm sure people in hell beg the devil to crank up (down?) the AC

"...so we NEEDED MSM coverage. It still DOESN'T hurt."

No. We didn't NEED it any more than the Tea Party needed FOX and CNN to "cover" it. To "cover" is to control.

As for WANTING, BEGGING for coverage...that's exactly my point. The crux of the problem.

Hannity snowballs? Beck threats? Don't care. The OP is a warning about how truth is used to manipulate. You're going off track. Keep staying in the loop with the MSM, and keep scratching your head wondering why things just never seem to change. Your choice.

A lot wisdom in the post

The MSM isn't our friend. It is state TV. I am in the fourth year of no TV in my house. Couldn't stand to fund these people's viscous treatment of Dr Paul in 2008. My Birthday present in Dec of 2008 was turning off the cable.

Haven't missed anything and I can assure you it was the best thing I have ever done for my children besides educating them about their Savoir. Two kids 10&14 and when I watch other kids their age engage in what passes for communication I can see the effects of television. Kids can barley put four words together in a sentence these days it is terrifying. I cannot believe more parents haven't pulled the plug on the TV drug.

Great post - it needed to be heard.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

TV drug

"I cannot believe more parents haven't pulled the plug on the TV drug." No surprise. Parents these days are addicted to drugs - for their kids.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Thanks.

Support helps.

I disagree

In the end it will be every man for themselves.

Shows will go where the money is and the liberty movement is a source of money, which is why we're seeing that type coverage. Same thing with politicians. As liberty candidates start winning, as we have been, and being supported with money and votes guess what, yep, politicians will suddenly lean libertarian.

Point of clarification

Their rhetoric will lean towards Liberty. The staus quo of contemporary politics will never come over to Liberty. They will break all laws, rules, etc to maintain this corrupt federal reserve banking and taxing enterprise.

They do not care about ratings. Just look at CNN and MSNBCs ratings. They are crashing and where is the liberty message ? They can measure that it is indeed popular at the grass roots level.

They will only cover the liberty movement when they can discredit it. Sorry to be a wet blanket.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

With some

politicians it will only be rhetoric, true, but some may also convert. I agree about the overall status quo of contemporary politics though. That's why I think the best solution is getting the immense availability of money OUT of politics. That's possible if people only use gold, which can't be inflated, for example.

As for the liberty message, it's not anything obvious yet, and maybe never will be. I'm just saying that shows need ratings or they cease to exist or be relevant. Things like "Ron Paul" and now even Rand Paul are things that get ratings, therefore you start to see shows work in these subjects to their programs.

What does "the money" have to

What does "the money" have to do with refusing to ask the tough questions about 911 or lying about the amount of Ron Paul supporters? Why do they unanimously support American blood and treasure being traded for the terrorist state of Israel? To dismiss it as simply a money thing is a little short-sighted.

It's because

the money is where the power and influence is.

Fox and CNN, MSNBC etc. are all CORPORATIONS.

Corporations exist to make money or they go out of business/ get replaced by another entity that gains the money/influence.

It's a balancing act. Yes, there are outside influences for the media, but that media has to maintain market position or be pushed out of the game altogether, by something else like maybe Liberty News Network.