What does it say when both Republicans & Democrats support censorship of media sources that report stories that don't support the popular narrative? Well, if you've read Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent--if not, you should--then you know the amount of painstaking hours of research & analysis that went into their creating the propaganda model to show that America's so-called "free press" is controlled by the corporations that own them if not the government itself. Indications that the mainstream media serves as a proxy purveyor of government propaganda can be found in a few online articles linked below.
First, two of America's leading, supposedly reliable newspapers, The New York Times & The Washington Post, suggest that it's at "times" best not to "post" the truth--hmm, sounds suspiciously like fake news--an admission of sorts of their intent to manipulate readers into buying a particular version of the news (as well as subscriptions) rather than to inform. Click here.
So important is it to control public opinion that the corporate media will present only information that supports a particular agenda, regardless of how flimsy the evidence. If unsubstantiated allegations don't do the trick, the media will actually lie to further the cause. Furthermore, those who present evidence that refutes the popular narratives are subject to vilification & censorship. O, how they fuss & fume at the internet, destroyer of truth, liberty & the American way of telling you what you think! At times, as in the case of Wikileaks, corporate media lackeys seek retribution for those who dare oppose them, even at the cost of (kaff kaff) freedom of the press itself. Click here.
Also, since so many people use it as a general information source, it's useful to know that Wikipedia is not neutral but presents a decidedly neoliberal bias. Click here.
My point is not that you shouldn't believe anything mainstream media sources say, but that you shouldn't believe everything. In fact, it's a good idea to view news reports in general with a healthy amount of skepticism. We don't need Facebook, Google, etc., to filter our news (few would support government censorship, so why condone corporate censorship?); we need to learn to think for ourselves.
First, two of America's leading, supposedly reliable newspapers, The New York Times & The Washington Post, suggest that it's at "times" best not to "post" the truth--hmm, sounds suspiciously like fake news--an admission of sorts of their intent to manipulate readers into buying a particular version of the news (as well as subscriptions) rather than to inform. Click here.
So important is it to control public opinion that the corporate media will present only information that supports a particular agenda, regardless of how flimsy the evidence. If unsubstantiated allegations don't do the trick, the media will actually lie to further the cause. Furthermore, those who present evidence that refutes the popular narratives are subject to vilification & censorship. O, how they fuss & fume at the internet, destroyer of truth, liberty & the American way of telling you what you think! At times, as in the case of Wikileaks, corporate media lackeys seek retribution for those who dare oppose them, even at the cost of (kaff kaff) freedom of the press itself. Click here.
Also, since so many people use it as a general information source, it's useful to know that Wikipedia is not neutral but presents a decidedly neoliberal bias. Click here.
My point is not that you shouldn't believe anything mainstream media sources say, but that you shouldn't believe everything. In fact, it's a good idea to view news reports in general with a healthy amount of skepticism. We don't need Facebook, Google, etc., to filter our news (few would support government censorship, so why condone corporate censorship?); we need to learn to think for ourselves.
