CNN: Don't be so Nosy About the Government!

[kraychik]

Bleeding heart, is not alone in having the ability to see through the false programming. You just have to read between the lines for some of the information.

You want to see a perfect example of the manipulation of the news? Glaxo Kline Smith has just settled a 3 billion US dollar lawsuit. Promoting drugs never trialed for certain uses. Seems like a huge oversight. It is the largest pharmaceutical scandal ever. Now why is that not making top headlines? Seems like a very important thing where people's lives are at risk due to drugs that should never have been approved for that certain treatment. It is outright fraud. The FDA is also complicit in this as they allowed it to happen and did not vet the trials that never happened.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299704577502642401041730.html

This is the kind of thing we really need to get nosy about.

What else managed to slip by the FDA?

In other words, you haven't read any of this thread and are going off on a completely irrelevant tangent which also seems to be a strawman argument.

[bleeding heart]

There's nothing "Soviet-style" about a government holding an information session for certain individuals who are free not to attend, who then are solicited by various media outlets to spread their narrative. Nobody is being forced to do or not do anything with respect to this matter.

You didn't even read my post...much less the Times article.

I know this because you're insisting that you've missed the point. (No need to insist; I believe you, sincerely I do.)

The key ingredient that defined the Soviet Union and continues to define other leftist dictatorships is coercion, and there was no coercion present in this story. It's also ironic for an open socialist such as yourself to be invoking the former Pravda in the pejorative, since newspapers like Pravda would define the media landscape if things were up to people like yourself.

Pravda was an organ of state propaganda, so I am opposed to the idea automatically, on principle.

You, however, are not; you take no issue with propaganda and deception....whatsoever...so long as sinister lefties aren't behind it.

Wow, the media withheld relevant context?

At least you concede that much.

How about all the times where various news outlets go after the government, its officials, and its policies (either honestly or dishonestly)?

Again...if you had read the link that dicusses the propaganda model in brief, in the OP, you would be forced to take a different route here; this point is discussed.

If you don't believe me, go back to the OP and actually read it before responding.

A tall order, I suppose? Asking too much?

This is deliciously ironic, as you linking this post essentially shatters your Marxist narrative of the media serving the interests of the elite at the expense of the everyman. The false narrative from Manufacturing Consent isn't reconcilable with a New York Times article doing exactly what it's not permitted to do, according to the false narrative from Manufacturing Consent.

This is discussed and dissected in the model...linked from the OP.

If the elite media is wholly beholden to the powers that be and meeting with evil elites in smoke-filled rooms to continually pull the wool over the eyes of the everyman,

That's not the argument. At all. There's certainly no conspiracy.

the New York Times (the epitome of leftist news outlets, in reality) would not dare to compose let alone publish such an article laced with innuendo about malicious and dishonest government communications protocols involving the complicit media.

That's silly. The very fact that the press is mostly free is one of the reasons that propaganda is so effective. Aside from a few commissars, no one much believed the Soviet State Press. They knew it was mostly nonsense.

In relatively free societies, there actually is criticism, there are different viewpoints allowed. But there are pretty strict parameters drawn around it...self-censorship, not state-censorship.

But then, I'm arguing with someone who has no clue--none at all--about the subject which we'e discussing...but for some baffling reason (unstated) believes that he a clue about it.

See, you keep getting it factually wrong--not a difference in analysis, mind you, but actually misrepresenting the argument itself.

So you have no frame of reference.

Even better, what the New York Times article you linked actually does is confirm what I said. The New York Times would never run such a piece during the years of an Obama administration, despite the fact that such communications policies are coordination between the government and media in various dimensions is normal and has been occurring for many decades. The NEw York Times article you linked is yet another example of the leftist bias of the newspaper and its sympathies for the Democratic party in the USA.

The NYTimes was one of the chief supporters of Bush's Iraq War.

Did you not know this, too?

How often do we need to keep correcting you?

Edited July 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

In other words, you haven't read any of this thread and are going off on a completely irrelevant tangent which also seems to be a strawman argument.

Care to tell what what part and why it is irrelevant?