Disinformation and media propaganda

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

You are correct, the internet is changing what information is available, and I agree that it is a good thing. However,

In the process, you have lost sight of what information people choose to know and why they choose to know it.

this isn't entirely correct.

Thelonious, there you go again - making the same error as L&OC does through this whole thread. You give an example of media bias concerning a topic - Panama - of little or no interest to most people.

No, the Panama invasion was all over the news, on every channel, at the time. People didn't choose to ignore other information-it was withheld from them. It never was really reported that Noriega had been paid by the US Army for 31 years, and by the CIA for 15, and had that information been made public during the invasion, popular support for it may have gone out the window.

Like GHW Bush's claim that crack-cocaine had been sold to an undercover cop on the Whitehouse front lawn. Lots of news coverage for the story, but little or no coverage when it came out that it was actually a lie.

So, if the media is willing to print the lies in bold print, when it serves mammon to do so, and either prints the retractions in small print or not at all, does this not shape the way people think?

People pick and choose the information they want to know

Generally they do, but prefer to be spoon fed it rather than having to work, or critically think for it. So they turn on the boob-tube and accept the info as gospel truth. Further, they can only seek out what is made available to them. Granted, the internet had greatly broadened the base, but most people get the news from the TV or the local paper.

[Charles Anthony]

Thelonious, there you go again - making the same error as L&OC does through this whole thread. You give an example of media bias concerning a topic - Panama - of little or no interest to most people.

No, the Panama invasion was all over the news, on every channel, at the time. People didn't choose to ignore other information-it was withheld from them.

I do not think that people were interested in it at all -- enough to question or look below the surface.

So, if the media is willing to print the lies in bold print, when it serves mammon to do so, and either prints the retractions in small print or not at all, does this not shape the way people think?

It does -- regardless of whether Mammon is happy or not.

to prove that there is media propaganda, you would first have to show me evidence of a cartel

No, you do not.

All you would have to do is show that the media systematically produces propaganda (or lies). How they arrived at that is irrelevent.

They could have all picked up the same tea leaves.

They could have all made the same fleeting hearsay unreliable observations.

They could have all arrived at the same conclusions -- because they think the same way.

They could have all looked at what their competitor is doing and copied as fast as possible.

They could be taking advantage of the fact that most consumers do not care.

Answer this: what is the difference between Coke and Pepsi? (I know, I know, technically they do taste different)

They generally taste the same (restaurants always treat them interchangeably).

They are chemically the same.

They cost the same.

They are EXACTLY the same size.

They are sold in the same packaging.

Would you say that there is a cola cartel? No, it is the result of a free market.

It would be wise to look at the media industry as any other supplier that is vying for the same consumers.

Ergo, they produce the same things.

[lost&outofcontrol]

"Five conglomerates own 84% of Canadian media" - such a quote is meaningless. But I'll play the game on your ground L&OC and I'll take the fantastically extreme interpretation that this means five men control 84% of everything Canadian you read.

I never said this.

So what? The five men could never agree on anything (Conrad Black agrees only with himself). Furthermore, there is still another 16%.

They don't have too agree. If they want to stay in the position they find themselves now, they all end up acting the same way

Moreover, all of your examples L&OC concern international affairs where many Canadians receive their news from foreign media sources (easily accessible in Canada). How many "conglomerates" own what percentage of world media?

The largest online "news" websites are either owned by these same media giants or get their news from these sources. And it's worst in the United States.

I'm not certain what you mean by this. Are you saying that the only source of news is a "news website"? That is simply incredible. The Internet started as a communications tool for research centres and academic reports still dominate. Many, many different organizations provide all kinds of information about virtually any subject imaginable.

L&OC, I have the impression that you take an exceptionally narrow view of sources of information. Have you ever been to a library? Have you ever read a book?

No I've never read a book, I'm illiterate....

I think you only see what you want to see in my post. The vast majority of news stories whether online or television originate from the major sources: AP, cnn, etc...

A dominate group tries to maintain the structures in place which make them the dominate group. In this case, marketing is the structure. You do not need a cartel to accomplish this goal. If NBC was to pick up news stories highlighting human rights abuse by Coca-cola's Indian or Columbian plants where do you think Coca-cola will be spending its advertising dollars next time?

All we want to hear about is if newspapers have a bias against US Auto producers or what our astrology has to say. I wonder what Britney Spears is doing today.

You still don't get it.

I am saying that people pay attention to news reports for information that is useful to them. In such reports, you can be reasonably certain that journalists will be careful to avoid errors. IOW, I am fairly certain that media reports about the finances of US auto makers (or Coke trade secrets) are as accurate as possible. I am fairly certain that media reports about Britney Spears (or human rights abuses in South America) are not.

People pick and choose the information they want to know. People tend to know about things of direct interest to them. You don't buy peanut butter if you don't like peanuts.

Journalist, editors, owners willfully ignore human rights issues. Many examples were presented to you by theloniusfleabag and myself and you've pushed them aside as being unimportant. What happens when peanut butter isn't offered in the first place?

People usually ensure they get information as accurate as possible about, to name a few examples, potential spouses, possible job promotions, education opportunities and all manner of purchases. This information will affect decisions that will have an effect on people's lives. Information about Britney Spears or the Congo is not going to make any difference in most decisions of most people.

If the media giants ignore a part of the world like the Congo for example, people won't ever know about it. Most people get their news from the major news sources. If the mass news outlets hide behind the “unbiased veil” then the majority of people won't ever hear about these stories.

There you go again, just like Thelonious. You pick an example in Africa (but you provide an Internet link to a popular newspaper, undercutting your whole point.)

If people want to know about the Congo or Nigeria, the information is easily available in Canada. In general though, individual Canadians don't care about Congo or Nigeria because it is far away and an individual Canadian can do absolutely nothing to change events there. Most Canadians wisely know this and as a result, most ignore articles about the Congo.

Most people never hear about these news stories since most get there news from the major outlets who ignore or censor information hence the perception that they don't care. We have options available to us. We can stop supporting said companies; we can demand from our government to stop using our money as high interest loans to "underdeveloped" countries and stop SAP's.

You see Thelonious, according to August1991 nobody cares about human rights violation by the country that pertains to be the world police.

L&OC, your anti-Americanism seems to motivate your entire argument and that's unfortunate. In the process, you have lost sight of what information people choose to know and why they choose to know it.

Oh please, I'm no more anti-American than I'm anti-Canadian.

Underneath all of this, I fear you don't quite understand how an individual fits within a larger collective. You see an army but you haven't bothered to wonder how the individuals got together to form it.

This goes back to what I said earlier. You see what you want to see in my post. Never did I say there's a bid mean conspiracy/cartel controlling what we hear. What I'm basically saying is that when reporting the news is in conflict with your main revenue stream, the consumer (you and me) lose.

[PolyNewbie]

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose members have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion over forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop a plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the work now is much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practised in past centuries"- David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, at the Trilteral commission in June 1991.

[GostHacked]

As far as I see it there is great bias in the new media.

Something I have noticed with CNN.com ... Important articles of news will show up on Sunday or Sunday evening. The breaking news usually regards some law passed or an ally of the US doing something wrong. It will be shorlived on the mian page then within an hour or so, pushed to the back links where you gotta dig for it. I have seen this several times. But then other articles (like OMG PARIS HILTION HAD TO DRIVE HER PETS AROUND) get front page and stay there.

I am sure there is bias in the news, but I am not sure how far it goes. But it's there and you can read it every day in the news.

[August1991]

This goes back to what I said earlier. You see what you want to see in my post. Never did I say there's a bid mean conspiracy/cartel controlling what we hear. What I'm basically saying is that when reporting the news is in conflict with your main revenue stream, the consumer (you and me) lose.

L&OC, you're shifting your argument here.

I flipped through the thread and at first, you suggested that the government (Bush, Pentagon) was feeding information to the media. Then you gave examples where media owners (CanWest, Conrad Black) controlled and presented the same information. In between those two points, you provided a link to how the BBC refers to Hugo Chavez. Then, you noted how the media is less critical of the US than it is of foreigners. Finally, you noted how the media is more concerned about Janet Jackson than about suicide bombers.

Apart from Jackson, to be valid, all of your arguments above require a media cartel. As I pointed out, anyone can go to a public library and borrow a book by Chomsky or by many other writers with opposing viewpoints. With little trouble, you seem to have done the same on the Internet.

I cannot imagine a freer, less restricted market than the market for information in North America. The suggestion that there is an information cartel somehow controling what gets known is absurd.

I think you only see what you want to see in my post. The vast majority of news stories whether online or television originate from the major sources: AP, cnn, etc...

A dominate group tries to maintain the structures in place which make them the dominate group. In this case, marketing is the structure. You do not need a cartel to accomplish this goal. If NBC was to pick up news stories highlighting human rights abuse by Coca-cola's Indian or Columbian plants where do you think Coca-cola will be spending its advertising dollars next time?

Absent a media cartel, I'm not certain how Coca-Cola could control information about its human rights abuses in India or Colombia. But let me consider the possibility.

First of all, if Coca-Cola threatens to take its advertising away from NBC, then that means NBC could extort money from Coca-Cola by threatening to run the news report. Indeed, if there were a media cartel, the cartel would have the upper hand in such a negotiation. To make good on its threat, NBC would run the news reports every so often.

My point here is that I'm happy you have shifted the argument away from a media cartel, or even a government propaganda office, to the possibility of commercial interests. This properly views information as just another "good" in just another market. Media is the word we used to describe the many suppliers of this "good".

Despite the fact that this market in information provides you with any or all types of information conceivable, you apparently are upset about what information other people consume. IOW, you are a vegetarian who is upset that other people eat red meat. Or, to put the comparison in your context, you eat all five food groups while, in your opinion, your fellow citizens eat chips and Crispy Crunch.

IMHO, this has nothing to do with a media cartel, or media influencing our tastes or opinions, or disinformation or propaganda or anything of the sort. This is a choice people make for themselves and it might be wise if you gave some thought to what information people choose to know and why.

As I noted above, people seem to go to great lengths to obtain information before buying a house, choosing a university, getting married or making an investment.

IOW, if you want people to stop eating junk food, you might want to stop and ask yourself why people eat food in the first place. Instead, you simply dismiss people who eat junk food as "ignorant" or "subject to propaganda". In doing so, you miss the whole story.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Wow, and I'm the one moving the goal post?!

[lost&outofcontrol]

School Officials Promote Fast Track to Incarceration

[Charles Anthony]

School Officials Promote Fast Track to Incarceration

That reminds me of a joke that I heard told by an obstetrician:

"As an obstetrician, I am always resisting the temptation to tell new parents that there is a way for them to return their new product. It is called Correctional Services."

[lost&outofcontrol]

Poisonous Gas dropped on villages by Israeli military in southern Lebanon

[Michael Hardner]

L&OC,

Although I think that censorship, as you describe, does happen from time to time I also think that for the most part Auguste is correct. People simply don't care about what's happening on the other side of the world. Furthermore, they prefer to think of their country as virtuous, and are naturally suspicious of those who say otherwise. These are some of the factors that contribute to the market for contrarian news being so small.

With regards to the link you provided, there seems to be only one person involved in creating that site. If there is concern over the quality of information, then surely there are dangers in sourcing information from one-person news teams, regardless of their ideology. Everything that you suspect happens with large organizations could happen much more easily with smaller organizations.

New technology is a trojan horse that carries unknowns within it. The web is creating a system to legitimize rumours and innuendo and that can have disasterous effects...

[August1991]

Wow, and I'm the one moving the goal post?!

Wow, L&OC. That's your response to my post?

And then you add links to a sensational article about putting unruly students in jail and an article purporting to show that Israel is using poisonous gas weapons.

L&OC, do you believe everything you read? Do you have any critical faculties at all? Or do you simply pick and choose to believe the articles that confirm your existing worldview.

[Toro]

But these men don't own television stations and radios, and they don't own all the newspapers. They don't always tell the editors what to do. Lastly, Maxwell, Murdoch, Black were (are) competitive bastards who frequently cheated on colleagues and partners. These guys couldn't work together in a cartel for five minutes - one of them would be bound to cheat on the others.

This is bang on.

I'm always amazed that the people who believe in the media-propoganda model seem to have almost no understanding of the motivations and rolls of journalists, editors and shareholders. The propoganda model makes these grand assumptions and proclimations from 20,000 feet without explaining why people behave the way they do.

And before I sign off, I'd ask the people who disagree with me to first answer this question;

Why do media companies issue dual classes of stock and how does this dual shareholder structure effect the motivations of media company shareholders relative to companies that do not have dual classes of stocks?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Toro,

Why do media companies issue dual classes of stock and how does this dual shareholder structure effect the motivations of media company shareholders relative to companies that do not have dual classes of stocks?

Well, it is all about control, from...

http://www.nber.org/digest/jul04/w10240.html

Combining data from the Securities Data Company, the Center for Research in Security Prices, the Investor Responsibility Research Center, and company proxy statements, the authors create a unique collection of information about U.S. dual-class companies. They find that dual-class firms are more common among media-related firms, possibly because such firms offer greater opportunities for non-pecuniary private consumption and their founders "establish a dual-class structure in order to preserve control." On average, managers and directors own an average of 26.7 percent of the cash flow rights and 50.7 percent of the voting rights among firms in the authors' sample.

from...http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2004/commentary040414bm.htm

With dual-class stock structures, managements have even less reason to consider minority shareholders' interests.

In effect, management is allowing outside shareholders to provide the majority of the capital while retaining majority control of these companies. This strikes me as a great deal for the management: They get many of the advantages of being a public company, yet their need to listen to shareholders is muted, even if those shareholders control a majority of the capital.

It would be like going to the polling booth on election day and discovering that for each one vote you get, the politicians who are running the country get 500. By so doing, they give you the ability to voice your opinion, but in a rigged election where you (or your entire class) have no real say in how the company is managed. Think this isn't a big deal? Ask the long-term owners of Digex, now a fully owned subsidiary of MCI (OTC BB: MCWEQ).

So, the ability to control direction of the media is thusly retained in the hands of the few, rather than the many.

[Toro]

And what are the motivations of owners of dual class shares structures versus shareholders of companies without dual class shares?

Control is part of it. But there is another reason. (Just for reference, of the big media companies, Viacom and News Corp have dual class shares while Time Warner and Disney do not.)

Also, what are the motivations of journalists and editors?

[lost&outofcontrol]

Another great example of the media actually fabricating news.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I'm always amazed that the people who believe in the media-propoganda model seem to have almost no understanding of the motivations and rolls of journalists, editors and shareholders. The propoganda model makes these grand assumptions and proclimations from 20,000 feet without explaining why people behave the way they do.

Groups defend their interests.

[jdobbin]

Another great example of the media actually manufacturing news.

It's okay. Here's MSNBC taking apart FOX.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAe9zk2AxSY&NR

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Toro,

Control is part of it. But there is another reason.

Profit. Mind you, at certain levels, money becomes power. Certainly don't want the Bin Laden (or Saud) family buying Disney, Time Warner etc. What would people begin to think?

[jdobbin]

Right wing scrubbing of the truth on FOX. They get called out on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBgj6nf0HY...related&search=

[August1991]

I'm always amazed that the people who believe in the media-propoganda model seem to have almost no understanding of the motivations and rolls of journalists, editors and shareholders. The propoganda model makes these grand assumptions and proclimations from 20,000 feet without explaining why people behave the way they do.

Groups defend their interests.

OMG!

L&OC, you call it a "group". I call it a "cartel". Ignore the difference in terminology.

Capitalists are famous for exploiting others and cheating if it means more for themselves. By definition, a capitalist is greedy. So why would a capitalist "co-operate" with others in the "group" and defend the "group's interests" (as opposed to the individual capitalist's interests)?

I don't want to go off on an intellectual tangent here. But your post strikes at the heart of a very practical question.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Right wing scrubbing of the truth on FOX. They get called out on it.

Indeed, why would they gamble on such a move?

why would a capitalist "co-operate" with others in the "group" and defend the "group's interests" (as opposed to the individual capitalist's interests)?

I think it was Ben Franklin who said, "If we all don't all hang together, we'll all hang separately". August, the charges of price fixing would never occur without collusion, yet you think it is fundamentally impossible. You are wrong.

from...

http://www.endgame.org/corpfines3.html

"Portugal's antitrust regulator said it had fined five major US and European drug companies a total of 16 mln eur for working together to artificially fix prices.

The five firms -- Abbott Laboratories and Johnson & Johnson of the United States, Germany's Bayer AG, Italy's Menarini Diagnosticos and Switzerland's Pharmaceutica Quimica -- formed a cartel during 36 bidding processes to supply 22 hospitals in Portugal, it said. The goal of the companies was to 'prevent, restrict or falsify in a significant way competition by fixing prices', the competition authority said in a statement

Why do these (few dozen {or rather, hundreds]) of other examples never make the news?

[jdobbin]

Indeed, why would they gamble on such a move?

And if you aren't careful, FOX security will come after you.

[August1991]

I think it was Ben Franklin who said, "If we all don't all hang together, we'll all hang separately". August, the charges of price fixing would never occur without collusion, yet you think it is fundamentally impossible. You are wrong.

Conrad Black would let you hang if it meant $2 more for him - he did it to his partners! The Irvings and Aspers are no different. Even Thomson. They're competitive bast***s.

I'll only add this little detail Thelonious. Doing a deal is a tough art, and reputation matters. Talk to a matchmaker.

----

Adam Smith was the first to notice that the invention of numbers turned such normally destructive competitive behaviour into a cooperative beneficial result for all.

Understandably perhaps, many people find numbers confusing.

[jdobbin]

Conrad Black would let you hang if it meant $2 more for him - he did it to his partners! The Irvings and Aspers are no different. Even Thomson. They're competitive bast***s.

Izzy Asper never lost a lawsuit against him nor was accused of raiding pension plans or stealing from his companies. David Asper, however, controls editorial policy at the National Post like no one's business.

I have no idea how the Irvings run their operations.

Thomson ran the Globe and Mail differently from the rest of his Canadian papers. He actually gave them money to increase the size of the paper and didn't interfere with editorial policy.