I include this because each of you may want to use it in discussions about the FDA ("fun-denying administration").
How the FDA Manipulates the Media
- Thread starter deathmetal
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
The modern media has turned into a cheering section for one side, unfortunately not the side of the people
The irony is that the liberal socialist took control of the media in the late 60s/early 70s and were anti government and distrustful of all government agency. Now the media is complicit with government corruption and the destruction of personal liberty.
Angst? No need for angst. The situation simply is what it is and no one here is gonna change it. So, my advice? Adapt and find a way to live with it. Getting all bent out of shape about something you have no control over is simply a waste of emotion and effort. But, then what would we have to write about?
The other alternative is to go to work, get involved, work your way into the leadership of your local political organization and direct them as you wish. If you are on the outside looking in, you will have no control and will just have to live with what the activists bring down upon us. As I've stated, I like to be above the fray and enjoy watching it all unfold.
Become a stockholder in a company which employs the "hated" lobbyists (who are only doing what they are paid to do), attend the meetings, stir up a following and get the lobbyists fired.
It's taken nearly 70 years for a handful of doctors and the American Cancer Society to build what is now a tidal wave of hate for tobacco. Some of you younger guys have your work cut out for yourselves if you want to reverse the course of history. It's a daunting task, especially since so many fail to recognize the true opposition, but, in another 70 years perhaps your hard work, and that of those who follow, might have realized some headway into making tobacco use socially acceptable again. Might even see the return of government subsidies for farmers who knows? Remember today's hated government once subsidized the business, gave out free cigarettes, and the like.
As an English acquaintance was asked, "So, hows that taxation with representation going for you colonials these days?"
The other alternative is to go to work, get involved, work your way into the leadership of your local political organization and direct them as you wish. If you are on the outside looking in, you will have no control and will just have to live with what the activists bring down upon us. As I've stated, I like to be above the fray and enjoy watching it all unfold.
Become a stockholder in a company which employs the "hated" lobbyists (who are only doing what they are paid to do), attend the meetings, stir up a following and get the lobbyists fired.
It's taken nearly 70 years for a handful of doctors and the American Cancer Society to build what is now a tidal wave of hate for tobacco. Some of you younger guys have your work cut out for yourselves if you want to reverse the course of history. It's a daunting task, especially since so many fail to recognize the true opposition, but, in another 70 years perhaps your hard work, and that of those who follow, might have realized some headway into making tobacco use socially acceptable again. Might even see the return of government subsidies for farmers who knows? Remember today's hated government once subsidized the business, gave out free cigarettes, and the like.
As an English acquaintance was asked, "So, hows that taxation with representation going for you colonials these days?"
They are partly responsable for all the PC BS going around as well as the feminizeation of the American male
Slightly off topic, but I have been thinking recently about the need for lobbyists. I work in mortgage. In the US, there has been a tidal wave of changes in the laws recently. I have read some docs on the discussions that go in before the final drafts of laws, "Respectfully, sirs, I would like to remind you of . . ." "Have you considered. . ." "I propose that instead of this, you say . . ."
If I was at those meetings, "YOU IDIOTS!!! DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW STUPID THAT IS? THAT CLAUSE WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HELP THE CONSUMER! IT WILL CAUSE US TO SPEND MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO COMPLY WITH YOUR STUPIDITY AND GAINS NOTHING! ARE YOU INSANE OR HAS SOMEONE BOUGHT YOU ALREADY??????"
I would quickly learn what the term Restraining Order means.
If I was at those meetings, "YOU IDIOTS!!! DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW STUPID THAT IS? THAT CLAUSE WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HELP THE CONSUMER! IT WILL CAUSE US TO SPEND MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO COMPLY WITH YOUR STUPIDITY AND GAINS NOTHING! ARE YOU INSANE OR HAS SOMEONE BOUGHT YOU ALREADY??????"
I would quickly learn what the term Restraining Order means.
@Winton - The problem is that the American public has started treated the elected officials as royalty. I am sick and tired of seeing politicians given the title of "Honorable Representative" or "Honorable Senator" as if just because they became an elected official made them something other than the lying, cheating, will sell their own mothers on the street corner to get re-elected scum that they are.
The very purpose of the media (originally) WAS to ask the very questions that the government did NOT want to answer! So, you have no media now, just a propaganda source. When you ask what is wrong with this country, just look to the media, for 90% of them are no longer the watchdogs of the people but working for the very persons they are supposed to watch.
aldecaker: I doubt I have made any statements supporting government. I simply recognize what is happening and why. You seem frustrated and are flailing at the nearest target of opportunity. What has changed since the 50s and 60s when the Feds underwrote the tobacco business? Where have the subsidies gone? The voter changed, tossing the powerful senators and reps who sent big moneys to farmers. Even the lobbyists couldn't hold back the outrage of the voter. The public demanded an end to smoking ads. The voters changed the government attitude, not the other way around. Society doesn't wish to be exposed the smoke. Government accepted that and began to restrict smoking in public areas. First it was airplanes, then bars. Each successive group of legislatures had to take it further so as to cater to the public and show their effectiveness.
It's much easier to blame "them" or "government" than it is to delve deeply into the core beliefs of people running for office and make a considered choice. You only see the surface of the situation. It's actually simple, the elected officials wish to keep their power and so, cater to what the majority of the voters (and non-voters as there is some benefit for doing so) desire. You like to rail at the obvious target. I prefer to examine a debate/situation and find the cause(s). And, I try not to cast aspersions on other members as that does one's argument no good.
It's been years since either party presented me with a candidate I could support. Only infrequently will a candidate get my vote. I accept the consequences of such wrong thinking. I am simply not going to vote for the lessor of the two evils. But, I am sufficiently pragmatic to know what is really occurring, to dissect it, adjust and attempt to profit from it. No reason to sit idly by, or complain vociferously about the condition of the country. Makes no sense to me. It is what it is in my view. I'm not going to run in circles, peeing my pants and screaming that the sky is falling. That's obvious to me, and should be to others with regard to tobacco. How to adjust and adapt is the question? How does it affect me and mine? What do I do to surmount a challenge? Can the situation be changed? How?
A word regarding lobbyists: They are mercenaries, hired guns, and do only as they are instructed. I've known one or two who have no personal interest in the issues they are paid to "sell." They simply present their employer's side of an argument, they do it passionately and efficiently. If they can't, they end up in another line of work.
Regarding the media: In spite of what we think and how the media has presented itself historically, remember one thing; Newspapers and later mediums were developed and grown by owners interested only in presenting the news in such a manner so as to sway the reader/listener.
There is no point in owning a newspaper, web news site, television station or broadcasting system if one cannot control the message, overtly or covertly manipulating it so as to sway the masses. In some cases, Hearst for example, profit was not even a consideration.
Today the press, TV, etc. select a target demographic and pretty much cater to it while trying to attract others. No change there from the time of "tracts" and pamphlets. The "liberal" media is starting to take it in the shorts. "Conservative" media is making money hand over foot presenting the "other" side. Give it a couple of years and the situation will probably reverse. But, the core demographic will abide their media choices through thick and thin. It's the middle of the road listener/reader who goes back and forth.
The term "objective media" is an oxymoron, always has been. "Fair and balanced" is another one. If you agree with a viewpoint, it is obviously objective. If you disagree, it is obviously biased. There exist very few people with the interest or desire to dedicate the time and effort to really delve into a debate, research material and either change or form an opinion. Most of us prefer our opinion to be spoon fed from the TV or computer. And, we really prefer to read or listen only to opinions we already agree with.
What has changed in recent years is that the media makes less effort to appear objective.
It's much easier to blame "them" or "government" than it is to delve deeply into the core beliefs of people running for office and make a considered choice. You only see the surface of the situation. It's actually simple, the elected officials wish to keep their power and so, cater to what the majority of the voters (and non-voters as there is some benefit for doing so) desire. You like to rail at the obvious target. I prefer to examine a debate/situation and find the cause(s). And, I try not to cast aspersions on other members as that does one's argument no good.
It's been years since either party presented me with a candidate I could support. Only infrequently will a candidate get my vote. I accept the consequences of such wrong thinking. I am simply not going to vote for the lessor of the two evils. But, I am sufficiently pragmatic to know what is really occurring, to dissect it, adjust and attempt to profit from it. No reason to sit idly by, or complain vociferously about the condition of the country. Makes no sense to me. It is what it is in my view. I'm not going to run in circles, peeing my pants and screaming that the sky is falling. That's obvious to me, and should be to others with regard to tobacco. How to adjust and adapt is the question? How does it affect me and mine? What do I do to surmount a challenge? Can the situation be changed? How?
A word regarding lobbyists: They are mercenaries, hired guns, and do only as they are instructed. I've known one or two who have no personal interest in the issues they are paid to "sell." They simply present their employer's side of an argument, they do it passionately and efficiently. If they can't, they end up in another line of work.
Regarding the media: In spite of what we think and how the media has presented itself historically, remember one thing; Newspapers and later mediums were developed and grown by owners interested only in presenting the news in such a manner so as to sway the reader/listener.
There is no point in owning a newspaper, web news site, television station or broadcasting system if one cannot control the message, overtly or covertly manipulating it so as to sway the masses. In some cases, Hearst for example, profit was not even a consideration.
Today the press, TV, etc. select a target demographic and pretty much cater to it while trying to attract others. No change there from the time of "tracts" and pamphlets. The "liberal" media is starting to take it in the shorts. "Conservative" media is making money hand over foot presenting the "other" side. Give it a couple of years and the situation will probably reverse. But, the core demographic will abide their media choices through thick and thin. It's the middle of the road listener/reader who goes back and forth.
The term "objective media" is an oxymoron, always has been. "Fair and balanced" is another one. If you agree with a viewpoint, it is obviously objective. If you disagree, it is obviously biased. There exist very few people with the interest or desire to dedicate the time and effort to really delve into a debate, research material and either change or form an opinion. Most of us prefer our opinion to be spoon fed from the TV or computer. And, we really prefer to read or listen only to opinions we already agree with.
What has changed in recent years is that the media makes less effort to appear objective.
I essentially agree, but IMO it is actually globalists who control the MSM rather than "liberal socialists" (but globalism does incorporate socialism to a degree...basically it socializes the losses and privatizes the profits). And it is globalists who control both major political parties in the U.S.
Actually it's taxation with the illusion of representation. But the masses seem to prefer illusion to reality for the most part.
All very true. The modern electronic, digital, computerized MSM is Edward Bernays' ultimate wet dream.
The first 10 minutes of this explains a lot regarding the origins of the use of propaganda in modern Western society:
The century of the self - Happiness machines
https://vimeo.com/95699538
The American press is very free. That freedom is what allows publishers to print what they wish in a style they select so as to cater to their selected audience. That very freedom is what allows the press to be biased in their reporting. As I stated earlier this is nothing new. It's the freedom to publish as they wish short of libel and the like. Not to publish what is perceived to be the truth. It's the journalists who profess to be objective and unbiased. Truth is in the eye and mind of the reader.
A "free press" does not and never has meant "truth" however truth is defined.
Journalists and news readers present what are cited to be facts in such a manner so as to help shape the "message." It's the very "freedom of the press" that allows a biased press to exist. The protections afforded the press in our founding documents are meant to protect dissent and biases. They were not to insure "truth" as truth is a matter of perception, very nebulous.
A "free press" does not and never has meant "truth" however truth is defined.
Journalists and news readers present what are cited to be facts in such a manner so as to help shape the "message." It's the very "freedom of the press" that allows a biased press to exist. The protections afforded the press in our founding documents are meant to protect dissent and biases. They were not to insure "truth" as truth is a matter of perception, very nebulous.
The most important point that Warren has been making recently, to my mind, is this:
There is a lot of blame flying around these days, but we the herd are the force driving all of this. It is our purchases, stockholder votes, complaints, votes, eyeball airtime, and media habits that have shaped this country. If we are not doing a good job, we need less "freedom" and more "duty."
Big subject, even beyond this excellent article. Embargoes have their place and are not of themselves corrupt. Research and regulatory agencies can use them to give everyone an equal crack at the news and to allow their staff to present it completely at one time, and (not in this case) properly answer questions and address issues.
Not mentioned in this story is the fact that the decreasing number of larger urban newspapers that can afford full reportorial staffs is diminishing so fewer science and regulatory reporters exist, and those who do can be more easily controlled. Broadcast reporters (frankly) are often divided between their reporting and entertainment functions. For in-depth reporting, even the broadcasters depend on the waning number of print reporters for in-depth and investigative reporting.
A related issue not dealt with here is that private sector pharmaceutical companies hold nearly all of their research secret and proprietary forever, though much of it is based on research paid for by taxpayers. So it is not a question of when or how completely information is released. None of it will ever be released. So that's an issue.
And finally, whatever you think of agency communications people, they are relatively few in number with distinctly finite budgets. For the big money, you go to corporate communications, marketing, legal staffs, and lobbying. One of these industrial groups has a budget equal to scores or hundreds of government agencies. Talk about manipulating the media.
Not mentioned in this story is the fact that the decreasing number of larger urban newspapers that can afford full reportorial staffs is diminishing so fewer science and regulatory reporters exist, and those who do can be more easily controlled. Broadcast reporters (frankly) are often divided between their reporting and entertainment functions. For in-depth reporting, even the broadcasters depend on the waning number of print reporters for in-depth and investigative reporting.
A related issue not dealt with here is that private sector pharmaceutical companies hold nearly all of their research secret and proprietary forever, though much of it is based on research paid for by taxpayers. So it is not a question of when or how completely information is released. None of it will ever be released. So that's an issue.
And finally, whatever you think of agency communications people, they are relatively few in number with distinctly finite budgets. For the big money, you go to corporate communications, marketing, legal staffs, and lobbying. One of these industrial groups has a budget equal to scores or hundreds of government agencies. Talk about manipulating the media.
- Status