> When the Pentagon is involved with scripting
> movies and TV, and claims "right of editing" over
> scripts, which has been confirmed, that to me
> represents propaganda.
"Confirmed" by whom? How many movies and TV shows? Which ones? Where's the evidence?
> When the nightly news
> across the country and across networks, reports
> news according to an exact same script, which is
> confirmed, that to me is propaganda.
That's not "confirmed." It's bullshit. I'd give you a little leeway on the previous one (but not much, having worked in the movie business and worked with military consultants, who had no such "right"), but nightly news from various sources all following one anonymously sourced "script" is demonstrable bullshit.
> When my
> local news here in a state that is basically a
> large military base is loaded up with news and PR
> for activities of the military branches, that to
> me is propaganda.
Sure, because reporting items of interest to the local people, lots of whom are in the military, is "propaganda." Oh, wait, not it's not -- it's knowing your audience. Never mind.
> When TV networks and channels
> make themselves available to air, for a fee, fake
> "news pieces" that are custom-made made by special
> interest groups, which is confirmed and is SOP,
> that to me is propaganda.
Once again, "confirmed" by whom? Which networks and channels? How often? Which stories? As usual, your posts are long on claims and absent evidence.
> When CNN fakes
> "on-ground, in-country" war reporting with what is
> actually footage made in a US studio, that to me
> is propaganda.
Once again, all claim, no evidence. I've seen the *claimed* "shot in a newsroom not on location footage," but the claims are baseless. They're made by idiots with an agenda, who don't know the first thing about video, lighting, or anything else, and they simply declare, in their ignorance of those things, "this looks fake so it is, and so CNN is a tool of the state!"
And you appear to simply "believe" them, without any evidence. Because that fits your pre-conceived notions.
> And when the entire American news
> establishment joined together in 2002 to proclaim
> that Saddam had "Nookular bombs aimed at the US",
> that to me is propaganda.
See, now you've just gone over the deep end. I paid close attention to those stories then. The vast majority of the media reported what the President was saying, but most were *very* critical of it. A large number of big-name anchors and lots of regular reporters flat-out stated that evidence didn't support the administration's claims. The argument about the claims were BIG NEWS. How did you miss all of that? Not paying attention?
> When employees of "intelligence agencies" are
> placed in "media newsrooms", which has been
> confirmed, that to me represents an effort at
> least to tacitly, if not overtly, censor and guide
> the news and entertainment media.
And again, "confirmed" by whom, when, where, etc.?
Some idiot making stuff up on some nutcase web site, without any evidence, isn't "confirmed."
> Recently, a PBS nightly news reader asserted that
> 100 people died in the "Disneyland measles
> outbreak" in LA, when in reality no one died at
> all, which is confirmed. That to me is propaganda.
Got a link to the video? That one is at least plausible -- though plausible as a mistake, not some grand government conspiracy. Think about this for 2 seconds: plenty of other "big media" correctly reported the story, nobody died. That information was readily available. So what possible benefit is there for the government to get PBS to say something so easily checkable as wrong? There is none.
> New examples of biased reporting appear
That's not at all surprising -- reporters are biased. They're NOT all biased the same though. As per my MSNBC/FOX comparison above.
> Trusting mainstream American media to
> present the actual truth is now more of an act of
> faith, especially for those that do not question
> their accuracy.
"Trusting" is always lazy and stupid. Verifying by research things that matter to you isn't. That goes for YOUR "conspiracy" sources too, by the way -- whom YOU seem to "trust" without doing any research.
> "CBS would never lie to me", says
> the loyal viewer.
Sure, let's make up quotes that nobody ever actually says, and pretend they're real. What a good argument.
> How long ago did you work for Redstone? Could the
> situation in mass media have changed any since
I left that job 9 years ago. I worked in "media" for 20+ years. Yes, things have changed. No, things haven't changed such that there's a massive conspiracy to lie to YOU.
> The landscape in media is changing rapidly
> these days. CNN, Fox and MSNBC, with tiny
> audiences, are losing viewers rapidly, and yet
> somehow they stay in business.
The "landscape" in media has always changed rapidly. It's the nature of the business.
Claim: "CNN...[is] losing viewers rapidly..."
Fact: "CNN saw a higher spike in ratings than any other network in the first quarter of 2015 compared with the same period last year.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/cnn-ratings/
Claim: "Fox...is losing viewers rapidly..."
Fact: "Fox News Channel has now been the No. 1 cable news channel for 54 consecutive quarters, and saw double digit prime time growth in the A25-54 demo compared to Q2 2014."http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q2-2015-ratings-fox-news/266253
Claim: "MSNBC...is losing viewers rapidly..."
Fact: "Generally, Fox News dominated primetime with 1.64 million viewers compared to CNN’s 576,000 and MSNBC’s 525,000, though CNN saw a 20-percent percent increase in primetime viewership -- the largest jump for any of the networks. MSNBC's daytime viewership is down 17% over the same quarter of 2014."http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/q-ratings-report-abc-fox-news-on-top-msnbc-struggles-209762.html
Status: Somewhat true. Not sure half a million prime-time viewer is "tiny," but their share is declining, almost exactly matching CNN's increase.
You do realize it's really easy to check this stuff, don't you? Why don't you do it yourself BEFORE you post, so you don't look so ridiculous?
> Who is paying to
> run MSNBC while they operate in the red?
They're not operating in the red.
MSNBC made $206 million in *profit* (not income) in 2014, and 2015 profit is expected to top $300 million.
Don't you ever check ANYTHING?
> Anyhoo, I'm sure you will belittle my comments as
> the rantings of a paranoid psychotic.
I belittle them as poorly-researched outrageous claims which evidence shows false. Most of your claims are SO EASY to fact-check, yet you never do. You post claims that are flat-out wrong, don't bother to check anything, and then when shown wrong by facts, resort to comments as above.
I don't care what you "believe" -- but when you post here claiming facts, and they're simply flat-out WRONG, they merit all the criticism they get. Go check facts before you post. It's not hard at all.