Problems with the news - Has anyone noticed?

[Arjen]

Hello everybody,

I have been noticing many issues with the news in recent years. While, say 1 or 2 decades ago, I would turn to the news for facts, nowadays I see so much rubbish, that I think that the free press has some issues. As an example I would like to use a not so obviously politicized situation in Hong Kong a while back. It is politicized, but you will not know it. I am using HK, because my wife is from there and at that time the press was still free, while the CCP was trying to get the mass demonstrations (up to 2 million, 25% of the population) that wanted universal suffrage.

This article shows a mob attack during a oeaceful sit in at Yuen Long metro station:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/21/asia/hon ... index.html
CNN covered the article. Ofcourse it is significant that demonstrators are suddenly attacked by a mob of Triade members.l (all in white). It points to a connection between the CCP and organised crime.

In Chinese state media, the Triade was shiwn as victims of evil demonstrators for evil democracy. It was, in part, to ward off visitors from mainland China. Out of fear of demand for freedom spreading. Here, it is shown as logical that upstanding citizens beat those troublemaking protestors:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0gQ5INxOcfI
This is propaganda for western law abiding foreigners. So that the peaceful protests look like a small group of dissidents, like every country sees sometimes.

Comoared to that, CNN is much better. However, there is a key detail that everyone knows, but that CNN follows the propaganda on:

Protesters were reportedly at the mercy of the mob for almost an hour before police arrived and at least 45 people were injured, some seriously
[\quote]
While in reality, the police purposefully walked away. Proving the complicity of the CCP.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CYxQYyYJwk0
There are better movies, but my batteries are running low.

Missing this key point, for an agency like CNN, which should be world class is significant. I see it all the time nowadays. Is it by mistake? Is it repeated without thinking? Is it on purpose, to get paid?

Has any one here ever noticed something similar to this? Or any other issue in the news in recent years?

Please comment below.

[Arjen]

I think this article actually describes things pretty well.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/d ... xi-jinping

Did no one notice strange things in the news?

[Steve3007]

Did no one notice strange things in the news?

If by "strange" you mean "out of character" or "completely different from how things have been in the past" then, with regard to such things as editorial lines, propaganda and selective reporting, no. As you pointed out with reference to the Chinese state media, CNN and The Guardian, there are varying ways in which stories are reported. Some, such as those which are controlled by overtly dictatorial governments, like the CCP, have no semblance of objectivity at all. Others vary.

The challenge in working towards some approximation of objective truth, when we're not personally present, has always been to sift what we read by trying to bear in mind the vested interests, political positions and editorial lines of the writers. There was never some golden age when there was a global media that was entirely objective and factual. Far from it. Perhaps we just expect better now, and the better we expect things to get the more disappointed we are when they remain largely the same.

[Arjen]

I agree with you Steve, we do have to understand what the source is to properly judge it. Given the varying method and worldwide coverage, it is tough.

For me, there are 4 topics that tipped me off:
Taiwan
Hong Kong
BLM
Trump
After figuring those out, I noticed more and more.

Is my opening example e ough to peek your curiosity? Or should I give another from one of those 4 subjects?

[LuckyR]

Well, treating the "news", like it is a single entity that can be described by phrases that fit on a bumper sticker is a gross oversimplification, to be charitable.

By my observation the breaking point between the "before" and the "after" (like it is for so many things) is the advent of the Interweb.

IMO what folks consume as "news" has changed much more than the real but relatively small changes in the traditional news sources themselves. Essentially today any yahoo in his mom's basement can be a "news" source, thus the quality of said "news" can vary from schoolyard bravado (Interweb bullying) to complete nonsense (QAnon).

Sort of a worldwide demonstration of GIGO (garbage in/garbage out).

[Arjen]

Well, treating the "news", like it is a single entity that can be described by phrases that fit on a bumper sticker is a gross oversimplification, to be charitable.
I disagree. It is exactly what is going on. Is there a real difference between most of the main stream media? They all show the same messages, almost word for word the same content.

IMO what folks consume as "news" has changed much more than the real but relatively small changes in the traditional news sources themselves. Essentially today any yahoo in his mom's basement can be a "news" source, thus the quality of said "news" can vary from schoolyard bravado (Interweb bullying) to complete nonsense (QAnon).

That is not untrue, but I must say that I have seen 15 year olds beat the main stream media on all sorts of things. Yet, I still have to find a Q Anon site! I have looked for it for weeks!

Perhaps another great example is the BLM Marxist agenda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEUbSzOTZ8

Did you see it on the news before last week?
Yet this is from a 2013 or 2014 speech.

How can the news not pick up on that, while completely flooding the news with all kinds of opinion stories without facts?

[Arjen]

Fixed my quote tags.

Well, treating the "news", like it is a single entity that can be described by phrases that fit on a bumper sticker is a gross oversimplification, to be charitable.

I disagree. It is exactly what is going on. Is there a real difference between most of the main stream media? They all show the same messages, almost word for word the same content.

IMO what folks consume as "news" has changed much more than the real but relatively small changes in the traditional news sources themselves. Essentially today any yahoo in his mom's basement can be a "news" source, thus the quality of said "news" can vary from schoolyard bravado (Interweb bullying) to complete nonsense (QAnon).

That is not untrue, but I must say that I have seen 15 year olds beat the main stream media on all sorts of things. Yet, I still have to find a Q Anon site! I have looked for it for weeks!

Perhaps another great example is the BLM Marxist agenda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEUbSzOTZ8

Did you see it on the news before last week?
Yet this is from a 2013 or 2014 speech.

How can the news not pick up on that, while completely flooding the news with all kinds of opinion stories without facts?

[LuckyR]

Fixed my quote tags.

Well, treating the "news", like it is a single entity that can be described by phrases that fit on a bumper sticker is a gross oversimplification, to be charitable.

I disagree. It is exactly what is going on. Is there a real difference between most of the main stream media? They all show the same messages, almost word for word the same content.

IMO what folks consume as "news" has changed much more than the real but relatively small changes in the traditional news sources themselves. Essentially today any yahoo in his mom's basement can be a "news" source, thus the quality of said "news" can vary from schoolyard bravado (Interweb bullying) to complete nonsense (QAnon).

That is not untrue, but I must say that I have seen 15 year olds beat the main stream media on all sorts of things. Yet, I still have to find a Q Anon site! I have looked for it for weeks!

Perhaps another great example is the BLM Marxist agenda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEUbSzOTZ8

Did you see it on the news before last week?
Yet this is from a 2013 or 2014 speech.

How can the news not pick up on that, while completely flooding the news with all kinds of opinion stories without facts?

Ok, do you think that, say the New York Times is dramatically different now than it was before the Internet?

What is now called the Main Stream media used to be called... the media. They haven't changed much, they're still professional journalists. What's new is the alternative media whose growth caused traditional media to need a new label.

This alternative media isn't a single entity. Some of it is content paid for by special interests, some is opinion in search of facts, some is single topic specialty content, perhaps of high quality but of limited interest. Bottom line it is of extremely variable quality. I too know very bright 15 year olds, but I know many more 15 year olds who don't know jack.

[Arjen]

No, you miss the point. The main stream media are all reporting the same things in the same way. That never happened before. That is one of the main signals you should have noticed. The whole thing is that the small time reporters are not the ones being paid for special interests.

I have placed multiple links showing who is paying for the Marxist perspective. Why are you suggesting it is otherwise without any evidence? Those links are some of the very few examples of actual investigative journalism that I have seen in recent years.

[SilverRing]

This problem can date back to the days of the Cold War and is a rather interesting topic. However, I shall attempt to keep this brief as it is currently just past midnight but if you are still interested after this response I would be more than pleased to further discuss this topic with you at a more holy hour.

The Cold War was less of a war between countries, but a war between intelligence and technology agencies. Although the Cold War technically ended in 1991, the true effects it has had are still ongoing today. One of the most famous power struggles, as portrayed by Hollywood, was the intense spy games to be played out beginning at this time. As to be expected, as it is with most things in the entertainment industry, they were (and are) not quite what many popular action movies would have you believe. I will be discussing the Russian spy program's effect on the United States as it fits into this topic quite well in some very remarkable ways.

The Russain spy program known as the "KGB Illegals" was a long term war strategy not to conquer the United States in a traditional brute force manner, but by taking advantage of the same thing that has caused the fall of most every great nation throughout history. These implants jobs were to implant themselves into all layers of American society, from your standard suburbs to your influencers and celebrities, politicians, and you guessed it- the media.

A KGB agent by the name of Yuri Bezmenov was a former KGB agent that managed to defect into Canada, and later on a national interview talk about the instructions given to these elite foreign spies. The tactic that was to be played out was not so much James Bond style espionage, but Ideological subversion. The full details on this multi-stage process can be found on YouTube if you search the "1985 Yuri Bezmenov interview". A quick summary of what the plan was in short, to lie undetected in American society and demoralize the nation. One of the most effective ways to do this is through the news and other media outlets. Polarizing the news would not only create a divide in the country, but would remove many from a sense of national pride.

Every election year for as long as many people remember now have been full with chaos, this one particularly. Everything especially now seems as though there is no option for a middle ground. If you are not supporting one party or the other then you are ostracized for being unprogressive. After taking all of this in, and considering the fact that the US military still considers Cold War spy programs an active threat, a reasonable assumption would be that everything Yuri Bezmenov warned about is happening, and just about in the exact time frame he said it would happen. I highly recommend you try the book "Russians Among Us" by Gorden Corera.

In short to answer your question yes, many have noticed, but the real thing to ask would be how far does this really go? I hope I provided you some food for thought.

-SilverRing

[LuckyR]

No, you miss the point. The main stream media are all reporting the same things in the same way. That never happened before. That is one of the main signals you should have noticed. The whole thing is that the small time reporters are not the ones being paid for special interests.

I have placed multiple links showing who is paying for the Marxist perspective. Why are you suggesting it is otherwise without any evidence? Those links are some of the very few examples of actual investigative journalism that I have seen in recent years.

Ah so. I agree with you that from a relative perspective, the Main Stream Media (MSM) appears to have less diversity of opinion than in the pre-Interweb era. However, IMO further analysis shows that this (true) appearance is not because of a cabal of Illuminati seeking to develop conformity among the masses, rather that the Alternative Media (AM) that has gained huge audiences in the modern Interweb era, is providing more "fringe" opinions thus making the real differences between MSM sources seem smaller in diversity.

For example, before the Interweb, the NY Times was considered left and the Wall Street Journal was considered right. IMO they have changed little in the modern era, but they are currently being described as MSM dupes whose differences are considered minor to meaningless. Which is true if you consider the "diversity" of opinions to include published BLM LEADERSHIP (as opposed to the rank and file BLM movement participants) on the left and QAnon on the right.

[Arjen]

I understand your perspective and that was how it was until x years ago. Nowadays, it has a different cause. For example:
-The BLM - Marxism connection that 0 big news organisation picked up on and are refusing to print when I inform the about it.
-The police walking away when triade members are beating up peaceful democratic protesters. While everyone was talking about it and human rights organisations were involved.

Do thise examples strike you as unusual?

[Arjen]

However, I shall attempt to keep this brief as it is currently just past midnight but if you are still interested after this response I would be more than pleased to further discuss this topic with you at a more holy hour

I aoprexiate it and yes, I would.

Every election year for as long as many people remember now have been full with chaos, this one particularly. Everything especially now seems as though there is no option for a middle ground. If you are not supporting one party or the other then you are ostracized for being unprogressive. After taking all of this in, and considering the fact that the US military still considers Cold War spy programs an active threat, a reasonable assumption would be that everything Yuri Bezmenov warned about is happening, and just about in the exact time frame he said it would happen. I highly recommend you try the book "Russians Among Us" by Gorden Corera.

Yeah, it is quite bad. It makes me think that you all need more parties to vote for.

In short to answer your question yes, many have noticed, but the real thing to ask would be how far does this really go? I hope I provided you some food for thought.

I think that it is worldwide. I am just not sure about you Sovjets. I think it is Chinese.

[Sculptor1]

I think this article actually describes things pretty well.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/d ... xi-jinping

Did no one notice strange things in the news?

Your life would be more fruitful were you to more closely examine the propoganda machine that is creating your racism.
The real danger is your own local and national neews services that are playing you like a cheap violin to spew their own brand of ********.

[LuckyR]

I understand your perspective and that was how it was until x years ago. Nowadays, it has a different cause. For example:
-The BLM - Marxism connection that 0 big news organisation picked up on and are refusing to print when I inform the about it.
-The police walking away when triade members are beating up peaceful democratic protesters. While everyone was talking about it and human rights organisations were involved.

Do thise examples strike you as unusual?

What's this nowadays cause?