The Stupidity of U.S. Mainstream News Media

Post Reply New Topic

When it comes to political and other important news matters in the United States, the popular, mainstream outlets tend to produce dismal quality, opting instead for gossip, scandal, and the ethereal "gotcha." Politicians are raked over the coals for speaking off message (by chance saying what they actually think), acting human (the kinds of petty vices the majority of humans succumb to from time to time), or many other things not at all related to substantial matters of policy, actual cases of corruption or conflict of interest, or serious defects of character. I really don't care about a politician's affair or the other drivel the media passes off as newsworthy. I came to similar conclusions as Noam Chomsky: that it's propaganda. It may not be a rigidly top-down message coming from a totalitarian leader, but the effect is rather similar. When Sarah Palin speaks her hate about Muslims and then the rest of the Republican Party joins camp and even President Barack Obama can't outright reject that GOP talking point. Why is that blatantly unconstitutional crap even getting so much air time? Again, it's propaganda that rallies the base. Why did we spend so much time on the Tiger Woods scandal when so many more important things were going on?

Now I know there are magazines, blogs, and webforums (like this one) that provide real, intelligent analysis and discussion, but most Americans get their news from these low-quality sources/propaganda outlets.

Is there enough direction in it to really be propaganda? My general impression is that it is all noise of a sort that appeases the incompetent.

What do you mean, exactly?

The media will always crucify a politician, especially the top politician of politicians. That's just the way the press works.

Barack can't combat those talking points because he's just as corrupt as the rest of them. He has to ignore it because he risks confirming it if he speaks up. The media in this country is guided by the almighty dollar, and Obama got OVERWHELMING positive media attention for a LONG time after his inauguration, and it was only after the success of an unpopular health bill that the media could no longer keep up with the negativity of public opinion. So now the media portrays Obama in a more negative light because the media consumers will raise siege ramps against the networks, set fire to their houses, and enslave their inhabitants if they don't.

But G.W. Bush? Obama's media coverage pales in comparison. Dubya got impaled on the news every night since the election up until 9/11 when they were just scared just like everybody else and didn't know what to do with him. Within 6 months, it was back to business as usual.

And they say there's no liberal bias in the media! What a joke...

If you REALLY want fair and balanced reporting, alternate half-hours between CNN and FoxNews. But I definitely agree that it's all propaganda.

I consider the redirection of people's attentions to trivia and stupid controversies propaganda in a more passive sense that it keeps people satisfied with the status quo.

Why limit this criticism to mainstream media? I see it everywhere, and often worse elsewhere, just painted in different colors.

This is by designed. A dumbed down population is easier to manipulate and control. Nobody would have been surprised by the economic crash of 2008 if the media was focused on providing detailed and informative coverage of what was really going on to the masses.

I don't think there is any intention to this. Rather, I think the media are more driven by the notion "we should not stir the waters" and other bits of what seem to be good business sense. That being said, I would think that the media in general will tend to be of a nature that will keep people satisfied with the status quo. Doing otherwise is controversial in a negative sense, even further, I would guess that the average American agrees more with the status quo than any other proposal that could be given.

They display politics as being about Democrats or Republicans, as if it's the party not the person you vote for.

They air and publish things about Christians more than any other religion.

They have helped separate ethnic groups for a long time, while pulling the act of diversity.

I have even watched a news episode where they told us all that old cell phones don't use micro-radiation.

If they talk about natural disasters and crimes, then I might care about what they say.

No, as I said, there isn't a top-down propaganda department determining all the evening's news (but yes, the military does engage in domestic propaganda). "Market incentives" "force" media companies to chase vapid sensationalism instead of news. Journalists try to eek out a sensationalist tidbit, a "gotcha," and it's a very cliquish game where everyone's chasing after the same few stories, ignoring, for example, the world outside the United States, by and large.

Especially now with the Internet, yes, it is possible to read blogs, discuss news in forums like this, and read international newspapers for a broader perspective; but most Americans are still getting manipulated by disgustingly cheap tricks and propaganda. It's still incredible to me how the Cordoba community center issue blew up into such a big deal thanks to Sarah Palin, and then almost the entirety of the national GOP falls into line on cheap, disgusting, demagogue bigotry.

Yeah.... a lot of that is due to the right isolating itself.

However, I guess would you call this a self-generated propaganda machine?