Left media bias re 911 exposed

[metamars]

Left media bias re 911 and other "sensitive" topics, exposed

One of the papers linked to at this website, Left Progressive Media Inside the Propaganda Model, by Peter Phillips and Project Censored, gets into the question of the bias shown by the left "alternative media", with a view of considering any observed bias from the point of view of the Chomsky/Herman propaganda model. Unfortunately, after doing a decent job summarizing the case that there is such a bias, (see table on p. 10), the 'investigation' of the details of this bias gets all of about 1 page of woefully skimpy quotes from members and observers of the left media, starting on p.11. Furthermore, the conclusion consists of a single, 3 sentence paragraph. :

Quote:

Based on the evidence presented we conclude that media concentration, PR consolidation, and post-9/11 sensitivities have all contributed to the continuation of strong support for the propaganda model theory as a significant way to understand corporate media in the US. We understand also that this theory may contribute to the news story selection process inside the left liberal media as well. Further investigation of this evidence will likely continue to develop over the next decade of media research.

The 1st sentence is certainly not contested by me, but is of little interest, since I consider main stream media all but hopeless*, and the the points listed obvious. The second sentence is interesting, but basically restates the question! That's what this paper hopefully would have elucidated.

It's the last sentence that makes this paper worth pointing to, together with the very fact that the right questions are being asked.

The table on page 10 displays 10 rows of left media entities, and 8 columns of specific issues, 2 of which are 911 related. Out of these 20, 911-related grid cells, only one was rated 'Yes-D; Coverage of the story as a debate between antagonists', and only 2 more had a plain 'Yes' in them. (Other possible ratings were:

No: Did not cover the story
Yes-P: Partial coverage of the story but left out key points
Yes-N: Opinion statement against the story or negative coverage

)

I doubt that even the 'Yes' ratings imply any sort of original, gumshoe type research. E.g., we know that Mohammed Atta was not invisible. Nor were his associates. Is the reporting of Hopsicker correct, in that some of his associates were non-Arab, white European types, involved in international drug smuggling, or isn't it? Independent investigative reporting by any of the left "alternative media" venues would involve knocking on doors, not just calling up people who have an opinion, or unverified research of their own.


* Justice cries out for it to be replaced, rather than reformed. Significant reform is impossible, since it serves it's elite masters so well. By 'replaced', I mean that the public has to deliberately turn away from it, not that legislation must put it to an end.

[jaydeehess]

So if I get this straight, the rightist neo-con administration conducted the 911 faked attacks and the leftist media is responsible for aiding a cover up by not reporting on the TM exposure of the neo-con treason.

Is that pretty much it in a nutshell, metamars?

[Drudgewire]

Trust me on this, the only reason there's still a "9/11 Truth Movement" is BECAUSE the media hasn't taken an interest in them.

Shine a light on that fraudfest and they'd actually have to answer questions rather than sidestep them. They'd have to give legitimate reasons why they're "just asking questions." They'd have to see what the general public thinks about their "leaders" and why.

Hell, let's give them a "Truth" day where they're all over the networks. We can call it a going away party.

[Travis]

I predict that in the near future we will get a synthesis of all the various Metamars critiques of media information dissemination called The Deep Propaganda Model for Manufacturing Consent for the Road to Fascism.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

So if I get this straight, the rightist neo-con administration conducted the 911 faked attacks and the leftist media is responsible for aiding a cover up by not reporting on the TM exposure of the neo-con treason.

Is that pretty much it in a nutshell, metamars?

I think the idea that everybody in the Bush administration knew about the 911 attacks ahead of time is preposterous. So is the idea that everybody consciously aided a cover-up. As for general question of media covering up, via conspiracy, vs. being anti-democratic, via an autonomous filtering process (as described in the Chomsky/Herman propaganda model), see some recent posts of mine . Your very question is naive, even if not as naive as "So, was everybody in on it?"

I would agree with the statement, though, that by not pursuing independent 911 investigations themselves, the left media (as a whole) is effectively helping cover up what really happened.

As for why this should be so, you have to look beyond just the Herman/Chomsky propaganda model. You also need to "follow the foundation money". H/C propaganda model posits the following filters:

Quote:

(1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism.

Check out the "left gatekeeper" link in my sig, which has the following chart:



Gary Null has done investigative reporting on some of these foundations, but I don't have any links saved.

[Drudgewire]

lol "International media" all grouped together as a tiny box in the left-hand corner, as if Skull & Bones and the CIA just control them as an afterthought.

So stupid. So very, very stupid.

[GStan]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

So if I get this straight, the rightist neo-con administration conducted the 911 faked attacks and the leftist media is responsible for aiding a cover up by not reporting on the TM exposure of the neo-con treason.

Is that pretty much it in a nutshell, metamars?

Can't those damn libs do anything right?

[Travis]

The more complicated the flow chart the more "true" it becomes..........wait..........that isn't right.

[CurtC]

metamars, that chart is da bomb. I like the "IPA" in the lower left - yum! I love IPA!

And do you mean the same Gary Null, the health advice quack? The same one? Now there's an endorsement.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by metamars

I think the idea that everybody in the Bush administration knew about the 911 attacks ahead of time is preposterous. So is the idea that everybody consciously aided a cover-up. As for general question of media covering up, via conspiracy, vs. being anti-democratic, via an autonomous filtering process (as described in the Chomsky/Herman propaganda model), see some recent posts of mine . Your very question is naive, even if not as naive as "So, was everybody in on it?"

,, Where did I say "everybody consciously aided a cover-up"?

Quote:

I would agree with the statement, though, that by not pursuing independent 911 investigations themselves, the left media (as a whole) is effectively helping cover up what really happened.

So the leftist media simply did not bother to follow up any leads that would definitively destroy the ultra-right neo-cons and expose their treasonous actions because.......... they did not want to?

Quote:

As for why this should be so, you have to look beyond just the Herman/Chomsky propaganda model. You also need to "follow the foundation money". H/C propaganda model posits the following filters

Check out the "left gatekeeper" link in my sig, which has the following chart:

http://911review.com/denial/imgs/left_gatekeepers.gif

Gary Null has done investigative reporting on some of these foundations, but I don't have any links saved.

Wow, $100,000 manages to keep the entire world's media beyond the borders of the USA from bothering to investigate! You actually believe carp like that?

Quote:

Travis posts
I predict that in the near future we will get a synthesis of all the various Metamars critiques of media information dissemination called The Deep Propaganda Model for Manufacturing Consent for the Road to Fascism.

Because everyone knows just how buddy-buddy the ultra-right Fascists are with the ultra-left Socialists

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by CurtC

metamars, that chart is da bomb. I like the "IPA" in the lower left - yum! I love IPA!

Intermediate Power Amplifier ?

[SDC]

Actually, it's a very serious criticism that Metamars' chart essentially eliminates the non-US media. In all languages, including English. That pretty much blows it to bits -- judging by that alone, this project is nothing but self-serving "we're Important!!" whining.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Travis

The more complicated the flow chart the more "true" it becomes..........wait..........that isn't right.

,, of course not, its left!
Well the chart is created by the right but its a chart of the big corporation leftist media influences. The leftists that are driven by advertising money from the large corporate entities that are all so well known as being leftist leaning and who support such evils as unionization and minimum wage legislation.

metamars is getting a little Orwellian methinks. In his case right is left and left is right.

[sleahead]

Originally Posted by metamars

Is the reporting of Hopsicker correct, in that some of his associates were non-Arab, white European types, involved in international drug smuggling, or isn't it?

No, it's not, but speaking of Mr Hopsicker:


[quote=metamars;3728561]Wow, what a stark inconsistency. It's hard to believe that these stories would have remained on his web site like this, for so long. I sent him an email about this. If he replies, I'll post.

Can I assume no response?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by SDC

Actually, it's a very serious criticism that Metamars' chart essentially eliminates the non-US media. In all languages, including English. That pretty much blows it to bits -- judging by that alone, this project is nothing but self-serving "we're Important!!" whining.

$US 100,000 certainly goes a lot farther than I would have ever expected it to.
Does metamars realize that $100,000 (my VTR's are $18,000 each, and I wonder how much he and the author of that chart think this costs?) would not buy you a medium sized televison master control suite or that many network anchors make more that that per year, even those not in the USA?
I work for a very small TV station and I think my station manager might well stay clear of a story for a $100,000 grant but the CBC would use the offer and its strings as the subject of a story of corruption.

[funk de fino]

Pathetic thread again

[Travis]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

,, of course not, its left!
Well the chart is created by the right but its a chart of the big corporation leftist media influences. The leftists that are driven by advertising money from the large corporate entities that are all so well known as being leftist leaning and who support such evils as unionization and minimum wage legislation.

metamars is getting a little Orwellian methinks. In his case right is left and left is right.

...and the gatekeepers are double plus good.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

Left media bias re 911 and other "sensitive" topics, exposed

One of the papers linked to at this website, Left Progressive Media Inside the Propaganda Model, by Peter Phillips and Project Censored,

Peter Phillips and Project Censored, the same evidence you have! ZERO (9/11 stuff). Great thread, not a single shred of evidence. How do you stay 100 percent evidence free?

Pre-refuted threads are getting old, no evidence, just lies, false information, and fantasy. I love the thermite insanity repeated by your failed paper on page 5. Nice touch.

Quote:

Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
Research into the events of 9-11 by former Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, concludes that the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings is implausible according to laws of physics.

Can you list the laws of physics broken on 9/11? How do you break the laws of physics? Do you understand this is an insane proposition when you include the failure to explain and support! This is your failure, not able to support the hearsay junk you post and cite.

Peter Phillips and Project Censored prove there are dumb people and news sources just as dumb or purely misleading. The conclusion should be, "some news sources are as dumb as their dumbest readers"; it would be correct.

[metamars]

[quote=sleahead;4157129]No, it's not, but speaking of Mr Hopsicker:

Originally Posted by metamars

Wow, what a stark inconsistency. It's hard to believe that these stories would have remained on his web site like this, for so long. I sent him an email about this. If he replies, I'll post.

Can I assume no response?

You assume correctly.

[240-185]

Quote:

Left media bias re 911 exposed

Is that me, or I think that's just engRish?

Quote:

http://911review.com/denial/imgs/left_gatekeepers.gif

I have a better chart...

</clowning>

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by metamars

* Justice cries out for it to be replaced, rather than reformed. Significant reform is impossible, since it serves it's elite masters so well. By 'replaced', I mean that the public has to deliberately turn away from it, not that legislation must put it to an end.

And should the public fail to do so (as I predict with near absolute certainty that it shall), should the public be shot, or just incarcerated for political reeducation?

What's the plan here?

Respectfully,
Myriad

ETA: Someone who can unilaterally declare what the public "has to" do would have to be one of those elite masters you're talking about, right?

[Bobert]

Shouldt this thread be int he politics forum?

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Myriad

And should the public fail to do so (as I predict with near absolute certainty that it shall), should the public be shot, or just incarcerated for political reeducation?

What's the plan here?

The plan is to evangelize, and hope for the best. Because a media replacement is something I would like to work on, but I still need to eat, maybe I could swing a job actually implementing a replacement. Doesn't seem likely, and so right now I'm learning Sharepoint.

I leave shooting people, and forceful reeducation, to despots.

Quote:

Respectfully,
Myriad

ETA: Someone who can unilaterally declare what the public "has to" do would have to be one of those elite masters you're talking about, right?

Ha, ha. I'd like to say that I'm the "captain of my soul master of my fate", but even that would be an exaggeration. The public "has to" choose rightly, in order for right actions to have a right effect. Just whining to politicians, and the occasional demonstration in front of CBS, ABC, etc. headquarters, will accomplish nothing dramatic and long-lasting.

Likewise, individuals have to choose their diet rightly, in order to have the results of such right actions - health - in their bodies. If they choose junk food, they can whine to politicians all they like, and maybe manage to get free health care, but they're not going to be optimally healthy. They have to choose rightly, if they want what's best for them. (Didn't our mothers all teach us the same thing?)

Stating what to me is an obvious fact in no way implies some sort of mad desire for despotism on my part. Maybe you should be less negative, and consider more positive possible meanings of words you're parsing. If you had, you might have posed your questions in a more respectful manner.

The reason I added the clarification about the public having to choose a superior alternative is because more than a couple of individuals that I proselytized my proposal "Putting the NY Times Out of Business" to had misunderstood, and thought that I was calling for some sort of legislative or regulatory actions to put the NY Times in it's place. You completely misunderstood the intentions of my clarification.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Bobert

Shouldt this thread be int he politics forum?

It wouldn't be totally out of place there, but it makes more sense here. People's beliefs about what happened on 911 derive from what they've read, heard, and seen about it. If the organizations you rely on to bring you this information, and additionally to dig more information up on their own initiative, are, in fact, punting, than the realization that this is so should temper people's proclamations re 911.

[Corsair 115]

Need I even ask how non-American media, that is, the media of other nations, fits into all this?

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Need I even ask how non-American media, that is, the media of other nations, fits into all this?

If I understand the chart correctly, Bill Moyers controls them all.

[dudalb]

The flowchart needs to be nominated for a Stundie. I have seldom seen so much CT Woo concentrated in so small a space.

[twinstead]

The chart is like a black hole of woo. Its gravitational pull is so strong that nothing, even intelligence, can escape it.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by metamars

People's beliefs about what happened on 911 derive from what they've read, heard, and seen about it..

and there is your fallacy. truthers have no narrative of what happened on 9/11. the reason there has not been new coverage of 9/11 in seven years is there is no new news about 911. Truthers have retreated from whatever narrative they had, Why? because time after time it gets debunked. Don't blame the media. The public has asked you repeatedly to state your case. Instead you have retreated even further beyond 'just asking questions' to just becoming a vapid ideologue.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Need I even ask how non-American media, that is, the media of other nations, fits into all this?

Simple, according to metamars' source they can all be bought off , in total, for about $100,000

[TheLoneBedouin]

Originally Posted by Jaydeehess

Wow, $100,000 manages to keep the entire world's media beyond the borders of the USA from bothering to investigate! You actually believe carp like that?

I already listed various international mainstream news outlets that investigated the attacks. The JREF collective's response was:

"Wow the liberal America-hating international media runs stories about 9/11 conspiracy."

Just keep sticking your head in the sand, little Ostrich, and don't come out...

[twinstead]

Did any of those mainstream international news outlets declare 911 was an inside job?

[Arus808]

and of course anit-american news outlets would have been happy to report that our Govt was behind 9/11.. funny how those anti-american news outlets happily claim that Al Quaeda was behind it, and that the leaders plan to do more attacks.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by metamars

The plan is to evangelize, and hope for the best. Because a media replacement is something I would like to work on, but I still need to eat, maybe I could swing a job actually implementing a replacement. Doesn't seem likely, and so right now I'm learning Sharepoint.

I leave shooting people, and forceful reeducation, to despots.


Ha, ha. I'd like to say that I'm the "captain of my soul master of my fate", but even that would be an exaggeration. The public "has to" choose rightly, in order for right actions to have a right effect. Just whining to politicians, and the occasional demonstration in front of CBS, ABC, etc. headquarters, will accomplish nothing dramatic and long-lasting.

Likewise, individuals have to choose their diet rightly, in order to have the results of such right actions - health - in their bodies. If they choose junk food, they can whine to politicians all they like, and maybe manage to get free health care, but they're not going to be optimally healthy. They have to choose rightly, if they want what's best for them. (Didn't our mothers all teach us the same thing?)

Stating what to me is an obvious fact in no way implies some sort of mad desire for despotism on my part. Maybe you should be less negative, and consider more positive possible meanings of words you're parsing. If you had, you might have posed your questions in a more respectful manner.

The reason I added the clarification about the public having to choose a superior alternative is because more than a couple of individuals that I proselytized my proposal "Putting the NY Times Out of Business" to had misunderstood, and thought that I was calling for some sort of legislative or regulatory actions to put the NY Times in it's place. You completely misunderstood the intentions of my clarification.

Okay, not a mad desire for despotism, nor even necessarily elitism. But, a hefty measure of simple arrogance nonetheless.

Basically what the article is stating is that the left media doesn't agree with the author's opinion of the importance of certain stories, therefore the left media is biased. And you're extending that same argument farther: the mainstream doesn't agree with the author's opinion (which apparently you share to some degree) of the importance of certain stories, therefore everyone for their own good should reject the media.

Is it not at least equally likely that everyone for their own good should reject your opinions?

What is so special about your opinions, that everyone should go to such enormous lengths to accommodate and promote them? What's in it for, well, everyone?

Please don't mistake those questions for mere rhetorical snarkiness. I ask them to invite whatever answers you can provide. After all, the JREF whose forums these are is not shy about expressing its own wish that the media and the public would behave differently than they do, concerning paranormal claims and social issues connected to religion (among other areas). And its representatives and supporters can give clear answers about why these wishes merit attention -- for example, the harm to individuals caused by bad medical decisions motivated by false claims, and the harm to society caused by bad decision-making stemming from wishful thinking and poor understanding of well-established scientific principles.

I'm not aware of any official JREF position on Alex Jones's work, but those who post here who share the JREF's philosophy generally agree that the media and the public should pay less attention to Alex Jones rather than more, because it's bad, phony science, being promoted to the public despite rejection and refutation by Jones' scientific peers. Bad phony science is something that the JREF and skeptics in general are opposed to. Meanwhile you fault the media for not paying more attention to Jones. So much so that you seem to think people should, and will, reject their current information sources so they can get a bigger dose of bad phony science from Jones.

We note that the media and the public pretty much ignore the JREF's wish that they exercise more critical thinking, despite very good and clear reasons why doing so would be good for them. That's what makes me so confident that they will ignore your wishes too. But in your case, my opinion as a critical thinker is that they should. Your case to the contrary is not convincing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin

I already listed various international mainstream news outlets that investigated the attacks. The JREF collective's response was:

"Wow the liberal America-hating international media runs stories about 9/11 conspiracy."

I trust you can support that claim with examples, yes? You're not just spouting unverifiable opinion as fact, right?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by metamars

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin

I already listed various international mainstream news outlets that investigated the attacks. The JREF collective's response was:

"Wow the liberal America-hating international media runs stories about 9/11 conspiracy."

Just keep sticking your head in the sand, little Ostrich, and don't come out...

metamars contention is that the MSM internationally, ignores the TM. If you wish to illustrate that his contention is wrong, take it up with him.

He contends, via that chart, that the $100,000 is responsible for the MSM ignoring the TM. You might characterize it as marginalizing the TM as 'crackpots' or , as in the words of one speaker who holds no stock in the TM "Nazi crackpots".

I am making fun of the idea that $100,000 will buy that level of influence, especially with organizations who are definitely unfriendly to the present administration, and in some cases all past USA administrations.

I am making fun of the idea that the "left" is not willing to persue a supposedly obvious path by which they could discredit forever the conservative right wing of the American political scene. Metamars would have us believe that Noam Chomsky is a willing apologist for G.W. Bush and R. Cheney. That is such a hoot , it would be really funny if it were not so tragically saddening that anyone would believe it.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

metamars contention is that the MSM internationally, ignores the TM. If you wish to illustrate that his contention is wrong, take it up with him.

He contends, via that chart, that the $100,000 is responsible for the MSM ignoring the TM.

MSM <> left alternative media. Furthermore, if you actually bother to look at the graph, you'll see that there is far more money involved than $100,000.

Quote:

You might characterize it as marginalizing the TM as 'crackpots' or , as in the words of one speaker who holds no stock in the TM "Nazi crackpots".

You seem to have reading comprehension problems. Most arguments about the necessity of conspiracy participation on the part of journalists, made by debunkers, completely ignore sociological and psychological context and arguments. IMO, when "debunkers" insist on doing this, even after it's been pointed out that this is too limited, they are showing just how uncritical their thinking is.

Since the nature of main stream media is different from left alternative media, one shouldn't blithely apply arguments made to MSM to the left alternative media, without considering inherent differences, also. Being a "follow the money" sort of conspiracy theorist, paying close attention to any differences regarding funding needs no justification.

Do please note that intelligent journalists, looking at the defects of their own profession, do not shy away from nuanced arguments or considering the problem multi-faceted. Gee, just think of all that "debunkers" could learn from intelligent journalists - but never will!

Quote:

I am making fun of the idea that $100,000 will buy that level of influence, especially with organizations who are definitely unfriendly to the present administration, and in some cases all past USA administrations.

Your math stinks. Even if you got the math right, it's silly to apply any sort of 1-1 argument re "buying influence". Money isn't all there is to influencing an organization. I simply pointed out yet another facet of the problem, though it's often a major facet.

BTW, I've never checked this, but I consider it a slam dunk that one way to identify a left gatekeeper organization is to see if they've covered the topic of left gatekeeping, itself, seriously.

Quote:

I am making fun of the idea that the "left" is not willing to persue a supposedly obvious path by which they could discredit forever the conservative right wing of the American political scene. Metamars would have us believe that Noam Chomsky is a willing apologist for G.W. Bush and R. Cheney. That is such a hoot , it would be really funny if it were not so tragically saddening that anyone would believe it.

Metamars would have you believe that Noam Chomsky is in denial. When Chomsky writes serious rebuttals to 911 truth literature, instead of dismissing it all as based on "rumors", then maybe I'll come out with a new opinion about Chomsky and 911.

[funk de fino]

Stundied

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by metamars

BTW, I've never checked this, but I consider it a slam dunk that one way to identify a left gatekeeper organization is to see if they've covered the topic of left gatekeeping, itself, seriously.

So if a leftist organisation doesn't take the idea of left gatekeeping seriously, then the only possibility is that it's a left gatekeeper? That sounds to me rather like the way you identify a witch. If she claims that there's no such thing as witchcraft, then she's guilty.

Dave