Opinion They control the media, but who is they?

20250331-101117.png


This chart might help. It's a web of darkness.
Quite an impressive breakdown. It's a shame this is not a perpetually viral document.

Gonna go out on a limb and claim that a cross reference between all the names and entities mentioned there coinicides with the redacted hidden info/names the Biden/Trump admins have hidden from the public since Epsteins fake suicide nearly 6 years ago.
 
Rich people own the media. Expect the stories in it to benefit them.
Is it wrong for anyone to assume 100% of the info that is both shared and ignored by their media, will unequivocally benefit the owners regardless of the factual truth associated (or lack thereof) with any given form of narrative or story? in other words, it is possible that 100% of the info released/published or shadowed/hidden is merely lies and propaganda?
 
Last edited:
There is a difference. Neither are good, but CNN is partisan, Fox News is fraudulent.

The lawsuits have proven this whether people like it or not. Fox News paid nearly a billion dollars in lawsuits, and some are still pending for their election lies that these poor dumb people took hook line and sinker (and many of these poor ignoramuses still believe today). They avoided one lawsuit because the court determined that "no reasonable person would believe Tucker Carlson." I mean, I think that's partially true, but it doesn't excuse his fraud.

It's the same as it is with the parties; the Dems suck and so does CNN, but they aren't the total fraud that is Fox News and the (current) Rep party. This wasn't always true BTW of the parties; the Reps pre-Trump were not a total fraud even if I may disagree with them in a lot of ways.

The idea of the liberal media is a myth that no longer exists. The media that people pay attention to is mixed these days, no one dominates social media, and there are plenty of conservative large-scale media like Newsmax and Fox.
 
Noam Chomsky wrote a book on this.
Funny that Manufacturing Consent was the first thing that came to mind when I read the OP and then I realized it is not the 90's anymore and that fkn pos fraud attempted to manufacture consent for big pharma as he proclaimed "anti vaxxers" must take their shitty vaccines during the covid years or they should be banished from society.
 
Funny that Manufacturing Consent was the first thing that came to mind when I read the OP and then I realized it is not the 90's anymore and that fkn pos fraud attempted to manufacture consent for big pharma as he proclaimed "anti vaxxers" must take their shitty vaccines during the covid years or they should be banished from society.
He’s certainly gotten worse and more cranky with age.
 
Is it wrong for anyone to assume 100% of the info that is both shared and ignored by their media, will unequivocally benefit the owners regardless of the factual truth associated (or lack thereof) with any given form of narrative or story? in other words, it is possible that 100% of the info released/published or shadowed/hidden is merely lies and propaganda?

Not 100% of course but there will be certain topics where an agenda will be pushed
 
Of course, so what would you estimate as the limitation? 25% of the info? 50%? 90%? 95%?

God knows Sherbro. Some of it is pushing information with questionable truth, some of it is not publishing information that hurts their agenda.

Even subliminal shit like Fox taking the stock ticket off their news feed when the market started dipping.
 
Ok, so to be clear, your claim was that it is IMPOSSIBLE for 100% of the billionaire controlled media to engage in lies and propaganda?

We might be getting crossed wires. It's possible for 100% of them to push what they're told to push but I don't think it's possible for 100% of stories to be propaganda if that makes sense?
 
We might be getting crossed wires. It's possible for 100% of them to push what they're told to push but I don't think it's possible for 100% of stories to be propaganda if that makes sense?
Let's try and make it make sense.

If you caught someone lying to you, and you got mad and they said they were sorry, is it safe to assume that 100% of everything they tell you moving forward has the potential to be a lie?
 
Let's try and make it make sense.

If you caught someone lying to you, and you got mad and they said they were sorry, is it safe to assume that 100% of everything they tell you moving forward has the potential to be a lie?

I would say that things that are not obviously true would have the potential to be a lie sure. Obviously if they tell me that leafs grow on trees I'm not going to think that's a lie.
 
Funny that Manufacturing Consent was the first thing that came to mind when I read the OP and then I realized it is not the 90's anymore and that fkn pos fraud attempted to manufacture consent for big pharma as he proclaimed "anti vaxxers" must take their shitty vaccines during the covid years or they should be banished from society.
But he didn't try to manufacture consent. What he did is share his opinion honestly with people as an individual which he has every right to do.

You could disagree with him but he wasn't manufacturing consent and it doesn't take one bit of the power and impact of his book away either.
 
Exactly, because MSM has zero incentive to maintain or increase their viewership numbers at all,
because those don't directly impact advertisement revenue, which is their main source of income...

MSM definitely has these incentives, but they also far more invested and more accountable due to that investment.

Alternative media is fly-by-night, make a quick dollar, and disappear.
 
Back
Top