Quote:
Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 19 2004, 11:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 19 2004, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro@Sep 19 2004, 06:46 AM
I don't think Lanny is a conspiracy theorist. I think that's just a label and monicker bandied about by those who dismiss any form of media that isn't really controlled by a large corporation.
|
Or used by those who dismiss a media source because it is owned by a large corporation.
Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Touche.
My favourite quote about standard media practice is as follows, from fan favourite Noam Chomsky. Here's the gist of the excerpt:
What is presented to us daily in 5 minute snippets is taken as fact. We know what it is, we know how it got their. Mass media has to present it to us in that way, as they have a business to run.
Now imagine if I came on TV and said to you that the American government was quietly supporting an Indonesian government that has inflicted genocide in East Timor. Would the time allotted in a "full of clout and honesty" news network allow me the time to even establish my point (or the location of East Timor, in that case) before I could provide evidence that this was happening? Highly unlikely, so pundits like this are dismissed.
The whole objective of news networks is to sell enough advertising to sell the news their people want to hear. Same goes for newspapers. The whole basis for that model isn't consistent with fair and balanced reporting, in any medium.