Does Media play a major role in moulding Public Minds?

[Arfat]

"NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us in as much as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them." -An excerpt from the 'Protocols of the learned Elders of ZION'



The above text is an extract from the proceedings of the meeting at the First Zionist Congress held at Basle in 1897 under the presidency of the Father of Modern Zionism, the late Theodore Herzl. This was supposed to be a classified document which was later leaked in Germany.



If you look at today's media industry, only a few media giants control the world news. In any news channel you may see a small watermark at the bottom of the screen-Courtesy:Reuters, Associate Press etc. Anybody can make out that the news which we get is somewhat controlled and biased. The terms used to describe major events play a major role in capturing minds, for example "AMERICA UNDER ATTACK" was one of the favourites during the 9/11 incident, but nobody said "INDIA UNDER ATTACK" when we were bombed several times in decades. Media has become a tool to control the masses. "You show them and they believe", is what their motto is. By using such tactics they legalise their crimes like bombing nations, occupation, hijacking national resources etc.. The 'Problem-Action-Solution theory' fits perfectly in this scenario, they first create a problem, the public demands action, they provide their solution(Their Agenda).



Apart from news agencies,if we give a glance towards the entertainment industry we see a bulk of soaps that have some disturbing themes for common Indian minds. Instead of propagating love and tolerance they promote enmity, envy and disrespect. And what they gain by this is that, a disturbed mind never has time to think about others especially whats going on with the governments. So, the bottom-line is shall we continue to recieve this canned food for our brains or shall we reap our own food in our own gardens? In other words, isn't it time for us to demand credible proofs for whatever we are made to believe? Shall we not have an un-biased form of media which does not unfold hidden agendas and promote modern day slavery?



I welcome comments/criticism/suggestions on this topic.







http://rapidshare.de/files/7061188/mapped_layout_of_the_U.S._Media.pdf.html

228K

[Akshay]

"NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us in as much as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them." -An excerpt from the 'Protocols of the learned Elders of ZION'

The above text is an extract from the proceedings of the meeting at the First Zionist Congress held at Basle in 1897 under the presidency of the Father of Modern Zionism, the late Theodore Herzl. This was supposed to be a classified document which was later leaked in Germany.

How do we know this to be true?

At some point one gives more credibility to one source vis-a-vis another. If we assume every source is incredible then the the only way to convince ourselves something is true is by sensing such real time with our own primitive senses. But then even those are susceptible to hallucinations, so how much can we trust them either. So we have to rate credibility of our own senses from incidence to incidence, assuming we are not insanely sensing random outcomes for same object/events. How do we go about doing that? One way I see is by juxtaposing our own sensual history with the latest perception and rating the latest sense's validit.

This is exactly what is needed when we get news of remote happenings. We need to rate the source of the news and decide on its credibility.

If you look at today's media industry, only a few media giants control the world news. In any news channel you may see a small watermark at the bottom of the screen-Courtesy:Reuters, Associate Press etc. Anybody can make out that the news which we get is somewhat controlled and biased. The terms used to describe major events play a major role in capturing minds, for example "AMERICA UNDER ATTACK" was one of the favourites during the 9/11 incident, but nobody said "INDIA UNDER ATTACK" when we were bombed several times in decades. Media has become a tool to control the masses. "You show them and they believe", is what their motto is. By using such tactics they legalise their crimes like bombing nations, occupation, hijacking national resources etc.. The 'Problem-Action-Solution theory' fits perfectly in this scenario, they first create a problem, the public demands action, they provide their solution(Their Agenda).

News is controlled and biased and should be. Otherwise how do we control the display of fornication, murder, mayhem, arson, etc under the guise of news? Afterall all of them are exciting, will result in more audience for the channels and hence channels will be motivated to do so in an untapered capitalistic fashio. One of the extremes of the censor and control is that the media can and will be used for party/personal agenda.

The gullible will always be gulled into excitement by slogans, it is just unavoidable. It is the very essence of democracy, it has been so since the greek democracies, may be even before and will be so in all democracies. It befalls the enlightened among the masses to bring out the contrary truth they percieve by their ability to juxtapose seemingly historically unrelated events. Some will be enlightened but few will take the effort to bring out and fewer to make sure the truth prevails.

Apart from news agencies,if we give a glance towards the entertainment industry we see a bulk of soaps that have some disturbing themes for common Indian minds. Instead of propagating love and tolerance they promote enmity, envy and disrespect.

How much love can the world take? It will be quite boring to hear the love and tolerance talk every time I turn on the TV. If there is audience wanting love and tolerance messages on their TV then I am sure someone will provide such in a free market, no one is really scheming to deprive the population of love and tolerance.

And what they gain by this is that, a disturbed mind never has time to think about others especially whats going on with the governments.

Why should someone think about government if it is not their business or interest. Government, realpolitik, education, enlightenment, hardwork, achievement and such are lofty but no uniform or exclusive paths to salvation.

So, the bottom-line is shall we continue to recieve this canned food for our brains or shall we reap our own food in our own gardens?

Your garden is your mind, you reap whatever you store in it. More information, more juxtaposition more connections more likely to know the truth. Less information, less interest, less likelihood of suffering that you are being suffocated with lies. In the middle lies the gullible.

In other words, isn't it time for us to demand credible proofs for whatever we are made to believe?

Media will become timelagged if it has to start proving every report it makes. It is for the audience to filter out or enjoy the wrong, immaterial, and bunkum.

Shall we not have an un-biased form of media which does not unfold hidden agendas and promote modern day slavery?

What we can do is unbias ourselves.

I welcome comments/criticism/suggestions on this topic.

I like the topic






http://rapidshare.de/files/7061188/mapped_layout_of_the_U.S._Media.pdf.html
228K[/quote]

[spamtaneous]

id have voted for strongly agree.... but then i do not believe blindly on what media says... so i would say 'some what agree'

[CtrlAltDel]

i voted "somewhat agree".



we cannot discount the possibility of media influencing public opinion. it is a truth and it happens everywhere.



but we also cannot assume that the public can be easily swayed by news they see or hear or read...most people use their brains to some extent when they have to act on what they hear.

[akhilis2cool]

but we also cannot assume that the public can be easily swayed by news they see or hear or read...most people use their brains to some extent when they have to act on what they hear.

That depends on 'wht' we hear about. The media holds a lot of credibility in peoples minds and by default they will be inclined to believe wht is heard/read.

[CtrlAltDel]

but we also cannot assume that the public can be easily swayed by news they see or hear or read...most people use their brains to some extent when they have to act on what they hear.

That depends on 'wht' we hear about. The media holds a lot of credibility in peoples minds and by default they will be inclined to believe wht is heard/read.

accha? how many ppl actually believe what all Deccan Chronicle prints?

[fp]

but we also cannot assume that the public can be easily swayed by news they see or hear or read...most people use their brains to some extent when they have to act on what they hear.

That depends on 'wht' we hear about. The media holds a lot of credibility in peoples minds and by default they will be inclined to believe wht is heard/read.

exactly.. its the "what" thats the most important .... there are definatly two (if not more) camps in the media ... one that toes the "official line" , and the other that doesnt ..



for example , outlook and india today are both prety much the same , minus the fluff ... frontline , on the other hand gives quite a different pov ...

[akhilis2cool]

but we also cannot assume that the public can be easily swayed by news they see or hear or read...most people use their brains to some extent when they have to act on what they hear.

That depends on 'wht' we hear about. The media holds a lot of credibility in peoples minds and by default they will be inclined to believe wht is heard/read.

accha? how many ppl actually believe what all Deccan Chronicle prints?

well i guess I shd have mentioned 'it also depends on who's reading it'



the popularity of DC and TOI is a proof that people do believe (to wht extent i cant say) wht these papers print.



for me TV has a bigger influence on people than newspapers. news channels often take sides when they air news. but many ppl. miss that point and hence fail to take neutral view of incidents they dont know much abt.