The 10 Primary Directives of Mainstream Media by Sigmund Fraud – Activist Post
The circus never stops, and no matter who cries fake news against whom, the fact remains that we have entered the post-truth, post-credibility, post-sanity, post-free speech world. While censorship is coming out into the open, the major corporate news organizations still have tremendous reach into the hollows of public consciousness, giving them power to direct and deflect public attention onto or away from whatever they choose.
The news industry parrots scripted narratives and talking points that are written for them by corporate, financial and political interests. This massive public relations and propaganda effort targets the intelligence, common sense and emotional stability of the body politic. It’s part of the endgame of order out of chaos.
Once you wake up to this game, though, it’s easy to see the framework in which they operate; and when you do, the talking heads and recycled government experts are a joke, albeit a dangerous one. Their tactics become more and more obvious, and their intent is easy recognized for its duplicity, subterfuge and hypocrisy.
They want to cram your mind into well-crafted box. It doesn’t matter if you end up in the right side or the left side of the box, as long as you don’t leave and so long as you stay focused on the flickering lights of the flat screen, ignoring anything that is not directly in front of you.
Corporate media has become a weapon of war, and they follow a certain missive. Consider the following directives that drive nearly everything you seen in mainstream news.
1. Be Afraid, Not Empowered
2. Omit and Forget
3. Self-Destruction is Cool, Self-Awareness is a Crime
4. You are a Victim, The State is Your Savior
5. Overreact, Don’t Overthink
6. Enrage Don’t Engage
7. Indulge, Don’t Conserve
8. Stoke Conflict, Ridicule Peace
9. Permanent War is Normal and Expected
10. Panic, Don’t Prepare
Now that we’ve entered the age of open government-backed corporate censorship of the Internet, the mainstream media is actively seeking to shut down independent and dissident voices. In order to do so, they must engage in treachery of every form. If you believe that you have a right to the truth, a right to speak out, and a right to demand genuine peace and justice, then you’d better be paying attention.
Sigmund Fraud is a survivor of modern psychiatry and a dedicated mental activist. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com where he indulges in the possibility of a massive shift towards a more psychologically aware future for humankind.
There is an information awakening taking place right now, and mainstream media is being outed for what it really is: corporate and government controlled propaganda. People are turning to alternative news sources more swiftly than ever now, and as a result, the old guard of media is collapsing at free-fall speeds.
Here are 6 positive signs of the collapse of mainstream media:
1. Mainstream Media is Owned by a Handful of Corporations and the People Know It
It’s no secret anymore that nearly everything we see, read, and hear comes from just a handful of mega-corporations. Thanks to the alternative media, it has become a widely known fact that just six corporations control 90% of the media we consume. These big six have the ability to make key decisions and delegate the news to their lower subsidiary companies by cutting out important stories or alternative points of view. People recognize this and are moving over to the indy media as a result.
2. Fox Stops Disclosing Live Viewership Ratings
Fox News, a subsidiary company owned by Rupert Murdoch of News Corp and top mainstream media outlet has just announced that it will stop disclosing its ratings for live TV viewership. They argue that these statistics are no longer relevant because of how many record their television shows, but it is also being seen as a way to hide a decaying audience. Fox will now be repackaging statistics on a weekly basis to make even the most modest results appear positive.
3. 98% of Young Adults Do Not Trust Mainstream Media
A recent poll shows that only 2% of young adults trust the mainstream media to do the “right thing” on a regular basis. This poll, which was conducted at the Harvard Institute of Politics on over 3,000 18-29 year olds, shows that only 2% of young adults trust the media to “do the right thing” “all of the time.” Furthermore, 10% said that they do the right thing “most of the time”, while 49% said “some of the time” and a whopping 39% said that the media “never” does the right thing.
4. Mainstream Media is Hog-Tied by Corporations and the People Know It
An excerpt from the documentary The Corporation illustrates in their own words the story of two journalists working for Fox News in the mid 1990’s. Here is an excerpt from the film, of an investigation of the “human health implications” of injecting Bovine Growth Hormone into the cows which were used for producing milk:
“With Monsanto, I didn’t realize how effectively a corporation could work to get something on the marketplace,” said journalist Jane Akre. Before the story aired, a letter was received from Monsanto saying that there would be “dire consequences for Fox News” if it does. After receiving the letter, the general manager at Fox in Florida called them into his office and demanded that the story be altered. The next thing that he said was “We just paid three billion dollars for these television stations. We’ll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is…if you refuse to present this story the way we think it should be presented you’ll be fired for insubordination (defiance).”
You can tell by the amount of protesters at “March Against Monsanto” protests that the corporate controlled media does not have a stranglehold on information like they once did.
5. Mainstream Media is Literally Lying to Us So Blatantly that Nobody Pays Attention Anymore
A recent analysis conducted by PunditFact revealed that, according to this study, over half of all statements made by Fox News are false. Now this is not surprising, but what might be is that NBC/MSNBC is right up there at 46% of their statements being anywhere between “Mostly False” to “Pants on Fire.” CNN and ABC rated better, but national new shouldn’t be a race to the bottom.
6. Independent Media More Successful than Ever Before
The positivity that comes out of this is simple: people are waking up to this madness. No longer are we in a situation where the media controls the narrative like they once did, because the new media is there to pick up the ball and roll out the stories that the mainstream media refuses to get into.
The alternative media is making such enormous waves now that the older media is actually starting to listen to alternative voices and stories that are being published by new media outlets. The fact that Kevin Folta, a University Professor at the University of Florida, was receiving large unrestricted grants from Monsanto to promote GMO’s and round-up was even reported on by the New York Times thanks to alternative media making it such a big story that if they hadn’t they would have lost credibility: “If the Times is telling us the truth, then why didn’t they tell us about Kevin Folta?”
As long as the independent media keeps moving, there’s nothing that can stop the truth from getting out.
The great irony here, though, is that it is precisely through the power of media that people will awaken to the deceit happening in the media. By and large the programming that makes it to our eyes and ears is produced to support an agenda, but, even amongst the corporate programs there are genuine voices of reason and truth.
So, how do you tell the difference between a voice of truth and voice of deceit?
This checklist was submitted by one of our readers, George L. Humphries, who brings a lifetime of experience in military and law enforcement to bear on the issue of propaganda.
Questions I routinely ask myself while reading or viewing. And I ALWAYS pay attention to the masthead and the credits!
1. Who is the author – nationality, ideology and political affiliation, religion, affinity group, related experience base, and education? Who are this author’s friends and promoters? Where, by who, and possibly why is this author normally published? Are other publications by this author parallel, or do they take a different angle entirely – and if so, why?
2. Unstated underlying value assumptions. What values does the author assume the audience shares, and upon which the author builds the thesis? Do you share these values? Does the author in fact share these values, or are they used merely to sell copy or manipulate the reader to a desired attitude or conclusion? What symbols does the author use?
3. Is the author attempting to ‘frame an argument’? What alternative frameworks for the argument occur to you? Why might the author attempt to frame the argument in the way provided, and exclude from identification, acknowledgment or general acceptance other frameworks? Is the author’s thesis merely a preemptive counter-accusation?
4. Does the author’s mistrust of one government extend to all governments, or does the author forgive the sins of a particular nation’s regimes and ascribe to them an overwhelming benign humanitarian sensibility? What are the shear points in the logical development of the author’s thesis – does the author jump from one well-developed line to an undeveloped one to engage you in the pre-drawn conclusion, hoping you won’t notice or object to the somersault en route?
5. Does the author appeal to your intellect, your emotions, or both? Does the author subliminally propose that all civilized, educated, right-thinking people of the social elite think a certain way, thereby suggesting that your attitudes should fall in line? Does the author recruit you for the ‘Heavenly Host’ by appealing to ‘common’ religious values? Does the author appeal to your sense of justice and proportionality? Does the author appeal to your spirit of humanity? Does the author wave the flag? What does the author’s peripheral vision include, and what does it exclude? What does the author’s cognitive dissonance miniaturize, and what does it enlarge?
6. What gimmicks does the author use to characterize individuals or groups? Does the author use hyperbolic comparisons to historical figures such as Hitler or Jesus? Does the author try to make a case through guilt by association or guilt by dissociation, or innocence by association or innocence by dissociation? Does the author damn with faint praise or edify through shallow criticism? Does the author tear down and trivialize individuals through cheap, pseudo-comic references to personal habits, modes of dress or accent, and then compound these with unfair, grotesque analogies? Does the author use the unsubstantiated words of others, great or terrible, to reference an individual’s character or lack thereof? From where and from whom does the author draw expert witnesses and citations, and do you agree with these sources? Are sources footnoted or substantiated in some way? Might a citation be the old propagandist’s trick of referring to an item carefully placed elsewhere just for that purpose?
7. What themes can be identified? For this author, who or what is good and who or what is bad? What is the author’s litmus test and bottom line, and do you share it? What alternative does the author wish us to identify and support, even if it is not outlined in bold terms?
8. What is the author’s agenda? What, if anything, does the author want us to believe when we have finished reading or viewing, or what action if any would the author like us to take? Remembering that the best propaganda is the truth, and the second best propaganda is 99% truth as a vehicle to propel a 1% lie, does this article fall into either of these two categories? What piece of information might be the 1% lie?
9. Does the author recommend military action? What other conflicts has the author supported, and what other conflicts has the author opposed? What military service, if any, does the author have, and for which nation? Does the author want to put one nation’s blood and treasure in harm’s way for the benefit of a client state? Is the author still fighting a past war? If so, which one, and what side is taken? From your point of view, which conflict should the author be fighting, and from what side?
10. If the author was a paid agent of (foreign) intelligence services(s), who might be the author’s paymaster(s)?
Mainstream media losing all credibility as it fails to break any news on exploding government scandals
Friday, June 14, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) In another sign of the weakening “influence” of the mainstream media, not one of the major scandals currently swirling around the Obama Administration were broken by what you could fairly call the establishment press.
Fact: Over the past few weeks, three major scandals have broken over the Obama Administration, and it is a very sad (and frightening) truth that our pathetic, American, lapdog mainstream media are not responsible for breaking even a single one,” writes John Nolte in Breitbart News’ Big Journalism section.
He goes onto note that the three scandals – involving the IRS; NSA/Verizon phone records; the Justice Department’s improper seizure of Associated Press phone records; and Benghazi – were either broken by foreign media or the so-called U.S. alternative media (of which NaturalNews is a proud member).
Thank goodness for the alternative press
The Verizon story was broken by The Guardian, a British newspaper (the whistleblower in this case, 29-year-old Edward Snowden, an NSA analyst, probably didn’t trust anyone in the U.S. with this story).
How about the IRS’ improper targeting of conservative political action groups? Again, that story was broken “with a planted question,” Nolte points out.
In the case of the Justice Department’s targeting of AP reporters and editors, even The Associated Press failed to break that story; it only emerged after the Justice Department notified the AP what had occurred, so essentially, the department tattled on itself.
And Benghazi? Again, nope. Even though there was plenty of smoke there, the mainstream media – which has been in bed with Obama since day one of his initial campaign – took a pass en mass. There were a few exceptions, most notably Jake Tapper and Sharyl Attkission, but other than that, only Republican members of Congress and Fox News have been aggressively seeking the truth about what actually took place there when our ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was killed and brutalized.
“Left up to the media, we wouldn’t know anything about Libya. All of the media’s energy was collectively poured into ensuring the truth was never discovered,” Nolte wrote. “And do you want to know what makes this realization especially pathetic? In three of the four scandals (the AP being the exception), had our media been less interested in protecting Power and more interested in holding Power accountable, these huge, career-making stories were right there for the taking.”
What’s more, the media has been extremely hypocritical (no kidding) on some of these scandals. Take the IRS’ targeting of Tea Party groups.
In early June an editorial published by the editorial staff at The New York Times was highly critical of the president over his administration’s targeting of the phone records of millions of Americans, all in the name of protecting national security. And rightfully so; it is an abuse of the Fourth Amendment like no other in the history of the country.
“But because Obama told them to, the media hate the Tea Party. So in the face of these complaints and even a few Congressional inquiries, the media either ignored the harassment reports or openly sided with the IRS,” wrote Nolte.
The same thing can be said about what happened in Libya. Because Barack Obama was in reelection mode; and because the mainstream media was all-in to help him get reelected; and because the president’s reelection narrative on terrorism in general was that al Qaeda was on the run – the mainstream press willingly went along and refused to dig deeper on Benghazi. Had that failed operation been scrutinized, many more Americans would have known before Election Day that the administration essentially sacrificed Stevens and three other Americans for the sake of political expediency.
“Our media are not only biased; it is an utter and complete failure and embarrassment. And although there are plenty of remaining table scraps to make meals out of, the media are already losing interest in the IRS, Libya, and AP scandals, but for only one reason – they are absolutely terrified of where they might lead,” Nolte writes.