Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: ForGod'sSake
>Listen my friend, today's media does what yesterday's media did.
"Only better...or worse; depending on one's point of view?"

Welllll never *ever* forget the medium's use, today.
As a primary vehicle to/for influencing the Republic's population.
When seeking answer(s) to questions concerning the MSM one starts by defining the miscreants in charge, right?
Hence we're seeing exactly what "Mr. Jensen" wants us to see and in that sense the MSM hasn't changed.
But the similarity stops *there*.

When this all began, those in charge were of the WWII generation, and look at the type of programming we watched in our youth: "Leave It To Beaver", "Ozzie and Harriet", "*Combat*"??

With the late 60s-70s the brainstems began delivering a message quite different into the living rooms of America & as they did they (deliberately) "pushed the envelope".
They were just beginning to understand the immense power wielded by the image makers of Hollyweird & the "News" divisions at the alphabets. ~eh?

The more they pushed the repercussions became less & less, with far & few exceptions. Feedback American youth were actually emulating their lunacy as some sort of "reality" or "trend" must've been something else for the soon to be out-of-control egos. The end game was rapidly becoming one of pissing-off "Mom & Pop America" & that meant no holds would be barred, A 1st Amendment would protect their tack the entire way, too.
And so it was.

"Anyway, point taken."

Still think so? {g}

"For some reason it brings to mind an old Dan Seals(?) song; 'Everything That Glitters is Not Gold'."

Yea but what's happened is nothing's "gold" anymore with no chance of "gold" being discovered. The proof's everywhere & the gage isn't just entertainment, either. The lack of "value" is found in every aspect of our culture be it politics, academia, anything.
Things for the image makers has never been so easy. We've a public today that'll eat any shit put in front of 'em automatically and without question.
How couldn't they?
The condition's been pretty thorough.

"The patina that was the MSM is fading to black; or at least to dark grey. Everywhere we look nowadays there's bad news for the MSM."

MSM isn't the giant it was while we grew up, that's a given. Rush has addressed the topic of how it's not that big a deal [anymore] to appear on TV, nowhere near the novelty of our day even if *they* don't realize it.

In any event let's have a close(r) look at the brainstems/writers we *do* see today in the MSM, shall we?
Hollyweird employs the lowest possible denominator just as the NitWitNets do their newsreaders. I'll paint with the broadest of brushes because really, I can't possibly go wrong, OK?

Looking at each of today's *personalities and/or "actors" then?
What's the ethnicity?
How about sexuality?
Get the picture, answer those questions for each individual and a "mosaic" forms.
Compare the action(s) & the mosaic becomes a *picture* & quite complete.

What the nation gets -- in the way of entertainment via television, motion pictures and/or "news" today -- is merely a reflection of the producers/writer's ethnicity, sexuality, race, and religion (if there is one) all wrapped-up in what they *produce*, what we see.
Sounds obvious, huh.
It is.
Painfully obvious if you one finds themselves critical of the *product* they're being exposed to?
And if you think about it they've done the same thing with the MSM as happened with newspapers.
Our choice has been totally eliminated. :o)

"News" aside most of us once enjoyed motion pictures & television programming of the past. But have you noticed the "quality" of yesterday is completely gone?
Just consider *who* it is producing.
Think about the *baggage* hardwired into these imbeciles, how [it] manifests in the *product*.
The reason(s) why "quality", "good taste", "genius" etc are no more can easily be understood after it's accepted the sources, standards & expectations are absent, today.

When was the last time you sat down to be entertained & noticed the theme of the story you watched was a [rather poor] mimic of an old story you'd seen long ago?
I have & the clown Chris Carter of "The X Files" fame leaps to mind, immediately.
I can honestly say todays writers don't have an original thought in their empty heads so what're they to do but *copy*, emulate something they'd once seen in their youth, growing up?
Only *their* inspiration wasn't from some novel, historical event, it was from the very medium they find themselves engaged in, now.
"New" to them maybe, but certainly old to us.

It takes some semblance of intelligence and creativity to *produce* fresh, new & entertaining story-lines in any medium.
Unfortunately such qualities are totally absent and as it turns out completely unnecessary for delivering the message(s) the medium's calling for, today.

And really what's become the norm for "news" today is every bit as phony, poorly produced as any modern day motion picture/television story you'll ever see, isn't it?
Bottom line is can't make a silk purse from a sows ear.
Can ya?

"A shift is in the works?"

A down-shift.

"Humor me, awright"

You got my best shot, friend.

...ya laughin'? ;^)

44 posted on 10/29/2005 8:52:03 AM PDT by Landru (If a sucker's born every minute, that's ~36,288,800 new suckers born every year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Landru
Ever consider painting? You've created a colorful, and I suspect accurate mural of the landscape we have to deal with. It ain't pretty is it?

And really what's become the norm for "news" today is every bit as phony, poorly produced as any modern day motion picture/television story you'll ever see, isn't it?

It would seem. The more I hear first hand accounts of what really happened vs what makes the "news" is vastly different in many cases; it somehow morphed. And this on stories that are nothing more than puff pieces. Made from whole cloth in some shining examples most of us are aware of. The "good" ones make it up as they go along apparently. And that's the way it is™.

...ya laughin'?

Beats cryin' ;^)


46 posted on 10/29/2005 9:11:01 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson