The result you can see -- most of the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get rid of to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You can not change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.
In other words [for] these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To rid society of these people you need another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.
The big issue with modern media is the fact that they all watch each others broadcast to cover the same stories. They been doing this for many decades. The Result has been for decades almost uniformly a leftist native in both story selection and story presentation. Majority garbage in majority garbage out.
It really doesn’t matter how much many of the presenters “tried” to be impartial they were getting their information and stories from folk that tended not to be by majority in favor of liberals.
Now we got Conservative news out-lits on the seen doing conservative journalism and the liberals are suddenly in a pant. Where as once the traditional lines of collusion were effective in controlling the message now they must develop secondary lines.
The Big new comer in cable news here is people like Glenn Beck who is actually introducing tones of new conservative orientated stories and content whereas previously even in Fox news the commentators have been predisposed to mostly just cover what everyone else was covering.
I don’t *always* just cut up.... ;)
Mark, I thought this little analysis might interest you. You may use it for your NewsBusters website if you would be so kind as to credit me....
A neutral title would be: "Number of those who think Obama a Muslim Increases"
Anything other than an accurate description of the data would testify to bias or prejudice. Such things are fine in commentary discussing the meaning of the findings, but it is interesting that the media acknowledges by their diversion from neutrality how important they think the title of an article is in establishing the attitude of the person prior to his reading the article.
If ONE-fourth of Americans believing Obama is a Muslim means Americans are stupid.......,
Does THREE-fourths of Muslims believing the same thing mean Muslims are triple-stupid?
TURN
OFF
THE
TV
As someone who used to be in the field of agit-prop wars, I thought this might interest you.
I’d love your thoughts about this, FRiend.
The Journolist is nothing
more than Joseph Goebbels lite.
An informed public is necessary for the operation of
a Democratic republic. This so called list offends free speech rights, anti-trust law and may offend RICO.
Breitbart offered $100 grand and guaranteed anonymity as a reward for the list of names on Jornolist, causing Klein to shut it down. Now they have heir own secure server.
They need to be prosecuted for their crimes.
Also remember how the Obama administration was using the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to coordinate inserting White House messages into works of art, like TV shows, music, and artworks.
Same stuff, different media.
-PJ
Regards,
TS
“A growing body of evidence...”[10] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
“People say...” (Which people? How do they know?)
“It has been claimed that...” (By whom, where, when?)
“Critics claim...” (Which critics?)
“Clearly...” (As if the premise is undeniably true)
“It stands to reason that...” (Again, as if the premise is undeniably true—see “Clearly” above)
“Questions have been raised...” (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered)
“I heard that...” (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
“There is evidence that...” (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
“Experience shows that...” (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
“It has been mentioned that...” (Who are these mentioners? Can they be trusted?)
“Popular wisdom has it that...” (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
“Commonsense has it/insists that...” (The common sense of whom? Who says so? See “Popular wisdom” above, and “It is known that” below)
“It is known that...” (By whom and by what method is it known?)
“Officially known as...” (By whom, where, when—who says so?)
“It turns out that...” (How does it turn out?)
“It was noted that...” (A commonly used start of a line by Auditors with poor workpapers or little evidence)
“Our product is so good, it was even given away in celebrity gift bags.” (True, perhaps, but not relevant.)
“See why more of our trucks are sold in Southern California than in any other part of the country.” (Southern California is a big vehicle market.)
“Nobody else’s product is better than ours.” (What is the evidence of this?)
“Studies show...” (what studies?)
“(The phenomenon) came to be seen as...” (by whom?)
“Some argue...” (who?)
“Up to sixty percent...” (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?)
“More than seventy percent...” (How many more? 70.01%? 80%? 90%?)
“The vast majority...” (All, almost all, more than half—how many?)
BTTT!