The human brain

There are standard terms and phrases news readers say when reading the news. And there are ways to interpret what they really mean.

"Public opinons shows... insert whatever you want the public to believe here."

The question you need to ask is, WHO are these public who think this? The newsreader's son, daughter, husband, wife, friend, nextdoor neighbor?

"Lastest polls show... insert whatever you want the public to believe here."

When was this poll taken? What was asked? How was it asked (method of polling - in person, phone, etc.) How many people were polled. What is the political demographic of those who were polled?

During the Olympic games in Sydney, the media kept harping on and on and on and on and on about how the country was all goo-goo with that little girl from the opening party.

The reality was... the media were the only ones going on about her. No-one else cared.

"X% of Americans are... insert what you want to scare the public about."

What they should really say is, "X% of the small tiny number of people we survey are..." Of course, because those people were Americans...

Remember that piece of Mars rock with those odd looking things on them? Remember how the media said the scientists reckon it showed proof of life - or some such claim?

The reality was completely different. The scientists NEVER said anything of the sort. They said they did not know what the things were but they did resemble certain bacteria.

The news often does what the current affairs shows do... leave out words and splice together things.

For instance... "The reality was... the things were... certain bacteria."

If you read the above paragraph relating to this quoted comment, you will see the words used and used in the same order. Technically, I said it... but I didn't say it that way.

Splice together. Also they will deliberately take words out of context to help create the impression they want to.

It's for this reason I prefer Fox News. They manipulate the least of all news channels. As they say... we report, YOU decide.

I post, you decide.

Michael Ross

This post is right on. Most modern news shows (at least here in the US) are either biased or incompetently reported (or both). The overall effect is terribly negative on society as a whole -- which they do deliberately because negative news keeps people watching so they can sell more advertising. That's one reason I like getting news from the Internet: I can quickly pick out any events that I may need to know about while limiting my exposure to the negativity.

I find that the more I ignore the news, the happier and more productive I tend to be.

Just $.02

--Phil

> There are standard terms and phrases news
> readers say when reading the news. And there
> are ways to interpret what they really mean.

> "Public opinons shows... insert
> whatever you want the public to believe
> here."

> The question you need to ask is, WHO are
> these public who think this? The
> newsreader's son, daughter, husband, wife,
> friend, nextdoor neighbor?

> "Lastest polls show... insert whatever
> you want the public to believe here."

> When was this poll taken? What was asked?
> How was it asked (method of polling - in
> person, phone, etc.) How many people were
> polled. What is the political demographic of
> those who were polled?

> During the Olympic games in Sydney, the
> media kept harping on and on and on and on
> and on about how the country was all goo-goo
> with that little girl from the opening
> party.

> The reality was... the media were the only
> ones going on about her. No-one else cared.

> "X% of Americans are... insert what you
> want to scare the public about."

> What they should really say is, "X% of
> the small tiny number of people we survey
> are..." Of course, because those people
> were Americans...

> Remember that piece of Mars rock with those
> odd looking things on them? Remember how the
> media said the scientists reckon it showed
> proof of life - or some such claim?

> The reality was completely different. The
> scientists NEVER said anything of the sort.
> They said they did not know what the things
> were but they did resemble certain bacteria.

> The news often does what the current affairs
> shows do... leave out words and splice
> together things.

> For instance... "The reality was... the
> things were... certain bacteria."

> If you read the above paragraph relating to
> this quoted comment, you will see the words
> used and used in the same order.
> Technically, I said it... but I didn't say
> it that way.

> Splice together. Also they will deliberately
> take words out of context to help create the
> impression they want to.

> It's for this reason I prefer Fox News. They
> manipulate the least of all news channels.
> As they say... we report, YOU decide.

> I post, you decide.

> Michael Ross

Phil,

Thanks for ignoring the news brainwashing.

When you ignore the news and current affairs shows, you can't get frustrated. You can't get annoyed at the news for their bad reporting. Can't get heated over WHAT they report. Thus, you can get on with your life without "things eating away at you."

No "negative news thoughts" means you get to be more productive. You can concentrate on the job at hand.

Self-inflicted news-ignorance is bliss.

HA! Reminds me of Sgt Schultz... I know nothing.

Reminds me of the hotdog seller story. Business was fine and dandy until his son told him we were in a recession and thus advertising should be cut back. End result = dead business.

Sky News in Aust report false news for a whole day. Other news services - Fox, CNN, CBS, CNBC, BBC - were all reporting the "true" news as based on live statements from those in authority. Sky kept on with the false news - even after telecasting the live statements. I guess it furthered their agenda. Who knows. (shrug)

Michael Ross