The dark (mastermind)
Sunday, December 13, 2009
What Do Russian In Mw2 Mean
"The so-called" public opinion "is well known that nothing else than the published by the media is your opinion is therefore produced by our mass media for the first Just the fact that we -.. Quite rightly-by 'the', so only one Maintain single 'public opinion' would have to talk to us, however, give pause to think about it. Where different people express themselves on the same subject, there are often 'so many different opinions as heads'.
In view of the external diversity of modern mass media, dozens of television stations, hundreds of radio stations, Thousands of newspapers and magazines, millions of books would thus actually be expected that in our media to all major questions of public life would also all possible opinions to each word, for there is indeed constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and press freedom.
But watchful contemporaries place for decades laid with growing dismay that not only on the field of politics and economics, but also in the fields of religion, education, culture and
80
science each very definite opinions of virtually all major media as proclaimed in a voice different, but definitely present opinions are silenced by the same media with unswerving solidarity. Of course not only opinions but also those facts ('news') that suggest any public media standard opinion in the face or they'd get to shake. This inexplicable uniformity of many published by the mass media has very specific facts and opinions, but naturally to the general public in the dark permanent causes. She also has a very real trend, and makes very specific political and religious goals, not just in Germany, not only in Europe but worldwide. [From: 'The public opinion leaders', John Rothkranz]
An interesting result on the question of "who controls the media?" brings the analysis of messages that could create a negative image of the perpetrators, and consequently will be ignored. Motto: What does not know the mass, they can not criticize. Since these messages are not generally known but (at least not in the mass media), they can also be difficult to analyze. A perfect vicious circle from which there is only very rarely, and then often only by chance, a Entringen available ...
If every newspaper, every magazine, every news show on this (mostly unofficial) holds censorship can see how much the control. Thus, the oh-so-objective-and-on-any-doubt-sublime BBC informed after a meeting with Israeli emissaries their journalists in the summer of 2001, the Israeli attacks on Palestinians not to "assassination" but as "targeted killings" ( official Israellingo in dt: "targeted executions") to describe, in part because "assassination" (shooting of political opponents) are illegal under UK law, and not "targeted killings"
(eg "Shoot a hostage taker by the police").
But if the choice of words petty in some cases up to the last letter may be required (someone that is making the effort to release all journalists march to officially in lockstep), there are certainly official content standards, suggesting what, when, how and where will be published and what not. Such information, recommendations and guidelines (which are always officially denied, of course) are nothing other than censorship and therefore control.
is often not even a hint necessary. The censorship is often automatically in the minds of the editors instead of, simply because only a journalist can rise to the editor, who already has the "right attitude" demonstrated or assumed. Even facts have so often of peace (or to further your career) remain ignored or do not fit into the political world view and / or be "subconsciously" filed as "unimportant".
It is well known that certain issues can only bring trouble and harm the career. Consequently, these subjects are ignored or published only when the risk to other opinion-makers (eg CNN, New York Times, Mirror, etc.) can be invoked as the source. Reports But neither CNN, New York Times or the risk level, hardly a "small" a self-responsible editor publish a theme issue. Other words: Who monitors the few opinion-makers, often controlled the rest of the media.
Everyone (mass media) Journalist commits professional and social suicide if he exposes only the risk of being "anti-Semite" branded on (which is equated by many with "neo-Nazi" and who wants to These anarchists are identified?). How fast does it proves the Russian politicians Vladamir Zhirinovsky, who had only to point out that the Russian media, banks and numerous other state institutions are dominated by Jews. This is nothing new and in the rest of the world (particularly the U.S.) an easily verifiable fact. Nevertheless, he was immediately branded as anti-Semitic. 
Where's the problem? -Why is no one to point out who holds the important post without ruining his career? And: Why should anyone know who really holds the reins? -Someone is a woman hater, just because he knows that women are very influential, because 50% of all voters are women?
Just because someone recognizes that some Jews are very influential, it must therefore be a Jew hater yet. In the age the "freedom" must be such a finding but may be tolerable or the highly acclaimed and democratically important "freedom" is only well-made illusion that collapses immediately when in fact independent, is to be raised is, outside the visible limits set found opinion. Is anyone as a teacher hater, just because he makes public attention that the majority of deputies in the Bundestag are unemployed teacher? Hardly, because the "free speech" it is just, teachers do not like having to do even if many MPs who would be without their posts only unemployed teachers, their posts at risk in any case (and thus pressure and control To ship instead of "independent" or decide to "use their best conscience"). No one loses as "teachers hate his job, especially not agree when the facts.
If, however, must count any journalist trying to risk his career, when he is accused of anti-Semitism (no proof required), is not objective reporting possible, that the journalist may at any time "silenced" and have to be controlled so that or he loses his job and so also now offer access to its audience, in other words: no one reads or sees his report. But he who controls the journalists, controls the information of the mass media and therefore of the opinion Masses and so also the entire democratic process. Finally wins a majority (and that's always the matter) the election. The crucial question is:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment