How news reporting is controlled - part 1 of 7 - template editing

[ShinobiBoiX]

I am loving your videos.

[ubertomadachi]

you could not be more right.

[Killer7fanboy]

In my country, the way our evening papers print news articles, is by making you notice one article that the paper thinks is important over another. For instance, the reason they print some pages in Black & White, is for the reason to draw your attention to them. In one issue, the entire magazine was in colour, except for one article which was about a woman who suffered a stroke because of sex.

The Magazine thought this was more important than 5 articles about gossip and culture.

[votumseparatum1]

@lorioftheforest You're grossly generalizing as if everyone in the U.K. and Germany know what the Military Commission act is, and as usually found on Youtube, you depict yourself as the stereotypical European raising your snobbish nose above Americans without any facts to back your claims. Unless you've been to the States and actually asked "any random" Americans about it, then you're far more clueless than them. Basically, you're like FOX news when they make generalizations about..anything.

[lorioftheforest]

I wanted to tell you that your friend THE DREAM has been posting this all over myspace. Between you and me, I think hes very happy to find someone who says the same things he has been saying all along. I wanted to mention that the thing that is interesting as well as disturbing is that you are a citizen of the United Kingdom, and he is a citizen of Germany. You both know what the Military Commisions act is, yet ask any random number of Americans., and they are clueless. Very good work Rob!!!!

[votumseparatum1]

It is best to read several different mags and watch different news sources and formulate your opinions. News today is either protective of paying corporations, politically biased, or not real news. There have been several journalists who have been fired for investigating corrupt companies, or god forbid the U.S. gov., because the sources they work for are bought by large corporations who pay big bucks for news sources to look the other way. Most people are not truly opinionated.

[drfreemason]

Excellent Research. Great Presentation. Thanks Rob

[loyallands]

They are all brainwashing rags.Great analysis,rob.

[GrantValdes]

I love it. Rob, you're just a really smart guy publishing really smart things on the web. I appreciate the lack of... nonsense.. artificial affiliations.

[MrWizardWithin]

That means you just woke up?

[murtsworld666]

Something I noticed one day, if you read all the news papers tabloid and broadsheet you will see the same stories and pictures. one that comes to mind was celeb news about tom cruise, the same story and picture ran in every news paper word for word just thought it was weird !

[robag88]

Yeah. I've ssen reviews of printers and stuff that are copied word for word in diff publications.

[happosai21]

our version of "the sun" is "bild" or picture in german. its not the paper worth its printed on like the sun lol

[prrrrecious]

hehehe i don't even watch the news anymore.

[8080256256]

While we are at it, what am I to make of the video subliminally associating images of graphs of carbon emissions with the negative "avoid this" voiceover?

[robag88]

It's almost six months since I edited this video. Where exactly on the video timeframe does it occur and what do you make of it?

And what do you mean "while we're at it"? - that seems to imply an ongoing dialogue but I don't remember responding to you before.

[8080256256]

6:00-6:08; it's just that I have noticed in some of Your other videos a skeptical approach towards global warming (The Matrix analysis it was, I think.)

Given the very substance of this series (hence "While we are at it..."), I was trying to point at the fact that You might be perhaps in a way employing the described techniques Yourself, promoting Your view on this subject.

But I guess it's just me being annoying. I have invested a lot of time into studying GW lately...

[8080256256]

... and I am probably just oversensitive to the issue.

[robag88]

Sure, that's fair comment. I didn't put a great deal of thought into the specific choices of clips in these vids as I wanted to get the video posted quickly. Someone said that they thought I was implying that a discussion between Phil donohue and Bill O'reilly was scripted because that clip happened to be on screen as i was explaining the topic of semi-scripted debates. My fault for not editing carefully enough ...

[robag88]

... I will offer you here my opinion on GW and I hope it doesn't offend you. There are a lot of environmental issues I am concerned about but GW, whther true or not, I believe is being hijacked as an issue to push business and taxation policies that are more about transfering additional wealth and power to the existing establishment than saving the environment. All these corporations "going green" I think is also just a PR scam to make them appear charitable.

[8080256256]

Yeah, I understand that. It is doubtless being hijacked, just like any other major issue. But should I liken it to something, it would probably be the Cold war - the threat was also willfully exploited by western politicians and used to justify many unfortunate (or outright evil) actions, but the Soviets were nontheless there and they were leathally dangerous. And it was necessary to adopt a proper strategy (which was, in that case, to build a sufficiently detering army...

[8080256256]

...do nothing and wait until the USSR collapses from within.) However, for example, while the Korean war might have been hell for anyone involved, the 50 milion people in South Korea now probably consider it a fortunate event.

According to scientific reports and papers, we are with high probability heading towards an abyss, fast. And I don't think we will be politically able to take the necessary action in time, partly also because financial interests of many people depend upon not taking it.

[robag88]

So far what I'm seeing is mixed scientific reports, but the media focuses only on the ones that spell disaster - bad news sells. I don't trust the IPCC. Scientists can be bought and sold like any other contractor - the Nazi's proved that. If we look at alarmist propaganda in other aspects of society / history it's always the same - make people think their world is going to end if they don't go along with the programme. Make them act from fear instead of logic.

[8080256256]

The scientific reports are not really all that mixed and the IPCC does not conduct the actual research, it merely analyses the global research in the field. If You don't trust the IPCC, You can look at the source papers themselves. Scientists can be bribed, but that won't produce any science; the results are objective and if they cannot be replicated, their fallaciousness can be easily demonstrated; bribing the entire scientific community would be a conspiracy of truly gargantuan proportions.

[8080256256]

Speaking of which - on what basis do You conclude that the surely ascending, but nonetheless still not really established green interest groups have a bigger propaganda war chest then the Big Oil&Coal, OPEC and Russia, whos interests would be clearly seriously harmed by a decisive action against carbon emissions? (Not to mention many other industries affected by carbon caping or taxing?)

[robag88]

I've sent you a link to a report by 650 scientists speaking out against the GW "concensus" in a Senate Minority Report 2008. I'm not saying they're right, but I'm willing to listen to them rather than jump on the GW bandwagon of false consensus.

And when I say bribery I'm talking not about a blatant conspiracy, but the dangling of carrot and stick research funding policies.

[robag88]

Something I also find strange is that the GW believers who try to pressurize everyone else into believing there is a consusus, which in itself demonstrates there isn't concensus, often claim that GW skeptics are funded and manipulated by oil companies. Yet they call it a conspiracy theory to say that the IPCC could be using it's funding power to manipulate the "alarmist" side of the srguement. It's those kinds of contradictions that seed doubt in my mind.

[8080256256]

It was You who first offered a bribery explanation for the results, I was merely pointing out it works either way and the road of corporate money is slightly more traveled (e.g. tobacco). What funding power does the IPCC have? It does not employ nor pay the scientists who produce the results it uses.

And how does one falsify the hypothesis: "Insisting on the existence of a consensus proves by itself that there is no consensus." ?

What if there is a consensus? How could You tell?

[robag88]

I agree that bribery can work for both sides, which is why funding dources have to be examinsed.

The governments that stand to benefit from carbon taxing us into oblvion fund the IPCC as well as the technicians / scientists who work with the IPCC, so the funding motive is there for scientists. The IPCC is the coduit through which many scientists earn their bread and butter.

I could tell there was a consensus if there were minimal opposition voices.

[8080256256]

This is not true. Scientists do not stand to benefit in any way from carbon taxes nor do they earn their income through IPCC, appart from those working directly for it. And they will continue to work for it as long as the climate change, which is unequivocally happening - whater man-made or not - will continue.

And if You suspect them of the desire to attract research funds, why are they claiming the debate is over and no further research is necessary to establish the final answer? ...

[8080256256]

... Shouldn't it be the other way around? Claiming we need more time and research?

Besides, nobody is in academic science for the money. They make shit. Had wealth been their priority, they would have studied law or business. And most of them have tenure.

Ditto government - they don't keep the money they get in taxes. (Are You actually seriously suggesting members of government make money off taxes?)

Regarding the opposition voices, I'd say You look up the tobacco/cancer "controversy."

[robag88]

All of those comments about academic science and taxes demonstrate a total misinterpretation of what I'm trying to communicate to you. You need to watch the full Choose Your News video before attempting to debate me on my world views because as it stands i'm spending a lot of time explaining things to you in dialogue that are already in the video.

[robag88]

No, governments stand to benefit from the carbon taxes and the IPCC is funded by them. The IPCC site states that those governments provide the funding both to the IPCC and domestically to the scientists whose work those governments put forward. From what I can see those governments are not putting forward the work of the skepics because it interferes with their carbon tax agenda. The debating being "over" doesn't mean the end of funds bacause then there's the process of finding "solutions"

[8080256256]

Could You explain to me, please, how exactly do the governments stand to benefit from the carbon taxes? Government is not a sentient entity with desire for wealth.

[robag88]

No offence, but this is getting silly. If you don't understand the all important role of taxation in helping governments pursue their agendas then I think you need to go back to the drawing board politically. If you disagree with my views so much then just give the video a one star rating. There are lots of articles on my site that cover my political views and I don't have the time to write them in their entirety here. So please refer to the site and let me know what you think later :)

[8080256256]

No offence, but I am actully formally educated in economy, law and governance and Your understanding of the role of taxation and budget is very primitive to say the least.

It's not that I disagree with Your views; on the contrary, I think Your videos are spot on (and Your Kubrick analyses are brilliant), but the more am I puzzled why are we unable to reach any kind of understanding on this issue (and by the fact You throw such a propaganda leaflet - Inhofe - at me to defend Your GW position.)

[8080256256]

And if we continue this logic, do You know how much money the governments make of fuel taxes? If they tax the carbon and promote higher fuel efficiency and transition away from fossil fuels, they will lose this income source, which should be, according to this line of reasoning, a total tragedy for them.

[robag88]

How is it a loss if the fuel taxes are replaced by carbon taxes? Also, if the Peak Oil stuff turns out to be true they'll lose their fuel tax income anyway. Hence we're attacking countries for oil on the back of a "fabricated war on terror" as you put it.

Sorry I'm getting pretty bored of this conversation now because I'm not hearing anything here I haven't heard before. I've already had these debates and they just drag on.

[8080256256]

They won't be. What will they be carbon taxing if carbon ceases to be used a a fuel? The whole purpose of the tax (which is not yet even proposed anywhere, cap-and-trade being the currently prefered method) is to discourage the use carbon as a fuel and decrease the relative price of alternatives (which should further get their prices down due to economy of scale).

[robag88]

That's pretty much the view held in the war or terror as well. "We do awful things to stop terrorism but to do nothing would be worse". In both cases I disagree. In both the cold war and the war on terror, the enemy has been trained, funded and armed by the very people who claim to be protecting us. Check out Anthony C Sutton's book The Best Enemy Money Can Buy - we covertly built up the soviet military / tech capabilities from our own backyards.

[8080256256]

I'm from the Czech Republic, former Czechoslovakian Socialist Republic, and on the basis of my personal experience and education in history I must say I strongly disagree with Your statement concerning the role of the Soviet union during the Cold war.

The fabricated irrational so-called War on terror is a completely different matter.

[robag88]

I'm sorry but simply saying that you disagree on the grounds that you believe yourself to be more experienced and educated isn't a persuasive arguement. The documented evidence is available that the Soviet capabilities were the direct result of buying, stealing and reverse engineering what the west had produced. I'm not saying there aren't other complexities involved, but treasonous western firms helping the enemy to develop attack capabilities can't be disregarded.

[8080256256]

In that case I appologise, I misunderstood what You were saying; I am perfectly willing to believe there were many shady dealings regarding technological espionage etc.

On the other hand, that is not really a contradiction to the fact that Soviets posed a grave threat to the security or even continued existence of the West; certainly in the days of early cold war and near technological parity. It was quite reasonable to be paranoid about a nuclear exchange well into the 1960s.

[robag88]

It is a contradication. Many Soviet capabilities were given / sold to them by us, precision ball bearings for guided missiles (essential for a nuke war), top of the range semi-conductors, etc.. We can neutralize the threat by prosecuting firms here that covertly support communist regimes. But the establishment wants war because war justifies imperialism &domestic control. Since the 80's we've done the same, building up China as a new potential coldwar opponent.

[8080256256]

This is assuming the Soviets couldn't have acquired the technology by any other means, which is clearly false. Had they not bought it, the would have obtained it through espionage (Hall, Fuchs?) or eventually invented it themselves (Korolyov?)

Prosecuting those firms would not have in any way eliminated the threat. And what domestic control are You talking about? You have clearly no idea about the life in the soviet block; the Western "controled" societies were a pure paradise in comparison.

[robag88]

So you're all for saving the world from the GW threat because you've "researched" the issue, yet the idea that cutting off our covert technological, economic and military support to our supposed enemies is an issue you think barely worth considering. That's utterly ridiculous.

[8080256256]

I have "researched" the issue as best as I could. In strict accordance with Your advice voiced in the videos, actually. So?

And I have never said that cutting off support to enemies is not worth considering (Where did You get that?) I was merely saying that Your implication that Soviets were an artificially fabricated threat is wrong.

[robag88]

But many of the asumptions you're making about my beliefs suggest you haven't watched the whole vid or at least that you weren't paying attention to what I was actually saying.

There's obviously a major communication problem here. Every time I think that you're implying something you say it's not the case and vice versa. We'd have to sit down together in person and go through all this stuff step by step.

[robag88]

What domestic control ... Patriot Act, Military Commisions Act, Guantanamo, Tazers, Wiretapping ... the list goes on. Our own governments are trying very hard to destroy our freedoms and gain the kind of control over us that the Nazis and Soviets had over their populations.

[8080256256]

How is that relevant to the Cold war situation?

Final question: If You think the governments have such a great control over scientific research and material presented to the IPCC, how do You explain the official position and research results of all the major US academical institutions on GW after 8 years of Bush?

[robag88]

Again the video contains answers to those very questions about academia, suggesting you haven't watched it. And again you're making polarized assumptions about my views.

You described the war on terror as "fabricated" in an earlier comment, yet you say you can't comprehend how GW could be hijacked and exaggerated. You're gonna have to go figure out for yourself why everyone doesn't agree with you on GW. I've tried explaining but you continue to misinterpret.

[8080256256]

I have, I understand the core idea, but that does not mean I also have to automatically agree it's a sufficient explanation. Why was the carrot and stick set towards the GW agenda in the first place? (A rhetorical question) Mind You, IPCC had been founded in 1988 and in 1992 the UN Framework Convention on CC was adopted; the consensus had been reached 20 years ago, long before any fame, carbon caping and taxing and long before Al Gore. So unless GHW Bush had been a part of a gigantic conspiracy_

[8080256256]

... involving a wast majority of worlds scientists, whose purpose was to perhaps some time in the next 30 years or so intorduce a carbon tax, then the explanation does not stand in my opinion.

The science behind AGW is objectively verifiable (it's not sociology, You can actually measure and calculate the results) and it's predictions for the past 20 years have been correct. Hence I have a problem accepting all this is a result of greed for research financing.

[robag88]

"How is that relevant to the cold war situation".

You asked me "what domestic control". Supporting communism covertly created the justification for McCarthyism, domestic surveillance, massive funding for the CIA and for the space race (which was simply another battlefield). The war on terror has since achieved similar things.

You seem pretty intelligent, but I feel like I'm talking to a guy wearing blindfolds. Sorry but I'm gonna have to cut it short here.

[8080256256]

I agree we seem to be misinterpreting each others statements and that without immediate feedback this is probably unsolvable and further debate would be a waste of our time.

I have watched all the videos; and I think the core of the issue is we agree in principle but differ in measure; i.e. I agree the CW was politically misused many times (and I explicitly admit this in one of the first comments) but I don't think that ipso facto equates to: CW was a fabricated plan all along.

[8080256256]

It's the difference between taking advantage of a situation and purposefully creating the situation.

If the whole goal of the politicians was to create a controled society in the West, their efforts were pitiful and in any event can't hold a candle to the soviet model of secret police, nomenclaturic bureaucracy and paralel party/state system.

McCarthy was removed, space race is over, we have the internet which is capable of overcoming most of efforts at social engineering...

[8080256256]

...and... yeah, CIA is pretty much on the loose, still.

But again, compared to the Iron curtain police states (and I had lived in one) this is laughable. It's certainly not something I would warant a name "attempts at controling the society" in the material sense.

So there.

I would not bet this has improved our mutual understanding but I felt the need to clarify one or two last things.

I will continue to watch Your analyses (how about 8 1/2 or Arizona Dream?) and I wish You good luck.

[8080256256]

I guess it wouldn't have mattered in a 'normal video,' but since You are specifically pointing out such things, people are paying extra attention and are eager to test their 'newly acquired abilities' to spot subliminal messages, so that makes the editing job a lot tougher, if not impossible; somebody will always find some political agenda in any random selection.

[stormscion]

Very good.

[jameskennedy80]

Interesting stuff, thanks.

[AmericanEric]

I love the part where the video is an analysis of the pros and cons of both the mainstream and independent media.

[knowledgegiver456]

i used to read the gurdian till it went down the toilet.its a middle class lifestyle magazine now.

[robag88]

The Guardian is my girlfriend's first choice for "reliable" news.

[knowledgegiver456]

lol. i use to buy it and fool myself in to thinking i could do the cryptic crossword, but alway ended up reading the doonsbury cartoons or steve bell. lol

[Nic33rd]

We've really got to look out. Not to be conspiratorial or anything, of course. Simple awareness is a great thing.

[soccom8341576]

True.

I think speed reading is useful for getting more news out of decent newspapers in less time.

Is there a way to break the trend of dumb newspapers and magazines?

[robag88]

Stop buying them completely until they improve their content ... and encourage others to do the same.

[HARMONICO101]

I'm glad that you discuss this stuff in a more-or-less objective way in your video. Other videos I've watched about the media tend be insane conspiracy theory/anti-corporate/anarchis­t propaganda, rather than an objective look at the influence of the media.

[robag88]

That's pleasing feedback thanks.

It's difficult to decipher the over the top conspiracies. I've met plenty of ppl who believe in that stuff and they're generally nice ppl and definitely not violent, just misled. One thing I do suspect, and I hope this doesn't ruin your opinion of my video, is that some of the really crazy stuff is put out by the intelligence agencies to scramble the thought processes of genuine activists. If I was corrupt and in their shoes that's what I'd do - lol

[ElGuerreroSolo]

well i think those people are correct and not insane. it's like this guy is saying since it does not agree with ur values and belief then u view it as insane. however i do agree that it doesn't help their case by not doing it an objective manner. peace

[HARMONICO101]

Good point. However, I believe they are insane because many times, I've tried to look objectively at various conspiracies theories, and 99% of the time I see irrefutable evidence that these conspiracies are not true.

It also strikes me that most of these theorists who believe in seeking "the truth" are deluded by their own particular values and beliefs and are motivated purely to rationalize their extreme distrust of government bodies and corporations.

[MaryOMackie]

These government bodies and corporations have given absolutely no reason for trust whatsoever. You can think what you like, but if you know your history, then you should know how much you are lied to and manipulated, otherwise, I think it's you who are deluded.

[HARMONICO101]

I'm not interested in getting into this. These debates always end up being "You're the one who is delusional! No, you're the one who is being delusional", and escalate from there.

I've said nothing about giving absolute trust to governments and corporations. However, I think it's ludicrous to think that everything they say is a lie.

Being objective is the key to the truth. I see little of that in conspiracy theorists.

[HARMONICO101]

I also find that alot of conspiracy theorists I've spoken to don't know their political theory at all, and/or they don't have any immediate experiance or know anyone with immediate experiance in the government, or in any corporations.

My two cents. I'm out. :)

[MaryOMackie]

Boooo. I just think you're lacking the information and the guts to take that leap (aka "objective" minds). Like I said, if you knew your history, you wouldn't be as apprehensive about understanding there truly are "!Conspiracies!".

After all, you have been lied to in the past and not much has changed, why would it? If you really think government doesn't have their grimey fingers in the media, go to your search engine and type in the words "operation mockingbird".

[HARMONICO101]

Of course there are conspiracies. There was the cover-up of Chernobyl for instance. However, I think the moon landing did in fact happen.

I've heard it all before. I'm not apprehensive. I'm uninterested.

Cheers.

[MrTodolorosso]

Great video, but the content doesn't fit into my individual categories of knowledge. So, I won't watch it. Sorry

[robag88]

How do you know it doesn't fit into your individual categories of knowledge if you won't watch it?

[acleansweep]

I hope you realised he was joking. Fairly obvious since the joke is based on the concept of your video...

[robag88]

I wasn't sure, but having seen comments he's left on my other vids confirmed it was a joke :)

[TheUnspeakableTruth]

Things can be only 10x worst outside of mainstream news so thank god there's independent news, but unfortunately for every smart individual you can think of on the planet the number of 'apes' quadruples that

your videos are worth subscribing to, admirable critique might as well take over for Ebert since he lost his voice Lol

[ImaniTMisfit]

isnt daily star a tabloid?

i thought we all knew that?

as a little child, i always saw those kinds of magazines the same way that i see "the onion" now.

[robag88]

The video contains some info that will be seemingly obvious to many viewers, but it's important to include such details. There are many ppl who are blindfolded when it comes to news media content - basically those who buy the trashy newspapers.

However, you'll also find as I post more parts of the video that the material delves into much less familiar territory for the benefit of those who already have a head start in understanding the mainstream media.

:)

[ImaniTMisfit]

well its hard to concieve people are really that dumb

cuz ive seen wild and crazy headlines on these tabloid papers

but on the other hand.... that reminds me of the men in black movie... the part where tommy lee jones was reading the tabloid to look for real info

it was kinda saying that sometimes the real truth is put in tabloids in order to throw us off... but thats another story

by the way im a big fan of your work and i was pleasantly surprised that you answered so swiftly.

[treefrog2108]

great stuff as always. watched all your vids,im looking forward to seeing your review of no country for old men, i see things with new eyes since watchin your stuff although i was always aware of the trash rags masqueraded as newspapers.still you pinned it down better thaen i ever could

[shinbean]

i agree that not all of it was learned but alot of it you just pick up when you spend alot of time working on the subject

[harricoles]

I agree on the existence-filter maybe a way to be more open minded is to doubt everything, to not believe anything and at same not disbelieve anything that doesn't mean you can't have preferences. I like the idea of of chosing a random book.

[hasanordek]

Last Summer I went to London. I was reading a newspaper while I was on the tube. I noticed how many articles there were about a crime that could happen to you. Or about certain illnesses and what could be their symptoms. What are the newspapers in England trying to do to their readers? Is this a strategy to win readers?

[robag88]

Generally that kind of newspaper content is passed off as an attempt to boost sales, but the thing is that the free newspapers are doing it just as much. There could be a fear-mongering propaganda thing going on, but it's very difficult to prove or disprove.

[shinbean]

im sorry but we're im from this is stuff we learnt in english...english analysis

[Zenman1976]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooh aint that grand..

[robag88]

what's to be sorry about?

[shinbean]

im just saying that if the viewers didnt know all this already then they need to go back and do there final year of schooling lol

[robag88]

What about the UK media ownership maps in part 2? Schools don't teach this stuff. If they did the newspapers would go bust over night.

Also see jmsynge's posting ...

[668mirabai]

What's worrying is not how it affects people with some ability to discriminate between information and manipulation, but how it affects those for whom anything sensational is news, thus, truth.

A free society asks citizens to think for themselves. Uncomfortable, annoying, sometimes disturbing, yes: but necessary.

[CooperZ2]

Yes, this is a very valid point.

[psnchz]

Your articles are not viewed anywhere near as much as they should be.

I am glad there are people out there spending time on informing the viewer.

Many thanks for your videos they are an excellent piece of work.

[swordofisis]

Basking in your brilliance!

[FilipM1]

Very interesting video, as always! Keep them coming!;D

[RapidFury90]

Dub mate

[SalohcinSilverwing]

This fits well into how I feel about our society. I believe every teenager like me should watch this video. You are a true motivator, and I'm honestly honored to be the first viewer...(if YouTube statistics are correct.)