Do you believe that ruling governments systematically interfere with available media to manipulate public thinking?

Of course. It's not even a secret anymore. The ONDCP vetting television shows is a recent example.

What is ONDCP?

Yes, of course they do. If they didn't they would be silly not to. Sometimes it is a simple as which media outlets get invited to presidential press conferences. If they don't like how you report the news, you don't get invited.

I'm reminded of a related situation that happened here in Vancouver a few years ago. There is this journalist who mostly writes for underground publications. He goes by the name "Nardwuar, the Human Serviette" and has this amusing habit of addressing his interview subject by name and title everytime he asks a question. He scooped the entire Canadian media by questioning the Prime Minister on the pepper spraying of protesters at the APEC conference. That night, the PM's response was on every news report. It led to a huge investigation...blah blah blah...Here's a link:
http://www.nardwuar.com/apec/

Office of National Drug Control Policy

yes, just like they have a certain amount of control over what we learn at school and college

Of course some governments do. Not all, necessarily, but a good number.

*shrugs* Maybe some do.

Yes, everything influences everything, and when something/someone realizes this, they can then take advantage of it.

I have to get back to you on this.Got an interview.

Yes. It's been proven. For example, the government offers television stations monetary incentive to work in issues such as drug use, teen sex, etc. There was a big hubbub about it last year.

Scarier than what the government does is what the major corporations who own these media outlets get away with in the terms of "messages." An example is General Electric, which basically owns NBC (National Broadcast Corporation) Does anyone believe that if it was to be found out that GE was guilty of criminal pollution, just for example, that this news would be reported on NBC? Hell no.

Disney owns ABC (American Broadcast Corporation). Don't expect fair reporting about Disney. (Sidebar: I HATE Disney. They're an evil, evil company.)

I'm far more concerned about corporate control than government control. Corporations ARE the new government.

God I love Media Studies. For more fascination reading, go to

http://www.fair.org
FAIR is a nonprofit media watchdog group (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) which puts out a weekly magazine, "Extra!"

Propoganda as a science is about a century old. It's very subtle now. They won't even give you objective symbology by which the rational mind has something to argue about.

Definitely. Who would have thought 25 years ago that at the end of the century people would believe that carbon dioxide is pollution? The way the media has convinced the public that we need higher fuel taxes to reduce the production of plant food (CO2) is astounding. Then they told us there would be global warming, but not in Europe just in case they thought it would be OK to be a bit warmer. They convinced us there would be more flooding rains, but apparently not in Australia just in case people thought the desert would bloom. We are supposed to have more storms although the poles are apparently warming more than the equator which would reduce the temperature differences across the globe and storms would therefore decrease. The way governments around the world have got the public to eat these lies up with a spoon is genius.

Of course, but in a minor way, thankfully.

Canadian is it? What show are you reffering to? (I don't watch television but I'm kept informed by all that do!)

Hah! You just gave me an idea for another survey...

Scary, isn't it? If you look at the "big picture", it's hard not to come to that conclusion...

I think it depends entirely on which government and which country you are talking about.
for example: the Chinese government is well known to regulate (and thereby manipulate) the media in an organised manner.
I don't think my government (Australian) interferes in a systematic way, but they certainly interfere with the media.

Some governments more than others...our news here in Hong Kong is joke.

Some certainly do in a systematic way. Some do to some extent but I imagine many do not, other then through the manipulation of it that anyone involved in PR would do.

*big sigh*

Don't worry, I'm not even going to get into it right now!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
What cave have you been hiding in for the past 2000 years?

Who's been hiding in a cave? I want to dissect them to discover their longevity secret!

i think some governments do at some times and others do quite a bit most of the time!

Yer stealing kate's, the serial killer, routine.

I can't believe the naivete of this survey. Media manipulation is as old as media and governments. Just 'cause they give it a fancy name ("spin") or the street name ("bullsh*t'), governments routinely use the media to manipulate public opinion.

The question might have been better phrased: "Do you know of a ruling government which DOESN'T systematically interfere with available media...bla, bla, bla."

You watch. This crap will be forgotten in 10 years when the world hasn't come to an end. For a different perspective on so-called global warming have a look here. The government and media won't be happy with you though! http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/
http://www.john-daly.com/

About scaremongering greenies?

You shouldn't steal from me. It makes be pissed off & you don't want me pissed off! >

What's a greeny?

Absolutely!There is a conspiracy in this country, accelerated the last 40 years. The media plays a huge part of this conspiracy. There is a book called the "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America," by Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt. Check it out.

interefere?
ruling governments control and own the very IDEA of public media.
the internet here seems to be a wildcard for the moment, but that is changing very rapidly. as government works its control through public media to influence the thinking of the individual person (and it does happen) even 'chat sites' like sc will be filled with second hand government rhetorick from individuals corrupted by media programming.

Beats me, I just looked it up here: http://www.acronymfinder.com/
I don't know who posted it, but I came across it on SC and saved it. It comes in handy. People tend to use a lot of obscure acronyms on the net. I don't watch TV either.

Thanx for the link! It may come in handy.

Yes, to some degree. I'd have to be terribly naive not to. Positive propaganda in the guise of patriotism is still propaganda and it's practiced to some extent by ALL ruling governments. Who said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone ISN'T out to get you."?

These are very strange options for this question- they don't make sense in the context of the vast range of governments that exist. Not all governments have any obligation, sworn or otherwise, to allow a free press. Some govenmentns have an explicit *duty* to regulate the press. Not all peoples have a codified "freedom of speach." Also, one of the main *purposes* of the media is to manipulate opinion, to use the dissemination of information to change the mind states of the people. There cannot be such a thing as an "objective" reporting, it is necessary for anyone, receiving any information, to take into consideration the needs and objectives of the source of that information.

Propaganda being centuries old??? You don't think that propoganda is as old as govenrments?

I will go and look......

I see a greeny as a person who thinks humans are somehow removed from the rest of the planet. They treat humans as if we invaded, rather than evolved here with everything else. Greenies don't like fossil fuels because burning them gives off too much plant food (CO2). They block construction of hydro dams in the third world that would provide electricity and irrigation water to poor people because dams disrupt river systems. They hate nuclear energy although it produces no evil greenhouse gases. They want everyone to use wind power (ignoring its unreliability) and solar power, but they don't want us to mine in order to get the metal and glass needed for solar panels. They are concerned about spreading deserts, but take all steps to end human production of carbon dioxide (plants grow faster with less water under higher levels of CO2). They lie and alter facts in order to sway public opinion. They blame everything on global warming, although there are no hard facts showing it is even occuring. They take advantage of all the luxuries and benefits of capitalism and industrialisation while attacking those very processes. They are hypocrites. They would rather see Indian women die young of resparatory problems caused by burning cow crap indoors than allow the World Bank to fund the construction of gas fired power plants so the people can used electric stoves like we do. They are racists, because they seek to keep poor people poor while applying their silly restrictions on carbon dioxide production on a few (predominantly white) countries. That's what they are. They've taken a legitimate concern for the environment that most people have and corrupted it with racism, junk science and pseudo-pagan nature worship while attempting to reducing humanity to the rank and importance of a virus.

I just said one; Brian said many; and i said as a science meaning books, classes, research, testing, committees..
I wouldn't exactly call the bible propoganda, but it is a subliminal manipulative teaching tool in places.

of course they interfere. I think they're generally not collectively smart enough to be systematic, though.

I guess there will always be groups who take things too far to each extreme. It really is frustrating. I have a little nitpick though. I don't think CO2 can really be considered plant food. Plants take in CO2 during photosynthesis and use it in a chemical process to create food, but CO2 itself is not a plant food.

They use CO2 to build themselves. They basically 'eat' CO2 using the sun to power the process. Minerals in the soil are also used and could be considered food. Humans respirate. We used oxygen to 'burn' our food. Oxygen is not consumed, it is simply part of a reaction. Plants do consume atmospheric CO2. Even if you don't consider CO2 plant food, it is ludicrous to call it pollution. That's like a bunch of trees getting together and saying that oxygen is pollution and that they should take measures to reduce tree production of oxygen. It's madness, but so is a bunch of people who are trying to reduce CO2 calling themselves 'green'.

No, no, no. I was defending your turf on your behalf!
(exiting swiftly)

Exactly NANNERMUFFIN...I quote that line often...where did you first hear it?

Would you believe I saw it first on a T-shirt? Ironic humor, the spice of life!

In prison..I deduce.

No, at work. Oh wait...same thing.

Told ya!

Okay, I follow you, but CO2 will be pollution if we keep cutting down all the forests of the world. Rather than trying to avoid producing CO2 I think we should concetrate on keeping lots of trees. But that's another subject really. I agree with you that the media can and does convince the public of things that aren't necessarily true.

I'm keeping my eyes (all 5 of them) on YOU!

Did I mention I'm moving?

Where to? Or are you too scared to tell me?

Yup...too scared.

Byuk Buck! CHICKEN!!

I agree. We should be trying to keep trees, although established forests don't absorb as much CO2 as growing forests. Selective logging would therefore be sustainable provided the forest is left to grow, and more CO2 would hasten that growth. I think environmental groups should be looking at suburbanisation as an environmental catastrophe and snap out of the carbon dioxide hysteria.

You're forgetting that plants also respire. If they cannot respire, they will die and cannot photosynthesise. They cannot respire if oxygen is locked up in CO2. Whereas plants only photosynthesise when it is light, they respire all day long.

If the plants die because of a lack of oxygen, then they cannot photosynthesise so the CO2 that we breathe out and that factories or natural disasters produce is not broken down again.

The levels of CO2 continue to build up. This makes less and less oxygen available making the problem even worse.

I imagine at some point we may reach a new balance but we may destroy a lot waiting for that to happen.

Of course atmospheric changes happen naturally, the current levels of atmospheric change are unlikely to be due completely to human activity - but we are contributing. And we aren't just producing "plant food" - things are more complexly interconnected.

Now, just give me another year and I'll be doing Biological sciences at university - then I'll pick you apart even more unmercifully

(And I'm not someone who just accepts the generally held beliefs of science - I wrote a big old essay for school pulling apart half of the ideas generally related to using fertilisers in farming!)

I don't think we need to worry about oxygen (21% of atmosphere) being locked up in CO2 (far less than 1% of atmosphere. Plant respiration occurs in the absence of light, and is nowhere near the levels of animal respiration. Plants have actually had to evolve to cope with too much oxygen in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis is only 75% efficient because plants are unable to find enough CO2. Our atmosphere is actually CO2 deficient. The balance was passed before humans arrived, only it left a surplus of oxygen and a lack of CO2. We are simply liberating trapped CO2.

I am aware we are producing more than CO2, but it's CO2 that the media, green groups and scientists are concentrating on at the moment. This makes me think there is more to the 'green agenda' than what they say they're about.

It is a myth that plant respiration occurs only in the absence of light. That was what I was taught for my GCSEs (aged 16) but now I am at a higher level we are being taught things that are a little more accurate. It happens all the time.

Even a slight change in the amount of O2 present in the atmosphere could have a big impact.

Comes with the territory.

The levels of O2 have been changing for a long time. Why do you believe it is so bad to reduce the level of O2 but not to constantly raise O2 levels? O2 is nowhere near as important to plants as CO2 is, and CO2 levels have been slowly falling since life began here. If the gases were in balance, plants would not photosynthesise so inefficiently and would not have had to evolve new ways to use the dwindling supply of CO2. Volcanic activity and animal respiration couldn't have been able to maintain an adequate supply of CO2 or the original plant life that existed under higher levels of CO2 would still be around. Perhaps plants do respirate more than just at night, but obviously their main role is one of photosynthesising and using atmospheric carbon. If plants respirated at anywhere near the levels they photosynthesise oxygen wouldn't make up 21% of our atmosphere. How do we know that the planet doesn't function best under 1% CO2, or 2%? Why are current levels assumed to be ideal? Plants grow much better and with less water under high levels of CO2, that's a proven fact. Why are people so afraid of slightly higher CO2 levels. Carbon is life. There will only be more life as we liberate trapped carbon. We should be more concerned with human made chemicals that do not occur in nature. If I was I chemical manufacturer I'd be very happy that Greenpeace was so wrapped up in the terrible threat of carbon dioxide!

I don't trust television, news reporting, nor the printed word (not even rumors!) History is bunk (it all depends on who is reciting it) and yes, I am cynical...

I know what a Greeny is (I just did not have a name for them)! I agree with you, these "greenies" can be rather upsetting in their ways of getting their messages across. They may take comments, made by people, out of context to twist the meaning to their ends, they may doctor "documentaries" to get their messages across and etc. I also believe that humans are not invaders but part of this ecosystem. I do, however, question the humans' intervention on behalf of it's own species. We have this attitude of "save all lives at all costs", I mean by medical intervention like inoculation, cesarean sections, interventions where people would have died without it. Who decided that our lives are more valuable than others that share this planet? If we are part of this system, we should evolve as others do; mutating genes create diversity and may help or hinder one's chance at survival. If the mutation is beneficial, we are stronger as a species, if the mutation is a hindrance, then it dies with the carrier before it is reproduced. This IS evolution and we are interfering with it... (Don't get me wrong, I'm just as selfish as the other, if my child needed some kind of intervention, I would be demanding it!)

I don't believe that this planet is capable of supporting our species in this quantity. There is a delicate balance on this planet, ecologically speaking, and we are taxing it beyond it's limit. This system was not meant to harbor any extreme development of any species (including ours). There exist a definite imbalance and we are the direct cause of this, WE have created it. Even if we could irrigate deserts to feed the starving peoples around the world, what happens to the creatures that exist in the desert? We consider deserts, bogs, marsh lands and etc. as wastelands. Why? Just because it is of no real use to OUR species. Who gave us the right to prevent other species from evolving in their own environments, must we remove these environments just because they don't suit OUR needs? Sometimes we have trouble seeing the "big picture", even though we don't need deserts to live in, we may need them to keep the balance of this planet's weather patterns... You know what they say; "You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone..."

The human species is the most arrogant, selfish and self-centered species of all of creation. We have put ourselves on the top of the heap and this, in our minds, justifies all of our self-serving actions. I don't have the answers, but I CAN look at the big picture...

And to all of you pro-lifers out there; If we have no right to take away life? Who the heck gave us the right to GIVE it??? Shouldn't that be God's job...

I don't think the survival instinct of humans is any greater than other animals. They also kill each other for territory and food. I actually don't agree that the planet is overpopulated. I read somewhere that if all humans were divided into groups of 5 and were assigned about 2 acres of arable land to live on and grow food, everyone on Earth would fit into the USA. As humans, everywhere we look is people, people and more people. Our cities are crowded. Roads between cities are crowded. Sydney absolutely sprawls, but from space it is a small dot in a great expanse. Even Europe, which is the most densely populated continent, is not really overpopulated. It's true that humans have an impact on the environment, but so do locusts, elephants and everything else. Any large group of primates uses resources to live. Why are humans expected to be any different. I think we should use resources wisely, but many greenies want to ban everything. That's impossible, unless we send around 5,990,000,000 humans to gas chambers and the last surviving 10 million try to find a cave somewhere.

Your point about interfering with natural selection sounds like eugenics. It is true that by keeping alive people who would ordinarily die due to genetic faults so they are able to pass on those faults is interfering with evolution, I have a second cousin who is severely retarded, and she is an absolute delight. I wouldn't wish she didn't exist for anything. I guess we have evolved to a point where we are so good as a species at survival that even those who should be dead are kept alive through human technology.

Like I said; I don't have the answers, only the questions...

I imagine people feared they were usurping Gods domain not just with bio-engineering and programmatic matter, but with surgery, fire, and even putting the edible plants at locations of their own choice.

I have to question these things, so often we realize the damage that we caused after the fact. Remember how PCB's made life all so wonderful for us? I saw reels of film where a family is sitting with big smiles on their faces while being sprayed with PCB to eliminate the pesky bugs so that they may enjoy their picnic!
Sometimes, we are like the proverbial smiling cows of to slaughter...

I do agree. I see things like e-coli being genetically modified to clean grease traps in fast-food kitchens, and years later they wonder how they got e-coli poisoning in the burgers. John Brunner's 'the sheep look up' was about that issue (ignorant sui-genicide stuff).

More scary stuff....

I think I'll go to bed now a have a good nightmare...

Yes. When ever you turn the TV on you start a new seance of degenarization for you uneducated brain.

I think for those in power it's easy to lead around the mob my their noses, even *without* extreme use of mass-manipulation.

I have no doubt that a certain amount is edited, not for any covert intention but for sensitivity to some viewers.

synergistic subliminals. few ads are what they seem. I can barely believe how many ads in a row just involved targets.

Theres too much shady area to know for sure. I think that the owners of the networks in the private sector mostly 'control' what the people think, and not the governments.

It's bad and it's getting worse. Default Fnords, it's getting bad out here. Last week even a blank icon enigma suggestion me to get insured. Damn amateurs.

Yeah, something like that.

Half the ads have target icons in them (& radars back drop the newscasters). The ad for the actual business Target has a one sentence ad for 'sponge bomb' pants. (no one else could get away with suddenly plugging both targets and bombs). There's little distinction between the private enterprise and the government. All the advisory councils for the president, the BAR, etc are populated with COO's of the companies you know by name. Gods word, the logos, used to be like a subliminal, but now one has to discern above the engineered subliminals. There are plenty of forces, for better or worse, that would love to intercede the logos.

What are you trying to say? What is a target icon? "radars back drop the newscaster"? COO's? I don't know what all these terms mean. I never knew that TV's flash subliminal logos. Isn't that illegal? Doesn't the FCC look for these things? If the govenment's job is to protect us from these logos, then why are they projecting these logos? And I still don't understand how there's no distinction between private enterprise and the government? What do you mean by that?

You've seen what a bullseye looks like. They are part of the visual iconography of many commercials now like kodak, nestle, hotjobs, others i can't recall at the moment, and of course target dept store. When the tv shows news updates, there are animations in the background that look like large radar screens. Every prop is chosen for a reason. Read Stewart Ewan's "Public Relations, Corporate Spin, & Propaganda" For decades now subliminal advertising has been at such a state that they try not to even use sentences, because those give the rational mind something to argue about. If they wanted to eliminate vegetation they might fabricate eco-protestors that strike one as foolhardy and naive. Surely you realize talk shows are plugging products and services. Try to watch an episode of Friends where M&M/Mars candies or Hasbro toys are not woven into the script. They don't just write whatever comes to mind as entertaining in these scripts; they have a team of writers 'imparting a positive message.' If you watch a show on NBC (in cahoots with microsoft) like 'Crossing Jordan' you will see MSN ads during commercials and people chasing butterflies (an msn icon) as a mindless addition to the script. People like Bill Gates serve on the boards for agencies like the FCC. These positions which most greatly affect our lives, like anti-trust committees, technical advisories and such are not elected positions, they are populated by people that also run our largest corporations. Power industry, bio-tech, computers, surveillance, pharmaceuticals... that is our nation. You have companies like clear channel communications that own 1200 radio radio stations. Imagine a president getting elected today without the cooperation of such entities. Once in a while you'll get an official disapproval from the FDA on Montsanto's latest brand of milk (no cows involved, just milk), but for the most part these agencies make it such that the only biggest fish prosper. One tv news story came out about taco bell selling tortillas made from genetically modified coal. A couple days later they changed the wording to corn with no retrcations hoping no one noticed. Eurepean cattle are fed genetically modified heating oils, not much different from coal. Things like algae modified to produce insulin are decades old technology. America is an international business. Carter was about the last president who tried to treat it foremost it as people in my opinion.