PDA

View Full Version : proof we are being brainwashed by the media


mhgaffney
03-14-2013, 01:13 PM
For years I've been saying on this board that Americans are being brainwashed by the media. And let me clarify -- by this I mean the news is carefully choreographed to present a certain view of the world -- to the exclusion of other ways of seeing.

Most of the time this is done seamlessly. But once in a while the media screws up and reveals its hand.

As they did recently -- see below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_Kx7UKndI

If they bother to thoroughly manage the news about something as mundane as higher gas prices -- imagine what they do in the case of really important events.

The Lone Bolt
03-14-2013, 07:11 PM
Well you don't need me to tell you that those newscasters are a buch of idiots. :~ohyah!:

And you don't need to tell me that there a conspiracy that requires the silence and complicity of hundreds of thousands of media professionals is an impossibility.

W*GS
03-14-2013, 07:15 PM
Somebody ought to put together all the thousands and thousands of local TV weather forecasts that use the phrase "nation's midsection".

That will prove gaffe correct!

houghtam
03-14-2013, 07:57 PM
Does it surprise anyone that there is no actual reporting done at the local level anymore? This is nothing more than reading an article about the same topic in the local paper provided by the AP. In fact, this gas story was probably written by the AP.

This isn't some grand conspiracy, guys, it's outsourcing. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to outsource your "general interest" stories than it is to keep writers on staff at the local level. Conservatives should be in here praising the business acumen of these local stations for doing things as cheaply as possible at whatever cost.

mhgaffney
03-15-2013, 01:46 PM
Does it surprise anyone that there is no actual reporting done at the local level anymore? This is nothing more than reading an article about the same topic in the local paper provided by the AP. In fact, this gas story was probably written by the AP.

This isn't some grand conspiracy, guys, it's outsourcing. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to outsource your "general interest" stories than it is to keep writers on staff at the local level. Conservatives should be in here praising the business acumen of these local stations for doing things as cheaply as possible at whatever cost.

Call it whatever you want. It amounts to the same thing: a system of canned & choreographed news.

W*GS
03-15-2013, 02:17 PM
Call it whatever you want. It amounts to the same thing: a system of canned & choreographed news.

Now get from there to "brainwashed", as you claim in the thread title.

DenverBrit
03-15-2013, 02:35 PM
The most 'brainwashed' conspiracy nut is here to tell us the entire media is conspiring to 'brainwash' the whole population? :loopy: Hilarious!

mhgaffney
03-17-2013, 08:46 AM
The blurb about the price of gas is a trivial example.

But it makes the point.

A better example -- at the time of the 2003 attack on Iraq -- 70% of Americans (including the knee jerks on the OM) believed that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11.

A similar percentage believed that Saddam had WMDs.

Neither of which was true. Americans believed it because the US media endlessly repeated these lies. Repeat a lie enough times and people will swallow it. The bigger the lie the easier it is to swallow.

MHG

houghtam
03-17-2013, 09:25 AM
The blurb about the price of gas is a trivial example.

But it makes the point.

A better example -- at the time of the 2003 attack on Iraq -- 70% of Americans (including the knee jerks on the OM) believed that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11.

A similar percentage believed that Saddam had WMDs.

Neither of which was true. Americans believed it because the US media endlessly repeated these lies. Repeat a lie enough times and people will swallow it. The bigger the lie the easier it is to swallow.

MHG

But why did they repeat the lies? Your mistake here is believing the media was behind the coverup. They may have simply not been able to uncover the true story (until years after), and that's a bad thing, and is a result of media going for ratings rather than story.

But to believe "the media" is one big monolithic group involved in some big intergalactic conspiracy, you're the brainwashed one. The only "conspiracy" here is the media's operation as a for profit enterprise.

mhgaffney
03-17-2013, 09:45 AM
I never said the media was behind it. The men who own the media are responsible.

The media thus serves a small group of psychopathic men -- who were closely aligned with the neo cons in political power at that time.

This close alliance explains the drum beat for war. The media were sycophants for power.

All of this is so obvious now in retrospect -- and was even obvious then to those of us who opposed the war. Were you against the war Houghtam?

houghtam
03-17-2013, 11:34 AM
I never said the media was behind it. The men who own the media are responsible.

The media thus serves a small group of psychopathic men -- who were closely aligned with the neo cons in political power at that time.

This close alliance explains the drum beat for war. The media were sycophants for power.

All of this is so obvious now in retrospect -- and was even obvious then to those of us who opposed the war. Were you against the war Houghtam?

I am appalled you even need to ask. I have made it quite well known that I am about as close as one can realistically get to being a pacifist and still be able to function in a global society. I'm against all war.

W*GS
03-17-2013, 12:02 PM
gaffe will be very pleased if the US is the victim in a war. The more dead Americans, the better, in his sick and twisted ****ed up worldview.

houghtam
03-17-2013, 01:26 PM
Well and the other thing is that as easy as it would be to blame it all on "the media", "the corporations" or "the big guys", to do so would be an endorsement of supply side economics, which we all know is bunk. Television shows aren't made if people won't watch them. Nothing is forced down our throats. We take all the Honey Boo-Boos and American Dance-Offs and Great Survivor Races willingly, right along with the same six mundane stories about weather, war in the Middle East, peace in the Middle East, gas prices, police blotters and high school football.

It all comes down to the fact that media is a for-profit enterprise. If you run the stories that the people want to hear, you have to first define who "the people" are. Then you have to decide what stories are worth people hearing, which is a subjective process no matter how hard you try. Then, once you've decided who your audience is and what you're going to tell them, you have to pay for it. Which means you have to get the money from somewhere, and let me tell ya, those advertisers are only going to invest (that's what they're doing: investing) in a sure thing. And Violence, War, Sports, Train-Wreck TV, and our insane fascination with gas prices are where the money is.

So what is your solution, Gaff?

Rohirrim
03-17-2013, 03:17 PM
I'm being brainwashed by reality.

mhgaffney
03-17-2013, 06:24 PM
Well and the other thing is that as easy as it would be to blame it all on "the media", "the corporations" or "the big guys", to do so would be an endorsement of supply side economics, which we all know is bunk. Television shows aren't made if people won't watch them. Nothing is forced down our throats. We take all the Honey Boo-Boos and American Dance-Offs and Great Survivor Races willingly, right along with the same six mundane stories about weather, war in the Middle East, peace in the Middle East, gas prices, police blotters and high school football.

It all comes down to the fact that media is a for-profit enterprise. If you run the stories that the people want to hear, you have to first define who "the people" are. Then you have to decide what stories are worth people hearing, which is a subjective process no matter how hard you try. Then, once you've decided who your audience is and what you're going to tell them, you have to pay for it. Which means you have to get the money from somewhere, and let me tell ya, those advertisers are only going to invest (that's what they're doing: investing) in a sure thing. And Violence, War, Sports, Train-Wreck TV, and our insane fascination with gas prices are where the money is.

So what is your solution, Gaff?

First of all -- the sports on demand, the soaps, the survival tv, and all the rest is to divert the public from thinking about important issues. Keep 'em preoccupied with trivia. The NFL today is the Roman equivalent of bread and circuses - which served the same function in their day.

As for news and reporting -- I don't agree with you. As someone said - a free press is a great idea if you happen to own one.

The big networks are ALL compromised by conflicting interests. Don't expect CBS to cover nuclear issues -- since it is owned by the people who own General Electric, which makes nuclear technology.

Don't believe it? I suggest you watch Chris Hedges talk about the death of the liberal class. He worked for the NY Times for 15 years -- reporting stories from around the planet -- including all of the hot spots. Hedges can testify to the true state of the media. Reporters who want to REALLY investigate corruption and criminal activity are discouraged from going there. If they persist they are let go.

Before we can talk about answers we need to understand the reality.

I posted this last year but it bears a reply:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s

W*GS
03-17-2013, 06:37 PM
Before we can talk about answers we need to understand the reality.

WTF do you know about reality? You think Venus was a comet.

STFU.

DenverBrit
03-17-2013, 08:04 PM
So now Gaffney claims the entire world media....news, entertainment etc, are all in some massive conspiracy to divert the public attention away from 'important issues.'

This, from the clown who claims he never watches TV, let alone owns a TV, and makes Youtube videos while hiding in the crapper.

Christ, Gaffney, get a grip, you get loonier each year.

http://img.youtube.com/vi/lpBajRIE3s4/0.jpg

mhgaffney
03-18-2013, 04:46 PM
Brit never actually listens to what I'm saying.

Try it sometime.

houghtam
03-18-2013, 04:56 PM
As for news and reporting -- I don't agree with you. As someone said - a free press is a great idea if you happen to own one.

That's a nice little quote, but what don't you agree with? I didn't even offer an opinion, I simply stated the fact that the media is run by large corporations, and that is the price of a for-profit media industry.

So once again instead of providing answers, you give a link supposedly to enlighten me about what's "really" going on, but I'm not going to look at it. Why? It's immaterial. It has nothing to do with your providing a solution to the problem.

So what is it? State-run media? Let's hear a clear, concise argument from you for once in your life.

Here, I'll even start it for you:

"Since for-profit media is clearly a negative for this great nation, I, __________, propose the following points as a solution to the problem:

-
-
-
-
-
-

(you can write as many points as you like)"

If you are confused, look at a few of my posts in one of the guns threads. There's a pretty good template of how to produce a logical argument that, although someone may disagree with, at least is based in some sense of reality.

mhgaffney
03-18-2013, 05:55 PM
That's a nice little quote, but what don't you agree with? I didn't even offer an opinion, I simply stated the fact that the media is run by large corporations, and that is the price of a for-profit media industry.

So once again instead of providing answers, you give a link supposedly to enlighten me about what's "really" going on, but I'm not going to look at it. Why? It's immaterial. It has nothing to do with your providing a solution to the problem.

So what is it? State-run media? Let's hear a clear, concise argument from you for once in your life.

Here, I'll even start it for you:
If you are confused, look at a few of my posts in one of the guns threads. There's a pretty good template of how to produce a logical argument that, although someone may disagree with, at least is based in some sense of reality.

You are an arrogant guy -- for someone who claims to be a pacifist.

There is no answer -- at this stage. We are headed over the cliff.

Americans do not read. They do not study -- they don't read reports.

So many have decided to eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

I have been swimming upstream against this current -- ever since I started writing.

Over the last 25 years -- things have gotten worse, not better.

I suggest you prepare for what lies ahead.

MHG

The Lone Bolt
03-18-2013, 08:41 PM
BTW Gaff, when is the last time you've seen a dentist?

DenverBrit
03-19-2013, 08:58 AM
Brit never actually listens to what I'm saying.

Try it sometime.

Sure I do, it's mostly nonsense.

mhgaffney
03-19-2013, 01:12 PM
Sure I do, it's mostly nonsense.

Bull shyte. Check my sources.

The talk is based on my research for the book Black 9/11.

The sources are all footnoted.

You just don't wish to believe it -- because the truth is uncomfortable.

MHG

W*GS
03-19-2013, 02:01 PM
Hey gaffe - how much mass has Pan-STARRS gained?

DenverBrit
03-19-2013, 02:52 PM
Bull shyte. Check my sources.

The talk is based on my research for the book Black 9/11.

The sources are all footnoted.

You just don't wish to believe it -- because the truth is uncomfortable.

MHG

Thanks for reinforcing my point. :thumbsup:

mhgaffney
03-20-2013, 11:07 AM
Thanks for reinforcing my point. :thumbsup:

Idiot.

On 9/11 AA 11 crashed the offices of Marsh & McLennan in WTC 1. Curious no? that M & M also had the second highest number of put options in the days before 9/11. In other words, someone was betting that M&M's stock would fall. It did.

You and W*gs want to believe this was just coincidence. But three published academic studies of insider trading concluded the pre 9/11 put and call options was not just chance. The statistical certainty of insider trading was 99%.

The first study concluded that the data were “consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.” 1.

The second paper, by the Swiss Banking Institute, reached the same conclusion. 2.

A third study looked at the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and found “abnormal trading volumes" in both put options and call options in the days before the attacks. The authors concluded that there was “credible circumstantial evidence to support the insider trading claim.”3.



1. Allen M. Poteshman, “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” Journal of Business, 2006, vol. 79, no. 4, http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/503645.
2. Marc Chesney, et al., “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets,” Social Sciences Research Network, 13 January 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1522157.
3. Wing-Keung Wong, et al, “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?” Social Sciences Research Network, April 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588523.

DenverBrit
03-20-2013, 12:03 PM
Idiot.

On 9/11 AA 11 crashed the offices of Marsh & McLennan in WTC 1. Curious no? that M & M also had the second highest number of put options in the days before 9/11. In other words, someone was betting that M&M's stock would fall. It did.

You and W*gs want to believe this was just coincidence. But three published academic studies of insider trading concluded the pre 9/11 put and call options was not just chance. The statistical certainty of insider trading was 99%.

The first study concluded that the data were “consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.” 1.

The second paper, by the Swiss Banking Institute, reached the same conclusion. 2.

A third study looked at the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and found “abnormal trading volumes" in both put options and call options in the days before the attacks. The authors concluded that there was “credible circumstantial evidence to support the insider trading claim.”3.



1. Allen M. Poteshman, “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” Journal of Business, 2006, vol. 79, no. 4, http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/503645.
2. Marc Chesney, et al., “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets,” Social Sciences Research Network, 13 January 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1522157.
3. Wing-Keung Wong, et al, “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?” Social Sciences Research Network, April 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588523.

Who made that bet? Identify them.

Have you ever tried to make anonymous put options? Try it.

As for the rest of your nonsense, even Snopes can figure out the facts.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

W*GS
03-20-2013, 12:36 PM
Who made that bet? Identify them.

Have you ever tried to make anonymous put options? Try it.

As for the rest of your nonsense, even Snopes can figure out the facts.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Snopes is part of the Conspiracy.

So is gaffe.

Rohirrim
03-20-2013, 01:31 PM
Simple. If you don't believe in the conspiracy, you're part of it. All bases are covered. ;D

houghtam
03-20-2013, 01:39 PM
Simple. If you don't believe in the conspiracy, you're part of it. All bases are covered. ;D

You forgot, also you're an idiot. LOL

DenverBrit
03-20-2013, 03:05 PM
Snopes is part of the Conspiracy.

So is gaffe.


He sure has the disinformation part down.

DenverBrit
03-20-2013, 03:06 PM
You forgot, also you're an idiot. LOL


Everyone's an idiot unless they buy into Gaffe's 'Tales from the Crapper.'

mhgaffney
03-20-2013, 04:18 PM
Who made that bet? Identify them.

Have you ever tried to make anonymous put options? Try it.

As for the rest of your nonsense, even Snopes can figure out the facts.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp


Actually, you make a good point.

There is a paper trail. The SEC knows who bought the puts and calls -- and according to Paul Zarembka, a professor of econometrics at SUNY Buffalo, the puts/calls from 9/11 were exercised, meaning: the insiders collected their winnings after 9/11. The SEC knows who - but covered it up.

This is consistent with what I found out. You will recall the many stories about insider trading right after 9/11 -- everyone thought the evidence would track back to the terrorists.

Then -- after about 6 weeks -- no more press coverage. Why not? Well -- when the SEC got deep into the evidence they found it tracks back to Wall Street. At that point they deputized thousands of people involved in their investigation -- which essentially bound all of those people to silence -- via security oaths. So no one could talk about this.

Check out this interview with Zarembka by Lars Schall, who published his own book about 9/11 in germany recently.

MHG



'Economists are scared'

By Lars Schall

Recently, I had published at Asia Times Online an exclusive investigation, Insider Trading 9/11 ... The Facts Laid Bare (March 21, 2012). Link:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html

In this article I presented evidence of informed trading activities prior to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 on areas of New York City and Washington that resulted in the death of 2,996 people, including the 19 hijackers of four commercial jets. (The four aircraft hijacked on September 11 were American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and UAL flights 175 and 93.)

On the same subject matter, Asia Times Online now presents an
interview that I have conducted with United States economist Paul Zarembka.

Professor Zarembka is a professor of economics at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo. He has been the general editor for Research in Political Economy since 1977, and is the author of Toward a Theory of Economic Development, editor of Frontiers in Econometrics, and co-editor of Essays in Modern Capital Theory.

He is working on the concept and application of accumulation of capital. Furthermore, he is an expert on Marxist theory and economic development. In 2008, Zarembka edited the book The Hidden History of 9-11, a serious reference volume that examines 9/11 and its background, showing how much remains unknown and where further investigation and debate is needed. His own chapter in the book includes investigation of insider trading before 9/11 and was updated in 2011 [1].

Lars Schall: Professor Zarembka, how did you as an economist became interested in the topic of insider trading activities prior to the terror attacks of 9/11?

Paul Zarembka: Well, I did not got directly interested in it, I got directly interested in 9/11 itself. That eventually led to insider trading, and since I specialized in econometrics it was the natural thing for me to jump unto and investigate for myself.

LS:Right after the attacks, a fair amount of mainstream financial media articles surfaced suggesting that there was informed trading going on related to 9/11. Why do you believe this reporting disappeared soon after and was never seen again?

PZ: That's a good question, and I'll tell you what I think, but it's kind of speculative, I can't know for sure. What I think happened was that many people who were not involved in any way whatsoever with 9/11 noticed the extreme levels of put options in certain securities before 9/11.

That is publicly available information, particularly if you have the services that provide that data to you. Some of these people noticed the extreme volumes and they thought, I believe, that it would lead to nailing [al-Qaeda leader] Osama bin Laden as responsible for 9/11. So we've got a lot of news coverage for about a month or two after 9/11, and then suddenly it died. I think the reason why it died - and that's speculation - is that somehow the word got out that it's not going to lead to Osama bin Laden.

LS: And so said the 9/11 Commission in its report.

PZ: Right, but that was much later after it died, and I mean it really died very quickly. On the other hand, the fact that it got out there at all meant that the 9/11 Commission report had to say something about it. They said something very minimal, but they said something, and if hadn't been for those news stories nothing would have probably got out about it.

LS: What was the position of the 9/11 Commission relating to insider trading, and why do you think its conclusions are unconvincing?

PZ: That's a big question, perhaps bigger than you anticipated. Let me go back a little bit to the history of discussions about insider trading connected with 9/11.

The first scientific paper that came out about it was from Professor Allen Poteshman, who was at that time working at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His article was published in the Journal of Business which nobody can criticize for its respectability and the integrity of its peer-review process, and yet he came to the conclusion that there was insider trading with high probability (nothing is ever certain in statistics) in American Airlines stock options and to a lesser extent in United Airlines [2].

It was accepted for publication, I think, around 2004, well before the 9/11 Commission report came out, but they did not make any reference to it. I am not sure if they knew or didn't know about it, but my guess would be that they would have been informed that that study had been done.

Now the 9/11 Commission made its reports and said that they did investigations throughout the financial world, I mean not just only in the United States but also abroad, and not just in put option trading but in other financial instruments, and they concluded that they could not find any evidence of irregular financial transactions.

In its report, only two cases are actually cited, the two cases that Poteshman had studied and written about, namely in American Airlines put option trading and United Airlines. However, the commission provided almost no direct evidence of what its finding was, but rather just made assertions. So what the 9/11 Commission said is basically worthless because it didn't give us any evidence for its statement.

The drama is magnified when two more studies were done which again confirmed that insider trading took place. Where it also gets dramatic is that in 2009, some parts of the investigation fed into the 9/11 Commission were released, and frankly I have to tell you that at least for American Airlines the report is convincing that there wasn't insider trading in American Airlines.

I say this not because it changes the final result very much, but I think it is a deep warning to everybody working on these kind of issues that these issues are complicated, and that in the final analysis the government has the data and has knowledge we don't have - so some of what we are doing is based upon hard facts, but some of it speculates around things we don't have the hard facts about.

LS: And then the label "conspiracy theorist" raises its ugly head very fast when you do speculate.

PZ: Yes, and that's why I am not interested in speculating. I try to say truthfully whatever I discover. For example, Poteshman's results were never a certainty, they were always stated as a high probability. But from an econometric point of view when you get results which have a probability of 99% you take them very seriously.

And that leads us to something else. I have enough experience in econometric issues which were controversial to know that typically, when you got controversial results, somebody else comes along with a series of objections to the methodology that you have used and you get a big controversy.

No one ever responded to Poteshman's article from a critical perspective, and this is very curious. It's a major piece of work, and he got the data actually from the Chicago Board Option Exchange [CBOE] in a way that the rest of us don't have; he got confidential data for his work.

I suspect that the CBOE wanted to find out if a methodology could be developed which would be useful for checking into insider trading in other incidents, not only in this one, and I think that's why the CBOE gave him the data. Whatever the reason is, he had data the rest of us don't have. So it really was something to investigate further, but his work was never challenged. And then we get two other papers which actually more than reinforced what Poteshman said.

One of those papers came from two professors and a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who studied abnormal trading in the S&P 500 index options prior to the 9/11 attacks. [3] Their study came to the conclusion that there was a high probability of insider trading in S&P 500 index options prior to September 11.

What is very interesting about their results is that the underlying reports that were made available to the 9/11 Commission (which we didn't see until later) say that they could not examine the S&P 500 index options because trading in it is too extensive. Now why that becomes interesting is because the 9/11 Commission report had said that they made a wide-ranging study and they found no evidence of any sort of financial irregularities before 9/11, but also said the S&P 500 index options couldn't even be investigated - so the commission is kind of contradicting itself. And more than that, when some did investigate the S&P 500 index options, they find out that in fact it did have abnormal trading before 9/11, with high probability.

for the rest
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ND27Dj02.html

mhgaffney
03-20-2013, 04:23 PM
Simple. If you don't believe in the conspiracy, you're part of it. All bases are covered. ;D

You are as confused as ever.

The conspiracy?

Which conspiracy? The official conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs armed with box cutters defeated the entire US military and intelligence community...

or...one of the alternative theories -- that insiders and possibly even "friendly" foreign gov'ts had a hand in it?

nyuk nyuk
03-21-2013, 01:29 PM
I wouldn't call that brainwashing. Perhaps to save money they share some scripts cross-network for certain types of stories that affect the country across the board.

I think a bigger indication of the impact of mass media on the populace is the tendency toward people for parroting media catchphrases as moral values and slamming people with the same small set of slurs if one doesn't comply.