What Is Media

[Gracy]

Media is often the whipping boy in alternative circles, much of it well deserved IMO, but here's a wee problem I've been having especially as of late.

I think I'm in need of an operational definition for the often used term "media". Is it every single news outlet across the board, bar none? It should be I would think, yet I'm constantly reminded there are certain outlets that are exceptions to the rule, they're not sullied with the same broad brushed stroke of "media bad, media corrupt, media infiltrated, media is nothing but propaganda".

In these cases the outlets are not only spared the well deserved critiques other outlets receive, they are held on high as pinnacles of honest, good old fashioned reporting. You'll never, ever, ever, see the slightest hint of propaganda at these places. They're beyond reproach.

How does that work? It's almost like they're not really media, they're something different, a different animal, no need for any scrutiny there what so ever. They can't be media, right? Cos "media bad".

So, what exactly is, media? Help me untangle this.

[ExomatrixTV]

Mainstream Media Perception Managers

MSM is an Hijacked Tool to give the illusion to be "correctly informed" what is "important" for all humans that suppose to be empowered by it not brainwashed, enslaved & deceived 24/7.

• Ask your self (every day) 3 basic questions when watching ANYTHING Mainstream Media:

01. What does it bring me? (does it empower/uplift me?)

02. How does it affect me? (how do I feel afterwards? ... and am not talking about "snowflake feelings")

03. Where does it lead to? (where are we pushed towards aka what corrupt agenda is served?)

cheers,
John Kuhles aka 'ExomatrixTV'
December 17, 2020


🌐 FactCheckersLie
🌐 Fb-Fact-Check-Lies
🌐 CheckFactCheckers
🌐 PolitiFactCheckFails
🌐 Denzel-on-Fake-News
🌐 FactCheckers-Scandal
🌐 Deceptive-Fact-Checkers
🌐 Dishonest-Fact-Checkers
🌐 Politicized-Fact-Checkers
🌐 Who-Fact-Checks-Snopes
🌐 Hilarious-FactCheck-Satire
🌐 Tired-of-Fake-Fact-Checkers
🌐 Problem-with-Assumed-Facts
🌐 FactCheckers-Misleading-You
🌐 China-Funds-Fb-Fact-Checker
🌐 FactCheck-Vaccines-Bill-Gates
🌐 Birdwatch-FactChecking-Scam
🌐 Lawsuit-German-FactCheckers
🌐 Fb-Fact-Checker-Scam-Exposed
🌐 Lawsuit-Against-Fb-FactChecker
🌐 FactCheckers-Deceptive-Framing
🌐 FactChecking-Fake-Stream-Media
🌐 FactChecking-LouderWithCrowder
🌐 CandaceOwens-Sues-FactCheckers

• TheGreatReset

• The-Covid-Cult

[Chris Gilbert]

Often as not I use the terms media/MSM to refer to outlets subject to monopolistic corporate control. That by no means takes alternative media off the hook though, much of it is disinfo at best, total stupidity at worst. While I know that APnews or Reuters are going to go to bat for the empire when push comes to shove, I also find them better for basic data than garbage like Benjamin Fulford. While the 1% gems like Wade Fraziers material, Clifford Stone and others will always be indispensable, I've increasingly soured on the 99% of libertarian conspiracism I've read over the years.

[norman]

Media is a consumable.

Over the milennia it has been mud, clay, skin, paper, magnetic tape, optical disc, solid state memory and more.

The old paradigm death frenzy of hacks desperately trying to translate transitional awakening back to the old dead cerebral language are nothing to do with media other than in their using it's history as their licence to try to persuade as many people as possible to cling to the same rotting carcass they are clinging to themselves.

The link between the one and the other is probably the gutenberg press, only because it's paper consuming industrialism excited the breed of madness they are now the normalised clowns of.

[daddy-keith]

Posted by Gracy May (here)
Media is often the whipping boy in alternative circles, much of it well deserved IMO, but here's a wee problem I've been having especially as of late.

I think I'm in need of an operational definition for the often used term "media". Is it every single news outlet across the board, bar none? It should be I would think, yet I'm constantly reminded there are certain outlets that are exceptions to the rule, they're not sullied with the same broad brushed stroke of "media bad, media corrupt, media infiltrated, media is nothing but propaganda".

In these cases the outlets are not only spared the well deserved critiques other outlets receive, they are held on high as pinnacles of honest, good old fashioned reporting. You'll never, ever, ever, see the slightest hint of propaganda at these places. They're beyond reproach.

How does that work? It's almost like they're not really media, they're something different, a different animal, no need for any scrutiny there what so ever. They can't be media, right? Cos "media bad".

So, what exactly is, media? Help me untangle this.

We must keep in mind that there is a war going on. This is not a physical war but a war of information. I am not worried so much by MSM because that is "in your face" entertainment to keep the public happy. What we should wary of is the so called "Alternative Media". The PTB are not worried by the masses but by those who are waking up. This has been going on for ages but it has become Global. Think of books like "The art of war" and "Propaganda". They will target those who are waking up with oodles of "Truth" and their agenda hidden in the mix. I am suspicious about sites that claim - truth - secret - we have the facts, etc.
We must do our own research and train and rely on our own Intuition. Navy Seals for example, are not chosen for strength so much as physic ability and then group Intuition. They can come to a fork in the road and continue down the correct path without stopping and thinking.
Train your intuition, do your own research and use discernment. Also remember that we have beliefs and thoughts based on our own preconceived ideas.

[rgray222]

Posted by Gracy May (here)
yet I'm constantly reminded there are certain outlets that are exceptions to the rule, they're not sullied with the same broad brushed stroke of "media bad, media corrupt, media infiltrated, media is nothing but propaganda".

In these cases the outlets are not only spared the well deserved critiques other outlets receive, they are held on high as pinnacles of honest, good old fashioned reporting. You'll never, ever, ever, see the slightest hint of propaganda at these places. They're beyond reproach.

Gracy, I am not sure which outlets are held as high pinnacles of honest, good old fashioned reporting without the slightest hint of propaganda. What are you referring to?

[Anka]

In my country, in a current global crisis of tabloidization, the media practiced as a crazy lurid hobby leads nowhere.
When the concept of culture came to be considered obsolete even by some academics, how can we relate to books, theater and concerts?
When I listen to, or occasionally turn on the TV (just because we are "officially" announced on TV about legal actions taken by ordinances issued overnight), people's reactions are more and more agitated, some have tics due to the involvement of the interests they promote. or because of fear. The system entered their "veins".

Many believe that the media is good and even have arguments with their own comments, that the media is a guaranteed source of permanent joy, all other things are intermittent, worsen and become routine, such as perpetual joy as we to accompany us and guide us alone in life.

On the other hand, Media is more than we could describe it, but very succinct and visible in what we feel, and in this everyone believes what he wants or what he can.

I think that for those attracted to its polarity, it may be primarily their only joy and perhaps the first "thing" they can easily achieve; but this joy is reflected in many things; exaltation produces the risk of an euphoria that does not increase joy by commenting and replaces it in fact by inoculating the "coverage" of the subject, so, through this intrusion, many become anesthetized to simple joys and sufferings, no longer understanding the difference by their own values, living in a wave maybe quite parallel to the world in which they are.

If we know that all this actually develops in a space, still of some freedom, we could try Culture as a refuge, it protects in an excess of the real (although we have to love the real in many things in mathematics, in art).
"It is very good to have a sense of reality, but if this becomes our only sense, we have a very monotonous, repetitive life in whose routine we must learn to develop ourselves and / or together" for the propagation of the species, and this is complicated and confusing for many.

Culture protects from an excess of certainties (which we do not need to ignore but to adapt honestly and in good dedication for our future generations), leaves room for miracle, for mystery, for the good unlikely.

And one of my beliefs: Culture protects us against bad sentimentality. "There are people who think they are finer if they cry often, if they are sensitive" when in fact everything is a charade fiction, if we all found a definition of it from our own corner of the soul, it would actually be a remedy.I see the distance( in the case) between pity and compassion, they are different.

For me, culture is an optimal medium if I already have an option chosen by me, in a kind of symptomatic withdrawal.
That doesn't mean I'm tired, but as (in my industry) writing has become more and more pressing as a kind of war, as if instead of writing, I should "fight on the street," then it is becoming increasingly clear to me that I am moving into a foreign world, for which I am not prepared and which I cannot and do not want to assume something introduced by force.

In my country I took a break from many publications because I can't see the pain, neurosis and frustration, I want the quickest healing of the most "hardworking" publicists instead.

If "normal" is called "new normal" and instead of "world" we should soon say "order" then the notorious chaos through Media can be a recovery if we know how to avoid it, so if Media would be something else, would be first of all a condition of our own(people) return, if we treat it (against appearances) with Culture, bonhomie, calm and intelligent irony, the right measure, equidistant, common sense and last but not least the love for the health of the people around us , then we know we still have our mind.

I hope that I contributed throughout the idea, trying to help with something in these difficult times, because, maybe, without any connection with the Media, I am really interested in the good, perfect, balanced, free, and beautiful mental health of people who have already been abused.

[Gracy]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
Gracy, I am not sure which outlets are held as high pinnacles of honest, good old fashioned reporting without the slightest hint of propaganda. What are you referring to?

Here's an example scenario: I see a lot of railing (and deservedly so!) against "the media"; "New York Times is good for nothing but cleaning windows with, and then we have the Communist News Network. Absolute garbage all of it, nothing but State sponsored propaganda".

But then anything and everything that comes from say, Newsmax, would be spread around without batting an eye like it's gospel. That's where I would be thinking "well isn't Newsmax media as well? Are they somehow immune to spreading disinformation, so that they're reporting is never even questioned?"

Thus the title of the thread. Some outlets are exempt from being lumped into "the media" category, so what are they then?

[Ernie Nemeth]

I have sixteen 'media' sites I visit every day for my news. I include MSN and my local news station for the mainstream media slant.

So I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make this time. I trust no one with the news, I take no one's word, and I cross check everything. My 'favorite' news source was Fox, but I do not go there much anymore, since Tucker's rant against Sidney Powell.

Since the election I have sought and found several alternate news sites that still offer news, but of course news these days is always slanted and can never be trusted. For instance, just because Sidney says the 'Kraken' is released does not mean that I believe she has the scoop. The same is true for Lin Wood, or Giuliani. They are slanting the news just as the mainstream media does, and rightly so. As a consumer of news, it is my job to make sure I find all the available news.

For instance I watched almost every video of the Trump rallies, and every senate committee meeting since the election. Nothing better than to get the news straight from the horse's mouth. I can quote the facts because I have listened to all the evidence in person. The commentaries of news anchors merely confirms or denies what I already know, and what I might already suspect. I can agree or disagree but my talking points are always my own.

So, although I might trust certain news outlets more than others, I keep in mind that all people slant the news towards their own bias, I do not trust any outlet implicitly, and will remove my support if I do not like the reporting - like with Fox.

[rgray222]

Posted by Gracy May (here)
Media is often the whipping boy in alternative circles, much of it well deserved IMO, but here's a wee problem I've been having especially as of late.

I think I'm in need of an operational definition for the often used term "media". Is it every single news outlet across the board, bar none? It should be I would think, yet I'm constantly reminded there are certain outlets that are exceptions to the rule, they're not sullied with the same broad brushed stroke of "media bad, media corrupt, media infiltrated, media is nothing but propaganda".

In these cases the outlets are not only spared the well deserved critiques other outlets receive, they are held on high as pinnacles of honest, good old fashioned reporting. You'll never, ever, ever, see the slightest hint of propaganda at these places. They're beyond reproach.

How does that work? It's almost like they're not really media, they're something different, a different animal, no need for any scrutiny there what so ever. They can't be media, right? Cos "media bad".

So, what exactly is, media? Help me untangle this.

To untangle things I think we need to take a look at the 'media' as it stands today.

One of the primary, if not the primary reason citizens turn to the media is for news. We expect the media to cover important political and social events and information in a concise and neutral manner.

There was a time that the media attempted to remain neutral but those days are long gone. The problem today is that some of these legacy media companies, NBC, CBS, ABC, Reuters and the Associated Press are still hiding behind the neutral reporting curtain which infuriates millions of people especially those on the right side of politics. While these big media companies leaned strongly to the left they at least made a small effort to report real news, that is until Obama took office. They were so enthralled with Obama that they left any pretense of real news in history's dustbin. Then Trump arrived on the scene and the rest is history.

The AP (NYC) and Reuters (London) are news wholesalers and they have customers in 190+ countries which is about 98% of the world. So this hard-left often false and more often than not misleading information (frequently from anonymous sources) is ending up all over the world.

It has been my observation that these legacy companies actually believe that they are delivering a beneficial product so it is doubtful that they will change anytime in the near future. Also, there is a financial incentive to appear to be delivering information to everyone without bias.

CNN has morphed into something quite unexpected. They are spearheading hate TV. They blatantly and unabashedly use hate and fear to motivate the public and at the same time, they tell anyone who asks or reads about them that they are entirely fact-based. When the Mueller investigation ended without conviction or removal of Trump CNN lost more than half their audience. Some of it has slowly returned but far from the numbers they experienced in the past. This is a dangerous network that has expanded its fake and misleading curriculum into social and science news. They are so vindictive that they will attempt to destroy any politician or political policy that gets in their way from delivering their agenda.

So where is the real news, believe it or not, it is at Fox and MSNBC. You may dislike them, you may even hate them but they are delivering a product to a specific audience and they have announced their intentions with no disguise or misrepresentation. Fox tells you right up front that they cater to the political right, Republicans, Conservatives and even Libertarians. Fox even takes it one step further they call all of their primetime broadcast "opinion TV" with the exception to one hour of news which they term fact-based. This same info applies to OAN which has a strong cable presence but not much viewership and also Newsmax which is primarily a streaming service.

MSNBC is exactly the same as Fox except they cater to Democrats, Liberals and Progressives and they make this known on their website and occasionally talk about it on air. The major difference is they claim all their prime time broadcasting is fact-based but I think we can forgive them because they do not disguise who they are and what they stand for.

So to answer your question yes every media outlet has an agenda. I honestly believe that people can accept (we don't have to like) an opposing viewpoint if the source of that view is clearly defined.

What infuriates me and I suspect millions of others is that the legacy networks (Print & TV) are pretending to run fact-based stories that are relevant to all people without bias. Also over the past 10 years, they have printed blatantly dishonest and misleading stories. Lying by omission is a daily event.

Last and certainly not least is the overwhelming amount of TV, Print and internet information is coming from the left. These media outlets have institutionalized dishonesty and millions upon millions only get their information from these sources. No amount of discussion will get them to change their view if they simply hear the same lies over and over.

I see no clear way forward in the immediate future consequently we are left with a divided country and to a larger extent a divided world.

[ExomatrixTV]

Claiming something is a "Fact" turns more than often a (twisted) perception of it that fits a certain (narrow) narrative ...

• Imagine a parallel dimension where it is obligated for all MSM to mention the "narrative purpose" and who is it will serve and who benefits the most by a one-sided or narrow sided pushed view/perception.

The more one party want to control/force HOW you "must" interpreted the so called "facts" the BIGGER the red flag that they are the ones who are lying & deceiving or leave out important insights to see the bigger picture.

Those who use more name-callings mixed with endless baseless claims are more than often worse than the assumed "liar(s)".

What most tend to forget is that ATTACKS from leftist MSM are debunked by themselves later on ... and ATTACKS from "right-wing" media are often showing evidence of contradictions & harrowing hypocrisy.

More than often so called "right-wing conspiracy-theories" were part of decades of DENIALISM done by the Status Quo Mainstream Media UNTIL they cannot deny it anymore ... it will NEVER have any consequences for them (no accountability no vindication for all victims of false accusations) ... If you dare to make similar mistakes in reverse they will certainly punish you ... being in bed with (A.I. Driven) Big Censor Tech on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook etc.

cheers,
John Kuhles aka 'ExmatrixTV'
December 18, 2020

[Gemma13]

I think this thread sums up nicely where we are today.  And sadly it's grim.

JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY EXISTS! GLENN GREENWALD RESIGNS FROM THE INTERCEPT
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1386247

As far as championing one site over another I think many of us now do a cross referencing search for validation on a TOPIC.  So if one outlet is showing integrity by reporting what can actually be found elsewhere as a fact that is being censored by mainstream, then we run with it.

Hot topic of the day being election fraud as a good example.  When credible evidence is revealed and then censored it is the media choosing to run with the evidence that is favoured.

That doesn't mean 100% devotion to that media outlet though because:

.  facts are often distorted; for example video footage of a crime can sometimes give a completely different take if not shown in entirety

.  there are several journalists at a lot of media outlets who don't all agree with each other.  So if Editor integrity allows differing opinion pieces and/or they clearly label their site as pro this or that, then we can factor that into our own assessments.  spiked-online.com is a good example

.  we know that journalistic integrity can be bought and sold off very quickly so keeping a close eye on covert bias emerging can lead to avoiding a site once favoured

But that is more for those of us who simply don't trust anymore because of all the blatant propaganda.  There are others who will favour a site out of pure loyalty irrespective of their bias.

So creating a new defintion might not actually be possible because of all the constantly moving parts; which also includes people constantly changing their awareness.

[thepainterdoug]

Media | Definition of Media at Dictionary.com
Search domain http://www.dictionary.com/browse/med...m/browse/media
Media, like data, is the plural form of a word borrowed directly from Latin. The singular, medium, early developed the meaning "an intervening agency, means, or instrument" and was first applied to newspapers two centuries ago. In the 1920s media began to appear as a singular collective noun, sometimes with the plural medias.


Gracie May/ I always thought of it as a measure of " medium with a slant" . the media is delivered by persons, who by their very nature have a slant. a bias, a point of view.

Permit my hockey analogy again. a game is played and there are referees. they witness the event and make judgement on it according to rules. If they are a home town refs, they are accused often of bias by the fans.
but at least the game is witnessed by fans as it happens.

news reporters should report news. a car accident at the end of town should have the same story if reported honestly by 5 different reporters. but somehow it wont. all agree the red car hit the blue car, except one reporter who is friends with the red car driver see it differently

my gripe with the media, i guess meaning ,the collective main news presentations, is that they have the power to alter reality if they are so disposed to do so by a variety of corruptive motives. politics, money, power ,would cover it.

avalon seems to be a self governed kind of media. people like glen greenwald dont have singular power to alter large followers. but cnn, msnbc,fox,and so on, do. and if big money /power motive is there, via political slant, its bound to happen. and it did , big time ! in this election.

[amor]

For those who may not know, it appears the Trump Team has been working with several independent websites such as Dr. Charlie Ward.com and Project Camelot.com along with about four others whose names I missed. So far, the most interesting information has come forth from certain interviews on the Dr. Charlie Ward.com site. He also has interviews on Bitschute I understand.