Has the media always been dishonest?

building 7

sealed the deal

They have always leaned left but it was subtle. When Fox News became relevant they quit hiding their agenda.

A 1958 book titled "The Naked Communist" written by a former FBI agent, stated one of the goals of the communist party was to infiltrate the media and education system in the US. They have accomplished that goal.

quote:

---

Does anybody suspect that there are stories of our past (like in the nineties) that we considered true that may not be??

---

Folks have been "buying" the news since the printing press. Adorable you think of history going back to the 1990s. Adams and Jefferson fought a bitterly partisan, public fight in what was effectively bought and paid for news coverage for each side. Hearst bought newspapers in order to punish his enemies 100 years ago.

This decidedly leftward shift started in the 1930s - the Soviets focused on infiltrating aspects of American society that were vulnerable to subversion - labor unions, public school teachers, newspapers, university professors, Hollywood, various government bureaus - McCarthy is widely ridiculed, and he was largely an opportunist himself, but he wasn't wrong, substantively.

What you're seeing recently and today, Occupy, BLM, Antifa, etc., is the culmination of 2 generations of work that was begun by the Soviet Union and is being continued by like-minded fellow travelers. Antifa is amusing to me, because this is exactly the way the Soviets justified all their tyranny, human rights abuses, etc. - they were opposing facism.

Meet the new boss...

Did you know the Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster for the Vietcong? I didn't either.

Years ago we simply didn't have a single outlet to challenge the MSM narrative. No talk radio, no internet, no Fox News, no AM radio...nothing. Knowing they had a monopoly, I don't think they were as crazy as they are today, but they still had a lean and got to report their views unchallenged.

The internet has disrupted the chosen media's collective narrative. Now, people have a chance to get their news stories from the biases of their choosing.

Plus, discussion forums now available(thanks Chicken) in message boards or even in after articles. Real people feeling free enough to join a political discussion they might not partake in real life.

Pet theory of mine is that the internets have allowed for a resurgence of the silent majority which runs counter politically from the Uniparty. Trump is just the result.
This will lead to restructuring of both parties.
Without the Internet, no MAGA.

quote:

---

Pet theory of mine is that the internets have allowed for a resurgence of the silent majority which runs counter politically from the Uniparty

---

Does this explain why "net neutrality" is such a big push by those who want to suppress free speech?

quote:

---

Does this explain why "net neutrality" is such a big push by those who want to suppress free speech?

---

Wife had GMA on this a.m. Heard Zuck gonna crack down on hate speech. Wonder if standard will be equally applied to both sides?? They'll get their censorship, at least as much as they can.

The media has always slanted things in one way or another. They've never been as the Soviet TaSS until recent years. IMHO the worst thing that ever happened to news was the inclusion of news media in a ratings service as competition. At that point I believe news media began sensationalizing news and twisting it to gain higher ratings. They couldn't just report anymore...that was too mediocre for them. They had to put a spin on it. Lately even the weather has been twisted. Look at the weather channel for example. I used to watch it for the "local on the 8s" and the radar...and in between there was actual meteorologists discussing upcoming weather phenomenon or recent issues. Now the weather channel is all about "Weather Entertainment". More of a documentary channel than a news worthy channel reporting on the weather.