|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
At 02:00 PM 6/1/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>(note: I selected only to reply to you, hopefully the software will cooperate -
>if not, my apologies to all others...)
No apologies needed!
You make a very good case, re: the "TV talking heads"
The news services are in place to MAKE MONEY! Period.
They will show "what they think public wants to see" with the primary over
all intent that you/all-of-us stay tuned for the advertisements. Why do you
think they show a preview before the break, of what is coming up after the
break? [So you will stay tuned for the following break!]
Lest we forget: Who was that person (Mr. Hearst - in 19 ought what?) that
almost sent the USA to war, just to sell newspapers?
It is what they DO NOT report that is really important!
No funnnymentals here!
It's "ALL" in the charts!
Yours truly,
Dan H.
>Sir, As a military veteran of 27 years and having been on the inside - looking
>out - for a couple of years working in a newspaper I will say that most of what
>you wrote is true, and much of what you say the news media exposing 'dictators,
>et al, in slipups' holds water, but there are quotes from news
personalities from
>Hearst to Jennings that are similar to 'we'll tell e'm what we want them to
know
>and when we want them to know it'. In other words, the media looks to
themselves
>as the gaurdians of freedom - but THEY will choose if and when to tell.
There is
>still much untold from WWII with companies like Standard Oil and others helping
>'both sides' ($$$). Today, it is only after long years that our left wing
>oriented media grudgingly picked up stories regarding Pres. Clinton, the DNC,
>V.P. Gore and fund raising. Look at the news organization ( I think it was NBC)
>that faked rear ending Pinto cars would cause them to blow up (with a little
>explosives and modifications...). Granted they were found out. I can't tell you
>how many times during the 60's when there were peaceable demonstrations
going on
>the TV crews showing up asked for a 'little more action' so it would 'sell' on
>the evening news. (yes, I was present for 3 incidents back then).
>Another incident during 'assault weapon' ban hearing in Colorado when a citizen
>who was speaking said that if the elected officials passed the ban he was going
>to vote against them that fall in the elections. I was there when one of
the most
>liberal state senators got up and berated the man for 'threatening' elected
>officials, and he wouildn't stand for it. That nite, watching TV the actual
>'threat' wasn't mentioned (voting) only the 'fact' that one of the pro-gun nuts
>'threatened' the senators and how this senator courageously got up in the
face of
>this 'threat' and made this man 'back-down'.
>in case you missed it, the man was never quoted or on TV, just the senator. The
>reasoning for that ? We asked the announcer the next day before the hearing
>resumed. He merely shrugged and said they only had time for a short 'clip' and
>that was it. We told him that we knew they had lied in the way they
presented the
>information, that we had taped it and were going to make copies and spread them
>around. and we were going to tell everyone we knew what they had done.
>That nite they did a rebroadcast and showed both sides, but commented that they
>'deplored even THAT threat' (of voting...?) Does it sound like they told the
>truth to you? Also, every nite before reporting on the hearings they led into
>them with sounds and sites of machine guns shooting - M16's, M-60's, Thompson
>submachine guns etc. The ban was to be for semi-automatic rifles. We asked them
>why they were doing so. "Er, no stock footage..." was the answer. We used grass
>roots to call and complain about this misleading procedure. The next nite there
>were 'clips' of semi-auto shooting and an 'apology' (I'm stretching it here...)
>about 'misleading' the public. Again, did they tell the truth on their own ?
>Yes, most of the press does well. Do we have to watch them ? Yes! Just like
>anyone else they need to be called on their mistakes. Do they research and
inform
>us to be good guys ? NOPE ! They do it for money and power - just like many
>politicians. Do we need them anyway ? YES! with the caveat mentioned above -
>watch them and let them know their mistakes - so they know we're paying
>attention.
> Again, I agree with your reply and all the facts it contains. It was
>certainly a well-thought out with much information. I wish we had more people
>like you in our society.
>Thank you very much. Wayne Walusiak
>
>
|