What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is democracy protected only by the press?

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,116
Reaction score
17,655
Points
1,905
"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

After all, who will tell us what our government leaders are doing? Who will tell us what they should be doing what they are not? We have a hard enough time trying to keep up with those in our own household, let alone distant politicians whom we have never met and will never meet. So we rely on the press to do this for us. Without it, we may as well be voting blind folded.

But what most probably don't know is that US once forcibly silenced those voices as they threw journalists in prison for merely criticizing their government via legislation known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Luckily, Thomas Jefferson rose up and challenged this legislation, otherwise, the US would have been a much darker place today. But what most also don't know is that some of the provisions left from the Alien and Sedition Acts, President FDR used to imprison innocent Japanese Americans during WW 2.

However, just because you have the freedom of the press, does not mean that such freedom can reach the masses.

Jefferson said, "The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

So having the "freedom' of the press means that any despotic regime also has that freedom. As Jefferson said, that despotic regime will control an army of news reporters to spew their propaganda. The only question becomes who can compete with that propaganda? There are various ways to control those media outlets that oppose the state media sources, such as forbidding them to speak, targeting their financial resources, or as we see today having Big Tech censor people as being "offensive".

So the question must be asked, how can the private citizen compete with their government in terms of how the press is controlled? Is it even possible?

When the US was first established, there was only one newspaper that was used for political propaganda for the Federalist party.


After the Revolution, historians write of the “party-press era”, that is, from the 1780’s to the 1860’s. It was a time when most newspapers aligned themselves with a politician, campaign, or party, and did so openly. Charles L. Ponce De Leon, an associate professor at California State University said, “Sparked by divergent plans for the future of the new republic, competing factions emerged within George Washington’s administration and Congress, and by the mid-1790’s, each faction had established partisan newspapers championing its point of view. These publications were subsidized through patronage, and, though they had a limited circulation, the material they published was widely reprinted and discussed, and contributed to the establishment of the nation’s first political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. And it did not take them long to learn how best to steer public views”. De Leon continues, “Newspapers like Philip Freneau’s National Gazette, writes the most prominent Democratic Republican organ, crafted distinctly partisan lenses through which readers were encouraged to view the world. Specializing in gossip, innuendo, and ad hominem attacks, these newspapers sought to make readers fearful about the intentions of their opponents. The strategy was quite effective at arousing support and mobilizing voters to go to the polls, after all, the fate of the Republic was a stake.” Thomas Jefferson was attacked by a Federalist newspaper as being a godless Jacobin who would unleash the forces of bloody terror upon the land. There would be murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest that will be openly taught and practiced. The air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.

To fight back, Jefferson created his own media outlets, but Jefferson at that time was poised financially and politically to be able to do just that, otherwise, he would never have become President. Unfortunately for us, however, most are not, especially with a now well established monopoly on the press we have today.

But what of the press after Jefferson?

A Historian by the name of Harold Holzer describes the impact of the power of partisan journalism on voters in the years leading to the Civil War. “By the 1850’s, almost no independent voters were left in America, only Democrats and Whigs, and nearly all of them avid readers of newspapers. They were kept in a perpetual state of political arousal by journalism, and further stimulated by election cycles that drew voters to the polls several times each year, not just on the first Tuesday of November, the overwhelming majority regarded politics with a fervor that approached religious awakening, evoking interest characteristic of modern sports or entertainment. With only a few notable exceptions, few unaligned newspapers prospered.”

It could be argued, that the press has been the man behind the curtain all along to rouse it's citizens to act and think, whether it be to embrace the racism to justify slavery, or the call to arms to fight in wars abroad. You might even say that without the press, politicians are powerless to spread their propaganda.

No other figure has been attacked by the press like Donald Trump, but then, there is nothing new under the sun. Listen how the Left attacked Barry Goldwater in the 1960's who ran for President.

Fact magazine ran an entire issue on Goldwater’s alleged mental unfitness for the Oval Office. It stated with the title, “1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater Is Psychologically Unfit to Be President!” The editor and publisher, Ralph Ginzburg, wrote, “Mr. Goldwater’s illness is not just an emotional maladjustment, or a mild neurosis, or a queerness. As emphatically stated by many of the leading psychiatrists in this country, the patterns of his behavior are ominous. From his sadistic childhood pranks to his cruel practical jokes today, from his nervous breakdown under pressure in his twenties to his present day withdrawals and escapes in time of crisis, from his obsessive pre-occupation with firearms in his youth to his present fantasies about brandishing nuclear weapons to scare his enemies, from his conviction that he is surrounded by deadly enemies at home, to his belief that every Russian ballerina is a spy, he show unmistakable symptoms of paranoia. Clearly paranoia is not just any mental disease. In a leader who commands the most powerful nation and the most destructive arsenal in history it constitutes nothing short of mortal danger to mankind. A little over 30 years ago a paranoiac with a charismatic effect on his audiences, supported by an extremist, highly patriotic group, was democratically elected to the highest executive position in the government of his country. His name was Adolf Hitler.”




The article ended with a poll of 12,356 psychiatrists asked if they believed Goldwater was unfit to serve as President of the United States. Many psychiatrists believed he was which gave his position support. But as a result of the Fact article, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association issued what became known as the “Goldwater Rule”. “On occasion, psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

How the media attacked Goldwater is EXACTLY how it attacked Trump. And like Goldwater, Trump was defeated with the power of that press.

Again, there is nothing new under the sun, but those not taught history or don't seek such facts out will never know. In their minds, there is human history, and then there is Trump who is an outlier who must be destroyed at all costs. The media launched an all out assault on him 24/7 for 4 long years. The only thing that has changed since the time of LBJ is, they now have control over social media thanks to Big Tech

So as we see, control over the media equals control over the populace. If so, how can we really say that democracy exists, assuming that there is no balanced media to give people the real news? Again, this is not saying that the freedom of the press does not exist. What I am saying is that to reach the masses, it takes a great deal of money to reach them, so it then boils down to what the top 1% of elites want us to read about as they censor the rest on social media because social media is the only poor man's way of reaching the masses, and we simply can't have that, now can we?
 
Last edited:

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
11,121
Reaction score
6,102
Points
1,065
Location
Pittsburgh
Your analysis presumes that The Electorate is literate and paying attention to The Press. Sadly, this is not the case.

A huge percentage of voters (it is not measurable) casts votes on the basis of general impressions gained from a wide variety of sources, mainly television. If they pick up that a certain candidate is the object of "general" scorn or the butt of jokes, they will view that candidate negatively, and of course the converse is also true.

Notwithstanding the fine points made in the OP, I personally would be satisfied if "we" returned to the days of Literacy Tests for voters, and even requiring new voters to pass THE SAME TEST that immigrants must pass in order to become naturalized citizens. I would be content to know that many people vote un-wisely because they lack experience or have bizarre beliefs about life, but the phenomenon of idiots casting votes, cancelling out the votes of those who take the time to know the candidates and issues, drives me crazy.

Idiots determined the results of the November 2020 election, assisted by Democrat operatives submitting thousands of fraudulent votes (with no paper trail).
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
34,841
Reaction score
10,495
Points
1,360
Your analysis presumes that The Electorate is literate and paying attention to The Press. Sadly, this is not the case.

A huge percentage of voters (it is not measurable) casts votes on the basis of general impressions gained from a wide variety of sources, mainly television. If they pick up that a certain candidate is the object of "general" scorn or the butt of jokes, they will view that candidate negatively, and of course the converse is also true.

Notwithstanding the fine points made in the OP, I personally would be satisfied if "we" returned to the days of Literacy Tests for voters, and even requiring new voters to pass THE SAME TEST that immigrants must pass in order to become naturalized citizens. I would be content to know that many people vote un-wisely because they lack experience or have bizarre beliefs about life, but the phenomenon of idiots casting votes, cancelling out the votes of those who take the time to know the candidates and issues, drives me crazy.

Idiots determined the results of the November 2020 election, assisted by Democrat operatives submitting thousands of fraudulent votes (with no paper trail).

Submitted to the irony HOF. I'd say you have a great shot at making this years cut.
 

Tommy Tainant

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
29,184
Reaction score
8,610
Points
490
Location
Y Cae Ras
"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

After all, who will tell us what our government leaders are doing? Who will tell us what they should be doing what they are not? We have a hard enough time trying to keep up with those in our own household, let alone distant politicians whom we have never met and will never meet. So we rely on the press to do this for us. Without it, we may as well be voting blind folded.

But what most probably don't know is that US once forcibly silenced those voices as they threw journalists in prison for merely criticizing their government via legislation known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Luckily, Thomas Jefferson rose up and challenged this legislation, otherwise, the US would have been a much darker place today. But what most also don't know is that some of the provisions left from the Alien and Sedition Acts, President FDR used to imprison innocent Japanese Americans during WW 2.

However, just because you have the freedom of the press, does not mean that such freedom can reach the masses.

Jefferson said, "The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

So having the "freedom' of the press means that any despotic regime also has that freedom. As Jefferson said, that despotic regime will control an army of news reporters to spew their propaganda. The only question becomes who can compete with that propaganda? There are various ways to control those media outlets that oppose the state media sources, such as forbidding them to speak, targeting their financial resources, or as we see today having Big Tech censor people as being "offensive".

So the question must be asked, how can the private citizen compete with their government in terms of how the press is controlled? Is it even possible?

When the US was first established, there was only one newspaper that was used for political propaganda for the Federalist party.


After the Revolution, historians write of the “party-press era”, that is, from the 1780’s to the 1860’s. It was a time when most newspapers aligned themselves with a politician, campaign, or party, and did so openly. Charles L. Ponce De Leon, an associate professor at California State University said, “Sparked by divergent plans for the future of the new republic, competing factions emerged within George Washington’s administration and Congress, and by the mid-1790’s, each faction had established partisan newspapers championing its point of view. These publications were subsidized through patronage, and, though they had a limited circulation, the material they published was widely reprinted and discussed, and contributed to the establishment of the nation’s first political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. And it did not take them long to learn how best to steer public views”. De Leon continues, “Newspapers like Philip Freneau’s National Gazette, writes the most prominent Democratic Republican organ, crafted distinctly partisan lenses through which readers were encouraged to view the world. Specializing in gossip, innuendo, and ad hominem attacks, these newspapers sought to make readers fearful about the intentions of their opponents. The strategy was quite effective at arousing support and mobilizing voters to go to the polls, after all, the fate of the Republic was a stake.” Thomas Jefferson was attacked by a Federalist newspaper as being a godless Jacobin who would unleash the forces of bloody terror upon the land. There would be murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest that will be openly taught and practiced. The air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.

To fight back, Jefferson created his own media outlets, but Jefferson at that time was poised financially and politically to be able to do just that, otherwise, he would never have become President. Unfortunately for us, however, most are not, especially with a now well established monopoly on the press we have today.

But what of the press after Jefferson?

A Historian by the name of Harold Holzer describes the impact of the power of partisan journalism on voters in the years leading to the Civil War. “By the 1850’s, almost no independent voters were left in America, only Democrats and Whigs, and nearly all of them avid readers of newspapers. They were kept in a perpetual state of political arousal by journalism, and further stimulated by election cycles that drew voters to the polls several times each year, not just on the first Tuesday of November, the overwhelming majority regarded politics with a fervor that approached religious awakening, evoking interest characteristic of modern sports or entertainment. With only a few notable exceptions, few unaligned newspapers prospered.”

It could be argued, that the press has been the man behind the curtain all along to rouse it's citizens to act and think, whether it be to embrace the racism to justify slavery, or the call to arms to fight in wars abroad. You might even say that without the press, politicians are powerless to spread their propaganda.

No other figure has been attacked by the press like Donald Trump, but then, there is nothing new under the sun. Listen how the Left attacked Barry Goldwater in the 1960's who ran for President.

Fact magazine ran an entire issue on Goldwater’s alleged mental unfitness for the Oval Office. It stated with the title, “1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater Is Psychologically Unfit to Be President!” The editor and publisher, Ralph Ginzburg, wrote, “Mr. Goldwater’s illness is not just an emotional maladjustment, or a mild neurosis, or a queerness. As emphatically stated by many of the leading psychiatrists in this country, the patterns of his behavior are ominous. From his sadistic childhood pranks to his cruel practical jokes today, from his nervous breakdown under pressure in his twenties to his present day withdrawals and escapes in time of crisis, from his obsessive pre-occupation with firearms in his youth to his present fantasies about brandishing nuclear weapons to scare his enemies, from his conviction that he is surrounded by deadly enemies at home, to his belief that every Russian ballerina is a spy, he show unmistakable symptoms of paranoia. Clearly paranoia is not just any mental disease. In a leader who commands the most powerful nation and the most destructive arsenal in history it constitutes nothing short of mortal danger to mankind. A little over 30 years ago a paranoiac with a charismatic effect on his audiences, supported by an extremist, highly patriotic group, was democratically elected to the highest executive position in the government of his country. His name was Adolf Hitler.”




The article ended with a poll of 12,356 psychiatrists asked if they believed Goldwater was unfit to serve as President of the United States. Many psychiatrists believed he was which gave his position support. But as a result of the Fact article, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association issued what became known as the “Goldwater Rule”. “On occasion, psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

How the media attacked Goldwater is EXACTLY how it attacked Trump. And like Goldwater, Trump was defeated with the power of that press.

Again, there is nothing new under the sun, but those not taught history or don't seek such facts out will never know. In their minds, there is human history, and then there is Trump who is an outlier who must be destroyed at all costs. The media launched an all out assault on him 24/7 for 4 long years. The only thing that has changed since the time of LBJ is, they now have control over social media thanks to Big Tech

So as we see, control over the media equals control over the populace. If so, how can we really say that democracy exists, assuming that there is no balanced media to give people the real news? Again, this is not saying that the freedom of the press does not exist. What I am saying is that to reach the masses, it takes a great deal of money to reach them, so it then boils down to what the top 1% of elites want us to read about as they censor the rest on social media because social media is the only poor man's way of reaching the masses, and we simply can't have that, now can we?
It isnt really a debate is it ? You have a free press whether you like it or not. A recent example.
The Sun is Murdoch owned and just about the most right wing reactionary rag available in the UK. But this week their articles caused a cabinet minister to resign for breaking his own covid guidelines. This would not happen in a lot of countries.

If you dont like the press that you have you are free to set up your own. That is freedom of the press as well.

Hong Kong is a good example of a free press being destroyed.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,116
Reaction score
17,655
Points
1,905
Your analysis presumes that The Electorate is literate and paying attention to The Press. Sadly, this is not the case.

A huge percentage of voters (it is not measurable) casts votes on the basis of general impressions gained from a wide variety of sources, mainly television. If they pick up that a certain candidate is the object of "general" scorn or the butt of jokes, they will view that candidate negatively, and of course the converse is also true.

Notwithstanding the fine points made in the OP, I personally would be satisfied if "we" returned to the days of Literacy Tests for voters, and even requiring new voters to pass THE SAME TEST that immigrants must pass in order to become naturalized citizens. I would be content to know that many people vote un-wisely because they lack experience or have bizarre beliefs about life, but the phenomenon of idiots casting votes, cancelling out the votes of those who take the time to know the candidates and issues, drives me crazy.

Idiots determined the results of the November 2020 election, assisted by Democrat operatives submitting thousands of fraudulent votes (with no paper trail).
But how does one "pay attention" without the press?

You are correct, there is the "idiot" voter, but my main point is that we rely on a press of some sort to tell us what is going on. This includes the press choosing not to report things or reporting them only a certain way.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. Take the mass shootings in both Atlanta and Colorado a while back. In Atlanta, you had a white male kill mostly Asian Americans, and in Colorado, you had a Middle Eastern man kill all whites.

If you look at the media from Reuters, which is a Left leaning news outlet that tries to focus on just reporting "facts", you will see how they covered both events differently.


Keep in mind, all of their "facts" were correct, however, it is how they chose to report them

In the case of the white shooter, they focused on the fact that a white man had murdered so many people of color. They did include the Admission from the shooter that it was not racially motivated, rather, he was simply disgusted with himself for frequenting prostitutes because of his Christian faith, but they spent a long time speculating about the motivation somehow being a result of white supremacy, even if it were implicit racism. Then they focused on his Christian faith as they basically trashed that as well as the reason for the atrocity.

But when they talked about the shooter in Colorado, they made no mention that he was from Syria or Middle Eastern. They also did not talk about the race of those he shot, which were all White Folk. They then used a clip from a police officer who said it was irresponsible to speculate as to the motivation of the shooter, as the article focused on the state of his mental health being the cause instead. They briefly mentioned his name, which was Middle Eastern sounding, but that is the only hint that he was from Syria. Keep in mind that Biden at that time had just bombed Syria. Think of the speculation that could have taken place in that article, just like they speculated for hours about the white shooter in Atlanta. Of course, a lot of the article was about the need for gun control.

Just look up the articles yourself if you don't believe me.

But that is the power of propaganda. And trust me, all news has an element of propaganda. News delivered to the masses takes a great deal of money and energy, and no, they are not doing it just to inform you. Those that pay them to do it have agendas, all of them.

It used to be that the media once demonized people of color, but now it time to turn the tables and demonize white folk. Think of the death and destruction and oppression that was heaped on Black folks in times past, and all thanks to the propaganda of the press. But more importantly, think of the potential for the exact same thing to play out for white folk today.

I guess the crux of what I'm saying is that we are all sheeple being steered around by various information outlets. To not have enough humility to see this is a mistake.
 
Last edited:

colfax_m

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
32,826
Reaction score
12,300
Points
1,465
I guess the crux of what I'm saying is that we are all sheeple being steered around by various information outlets.
Democracy has always depended on the ability of large groups of people to see through the bullshit that some quarters are propagating.

You either believe in this or you resort to some kind of authoritarianism.
 

007

Charter Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
47,495
Reaction score
18,824
Points
2,250
Location
Podunk, WI
There are alternatives to the DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA WING. One must only be mildly curious and do a little digging. Many good conservative news websites have arisen since the all out war waged against President Trump, not to mention TV news channels as well. No no needs to listen to or read the utter garbage and lies from the left if they don't want to. The radical left does not have an absolute lock on news and information... and they hate it.

For those who may be curious, here is a short list of websites where the truth can be found. This is what fighting back looks like...

1) The Liberty Daily
2) Home - Revolver
3) One America News Network
4) Breitbart News Network
5) The Gateway Pundit - Where Hope Finally Made a Comeback
6) Media Right News - News and opinion, free speech, America first
7) Just The News
8) Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
9) Home - Conservative Daily Post
10) TheBlaze
11) Trending Politics - Trump News, and Breaking News Updated 24/7
12) The Right Scoop
13) National File - America's New Choice for Real News
14) The Federalist Papers • The People Who Mean To Be Their Governors Must Arm Themselves With The Power Which Knowledge Gives
15) The Last Refuge - Rag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits - Contact Info: TheLastRefuge@reagan.com
16) Home 1
17) Home
18) Home 1
19) PJ Media
20) The Free Speech Time
21) 100PercentFedUp.com • 100% Fed Up
22) Freedom First Network
23) UncoverDC
24) https://americanconservativemovement.com/
25) https://uncanceled.news/
26) https://63red.com/
27) https://conservativeplaylist.com/
28) http://conservativeintel.com/
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,116
Reaction score
17,655
Points
1,905
"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

After all, who will tell us what our government leaders are doing? Who will tell us what they should be doing what they are not? We have a hard enough time trying to keep up with those in our own household, let alone distant politicians whom we have never met and will never meet. So we rely on the press to do this for us. Without it, we may as well be voting blind folded.

But what most probably don't know is that US once forcibly silenced those voices as they threw journalists in prison for merely criticizing their government via legislation known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Luckily, Thomas Jefferson rose up and challenged this legislation, otherwise, the US would have been a much darker place today. But what most also don't know is that some of the provisions left from the Alien and Sedition Acts, President FDR used to imprison innocent Japanese Americans during WW 2.

However, just because you have the freedom of the press, does not mean that such freedom can reach the masses.

Jefferson said, "The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

So having the "freedom' of the press means that any despotic regime also has that freedom. As Jefferson said, that despotic regime will control an army of news reporters to spew their propaganda. The only question becomes who can compete with that propaganda? There are various ways to control those media outlets that oppose the state media sources, such as forbidding them to speak, targeting their financial resources, or as we see today having Big Tech censor people as being "offensive".

So the question must be asked, how can the private citizen compete with their government in terms of how the press is controlled? Is it even possible?

When the US was first established, there was only one newspaper that was used for political propaganda for the Federalist party.


After the Revolution, historians write of the “party-press era”, that is, from the 1780’s to the 1860’s. It was a time when most newspapers aligned themselves with a politician, campaign, or party, and did so openly. Charles L. Ponce De Leon, an associate professor at California State University said, “Sparked by divergent plans for the future of the new republic, competing factions emerged within George Washington’s administration and Congress, and by the mid-1790’s, each faction had established partisan newspapers championing its point of view. These publications were subsidized through patronage, and, though they had a limited circulation, the material they published was widely reprinted and discussed, and contributed to the establishment of the nation’s first political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. And it did not take them long to learn how best to steer public views”. De Leon continues, “Newspapers like Philip Freneau’s National Gazette, writes the most prominent Democratic Republican organ, crafted distinctly partisan lenses through which readers were encouraged to view the world. Specializing in gossip, innuendo, and ad hominem attacks, these newspapers sought to make readers fearful about the intentions of their opponents. The strategy was quite effective at arousing support and mobilizing voters to go to the polls, after all, the fate of the Republic was a stake.” Thomas Jefferson was attacked by a Federalist newspaper as being a godless Jacobin who would unleash the forces of bloody terror upon the land. There would be murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest that will be openly taught and practiced. The air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.

To fight back, Jefferson created his own media outlets, but Jefferson at that time was poised financially and politically to be able to do just that, otherwise, he would never have become President. Unfortunately for us, however, most are not, especially with a now well established monopoly on the press we have today.

But what of the press after Jefferson?

A Historian by the name of Harold Holzer describes the impact of the power of partisan journalism on voters in the years leading to the Civil War. “By the 1850’s, almost no independent voters were left in America, only Democrats and Whigs, and nearly all of them avid readers of newspapers. They were kept in a perpetual state of political arousal by journalism, and further stimulated by election cycles that drew voters to the polls several times each year, not just on the first Tuesday of November, the overwhelming majority regarded politics with a fervor that approached religious awakening, evoking interest characteristic of modern sports or entertainment. With only a few notable exceptions, few unaligned newspapers prospered.”

It could be argued, that the press has been the man behind the curtain all along to rouse it's citizens to act and think, whether it be to embrace the racism to justify slavery, or the call to arms to fight in wars abroad. You might even say that without the press, politicians are powerless to spread their propaganda.

No other figure has been attacked by the press like Donald Trump, but then, there is nothing new under the sun. Listen how the Left attacked Barry Goldwater in the 1960's who ran for President.

Fact magazine ran an entire issue on Goldwater’s alleged mental unfitness for the Oval Office. It stated with the title, “1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater Is Psychologically Unfit to Be President!” The editor and publisher, Ralph Ginzburg, wrote, “Mr. Goldwater’s illness is not just an emotional maladjustment, or a mild neurosis, or a queerness. As emphatically stated by many of the leading psychiatrists in this country, the patterns of his behavior are ominous. From his sadistic childhood pranks to his cruel practical jokes today, from his nervous breakdown under pressure in his twenties to his present day withdrawals and escapes in time of crisis, from his obsessive pre-occupation with firearms in his youth to his present fantasies about brandishing nuclear weapons to scare his enemies, from his conviction that he is surrounded by deadly enemies at home, to his belief that every Russian ballerina is a spy, he show unmistakable symptoms of paranoia. Clearly paranoia is not just any mental disease. In a leader who commands the most powerful nation and the most destructive arsenal in history it constitutes nothing short of mortal danger to mankind. A little over 30 years ago a paranoiac with a charismatic effect on his audiences, supported by an extremist, highly patriotic group, was democratically elected to the highest executive position in the government of his country. His name was Adolf Hitler.”




The article ended with a poll of 12,356 psychiatrists asked if they believed Goldwater was unfit to serve as President of the United States. Many psychiatrists believed he was which gave his position support. But as a result of the Fact article, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association issued what became known as the “Goldwater Rule”. “On occasion, psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

How the media attacked Goldwater is EXACTLY how it attacked Trump. And like Goldwater, Trump was defeated with the power of that press.

Again, there is nothing new under the sun, but those not taught history or don't seek such facts out will never know. In their minds, there is human history, and then there is Trump who is an outlier who must be destroyed at all costs. The media launched an all out assault on him 24/7 for 4 long years. The only thing that has changed since the time of LBJ is, they now have control over social media thanks to Big Tech

So as we see, control over the media equals control over the populace. If so, how can we really say that democracy exists, assuming that there is no balanced media to give people the real news? Again, this is not saying that the freedom of the press does not exist. What I am saying is that to reach the masses, it takes a great deal of money to reach them, so it then boils down to what the top 1% of elites want us to read about as they censor the rest on social media because social media is the only poor man's way of reaching the masses, and we simply can't have that, now can we?
It isnt really a debate is it ? You have a free press whether you like it or not. A recent example.
The Sun is Murdoch owned and just about the most right wing reactionary rag available in the UK. But this week their articles caused a cabinet minister to resign for breaking his own covid guidelines. This would not happen in a lot of countries.

If you dont like the press that you have you are free to set up your own. That is freedom of the press as well.

Hong Kong is a good example of a free press being destroyed.
Again, what is a free press? Sure, I have the freedom to say what I want here, but who will hear it? You, and who else? LOL.

But the ability to reach the masses is a far different matter, isn't it. You Left wingers rail against the top 1% but give no heed to the fact that the top 1% are the ones feeding the majority of the news to the masses.

As I have said, social media is the poor man's voice and as small as it is, Big Tech is doing a fabulous job censoring that themselves.

Is this Ok with you?
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,116
Reaction score
17,655
Points
1,905
I guess the crux of what I'm saying is that we are all sheeple being steered around by various information outlets.
Democracy has always depended on the ability of large groups of people to see through the bullshit that some quarters are propagating.

You either believe in this or you resort to some kind of authoritarianism.
I personally believe that we are all sold a lie, and that lie is, democracy is just fabulous and that we all have a democracy and that this democracy requires majority approval.

But when we begin to dissect these thought, the truth says otherwise.

1. There are no pure democracies in the world.

2. The Founding Fathers were fearful of a pure democracy, because they viewed mob rule as a threat to freedom of those in a minority, whether it be a minority religion, populace, or race, etc. Also, the populace is not that well informed and at the mercy of a press mostly controlled by the state.

3. There is a free press to adequately inform the public to vote for their best interests. Again, we all have the freedom but only rich and powerful news sources reaches the masses, and those that pay their bills will mold you mind they way they see fit.

And when the media refers to the US, they always use the term democracy and never refer to it as a Republic and always refers to themselves as a free press and unbiased. Well I got news for ya, no one is free of bias, not even if you are trying to be fair about reporting the news.

Then they rail against any systems in place the defend the American people from mob rule, such as Progressives changing how Senators came to power, election vs. appointment from the state as they changed the Constitution to accomplish this in the 20th century, and how they today rail against the Electoral system.

There is no mention here as to to why the Founding Fathers set systems in place to thwart mob rule, none. It is just assumed that mob rule is the best and we need to have it YESTERDAY!

The reason is, the Left are professionals at steering the mob, whether it be through academia or the press. Both the press and academia are Left leaning, and I can show you journal article after journal article that corroborates this.

At least, academia is allowed to admit their bias.............for now, but that may change quickly.

Really, no one in the populace cares about such articles because the media has their ear and will either not mention it or only briefly mention it. But at the same time, academia is churning out an army of Left winged minded journalists and students. That way, they need not be threatened or bribed to report news stories the way that the Left leaning powers that be want them to cuz they write their checks. Instead, it if is far easier to control the journalist if they are a true believer.

 
Last edited:
OP
Votto

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,116
Reaction score
17,655
Points
1,905
Trump once said that the media is the enemy of the people. I think this a bit harsh, after all, even though it may be propaganda, the propaganda may be true.

For example, I think smoking kills people. It can't be proven, but It think based on the facts presented by academia and the media it is reasonable to conclude that if you smoke the odds of you dying quicker are far greater.

Then there are stories that mix the truth. In fact, mixing the truth is the best way to sell a lie. Just tell all truths but shade it a certain way or simply don't report the damning evidence you don't want given to the public because of political leanings.

Case in point is how academics and the media present FDR as one of the greatest Presidents and men of all time, as he consistently sits at the top of most polls for all time great Presidents. But what are the facts?

Very few can boast of more racist policies implemented by a President, such as his policy of locking up innocent Japanese Americans based only on their race. After all, they looked the part, so why not treat them as such? Confounding the issue further, no one debates the notion that this was unconstitutional and as such, a war crime. Both sides of the political isle agree that this action was both unconstitutional and racist, yet FDR was the cream of the crop if you ask most. Over 100,000 American civilians were locked in years during World War 2, but no one stopped him, and the media certainly dare not attack him. But FDR did not support racist policy only when it came to Japanese Americans. FDR refused to support anti-lynching laws that he felt would divide the democrat party. FDR was willing to let blacks hang all over the South so long as it meant his party would not suffer politically. So how many Blacks continued to be murdered all over the South because of the moral failings of men like FDR? FDR has also been accused of anti-antisemitism. Vice President Henry Wallace wrote in his diary, that he observed FDR and Winston Churchill discussing the “Jewish question”. He wrote that FDR told Churchill that Jews should be spread as thinly around the world as possible and that he tried this method where he lived. Many Jews were also denied entrance into the US from Nazi held Europe during the FDR administration despite FDR knowing the oppression and atrocities that were inflicted on them there.




Sadly, most in the US did not appear to know how the Jews were suffering in Nazi Germany. In 1984, Dr. David S. Wyman, in his book “The Abandonment of the Jew”, explained that Americans were largely unaware of what was going on well into 1944 or later. Instead, the media treated the war crimes against the Jews as either minor news or simply refused to report it at all. Did any of them dare say anything about this? I am guessing no, or if they did, it was from sporadic or obscure news sources. As British Claud Cockburn once said, “All stories are written backwards – they are supposed to begin with the facts and develop from there, but in reality, they begin with a journalist’s point of view, a conception, and it is the point of view from which the facts are subsequently organized.”




A British Newspaper the “Independent” reported as early as 1942 evidence of the mass murder being conducted against the Jews but continued to be ignored and unreported by the media at large. But as Wyman stated in his book, FDR himself was not inclined to talk to the media about the Holocaust, even though he had a press conference with them about twice a week. And little was done by either the US, or UK to help the Jews despite them knowing as early as 1942, that about 2 million had been eradicated by the Holocaust with millions more at risk. Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden told the British parliament, “The German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule extends, the most elementary rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler’s oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people.”
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,116
Reaction score
17,655
Points
1,905
I guess the crux of what I'm saying is that we are all sheeple being steered around by various information outlets.
Democracy has always depended on the ability of large groups of people to see through the bullshit that some quarters are propagating.

You either believe in this or you resort to some kind of authoritarianism.
Do you even listen to yourself?

Think!

Where does the bullshit come from? Hmmm?

Any totalitarian nation will give you a "vote" but all dedicated to manipulating that vote. Some murder journalists as where others simply threaten them, or ideally brain wash them or they merely falsely count ballots

As Stalin once said, it matters little who votes, but it matter greatly who counts the votes.
 

Tommy Tainant

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
29,184
Reaction score
8,610
Points
490
Location
Y Cae Ras
My observation is that social media has made a huge difference to the way we receive news. The costs of entry are a lot lower than the costs of setting up a newspaper or a tv or radio station.

Nation.Cymru - A news service by the people of Wales, for the people of Wales.
This service is paid for by public subscription and provides me with all the Welsh news I need. Its no good for global stuff tough.

The downside is that any whackjob can set themselves up as a news service at very little cost. This means that it can take a little longer to work out where people stand.

The UK media is incredibly right wing and that skews the national debate. But those of us on the left have options.

Nobody has to read a certain paper or use twitter or any of the other forums. I dont and I dont feel inconvenienced by that.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,116
Reaction score
17,655
Points
1,905
My observation is that social media has made a huge difference to the way we receive news. The costs of entry are a lot lower than the costs of setting up a newspaper or a tv or radio station.

Nation.Cymru - A news service by the people of Wales, for the people of Wales.
This service is paid for by public subscription and provides me with all the Welsh news I need. Its no good for global stuff tough.

The downside is that any whackjob can set themselves up as a news service at very little cost. This means that it can take a little longer to work out where people stand.

The UK media is incredibly right wing and that skews the national debate. But those of us on the left have options.

Nobody has to read a certain paper or use twitter or any of the other forums. I dont and I dont feel inconvenienced by that.
Left wingers like you are in love with how the media propaganda is set up and how those who disagree with your views are censored

We get it.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,116
Reaction score
17,655
Points
1,905
There are alternatives to the DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA WING. One must only be mildly curious and do a little digging. Many good conservative news websites have arisen since the all out war waged against President Trump, not to mention TV news channels as well. No no needs to listen to or read the utter garbage and lies from the left if they don't want to. The radical left does not have an absolute lock on news and information... and they hate it.

For those who may be curious, here is a short list of websites where the truth can be found. This is what fighting back looks like...

1) The Liberty Daily
2) Home - Revolver
3) One America News Network
4) Breitbart News Network
5) The Gateway Pundit - Where Hope Finally Made a Comeback
6) Media Right News - News and opinion, free speech, America first
7) Just The News
8) Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
9) Home - Conservative Daily Post
10) TheBlaze
11) Trending Politics - Trump News, and Breaking News Updated 24/7
12) The Right Scoop
13) National File - America's New Choice for Real News
14) The Federalist Papers • The People Who Mean To Be Their Governors Must Arm Themselves With The Power Which Knowledge Gives
15) The Last Refuge - Rag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits - Contact Info: TheLastRefuge@reagan.com
16) Home 1
17) Home
18) Home 1
19) PJ Media
20) The Free Speech Time
21) 100PercentFedUp.com • 100% Fed Up
22) Freedom First Network
23) UncoverDC
24) American Conservative Movement
25) Home 1
26) Conservative News and Tools from 63red
27) Conservative Playbook - News, Videos, Podcast Aggregator
28) Conservative Intelligence Briefing: Political Candidates and Campaigns.
I think it a mistake to blindly follow any media outlet, especially since the Left are professionals about infiltrating organizations. It's what they do.

Case in point is how Fox news and CNN covered the nomination for President within the GOP when Ron Paul ran.


Keep in mind, this was back when we were all convinced that both Fox News and Mitt Romney were "conservative". LOL

Notice how both Fox News and CNN ignore Ron Paul. They were both on board with it because Ron presented the biggest threat to big government and their corruption.

Ron Paul had not chance of winning being ignored by the press.

The Sheeple need to be herded.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
55,012
Reaction score
15,295
Points
2,180
The press is close to meaningless as 95% of people vote for the letter.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,116
Reaction score
17,655
Points
1,905
Well plagiarized. .
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I know you can form a thought or two on your own or even challenge an assertion you think is plagiarized like Joe Biden constantly does.

Now try again.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,116
Reaction score
17,655
Points
1,905
The press is close to meaningless as 95% of people vote for the letter.
But when 95% of the media are lefters and 95% of the people vote for lefters how can you call the media meaningless?

They are more like shepherds

But I get it, to us they are insignificant.
 

Colin norris

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
5,932
Reaction score
2,352
Points
893
Certainly. He hasn't wasted his. He copied someone else's.
Gotcha.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,116
Reaction score
17,655
Points
1,905
Certainly. He hasn't wasted his. He copied someone else's.
Gotcha.
Copied it from where?

If you can't back it up, that makes you a slanderer.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top