Tag Archives: Herbert Schiller

Six Corporations Control over 90% of Media Content | Aug 2016

The Illusion of Choice: 90% of American Media Controlled by Six Corporations

– Waking Times


“It is worth repeating again and again that the bulk of America’s mainline media is owned and controlled by a mere 6 corporations. This, of course, means that unless you’re already consciously avoiding these mainline media sources, then most of the news and entertainment that makes it onto your screen and into your mind comes from a small pool of corporate sources, all of which play important roles in delivering propaganda, social programming and perpetual crisis narratives to the public.

The conglomerates are: General Electric, News Corp., Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. 

All are corporations that have their own shady histories, dealings and suspicious actors. Disney being widely regarded as an occult enterprise aimed at warping the minds of children with disturbing subliminal imagery. One of these companies is also the 12th largest US military defense contractor, so it’s no surprise that so much of our entertainment centers around the glorification of war and violence.

By surveying what is available for consumption in the mass media, it is easy to see what type of society these six corporations are helping to construct….

The promotion of shallow, materialistic, ego-centric values, and the obvious dumbing down of the American population is coming from these six corporations. Think about that. These are the companies that glorify consumption, obedience, ignorance, the hyper-sexualization of youth, the glorification of war and government surveillance, and so on. The advertisers that support these media companies have tremendous sway over what makes it on the airwaves. They help to control public perception.

The bottom line is that corporate media is a behemoth of special interests and mind controllers. So much of the human story is omitted in this capitalistic, for-profit environment scheme like this, which is why now more than ever the independent, alternative media is such a gem for human kind.”

See the rest of the story by Vic Bishop @ WakingTimes




Consuming Images (Bill Moyers documentary from 1990 about the public mind and the media culture)

– Bill Moyers PBS

– Herbert Schiller talks about ‘Culture Inc.’

…More @ Youtube


Read This If You Still Think Political Polls Mean Anything

– ZeroHedge

“As a species, humans tend to behave as a herd, following one another in opinion and action — whether or not the consequences for doing so are dire. Of course, politicians and others holding seats of power, fully cognizant of the opportunities provided by this herd mentality, deftly manipulate the masses — particularly through public polls during the lead-up to presidential elections.

Most everyone comprehends how bias-infused political polling can be; however, the extent such polls play in the outcome of elections — and, conversely, how their artfully constructed questions and population samples often miss the mark — makes polling an essentially needless, if not dangerous, facet of the American electoral season.

Polls, to put it plainly, are propaganda — and have been for decades — but one particular election handily evidences this, and offers chilling insight into this year’s presidential race: the 1980 election between incumbent President Jimmy Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan.

Polls, for months, predicted either Carter’s win or declared the race anyone’s guess; but when Reagan managed a landslide victory — veritably crushing his opponent — politicians and the public, alike, revisited polls to parse out how pollsters managed such skewed and inaccurate forecasts.

“For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings,” wrote John F. Stacks for TIME in April 1980. “In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan was ‘too close to call.’ A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

“But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote — a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-1 avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.”

In countless analyses of Carter’s staggering defeat in the face of opinion polling, several issues emerged just as relevant now as they were at the beginning of the 80s.

Noting that in the 30 years prior to the 1980 discrepancy, election results had largely concurred with pre-election polling, Stacks explained, the “spreading use of polls by the press and television has an important, if unmeasurable, effect on how voters perceive the candidates and the campaign, creating a kind of synergistic effect: the more a candidate rises in the polls, the more voters seem to take him seriously.”

Déjà vu, much?

Add the Internet’s undeniably critical role to the press and TV Stacks describes, when examining Donald Trump’s astronomically successful, albeit darkly negative, campaign — which had, at first, been taken less seriously than if Donald Duck had announced joining the race — and the demonstrative importance of polling in elections becomes markedly clear.

But even further, a parallel drawn by Victor Davis Hanson for Real Clear Politics between the 1980 and 2012 elections more closely – if not uncannily – relates to this year’s dogfight for the White House. Using the examples of Carter’s highly contentious economic policies and the Iran hostage crisis as a backdrop, Hanson noted, with emphasis added:

 “Without a record to defend, Carter instead pounded Reagan as too ill-informed and too dangerous to be president.”

If you’ve even set foot in the United States over the past few months, that statement sounds like strategy ripped straight from the Hillary Clinton campaign playbook in its no holds barred assault on the character of the erratic demagogue, Trump.

Notably, in Carter’s case, that strategy cum character assassination — all comments on validity aside —didn’t exactly work out so well.

Hanson also aptly surmised Reagan’s bevy of gaffes — ordinarily the cause of a candidate’s downfall — were a moot point in conjunction with tepid support for Carter in the national vote. In fact, describing the incumbent’s support base as “divided and indifferent” certainly echoes the country’s ambivalence to Hillary Clinton’s scandal-plagued campaign — not to mention widespread rumors of electoral fraud, proven media complicity, and multiple ongoing criminal and corruption investigations.

Even recent opinion polls seem to mimic the period prior to the 1980 election, both in inexplicable public support for Clinton — how many of you have met actual Hillary fans? — and in discrepancies surrounding what her actual lead might be.”

….Continue reading more @ ZeroHedge.com