Aug 20, 2014

The GOP & It's Lying Media Wing (Fox News) EXPOSED



During the Bush years - Fox News (the GOP channel) became embedded in the Federal Government which continues to this day i.e. the Supreme Court protects thier right to lie & deceive the population for political or monetary gain (what? do you think that you get a new President and the entire system changes as well?). Piers Morgan is a great example. He worked for Rupert Murdoch in the News of the World then later won an award on Donald Trump's show (who is supporting Romney as is Murdoch and Fox News). Another great example of how the media have come under the GOP is how Donahue was fired for being anti-war when Dick Cheney & George Bush decided to falsify evidence to invade Iraq (such a big heist, no wonder they took over elements of MSNBC!).... I could go on if I have to but my point is this... all of the media's top journalists and talk shows ARE connected in some way or another and many are even friends. Remember, the simplest way to hide the truth is NOT by lying but simply leaving out enough to actually make your viewer NOT get enough info to know what's going on. For those who don't read I'm referring to the wisdom of C.S. Lewis (the guy who wrote 'The Chronicles of Narnia), i.e. in his fictional guide for Satan's helpers, the lead evil guy gives this advice to his disciple...

 “It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their
minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out.”
C.S. Lewis

Fox News are standard crony capitalists that are embedded in the Federal Government... giving more credence to the growing awareness among US Citizens that most of the Federal Government consists of JUST corporations (many policies such as that with Israel OR the healthcare bill were written by lobbyists in consultation with the parties concerned, i.e. corporate interests control public policy!). The following is a diagram of the inter-connectivity of the news media in the Federal Government (Fox News is a part of the Federal Government!)...

[ The above image is edited from "Capitalism Visualized" where MANY of the connections between corporations and the federal government is laid out - I found the link to the above image from BillMoyers.com (at the bottom of this page) ]






Moving on to understand what exactly Fox News does that is so wrong (it's called lying i.e. making something bad look good by using a nice word for it and/or leaving out information and/or hinting at some truth which is actually a lie). I know it sounds complicated. But Frank Luntz of Fox News gives a pretty good introduction on how to make something bad and morally reprehensible sound good to fool the misinformed...

Introduction:

How to handle an audience and appeal to their feelings:

1. Body language tips,

2. Handling audience tips,

3. Creating a more positive phrase for 'drilling for oil' became 'energy exploration'. (inaccuracy doesn't matter as long as there is a sliver of fact - KISS principle, i.e'. keep it simple stupid),

4. 'climate change' as opposed to 'global warming' ,

5. 'simple truth' (not a lie as it contains a sliver of fact!),

6. 'you decide' to lock in the last manipulative phrase (most of the viewers decisions are based on the views of who they trust... even the books they read ),

7. 'buzz words' - words that people focus on opposed to facts,

8. Use 'simple truth' only once in a discussion or article ?,

9. A criminal getting caught should apologize 3 times, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake, forgive me'

10. Uses the sighing gesture in an interesting way... separating interview reality from fox news manipulations realities,

11. Frank Luntz is marketing a book,which means some this information is open for the public. Not doing so would make people angry so he is being smart.

More information...


Stephen Colbert: I want you to help me make the idea, corporations are people, appealing to Americans. Is that possible?

Frank Luntz: It's gonna be a challenge but I believe it can be done [Learn more about corporations here.]



Notice:
1. How a group of people is convened to see HOW to market to people and although people start off against corporations they soften and start helping out.

2. A variety of images are tested. Given the environment, the feeling of group sentiments and the feeling invoked by the images on the screen, may have actually helped bring the poeple around to helping create an image for corporations.

3. Based on this focus group Frank Luntz declares that, "...effectively communicating...that 'corporations are people' clearly CAN be done."

(Notice the reflexive reaction by Frank Luntz when Stephen Colbert tries to dip the flag in tea. What other reflexive behavior might he have that could be used to a truth tellers advantage?)

4. Using this information he creates a 30 second add using words and visuals that have been carefully tested to create positive feelings for an idea that is essentially a lie (i.e. a corporation is a legal entity that exists only on paper, clearly NOT a human being or 'person'.) In other words, what Frank Luntz did was create an atmosphere to get useful feedback for a marketing/advertising campaign.



The following Focus Group consists of people who are

1. All Republican,

2. All know they are on live TV,

3. Probably feel sympathy for Mitt Romney because of the 'Mormonism' scandal and that is the cause of the emotional move towards Romney, however, all the reasons given are carefully thought out to look good (it's TV dammit!). Notice some of the words used to support Romney include 'elegant' and 'Reaganesque' which are so subjective that an emotional reason for their explanations make allot of sense...

Participants said Romney "looked presidential," called him "Reaganesque," "elegant," and "decisive," and praised his "specific answers." Perry, on the other hand, was pegged as "too defensive" and "such a waffler." One woman called his support for education for illegal immigrants "absolutely disgusting."

Here is how an add testing works:

Notes from above;

1. Topic: How to be negative without seeming negative (i.e. negative adds had a bad reaction so a focus group was created to create attack adds that don't seem like attack adds)

2. Using above information in a good comfortable setting followed by that group recording their opinions second by second in response to an add (note that rapport has already been established with the focus group - see Colbert Report video above).

3. People have prepared their answers (themselves of course, they want to look good. It's TV.) [Also Read: The Emotional Nature of Decision Making ].

What Fox News creates through it's various connections in the news media and on it's own TV Channel (which seems to be going down in some quarters... though way too slowly for me to be comfortable with), is called an "echo chamber". How it works with examples...

What is an echo chamber? An echo chamber is when you control several sources of information and use those sources of information to spread news and rumors that suit your political and business agenda.
All of the below are examples of "echo chambers" - i.e. sources of information controlled by a few who use these sources to promote thier ideas over and over again while making them seem to be from independant (and therefore reliable) sources. The video below is an example of an echo chamber that extends to ALL of the US's mass media News networks. Its better to have two sides fighting to keep the masses attention/distracted. That's how the gladiator system of Rome distracted the populace while the countries social and economic structures fell around them.

1. Here is one type of echo chamber  (i.e. controlling sources of 'expert opinion' as opposed to the actual companies presenting the news). This is presented by Senator Bernie Sanders.

2. This is another type of "echo chamber", called a 'blackout' by people familiar with this pattern...
A. Every media channel ignores its mass media hype for the same person, Ron Paul.
B. Ron Paul is against invasion/war and doesn't attempt to brush the lies of Iraq war under the rug.

3. Here is the perfect example that shows an echo chamber being used for political goals:
The train of planting News in the above echo chamber example goes as follows - First story in the Wall Street Journal, Second Story in ...the NY Post and finally, news story on Fox News - Seems like different news sources commenting on a story but in reality it's ONE news story, created and promoted by the SAME news source.

4. Here is another example of a political echo chamber using multiple people for ONE view and on ONE channel. (And proof of demonization of the 'left' by this 'conservative' echo chamber):
Above: 'Conservative' Echo Chamber through Murdoch's Network (using multiple books on one view, talking about one perspective ONLY on a network owned by one man, i.e. the new republican party is an invention using multiple media channels all owned by the same group. Ironically, or perhaps, intelligently, the 'left' (i.e. the networks NOT owned by Murdoch) are grouped together as having a separate agenda thereby creating the 'Us vs. them' dynamic.

5. Here is an example of using an echo chamber for JUST business reasons (i.e. Rupert Murdoch comes up with device and tries to sell it through his news channels):

6. Yet Another Rupert Murdoch Media Echo Chamber
Above story only carried on Fox News/NY Post (Rupert Murdoch owned media) Fox News is large enough in the US to be it's own echo chamber (and the fact that many false beliefs originate from Fox News broadcasts proves this which would be OK to an extant as long as they didn't lie. Unfortunately...

Partial list of Fox News's FALSE Statements as checked by PolitiFact.com;
Less than 10 percent of Obama's Cabinet appointees "have any experience in the private sector."
Texas board of Education may eliminate references to Christmas and the Constitution from textbooks
Healthcare reform is a government takeover of healthcare
The Muslim brotherhood has openly stated they want to declare war on Israel
American troops have never been under the formal control of another nation
Florida's Gov. Rick Scott's approval ratings are up
Massachusetts health care plan is wildly unpopular among state residents
There's been more debt under Obama than all other President's combined Health care bill includes death panels
Cash for clunkers will give government complete access to your home computer
Halting gulf drilling costs 8 billion a day in imports
Democrats plan largest tax increase in history
John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in drinking water
Nobody at Fox News ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance


Money trail to explain the Fox News and republican echo chamber...

News Corp. gives $1 million to Republicans...


What's going on? (i.e. moment of zen?)
"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half"



Aug 10, 2014

Introduction To The Class Warfare Being Waged by The GOP & Fox News On America OR "Actual elephants are more useful than the GOP"



Proof 1:

The GOP help only the rich... when they can get away with it (which is most of the time unfortunately)...

From NY Times: G.O.P. Senators Face Risks Over Proposal on Tax Cuts

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans will press this week to extend tax cuts for affluent families scheduled to expire Jan. 1, but the same Republican tax plan would allow a series of tax cuts for the working poor and the middle class to end next year.

Republicans say the tax breaks for lower-income families — passed with little notice in the extensive 2009 economic stimulus law — were always supposed to be temporary. But President Obama had made them a priority in 2009 and demanded their extension in 2010 as a price for extending the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, and both the White House and Senate Democrats are determined to extend them again.

That sets up a potentially tricky issue for Republicans. They have said they do not want taxes to go up on anyone while the economy struggles to gain altitude, but under their plan, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, about 13 million families would see their tax refunds reduced, and some would see their taxes increase. (Read More)


Reducing The Taxes of the Rich While Shifting The Tax Burden To The Middle Class & Poor is what the Republicans are Doing i.e. helping the rich at the expense of the not rich... i.e. Class Warfare

Examples;

I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill - Despite Anthony Weiner's passion and a clear majority, the House Republicans defeat a bill providing health care for 9/11 first responders. (10:32)



Daily Show: Here's a tribute to a few Republican senators who find comfort and advantage in invoking the heroes of 9/11 but refuse to give them health care. (8:16)



Cantor Won't? - Eric Cantor wants to cut other federal spending to justify financial assistance to tornado victims in Missouri. (4:59):


Quote: Ugh. - "Actual elephants are more useful than the GOP." Jon Stewart


Proof 2:

How The GOP & Fox News make nonsense sound like common sense...
World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over...

Notes:
A. "We gotta start somewhere... that's a million dollars (that we could save) - in contrast to the 700 billion we could save to reduce the deficit from the rich and unfairly untaxed (i.e. there is class warfare but its from the ones who are trying to aggravate people by projecting what they are doing onto Buffet).

[The answer is YES, we can start somewhere, such as the solution below or by making the taxes proportionate between rich and poor. For example 20% from a poor person could lead to struggling to survive while 20% from someone with a billion dollars can't possibly leave them struggling to survive. Of course, 20% from a rich person WILL be more money than 20% from the poor person. Be conscious of which modes of measurement the GOP/Fox-News is using to understand where they are trying to fool you - when they aren't throwing you a bone to seem nice!]

B . From fox news: Dont tax the rich but 'broaden the tax base' - ignore/cover over the realty of the tax codes.
C. Taxing the majority (poor) instead of taxing the minority (super rich by comparison) this is the very definition of despotism.
D. Heritage institute (Koch Brother funded) are trying to create the image of poor being wealthy cause they have normal second world amenities. (i.e. this will lower standard of living).

Proof 3:

The GOP ONLY Makes The Bad Stuff SOUND GOOD By Using Different Words...


[i.e. how to make the bad stuff of GOP policy sound good to people who only watch one news source with any regularity]
Herein, I provide a service to the right-wing dogmatists and those who’d like to understand them by reproducing the top 10 talking points for preserving the status quo. 
  1. Whenever anyone brings up distributional issues, accuse them of class warfare.
  2. Never acknowledge the existence of “the rich.” They are “job creators.”
  3. Tax cuts for the working poor are “budget busters.”
  4. Tax cuts for job creators are “incentives.”  See also “competitiveness.”
  5. Deficits caused by new spending are harbingers of the apocalypse.
  6. Deficits caused by tax incentives are signs of enlightened public policy.
  7. Everyone can succeed in America by working hard.
  8. Oppose an adequate minimum wage because it kills jobs.
  9. Oppose tax credits that help minimum wage earners escape poverty, such as the earned income tax credit (EITC), because they let millions of lower-income Americans escape income tax liability.
  10. Support tax incentives that let job creators escape income tax liability.


Stephen Colbert has Frank Luntz demonstrate how he manipulates people for Fox News & The GOP taking an idea that all normal people find repulsive and finding ways to make the repulsive OK for economic or political gain (LINKS)...


Colbert Super PAC - "Corporations Are People" - Frank Luntz
Frank Luntz helps Stephen make the idea that corporations are people appealing to Americans.  (05:44)


Colbert Super PAC - "Corporations Are People" - Frank Luntz's Focus Group
Frank Luntz convenes a focus group to develop the perfect Colbert Super PAC ad while Stephen watches behind a two-way mirror.  (05:10)


The First Interview...

How to handle an audience and appeal to their feelings:
1. Body language tips,
2. Handling audience tips,
3. Creating a more positive phrase for 'drilling for oil' became 'energy exploration'. (inaccuracy doesn't matter as long as there is a sliver of fact - KISS principle, i.e'. keep it simple stupid),
4. 'climate change' as opposed to 'global warming' ,
5. 'simple truth' (not a lie as it contains a sliver of fact!),
6. 'you decide' to lock in the last manipulative phrase (most of the viewers decisions are based on the views of who they trust... even the books they read ),
7. 'buzz words' - words that people focus on opposed to facts,
8. Use 'simple truth' only once in a discussion or article ?,
9. A criminal getting caught should apologize 3 times, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake, forgive me"!

Proof 4:

GOP/FoxNews mix up the numbers to make nonsensical comparisons while making it appear as if they are being sensible (thus fooling their audience to believe apples ARE oranges!)

Warren Buffet VS Wealthy FAKE Conservatives...
Notice: Fox-News/GOP talk of percentages for the minority group they protect but numerical figures with examples of piles of money when attacking majority interests. (Get it?)

 --------------------------------------------

Relevant to understand people born WITH money and how that affects them:

Billionaire Heiress: Poors Should Work Harder

Note to American exceptionalists: Other countries have insensitive rich people, too. Australian Gina Rinehart, reportedly the world's wealthiest woman, has a message for you poor people. "In her latest column in Australian Resources and Investment magazine," Yahoo reports, "Rinehart rails against class warfare and says the non-rich should stop attacking the rich and go to work":
"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she writes. "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself—spend less time drinking, or smoking and socializing and more time working."
Pray, what does Rinehart do for a living? She is a "mining heiress," according to the piece.
But she would like you to know that her grandfathers "started at the bottom and worked their way to the top."
Indeed, Rinehart's wealth is derived from a family trust and an executive position in a mining company she inherited from her father after his death in 1992. Since then, she's kept very busy—pouring her wealth into conservative causes and political front groups she helped set up, not unlike the scions of the oil-enriched Koch family here in the states. She recently tried to import cheap visa workers after unionized Australian miners asked for a competitive wage, and in 2011 she sponsored an Australian tour by Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate-change skeptic.
Rinehart's fortune reportedly increases by $52 million Australian dollars a day. In US dollars, that works out to be about $618 every second. And she'd really like you to get off your lazy ass and pull your weight, please.

In recent weeks, Mother Jones has explored the phenomenon of mansplaining, when males patronizingly (and often incorrectly) explain things to ladies as if the latter were ignorant children. I'd like to coin a new term for bloviating lectures of the sort Rinehart gave, wherein a rich person confidently tells the non-rich what's wrong with them. While discussing this with the MoJo staff, my colleague Adam Serwer thought of libertarian hero Ayn Rand, who popularized the notion of the super rich being naturally moral. He hit on a good portmanteau: randsplaining. I rather like that. Internets, go do your thing.

For more proofs go through these overviews of the GOP's platform on the poor and middle class...
A look at GOP Hypocrisy:

Money Talks - The Haves & the Soon-to-Haves
John Hodgman explains that the haves are creating an exclusive world of luxury and privilege for the soon-to-haves to have -- soon.


Money Talks - Men of a Certain Wage
Moneyed American John Hodgman defends his people against America's attack on the wealthy.


Money Talks - The Maopets & Wealth on Film
Fox News identifies "The Muppets" movie as communist propaganda, and John Hodgman analyzes Hollywood's depiction of the rich and powerful as greedy, bloated space turds.

FROM Bill Moyers: "So what do you get when you combine Mitt Romney, expensive horseflesh, fancy dinners and a financial scandal in the City of London? An interesting confluence of people and events that once again raises questions about the wealthy Republican candidate’s ability to relate to ordinary Americans and highlights the overwhelming, caustic influence of big money in this year’s presidential race.


Updates - Jan 20 2015:

Results of GOP Policy Making


Sam Brownback's Conservative Kansas Experiment - Jessica Williams travels to Kansas to investigate the outcome of Governor Sam Brownback's extreme tax-cut experiment. (4:54):



Related posts:



The Tom Coburn Deceptions - Pretending "The Budget Problem" Hasn't Already Been Disproven By Economists



Related Background:





Aug 3, 2014

BREAKING NEWS - US: Our Court System Is Divided On Party Lines!


Background: The 3 Branches Of Government


[Full video here]

This last part of the video covers a new case, involving the singer Cher, where swearing is not allowed, even as an accident. There are less and less room for mistakes and this may affect people's first amendment rights of free speech so decisions that create new laws have to be examined carefully.

Supreme Court ruling bans broadcast 'fleeting expletives' 

ASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a federal prohibition on the one-time use of expletives in a case arising partly from an expletive uttered by Cher at a Billboard Music Awards show in 2002.

The ruling, by a 5-4 vote and written by Justice Antonin Scalia, endorsed a Bush administration Federal Communications Commission policy against isolated outbursts of, as Scalia said from the bench, the "f-word" and "s-word."

The ruling does not resolve a lingering First Amendment challenge to the 2004 policy that is likely to be subject to further lower court proceedings.

Tuesday's decision reversed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that had said the FCC's decision to sanction "fleeting expletives" was arbitrary and capricious under federal law. That lower court had agreed with Fox Television Stations, which broadcast the Billboard awards, that such isolated utterances are not as potentially harmful to viewers as are other uses of sexual and excretory expressions long deemed "indecent" and banned by federal regulators.

Other broadcast networks had joined in the challenge, saying the policy was especially chilling for live awards shows and sporting events.

"Even isolated utterances can be made in … vulgar and shocking manner, and can constitute harmful first blows to children," Scalia wrote in the opinion that was signed by his fellow conservatives. The decision was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.


So swearing, or expletives, even fleeting expletives, are not allowed. Suggesting that the court wants people to change their habits (as swearing in real life will occasionally intervene in TV/Radio/Live-events), yet at the same time graphic violence is allowed making it seem like Scalia and his allies are saying, 'you can show violence even in children's video games while...'


One judge grabbed another by the neck with all the judges present and they are still divided on what happened! No wonder they passed the 'eyewitness testimony can't be trusted', act.

"I used to think that your reality shapes your politics, it's clear now, your politics shapes reality"- Jon Stewart


Context: The political divide in the US covers the whole country including the courts!

Example 1: Claims of illegal attempt to gain 9/11 victims' numbers bring outrage from Democrats and caution from Republicans

Example 2: Courts are divided along party lines - "The 11th Circuit Court sided with 26 states -- mostly led by conservative governors and attorneys general -- who are asking for the law to be blocked in its entirety."

Note: The policy to ban one time expletives is supported by, "Family-friendly organizations such as Parents Television Council, Morality in Media, Inc., National Religious Broadcasters and Focus on the Family and Family Research Council have all come out in support of the FCC". The funding and information sources of these groups need to be outlined. It's possible that the experts with the most evidence have different views on how this should be handled?