Tricks the media use to (attempt to) fool their audience

Status
Closed

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,361
Portugal
#41
I strongly doubt its the same ratio.... 11 to 1 in favor ?
From memory, if I recall correctly, the Portuguese support to the EU as been changing, according to the time and pool, from 65% to 90%. A let me recall again that the Portuguese had recently an intervention by a “Troika” (meaning 3 entities: European Central Bank; International Monetary Fund; and European Comission) and even during that time, even with most of the Portuguese disagreeing with the European policy in this case, the support of the EU was maintained positive.

As for 11 to 1, I am certainly lost with the sequence of the posts, but where did you get that ratio for the Portuguese media support for the EU? The only source I recall was the one mentioned by deaf turner about the Brexit: 68% Anti-Brexit, 6% pro-Brexit; and 28% neutral:

European newspapers overwhelmingly critical of Brexit vote

And it seems that it were analysed only 3 Newspapers: Correio da Manhã, Jornal de Notícias and Público. The first one is a Tabloid, the newspaper that sells more in Portugal, the other two are what we can call centre mainstream. Apparently the ones that made the study didn’t read the “Avante”, they would read similar opinions to yours there.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,221
#44
As far as I understood from your previous posts, supportive to the Brexit, and critical to the European construction.
Nope.... this thread is about tricks used by the media.... you can recognize these tricks whether you are for or against brexit.... to which I am personnally indifferent...... (which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand in any case)...... what am I opposed to is the media and others lying about it (or any other topic for that matter)
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,361
Portugal
#45
Nope.... this thread is about tricks used by the media.... you can recognize these tricks whether you are for or against brexit.... to which I am personnally indifferent...... (which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand in any case)...... what am I opposed to is the media and others lying about it (or any other topic for that matter)
I understood what this thread is about, and like I previously said, I think we can’t put all the media in the same bag, a Tabloid Newspaper uses “tricks” that a more conservative (in style) Newspaper doesn’t use. A Newspaper uses “tricks” (I am using your language) that a TV station doesn’t use. A News site uses tricks that a TV station doesn’t use. A Social Media Network uses tricks that a News site doesn’t work… and so on…

In all those Media, in those corporations there are good professionals and bad professionals, there are good Editors and bad Editors, and all those in between.

In those corporations that control the Media there are ones that have clear a political agenda, and the case of the Russian controlled corporations is a clear example, as in Portugal is the case of a company controlled by Angolans, and there are other corporations that have more clear objectives of profiting with a journalistic projects (and this seem to be a animal in its way to extinction).

Anyway, this just to say that we can’t demonize the Media, as a monolithic entity, when there is all this diversity.

As for your position about the Brexit, I apologise, it seems I misread the content and the tone of your posts about it or with several threads about the theme with hundreds of pages, maybe I am making some kind of confusion about your posts.

what am I opposed to is the media and others lying about it (or any other topic for that matter)
Here I agree about it. We are 100% in agreement. It is one of those things that most people agree.

Furthermore I am also opposed to people that lie, to the pollution in the world, and to the war in the world, and if I proceed in this line I can make myself a candidate to write the next Miss World speech.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,063
Europix
#46
Here is the issue... If you are generally on the same wave length as the media's world view, as you seem to be, then you are of course not bothered by the way they push this world view.. ..
Totally true.

...Media that simply reinforces your own opinions is useless....
True again.

... But really you should then be focusing on media that has a different worldview to yours.
Nope, I shouldn't and I am not doing it.

Unlike You (ok, that's an assumption?), I do not think in terms of "Media". I think in terms of "medias".

Neutrality, objectivity, are concepts, goals that, depending on the probity of journalists, are (or aren't) ideals to be reached. But they cannot be totally reached. Ever.

So I prefer to read a couple (or more) of sources I do now that are of different tendencies. If possible, one being as close as possible to the news. A Hungarian (linked) media if it's about Orban, an American (linked) media if it's about Trump, and African (linked) media if it's about Congo, aso. But that's something You know (or should know) about me, we know each other for quite some time.

...This is why I daily check on Al Jazeera, whose world view is entirely different to mine as well as other media...
Well, I do not check daily certain media.
Checking daily a certain media goes against Your idea, in fact: You are putting Yourself in a "box". Another "box", but still a "box".

Interestingly, mentioning Al Jazeera. Is also self-contradictory: You are quoting a media that offers You a different view, while You argument that there's no diversity ...
 
Last edited:

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,063
Europix
#47
Conversely suffering kids will NOT be shown when inconvenient (e.g.: suffering kids WILL be shown to decry the "dirty" battle of Aleppo run by Assad "the butcher" but will NOT be shown for the "clean" battle of Mossul even though civilian casualties for the second one were actually higher)
I thought I should check my memory, as I do remember a lot of talks in media on Mossoul children.

A simple image search (bluntly googling). So here are a couple of French speaking examples, all the spectrum (from alter-, Russian, Australian to "mainstream" French media)

(attention, some real horrible images on the page!!):
Sort réservé aux enfants chrétiens à Mossoul - Terre et Peuple - Résistance Identitaire Européenne

Des volontaires étrangers au chevet des enfants de Mossoul

Irak: 600.000 enfants parmi les civils piégés dans Mossoul | Brèves | alterinfonet.org Agence de presse associative

Irak. 600 000 enfants pris au piège dans Mossoul

Irak : les enfants pris dans la bataille de Mossoul "traumatisés", selon Amnesty

A Mossoul, les enfants "ont vu des choses que personne, peu importe son âge, ne devrait voir"

Alep, Mossoul et crimes de guerre | Mondialisation - Centre de Recherche sur la Mondialisation


etc, etc, etc ....

It's all out there. All languages, all colours, all angles, all interpretations, all POVs. So, is it really the "media", or is it just us looking the other way, tomar?
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,221
#48
I understood what this thread is about, and like I previously said, I think we can’t put all the media in the same bag, a Tabloid Newspaper uses “tricks” that a more conservative (in style) Newspaper doesn’t use. A Newspaper uses “tricks” (I am using your language) that a TV station doesn’t use. A News site uses tricks that a TV station doesn’t use. A Social Media Network uses tricks that a News site doesn’t work… and so on…

In all those Media, in those corporations there are good professionals and bad professionals, there are good Editors and bad Editors, and all those in between.

In those corporations that control the Media there are ones that have clear a political agenda, and the case of the Russian controlled corporations is a clear example, as in Portugal is the case of a company controlled by Angolans, and there are other corporations that have more clear objectives of profiting with a journalistic projects (and this seem to be a animal in its way to extinction).

Anyway, this just to say that we can’t demonize the Media, as a monolithic entity, when there is all this diversity.

.
You are right... The various tricks I am listing do not imply that All media use All of them All of the time... Rather this list serves to recognize a trick when you see one. Some will be using more or less of them... some more frequently, others less..... To be forewarned is to be forearmed
 
Likes: sailorsam

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,221
#49
I thought I should check my memory, as I do remember a lot of talks in media on Mossoul children.

A simple image search (bluntly googling). So here are a couple of French speaking examples, all the spectrum (from alter-, Russian, Australian to "mainstream" French media)

(attention, some real horrible images on the page!!):
Sort réservé aux enfants chrétiens à Mossoul - Terre et Peuple - Résistance Identitaire Européenne

Des volontaires étrangers au chevet des enfants de Mossoul

Irak: 600.000 enfants parmi les civils piégés dans Mossoul | Brèves | alterinfonet.org Agence de presse associative

Irak. 600 000 enfants pris au piège dans Mossoul

Irak : les enfants pris dans la bataille de Mossoul "traumatisés", selon Amnesty

A Mossoul, les enfants "ont vu des choses que personne, peu importe son âge, ne devrait voir"

Alep, Mossoul et crimes de guerre | Mondialisation - Centre de Recherche sur la Mondialisation


etc, etc, etc ....

It's all out there. All languages, all colours, all angles, all interpretations, all POVs. So, is it really the "media", or is it just us looking the other way, tomar?
You are rather proving the point... Your links are almost all to rather small media, with very limited following... No CNNs. or BBCs or Le Monde there... You even went as far as linking to what the mainstream media calls far right site (your first links) and several who get accused of fake news on a regular basis...

As one historian put it, sure there are flying fish.... you can find some... but they are not an accurate representation of the fish species

The only major one in your list is Europe 1..... and you need to read the article rather carefully.... It basically just points out that IS is responsible for those suffering kids (similar articles on Aleppo or some such claim that it is Assad who is responsible.... clear double standards).. And even then the illustration photo is rather innocuous (no dead or wounded kids)
 
Likes: sailorsam
Jun 2017
2,773
Connecticut
#50
It's quite incredible I agree with the general premise of OP but think media is biased towards his perspective and he's just not aware of it.

Media bias is perhaps the least used trick. It's quite obvious most of the time though I think the right misidentify's what the bias is. The media in the US is incredibly right wing but because the media targets the far right, especially relative to stations that support them, they are seen as being biased. The media that the right considers to be liberal has been nothing but a help to the conservative movement.


Biggest two media tricks are the panel which give the perception A an issue that is not controversial is being debated by two equal sides which is furthered by these panels never having an actual conclusive answer, leaving the viewer to think an issue or question is complicated even though it might not be all the name protecting against the fake concern they are "not being fair and balanced". Even if an issue did have two sides to the story and fit within that context, the panel method is a terrible way to distribute information and leads many Americans to believe they understand politics when really they've just memorized the talking people on TV say in their limited window.

The biggest trick is just story selection. The media chooses to ignore anti corporate stories and keeping the public ignorant of issues altogether is far worse than biased reporting because bias reporting will still leave you aware an event is occurring, biased story selection takes that awareness out entirely. Media frames everything in a pro corporate context and prefers to focus on social issues issues which they do demonstrate a liberal bias on leading people to believe they are "liberally biased" when on these topics they seem to support the liberal side. Climate change for example while not entirely ignored has received an embarrassingly nominal amount of coverage especially relative to stories that some would call conspiracy theories.

The economic incentives of a corporate news group regardless of bias though is incentivized to push out a product that resembles sports and entertainment far more than the actual news. Look at how political races are covered, they are covered not as elections between two people with two sets of idea's they should be informing the public on, instead the US news has opted to go the route of ESPN esque sports graphics likening politics to a game where the outcome and tracking it is far more important than why the outcome matters. Identity politics has also made this problem far worse and given the media a way to simplify politics further.

Here's how a normal news person would analyse a potential candidate for President for example. Generic.
1-This candidate has policy that appeals to A because of this and has a voting record doing this and that. That policy polls well/poorly among voters etc etc.

Now here's US news version
2-Candidate is either a certain race, gender or ethnicity and they will appeal to that said portion of the population that other candidate is relying on to win. This sort of logic also is brought up in regards to where a person lives. Poll numbers are often broken down this way as well.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions