Why are you here? Why did you choose this site over another; this article over the next? Were you lured in by the headline? Did a search engine serve the link to you on a plate?
Why do you trust me? Do you discern any potential agenda? Guessed my biases? Do you know where I came from? Or where I plan to be? Is it possible to know what pressures or influences inform the things I'll write for you?
Have you checked out my credentials? Properly. Not just glanced over them in my profile and believed them true because they're there in type. Do you value my opinion over your own because I wrote mine down? Are you here for validation, confirmation, the ammunition to tear apart people like you perceive me to be?
None of the above, because it takes too long to even contemplate and no-one has time for stuff like that. So come on in. Let us see how far your faith is justified.
Your turn! This was packed full of media manipulation - most not even pointed out. What did you see? And where else have you spotted such dirty tricks?
Snopes.com is great, isn't it? I'm forever checking there too.
It's amazing how much calmer you feel, when you get your news from various sources, rather than the one. You mix and match the manipulation and scare tactics until they barely work.
I don't watch any news on TV. I don't want the news fed to me by a particular station. I choose what I want to read from the internet, but with caution. I never believe anything on social media unless I check it out from another source. I use Snopes.com to check out urban legends, fake stories and photographs.
I read your entire comment nodding like a bobble head doll. That is the point of the media, unless you truly find an independent publication. But even then, there will be bias. Or a measure of reflexivity at least.
It's not only in the commentary, but in the selection of facts upon which to comment, which in turn is reliant upon which facts are made available from which to select.
We get what we deserve! If we do not think for ourselves our thoughts are governed by others. I often ask myself "Why is this or that question not asked?" - then I remember - we are not governed by what we need to know, but by what others want us to know. Here in the UK we (supposedly) elect people to government who will represent our views - yeah right! We have an (independent) broadcasting company (BBC) that is respected worldwide as a source of unbiased news - but as soon as 'commentary' arrives the bias arrives too. Newspapers, which I can only comment upon from my own bias (as I do not purchase them) all cow-tow to an owners' agenda (political or otherwise).
All this is why filtering just the facts from the commentary within social media is so important as news sources in an otherwise skewed politically-biased commentary of the world in which we survive.
Point in context (UK): Cameron entreated us that we were 'ALL (to be, no exceptions) in this (getting out of a financial 'crisis') together'. The general consensus (media reporting) was that this was 'beneficial' (to whom is debatable, my bias). Yet, now that there is some recovery (reported from fiscal units, government departments, regurgitated by media), but not necessarily by ALL, there is no media commentary, nor consolidated social movement (presumably because there are no media calls) for us ALL, once again, to be 'in this together', that is, benefitting from the increased wealth of OUR country (although Brussels seems to be requiring their cut of our performance). WE, the people, should demand 'performance related pay', that is pay commensurate with the overall 'better' performance of our entire economy! WE, the people, got the country out of the mess, and we should now be rewarded for OUR efforts!
We should 'ALL be in this together!'.
But where are our media when we need them most? Doing what religions did for(?) us in the past - placated our fears, downgraded our aspirations, and generally made sure the populace (US) kept in line.
That is the bottom line to all this - keep the population in line - sheep mentality to the fore - as mentioned in another comment.
Jo, as always, thought provoking . Beware, giving aware THEIR secrets may become your demise.
The control of information is the primary way to control any population. That's why Goebbels ordered the seizure of all newspaper offices and radio stations, along with the academe, in any country invaded by the Third Reich.
Great article, Jo! I have talked about the manipulation in our media since the 1980's. Most of those who listened though I was part of the fringe element. Those who rely solely on the mainstream media simply do not know that they are being made into sheep. Sheep are usually led to slaughter, and go obediently and willingly.
I did consider including them, but I was trying to blur the line between now and then. I couldn't put them in without referring to either the Chiliarch or the National Guard, so it would have placed it.
Reflections on Gethsemane: there were in the arresting group three elements: the thuggish high priest's servants, such as Malchus; the temple guard; and a detachment of Romans for public order, whose presence is revealed by the fact that John's Gospel mentions the Chiliarch, the senior officer in Jerusalem Any report on Gethsemane should mention the presence of the establshment's hired thugs, who seemed to be at the heart of the arrest. These servants were the equivalent of brownshirts, a gang who were sent to "sort out" the chief priest's opponents.
(Answering second comment) Liam really is Jo's pal. :p And that happens way more often in media reporting than you'd credit.
The British news industry is forever reporting on our Chancellor George Osbourne, then seeking to 'prove' his financial policy is sound by bringing in an 'independent' body. They ALWAYS go for the OBR (Office of Budget Responsibility), which was founded by George Osbourne. This is an example in reality which is no different to me bringing in Liam to support my claims that I'm innocent of manipulation.
Several things are going on with the celebrities, sport and weather (though the latter is arguably newsworthy). One is to distract instantly, so your focus is removed from what's just happened. Another is to actually present these things as news. Because it's right there, in the wrappings of news items, it automatically becomes so. After a while, no-one even questions their right to be there. Another is that these are 'safe' subjects. No-one is going to feel uneasy talking about the weather - hence the propensity to finish on that one - as it's a shared experience, which makes us all feel like we're on the same side. There are plenty more facets besides. I could fill a whole new article on the banal distractions substituted as news.
I'm glad that this article was as informative as I hoped, and not just taking the proverbial!
Thank you very much. :)
Yes, I sat here with a Bible in another tab and read each story portrayed here first. Then imagined how those events would have been reported by the newspapers at the time. Everything reported happened, though I did make up some of the eye-witness accounts, for example Olive Mound and Gat Sname (or Mound of Olives and an older rendering of Gethesename). Where I could, I tried to use direct quotes from the scripture. There were plenty in the St Peter story, which I was able to simply lift out.
Jesus, Apostles and other followers in the Garden of Gethesename v the Occupy Movement, absolute links there! At least from the viewpoint of 'concerned local residents', and the fact that armed officers moved in to break it up.
In the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie section, I just repeated 'manipulation' with different words. Manipulation is bad, but 'direction', 'handling' or 'guidance' are good. In context, they all mean the same thing.