nashville bomb

[Chip McDonald]

The thing to remember about Alex Jones, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Jake Tapper, etc. is that they are entertainers who speak exclusively to their tribe/audience. They do this so that they can extract money from advertisers who want to sell things to their particular audience.

 

There are outliers now, thanks to YouTube. I don't think Rogan, Jimmy Dore, Lex Fridman have the same "acting!" motivation as the above. Or rather, there isn't a performance aspect. But that differentiation seems lost on most people. It's one of the main reasons I developed and almost physical abhorrence for network television in the 90s: the Fake Talking Head Presentation. Nobody seems to have a problem with being welded with attention to such people as a source of information instead of entertainment, when those people went into "broadcasting" as a business decision, and in most cases did spend time acting at some point.

 

Or worked with the CIA, hah. "Chip, in the year 2021 every network tv news show will feature presenters that are from the CIA". Wow.

 

Some of these people do actual research, but most are content to be storytellers, where they make up the stories based on what they think will please their audience. Even the ones that do research will spin the facts so they they're palatable to their audience.

 

 

I don't know. I would say it's more sinister than that. They are given a narrative to deliver, whether it's Hannity or Maddow. Or the View, or any of the other clandestine messaging "entertainment shows".

 

As long as people think their side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong, we'll never make progress.

 

 

..and that's deliberate; remove nuance and make everything polar, keeps the demographics clean.

[Chip McDonald]

 

Sometimes it seems that media from and including FOX and points right or MSNBC and points left is trying to keep us divided by telling us 'the others' are 100% wrong.

 

 

It seems that way?

 

*IT IS*.

[Notes_Norton]

That's why we need to remember those on the opposite side of the fence are not enemies, but patriots with a different idea of the best way to run the country. The great tradition of debate and compromise are much more productive than 'my way or the highway'. That's why we should not be swallowing hook, line, and sinker most of what the propaganda pundits are baiting us with.

 

Just remember, the Foxes and MSNBCs of this world don't have deeply held philosophical beliefs. They are not educational institutions, but for-profit enterprises. They are selling what they believe will bring in the most income, just like any other for-profit enterprise. They have found that, like sports, people will root for their teams, and buy merch

I understand that. The problem is way too many people watch them and think they are reporting the news and taking it in as the 'gospel truth'. How do you get them to recognize that? I wish I knew.

 

Mark Twain said: "If you don't read the paper you are uninformed. If you do read the paper you are misinformed." Add TV, radio and social media to the paper and the quote is updated.

 

I have a friend who truly believes Bill Gates is putting a microchip in every vaccine. She says Gates wants to track her every move. She heard this on one of more extreme than even Fox stations.

 

Yet she has an iPhone almost surgically attached to her and Siri in her living room.

 

And because what these people are fed on propaganda media is believed as truth, there is no amount of logic that can change their minds.

 

How do we wake people up?

 

Notes

[PrairieGuy]

I don't know. I would say it's more sinister than that. They are given a narrative to deliver, whether it's Hannity or Maddow. Or the View, or any of the other clandestine messaging "entertainment shows".

 

You can add NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc. to that list. The majority of your media (I'm Canadian) has gone from being biased to outright lying. What puzzles me is that so many people still believe them.

[dboomer]

 

You can add NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc. to that list. The majority of your media (I'm Canadian) has gone from being biased to outright lying. What puzzles me is that so many people still believe them.

 

So you are saying that when they say something happened it really didn"t? Like this bomb didn"t happen and they simply all got together and fabricated the story when nothing happened?

[PrairieGuy]

 

You can add NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc. to that list. The majority of your media (I'm Canadian) has gone from being biased to outright lying. What puzzles me is that so many people still believe them.

 

So you are saying that when they say something happened it really didn"t? Like this bomb didn"t happen and they simply all got together and fabricated the story when nothing happened?

No one claimed the bomb story was fabricated. However, there are plenty of other examples of media lies or blatant omissions on record.

[Nowarezman]

We discuss this issue with some frequency around here - namely, the reliability, the influence, the biases, the quality of news reporting, etc. We have friends and family with media-related jobs and education - and a number of heavy news followers.

 

Every day I look at the New York Times, NPR, Fox, and a conservative paper, the Washington Examiner which is an interesting publication. It's conservative but not particularly pro the current administration at all. So I like to visit a variety of sources, and it's quite telling. The bread and butter reporting is pretty much what it's always been - some good writing, some lousy writing - but the actual news reporting is still accurate enough as far as it goes.

 

The big differences between these news sources are:

 

1 - the editorials. Beyond any doubt, the editorial slant is clear to all from any of these outlets. Which is ok - they are editorials. I do wish people would not get their news so much from the "commentators". A lot of them are slanted to the point of absurdity. On both the left and right sides. But at least we know these are people with a spin - that's what the editorial section is for.

 

2 - the choices of what to present. Everyone covers most all of the big events. But there are other stories that, through the simple means of selecting what to print, clearly advance the politics and worldview favored by the general editorial stance and readership. For example, one conservative paper constantly runs articles on crimes committed by undocumented persons present in the U.S. Another liberal paper constantly runs stories about women being mistreated by men. I don't doubt the truth of either type of article - but the repeated selection of these particular types of stories out of all the countless news stories available every day - clearly reveals an agenda on the part of the editorial team. Another example - the reporting of opinion poles never ceases - but the poles that get mentioned seem to point up trends that the left-leaning or right-leaning readership rather likes to hear, depending. This tendency to select out events to report on is a big deal, I think - it's part of the virtual world creation that the media does. If you read, say, nothing but stories about people getting sick, then you start to fear sickness - if you read nothing but the "bad news" about some general group of people or ideas, then you start to think the bad news is the only news about them.

 

3 - related to the choice of stories to run, there is the huge element of choosing what expert or talking head gets quoted in articles. A lot of editorial-slant content slips into articles that are basically just giving the news, but you get these mini-commentaries from some quoted expert or other, which are often quite biased. For example, say the Fed sets some new policy goal that will have some economic effect or other - there are any number of economists and think tanks brimming with people who write articles, lobby, get on talk shows or news programs to give their spiel. These folks might be smart, sensible, and extremely informed, but they also typically come from one camp or other, liberal or conservative - and it shows in the way they comment on things like Fed policies. I do like how NPR frequently handles these sorts of commenters - they get one from each opposing camp to have their say. Of course, there's rarely anything like a real discussion - each one tends to just spin their company line talking past each other. But at least you get both points of view in your news.

 

At least in our world, we're pretty content getting news from these major sources. It's important to not just get your news from the same source all the time. It's pretty amazing sometimes how the front pages of these different media sources seem to come from different worlds.

 

nat

[Anderton]

No one claimed the bomb story was fabricated. However, there are plenty of other examples of media lies or blatant omissions on record.

 

I didn't think you were saying the bomb story was fabricated. I know exactly what you mean - there are always lists of the most underreported stories in any given year.

 

I would also temper "lying" just a bit in some cases to "misleading beyond belief." So much of this is due to the fight for SEO and click bait headlines (another reason why social media has contributed perhaps more than anything else to tearing apart the fabric of society). You read some headline that seems beyond belief, and when you click on it...it is beyond belief.

 

It would be like Guitar Player running the headline "Craig Anderton Agrees the Guitar is Dead: Says 'No More Guitars for Me!'" and then you read the full quote..."After laying down a dozen overdubs on guitar, that's probably enough...at that point I say to myself, "no more guitars for me!"

 

That of course is a pretty harmless example. However, there are media outlets that bend reality so much to fit a narrative it might as well be lying. Remember, the definition of lying requires an "intent to deceive." If I say "I think it's going to rain tomorrow" and it doesn't, that doesn't mean I lied. So these buff dudes and hot babes who tell us the news need to know that they're actually trying to deceive us in order to be liars. I don't know if they're smart enough to know that, I think they just read what they're fed by people who may be trying to deceive us. Another possibility (and I think a strong one) is that they have sociopathic tendencies, so they truly believe what they say.

 

This DOES relate to the OP. The consequences of this pandemic are far worse than they should have been, and I hold social media primarily responsibility. Compare this to how the US handled smallpox and polio, and the only conclusion I can come to is that Devo was right...we have de-evolved.

[techristian]

So as to Alex Jones, as many of you already know, I retired 10 years ago. I decided that I needed to keep up my exercise, by biking and walking. I stumbled upon an Alex Jones podcast, in the PLAY STORE ,and have been listening to him since then, during my bike rides and walks.

 

For the first 3 months ,that I discovered his podcast, I listened EVERY DAY. I found that a steady diet of his stuff WAS TOO NEGATIVE for daily listening but I continued to listen every 3 or 4 days mixing his stuff with other podcasts.

 

Yes his rant about aliens with David Ike may be too far out. Yes his theory about the 911 being an inside job is also way far out, but I remember him saying , in the fall of 2019, that they would "create" a crisis and "marshal law" would be declared in 2020. It sounded insane.........but....... Here we are. They haven't called it "marshal law" but some states have curfews and "lockdowns" (house arrest)

 

In my entire province of Ontario, Canada, only "essential" places like Walmart and Costco are allowed to have customers in the store.... today , almost 10 months after the "emergency"??

 

As to 5G being dangerous...2 facts

 

1) There will be many more transponders/microwave antennas and they will be closer together with 5G.

2) 5G is supposed to be starting around 4-5 times the frequency of 4G 20-25ghz and will eventually reach 200-300ghz which is very close to the frequency of INFRARED.

 

I hardly ever use my cell phone but my wife can't live without hers. That may also be a factor.

 

 

We can't believe everything that any single individual says but we should ,at least, be open minded to hear the alternate views .....at least for 5 minutes

 

Just remember "ONLY 2 WEEKS TO FLATTEN THE CURVE"

 

end of rant

 

Dan

[Anderton]

My opinion on Alex Jones is that even if only 2% of what he says is true, that's enough to be scary.

 

As to cell phones, I always use a hands-free wired earpiece. Logarithmic drop off is your friend , I am not at all convinced that being bombarded with EMI is a good thing, I have enough of that in the studio.

 

The problem with Covid is that it is the "novel" corona virus, not the "been there, done that" one. No one got it right. Here it is almost a year later, and we're still learning new things about it on an almost daily basis.

[dboomer]

 

As to 5G being dangerous...2 facts

 

1) There will be many more transponders/microwave antennas and they will be closer together with 5G.

2) 5G is supposed to be starting around 4-5 times the frequency of 4G 20-25ghz and will eventually reach 200-300ghz which is very close to the frequency of INFRARED.

 

 

You need to double check your "facts" as they have no impact in the real world.

 

So yes, while there would need to be an antenna in every hallway just at 30GHz, the signal simply dies out very quickly at that frequency. So roughly 300x the current number of transmitting antennas would be necessary to cover even the highest current cell phone frequency but more like 1000x more antennas would be necessary compared to what is needed for typical cell phone frequencies. so roughly a million times more antennas than the current 3-400,000 cell phone towers would be necessary to cover the country in 300GHz service. Doesn't sound like a money maker to me. Once you figure it out for a specific frequency it falls off at inverse square anyway so unless you stick a high power transmitter up to your skull for a long time you probably receive much more gamma radiation from an airplane flight. So not much problem here.

 

First 5G is simply a coding scheme not a radio transmission. Its radio transmission at ionizing frequencies that can be the real problem. Currently the "Start frequency" for 5G phone service is 617MHz and the highest possible licensed frequency is just south of 30GHz. 300GHz cell phone service would only be practical ifor very small spaces. It will never happen driving down the street so your phone would have to switch over to something much lower. It is highly doubtful that there could ever be service at anything near 200-300Ghz because the transmission your only be for a few feet. it wouldn't make it down from the top of a lampost to street level before dying out. RF power dies very quickly at high frequency. The difference between 30GHz and 300GHz would be a difference of an additional free space path loss of 30dB. That would put any usable signal way below the noise floor if you were transmitting more than a couple of feet.

[Anderton]

And let's also differentiate among observed phenomena, theories, and conspiracy theories.

 

Observed phenomena: At this point, I think there's no denying there are flying objects that aren't identified. The Navy thinks so, there's tons of video footage, pilots have seen them (and not been grounded for being hallucinatory), etc. Just because we have no idea what they are doesn't mean they aren't an observed phenomenon.

 

Theory: Some theories are they could be time travelers, aliens from another civilization, mass hallucinations, evidence of a parallel universe. etc. My theory is that earth is on the rural fringes of the Milky Way, and the last decent rest stop with plenty of water and extractable minerals from same, before heading off into interstellar space. In other words, we're like the Vince Lombardi service center on I-95 in New Jersey - sure, pick up some gas, but don't deal with the natives doing drugs in the bathrooms.

 

Conspiracy theory: The US government is collaborating with alien beings to exchange human organs for technology, in secret places that are surrounded by secrecy and deception.

 

Okay, now we're clear on that

[techristian]

Here is a heavy one to swallow. I have been hearing about the mess with the money for the past 5 years.

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Catherine Austin Fitts (born 24 December 1950) is an American investment banker and former public official who served as managing director of Dillon, Read & Co. and as United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush. She has widely written and commented on the subject of public spending and has alleged several large scale instances of government fraud.

 

https://youtu.be/C1-0XKYAZII

 

Dan Laskowski

[Anderton]

This is not a place for politics, especially when it's not on-topic. I respect Dave Bryce's wishes too, and agree there are other places people can discuss politics, but nowhere like MusicPlayer where they can discuss music. So, I'm locking the thread.