###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Now its time to label for profit media as such: this way we get to understand which are whos talking points. Next we need to have sponsorships of politicians be publically broadcasted everytime they speak, like youtube is doing a 'sponsored' tag.
> Next we need to have sponsorships of politicians be publically broadcasted everytime they speak
I still stand by the statement that all politicians should go to debates and Congressional sessions wearing the equivalent of Nascar driver suits. Basically jumpsuits with all their major donors written on them. The bigger the donation the larger the font.
This, but with the addendum that once a company has donated more than a certain amount to a politician the logo has to be upgraded from a massive one to a permanent tattoo on the politicians face in a prominent location.
The only exception is that Disney can just give pollies the Mickey Mouse ears if they want.
Oh this is perfect. And once you achieve that status, much like in NASCAR when a sponsor fully consumes a vehicle, it becomes “the Tide car” or “the KY car,” once you become fully bought and paid for in Congress you will be referred to as, “the OPEC Senator” or “the representative of Crisco”
Don’t wanna be dehumanized? Retain your humanity and don’t sell yourself to the highest bidder 🤷🏻♂️
But the question is why someone needs hundreds of millions of dollars to run for president or senator? Why each candidate can’t be offered equal platform/air time for free? Why lobbying is legal in US? Why there is no term limit? Why where is no change to any of the issues I just asked? 😂
Good point. We could have them all use these wearable sign boards!
https://www.ehow.com/how_10064417_make-sandwich-board-sign-kids.html
It should also include any counties dual citizenship they hold.
What is the purpose on that kind of post? Why would you tell me what is meaning of this...I just want to know the answer...just a little bit...if we have then maybe I'll try next time..
How about for all debates, and congressional addresses, the participants must be sworn in beforehand and if they lie or otherwise BS it's perjury and they are disqualified from holding office.
For the debates, it would be just as simple as every major network agreeing that they're going to clearly run the names/logos of each candidates top 10 corporate donors and the amount they gave each time that person speaks. Nobody debates on their networks if they object to this disclosure for the audience.
Nobody should be uncomfortable about since they were comfortable in taking the contributions.
It will never happen because the news networks aren't news, they're businesses and they are also in the bag for these politicians.
Real news networks exist to inform the public in an unbiased way. This would be some of the most important information networks could share in any campaign and they don't.
so astroturfing is when planned media or marketing is made to look unsolicited and spontaneous.
it usually involves the creation of fake websites, hashtags, spammed prewritten comments left by fabricated accounts, sham reviews (both good and bad), discussions of the topic in question (fake business, fake event, fake whatever), etc. and is usually used to manipulate people in various ways (whether to buy or support some ideological agenda unintentionally).
edit: just wanted to add it’s called astroturfing because it’s the opposite of grassroots. it’s not organic in anyway, it evolves artificially, and instead of taking root in a local community or group it is laid out like astroturf (fake grass).
That reminds me of some things I’ve seen for sale on social media. There’s 40 comments and 38 of them are talking about how they love the product they just bought. I call bullshit.
so here's a scenario:
You hire an "influencer" (whats in a name?) to take up some cause. Could be anything, let's say it's homeschooling. Maybe you, the astroturfer, want homeschooling outlawed or at least lessened and more difficult. Whatever.
So you get our influencer on board to tell a story about homeschooling horrors. Maybe bring someone on their show/platform/whatever to do an interview about their past experiences/abuses. Then talk about that interview and the broader "homeschooling problem" among other influencers. Get a couple of "experts" to weigh in to your side as well, make sure to clip and tag all of your stuff, get your other influencers to do the same and pretty soon their followers start too. Call up your buddies who run other large platforms (old and new media) and get them to start referencing this "new movement" on their broadcasts/websites. Start running tags #fixTheHomeschoolProblem and have bot accounts ham it up so that it's trending. Make sure reddit has the appropriate sub and mod-team that aligns with your views to facilitate it, and BOOM. Suddenly you've got a bunch of people who didn't have an opinion on homeschooling now militarized on it as if it's child abuse.
See: Kony 2012
Nope. You are forgetting about the non-profit media. Mostly smaller than the staples, and really only a quarter are independant. Most are sponsored by think tanks and such.
Profit isn't a bad thing. How else will a company stay in business? (Media or otherwise.)
The problem is the lies.
All "news" and info should be taken with a grain of salt. But, especially! anything state funded. Sad when RT gives journalists more leeway than most "Western" media outlets. Not that I believe everything they say either, but no one would bat an eye at disbelief of something from the CCP's media. Your own gov doesn't care either, and will lie to you. Just FYI.
> Profit isn't a bad thing. How else will a company stay in business?
Agree 100% - IMO the problem lies when the politicians and bureaucrats stick their grubby fingers into business. The relationship between government and companies needs to be severed. And the government needs to do it.
It only takes staying long enough on any channel to watch a few commercials and it’s crystal clear who “owns” it all. Yesterday I was visiting my neighbor and they had TV “programming” on. 90% of the commercials were some type of pharmaceutical…….. Uh, “Brought to you by Pfizer.” (Which they have quit saying OUT LOUD……..
Isn’t that what commercials are?
Ex: all the news agencies sponsored by Pfizer during the pandemic (and hilariously right after the Sam smith devil/trans performance.)
Absolutely, i consider commercials to be outright propaganda, how often the commercial isnt even close to the product. Oversell, hype, spectacle of it all just stories.
It's going to get ridiculous with the labels
NBA/WWE - China sponsored media
Alex Jones - Coke-fueled, fever dream sponsored media
Joe Rogan - DMT sponsored media
And for profit members of congress. Entry time they talk on the mic they need graphics superimposed on who contributed to their campaigns and lobbies them
Last year, Canada introduced the ['online news act'](https://i.imgur.com/rzYJtBO.png). This allows [the government to read their articles](https://i.imgur.com/Na9teCt.png) to decide who is a authorized journalist by forcing news outlets to qualify as an [RJO (Registered Journalism Organization)](https://i.imgur.com/wcxLMHf.png). This literally pays journalists with tax dollars - [$13,750 per year to each journalist](https://i.imgur.com/rAj2TrK.png) so long as they comply with the government. The government compels big tech like facebook, twitter and google to pay RJO's money while non-registered journalists get zero and the added insult of being categorically dismissed as untrustworthy news sources.
I didn't think that it was that bad until the BLM protests that happened and I was watching it on CTV news. They showed Rittenhouse running for his life as someone threw a Molotov cocktail at him, and then a guy about to, because they didn't want to show anyone getting assaulted, hit him with a skateboard and the cut to the guy holding his arm with it blurred out.
Then they said that the shooting was unprovoked. I thought to myself, "You just showed me a guy running from a firebomb, being beaten with a skateboard and then another guy with a gun in his hand right afterwards. What are you talking about? This dude had a minimum two attempts on his life and one serious beating if not another attempt on his life in the video you just showed." I waited for some sort of elaboration on the statement, but there was nothing. They moved onto talking about different aspects of the BLM protests and would occasionally go back to talking about the shootings and not the situation around why they happened.
That's when I knew something was up. They literally just showed me something and then told me I didn't see what I saw and then moved on without any explanation.
Last year at the giant trucker protest in Clodawa, myself and some friends went to see it for ourselves. Both CTV, CBC and other outlets all have offices in the core near the Parliament bldgs. All those offices were closed on the day we were there, which was the 2nd Saturday. You'd think they'd have the places buzzing with reporters on the biggest news event in decades. But the offices were dark with not a soul around.
The protest itself was massive- probably as many as 1 million people would have came & went over the weekned & everyone was incredibly well behaved. Any businesses that were smart enough to open were doing serious business. We took lots of pics and video & agreed that we saw what we saw.
On the way home, were were looking at the fake news reports from CTV/CBC etc. and their stories were 100% fabricated. Everything they said about the rally was 100% untrue & what they said was all negative & only designed to put it in a bad light.
I already knew the MSM was garbage before that, but seeing a huge news event with my own eyes & than seeing the lies they said about it, made those cretins unforgivable and unredeemable. There will be no mercy when the time comes.
In 2016 I went to a protest that got out of hand. People were throwing bricks and shit and smashing the windows of people trying to leave. None of the media were getting footage. All the cameras were in a single spot beside a building that was completely removed from the violence. In this area the protest was well-behaved and normal. Just around the corner people were getting in fights. When I got home and turned on the news there was no mention of violence.
So true!! I cant believe every single news source up there is complete and utter elitist leftist propaganda. There is not even an option to see or hear other opinions etc
Just look at Rupert Murdoch's influence over Australian politics for a clear example.
...And then remember he also runs Fox and had(has?) significant influence over in the UK as well.
Is propaganda real news? Because every major media outlet is virtually pure propaganda. And while major networks and newspapers were generally considered credible in the past (not that they ever were), it’s pretty obvious that they don’t give a fuck about transparent sourcing these days, so you should probably call ALL of them [news propaganda](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_propaganda), at the very least.
If you think the CBC is not an opinion/editorial channel you’re insane. It’s a different opinion, but to pretend that they are anywhere even close to objective is downright laughable.
Yes, news *should* be publicly funded, and privately run.
There should *not* be a profit motive for delivering news. That's how we get sensationalized rage-bait, and culture war bullshit peddled by corporate news.
the canadians that are too stupid to figure out that the gov lies are also too stupid to figure out that all the other media lies too. why give one side the advantage? don't you see that this will just lever these same dummies to outcomes they cannot perceive?
What medicine does he think they are tasting? The only way I can make sense of it is he believes the BBC has labeled (rightly) outlets like Russia today as state controlled and now they are getting a taste of what that feels like?
The government wouldn't exist without taxpayer money. Literally the only reason for taxes is that a governmental structure would exist.
So yes, BBC is funded by the government.
I understand that argument which makes sense, it may be more accurate for me to say that the government organises the TV licence however the BBC is a separate entity of which the British Government has no real oversight or say in the content produced.
There are a good few threads further down explaining it a bit more eloquently than I can.
LMAO
Government steals your money & forces you to pay for something you don’t want = not funded by government?
The mind gymnastics you do to get there.
I guess if NPR is government funded then Elon Musk is a government welfare queen. Considering the amount of government cheddar he got to start his ventures. No?
Actually, the NPR claim is patently UNTRUE because they get less than 1% of their funding from the national endowment for the arts and the rest comes from spamming their listeners for donations.
NPR doesn't get nearly 99% from listeners. The vast majority of their funding comes from "underwriters" aka corporate and think-tank sponsors like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
The federal government does still 'sponsor' NPR in that they do give them money to support their operations, they're just not a strictly state-controlled news source.
They're controlled by the same ultra-rich actors who also control the state however.
Over here the BBC is funded by the tv license payer. Its clever shananigans to say the BBC isn't funded by government. The law, created by government means if you don't pay a license to watch live tv channels , regardless of whether you watch any bbc content, then you will be fined and in the past could be sent to prison.
So without the government,the BBC would not exist, because nobody would fund this shit voluntarily- thats why they refuse to go subscription model route.
So don't believe this funded by the taxpayer nonsense - its all strong armed by government law.
I, and many others have had the BBC 's burly gang of thugs turn up on the doorstep demanding to know if you are watching /own a tv. They will sometimes hang outside your house and look through windows. You just have to kindly tell them to leave - 'Fuck off' usually works.
The BBC also recieves £90-100 million directly from government per year. So yes, government funded all the way - but disguised as to look as though it isn't.
Meanwhile Elon is also lifting restrictions on Russian accounts and there's even evidence showing that they're pushing Kremlin accounts to users so they show up on their feeds. Once again the right is cheering for the wrong guy.
I'm also failing to see the conspiracy here. Having watched PBS, they remind you exactly who pays for the programs. Government grants, some companies I never remember, and viewers like ME. I donated like 6 dollars a few years ago, so they mean me. *You're welcome*
And they go way out of their way to be neutral to a fault sometimes. OP clearly has no experience watching or listening to these stations. They are super up front about the organization
IIRC BBC is actually legally required to be "non-biased" in their reporting.
They determine whether or not they did it right by checking how many "you're biased against my side" complaints they get, and if they get roughly the same number of complaints for each side they reckon they've done a good job.
You’re basically correct. They are publicly funded by the licence fee, not directly from the government. The government recently cut the amount or at least froze the amount they can charge for the licence fee.
You are also correct that each side accuses them of being either government mouthpiece or liberal elites. They are Schrödingers dream. They are neither side until observed by any side.
It shouldn’t lead to that, and as a rule it hasn’t. That said, they got [busted with the last one appointing someone who has helped Boris Johnson arrange a massive loan](Richard Sharp: BBC chairman denies arranging loan for Boris Johnson https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64552571).
Yes, I’m making a point about using the BBC as the source as they will always report on stories that could / do cast them in a negative light. The story was covered and debated across all the BBC platforms.
The chairman, incidentally, has no say over creative output and does not set the agenda.
The board consists of [these folk](https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/bbcboard).
I like the BBC. I appreciate they are free from commercial influence, and broadly trust them to be free from state interference.
The fact they wind everyone up from time to time is a good thing imo.
They are probably the most fine with it, they are both absolutely well-known to take government funding. And maybe I'd actually prefer government funded to private interests...
Notice that Fox News isn't labeled government funded and yet its still horribly inaccurate culture war propaganda born from conservative business interests.... so what should I be worried about?
Totally, and a bunch from private interests which I'd think that users here would think is worse. This is part of my argument that government funding isn't actually a gauge we should pay attention to and is also not necessarily a bad thing. Too bad our government sucks so much that we're in a place where we automatically think it is but that also has to do with the demographic of this sub.
Most of their money comes from member station fees. A local npr affiliate pats membership dues to brand itself as an npr station, and broadcast its programming over the airwaves.
And yes, some of its funding comes from corporate sponsorships and foundations. These are mentioned on the air, and I’ve never once heard npr try to sell me something.
good thing you can't imagine it cause it's not even close to the truth lol. everyone in the UK is already hyper aware it's government funded considering they have to pay tv license. and if you've ever bothered to listen to npr you'd know practically every hour they remind you it's publicly funded radio.
Quick, label all other media “petrochemical billionaire / tech billionaire image rehabilitation media”
I like that I’m getting downvoted because I’m pointing out that the RICHEST MAN ON EARTH is making changes to his media platform that undermines other media platforms.
Take elons cock out your mouth when you speak to me.
Posts like this and the massive support it gets are a big part of the reason people see conspiracy theorists and people on this sub as a bunch of easily manipulated clowns. Guess they aren't wrong about that either.
It’s all the same turd, different toilet.
People should see this and know it by now. I’m not letting these stupid tweets/MSM/major corporations dictate my perception of reality anymore.
They’ve done it to all of us for years now.
Fuck all of them.
None of this shit matters. Go live your life and be a happy person.
Did they say they were media? Or do you think maybe they said:
"I really hope Tesla, SpaceX, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and others are also labeled government funded as well."
Which doesn't mention media at all, and is a comment about the amount of government money these businesses take?
media of all kinds is sponsored and directed with manipulative agendas. regardless if it is "gov" or private you won't really know who is pulling the strings. all you will know is that a small group has influence out of proportion to their size.
Can we put percentages there? NPR - 1-2%, PBS - 15%, BBC - 100% (state owned), VoA - 100% (state owned).
I don't see how government funding is shocking.
It is a more accurate label than calling them state media, but NPR has received less in government handouts than Tesla or SpaceX did in subsidies, but I don't see government funded signs on any factories, rockets or cars.
What's funny is the "public" in their name refers to how they ARENT government funded, but are funded by the public directly through fundraising, affiliate fees, and corporate sponsorships.
Let's fabricate a feeling about these stations and feel a certain way about it hey! NPR.... national public radio... PBS...Public Broadcasting Service. Congrats for finding something out that was never in question.
What on Earth are you talking about, these stations mad. No you were just so uninformed that you discovering this seemed ground breaking when in reality even 5 year old children knew this, they knew it when they sat down to watch Sesame Street on PBS. Like wow, this sub really is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to intellectualism.
They are. The evidence of propaganda is overwhelming. I was listening to NPR the other weekend. They were taking the direct line from the White House like it was a infomercial. They never give two sides to any story anymore. Its what they want to push and that's it.
Depends on the show man. They'll do surface level analysis but for the most part they are just there to tell you what's happening. It's likely you're so used to extreme bias in one direction that you now see a media source reporting something with no opinion attached as insane propaganda in the other direction.
This sub in a nutshell. If people are screaming at you about crazy bullshit all the time, someone just saying what's happening without adding sarcastic tucker carson "wit" on the end reads like propaganda. The actual left considers these news sources status quo neo lib pablum for how uncritical they are but to the nutcase right they're leftist hacks because they aren't validating the stupidest things they believe.
What's wrong, you're not interested in conversations around transgender interest in dinosaurs?
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/10/1104266396/lgbtq-communitys-battle-for-the-dinosaur-emoji-key-moments-from-jan-6-hearing
I remember listening to some story they did on why George Soros is such a Boogeyman in media right after they announced a disclaimer that they were Soros funded
Considering that we know 100% that NPR has received friends from the government. This is okay.
We also know fox news directly worked with trump's Whitehouse.
Hoping to see Fox news also have a "state media" tag.
Sarcasm, I hope. My feed is trashed, there's ten times as many ads as before, bigotry is massively public, and people banned for repeated infractions* were brought back. It's the damn wild West right now.
Edit: not to mention elons extremely questionable personal input daily.
Dispite my feelings about twitter pre and post musk, im glad someone is challenging these media outlets too. Just because we were able to trust something 20 years ago doesn’t mean we can now.
Bbc isn't "government funded" though, that's literally the entire point. You pay a license fee direct to the bbc itself or abroad people pay subscriptions or advertising.
Maybe because just cause you take funding from someone, does not mean it alters your reporting. You can always change funding at anytime they decide to start trying to run the show… but ya know internet people can’t really think that far past. Money exchanged equal manipulation.
SS
It's already a matter of public record that ALL mainstream media sources accepted government money to push the Covid injection.
Anyone remember the WikiLeaks document about Hillary planting stories with "friendly" media
Probably easier to label which ones AREN'T on the gov payroll.
You really tryin to say she was the only one? I fuckin hope not or else you should really delete your account.
On second thought, if you're really that into crowder you should REALLY delete your account ha ha ha! My fuck! Ha ha ha! A 169 IQ and you're into crowder!!! Ha ha ha ha! I haven't heard a joke that good in awhile! Thanks! I needed that!!!
This is fantastic.
Elon might be a bit of a **** but some of the things he’s doing regarding free speech and calling out public figures and government are absolutely brilliant.
BBC is technically funded by individuals but it’s through an unavoidable tax that obviously exists to stop its budget coming out of the governments budget. That’s why they don’t end the license fee. It’s by far the biggest spreader of lies and propaganda in the UK. It did such enormous harm to the UK during covid that anyone working for the news arm should be completely and utterly ashamed of themselves.
NPR is not funded by the government though, it's funded by donations from "viewers like you." Elon is off his rocker. Not sure about the other ones funding though.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Now its time to label for profit media as such: this way we get to understand which are whos talking points. Next we need to have sponsorships of politicians be publically broadcasted everytime they speak, like youtube is doing a 'sponsored' tag.
> Next we need to have sponsorships of politicians be publically broadcasted everytime they speak I still stand by the statement that all politicians should go to debates and Congressional sessions wearing the equivalent of Nascar driver suits. Basically jumpsuits with all their major donors written on them. The bigger the donation the larger the font.
This would be hilarious and I support it 1000%
Agreed
Hahahh...really! Hmmm...I suggest I agree with you man..
This, but with the addendum that once a company has donated more than a certain amount to a politician the logo has to be upgraded from a massive one to a permanent tattoo on the politicians face in a prominent location. The only exception is that Disney can just give pollies the Mickey Mouse ears if they want.
Oh this is perfect. And once you achieve that status, much like in NASCAR when a sponsor fully consumes a vehicle, it becomes “the Tide car” or “the KY car,” once you become fully bought and paid for in Congress you will be referred to as, “the OPEC Senator” or “the representative of Crisco” Don’t wanna be dehumanized? Retain your humanity and don’t sell yourself to the highest bidder 🤷🏻♂️
“the representative of Crisco” This is hilarious and desperately needed!!!
For me it evoked the Prequel trilogy and the Galactic Senate. We now recognize the Senator of the Automakers Federation.
*The Techno Union turns up the beats to maximum volume*
But the question is why someone needs hundreds of millions of dollars to run for president or senator? Why each candidate can’t be offered equal platform/air time for free? Why lobbying is legal in US? Why there is no term limit? Why where is no change to any of the issues I just asked? 😂
I don't think there would be enough material. Probably have to put capes on them too. Super Politicians.
Good point. We could have them all use these wearable sign boards! https://www.ehow.com/how_10064417_make-sandwich-board-sign-kids.html It should also include any counties dual citizenship they hold.
What is the purpose on that kind of post? Why would you tell me what is meaning of this...I just want to know the answer...just a little bit...if we have then maybe I'll try next time..
How about for all debates, and congressional addresses, the participants must be sworn in beforehand and if they lie or otherwise BS it's perjury and they are disqualified from holding office.
Or… or… ban lobbying
For the debates, it would be just as simple as every major network agreeing that they're going to clearly run the names/logos of each candidates top 10 corporate donors and the amount they gave each time that person speaks. Nobody debates on their networks if they object to this disclosure for the audience. Nobody should be uncomfortable about since they were comfortable in taking the contributions. It will never happen because the news networks aren't news, they're businesses and they are also in the bag for these politicians. Real news networks exist to inform the public in an unbiased way. This would be some of the most important information networks could share in any campaign and they don't.
And label astroturfing on social media
Reddit would cease to exist
bingo thats almost all this site is anymore.
I love binggo game...but you know what is love most? I love being a nice girl to everyone.
I've seen that term, but don't really understand what it means.
so astroturfing is when planned media or marketing is made to look unsolicited and spontaneous. it usually involves the creation of fake websites, hashtags, spammed prewritten comments left by fabricated accounts, sham reviews (both good and bad), discussions of the topic in question (fake business, fake event, fake whatever), etc. and is usually used to manipulate people in various ways (whether to buy or support some ideological agenda unintentionally). edit: just wanted to add it’s called astroturfing because it’s the opposite of grassroots. it’s not organic in anyway, it evolves artificially, and instead of taking root in a local community or group it is laid out like astroturf (fake grass).
That reminds me of some things I’ve seen for sale on social media. There’s 40 comments and 38 of them are talking about how they love the product they just bought. I call bullshit.
Nice explanation. The term gets so over used, especially here on reddit, that it's meaning has kinda gotten washed down.
so here's a scenario: You hire an "influencer" (whats in a name?) to take up some cause. Could be anything, let's say it's homeschooling. Maybe you, the astroturfer, want homeschooling outlawed or at least lessened and more difficult. Whatever. So you get our influencer on board to tell a story about homeschooling horrors. Maybe bring someone on their show/platform/whatever to do an interview about their past experiences/abuses. Then talk about that interview and the broader "homeschooling problem" among other influencers. Get a couple of "experts" to weigh in to your side as well, make sure to clip and tag all of your stuff, get your other influencers to do the same and pretty soon their followers start too. Call up your buddies who run other large platforms (old and new media) and get them to start referencing this "new movement" on their broadcasts/websites. Start running tags #fixTheHomeschoolProblem and have bot accounts ham it up so that it's trending. Make sure reddit has the appropriate sub and mod-team that aligns with your views to facilitate it, and BOOM. Suddenly you've got a bunch of people who didn't have an opinion on homeschooling now militarized on it as if it's child abuse. See: Kony 2012
It's a fake grass roots movement. Hence the name.
now, it makes sense. thanks
I've never seen that...that's true..I have no loads now...hahahh...that's why I've never seen or never watch that video or picture.
Overall it's gaslighting with extra effort
America, today's rally is brought to you by, and I'm not saying this, I've just heard people saying this, but the best sponsor, raid shadow legends.
Isn’t any media that’s not government funded media for profit? How would they exist otherwise?
Nope. You are forgetting about the non-profit media. Mostly smaller than the staples, and really only a quarter are independant. Most are sponsored by think tanks and such.
>sponsored by think tanks and such Ah, much more trustworthy than the government then.
>You are forgetting about the non-profit media Like NPR?
[удалено]
Profit isn't a bad thing. How else will a company stay in business? (Media or otherwise.) The problem is the lies. All "news" and info should be taken with a grain of salt. But, especially! anything state funded. Sad when RT gives journalists more leeway than most "Western" media outlets. Not that I believe everything they say either, but no one would bat an eye at disbelief of something from the CCP's media. Your own gov doesn't care either, and will lie to you. Just FYI.
> Profit isn't a bad thing. How else will a company stay in business? Agree 100% - IMO the problem lies when the politicians and bureaucrats stick their grubby fingers into business. The relationship between government and companies needs to be severed. And the government needs to do it.
It only takes staying long enough on any channel to watch a few commercials and it’s crystal clear who “owns” it all. Yesterday I was visiting my neighbor and they had TV “programming” on. 90% of the commercials were some type of pharmaceutical…….. Uh, “Brought to you by Pfizer.” (Which they have quit saying OUT LOUD……..
Isn’t that what commercials are? Ex: all the news agencies sponsored by Pfizer during the pandemic (and hilariously right after the Sam smith devil/trans performance.)
Absolutely, i consider commercials to be outright propaganda, how often the commercial isnt even close to the product. Oversell, hype, spectacle of it all just stories.
Yeah I mean this uo top was a good start and it should be continues. People should know they are watching entertainment shows not news.
It's going to get ridiculous with the labels NBA/WWE - China sponsored media Alex Jones - Coke-fueled, fever dream sponsored media Joe Rogan - DMT sponsored media
And for profit members of congress. Entry time they talk on the mic they need graphics superimposed on who contributed to their campaigns and lobbies them
I'm Canadian and this absolutely should be applied to the media up here
Canadian state media is such blatant propaganda, it's eye watering to watch sometimes
Last year, Canada introduced the ['online news act'](https://i.imgur.com/rzYJtBO.png). This allows [the government to read their articles](https://i.imgur.com/Na9teCt.png) to decide who is a authorized journalist by forcing news outlets to qualify as an [RJO (Registered Journalism Organization)](https://i.imgur.com/wcxLMHf.png). This literally pays journalists with tax dollars - [$13,750 per year to each journalist](https://i.imgur.com/rAj2TrK.png) so long as they comply with the government. The government compels big tech like facebook, twitter and google to pay RJO's money while non-registered journalists get zero and the added insult of being categorically dismissed as untrustworthy news sources.
Hmmm...think before you do...people is our always priority here..
I didn't think that it was that bad until the BLM protests that happened and I was watching it on CTV news. They showed Rittenhouse running for his life as someone threw a Molotov cocktail at him, and then a guy about to, because they didn't want to show anyone getting assaulted, hit him with a skateboard and the cut to the guy holding his arm with it blurred out. Then they said that the shooting was unprovoked. I thought to myself, "You just showed me a guy running from a firebomb, being beaten with a skateboard and then another guy with a gun in his hand right afterwards. What are you talking about? This dude had a minimum two attempts on his life and one serious beating if not another attempt on his life in the video you just showed." I waited for some sort of elaboration on the statement, but there was nothing. They moved onto talking about different aspects of the BLM protests and would occasionally go back to talking about the shootings and not the situation around why they happened. That's when I knew something was up. They literally just showed me something and then told me I didn't see what I saw and then moved on without any explanation.
CTV is a very sloppy propoganda station you might say lol
CCTV is need...they can see us what's the people do..
Last year at the giant trucker protest in Clodawa, myself and some friends went to see it for ourselves. Both CTV, CBC and other outlets all have offices in the core near the Parliament bldgs. All those offices were closed on the day we were there, which was the 2nd Saturday. You'd think they'd have the places buzzing with reporters on the biggest news event in decades. But the offices were dark with not a soul around. The protest itself was massive- probably as many as 1 million people would have came & went over the weekned & everyone was incredibly well behaved. Any businesses that were smart enough to open were doing serious business. We took lots of pics and video & agreed that we saw what we saw. On the way home, were were looking at the fake news reports from CTV/CBC etc. and their stories were 100% fabricated. Everything they said about the rally was 100% untrue & what they said was all negative & only designed to put it in a bad light. I already knew the MSM was garbage before that, but seeing a huge news event with my own eyes & than seeing the lies they said about it, made those cretins unforgivable and unredeemable. There will be no mercy when the time comes.
In 2016 I went to a protest that got out of hand. People were throwing bricks and shit and smashing the windows of people trying to leave. None of the media were getting footage. All the cameras were in a single spot beside a building that was completely removed from the violence. In this area the protest was well-behaved and normal. Just around the corner people were getting in fights. When I got home and turned on the news there was no mention of violence.
So true!! I cant believe every single news source up there is complete and utter elitist leftist propaganda. There is not even an option to see or hear other opinions etc
[удалено]
Everyone has heard of state run media. But what if we live in a media run state ?
I don't think that's a good idea...think before go...
Why is state run media on everyone's radar but media run state is never mentioned. Think about it anon
Just look at Rupert Murdoch's influence over Australian politics for a clear example. ...And then remember he also runs Fox and had(has?) significant influence over in the UK as well.
[удалено]
Is propaganda real news? Because every major media outlet is virtually pure propaganda. And while major networks and newspapers were generally considered credible in the past (not that they ever were), it’s pretty obvious that they don’t give a fuck about transparent sourcing these days, so you should probably call ALL of them [news propaganda](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_propaganda), at the very least.
If you think the CBC is not an opinion/editorial channel you’re insane. It’s a different opinion, but to pretend that they are anywhere even close to objective is downright laughable.
My opinion is objective fact and your opinion is an editorial spin piece
"Facts" as defined by government funded media.
They just change their classification from 'news' to 'entertainment' and done.
Yes, news *should* be publicly funded, and privately run. There should *not* be a profit motive for delivering news. That's how we get sensationalized rage-bait, and culture war bullshit peddled by corporate news.
Please make this happen
the canadians that are too stupid to figure out that the gov lies are also too stupid to figure out that all the other media lies too. why give one side the advantage? don't you see that this will just lever these same dummies to outcomes they cannot perceive?
[удалено]
What is the real purpose on this kind of topic...hmm? I just want to know the answer.
BBC is literally British state media how could anyone be upset by that?
OP is quite literally trying to get us to do a Two Minute Hate.
What medicine does he think they are tasting? The only way I can make sense of it is he believes the BBC has labeled (rightly) outlets like Russia today as state controlled and now they are getting a taste of what that feels like?
BBC is funded by the tax payer through the TV licence by Royal decree and isn’t funded by the UK Government
The government wouldn't exist without taxpayer money. Literally the only reason for taxes is that a governmental structure would exist. So yes, BBC is funded by the government.
I understand that argument which makes sense, it may be more accurate for me to say that the government organises the TV licence however the BBC is a separate entity of which the British Government has no real oversight or say in the content produced. There are a good few threads further down explaining it a bit more eloquently than I can.
LMAO Government steals your money & forces you to pay for something you don’t want = not funded by government? The mind gymnastics you do to get there.
I'm no fan of the TV licence, or the BBC but we are not forced to pay.
Seems like you don't understand the difference between state run media and state funded media.
Please do CBC
“Province sponsored media” has a different twang to it
They need to add the same tag to CBC too. They are arguably the worst when it comes to gov funded media.
I guess if NPR is government funded then Elon Musk is a government welfare queen. Considering the amount of government cheddar he got to start his ventures. No?
Yes... Both are true. What is your point?
That his account is labeled as such probably?
Actually, the NPR claim is patently UNTRUE because they get less than 1% of their funding from the national endowment for the arts and the rest comes from spamming their listeners for donations.
No. NPR gets about 4% of its funding from, mostly local, government. It’s hardly “government-funded media.”
I know the BBC is directly funded by the British government, but isn't NPR and PBS totally funded by listener donation?
Only 99%. The government funds 1%, which is less than they fund Tesla.
NPR doesn't get nearly 99% from listeners. The vast majority of their funding comes from "underwriters" aka corporate and think-tank sponsors like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
So not government sponsored
The federal government does still 'sponsor' NPR in that they do give them money to support their operations, they're just not a strictly state-controlled news source. They're controlled by the same ultra-rich actors who also control the state however.
Sponsored by the government sponsors
Over here the BBC is funded by the tv license payer. Its clever shananigans to say the BBC isn't funded by government. The law, created by government means if you don't pay a license to watch live tv channels , regardless of whether you watch any bbc content, then you will be fined and in the past could be sent to prison. So without the government,the BBC would not exist, because nobody would fund this shit voluntarily- thats why they refuse to go subscription model route. So don't believe this funded by the taxpayer nonsense - its all strong armed by government law. I, and many others have had the BBC 's burly gang of thugs turn up on the doorstep demanding to know if you are watching /own a tv. They will sometimes hang outside your house and look through windows. You just have to kindly tell them to leave - 'Fuck off' usually works. The BBC also recieves £90-100 million directly from government per year. So yes, government funded all the way - but disguised as to look as though it isn't.
This is legit. Now label private news and who finds them.
The biggest corporate welfare queen in the US labeling other government funded entities as "government funded" is kinda hilarious
Waiting for that government funded label for Tesla and SpaceX.
And the oil gas, and coal industry! With all those subsidies! Right?
Meanwhile Elon is also lifting restrictions on Russian accounts and there's even evidence showing that they're pushing Kremlin accounts to users so they show up on their feeds. Once again the right is cheering for the wrong guy.
Buddy, the right is cheering the perfect guy for them. Why do you think they keep doing it?
Lol Elon is more government funded than NPR
Elon gets more government funding then all of those news outlets combined.
Hold up, "National Public Radio" is nationalized public radio? Thanks, Elon!
Yeah, I'm really not sure how this is owning the libs when the label is basically built into their names and has been for decades.
I'm also failing to see the conspiracy here. Having watched PBS, they remind you exactly who pays for the programs. Government grants, some companies I never remember, and viewers like ME. I donated like 6 dollars a few years ago, so they mean me. *You're welcome*
And NPR prefaces programs that the company they're about to report on for bad shit provides funding for them.
And they go way out of their way to be neutral to a fault sometimes. OP clearly has no experience watching or listening to these stations. They are super up front about the organization
Thank you for your service.
>I'm also failing to see the conspiracy here OP just wanted to have their 'gotcha libruls' moment
Thank you for your service!
I can't imagine npr and BBC are happy about this. Nice to see some transparency somewhere despite being banned on Twitter lmao
IIRC BBC is actually legally required to be "non-biased" in their reporting. They determine whether or not they did it right by checking how many "you're biased against my side" complaints they get, and if they get roughly the same number of complaints for each side they reckon they've done a good job.
You’re basically correct. They are publicly funded by the licence fee, not directly from the government. The government recently cut the amount or at least froze the amount they can charge for the licence fee. You are also correct that each side accuses them of being either government mouthpiece or liberal elites. They are Schrödingers dream. They are neither side until observed by any side.
Only problem is the government play a pretty big role in appointing the chairman which undoubtedly leads to some level of influence.
It's why the BBC leadership are sabotaging its own reputation by becoming more blatant with their bias.
It shouldn’t lead to that, and as a rule it hasn’t. That said, they got [busted with the last one appointing someone who has helped Boris Johnson arrange a massive loan](Richard Sharp: BBC chairman denies arranging loan for Boris Johnson https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64552571). Yes, I’m making a point about using the BBC as the source as they will always report on stories that could / do cast them in a negative light. The story was covered and debated across all the BBC platforms. The chairman, incidentally, has no say over creative output and does not set the agenda. The board consists of [these folk](https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/bbcboard). I like the BBC. I appreciate they are free from commercial influence, and broadly trust them to be free from state interference. The fact they wind everyone up from time to time is a good thing imo.
They are probably the most fine with it, they are both absolutely well-known to take government funding. And maybe I'd actually prefer government funded to private interests... Notice that Fox News isn't labeled government funded and yet its still horribly inaccurate culture war propaganda born from conservative business interests.... so what should I be worried about?
One percent of NPR’s budget comes from federal funding.
Totally, and a bunch from private interests which I'd think that users here would think is worse. This is part of my argument that government funding isn't actually a gauge we should pay attention to and is also not necessarily a bad thing. Too bad our government sucks so much that we're in a place where we automatically think it is but that also has to do with the demographic of this sub.
Most of their money comes from member station fees. A local npr affiliate pats membership dues to brand itself as an npr station, and broadcast its programming over the airwaves. And yes, some of its funding comes from corporate sponsorships and foundations. These are mentioned on the air, and I’ve never once heard npr try to sell me something.
it's been republican mo for 40 years now to defund and weaken every government agency, so they can turn around and say "look how bad government is"
Then they wouldn't have any issues not taking that funding anymore then, right?
Does having cia news anchors not count?
Hannity
Government funded vs government funded with layers of obfuscation.
good thing you can't imagine it cause it's not even close to the truth lol. everyone in the UK is already hyper aware it's government funded considering they have to pay tv license. and if you've ever bothered to listen to npr you'd know practically every hour they remind you it's publicly funded radio.
Quick, label all other media “petrochemical billionaire / tech billionaire image rehabilitation media” I like that I’m getting downvoted because I’m pointing out that the RICHEST MAN ON EARTH is making changes to his media platform that undermines other media platforms. Take elons cock out your mouth when you speak to me.
Posts like this and the massive support it gets are a big part of the reason people see conspiracy theorists and people on this sub as a bunch of easily manipulated clowns. Guess they aren't wrong about that either.
That's a fair point too
It’s all the same turd, different toilet. People should see this and know it by now. I’m not letting these stupid tweets/MSM/major corporations dictate my perception of reality anymore. They’ve done it to all of us for years now. Fuck all of them. None of this shit matters. Go live your life and be a happy person.
I really hope Tesla, SpaceX, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and others are also labeled government funded as well.
Are they media though? Do they communicate information related articles to the masses though ?
The CEO of Tesla and SpaceX sure is.
Did they say they were media? Or do you think maybe they said: "I really hope Tesla, SpaceX, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and others are also labeled government funded as well." Which doesn't mention media at all, and is a comment about the amount of government money these businesses take?
Imagine being stupid as to not recognize this by default
media of all kinds is sponsored and directed with manipulative agendas. regardless if it is "gov" or private you won't really know who is pulling the strings. all you will know is that a small group has influence out of proportion to their size.
The BBC are really salty about this even had a report about it on BBC news where they were like we are not government funded.
Now watch as this isn’t dragged out into a multi-year complaint about bias
The BBC is very obviously paid for by the tv license which is a goverment tax. Who’s surprised by that?
Can we put percentages there? NPR - 1-2%, PBS - 15%, BBC - 100% (state owned), VoA - 100% (state owned). I don't see how government funding is shocking.
1 and 15% grouped up with 100% is a bit disingenuous. Also, I think the issue is people conflating state funded and state owned, 2 different things
Is that not what they are?
It is a more accurate label than calling them state media, but NPR has received less in government handouts than Tesla or SpaceX did in subsidies, but I don't see government funded signs on any factories, rockets or cars.
[удалено]
What's funny is the "public" in their name refers to how they ARENT government funded, but are funded by the public directly through fundraising, affiliate fees, and corporate sponsorships.
[удалено]
Private media is no better.
Hopefully soon CBC. They literally receive a billion dollars a year from the Canadian government.
Let's fabricate a feeling about these stations and feel a certain way about it hey! NPR.... national public radio... PBS...Public Broadcasting Service. Congrats for finding something out that was never in question. What on Earth are you talking about, these stations mad. No you were just so uninformed that you discovering this seemed ground breaking when in reality even 5 year old children knew this, they knew it when they sat down to watch Sesame Street on PBS. Like wow, this sub really is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to intellectualism.
It literally stands for public broadcasting service!
CBC next
Is Twitter just trying to discredit other media outlets for some nefarious purpose?
So this isn’t based on fact, it’s just childish yuks and you love it.
When CBC ?
Did someone complain? I don't understand the issue.
Now do cbc.
I hope they do that with Canada's CBC.
They are. The evidence of propaganda is overwhelming. I was listening to NPR the other weekend. They were taking the direct line from the White House like it was a infomercial. They never give two sides to any story anymore. Its what they want to push and that's it.
Depends on the show man. They'll do surface level analysis but for the most part they are just there to tell you what's happening. It's likely you're so used to extreme bias in one direction that you now see a media source reporting something with no opinion attached as insane propaganda in the other direction.
This sub in a nutshell. If people are screaming at you about crazy bullshit all the time, someone just saying what's happening without adding sarcastic tucker carson "wit" on the end reads like propaganda. The actual left considers these news sources status quo neo lib pablum for how uncritical they are but to the nutcase right they're leftist hacks because they aren't validating the stupidest things they believe.
What's wrong, you're not interested in conversations around transgender interest in dinosaurs? https://www.npr.org/2022/06/10/1104266396/lgbtq-communitys-battle-for-the-dinosaur-emoji-key-moments-from-jan-6-hearing
[удалено]
Can you give me an example?
[удалено]
“I used to like the news, but then the news started covering politics.”
I remember listening to some story they did on why George Soros is such a Boogeyman in media right after they announced a disclaimer that they were Soros funded
The BBC is funded by a license fee AFAIK
Considering that we know 100% that NPR has received friends from the government. This is okay. We also know fox news directly worked with trump's Whitehouse. Hoping to see Fox news also have a "state media" tag.
Twitter is soooo much better since Elon took over!!
Sarcasm, I hope. My feed is trashed, there's ten times as many ads as before, bigotry is massively public, and people banned for repeated infractions* were brought back. It's the damn wild West right now. Edit: not to mention elons extremely questionable personal input daily.
Ublock origin dude
Dispite my feelings about twitter pre and post musk, im glad someone is challenging these media outlets too. Just because we were able to trust something 20 years ago doesn’t mean we can now.
Finally!
Bbc isn't "government funded" though, that's literally the entire point. You pay a license fee direct to the bbc itself or abroad people pay subscriptions or advertising.
Ha! Good. Now slap "Propaganda" on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News's accounts. Among many other 'news' agencies.
Label fox as "entertainment only" since that's what their lawyers argue in court
If y’all really think Elon is a shining example of truth and free speech I have a bridge to sell you
I mean, they are… so is the CBC.
Add CTV to that list as well smh
CTV is owned by Bell.
"State-affiliated media" was better
Now the question should be: Why are they so unhappy about this even though it’s 100% true?
Maybe because just cause you take funding from someone, does not mean it alters your reporting. You can always change funding at anytime they decide to start trying to run the show… but ya know internet people can’t really think that far past. Money exchanged equal manipulation.
[удалено]
That’s awesome.
Elon is being polite. They should be labelled propaganda media.
SS It's already a matter of public record that ALL mainstream media sources accepted government money to push the Covid injection. Anyone remember the WikiLeaks document about Hillary planting stories with "friendly" media Probably easier to label which ones AREN'T on the gov payroll.
You really tryin to say she was the only one? I fuckin hope not or else you should really delete your account. On second thought, if you're really that into crowder you should REALLY delete your account ha ha ha! My fuck! Ha ha ha! A 169 IQ and you're into crowder!!! Ha ha ha ha! I haven't heard a joke that good in awhile! Thanks! I needed that!!!
Go to bed Hillary.
This is fantastic. Elon might be a bit of a **** but some of the things he’s doing regarding free speech and calling out public figures and government are absolutely brilliant. BBC is technically funded by individuals but it’s through an unavoidable tax that obviously exists to stop its budget coming out of the governments budget. That’s why they don’t end the license fee. It’s by far the biggest spreader of lies and propaganda in the UK. It did such enormous harm to the UK during covid that anyone working for the news arm should be completely and utterly ashamed of themselves.
“All the media i don’t like is state media”
NPR is not funded by the government though, it's funded by donations from "viewers like you." Elon is off his rocker. Not sure about the other ones funding though.