The Propaganda Model

This is a rough draft, of an essay I wrote a while back...Keyword rough draft.

Today, now more than ever, the Mass Media has taken control over public and social life. With our industrialized economy and consumer culture, we live in a 'media saturated' world, bombarded with advertising messages, multi-channel TV networks, and streets littered with newspapers and billboards. Popular culture, social order, and our political systems are governed and shaped by the codes and signs produced by the media, as it is starting to blur our sense of reality.
In our modern world though, mainstream media outlets are large corporations or conglomerates - actually the majority of all media (movies, songs, shows, news outlets) are controlled by the same twenty-nine companies. What you see, hear, and read is now in the hands of a well-funded elite. This, politically, creates a system similar to that of which - Edward Herman, and Noam Chomsky predicted in their propaganda model. The only solution to this is to create a media system that's in the hands of the people, a competitive, independent, public broadcasting outlet.
To start off, let me explain how the propaganda model works. First off, since all major media outlets in the US are owned or conglomerates with large corporations, then their news and information that is spread will be biased with respect to those interests. An example, the yellow journalism that led to the Spanish-American war. While working for American newspaper magnate William Hearst, artist Frederic Remington telegrammed him, saying that him staying in Cuba was pointless, as all was quiet and "There will be no war." Hearst responded with "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

Between the years 1965 to 1967, International Telephone and Telegraph's attempted takeover of ABC was met with public outcry, and controversy. ITT was a large, multinational corporation with "extensive foreign investments and business activities" - Noam Chomsky. The thought of them controlling a large media outlet was incomprehensible, as they would be given the power to "compromise the independence of ABC's news coverage in countries where it has interests." - John Pilger.
GE's takeover of ABC resulted in far less public outcry, but it is far more concerning. GE is considerably more powerful than ITT, with stakes in everywhere from the weapons industry to nuclear power business. With ABC's new structural relationship to GE it's inconceivable that they will remain neutral or unbiased on affairs that relate to GE's interests.
An article published by the International Committee of the Fourth International in 2003 they claimed that "the blame for the super-patriotic tone of the war coverage" was "largely on the media empire of billionaire Rupert Murdoch". Ironically, under Murdoch's control are many defense contractors and weapons producers. One such is Raytheon Industries. Raytheon Industries is the fourth largest defense contractor in America, and is owned by Hughes Electronics, which is in turn owned by News Broadcasting/Fox Broadcasting.
As these examples suggest, profit oriented businesses shape and cultivate news stories to match their interests. And the mutual symbiotic relationships that are formed between multinational corporations and news outlets help to make sure the governments political activities benefit the rich and elite at the expense of the working class.
Another factor in what news stories are shown by media outlets is the advertising public. Sir George Lewis noted that laissez-faire capitalism in the media would promote news outlets that enjoyed "the preference of the advertising public". This method of self-censorship works as I means of controlling public opinion, as only news that benefits large corporations is released to the public, whilst news stories that aren't end up being buried or spiked. In 1985 Public Station WNET lost their corporate funding from Gulf and Western after it showed the documentary "Hungry for Profit", a movie that "contains material critical of multinational corporations in the Third World". - (Noam Chomsky) Gulf and Western's official response to the movie was that it was "Anti-American", and that airing it was not the behavior "of a friend" to the company. After this "mishap", the London Economist wrote that "Most people believe that WNET would not make the same mistake again."
As I have suggested in my example, the US mass media fails to provide the public with the information to understand current events. Instead it systematically presents us with information that benefits it, its share-holders, and its advertisers. Increasing public funding to independent sources, and creating 100% public funded broadcasting is the only solution to informing citizens about political issues in our contemporary society. And is the only solution keeping the US a healthy democracy.

Drug Laws Make No Sense At All

So I had to right an essay about freedom today, it was boring, motivational, yadda yadda....

Then I started to think about what the term freedom meant, I decided it was, to do something in according to one's will, values, morals. So then I thought what restricts that. I thought at first about what Jean-Jacques Roasseau has said about people restricting people, and how indirectly every action we make, is in some way (whether voluntarily or involunarily) influenced by societies current accepted norms and other relativistic values. (That was a long ass run-on sentence lol)

But then I realized who else was the perpetrator...the government. Well, the government takes away so many of our rights, it wouldn't be funny or necessary to count them all here...but I thought about drug laws for a second.

Why does the government outlaw drugs? There are many conspiracies that I could suggest, but the prevailing opinion, to me, was that drugs are outlawed because they are bad for you.

So because you do something that's bad for you, you get sent to jail. WTF? Seriously think about it...

Yanqui U.X.O.

The Sea of Life

Friedrich Nietzsche - "Zeus did not want man to throw his life away, no matter how much the other evils might torment him, but rather to go on letting himself be tormented anew. To that end, he gives man hope. In truth, it is the most evil of evils because it prolongs man's torment."

All men dream, all dreams, just as equal, but ultimately it is the current of life that decides whether or not they come true...

I assume they float in murky waters, either sinking, swimming, drifting off, dying, or rising to the surface.

So shouldn't we, oh shouldn't we, throw our hopes into the ocean.

Fashioning Flowers From Fancy

It's hard to think - it's easier do.

Today I wasted my whole day doing meaningless shit, over and over.

Although the definition of "meaningless" varies from person to person...

When I was a little kid I never thought I was going to grow old, I always assumed I was going to kill myself before then.

We always attach ourselves to the tranquility of peaceful, everyday life, yet I think - secretly - we wish the currents of our lives would ebb and flow for once.

I bleed onto this page, but I think it ran grey.

Fucking Irony

So, today I was bored and was searching "Urban Decay" on google.

Why? I have no clue.

And then...fucking irony.

The first result is http://www.urbandecay.com/. Lol.

A fucking beauty/make-up site. Oh how I love irony.

What a name to - Urban Decay - you know what's really decaying though, the quality of life. I wonder if in the primitive era (or Neolithic), we were such self-coscious shits.

Maybe. But not to this degree I hope.

People tell you the quality of life is expanding - yeh how the fucks so? People are more insecure, less social, less real to themselves...

We're only "blessed" with living longer.... like that's a fucking blessing.

A Sad Story (Sorry for the Language)

So the other day I was at my freind's house, and he was checking his Facebook, like he always - like every fucking five minutes. And he got a post on his wall from this kid who is ---- eerrr.... unpopular.

Now personally I couldn't give two shits on whether or not this kid was popular or not, but my freinds starts fretting over it.

He was like, "Oh shit. Now people are gonna think I'm freinds with him. I have a fucking reputation to maintain."

I told him "Fucking deal with it. You care too much about what people think of you." - Which is funny because I'm pretty damn self-concious.

But anyway he deleted the shit off his Facebook wall... but it made me think. Were we always like this?

Did humans all ways act like such shit to each other? I mean he couldn't even pretend he was fucking freinds with this kid. That's fucking sad.