Non-main stream media

the

the

Si master race.
Banned
MBTI
ISTJ
Enneagram
9w1
Is there even such a thing? Where is it? What qualities must the media possess to not be main stream?
 
Mainstream is geared toward formulaic mass appeal. I think that's the most non-hipster definition I can give you.

Mainstream is not inherently bad. It just has more propensity to be over produced and overrated, appealing to safe and stable demographics rather than niches.

Not-mainstream is not inherently good. Some times it is crap. Some times it's just pretentious. And some times mainstream pretends to be it where the lines blur and they want to catch some new market share by being new or rebellious - in calculated fashion. Which makes it not new or rebellious.
 
News that I consider mainstream has the following characteristics.

1) Tends to be very sensationalist. Meaning their intention is to amaze and captivate viewers rather than simply inform them with the truth.
2) The intent of the news is to generate profit in one way or another. Rather than to give people the truth.
3) Is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator in an attempt to maximize the size of the customer base.

I prefer PBS for my news, I like that they are publicly funded. All news is inherently biased, so the only way to be unbiased is to clearly state your bias. This is why I also use RT to get a contrary perspective.
 
Non mainstream. Not shown with advertising, or on pay tv I guess. However, most of these derive their stories from the mainstream.

I guess that leaves it at the level of gossip, the grape-vine and online posts.



I wish someone would organise an online site, where people would submit news, together with their own amateur footage and so have something of a fusion between google news, wikipedia and a forum.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Non mainstream. Not shown with advertising, or on pay tv I guess. However, most of these derive their stories from the mainstream.

I guess that leaves it at the level of gossip, the grape-vine and online posts.



I wish someone would organise an online site, where people would submit news, together with their own amateur footage and so have something of a fusion between google news, wikipedia and a forum.
Click to expand...

Well news is news. If Bob the Builder gets a new barn, and it's covered accurately, then it's going to be the same story no matter who covers it, so in that way it really isn't derived from anything.

The real difference is what is covered, how it's done, and how trumped up and dramatized it is.
 
non-mainstream means it isnt the corporate HQ talking points to sell commercial products. In non mainstream media you will for example get things like News, information, and understanding. MSM all you really get is hours of frightfests to trick you into buying anti acne creams, cars, and location chips you can implant into your children like fucking dogs.
 
sprinkles said:
Well news is news. If Bob the Builder gets a new barn, and it's covered accurately, then it's going to be the same story no matter who covers it, so in that way it really isn't derived from anything.

The real difference is what is covered, how it's done, and how trumped up and dramatized it is.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A few people claim that the mainstream media skews the facts - but I'll leave that to marijuana smokers with conspiracy theory paranoia. But most people would agree that the selection and presentation of news by the mainstream media is skewed towards sensationalism, or Western self-interest.

I think it would be good to have news that is truly global - and perhaps carefully categorised, so that you don't end up looking through articles about new local barns next to amateur coverage of massacres in Sudan (both of which are generally untouched by the mainstream media).
 
Euro news and BBC news are both good sources of unadulterated information. Unfortunately, because of their location, they mainly focus on European news.
 
I don't think that mainstream necessarily means lower quality or sensationalistic, or that non-mainstream means higher quality.

Something like this:

http://conspiracyplanet.com/

is definitely not mainstream, but I wouldn't exactly go around taking it too seriously either. I would say that something like wikileaks isn't exactly mainstream either.

But anything involving a network, an easily identifiable brand name, etc… is mainstream.

The mainstream outlets should be under the most pressure to keep things as objective as possible to protect their reputations, but of course this tends not to happen anymore. This is because of the rise of niche markets-- networks are competing with online news and youtube for people with razor-thin attention spans, so they have to go sensational just to get people to pay attention.

I think that recently people just assume that whoever tells them what they want to hear is telling the truth. There really is no way to tell what's actually going on… but I could probably argue that this has never been the case anyways.
 
[MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION]

That's pretty true, but I've never considered "I must be the one to deliver to you because it helps me on a professional level, therefore I will make it more shiny to get your attention" to be good. It is a poor and flawed attitude which detracts from the product.

Competition shall be based on the merit of the product. If they cannot keep up without added flavorings, then they don't deserve the success.
 
Apone said:
I think that recently people just assume that whoever tells them what they want to hear is telling the truth. There really is no way to tell what's actually going on… but I could probably argue that this has never been the case anyways.
Click to expand...

Are you surprised? 1/3 of our country doesn't even believe in evolution or natural selection... it makes sense that they would choose news that makes them feel better over news that informs them. Typical of self centered 1st worlders IMO.
 
Billy said:
Are you surprised? 1/3 of our country doesn't even believe in evolution or natural selection... it makes sense that they would choose news that makes them feel better over news that informs them. Typical of self centered 1st worlders IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes and some media outlets depend on this. Being a numbers game makes it problematic.

People are starting to turn away because it's too bright, shiny, and over produced. What is the mainstream reaction to this problem? Make it brighter, shiner, and more over produced.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...
 
sprinkles said:
Yes and some media outlets depend on this. Being a numbers game makes it problematic.

People are starting to turn away because it's too bright, shiny, and over produced. What is the mainstream reaction to this problem? Make it brighter, shiner, and more over produced.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...
Click to expand...

Yeah nothing like bringing down the bar and setting the standards lower. I'm waiting for outlets like Fox news to have witch burning and prayer kickoffs each night and MSNBC to be aired by hot air balloons that do nothing except get bad ratings. That's the one thing liberals cant figure out, they're trying to have all these ideals and standards that don't exist at the pig trough they're pretending to compete in. No one wants to watch the news and be moralized to. (liberals) this is why Fox news is favored by America, Americans prefer to be outraged by impending attacks on the memories of the "good ole days" of bitches in the kitchen and darkies in the ghetto and money in the white mans pocket.

As a culture we are quite sad and pathetic IMO anyway. While we mask the Darwinian nature of life with colorful words and window dressing, the animal in us is ever rising to fuck up the ideals our higher brains try to come up with. We are a failed experiment of evolution in that way, its actually my personal belief that we will eventually wipe ourselves out, but we are not slated for long term survival into a type 1 or type 2 civilization, which is sad.

When you think of the way we think as a culture/species...

Well, we have the 1st worlders using up almost all the resources for fucking IPODS and new Car models ever single year. Its non stop repetitiveness, its complete unsustainable with a growing population. We are headed for a major crash, and I don't see any governments planning on colonizing Mars or the Moon, so this is it... its going to get a LOT tighter on earth over the next few hundred years to the point where everyone is headed for the big starvation.

What happens to the Deer during the winter when they outnumber the amount of treebark they can eat? Its pure natural selection. There is this much food and it will sustain this many deer... the rest of the deer starve to death and succumb to either exposure or other predators.

It all ties into our nature as creatures. We would rather spend our time and effort developing toys to play with than to really try and make things work for ourselves and our progeny.

Its all aiming for the base

So there I am sitting in that 1st world. That's the culture I am in. Then we have the 2nd and 3rd world. They have way larger populations but no infrastructure or technology. But don't worry they're working hard and dirty on it, so at some point they too can be just like us and waste all their time and money on new laptops and cars and vacations and cruises or drugs. Then instead of having 1 billion people leeching off the other 7 billion we can just have mass pandemonium as we try to supply 8, 10, 15 billion human beings with their greedy little hearts petty desires.

Now to tie this all back into the OP

Does it surprise you that people will gravitate to find news that agrees with them, as opposed to wanting an unbiased source that just spews facts?

Our entire civilization is on track for mutual self destruction because we cant see beyond our basic animal needs to have something physical and shiny in our hands to show off. Because nobody wants to be the 1st person (myself included) to say "you know what? I don't need any of this shit, I can go without on this stuff. I want to spend my time trying to fix real problems and do whatever I can as an individual to increase our odds as a species and act as a Representative of our particular evolutionary bush. Meaning love for all living things, because all living things share common ancestors therefore we are, literally physically and genetically related to any organic life form on earth. Most people don't think of that, I wish they would. I wish more people would try to see the world as it is, and not as we wish it to be.

Fuck Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Kieth Obergoon, Chris Matthews, and all the other arugula eating elites who get paid to scare people and sustain an unsustainable system of repetition, greed, and filth.
 
[MENTION=1451]Billy[/MENTION]

Well I think that anyone has the ability to see beyond this, and that rampant anxiety, mental illness, depression and consumerism results from trying to kill the little voice in every human being that does see it.

All beings are connected and have an inner sense, and essential nature, and our nature is actually to eschew such things but we are extremely discontent from not following our nature.

Making people believe that it's their nature to be this way and that they want it was one of the greatest tricks of all time.
 
The 'mainstream news' is at the moment the news controlled by the corporations which unfortunately have formed a nexus with government (which is really the definition of fascism)

The powerful corporate interests who sought to control government also sought to control public opinion so they invested heavily in the media

They looked at and continue to look at what media gets the most attention from the public then they seek to control it; early in the 20th century they looked at the circulation of the newspapers to find out which had the largest reader base and then they bought up those newspapers and from then on have controlled their output

Nowadays because the corporations have gained such control over the government the interests of the two entities are essentially the same. For example the foreign policy of the government is based around finding new markets and resources for the corporations as can clearly be seen on any news

The corporate news basically take press releases from the government and regurgitate them out for the public virtually word for word

There are organisations that have been set up like the Council on Foreign Relations to act as a forum where corporate interests, media people and government officials can all meet and decide what the official line is so that everyone can be 'on message'

The corporate media take this central message and re-package it across many channels to make it seem like there is a diversity of news sources when in fact it is all centrally controlled. Here's an amusing clip that shows how homogenised the corporate media is; the guy talks for about a minute before it starts showing all the different media outlets all saying the same thing from the same script:

[video=youtube;CrERlt280Z0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrERlt280Z0[/video]
 
Last edited:
Here's a series of interesting clips about how the media really works and who really controls it:

They contain proof of the corporate media skewing the news......now i might just go and smoke a joint while i watch it and reflect on the situation :)

[video=youtube;c-wFEKC4s3w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-wFEKC4s3w[/video]

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XnthFRO0cg

Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpTc3q5dtQw
 
Last edited:
Yeah the waters are deliberately muddied by those in power to keep us from seeing what is really going on....''smoke and mirrors''

For example they use something they call 'strategy of tension' which is creating a panic in the public so that the public perceive that there is a danger and will then willingly accept more draconian laws to be enforced

Here's a wikipedia page about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension

Its taken me a lot of time to try and see through the murk and i'm learning new angles all the time...its a deep web indeed!

The simplest way i can think to put it is to say that there are centralising forces and de-centralising forces.

The centralising forces want to control everyone else and the de-centralising forces want to control their own lives

The centralising forces are very sneaky! These forces are having a big influence on shaping our society at the moment, but they also know that many will find society stifling and will deviate from it, so they put their gatekeepers out on every road. For example those seeking to walk the left hand path may become ensnared in the nets of the fishermen placed to trawl for wondering souls

The centralising forces will also support causes that on the surface seem reasonable enough but their motives for doing so are not honourable. For example they have supported womens liberation.

Any reasonable person would i'm sure agree that women should have equal opportunities but the centralising forces are not interested in giving women equal opportunities....they are largely patriarchal and will generally keep women out of the top tier of the power pyramid (politicians are not in the top tier), so women have not been empowered but have rather been sold an illusion of empowerment

They have brought women into the work place to double the taxes that will go to the government and then straight to the central bankers (the patriarchal centralising forces) to pay off the interest payments owed on money printed by the federal reserve

Women are also encouraged to leave their children in state child care whilst they go to work so that their children can be raised by the state (indoctrinated)

So although many reasonable people will campaign for equal opportunities for women they will also help the centralising forces achieve their ends by doing so (unless they also campaign for more power to the people at the same time)

The current issue in the news is gun control. Once again many reasonable people might campaign for greater gun controls believeing that having so many guns around is a bad thing, but what they might not realise is that by doing so they will leave only the central bankers (who control the government and by default the military) and the criminals (who won't abide by gun laws) with guns, leaving the law abiding citizens at a clear disadvantage

So yeah its all pretty murky out there, even reforms that seem reasonable on the surface are actually sometimes helping the forces of centralisation and moving us closer to a dictatorship
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top