Manufactured consent vs. just plain crazy?

The other day in class we talked about the idea of manufactured consent, the idea that if you continually show something to people in a positive light they will eventually except it. this idea isn’t just pulled from thin air though, its real. One such study that has been done on the case is teen desensitization to violence through games and violent tv programs
“Summarizing his findings, Dr Jordan Grafman, of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, US, said: “Exposure to the most violent videos inhibits emotional reactions to similar aggressive videos over time and implies that normal adolescents will feel fewer emotions over time as they are exposed to similar videos.”
He added: “Continued exposure to violent videos will make an adolescent less sensitive to violence, more accepting of violence, and more likely to commit aggressive acts since the emotional component associated with aggression is reduced and normally acts as a brake on aggressive behavior.”
He said: “I don’t think anybody would deny that people do become desensitized to violence. But the real issue is whether that in and of itself causes negative consequences.”


What other things have the media used to manufacture our consent beside violence though. well depending on who you watch for news; CNN makes you thing that republicans are evil, and fox makes you think democrats are stupid.
Some people feel it goes deeper than this though. all the way down to music videos as a form of advancing a secret world domination take over. One such article I found like this dissects the lady gaga music video Alejandra, and describes how it promotes the sexiness behind being controlled by a police state Nazi like government.

http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3979


There is no question that the media influences us without us knowing it some times, but to what extent and reason?

Could deceiving the media win a war?

A basic principle of war is, whoever has the bigger army has a better chance to win. So in some instances just showing your opponent that your forces easily out number there’s can result in a surrender before one shot is even fired. Apparently that is the thinking of the Russians. Building up a massive army and sustaining it is extremely expensive though. so how can a country build up a massive intimidating army and not go bankrupt? Easy. Balloons!!!!
That’s right balloons. But these aren’t your average everyday 4 year old birthday party balloons. No these are life sized, realistic looking, inflatable balloons coated in a special chemical to make them appear is a regular tank on radar and heat sensing devices. Why would they do this though?
Well at first it sounds like they want to trick their enemies into thinking they are much more powerful than they are, resulting in the surrender of those they challenge. No one would ever look to the horizon, see 200 Russian tanks and think they could take that army down with a sharp pointed pencil, except that the Russians told everyone! If thet were trying to trick people into thinking their fake armies were real, why would they tell people their secret plan?
….. Unless they wanted everyone to know they had these balloons. Then if they actually had an unbelievable large army, no one would believe it was real…. Until they were right on top of them and it was too late to do anything about it. by leaking this new weapon to the media no army will actually be 100% sure if they are charging into a battle, or if its just a bunch of balloons.

wire tapes: protection vs. privacy

wire tapes


Dear ACLU Supporter,

The Obama administration and law enforcement officials are seeking greater power to invade your privacy.

Sign the ACLU's petition to Attorney General Holder: Rein in FBI surveillance power.


Did you hear about this? The Obama administration is seeking to expand the government's ability to conduct invasive surveillance online.1

This outrageous proposal would mandate that all online communications services use technologies that would make it easier for the government to collect private communications and decode encrypted messages that Americans send. This includes communications sent using texting platforms, BlackBerries, social networking sites, and other "peer to peer" communications software such as Skype.

While the country tends to other issues, the administration and law enforcement officials are seeking greater power to invade your privacy. We must take a stand against this proposal before it even makes its way to Congress.

Sign the ACLU's petition to Attorney General Holder: Rein in FBI surveillance power.


Former president George w. bush is one of the first people that comes to my mine when I think about the patriot act. The news is always beating this fact into our heads, but recently the Obama administration has started trying to expand the government’s ability to wire tape. If Obama gets his wish not only will the government be able to hear our phone calls, but will also be able to read our text messages. Of course the strategy for passing this law is the same as most that come about these days; defense against terrorists. Its hard for anyone to go against this type of idea. No one, save for the people the government might be watching, doesn’t want defense against terrorist, however though, few people want a unknown 3rd party to read their personal info. Where can we draw the line though?
The truth of the matter is the government does not have the man power or the money to read everyone’s texts so 99% of us might go our entire lives without ever having one government official read our texts ever. The only people that have anything to worry about are people with things to hide. Saying that though, who doesn’t have something to hide? And on top of that, how will this work constitutionally? Will having your texts read out loud be a violation of the self incrimination protection set out in the 5th amendment? Im sure if it passes that will be a challenge to it. maybe with the help of the ACLU though it might never get through. Or maybe it needs to get through. Only time will tell.

glen beck vs. comedy central

the rally to restore sanity/ march to keep fear alive hasn't event begun yet and it already promises to be bigger than there rival, glen beck's, previous rally, depending on who you look at. some statistics say over half a million people were at glee becks rally, but it seems it was more closely around 85,000. the rallies put on by Colbert and Stewart already have 125,000 people saying they are planning on going on facebook. from seeing a clip from the glen beck show the other day though its clear that he is not happy about this. glen becks gone as far as to say that the Colbert report is somehow using this rally as some type of activation process for the mind control that the daily show and colbert report have been pumping out for the past 5 years. this idea is crazy though, and i think glens just a little jealous people would rather go to a comedy like fun event than a fo-civil rights movement whatever thing he tried to do.

the daily show vs. the colbert report- Whats going on

Last week on the daily show John Stewart announced that he would be having a rally: A “rally to restore sanity”. By doing this he hopes to convince America to “tone it down a notched” and to stop drawing Hitler mustaches on anyone except Hitler. After his announcement though Steven Colbert of the Colbert report announced that he too would be hosting an event; the “march to keep fear alive”. Both Steven and john have a point to their given rallies. On johns side I agree that it seems every single thing that happens the news makes it seem like life as we know it is about to come to an end. Does everyone that does something we don’t agree with have to be Hitler? Maybe turning it down a notch isn’t too bad, but then again Steven has a point to. So many things do seem to be wrong that this is in no way the time for complacency. Something, whether it is everyone chilling out, or everyone rioting in the streets needs to be done, and these two news casters have the power, I believe, to make it happen. I fear though that they won’t use this power to accomplish anything though, instead I think this is all put here to make fun of glen beck.



http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/359382/september-16-2010/march-to-keep-fear-alive-announcement

obama vs. fox news

as the video at the bottom of this post says, presidents and the press have always been at war. no one is going to agree with everything a president does, and even fewer will agree if the news paints them in a negative light. fox news openly claims to not be liberal. they say they are fair and balanced. some people think that means they are conservative and some think they are telling the truth, it really depends on if you agree with them or not. whether they are conservative or fair doesnt matter though, cause what ever you believe about them you cant deny that they are not fans of Obama. being so obama is not a fan of fox, and recently he has tried to fight back. presidents before have tried this before in some instances, and in some cases they have won. obamas tactics have bordered on the illegal though, with an attempt to block them out of interviews. An act of which was so upsetting to every news station that the competition even spoke out about it till obamas administration decided to reverse that decision. and rightly so. the president is the most powerful man in the country, but if he tries to use that power to silence those that dont agree with him democracy dies right then and there. that is the number one fundamental right we have, freedom of speech, that separates us from these 3rd world dictatorships. if he wants to refuse interviews with them (which he has) thats his right, but to block them from press conferences and only allow people that agree with him to join in, that is horribly horribly wrong!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ1gkLqBmlg

How to apologize using mass media (after mass media forces you to do so)

Before the technological age we lived in, if you really felt bad about something you had done to someone you would tell them “I’m sorry”. You could meet them in person, write them a letter, call them on the phone etc… it was a very private thing. Only you and the person you had wronged had to know you had messed up. Today our media crazed minds demand more of our celebrity gods though. When Kanye West did the whole Taylor swift thing, he didn’t just wrong one person, he wronged everyone that sings her songs and enjoys her music. Thus slipping her a note reading “yo Taylor girl sorry for all that beyonce s**t up on the stage, ya know I love ya. Sorry for reals.” Wouldn’t cut it. Thankfully for him though the little invention of twitter has been created. Now if he wants to apologize to Taylor swift (almost a year later when the next music awards are coming up and he needs public support to win), he can simply write: “I’m sorry Taylor” on twitter and his 700,000 fans can get the message and pass it on to everyone else that’s still angry with him, thus giving everyone a since that he has apologized for hurting them as well.

As much as I’d hate to say it though, I still have to agree with Obama and his original comments about Kanye.

How Twitter Helped Resurrect Kanye West