How does the media affect people?

[juan t]

 

 

You asked for just one example, and I gave you two. I chose the most obvious examples not just for you, but for other readers to easily understand my point. Ngayon palusot ka pa na it's not happening often enough.

 

You're showing how naive you are about media propaganda.

I see everyday how the yellow media twist and spin the news for their propaganda campaign. Obviously, you fail to see them (deliberately or otherwise).They are good, if I may say so myself --- well worth the money the oligarchs and vested interest groups are spending on them.

 

Next time you read the mainstream newspaper keep a look out for their twists on the news, for example:

 

1. When they report on a drug bust with casualties, they focus on the fatality, his personal misfortune, his poverty, and the anguish of the family. No emphasis in their report on his links with drug syndicate, his police record, the amount of drugs intercepted and recovered, or statements from police operatives. Their reports are almost always social commentaries, rather than cold hard facts of a crime report.
2. Whenever there is a report on major projects like power plants, international gateway airports, seaports, new roads, the news will always show emphasis on "poor farmers / fishermen / residents, etc..." who might be displaced, the environmental impact, and how expensive the project will be. Now. dig deeper to find out who the proponents of those projects are. You'll see that if the proponents are non-oligarch private companies, you'll see the negative twists. If they are oligarch-led, only good things are reported.
3. Emphasis on tracking corruption cases and highlighting the failures of Duterte. But no media coverage on Duterte's economic plans and reforms in governance.
4. Focusing on the plight of the poor, and highlighting the role of opposition groups in providing those needs. Again, without media coverage of what the government agencies are doing already.

 

 

 

Walang palusot dito. Your examples are hardly propaganda. If those are the best examples you can give, then you are failing miserably. Not to mention you had to go all the way back to 2013 to find mistakes. Like I said, there were bad judgement with the pictures, but the contents remain true. One doesn't digest a news article by just looking at pictures or reading headlines.

Now I wont deny that reports may sometimes be subjected to influence (bribery, coercion,...whatever) but guess what? It happens to all administrations - yes even Panot's. To claim that the yellows control mainstream media is absurd. In contrast, if you look at the likes of Mocha, Thinking Pinoy, Sass, etc. there is no doubt as to who they favor. So tell me, where do you get your news source from?

[camiar]

 

 

 

Walang palusot dito. Your examples are hardly propaganda. If those are the best examples you can give, then you are failing miserably. Not to mention you had to go all the way back to 2013 to find mistakes. Like I said, there were bad judgement with the pictures, but the contents remain true. One doesn't digest a news article by just looking at pictures or reading headlines.

Now I wont deny that reports may sometimes be subjected to influence (bribery, coercion,...whatever) but guess what? It happens to all administrations - yes even Panot's. To claim that the yellows control mainstream media is absurd. In contrast, if you look at the likes of Mocha, Thinking Pinoy, Sass, etc. there is no doubt as to who they favor. So tell me, where do you get your news source from?

 

 

OK. Be happy and just stay blissfully unaware of how your opinions are being influenced by yellow propaganda in mainstream media.

 

For the rest of the other readers in this forum, just be aware that not all you get from media are true. Always get an alternative sources of information. Be discerning.

[juan t]

Discerning? You cant even name your "alternative sources of information". Are you afraid you wont be able to defend your source's credibility?

[rooster69ph]

One good thing that came out from Sec. aguirre's "blunder" of trying to link these "yellow polititians" to the Marawi incident is that it magnified how this admin use fake news as propaganda. Good thing hindi nagpagamit at pumalag ang press na sila ang maging scape goat sa sinasabi niyang "he was misinterpreted".

 

Next time Mr Secretary matuto ka naman umestima, hindi lahat eh tangang sunud-sunuran lang at madaling mapaniwala at sesegunda na lang sa mga pakulo ninyo.

[rooster69ph]

Discerning? You cant even name your "alternative sources of information". Are you afraid you wont be able to defend your source's credibility?

For DDS the likes of Mocha is credible ...So what if they use counter propaganda or fake news as long as the president is "protected" from any attcks or criticisms.

[jelly bean]

...just be aware that not all you get from media are true... Be discerning.

Of course. Check sources and do research.

 

“In this age of misinformation, we should value forgetting as much as we do remembering.”

[juan t]

BBC "Hardtalk" host Stephen Sackur's interview with Trillanes was hilarious.

 

Sackur: Are you a democrat?

 

Trillanes: No, I am from the Nacionalista Party.

 

 

Had you watched the actual interview and not the edited version on the internet, you would've found that Trillanes's excact statement was "Yes, I am from the Nacionalista Party but yes, I am a democrat" -(The latter part of his statement being slightly muffled by the host talking simultaneously). 'Tis a non-issue actually, just more internet propaganda making mountains out of a mole-hills. You should be more discerning with your sources of information.

Edited June 24, 2017 by juan t

[rooster69ph]

Had you watched the actual interview and not the edited version on the internet, you would've found that Trillanes's excact statement was "Yes, I am from the Nacionalista Party but yes, I am a democrat" -(The latter part of his statement being slightly muffled by the host talking simultaneously). 'Tis a non-issue actually, just more internet propaganda making mountains out of a mole-hills. You should be more discerning with your sources of information.

Internet propaganda pass on as "credible media"seems to be the norm these days.

[juan t]

The fact is he said that he is from the Nacionalista Party first and only after Sackur corrected him that he said he is a democrat. It's either you didn't watch it or you are lamely spinning this in favor of Trillanes. It may be a non-issue to you but it gave me comic relief.

 

Why should I be more discerning with my sources when that interview was a primary source of information? Are you implying that that interview is fake news? I watched that interview and it actually happened so it's not fake news.

 

 

Impossible. They were talking simultaneously and Trillanes had already finished his sentence before Sackur could finish his. Think of a different excuse.

[niceNslow.2]

is trillanes accurate on his informations in BBC interview? marijuana addiction? he did not mentioned shabu?

so is this another stint of the good senator in shaming himself or the filipino in general?

[juan t]

It was Sackur who corrected him first before Trillanes realized he made a dumb mistake while Sackur was talking. Regarding thinking of another excuse, heed your own advice.

 

 

Nope. You're blowing hot air again as usual. Trillanes was already finished with his statement before Sackur could, as you say, "correct" him. And the fact that Trillanes kept talking dispite Sackur's interruption, indicates that he didn't even hear much less process what Sackur was saying. Ang hirap kaya makaintindi ng tao pag sabay kayo nagsasalita.

[JayZip]

It doesn't affect me anymore because I don't watch or listen to it as much as I should have.

All I know is that facebook, twitter and Instagram is not news.

[Shockers101]

Media every where which ever country it is. is primarily a tool for propaganda. media men and women have their own take on whats going on and this affects how they deliver the information. its up to the person receiving the reports on how they would interpret the information, yes interpret there is a core of truth in there but its up to you to decide which is true and which is propaganda.

[camiar]

This comment from investment analysts will tell you the real reasons why oligarchs make sure they control the media:

 

From BusinessWorld:

 

Headline: "Ang acquiring Prieto interest in Inquirer"

 

Mary Jade Roxas-Divinagracia, PwC Philippines managing partner for deals and corporate finance, said Mr. Ang’s investment was “quite an interesting move” since the print media industry has been on a decline globally.

“I can only surmise that it is more strategic rather than financial. As they say, ‘he who controls the media/headlines controls the world.’ ...

 

...The acquisition follows Mr. Ang’s failed attempt to secure a minority stake in broadcaster GMA Network, Inc. in 2014...

 

“(Mr. Ang has) been eyeing media or communications for the longest time so now he’s getting his chance. ...,” Luis A. Limlingan, business development head at Regina Capital Development Corp., said...

Edited July 18, 2017 by camiar

[camiar]

With the acquisition by SMC of the Inquirer, I see a more balanced view of Duterte.

 

Mr. Ang said he is acquiring Inquirer in his personal capacity, meaning, not through SMC.

 

I'm wondering whether the Prietos' are just temporarily handing over Inquirer to somebody else until the heat from the Duterte government passes over. Just like what Roberto Ongpin did with his PhilWeb gambling company.