Guest LarryP Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 LarryP, I couldn't agree with you more WRT the mainstream media. I think I'm beginning to understand the greater meaning of this thread. Anything posted that is not sanctioned by responsible, recognized scientists is of no value(BS). Therefore we should wait until we have posts from respected scientists prior to any level of consideration is given. Of course critical and/or witty comments/posts are accepted. Let's take Irish73's internet statement and rework it for the MSM: There is a phenomenon where people watch something called the news on TV and just accept it at face value, and then repeat the claims made by the news organizations as if they have been proven somehow to be factually accurate. Then after enough people parrot this disinformation, it begins to take on a life of it's own, and becomes considered as "common knowledge". A perfect example of this phenomena would be all the people who have expressed their shock and dismay over the recent revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden about the NSA. When in reality this exact same information has been on the internet for the past 5 years. But I've lost count of the number of people who've called me a "conspiracy theorist" over the past 5 years when I tried to enlighten them to what was really going on.
Guest Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 No argument. The problem with MSM is that it is controlled by too few people. It has last any semblance of trying to "print the whole story". It has reverted to following the biased agendas of those who control it much as was done in the 1800s. They support some concepts and stifle others. This is both very dangerous and bad. If the MSM only reports BF sightings that are highly suspect, then most people will continue to think the subject ridiculous. I am not saying MSM always treats BF in this manner, but it happens frequently. There are other subjects that MSM is very consistently against or for rather than attempting to report both sides. This forum should allow free discussion of anything BF. someone will dig out the charter -- close enough. If we limit discussion to only those areas of BF where there is proof, we have no discussion.
Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 What the MSM does to sasquatch is a litmus test for what one should expect anywhere else, i.e., if that's 'investigative journalism,' then investigation is dead in journalism.
dmaker Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Yeah, it's weird how the NSA does not share it's agenda with the world on the six o clock news and even more troubling that there are not hordes of journalists dedicating their time to an imaginary animal. The state the world is in today, oye!
Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Just sayin'. If the media don't investigate what they're putting out there to see what the real story is, then they're not being serious and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Why put bigfoot up there at all? Why not stick to what you're serious about? I see the bandwidth wasted on obvious hoaxes and go: OK. This explains the lousy coverage of serious stuff.
Guest LarryP Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Yeah, it's weird how the NSA does not share it's agenda with the world on the six o clock news and even more troubling that there are not hordes of journalists dedicating their time to an imaginary animal. The state the world is in today, oye! We're talking about journalistic integrity, not whether or not the NSA wants to "share it's agenda" with anyone. Of course you know that, but you're trying to sidestep the real issue. As to journalists doing any real investigative reporting on BF. That rarely happens because the MSM has made sure that BF gets the same treatment as UFO's. There's nothing accidental about that reality. It is very purposeful.
Incorrigible1 Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 What would they show on television? Cameras to BF seem to be the equivalent of garlic to vampires. And television is a visual media. Heck, even those with self-proclaimed ongoing habituation events are unable to provide photographic imagery. And so now the wink-and-a-nod way bigfoot is portrayed on television is a conspiracy. Yikes. Where's my protective helmet?
Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Not sure how much clearer this has to be (and you can read it again up there), but: MSM are so bad that they really have cut all their own slack for wink-and-a-nod. That's how they cover pretty much everything. Why bother?
dmaker Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 ^^ DWA, that doesn't really answer the question: what should they be showing that they are not?
Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Show what serious scientists applying their science are seeing. How hard would this be?
dmaker Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) And that would be what? A reading from Meldrum or Bindernagel from their most recent book? That would make for gripping news items... It's not like there have been any sensational breakthroughs in BF research lately for the news to pick up. I'm failing to see where they are negligent here. They do pick up BF news, the problem is the only "news" coming out of BF is whatever hoax du jour is going on. Just because there is nothing new or interesting in BF does not mean it's the fault of mainstream news. You can't blame them when there is nothing to report. Edited June 23, 2013 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Sure I can! THEY'RE REPORTING IT. If there's no news...what do we call you "the news" for again? And we don't need to be so disingenuous about how a piece from Meldrum or Bindernagel could be a compelling treatment. Come on. What NAWAC is doing ...same thing. How many times will it have to be said here that "proof" and "compelling" are spelled with different letters...?
dmaker Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 OK, DWA. What is new and compelling in BF lately that should have been picked up by the mainstream but was a victim of poor attitude or whatever other conspiracy folks want to dream up? Please list some of the important milestones that have been neglected. And I'm sorry, but another book from Meldrum or Bindernagel is not exactly news worthy. Nor is Bipto and folks when they have absolutely nothing to show for it. What? There should be news coverage of people saying they are stalking Bigfoot? Oh yeah, we already have that. It's on Animal Planet, maybe you have heard of it? It's called Finding Bigfoot.
Guest LarryP Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 OK, DWA. What is new and compelling in BF lately that should have been picked up by the mainstream but was a victim of poor attitude or whatever other conspiracy folks want to dream up? I have absolutely no doubt that had I brought up what the NSA has been up to prior to Snowden blowing the whistle on them that you would have been the 1st one to try to dismiss me as one of the "conspiracy folks", like a good Statist. It's very tired and transparent tactic, dmaker.
dmaker Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Conspiracy theories are very tired and boring Larry. "And we don't need to be so disingenuous about how a piece from Meldrum or Bindernagel could be a compelling treatment. Come on." - DWA I'm not being. I purchased and read a book from each of them in the past year. I just don't think that anything being said or presented in either of those books is exactly news worthy. Edited June 23, 2013 by dmaker
Recommended Posts