you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Symbiosis 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

These few conglomerates being at the helm isn't ideal, but it's important to consider these are mainly for-profit models that operate based on what we want. What we click, view, read, etc. At what point does the public take on some responsibility for our contributions to this?

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, that's why I write this article to implore people to explore these ideas even though it might be a bit uncomfortable to consider the full depth of it sometimes

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

but it's important to consider these are mainly for-profit models that operate based on what we want.

This argument is misleading. These for-profit models do not operate based on what we want.

MSM corporations operate based on what wealthy advertisers may want.

For example: Most people oppose war. MSM corporations support wars, because military contractors (Raytheon, Boeing, etc.) use PR agencies to purchase advertising; in spite of the fact that the public cannot legally purchase their products.

This advertising is not purchased to influence the buying habits of the public. Advertising time is purchased to specifically influence the media, so that they will not broadcast viewpoints that oppose wars.

The same PR advertising principles applies to the pharmaceutical, and healthcare industries.
This is the reason for the pro-vaccination propaganda. Most people haven't heard about risks associated with vaccinations, because the MSM misleads the public about the facts.