2006-09-11 14:45:40 · 9 answers · asked by wickink 2 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
After you answer this question, please go to the Yahoo! Question at
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuHKUc6cWNKoO8m..k9eu0zsy6IX?qid=20060911185251AA5SX9i
To honor those who lost their lives on 9|11.
2006-09-11 15:34:04 · update #1
If one were to have asked this question ten years ago, I would have given a fair degree of confidence with the reports that are being posted as "news" on the television, radio, and internet. However, in ten years I have truly discovered how deceitful, malicious, and manipulated our "news" is in our society. Now I can say with confidence that I do not trust a single word heard from the "news."
It is nothing more than propaganda intended to manipulate the minds of citizens in order to keep control over the mass population. And if you need proof, all you have to do is look at how during World War II the U.S. government used propaganda in order to manipulate its citizens into becoming involved in the conflict. The same can be said for the first Iraq war and the surrendering of our key civil liberties during the current war. The tactics used in order to condition the people are akin to what Pavlov used to train his dogs - - dogs were conditioned to respond in a certain way to the presence of food.
Humans can be conditioned, too. Conditioning can take place through mildly negative deterants or via rewards. For instance, when you watch the news, have you ever noticed that the "cute" human interest stories, the kind of funny or touching stories that people might find entertaining, are always featured at the end of the newscast. This is because this is the unconscious "reward" used to condition the viewers into sitting through the entire news cast in order to earn their "reward" of seeing the "cool" story. This is not just a coincidence, but is based on sound psychological research methods.
2006-09-11 15:12:17 · answer #1 · answered by YahooAnswers 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the source. TV news? 10-15 percent, less if it's one of the commercial networks. BBC, much more reliable. Newspaper--much more reliable. They're not paying me anything to say this, but you might pick up a copy of "The Week" magazine. It's international in scope, doesn't ascribe to any particular political party, and is a pretty quick read. I enjoy reading it, as does my 16 year old daughter. I think that's a good multi-generational recommendation.
2006-09-12 01:27:26 · answer #2 · answered by davidepeden 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's like the "news" in tabloids....just enough of the truth not to get sued.
I'm going to try and be positive....how about 60% truth & 40% fabrication.
2006-09-11 22:04:01 · answer #3 · answered by daljack -a girl 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
25% only the storys that the ending is final,, like when some one is murdered or imprisoned,,, i live in the detroit area ,, so we see a lot of that
2006-09-11 22:13:28 · answer #4 · answered by John C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
50% max. The real news is only to be found on the internet.
2006-09-11 22:06:29 · answer #5 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
0%- everything that is written or broadcast is twisted to sensationalize it for viewer reaction
2006-09-11 22:07:18 · answer #6 · answered by pdudenhefer 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
20% unfortunately.
2006-09-11 23:42:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
you should always brleive half of what you hear and half of what you see cause if you believe everything you hear or seee oyu should be a walking robot
2006-09-11 21:56:38 · answer #8 · answered by robertasocks 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
not a single word
2006-09-11 21:49:26 · answer #9 · answered by lil mike 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋