Why do media outlets promote fraud?

If many heard the President's cry of foul following the senate's rejection of the Gun Control legislation(I guess wanting it to come to a vote is only relevant IF the votes agree with what you'd want to do?) You often heard the phrase "90% of Americans". Yet, they're clearly being deceptive:

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2013-04-10/gun-control-higher-priority-than-immigration-overhaul-poll/

We're a nation of 300 million, how does 1,000 American adults constitute 90% of Americans? It'd be one thing to say "90% of those polled", but no they outstretch it to say 90% of Americans.

Then there's this Yahoo article:

http://news.yahoo.com/security-officers-order-staff-media-clear-boston-courthouse-191248734--sector.html

It should be noted, before the update the only thing that was there was a quote from a security officer that amounted to: "OMFG, run." Absolutely no details whatsoever were given.

John F Kennedy once famously asked the media to be the stelwart of the American People. How the media has non graciously fallen, if mainstream media complains about alternative media and conspiracy theorists.

It only has itself to blame IMO.

Thoughts on this type of deception?

Modern media is concerned with getting paid for all important big stories, and I'm sure they aren't concerned with the small details because that would be too taxing. They also enjoy looking at an issue from a biased angle, and from what I've seen they don't explore too deep into reasoning.

Or how it's so simple to dub a killer a sociopath or a psychopath instead of exploring their reasoning for commiting their "crime"

You have no idea how these polls are conducted, have you? It would be quite impossible to ask all 300 million of you, but with a sample of 1000 people chosen to reflect all parts of the population, the result will be relatively accurate.

I'm sorry, you can't poll 1,000 people and purpose that the other 90% of the people will just toe the line. That's assumptions of the highest level.

It's true, there's no way to ask every single citizen, but 1,000? Surely there has to, there can be more respondents than that to make a general assumption about U.S. Broad belief among its constituents.

1000 has been mathematically proven to be accurate enough. I agree that more respondents would make it a bit more accurate, but the accuracy will not be significantly higher. (Yes, I was a bit surprised at first as well, but that's how it works.)

Think about who owns most of the media and their connections to government. Follow the money.... I've always said the government is run by corporations, not the people. About 90% of US media is owned by large conglomerates. They tell you what to think and only tell you about things they want you to know about, in order to influence people's behavior to their benefit.

See for yourself:

How the Monsanto was able to get favorable legislation into an unrelated bill recently:

On a side note, I'm surprised he has the balls to point this out, considering who owns Comedy Central. He can probably get away with it since Monsanto is an unrelated company.

Democracy Now clip:


Former Chief of Staff admitting the government should never waste a crisis in order to do things that otherwise people would be against:


Newtown massacre is an example of how the government exploits tragedies in order to try and further expand the police state we now live in (NDAA, Patriot Act, etc...).

I looked it up myself and I was very surprised that this is the norm for polling. Still, I feel a slight bit of deception to just automatically assume that everyone's going to vote according to the whim of a few.

And perhaps that's the ultimate flaw of our system. We're sheep following the herd.
And though a false quotation, its truth is still relevant:

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."

I tried to post earlier, but the site was "too busy" and blocked my post from completing.

This is one of those few times where I am inclined to agree with you on this subject. Polling does not represent the accumlative belief of a town, state, country, planet, in any representable way without having asked every single individual in a situation where they are in a free minded situation.

I can go to any red state and ask 1000 people who will win between mitt romney and barak obama, and they will all tell me romney will win. Take a poll and say that 75% of people think that romney in a red state will win, then say that 75% of all american believe that the republicans will win the election. The proof is in the pudding and Obama won. There is no reliability in extrapolation.

I can go to a town in the middle east that is taliban controlled and stones women to death, and take a poll on how much they hate americans and how many think women should be stoned to death. And get a number like 95%, then say that the entire middle east hates americans and wants to stone women to death. It's false flagging information.

You can essentially take any form of polling, and spin it to suit any opinion in the entire world just to prove a point, but that doesn't make it valid. It's just rediculous.

I do not know of the political standing of bloomberg.com, but I find it insanely funny that you start this thread with...

"Look look, this one news article says..."

Then follow with.

"Media outlets are useless".

Government will spend a bit of money on media propaganda just to keep people in the dark so that they will not know the truth, in turn this makes people easier to control if they remain ignorant.

Honestly with internet, it's hard to remain ignorant as long as you dive/explore around these subjects.

It's less about hiding, now, and more about setting up irreversible legislation/laws, filling government positions with like minded individuals that won't stir feathers (try to change the system), rounding up "unquestioning loyal supporters", breaking in people slowly to some of the "dirty tricks" they use, and setting up contingency plans, such as...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/ndaa-obama-indefinite-detention_n_2402601.html

He states that his administration won't use it, but the next can.

They (Government) can't hide (most of) the truth anymore, with internet, hacking, private info leaks (wikileaks). Even if American media outlets don't talk about "it", foreign ones will.

Honestly I'm juggling around (my own) conspiracy theory, that Zero Dark Thirty showed torture for the sake of breaking in American sensibility to the "idea and (self proclaimed) significance" of. (Won a trophy in the Academy awards (the biggest award show, here in the states right?)

On conspiracy theories, I would even go as far as to say Discovery/History channels are part of a plan to keep down/destroy the average American intelligence. (Conspiracies are fun to imagine.)

[font=Verdana]Have you PERSONALLY tried asking a question to a lot of responders? at a short span of time?

Are you even sure that the 300 million citizens will answer your question and refrain from abstaining? And if ever they answer, are you sure that they answer you honestly or maybe they just answered because you are just wasting their time?

Are all of those 300 million citizens notified that you have a question to be answered by them and do they have access to any means of sending their feedback?

Just asking, OP.[/font]

The margin of error would be pretty big though.

I'm not saying that can't make these polls with 1000 participants but they should be careful on how they report this information.

If you want to be honest, that information only accurately shows what those 1000 people were thinking.

I remember seeing suspicious statistics being thrown around after the background check thing didn't pass the senate. Something like, 90% OF AMERICANS FAVOR BACKGROUND CHECKS, and when it came down to it the information was gathered by an internet poll. It had more than 1000 participants, but that doesn't make it accurate.

Only, I never said that. There's information that was provided in the articles, I cited that particular information. Namely, how small a straw poll was and how it's deceptive to believe that virtually ALL of America agrees with literally 1/100th of the country.

And they are in fact, useless. If they had meaning, we wouldn't have to "read between the lines" and try so hard to find the truth.

Media, should be objective. The gun control incident was proof of how non objective the media really is.

Before i respond to this, are you being sarcastic here or do you actually believe ZDT was part of some grand conspiracy?

If blowing things way outta proportion is the only way they get views, then so be it. I'll just get my news from someplace else.

From your link's, source...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/cnn-poll-popular-background-checks-also-cause-worry/

"The 86% figure from the CNN/ORC poll is in line with just about every other national survey released over the past couple of months, which found support for increased background checks hovering around the 90% level."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/17/public-opinion-gets-trumped-in-gun-control-defeat/

"The ABC/Washington Post survey also indicated that 86% of gun owning households supported the proposal."

What "truth" are you uncovering? Because I am getting a different one? Truth is starting to sound subjective and bias. I don't understand how a poll with a higher percentage rate of "in favor"s derives higher important in an unrelated polling... I, as well, don't understand how gun legislation having a lower percentage rate means no one wants it or that it shouldn't be dealt with if it can be...

As well, there's (first ones vague and includes a multitude, but if assumed to be only one) 2 additional polls. 3k (minimum) now, still not satisfied?



Truly great media is truly unbiased, but how can you have that when those media outlets are owned by people who have a stake in public opinion? Rupert Murdoch for example. Never the less, I do think an objective "US" media outlet would be great, but I don't see it thriving without the backing a rich person or group who truly wants to progress American citizens, not manipulate. Al Gore as an example...

http://www.policymic.com/articles/22334/an-inconvenient-truth-al-gore-sells-current-tv-to-the-emir-of-fossil-fuels



No I don't -_-, that why I insist that it is "my own conspiracy" theory, and in the next paragraph, that conspiracy theories are my "imagination". I know the difference between truth and speculated assumptions. I wouldn't believe "it was true", without infallible evidence for.