Wednesday, July 14, 2010

The information divide is growing

While this article is basically about twitter vs the main stream media.
I feel it is applicable, in a general sense, to say what this growing information divide comes down to facts vs fiction. Propaganda vs reality.

The reality provided by reporting/editorializing/ information provided by twitter and other social media outlets including facebook. I am also including the blogosphere here and will be calling them all combined the alternative media from here on.

As opposed to the same services provided by the corporate, government influenced main stream media.

This is the full article, I am going to quote what I call the "meat and potatoes"

Concordia University anthropology professor Maximilian Forte, who gives seminars about political activism on the Internet, says he was able to witness that split by tracking two of his students, one who followed conventional media such as cable news, the other in the streets using Twitter.

The G20 according to one who followed conventional media or main stream?

Only writing about anarchists, about what ‘thugs and goons’ they are, how they really deserved to get the crap beaten out of them while focusing on the destruction of private property and, of course, praising the police,” says Forte. “For him, there was this kind of homogenization that all the protesters were the same as these so-called ‘Black Bloc’ people.

The G20 according to the one tracking twitter for information from multiple sources?

‘OMG the rule of law was just discarded,’ ” concurs Hirsh. “It’s a real stark contrast.”

There was a clear contrast between journalists who were using Twitter and journalists who weren’t,”

“Journalists giving on-the-ground reports were far more accurate than those in newsrooms like (Peter) Mansbridge or Ann Rohmer.

The use of social media, it really does help to establish a public record, one that could contradict in very graphic and very concrete ways the official record, what is produced by the mainstream media,”

How is it that the people using twitter were far more accurate in their reporting then the talking heads in the newsrooms?
Could the talking heads not access the same information?
Of course they could! But, they didn't. Why?
I would think it is because the "talking heads" are not interested in accuracy, they are interested in indoctrination on behalf of the state or political interests
Therefore they inform the viewer in a way that benefits the power's that be.

We saw this type of misinformation promoted previously in the piece done by talking head
Mark Kelly on his show "Connect with". You can refresh your memory here
Here Mark Kelly served the status quo by mantaining the standard black vs white reporting on Israel. Israel always good, right and always the victim. Completely out of touch with any reality.
If you wonder why so many people hold ill informed opinions. Look no further then corporate/political main stream media.

Think of Operation Mockingbird

"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month."


  1. This is all sort of true Penny, but then again, a method like Twitter or Facebook, or say, texting - can be used for the NWO agenda as well, as a propaganda tool, like everything else they invented/promoted.

    Texts after 9/11 about how the jews were warned helped discredit the truth movement, and helped displace a discerning view of Israeli involvement, dancing Israelis, Israeli security companies, etc.

    Just like in future events, someone could (and assuredly will) start up the first FB page to "question" (see: control conversation and record dissent on database) the event.

    Same with Twitter . . . you can record and track and control.

    So fast, so easy. What a perfect tool that, while used in very minor ways against the PTB, is really a massive tool to control us.

  2. hey slozo!

    a double edged sword.

    As I wrote this, I thought of the caveats. But, it was still worth noting as applied to the G20 in particular and the usual reporting on Israel.

    In the complete article the use of twitter as a government propaganda device was mentioned. Though it wasn't called that in the article.

    "There was talk of a “Twitter Revolution” last year in Iran, but subsequent research would show that relatively few tweets came out of that country.
    Most of the twittering was in the West, as observers “retweeted” what little news there was, or showed solidarity with the protesters in Tehran."

    Observers showing solidarity?
    That made me laugh!
    What this was as you call it slozo was a tool for propaganda for the one world order agenda. The west wanted an overthrow in Iran, and were using twitter to manipulate the western populace. Not the Iranian populace.

    What it will always boil down to is be discerning, double check information from multiple sources.
    When you find a source you think is valid, stick with it, but, don't hesitate to spend time fact checking. Always check sources provided.

    After a while clear patterns will emerge, patterns of lies, distractions, false flags and it becomes easier to spot.

  3. What's the deal with twitter? I think it's a piece of shit!

    Never never never have I seen anything useful or interesting on a twitter... tweet... twat.. twits.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Cheers Penny. I sometimes listen to the radio here and on Radio 2 (mostly drivel with a bit of music thrown in) twitter is constantly promoted. They are either talking about all the tweets that have come in or are recommending to their guests that they start tweeting.

    If twitter is given such huge and constant publicity by the MSM what does that make it?