Life Changing Mindset

'Mac People' Found to be More Open and Superior Than Population at Large, According to Mindset Media Study 'Mac People' Found to be More Open and Superior Than Population at Large, According to Mindset Media Study http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-16-2008/0004737667 What do you all think about this article?

Does media help in changing the mindset of the general public? I need views both for and against in about 250-300 words.But any ideas will help.

Change of Mindset - Do you agree the people's mindset changed because of politicians, media and televisions? Change of mindset - Do you agree that the mindset of tamil people changed ? This question i posted in yahoo answers. A member requested to delete the question on some reason. i am always good and i am always giving respects to the members words. i appreciate the member come direct to me instead of doing some alternative ways. so, i feel members are now progressed well in their thinkings. i come with this category since the spiritulity is there.

Does the Philippine media and educational system promote the mindset? .... of Filipino slavery abroad?

does the media spin EVERYTHING? does the media have complete control over the mindset of America?

The motto of the news media is if it bleeds it leads. Do they just report one disaster after another and? with hyperbole? You will never hear anyone in the media say thankfully there were no injuries or casualties. Is the media egregious and criminal with their primitive mindset that people are only interested in apocalyptic happenings when everybody is actually fed up with hearing about it? Fox News with Glenn Beck alone are felons.

Is there really a "liberal" media bias or is there a deeper motive? When Republicans Scream Bloody ''Liberal'' Media Bias A. Alexander, October 2nd, 2007 If you are like me, you had always assumed that the reason Republicans screamed bloody "Liberal" media bias, was because they believed that the media portrayed them in an unrealistic and unfair manner. If so, like me, you were wrong. It wasn't that the Republicans believed the media to be misrepresenting them; it was that the corporate-owned media used to portray them for exactly who they, as Republicans, really were. If we've learned anything about Republicans in recent years, it is that they aren't at all the kind of people that they want the public to believe them to be. Republicans want the public to see them as being "good Christians" with high "morals and values," supporters of the "traditional family," tough-minded anti-gay champions of "freedom and liberty," and people who supposedly oppose affirmative action based upon a principle of "equality for all, special treatment for none." In reality, Republicans are greed-driven; Jack Abramoff corrupted; wife-cheating; mistress-choking; teenaged Congressional Page stalking; airport bathroom love-seeking; DC madam needing; diaper-wearing Louisiana call girl paying; crank-snorting-gay-prostitute-humping ingrates; and supporters of major presidential candidates who have all run from two minority-sponsored debates. And the moment the corporate-owned media reports the facts ... Republicans scream bloody "Liberal" media bias! Republican cries of "Liberal" media bias started in the 1970s, about the same time that Archie Bunker of "All in the Family" fame became a household name. Many of us assumed that Republicans saw themselves in Archie, which was true ... they did. The character of Archie was a racist, chauvinistic, homophobe, who always seemed to be on the verge of beating the snot out of his wife, Edith. Archie was never quite able to deal honestly with himself or the world around him ... he always filtered everything through his fears and prejudices. Most of us assumed then, that Republicans considered Archie to be an example of "Liberal" media bias, because they believed the character to be an inaccurate depiction of what Republicans were really about, which wasn't true at all. Republicans were upset about Archie's character, because it was a dead-on portrayal of the average GOPer. The media's airing of the character Archie Bunker was, for Republicans, a bit too much like being spied upon. All the dirty little secrets -- the racism, the hatred, the fake piety, the homophobia -- were being placed before the public and the public didn't like what they saw. If Archie and other media programs were going to be offered for consumption, Republicans knew they would never win another election. They needed to act. So, as always, Republicans claimed that the accurate portrayal of their true nature was a lie and they screamed bloody "Liberal" media bias. Then, of course, Republicans went about the business of constructing a wholly fictitious version of themselves -- the Republican as "good Christian," as "morals and values" centered, as supporters of the "traditional American family," as being champions of "equality for all, special treatment for none" but never racist -- and whenever the media strayed from the "official" Republican-endorsed version, they screamed bloody "Liberal" media bias. So, you see, whenever Republicans are screaming bloody "Liberal" media bias ... it is because someone, somewhere is telling the truth about a Republican. Don't think it is true? One can see the Republican mindset being played out over the Iraq coverage. Whenever -- rare as it is -- the media tries to tell the truth about just how bad things have become in Iraq, Republicans scream bloody "Liberal" media bias. Never mind the reality that Iraq is a disaster going from bad to horrific ... the truth isn't the "official" Republican-endorsed version and is therefore, "biased." The funny thing about today's Republican Party is that nobody is buying into their "official" versions of anything ... well, nobody that is but Republicans themselves. The difference between who Republicans want the public to believe them to be and who they truly are - is as wide as Larry Craig's stance in an airport bathroom stall.

Has the population been programmed to believe what mainstream media says as truth without question? How much power is there in having control of the information broadcast to Americans? How easy would it be to effect elections, public polls, legislation and the general public mindset with the power to influence opinion through television?

Is the media pushing the "nature < nuture" mindset to avoid riots? One time here, I asked a "what if" that people refused to consider even hypothetically. That "what if" was simply asking what the natural reaction of everyone would be if it were proven through a large-scale, controlled study that people within a race on AVERAGE were predisposed to certain abilities and shortcomings. Now, why is it that we *must* be equal in every ability when it comes to race, and not say, gender? Sure, women have equal rights, but people don't deny that on AVERAGE men and women excel in different areas. So, if you knew for a fact that racial disparities were PARTIALLY genetic, would you all of a sudden think Hitler wasn't so bad after all, or what? Please explain. So Faded: Wow! It's my lucky day. Someone with reading comprehension and a clear mind actually answered my question. Thanks! Anyway, I agree with pretty much everything you said. And hypothermia? Wow! I really need to brush up on my history. :/ That brings another question to mind... Why is it usually the White people who are so adamant to deny these things? It makes me suspicious that (some) have ulterior motives...

Do you think corporate media brainwashes the people to accept government agendas? Through perception and propaganda creating a mindset in the American people of what's good and bad, and in essence directing their actions.

how does "media mentality" affect you? I am currently doing a research study on how "media mentality" affects everyday people...I truly believe that sub-consciously everyone believes that life should be the way it is portrayed on tv...my goal is to find out if people can live a healthy successful or even "perfect" life with this mentality. Please post your experiences and mindset about media and your life

Would you agree that negativity on the part of media and our leaders causes people to have a mindset where? there is fear that makes one not spend/but save? Not that saving is bad; but talking about the economy in a hopeless manner without focusing on solutions and giving people hope of future security hurts our economy in the long run. I have hope for the future because I know that God is in control of my life; but for those without God; or whose "god" is money; this must have a devastating effect on them. Your thoughts? @Michael: I believe that God is on the side of whoever is doing the right thing (or at least He looks into their hearts and sees that they are TRYING to). It is just a part of MY faith that He has and will continue to take care of me. (as well as ALL those who pray and trust Him) But I also know that He blesses many who don't even realize that it is Him doing so. But He won't bless evil purposes.

Do you think Charles Manson is really the way the media spins him? I was watching a bunch of Charles Manson interview on youtube and am beginning to think that he is a pretty honest funny guy. Most of his words and phrases seems out of this world but if you put it in context and think of it in a philosophical mindset, it makes sence. Like when he use the word "game we all play", I think he mean our "reality", and our "belief system". So what do you think? Try to be original in your thoughts.

Could exclusion from the media drive Asian males to feel isolated and strike out in violence? We all know how much media plays a part in the American mindset. Very rarely are Asian males or females given air time in the USA society. Could this cause isolation among the American-Asians, and a tendency to feel angry toward their Jewish, White and Black counterparts who dominate the airwaves?

Is the media predominantly liberal because? that was the easiest major in college to take that required the least amount of work? A liberal universe would allow them to continue living that lifestyle outside of college with that mindset.

What is the age range of the juvenile minds answering with programed brainwash via mainstream media? They give parroting answers & questions and are extremely gulliable! Their narrow mindset has no outside vision! Totally unable to spark an original plan or idea! Mostly useing just oneside of their brain! Are they all ages? What percent are daily on yahoo answers?

Anyone have any ideas of a media free speech controversy? Just need some ideas or suggestions for my "history of the news" class...for example the tv banning ads of smoking...newyorktimes v. Sullivan...but something more modern or contemporary...or anything that has to do with the news making bad opinons of famous people that can influence many individuals mindset about them (for example brittany spears)...anything like that will be greatly appreciated.

Why do people believe in global wariming when the facts show the opposite? The answer is clear. The scientists that the news media report on have a biased view and profiteering at stake. The liberal mindset wants to control you with there large governmental agenda. Liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder. The news media love it and the more they report on it the more people who don't think, believe it, just because they read it over and over. UGH!

In your person opinion, is the United States media honest? How does one go about deciding truth from fiction? For it's known the majority of the people get their news from their television sets rather then the internet - Do you believe the 'truth' simply to be what the majority says IS the truth, or is the truth sometimes a hunt itself, a journey more so... not just a simple turn on the 6:30 news and I get all the FACTS.. How would YOU know how much of what your watching is in fact TRUE You as a viewer of these programs have a mindset that our government and our media couldn't possibly dip that low to distort the facts, after all a life without ANY trust in any source is a near unlivable life- We all need to trust SOME source, the question is how do we go about seeking the REAL truth and not just some "truth" that is in truth nothing more than propaganda to serve government interests. I think you can begin by looking at our nation from an outside perspective- Who are we to say were always right? There is no one person that is ALWAYS right- We as humans have flaws and to say one of us is perfect and we all ought to follow that war is an incredibly narrow minded perspective and way of doing things instead- perhaps we all ought to consider analyzing everything in our daily lives from the "War on Terror" to "US Government" from ALL perspectives. Whether their beliefs differ from your own, an open-minded person would like to consider the reasoning of our war from an Iraqi perspective and from an Afghan perspective as 2 examples. Consider how they feel of our invasion and then ask yourself "Why shouldn't their opinion matter?" After all- It's incredibly rude to say were right- Their always wrong - so they better follow our way or were gonna use force. There is reasoning behind every action. To say, "Well they just attack us because they hate us." Well why do they hate us? Why do they form these groups against us? Is it because were on THEIR land and they believe we are intruding upon their way of life- How is that to make them "evil" - for if another country like China believed communism was the best for humanity came onto our land and pointed guns at us and said "Do it our way or we'll shoot" There's no doubt that Afghanistan is chaotic- Yet there's no doubt that many African countries are chaotic as well. There's no doubt that Afghanistan is not the only region on the entire planet that isn't stable- So, what are the best ways to work this out? Intervening supposedly serves toward our security interests yet what security are we serving when we incite more hatred toward our invasions thus escalating the chance of another attack on our soil? If we are to do nothing - yes we could be attacked but even IF we do something, we can still be attacked and in my PERSONAL OPINION, were increasing that chance of another attack by intervening, by forcing our values on that nation thus increasing the liklihood that more will recruit in these terror groups and preach "Death to America" of our strong stranglehold on the world. If we are to back off from the world- change our tune and politefully admit that we are to aggressive on a global scale, that maybe we shouldn't be so forceful, so warlike and instead try to give peace a chance. Try to set a good example- one that other countries may want to emulate, set a golden example of a country that isn't all about policing the world and playing the role of "You do this, do that or we'll bomb you" While we view many of them as "Terror" from their persepective including many normal civilians perpectives they may view us as "terror" for our invasion and therefore, when they voice out against us - it's not a direct attack at me or you- but rather a direct attack at our nations action to thrust into their country, trying to control their resources, esentially it's not unfair to say they view us much like a dictator that whether we think is for the better good may ulimately backfire and cause more hatred then actual good to our own safety. Plus consider the cost of war. Lot's of money we don't have. When is too much, too much.

Is sex overhyped by media to exploit people? Are we also neglecting more important issues for same reasons? I think media has made us all believe that man and woman are meant to enjoy unlimited sex and any partner who does not live up should be ditched. But this simply is not possible. There is a basic mismatch between the 2 sexes and women as a rule remain in heat much longer than men. Scriptures too talk about it. There must be biological reasons behind it. The real satisfaction for women come from the understanding, bonding , love and affection from the sexual partner which is their basic need. Where as the man races towards orgasm and loses interest thereafter for awhile, his partner remains willing to continue. But she gets satisfied by her partner's attentions if available. As commercial interests invade our lives as never before with aggressive advertising through the powerful media, I think we are all paying too high a price in terms of quality of life, marital harmony, sexual satisfaction etc. As the independent mindset of the modern era, propogated by media kicks in, women have started expecting/demanding that the partner should fully satisfy them sexually everytime, as they have very little of other expectaions from them, and know that marriage is a temporary arrangement and loyalties are transient! But this simply will not happen as neither this is the real need of the woman nor can anyman live upto such demands. No wonder divorces, depressions and marital violence mount. I think religion must pick up the gauntlet and the media must be restricted from playing havoc with lives of people.

Is it too late to stop Britain becoming a duplicate of China/India? The economic development of the Chinese and Indian nations have inspired the British government to pursue a huge slave labour force from the third world to emulate the success they have witnessed. They have also convinced a large proportion of the people of Britain that its a good idea that it should happen. The media clamp down on all objectors as racist and facist. The Orwelian mindset of the British to destroy themselves is in free fall. IS IT TOO LATE?

Are teens as blase about sex as the media and books portray then to be? I am finishing reading Turning Angel by Greg Iles and although I know the book portrays teenagers as totally sexually immersed to sell the book, is there some truth to this? I mean the girls are shown as using sex and pretty much disregarding the consequences, guys are just out for themselves in the story. It is really a murder mystery but I am jsut curious as to what it is really like out there as I haven't "dated" for decades. I am not looking for lurid details just a snapshot of today's mindset.

Would Roy Keane take the united job if he was offered it? Forget Ferguson, Roy Keane is seriously hard and doesn't care about money. He does care about silverware but Keanos mindset is unmovable. What player in his prime as captain walks out from his national squad because he wasn't happy? He told the irish media to forget about Ireland in the world cup and to shut the hell up. Would Roy Keane take the united job? Dan: i hate united as well, i don;t understand why they are the most supported team in Europe when 99 percent of tjheir fans aren't from Manchester or England.

Does always playing the role of an "observer" kill human-ness? I'm talking about rapid fire observation- news media, academic pressures, etc. The rapid intake of information from an observational (at home or classroom) standpoint. Does constantly feeding this "observing" part of your brain secure you in a mindset where you just end up observing yourself? Leading to the sensation of dissociation and the weird idea that you're something to look at, observe, name, and forget everything else?

Does the media's Recession Obsession contribute to people's....? Does the media's Recession Obsession contribute to people's fears about the future and feeling of dread ? It seems the 24/7 coverage of how bad the economy is - how bad it will get - how low it can go - how deep it can dive - would have an affect on the mindset of the people. What role do you think the media's Recession Obsession plays in our economic situation ? I'm not suggesting not reporting the news, the facts; but the saturation of the same bad news repeated over and over again was the point I was making; not to mention the spin whichever media source wishes to put on it. That's all I'm saying.

Why is Michael Jackson (pedophile) getting so much news coverage? The amount of coverage given to a pedophile is absurd. I need help understanding the mindset of the American media.

Changing careers from Media Buying to Ad Sales...need advice!? I am a television media buyer by trade. Tired with the over 2 hour commute to NYC (one way) and VERY frustrated with the ad agency climate, I left my job. Since then, I'm banging my head against the wall trying to find something else. Anywhere I"ve gone I hear the same thing "You should be in media sales." I have no experience in sales, other than just working with sales people. And those sales people have told me for years I have the temperment to do the job. My roadblock (and I think it's all in my head) is doing cold calling. I'm so use to being the person who says no, can I be the person who hears no all the time ? Will they train me on this ? Basically my question is...has anyone out there made the transition from the ad agency side to the sales side ? Was it a good choice ? Was is a bad choice? Any advice is GREATLY appreciated. If I don't do sales, then I'm stuck going back to where I came from (NYC and the Madison Ave mindset) and I have NO interest that.

What is your opinion on the political agenda behind mainstream media? There is a big difference between the mainstream media and just the media. The mainstream media is controlled by a few large companies that own other companies like CNN, CBS, ABC, Fox, NBC, etc. These companies own a lot more than just that. They own the majority of newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, magazines, movies, they sponsor sports and now they control the google and yahoo search engines. They get their money from their business partners or “special interests”; companies like GM, GE and Boeing. GE pays let’s say CNN only if CNN’s news benefits them (just like how people say there are liberal stations (CNN, ABC, etc.) and then the “Republican” station (Fox)); if GE benefits greater from CNN’s “liberal” news, than GE will advertise on that channel. So, for CNN to make money, they have to make news that benefits their special interests (i.e. GE’s interest). Beneficial news also includes showcasing the candidates that benefits them the most. The candidates that benefit companies like GE the most are the candidates that agree to pass legislation, in return for campaign money. This becomes an almost unstoppable triage of power. Company = Money, Money = News, News = Candidate, Candidate = official, official = legislation, legislation = money for company, and back around again. GE gets billions of dollars in war contracts with our government that the officials push (for re-election money). That’s our tax money going into official’s campaigns (and pockets) that you don’t even vote for. So, for GE to get the contract the officials need to persuade the public to get them in the right mindset for things like war. How do they do that? Well they have CNN/the mainstream media report “good news” such as: “we need a presence in Iraq”, “Palestine is our enemy” and “terrorists are coming”, etc. That scares the heck out of the public. So, what do people do? They find someone that’s strong on foreign policy, right? “John McCain, strong on foreign policy; just what America needs!” They give Americans just what they want right when they need it. What happens then is the political web called politics. They try and stick you with one issue or another until you consent (vote) with them. If it’s not his “strong” foreign policies, then it’s his “pro-life” stance, if not it must be his “tax breaks for the middle class” or his strategy for “energy independence” or just his personality. Then McCain or whoever gets elected and WAM, more policies to help the companies that got him elected in the first place. Are you starting to understand the process? It’s a giant monopoly. All these companies that profit from war are doing it because they are guaranteed contracts, including companies like (Carlyle Group) that President Bush, Bush Sr., and the Binladen’s were in; Halliburton that Dick Cheney was CEO of and Chevron that Condoleezza Rice was in. When a CEO of a company sits on a top position in government, that should literally make them a conflict of interest and the company is supposed to be excluded from any ability to contract with the government. That’s not the case here. Time and time again conflicts of interest sit at the top positions of our government and their company gets the contract. The mainstream media assists them, their company gets the contract and again the people are left with nothing but a sign standing outside the white house protesting their corporate-war. The non-mainstream media is basically everything that wasn’t produced by these large companies or their subsidiaries. They are usually people that write for their own causes just like I’m writing this. There usually isn’t any money involved and definitely no conflicts of interest. The rest of the media usually covers stories that the mainstream won’t cover and that is the beauty of it. It’s important to hear both sides of the story and not just both sides of the mainstream view, as we already know is loaded with commercialized propaganda that supports the views of billion dollar corporations and truly the views of the people on the board of directors that steer that company (conflicts of interest). People write for all sorts of purposes whether it’s for humor, or to direct attention to an important cause that isn’t getting any support. This is the rest of the media, usually made by small independents that believe in something other than profit. So, to merge this with the rest of what I’m saying… The R’s and D’s. “They” have found a way to split Americans in half. They have actually found ways to split us in many ways. Why? Because the real conflict is between the company owners and workers; unions versus companies, or people versus bosses. Race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, political status, etc. have nothing to do with it, they are all distractions. The fight between R’s and D’s is just another division amongst PEOPLE to keep them divided and when people are divided they don‘t have the strength th they once had. Also, now people are fighting each other instead of the big bosses that are running the show. There is no solution to the problems that the bosses have brought up. This is the distraction that keeps the real issues from being solved. The real issue is how much should I pay my workers versus how much profit should I, the CEO be allowed to keep? What is morally right when it comes to making profit? This is the trunk from the tree of issues. It splits off later but if we fix the base, the rest should heal properly. Let’s go over a few examples… Slavery… Was it a black/racist thing or was it for profit for the owners? The fight against communism… Why would we care how other sovereign countries are run? Well, communism is the opposite of capitalism. Communism never worked because we wouldn’t let it. In a capitalist country the companies own/run everything; in a communist country the government owns/runs everything. That means that if the world increasingly become becomes communist the capitalists are losing out in potential profit. That is where the CIA comes into play and over-throws their leadership and we plant our puppet governments to spread “democracy”. The war on terror… I already explained this on-going war. There is no end to it; the bombs we drop to stop it are also creating it, mean-while the rich business owners who happen to be the same people in our government that is propagating it make money. The war on drugs… What started the war on drugs? The workers in South America were being abused by their owners, i.e. cheap labor, no benefits, harsh working conditions, etc. Well, these people (workers) were the majority of South America. They got together (creating a union) and decided to nationalize their own countries lands. So, when the people took their land back, the corporations fought back. The company leaders went to the white house and told the president that the countries that they were doing business in were turning c communist. We then sent in the CIA to check things out, the CIA killed the union leaders, the unions and families became pissed and decided to attack oil pipelines, the US then sent our mainstream media to show the American population how violent these “communists” were, then we sent in bomber planes to kill these communists. Well, since these communists were regular people and not aliens, they lived in regular urban villages, and so normal cities were bombed flat. The people that lived through the bombings formed groups like the FARC to defend their homeland. Since their farms, their jobs and homes were blown to pieces they needed ways to make money. Drugs were legal to grow there so they grew drugs to make money. That is where the war on drugs came from. It’s not about the drugs. The drugs are the peoples money source and there is no better way to defeat someone than to stop them financially. So, the whole anti-drug stuff originated from the US attempting to put a stop to th the unions in South America. It’s either slave away in these corporation sweat shops or fight back. Well, anyone who is patriotic enough and is against enemies will fight back. The problem now is how far should we go to destroy these lives? On one hand we could stop the bombings and save billions of tax payer dollars but people world wide will know that the machine can be stopped. That could encourage a world wide outbreak of unionizing and nationalization of natural resources. That would be bad for business. On the other hand we could keep fighting the S. Americans, make private company CEO’s billions of dollars from supplying the war but at the cost of human lives and American tax money. That would be great for the businessmen, bad for the regular American. It’s the same situation as the war on terror, actually it’s nearly the exact same war only a different name and in different locations. I can go on and on but I will leave it here. So, the mainstream media is the media which is owned by a few large corporations; is edited to well suite their interests, is used to manipulate the public and to propagate anything for profit as well as entertainment. While plain old media is any form of media that isn’t owned by the main companies that own everything else. When using a video as reference, it is a pretty raw cut of action when there aren’t billion dollar companies editing the material. You will get a better real-life perspective using regular media and your opinion is completely up to you at that point and not slanted to fit a political agenda.

Where is the liberal media now? I obviously placed this previous question in the wrong category to get many answers.I am curious about this subject. After Katrina, the media complained that the response was not quick enough and blamed it on the Bush administration's dislike of black people. Can we then conclude from the lack of media coverage and response by the Obama administration that Obama doesn't like white folks? Where are the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and North Dakota and helping the folks affected by the floods? Where is good old Michael Moore? Why are the media NOT asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved this problem? ......Asking where the FEMA trucks and trailers and food services are? Why isn't the Federal government moving Iowa people into free hotels in Chicago and Minneapolis ? When will Spike Lee say that the Federal government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines ? Where are Sean Penn, Bono, and the Dixie Chicks? Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes, cases of beer and television sets? Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of shootings at rescuers, of rapes and murder? Where are all the people screaming that Barack Obama hates white, rural people? Where are Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Oprah, and Ray Coniff Jr? How come you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again? Where are the gov't. bail out vouchers? The government debit cards? There is no difference between the value of the people of Iowa and value of the people of Louisiana . This is obviously the transparency of the media covering only what they support.Not ALL Americans in need,but only the ones they deem worthy.Look out.This is the mindset of the people running our present government. Bank On It*.I actually do want a legitimate answer.I am not even remotely politically inclined.I know very little about government and am definitly not complaining about that fact,but do occassionally like to see other people`s point of view.Perhaps someone actually has a satisfactory answer that I have not thought of.I am not on either side of corruption be it Republican or Democrat.I do not involve myself in it at all much,but I do realize that there is something extremely wrong with the present picture.

Why has everyone bought into the "us vs. them" mentality created by the media? Everybody seems to be in the mindset of "my side is on Lady Liberty's side and the other side is out to destroy the country because they hate us!" Why? It's very obvious this is a media creation. Ever since the dawn of cable news (CNN), and the dawn of partisan cable news (Fox News), journalism has become a joke.It thrives off of fear and paranoia, and what better way to create fear and paranoia than to make sure that conservatives know liberals are communists who hate America and God and to let liberals know that conservatives are fascists who hate America and the poor? Slowly but surely, especially with the death of print journalism and the rise of hyperpartisan blogs, more and more people are buying into this mindset. This is why Washington is so divided nowadays. To be sure, the two sides have always had their disagreements and have always debated passionately. But, at the end of the day, they knew they had to compromise. That's how our system works. It's based off the idea of meeting in the middle and reaching an agreement. The Constitution is, itself, a giant compromise. But, now that constituents are more polarized and see the other side as either being evil or idiotic (perhaps even both) instead of just people who think differently than them, Congressmen are forced to adopt more extreme views and to never compromise with the other side. The best example is the Tea Party. The Tea Party, few know, began before 2009. It was relatively nonpartisan group, and although I disagreed with them, I respected their passion and platform. Beginning in 2009, Fox News began co-opting the Tea Party by reporting/promoting them and using it as an opportunity to vilify President Obama and the left. It became the place where Fox News could say crazy things about the left and compare Obama to Hitler and the Democrats to Nazis. And for all we know, the end of the republic could be near! The people attending the rallies would inevitably follow the message. And why wouldn't Fox create and foster that paranoid mindset? It would drive ratings through the roof! Now that we have bought into this "us vs. them for the future of America" mindset, we force our Congressmen to never, EVER compromise with the other side. Most of those who are politically active see the other side as the enemy and you cannot talk to the enemy. That means if they want to keep their jobs, Congressmen have to take far-left/right stances and stick to them, no matter what. This makes compromise impossible, making Washington ineffective. We have vilified each other so much it makes me sad. The polarization of America is what is bringing us down. Our media chooses to polarize us so that we can watch/read what they put out. This makes us see the other side as the enemy, forcing Congress to do the same. That's why nothing gets done. We are better than this. @Instant Karma: I agree that this thing has been going on for a long time. Like you said, you only need to look at McCarthyism and Hearst and Pulitzer to see that. However, the problem is that this has all grown so much since the advent of cable news and the growth of the internet. It's now commonplace to think this way. McCarthy was an outsider. Relatively few thought what he did. If he was around today, he'd have a huge following and probably have a show on Fox.

Does the media have restraint in the face of profit? http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080228/tuk-harry-fights-taliban-in-afghanistan-6323e80.html Here is a very good expose into the 'mindset' of the present incarnation of capitalism. Prince Harry is fighting on the front lines in Afghanistan. In order to keep a lid on this sensitive information the MoD is tellingly forced to make a pact with the media, so that it doesn’t disseminate this information instantly putting Prince Harry’s regiment in danger of targeted assault by the Taliban. But one US website, ‘The Drudge Report’, blabbed in order to gain a world exclusive. Tell me why has this happened? One damn answer for something topical and important. It makes me sick.

Has the media talked you into another war yet? 2001 --- and it was Afghanistan Only 20 yrs earlier it was the Russians who were in there as you sat in judgement of their stupidity and evil expansionist ideals Then Iraq in 2003 and the occupation is ongoing as private contractors blossom and US troops get shuffled about Somewhere in between it was drone attacks in Pakistan --- The means justify the ends and domestic spying without a warrant became legal ending the debacle Homeland security came into being the Patriot act was born Mission accomplished one and now two in Iraq Torture as long as it leaves no marks is now a Soviet ideal brought to the American mindset when only a few decades ago you sat in judgment of that evil the Russians were imposing upon people along with the KGB spying on their own And now Iran ? Has the media built you up to fever pitch in the newsroom of 2 minutes of hate brought to you by big brother and company yet ? Afghanistan 2001 --- Iraq 2003 Pakistan somewhere between now and then 2010 Iran ? "The smoking gun may come in the form of a mushroom cloud" Weapons of mass destruction --- to liberation of .......... 1933 March 23 - Enabling Act gives Hitler dictatorial power. 1936 February 10 - The German Gestapo is placed above the law. March 7 - German troops occupy the Rhineland. 1938 October 15 - German troops occupy the Sudetenland; Czech government resigns. 1939 March 15/16 - Nazis take Czechoslovakia. September 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland. ------------- What is one more war with Iran ? One more smoking mushroom clouds weapons of mass destruction and you will be greeted as liberators ?

Do you think it's funny how the Republicans complain about the "bias liberal media"? I mean... I really, really do. It's as if these Republicans don't realize that they've controlled the White House for 20 of the past 28 years & they come on here and complain about the "bias liberal media" like the Democrats have been running things for years & it's just so unfair that the MSM GAVE Obama the election. No... President Bush gave Obama this election due too his miserable presidency. We gave Bush a chance twice & he failed... instead of constantly defending him & blaming everyone else BUT him, hold him accountable. I mean... you will swear up & down that the economy isn't his fault & that it's somehow the Democrats, but all of sudden... President Obama is in office for a month or so and the whole mindset of it not being the President's fault for how poor the economy is you decide to abandon and it IS his fault. Something strange about that... the guy who was running the country for 8 years has nothing to do with the economic collapse, but the guy who has been attempting to pick up the pieces for the first few months of his presidency is suddenly completely to blame? Interesting how that works. Oh... of course the media is bias, lol. On both ends the media is bias. My point is is that the media did not win Obama the election... the failures of the previous administration and the publics determination not to let it happen again decided the election.

Do conservatives hate welfare because they still adhere to the stereotype that all poor black people are lazy? I feel like that when most people think of American poverty these days, they don't think of poor rural white farmers, or Native Americans shoved onto reservations, or recent immigrants, but they think of ghetto black people. And with all the media portrayal of urban blacks as people who focus on more a lavish ghetto lifestyle than on education, work ethic, etc. most conservatives develop the mindset that blacks are lazy. And conservatives seem to think that the majority of welfare recipients are these poor lazy black people. Is that a fair analysis?

How do some of you women with body insecurities handle sex-objectified women in the media? When I see women on tv perading around in skimpies, it automaticially triggers my emotions about my body and I think, now why couldn't I be more like that?!? And I reallllllly get down, its a burning anger that wells up inside me. I DON"T want this mindset anymore, it hurts too much. How can I cope with this... are there any tricks out there to brush these emotions off when seeing such images in the media (besides thinking, well they aren't real anyways and nothing on tv is)? Littel info :::: I'm 5'7 at 135 pounds. My mom always would talk about her unhappiness with her weight Thank you all for your response. I am soooo ready to go on the journey of inner strength.

Is it true that denial works just as well as accusation? In the media, you can accuse someone of unspeakable horrendous things which are totally untrue. The denial from that someone works against him or her too, depending on the mindset that's doing the judging. So as long as you can get the dirt out there, the accusee is screwed no matter what. Are we all totally brainwashed at this point?

Describe what you think an Asian guy looks like ( no Asians or it wouldn't work)? For this to work, I need descriptions of the hair style, facial features, fashion, and life style. I want to see if the stereotyping of the media affect the mindset of people when it comes to describing an Asian guy or even thinking of one. I for one wants to get to the bottom of this

Is anyone else in the mindset of "If it doesn't affect me directly I could care less"? I am. I don't mean to sound selfish or anything but when I hear about all these controversies and things happening in the media I could really care less. I think some things are blown way out of proportion. I think because at the end of the day there's nothing I can do about it and it doesn't really have an effect on my life or anything.

Do women really beleive in the concept of equality or just inequality with the roles reversed? Examples. when there are men only places it is called sexual discrimination but when there are women only places it is called sensitization to women and woman power. When a man is shown in media being kicked in the groin by women it is laughable but do you really know what serious emotional and physical consequences are there ? Suicides,domestic violence,crimes all are perpeterated by men is the mindset and there is no woman on this planet ready to tio do anything about it WHY?

Has anybody traveled extensively, absorbed other cultures & been unable to explain how a nation like the U.S.? could win global conflicts, make horseless carriages commonplace, invent radio, television, motion pictures; land on the moon, perfect microcomputers, restore sight and yet revert to a mindset where a majority of the Citizenry believes our complex government is actually controlled by a simplistic two-party system? Which nations have you lived in? How long? How many languages do you speak fluently? When you were outside the U.S., did you still have regular access to mainstream media (MSM) US news?

Poor Michael Richards- Why is the media and certain groups making a big deal about Michael Richards? Yes, he went overboard and should have handled the situation better-but come on people, he apologized. Alot of Blacks are just using this one person as an example to cry out racism and get all burned up about this incident. Why do Blacks have to jump on the racism bandwagon everytime an infraction is made? How is this incident affecting your life? You give so much power and control away to people and are just feeling sorry for yourself. You are never going to improve your situation by maintaining a victimized persona and blaming everyone for your own failures. You should be strong and smart, yet your resorting to your typical violent mindset and you will never gain any respect from non-Afro American society.

Maori Crime Rates influenced by Australian immigration? Australian immigration has been a concern for some time now in New Zealand. The friction with Australian Human and Animal Rights , and methods in Commerce flows over into Sports where there the competitions stay civil. The circumstances change when Australian media uses ethnic separatist headlines, and that mindset carries with Australian immigrants. Many question if New Zealand is not loved by some Australian immigrants, if then the intent on immigration is destructive. This in turn also is said to have negative influences in Kiwi Community, and Maori Community. Does the Australian immigration problem imfluence Maori Crime Rates and by how much.

Who said; I see creeping Fascism in America, just as in Germany, a drip at a time: ? continued below? a Law here, a Law there, all supposedly passed to protect the public. The German people really believed that only hoodlums owned such { unregistered } guns. What fools we were. It truly frightens me to see how the Government, Media, and some Police Groups in America are pushing for the same mindset."....

Why do other people's problems become our own and if we don't take them on we're considered wretches? Who is responsible for this sick mindset in society? Since when do we all have to be unpaid volunteers and nursemaids. Are pieces of sh.it in the media like Oprah and Dr. Phil responsible for this mindset? Helping others is commendable, but we have busy lives and cannot be selfless or we won't survive as individuals.

Were all born into a Controlled Mindset......? i have this friend who didnt used get drunk/ "party", and i saw him one day and he's fully into superficial stuff like his "image", getting a high paying job, he follow the crowd and gets drunk/bar-hops to meet hot girls, is a materialist/consumerist, and is really selfish in every facet of his life... how does society/the media take a role in turning humans into selfish, money hungry people??

Okay, need help turning my mindset around BIG TIME. I considered creating a new username just to ask this!!? This is really embarrassing -- Okay, now please don't just reply saying to just 'suck it up' or 'do a reality check', because I've tried telling myself that and it hasn't helped--Here it is: My husband and I have been together for 6 years and I was in a previous marriage before that, and with HIM for 12 yrs. I didn't have this issue with my ex, but it has cropped up now and is truly ruling my life. I can't stand the sexiness in today's media (I'm 34) like music videos, TV, movies, songs, etc, and although my husband is totally faithful and has loved me at my various weights (and looks at me like I'm a princess even when I'm hideous), I can't help but feel sort of panicky at the thought of watching scenes with gorgeous women or those acting sexy. He doesn't watch porn and is sooo devoted, but I still feel insecure. I promise I'm not making this up. You know how sometimes someone will just say that 1 right thing that helps you to snap you out of something? That's what I'm looking for. Th

Spiritually Speaking Is Multiculturalism Bad? The idea of a global culture or "one world culture" has become increasingly popular over the past few decades, promoted in every way possible through the media and education systems etc. What exactly does this mean? Basically, what a global culture refers to is the shedding of all personal and individual cultural identity, heritage and cultural individuality/diversity in exchange for a world culture in which everyone, no matter what part of the world they be from, follows the same pattern. All wearing the same style of clothing, all speaking the same language, all behaving the same and buying into the same basic mindset, all being exposed to the same media and propaganda and so on and so forth. There is no room for diversity in the global culture, which those at the top are trying so hard to usher in. There will be no such thing as cultural richness or pride in one's own unique heritage. What makes us strong is our pride, our strengths and our will to survive and ultimately to continue evolving. The global culture attempts to rip all of this away from us, thus tearing down all the achievements and work that our Ancestors strived for and mash us all into one weakened and diluted mess in order to make us easy to control and manipulate. That is the sole purpose of the global, one world culture, and this is the true meaning of the "new world order". The ideas of christianity and islam always have and always will work towards bringing this global culture into being. The entire world will be mashed into one, all identified as one in the jewish/christian/muslim idea of "the one". Statements such as "we are all one", "obey they one", "we are all the same underneath", "one world, one people" and so on commonly spouted by believers of these so-called religions and their off shoots such as the new age movement are all examples of this detrimental one world mindset. This will serve to greatly weaken the population people as a whole, taking away from us our individual strengths and pride that make us all unique and strong. In essence, we will lose ourselves and become what they dictate to us, if we allow this to happen. A people who have little individuality and nothing of their own are exceptionally easy to control and to herd. Where as if we all abide by our own heritage and cultural teachings and all stand our own ground, it will be an exceptionally difficult task for them to have any kind of control over us what-so-ever. Another thing that goes hand in hand with this global culture is the promotion of interracial sexual relations. Again, the purpose which this serves is to weaken and eventually completely eradicate the individual cultural identity and mash us all up into one state to be easily controlled and manipulated. The media constantly promotes sexual relations between the races, in fact going beyond just labeling it as "ok" and actually encouraging people to mix racially. Those who stand against this (rightfully) are labeled "racists" and shunned by society. There is absolutely nothing racist about wishing to keep your race pure and in its strongest possible form and essence. It is in fact your duty to your race to ensure this and thus continue its survival. The more racial mixing that is promoted, the weaker and weaker and more diluted the races will become, again, forcing in this global culture with the creation of "one race". This would be an exceptionally sad state of affairs. We should support the separation of the races and individual advancement of each race. Again, this is by no means racist. However, people have been programmed and conditioned by those at the top through the media and through the education systems to view this as somehow being "racist". Each race should be able to rule itself and advance itself in order to better itself. Appreciate and foster your cultural individuality, do not help to destroy it by buying into these tactics of global culture and interracial sex. This is not "racism"; it is preserving your own race.

Irritating mindset of people!? Why do people care too much on their social status? They want to be on the "Popular list", they want to be part of the cool ones, they want people to recognize them as a cool person. Plus, I hate it when people care too much on what others are going to say, they want to please almost everyone. Sometimes, it's very irritating when people backbite, talk about the media, talk about their social status. They pick the wrong topics. Why do people love backbiting instead of talking about philosophy or contributing to humanity? Why do people do love small talks all the time? I mean, it's ok to do small talks sometimes, but when each of their topic is all about "their cool lives", "their unique life", "their awesome life." It's irritating! Do they really care about humanity? Do they want to make a difference? It seems like they just want to live their life, please other people, have a secure social status, then ..... to the same things over and over again. Sometimes I'm just irritated when people talk gossips instead of "how to solve the problem of global warming" or " how to solve the problems of poor individuals." Can you give me your ideas regarding this situation? Isn't this alarming? more and more people talk about how wonderful their life is and how they their "friends" appreciate them, instead of talking on the great stuffs -- Like astronomy, what can we do to save our planet? or philosophy, how can we contribute to humanity positively or perhaps why they were given sufficient needs -- knowledge, source of information, money -- and not using them wisely. I mean, do you think those who have much have the responsibility towards those who have less. How can we make a difference? How can we solve this growing problem? Share some of your ideas and wisdom.

our slavery mindset led to disintrgeration of indian cricket team? mr. greg chappel disintegrated the indian team methodically and systematically by using the same divide and rule policy of whites.he systematically proved our heros like sachin saurav ..a big zero.now we and our media are praising greg chappel for his courage to do this and shard pawar is also rewarding by the proposal of making him adviser of bcci.does any indian has courage to do this with australian stars except few words of sunny. funny slaves come out and show your potential.in 1983 no foreign coach was there only indains were there who won the world cup.come on.. be indian, have indian,respect indian and throw out those indians who are trying to impose foreigners on us.have a kranti for this.sachin we are with you.hayden with a age of 37 is fit for play but sachin inspite of his better overall display allaround is misfit at the age of 33.come on chappel bros. do we need another mahatma again

This is the Democrat mindset. Do you think they even think about things? Also mistakes Obama has made? Get Obama the "messiah" in office Obama closes Guantánamo Bay and probably will just let them go. They support killing babies They bow to world enemies After doing the “We’ve got to have this stimulus package passed right this second or the economy is going to explode” routine so convincingly that not one single soul in Congress actually had time to read the entire bill before it was signed, Barack Obama then promptly went on a three day vacation to celebrate before he signed it. If the bill was so important that no one could even have time to read it before it was passed, then why wasn’t it important enough for Obama to skip dinner at Table Fifty-Two in Chicago to immediately make it a law? In a juvenile stunt, reminiscent of something a third grader might come up with, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov a button that was supposed to say “reset.” However, incredibly, the word on the button translated to “overcharge,” not “reset.” Apparently, despite the enormous deficit the government is going to run up this year, Team Obama forgot to budget enough money to hire someone who speaks Russian for the State Department. If only America could just press a button and reset the entire Obama presidency so far and start over. Typically, Presidents don’t pick fights with pundits and talk radio hosts for obvious reasons. It draws more attention to their criticisms, elevates their status, and comes across as thin skinned and a little creepy, much like Richard Nixon’s “Enemies list.” But, the Obama Administration hasn’t figured this out — yet. They’ve launched attacks at Rick Santelli, Jim Cramer, and most prominently, Rush Limbaugh. Ratcheting up the creepiness factor a couple of notches in Limbaugh’s case, the President of the United States, members of the mainstream media, and liberal interest groups are all coordinating an attack on a private individual for daring to criticize Barack Obama. That sounds more like something that would happen in the old Soviet Union than in the United States. Barack Obama may be a liberal thriller, but he’s also a stock market killer. www.bitchaboutobama.com/2009/03/10/the-10-biggest-amateur-mistakes-by-the-obama-administration-so-far/

Why don't we stay focused of MP's fiddling instead of media distraction towards our own? The old ploy of dragging out lower socail class erxploitation and the more organised ethic criminal mindset. Parliment has been around alot longer and does it best.

Why do men feel the need to get defensive around a woman who has success & power? Is it an insult to their masculinity ? What influences this behavior & frames their mindset - history , environmental aspects ( their surroundings ) , genetics , the media ?

Why is the SOCIALIST LEFT so Petrified of FOX NEWS? Is it 50+ years of Liberal Media programming perhaps? It seems one of their favorite attacks on a conservatives is to attack them somehow with FOX NEWS as if it is something bed? ONE news outlet for the conservatives, which is NUMBER ONE in the RATINGS by the way, has really gotten the Socialists scared to death it seems? I venture to think that after 50+ years of Liberal Media programming their minds must have everything to do with it, since none of them can think for themselves, and thy are equivalent to something like "THE BORG" on Star Trek. The collective mindset of programming also compares to the NAZIS as well. No wonder they so viciously attack FOX, it is a HUGE threat to the "collective". HAHAHA! Look at the answers from the socialists! LMFAO! As I said, if it wasn't a THREAT they wouldn't say anything about it. The libturd media owns them, and they are all MANCHURIAN CANDIDATES and don't even know it! LMFAO!

Is the BBC representative of mainstream media? I had recently asked a question and linked to a news report from a British tabloid (i.e a somewhat dodgy track record). This was pointed out very quickly with the BBC offered as a gold standard for reporting. In other words, if the BBC didn't take note, it wasn't news. Or if it did take note, the spin would be quite different. Well, somebody has looked into this "gold standard" of mainstream media and certainly does the BBC no favors. "The IPCC, the scientific and political establishments, Al Gore, the developers of wind turbines and heaven knows who else, were all so unanimously convinced that man-made global warming was an unchallengeable fact that the BBC decreed that these were the only people who should be listened to. Anyone who dissented from this orthodoxy could be ignored as belonging to just a tiny minority of cranks, or venally corrupted hirelings of Big Oil, whose views it would be improper for the BBC to publicise." "They (BBC journalists) could only stay within the mindset they knew, talking only to those within the orthodoxy who could provide them with the answers they needed to fend off all these tiresome ‘deniers’ appearing from outside the ‘bubble’ to ask awkward questions – such as how genuinely scientific were the methods used to create the ‘hockey stick’ graph?" http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf I guess that's great if you are part of the orthodoxy (true believer of AGW). However, some day you will not be part of the orthodoxy (i.e some future orthodoxy you don't agree with). Then what will you think? How will you react? Will you still support the BBC and other mainstream media? @Gringo - You really should publish a list of who is authorized to criticize which subject. Or better yet, maybe you should just come up with a list of people who should remain silent on all subjects. Perhaps you are gunning to be in charge of the authority to enforce that silence. Maybe you could re-write the US First Amendment or our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I mean, it's just a document, isn't it?

Liberals: Let's be honest, your ideology would be nothing without the media. Agree? Come on, the whole media, about 90% favors most of the liberal mindset, just look at Hollywood and the news media. Just like the Obama smoking pot, the media adore him for smoking pot, but the media hates Romney for bullying when he was young. Both Obama and Romney were young and stupid, but Obama gets a free pass. Then the attacks on Bain and attacks on venture capitalism. Come on, even when I was a liberal, I never paid attention to the news, but when I did, I would watch NBC or CNN, and I always saw negative things about Republicans and I let them brainwash me. Romney and Obama have an equal chance of winning, and that's even with the attacks on Romney by the media. So if conservatism is 50/50 with liberalism right now and it's been decades since the media sides with the liberals, doesn't that tell you that liberalism would be dead without the media? Just think about my assessment. @Alan - I never knew Fox and Rush were 90% of the media... they aren't even 5% of the media... @Smith - Yeah liberals have been fighting and infiltrated the movies and also the education system.

Why did most of the so-called "media" bury the news that George Zimmerman is a registered Democrat? Did that fact not fit into their ideological mindset?