Did The Big Bad Corporate Media Get You?

[KharmaTrain]

There's still a lot of people tonight in shock that Jacko walked and what an incredible outrage it is. As the goofy telepundit Wendy Murphy shrieked "they let a pedophile go walking right out the door" and I see lots of comments about how "stupid" the jurors were/looked or how Jackson's fame/money bought. Yep, there's lots of indignation and outrage. If you're one of those, take a step back.

Since none of us were privvy to all the testimony or got to see a single witness or examine all the evidence, but there were many here who were damn sure Jacko was not only guilty, they were ready to join the string him up right there in the courtroom. Then the verdict! Where's the outrage???

Well let's see...since all the information you got was from our beloved corporate media, your outrage is based on the "information" they put out...and your judgement is based on their filtering of information. For months on end, they had Nancy Grace's nostrils and Jeffrey Toobin and the other paid corporates all but tell us how guilty Jacko was so that by today, it was assumed by almost everyone that Jacko was about to do the Moonwalk with Bubba in San Quentin. Well folks, you just bought into a lie and took the ride.

Now if the corporate media could so easily lie to manipulate your reactions to a trial that meant nothing to your daily life...but they profited from i..imagine if they could lie about a war and about the real motives behind it. Now you've gotten a taste of what many sheeple have bought into...and the work ahead us to take back this country.

Cheers!

[Carolab]

1. I didn't watch this crap. And, frankly, I couldn't care less.

It's just ridiculous. Why bother "my beautiful mind"?

[Lucky Luciano]

5. His point was driven home in the last paragraph. nt

[tomreedtoon]

2. Suggest you check this Salon article out...

It either requires a paid membership (which I think is worthwile) or a "day pass" with commercials...

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2005/06/14/jackson_essay/index.html

Some points made in the article:

The trial isn't about "right vs. wrong" but "wrong vs. wrong." In other words, everybody's dishonest on both sides, making the trial outcome a matter of which one lies better.

In the past, we loved celebrities more than we despised them for their scandals. Now it's the reverse. It's easier to despise them because to love them makes us simpletons and suckers.

We also hate celebrities because we ordinary mortals have no comprehension of the powerful. The best example; how did a nothing like George W. Bush become President, even as a figurehead? And what kind of character is richest-man-on-Earth Bill Gates? How did he get to that point?

[KharmaTrain]

3. It's Manipulation Any Way You Slice It

I paid almost no attention to this trial...I did a comedy radio bit with a friend who did keep track and his outrage tonight was the reason for my post. Most times he's pretty straight headed, but tonight he was going ballistic and made me think about how much he was manipulated...then when I pointed it out to him, he started to think about it as well.

Our corporate media has long known there are some things that sell, and sell big...any scandal involving a celebrity that involves sex, murder and any variation of the two. If it's a black on white...add two points, if it's a cheating husband, add three points and so on. The more obnoxious and revolting the better...since that increases the titilation factor that draws an even bigger audience.

The suits at CNNServative and other networks will see their ratings tomorrow and do the happy dance. Surely the numbers will jump as millions tuned in to see the conclusion of this soap opera (a cheap one for them to cover) and then to spin and spin into the night. Problem is they don't realize there's a segment of us who tuned in not to see how good these networks looked, but to see how bad they looked.

Cheers!

[The Traveler]

4. I didn't watch the trial coverage very much

Catching some of the post trial reaction now.

Hmmm ... did he do it? Haven't a clue, myself. But from the little I picked up about the case from the inevitable osmosis it sounded thin. Again, that doesn't mean he didn't do it but that it seemed like there were some real problems with chains of evidence and testimony.

Jackson is weird. Didn't he try to buy the corpse of the Elephant Man at one point? I mean, that's just weird. As a parent, I cannot imagine letting one of my kids stay with him overnight, unsupervised.

I don't think enough has been said on that topic, BTW ... this kid and all these kids were over there with the knowledge and consent of their parents. Parents afflicted with real poor judgment, methinks.

He's eccentric. He's a truckload of issues. The man is just plain weird. Weird, however, does not automatically mean criminal. Jackson is just weird enough that his representation of things could be accurate. On the other hand, there are other possibilities. Who knows?

But a jury cleared him of all charges. That used to mean something, before Aaron Brown and Nancy Grace were empowered to judge such matters.