"Brainwashed by the media"

I'm getting used to being told that the media, the government, culture, etc. prevents me from hearing the truth about something. More and more frequently, this is right before I'm told something that I've already heard multiple times. It's certain that in some cases, the information is actually widely available (as with Jack Chick's apparent belief that the average American has never heard of Jesus), so what can and can't reasonably be called "media brainwashing"?

(I'm beginning to think that as a whole, the media isn't brainwashing us—at least not once we reach adulthood. If our parents succeed in instilling in us an inflexible ideology, we naturally avoid sources of alternative ideology, but that doesn't mean those sources of ideology aren't readily available if something shakes our confidence.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Much of our personality is based on environmental conditions, so yes, to an extent, we are all brainwashed. We don't usually call it that, though. Usually we just call it "ideology" or "morality." What you believe is typically a mix of what you grew up with, what you've deduced from the (all biased) sources you're exposed to, and what you've conformed to as a result of peer pressure.

Human psychology is a bitch like that...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I'd say the brainwashing argument is used by folks who have their views differ from those of the media. This way they pose as the only ones right, because all the disagreeing people are either stupid or evil.

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

Is it the truth, or just an appeal to fear?

Is it appropriate to be skeptical, or are you just sowing seeds of doubt?

There's pitfalls on either side of it.

What we believe is influenced by what we see. BUT.... It should be the parents and the family's responsibility to show their kids what they believe is okay. The reason for this is that media rarely relies on Logic to convince it's viewers. No, it relies on emotion. This is why something with horrible logic can actually convince us that it's characters are correct, because they are so sympathetic. This is why Media is dangerous. Instead of having a logical argument with someone, or a discussion, or thinking things over, media takes an argument and says "Hey, these characters really believe in this argument". For adults, they can seperate the emotion and the arguments. Most kids and some teenagers are not able to. That is why media is dangerous.

Go play Kentucky Route Zero. Now.

I have not noticed parents or families being necessarily better than the media when it comes to logic over emotion.

Media is dangerous. Censorship is more dangerous, however.

I'll take tabloids before I take Nineteen Eighty Four or any chance of thereof coming to be, thanks...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Information is more freely circulated than ever, but the people who shout tend to be rather loud. A careful audience can look past bullshit, but this doesn't describe many people.

So yes and no, people do get brainwashed by media when they're too lazy to do their own research.

Brainwashed by the media = Having opinions I don't like

Kind of the meaning of "Fascism"

I don't think it is brain washing more like natural human apathy to other pieces of information that may not agree with what you have to say.

Who watches the watchmen?

Exactly, and when it is so, people are just as well "brainwashed" by everything. I mean, if they did not have an access to media,they'd simply accept the word of their family and neighbours - can it then be said that family "brainwashed" them?

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

In some cases...sadly, yes, it can accurately be said that way.

I can certainly think of a few times when my own family decided to be coercive rather than persuasive.

Read Manufacturing Consent.

Agreed. Besides, media certainly tries to brainwash people. But it has way to much competition, just like all the other potential brainwashes, so in the end, people capable of thinking by themselves are even, and those who prefer not to - who cares what exactly they are brainwashed with?

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I'd hope you were right about the competition level, but I'd be afraid you're not.

Might be. This one does not claim to know for sure, although it is certainly an interesting topic for research. But influence of family, for one, is rather hard to cancel by media.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Given that there are like seven broadcasting companies left around here, I gotta say the competition isn't looking too hot.

Thee who controls the media controls the mind...

This is a reason why I oppose news monopories like Murdoch's empire. Instead I try to get a different amount of sources to give me a world view. This be via the Ecomonist, the Independent, Euro News, NHK World and so on. The idea is to try to get a bigger view of different opinions, because any media is going to have some bias, even those that try to be neutral. What is important is to avoid tabloids, zealot like news channels like Fox and anything by Murdoch. I found CCTV (the news channel) to be more neutral than his imperial voices.

I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.

People aren't brainwashed by the media. The media is brainwashed by people.

As much as I bitch about Fox News, for instance, they're only doing what they'd doing because it's how they get viewers. I don't think that they'd be willing to operate at a loss in profits just to help get Republicans elected, for instance.

Long story short, people have the ability to choose what information they listen to, which makes it sound a lot like brainwashing. I mean, look at me: I watch The Daily Show, the Rachel Maddow Show, and read Paul Krugman's blog, and that's about it.

This, too. Very well put.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

And capitalism is democratic because "the consumer is sovereign". Fact of the matter is, shifting the blame to the people is simply white-washing the institutional forces at work here.

First, noone is talking about "blame" here. And second,, this one does not in any way thinks that media powers have any other motives than simple greed. But thing is, this one suspects that they love their money too much to care about politics. And more money are made catering to the Lowest Common Denominator. Which, incidentally, leads to the Lowest Common Denominator becoming even more widespread, because media does play a great role in socialisation.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

So people aren't influenced by the media, no sir, it's the people who control it. Uh huh. Well forgive me if I don't buy that. This so called Lowest Common Denominator, how do you think this homogeneity comes about?

That's not an argument, except perhaps from personal incredulity.

I'm not saying that it's not cyclical or anything, but honestly, I think the problem is the people who aren't looking for their bias who are exposed to supposedly non-biased things. But that non-bias is actually a bias, because in trying to be as non-biased as possible, media agencies will hold two positions as equal despite that one position is, frankly, @!#$ing crazy.

We call this "The Cult of Centrism."

Well, if the crazy one is a serious political force in the country, then yeah, they're going to have to cover it in as objective a manner as possible. For all the cries of liberal bias, I've never heard a Republican complain that the media takes leftist politicos seriously.

Hail Martin Septim!