New Study: Fox News Viewers Most Misinformed

[pam]

There will never be another Walter Cronkite.

[rubondfan2]

That's untrue. Flat out untrue. Modern anchors tend to just be a face to the news in major outlets, but smaller areas often have the news anchors helping write the stories they put on the air. As the face of the news, anchors are responsible to report the truth. Unfortunately, the society that made the move from news as an information conduit to something called 'Infotainment' where the news is simply a conduit to titillate, frighten or reaffirm our political beliefs has corrupted the network anchor.

Walter Cronkite flew in bombers during bombing missions in world war 2. He was live on the scene in North Africa when bullets were flying around. He specifically changed the way he spoke when giving editorials and opinion rather than fact. His trademarked 'That's the way it is' was only said when he wasn't ending on an editorial or opinion. In this way, he made sure the audience knew when he was giving the news and when he wasn't.

Walter Cronkite was a breed apart. He was not just a talking head.

I believe that I see the point you are making Funky and the reaffirmation given by Pam as well. I believe I hear you saying that Cronkite made a distinction between "factual news" and "editorial commentary" and therefore he qualifies as a grand exception to my carte blanc statement earlier. Furthermore, I believe you are saying that we, the viewing public are largely responsible for demanding more infotainment than news and we are where we are today because of a societal shift in viewing demand.

Well... I'm going to disagree with you again and say that Cronkite and others like him are exactly the reason "we" (the many sheeple who gawk at the TV screen to see what the latest super media star has to say) are so addicted to mainstream media today and have "demanded" the type of subject matter spoon fed to us through the TV. Cronkite absolutely WAS a personality placed before us... and we bought what the networks were selling... hook, line and sinker. They were selling a "trusted news anchor"... a talking head who could say anything to us and we would buy it. Perhaps (and I say that very loosely)... just perhaps he spoke more "informational, unbiased news" than we hear today... but his personality was absolutely instrumental in setting the groundwork for others to follow... Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams... and then the lines get fuzzy with people like Katie Couric, Maria Schrieber, Anderson Cooper... the "soft news" personalities... and then we get down to the Sean Hannity's, Glen Becks and Chris Matthews of the infotainment sector and we have people (ignorant ones, yes) who actually think this latter group is delivering news when in fact, it is only commentary and highly biased commentary at that.

We can agree to disagree if you like, but I maintain that Cronkite and others like him, before him and after him were introduced to us for a specific purpose... and oh how greatly that purpose has been fulfilled.

[Guest]

So, I have an honest question:

John is selling cocaine. Peter bought the cocaine.

Who is responsible for the drug addiction?

[john doe]

I don't know. Bill grows potatoes. Jim buys the potatoes, and makes alcoholic drinks from them. Larry buys the alcohol and drives drunk. Mary, who is wearing headphones, steps off the sidewalk in front of Larry's speeding car, is struck and killed. Who is responsible for Mary's death?

[Dravin]

I don't know. Bill grows potatoes. Jim buys the potatoes, and makes alcoholic drinks from them. Larry buys the alcohol and drives drunk. Mary, who is wearing headphones, steps off the sidewalk in front of Larry's speeding car, is struck and killed. Who is responsible for Mary's death?

I believe the correct answer if one is liberal is: George W. Bush.

If conservative: Barrack Obama.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Dravin

[john doe]

I believe the correct answer if one is liberal is: George W. Bush.

If conservative: Barrack Obama.

That just shows how liberal you are. The correct answer is: George Soros.

[selek]

First, I never trust studies like these because a person can prove anything with a study if they wanted to,

Wasn't it Twain who said, "There are lies, damned lies.....and statistics?"

[FunkyTown]

I believe that I see the point you are making Funky and the reaffirmation given by Pam as well. I believe I hear you saying that Cronkite made a distinction between "factual news" and "editorial commentary" and therefore he qualifies as a grand exception to my carte blanc statement earlier. Furthermore, I believe you are saying that we, the viewing public are largely responsible for demanding more infotainment than news and we are where we are today because of a societal shift in viewing demand.

Well... I'm going to disagree with you again and say that Cronkite and others like him are exactly the reason "we" (the many sheeple who gawk at the TV screen to see what the latest super media star has to say) are so addicted to mainstream media today and have "demanded" the type of subject matter spoon fed to us through the TV. Cronkite absolutely WAS a personality placed before us... and we bought what the networks were selling... hook, line and sinker. They were selling a "trusted news anchor"... a talking head who could say anything to us and we would buy it. Perhaps (and I say that very loosely)... just perhaps he spoke more "informational, unbiased news" than we hear today... but his personality was absolutely instrumental in setting the groundwork for others to follow... Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams... and then the lines get fuzzy with people like Katie Couric, Maria Schrieber, Anderson Cooper... the "soft news" personalities... and then we get down to the Sean Hannity's, Glen Becks and Chris Matthews of the infotainment sector and we have people (ignorant ones, yes) who actually think this latter group is delivering news when in fact, it is only commentary and highly biased commentary at that.

We can agree to disagree if you like, but I maintain that Cronkite and others like him, before him and after him were introduced to us for a specific purpose... and oh how greatly that purpose has been fulfilled.

Good points, all. This sounds like a 'Slippery slope' argument, however. Was Walter Cronkite a personality? Undoubtedly. As a trusted name in news, he became familiar to the world. When US Bombers ran on Germany, he was there. When JFK was shot, he was there. When a drunken Captain caused the Exxon Valdez disaster, he was there.

But is it fair to claim men like Cronkite came along and, because everyone knew and respected them, they are responsible for modern infotainment news? That's like saying that Woodward and Bernstein, because everyone knows them, are responsible for modern paparazzi rag-mags. Sure, what they wrote was true and titilating. But it was also done out of a sense of journalistic responsibility.

Therein lies the difference between a celebrity gossip magazine and something with real journalism.

[rubondfan2]

So, I have an honest question:

John is selling cocaine. Peter bought the cocaine.

Who is responsible for the drug addiction?

While your question above led to a moderately humorous exchange of related comments, it's actually a spectacular example from which to illustrate my point.

On the surface, most of us would say, "Well, it's Peter's fault... he's ultimately responsible for his own choices." A deeper look, however, might reveal a different answer.

Let's say for example that John (the seller) is supplied his drugs by a very wealthy, powerful cartel. Their goal is to addict people to Cocaine for the purpose of growing their revenue stream even further thus increasing their power and feeding their greed. The cartel owner devises a marketing plan which when properly presented by his cronies like John will be nearly impossible for John's targets to resist. Peter is presented with the marketing plan by John... presented with a product that he would not otherwise try on his own without any help, encouragement, temptation, manipulation or propaganda.

Does Peter have some accountability? Sure. Does John? Definitely. Does the drug cartel? Absolutely.

Who paid for Walter Cronkite to be in North Africa covering a story? Who paid his salary? Who marketed him to us, the viewing public?

I am really, really concerned with those who use the term "trusted news source". Network news anchors are bought and paid for by the networks, who are owned by an elite few... an elite few with an agenda... an agenda which is spoken of several times in the Book of Mormon...

Mormon 8:27

2 Nephi 26:22

This entire debate over whether or not Cronkite is a "trusted" source or not is not the debate. The heart of the issue is that in these end times, there are those who are going about doing the business of the Father of Lies; some of them without any realization that they are doing so. It's not the news personalities who are the problem. It's the networks and the money and the power and the greed behind them that is the problem. And when I hear people use a term like "trusted news source", I hear people who are bought into a system, who are entrenched, who are asleep... not because they are stupid or ignorant... but because they have simply fallen prey to a very effective, very well organized, very manipulative and well established movement.

I do understand that not everyone will agree with me. I also understand that some will find me paranoid or over zealous in my beliefs... maybe even view me as a conspiracy theorist. Well... I don't care. We live in vulnerable times... the end times and the movement I spoke of earlier is alive and well and has been since the days of Cain.

[prophetofdoom]

Amen rubondfan2. Once you awaken to the true paradigm on how information is given to the public, it becomes crystal clear. There is no such thing as a "trusted source" of news because they all are controlled by corporate elite. The Secret Combinations spoken of in the Book of Mormon are alive and real. I think people deceive themselves into thinking it only involves low level gangs or mafias.. they never think that the secret combinations can be sophisticated and exist at high levels of corporations, government, and other entities.

[FunkyTown]

Amen rubondfan2. Once you awaken to the true paradigm on how information is given to the public, it becomes crystal clear. There is no such thing as a "trusted source" of news because they all are controlled by corporate elite. The Secret Combinations spoken of in the Book of Mormon are alive and real. I think people deceive themselves into thinking it only involves low level gangs or mafias.. they never think that the secret combinations can be sophisticated and exist at high levels of corporations, government, and other entities.

I take it, then, that you're a big supporter of Julian Assange - A non-corporate sponsor who simply publishes all information available regardless of corporate interests. Kudos, by the way. Most people on this website aren't big fans of Julian Assange because he doesn't censor what information comes out.

*nods sagely* Yep. Brave stance indeed.

*munches on popcorn, blithely unaware of what he has just unleashed*

[prophetofdoom]

I take it, then, that you're a big supporter of Julian Assange - A non-corporate sponsor who simply publishes all information available regardless of corporate interests. Kudos, by the way. Most people on this website aren't big fans of Julian Assange because he doesn't censor what information comes out.

*nods sagely* Yep. Brave stance indeed.

*munches on popcorn, blithely unaware of what he has just unleashed*

I don't trust wikileaks. I think that they are being fed disinformation by intelligence services. Part of information warfare is sending out disinformation to confuse people. If Assange was a REAL threat with REAL information, he would not have been on every front page of the corporate controlled media. They would have been muffling him and locking him up somewhere. It's all a pony show meant to distract the public and convince us that they need to put a government kill switch on the internet.

[FunkyTown]

I have a few problems with that logic.

1) You're assigning far too much competence to everyone involved. Seriously. People make mistakes. 'Three men may keep a secret if two of them are dead'. You're talking about a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people. That's not reasonable.

2) You're assuming everyone is involved in it - Every television producer, every talking head, every news reporter. If everyone is involved... That ain't a conspiracy. That's just The Way It Is at that point.

3) It implies far more insider knowledge on your part than you could possibly have. How did your insider knowledge escape the notice of this group of hyper-competent, omnipresent supergeniuses?

There are conspiracies. They aren't nearly as widespread or successful as you'd imagine. Not to say they're insignificant - They aren't. But you need to recognize that your belief that every public figure is involved in a massive conspiracy just isn't reasonable.

[prophetofdoom]

1) You're assigning far too much competence to everyone involved. Seriously. People make mistakes. 'Three men may keep a secret if two of them are dead'. You're talking about a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people. That's not reasonable.

Response: I am not saying everyone is highly competent.

2) You're assuming everyone is involved in it - Every television producer, every talking head, every news reporter. If everyone is involved... That ain't a conspiracy. That's just The Way It Is at that point.

Response: I don't assume everyone is involved. There is compartmentalization. That is how intelligence agencies are able to keep state secrets. It is well know that most news comes from few sources. Most news outlets just regurgitate what comes over AP or Reuters. Also, anchors just read teleprompters.. they may or may not be involved in the development of the story. Producers can tell reporters to cover or not cover certain stories... for example.. a story that might embarrass a sponsor... most likely will not air.

3) It implies far more insider knowledge on your part than you could possibly have. How did your insider knowledge escape the notice of this group of hyper-competent, omnipresent supergeniuses?

Response: I don't have insider knowledge. Most things are hidden in plain view and don't require special insider knowledge.

[FunkyTown]

Response: I am not saying everyone is highly competent.

Response: I don't assume everyone is involved. There is compartmentalization. That is how intelligence agencies are able to keep state secrets. It is well know that most news comes from few sources. Most news outlets just regurgitate what comes over AP or Reuters. Also, anchors just read teleprompters.. they may or may not be involved in the development of the story. Producers can tell reporters to cover or not cover certain stories... for example.. a story that might embarrass a sponsor... most likely will not air.

Response: I don't have insider knowledge. Most things are hidden in plain view and don't require special insider knowledge.

So you don't have insider knowledge. You just claim to be more perceptive than everybody out there who doesn't think the world is controlled by an uberconspiracy. You don't assume everyone is involved. You just assume... What? That every producer is involved? AP and Reuters are directly controlling the media? What are you, specifically, saying?

What you're basically saying is 'I'm one of the few able to see what's directly in front of their faces - That a megaconspiracy controls the world.'

All right. I'll bite. Please provide proof that this mega-conspiracy exists.

[rubondfan2]

Please provide proof that this mega-conspiracy exists.

A Witness and a Warning - Ensign Nov. 1979

How about a prophet of God proclaiming such? Will that work for ya?

Look, Funky. You're debating the details. Without question, there is, in fact a global conspiracy. Actually, its a "galactic" conspiracy if we really think about it. Satan is very much a real entity with real motivations and a very real capacity to influence the hearts and minds of very influential people. Like I said before; it's not just the "Walter Cronkite's" or the "Glen Becks" or the "Sam Walton's" or even the "dave-johnson-made-up-guy-from-Tennessee's" who are the problem. Did thousands of people get together to contrive a grandly executed plan to take over the world? No, I don't think so... and I don't believe that is what ProphetofDoom and others with similar ideas as he are saying.

No, what I personally believe is happening is that a small group of very powerful, influential and greedy people have gathered together in all moments throughout history and either purposefully sought out or, because of their frame of minds were vulnerable to the enticings of the Adversary and ripe for the planting of his designs to enslave the souls of mankind.

Satan works his purposes through those who are open to his influence and who are in positions of mortal power and influence. Those individuals then utilize and work through their resources (mathematically a much larger group). Those individuals than carry forth a message to others who then carry it forth. Within a short period, hierarchically speaking, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people can be actively working toward a purpose that Satan designed at the "top" of the chain; many of whom without realizing or understanding that they are fulfilling the orders of an unnamed, unseen captain.

Those who come to see the "conspiracy" for what it is then start to see how so many things in our society and our world today are actually part of a larger more sinister scheme. Is everything a conspiracy? I don't believe so. But are a great many things part of an overall agenda being led by the unnamed, unseen captain? I know so in my heart. Can I prove it? No. Can you prove it not? No. Can I testify of what I know of myself through my own study, prayer and observation? Yes, yes I can and I do. And I also feel a responsibility to gather more soldiers who will join with me and others in the fight against Satan and his secret combinations... wherever they may be happening in the world around us.

This is all ProphetofDoom and I are saying here... we're just saying it a little differently.

The choice is between the proverbial "blue pill" and the "red pill". Each of us has the choice.

[rameumptom]

We are now in the Internet age. When bloggers can bring down Dan Rather, when Twitter and Facebook can spark revolutions across the Middle East, there is a limit to what anyone can do to control information.

Assange's Wikileaks are not a dupe. They are the real thing, obtained from government sources en masse.

In Cronkite's day, which I remember very well, one could not tell whether he was Democrat or Republican. He kept his liberal views close to the vest and only gave the straight news. Now, the one thing they could do back then was determine which pieces of information we would receive, and so could skew things in that manner.

But with today's ability to obtain news from many sources (and I check out both conservative and liberal news sources), we can make a better decision. Sadly, most people pick a side and only get their news from that source. It is not a conspiracy, IMO. It is just as in the days of the young Joseph Smith, pastors of media seeking converts.

[Guest]

A Witness and a Warning - Ensign Nov. 1979

How about a prophet of God proclaiming such? Will that work for ya?

Look, Funky. You're debating the details. Without question, there is, in fact a global conspiracy. Actually, its a "galactic" conspiracy if we really think about it. Satan is very much a real entity with real motivations and a very real capacity to influence the hearts and minds of very influential people. Like I said before; it's not just the "Walter Cronkite's" or the "Glen Becks" or the "Sam Walton's" or even the "dave-johnson-made-up-guy-from-Tennessee's" who are the problem. Did thousands of people get together to contrive a grandly executed plan to take over the world? No, I don't think so... and I don't believe that is what ProphetofDoom and others with similar ideas as he are saying.

No, what I personally believe is happening is that a small group of very powerful, influential and greedy people have gathered together in all moments throughout history and either purposefully sought out or, because of their frame of minds were vulnerable to the enticings of the Adversary and ripe for the planting of his designs to enslave the souls of mankind.

Satan works his purposes through those who are open to his influence and who are in positions of mortal power and influence. Those individuals then utilize and work through their resources (mathematically a much larger group). Those individuals than carry forth a message to others who then carry it forth. Within a short period, hierarchically speaking, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people can be actively working toward a purpose that Satan designed at the "top" of the chain; many of whom without realizing or understanding that they are fulfilling the orders of an unnamed, unseen captain.

Those who come to see the "conspiracy" for what it is then start to see how so many things in our society and our world today are actually part of a larger more sinister scheme. Is everything a conspiracy? I don't believe so. But are a great many things part of an overall agenda being led by the unnamed, unseen captain? I know so in my heart. Can I prove it? No. Can you prove it not? No. Can I testify of what I know of myself through my own study, prayer and observation? Yes, yes I can and I do. And I also feel a responsibility to gather more soldiers who will join with me and others in the fight against Satan and his secret combinations... wherever they may be happening in the world around us.

This is all ProphetofDoom and I are saying here... we're just saying it a little differently.

The choice is between the proverbial "blue pill" and the "red pill". Each of us has the choice.

I don't think this is what prophetofdoom is saying at all. Sure, we all agree that Satan is alive and well and wrecking havoc as we speak. But prophetofdoom goes farther to assign this to a specific entity - the news media. The level of conspiracy that prophetofdoom asserts is plainlly over-reaching and the words of the prophets you posted as proof is not proof of that assertion.

[rubondfan2]

I don't think this is what prophetofdoom is saying at all. Sure, we all agree that Satan is alive and well and wrecking havoc as we speak. But prophetofdoom goes farther to assign this to a specific entity - the news media. The level of conspiracy that prophetofdoom asserts is plainlly over-reaching and the words of the prophets you posted as proof is not proof of that assertion.

I disagree. And that's ok.

[Guest]

I disagree. And that's ok.

What are you disagreeing with? That you think prophetofdoom is saying something different than what I thought he said? That prophetofdooms assertion of a great conspiracy in the news media is true? or that your link ot the Ensign is proof of this assertion? All of the above?

[FunkyTown]

What are you disagreeing with? That you think prophetofdoom is saying something different than what I thought he said? That prophetofdooms assertion of a great conspiracy in the news media is true? or that your link ot the Ensign is proof of this assertion? All of the above?

Vagueness is maddening.

[rubondfan2]

What are you disagreeing with? That you think prophetofdoom is saying something different than what I thought he said? That prophetofdooms assertion of a great conspiracy in the news media is true? or that your link ot the Ensign is proof of this assertion? All of the above?

I disagree pretty much all of the above Anatess. And here is why.

ProphetofDoom is asserting (I think... he'll have to speak for himself) that the Media is part of the overall "megaconspiracy", to use Funky's term. The way in which he is describing his assertion, in my opinion, could be said a little differently so as not to come across as a blazing conspiracy theorist rant... but in principle, I agree with ProphetofDoom that there is a large scale movement to lead the souls of men down a path toward enslavement and bondage... such as that described by President Benson in the link I provided earlier.

ProphetofDoom simply grabbed onto and targeted the media in his comment (I believe) because that's the context of this thread -- the media. We could make similar assertions about the food industry, the drug industry, the education "industry", the military "industry", and on and on.

Is "the media" part of the large scale "megaconspiracy" (hereinafter referred to as "secret combinations")? My answer to that is unequivocally yes, yes, and double yes. Does each little anchor and local news outlet or reporter throughout the world gather together in a grand meeting in a secret location in South Africa every 3rd leap year to work out their master plan as a group? No, of course not. And neither ProphetofDoom nor I are asserting such a claim. Is the media as a whole a tool being used by the Adversary through a few of his agents (Rupert Murdock and others of his ilk) to bring about his agenda of secret combinations? I personally believe so.

As an aside. I will say that I understand why I can talk to different people and share with each of them the same beliefs that I have and get a range of responses varying from a blank stare, a fearful gasp, a hearty belly laugh to fist pumping agreement. This is a paradigm shift for many. I realize that it is hard for many to undo the conditioning and the training our minds and hearts have received literally from birth. We're conditioned through the medications injected into our bodies, the food we ingest, the damned TV we watch, the papers we read, the schools we attend, the jobs we work, and the people with whom we choose to associate and align ourselves. Once you're on the conveyor belt built by "the system", it is hard to jump off. It is hard to see anything else other than what "the system" wants you to see.

President Benson "got it". Not only because of his mantle as Prophet, Seer and Revelator, but because of who he was politically as well. He was an insider... more so than certainly any of us on this forum are or likely will be. Read that talk in its entirety. He's speaking about as plainly as one can speak without coming out and actually using the words "megaconspiracy". He took the red pill, if you will. He chose to see what was really happening and he, quite fortunately for us, chose to not be silent about it. Some chose to listen then and went on to become freedom fighters in the battle against the secret combinations. Those of us today can also choose to join this fight. Still others can choose to remain entrenched, asleep and blissfully ignorant of the conveyor belt they so comfortably ride upon.

[Guest]

I disagree pretty much all of the above Anatess. And here is why.

ProphetofDoom is asserting (I think... he'll have to speak for himself) that the Media is part of the overall "megaconspiracy", to use Funky's term. The way in which he is describing his assertion, in my opinion, could be said a little differently so as not to come across as a blazing conspiracy theorist rant... but in principle, I agree with ProphetofDoom that there is a large scale movement to lead the souls of men down a path toward enslavement and bondage... such as that described by President Benson in the link I provided earlier.

ProphetofDoom simply grabbed onto and targeted the media in his comment (I believe) because that's the context of this thread -- the media. We could make similar assertions about the food industry, the drug industry, the education "industry", the military "industry", and on and on.

Is "the media" part of the large scale "megaconspiracy" (hereinafter referred to as "secret combinations")? My answer to that is unequivocally yes, yes, and double yes. Does each little anchor and local news outlet or reporter throughout the world gather together in a grand meeting in a secret location in South Africa every 3rd leap year to work out their master plan as a group? No, of course not. And neither ProphetofDoom nor I are asserting such a claim. Is the media as a whole a tool being used by the Adversary through a few of his agents (Rupert Murdock and others of his ilk) to bring about his agenda of secret combinations? I personally believe so.

As an aside. I will say that I understand why I can talk to different people and share with each of them the same beliefs that I have and get a range of responses varying from a blank stare, a fearful gasp, a hearty belly laugh to fist pumping agreement. This is a paradigm shift for many. I realize that it is hard for many to undo the conditioning and the training our minds and hearts have received literally from birth. We're conditioned through the medications injected into our bodies, the food we ingest, the damned TV we watch, the papers we read, the schools we attend, the jobs we work, and the people with whom we choose to associate and align ourselves. Once you're on the conveyor belt built by "the system", it is hard to jump off. It is hard to see anything else other than what "the system" wants you to see.

President Benson "got it". Not only because of his mantle as Prophet, Seer and Revelator, but because of who he was politically as well. He was an insider... more so than certainly any of us on this forum are or likely will be. Read that talk in its entirety. He's speaking about as plainly as one can speak without coming out and actually using the words "megaconspiracy". He took the red pill, if you will. He chose to see what was really happening and he, quite fortunately for us, chose to not be silent about it. Some chose to listen then and went on to become freedom fighters in the battle against the secret combinations. Those of us today can also choose to join this fight. Still others can choose to remain entrenched, asleep and blissfully ignorant of the conveyor belt they so comfortably ride upon.

Okay, I understand what you're saying here. You're more in the general Satan thing which has been there since Adam and Eve in the Garden. That's not surprising. He is present in my family working to try to get his way in the door, so that every physical and emotional/spiritual knock on my door I have to analyze to make sure it's not a product of Satan's "secret combination".

But prophetofdoom's assertion - and this is what Funky and I are debating - is that in the News Media, there is a physical man-made conspirancy going on that directs the news... ALL news sources. Yes, Satan is powerful, but I don't believe that he has accomplished establishing such an organization in the news media. He might have successfully established his own Church - I can believe that, although I can't name a single church that fits this description.

[rubondfan2]

Yes, Satan is powerful, but I don't believe that he has accomplished establishing such an organization in the news media.

Well, I'm still going to disagree here. Again, is there a secret society of hundreds of news personalities, outlets, networks, reporters and individual players getting together to conspire as a group? No, I don't believe so and I really don't believe ProphetofDoom believes that either. (I can't wait for him to come online so that he can clarify his opinion a bit).

What I am most certainly saying is that the media -- as a whole -- is filled from top to bottom with corruption. I believe "the media industry" in general qualifies as one of the groups spoken of in the quote below by Bruce R. McConkie from the revised edition of Mormon Doctrine. It is part of the church of the devil... the great and abominable church spoken of by Nephi. It is a tool used by the Adversary to lead away the hearts and minds of people away from God and toward bondage and destruction... that's what I believe.

He might have successfully established his own Church - I can believe that, although I can't name a single church that fits this description.

Neither could Bruce R. McConkie. Which is why he said the following:

"The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature--whether political, philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious--which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God."

Once again, bear in mind that the vast majority of the news media propagated upon the earth today is owned and controlled by only a literal handful of individuals. The individual players may have the best of intentions doing what they do to deliver information to the people, but they are playing in a rigged system... they are simply teeth on the cogs in a much bigger set of wheels ultimately being turned by a small number of elite who are being used by the Adversary. Whether they (the elite few) purposefully chose to make the deal with him or are just corrupt enough of heart to buy into his agenda doesn't matter.

In Book of Mormon times, we read of power hungry, greedy individuals who literally sought out the secret works of darkness. Other times they "stumbled across them". Regardless of how they got them, the result was the same when those works of darkness (secret combinations... i.e. "conspiracies") were allowed to grow and permeate the leaders and those who followed them... they brought about the destruction of entire nations of people who at one time were very righteous and unified.

I would further offer that I'm sure there were many during those times, as the destruction was happening all around them, were saying to themselves, "there can't possibly be some grand conspiracy here... things are fine... my government wouldn't lie to me... my textbooks at school say this is the way it is... all is well in zion." Hmm... could we be seeing a repeat performance today?

Edited February 25, 2011 by rubondfan2
Three words added to clarify context.

[Guest]

Well, I'm still going to disagree here. Again, is there a secret society of hundreds of news personalities, outlets, networks, reporters and individual players getting together to conspire as a group? No, I don't believe so and I really don't believe ProphetofDoom believes that either. (I can't wait for him to come online so that he can clarify his opinion a bit).

What I am most certainly saying is that the media -- as a whole -- is filled from top to bottom with corruption. I believe "the media industry" in general qualifies as one of the groups spoken of in the quote below by Bruce R. McConkie from the revised edition of Mormon Doctrine. It is part of the church of the devil... the great and abominable church spoken of by Nephi. It is a tool used by the Adversary to lead away the hearts and minds of people away from God and toward bondage and destruction... that's what I believe.

Once again, bear in mind that the vast majority of the news media propagated upon the earth today is owned and controlled by only a literal handful of individuals. The individual players may have the best of intentions doing what they do to deliver information to the people, but they are playing in a rigged system... they are simply teeth on the cogs in a much bigger set of wheels ultimately being turned by a small number of elite who are being used by the Adversary. Whether they purposefully chose to make the deal with him or are just corrupt enough of heart to buy into his agenda doesn't matter.

I may not be understanding what prophetofdoom is saying - yeah, it will be cool when chimes back in.

But I do agree with you about the American media filled with corruption from top to bottom. I just don't believe that they are organized into one organization of conspiracy (that I thought prophetofdoom was implying). When I talk media - I don't just talk CNN/MSNBC/Fox/Rush Limbaugh, etc. I talk - all accessible media sources - TV, newspaper, internet, etc. It's too broad with varying information to plop into "the great conspiracy". For example, I couldn't see Rush Limbaugh conspiring with CNN, you know what I mean? If I remember correctly, prophetofdoom stated that even Wikileaks is part of this organized conspiracy. (Ok, maybe prophetofdoom didn't say that... I'm too lazy to search the previous posts to find who said it).

You and I do agree on the presence of evil though. We just differ on the perspective. I see current events as "business as usual on this thing called mortal existence" while you see current events as a heightening of evil leading towards the Second Coming. The difference doesn't matter much. We both are wary that the adversary is at hand so we continue to fill our lamps with oil...