Media Influence

Charleston, cognitive psychology, and media influence

It’s worth thinking about some basic psychology in relation to the Charleston events. Cognitive psychologists study heuristics that people use to make judgments about  the likelihood of events that are complexly determined — things like airplane crashes or shark attacks. A heuristic relevant to Charleston is the availability heuristic, where people make judgments and form attitudes based on their memories of past events. Such memories are greatly influenced by media coverage. From Wikipedia

After seeing news stories about child abductions, people may judge that the likelihood of this event is greater. Media coverage can help fuel a person’s example bias with widespread and extensive coverage of unusual events, such as homicide or airline accidents, and less coverage of more routine, less sensational events, such as common diseases or car accidents. For example, when asked to rate the probability of a variety of causes of death, people tend to rate “newsworthy” events as more likely because they can more readily recall an example from memory. Moreover, unusual and vivid events like homicides, shark attacks, or lightning are more often reported in mass media than common and un-sensational causes of death like common diseases.[9]

For example, many people think that the likelihood of dying from shark attacks is greater than that of dying from being hit by falling airplane parts, when more people actually die from falling airplane parts. When a shark attack occurs, the deaths are widely reported in the media whereas deaths as a result of being hit by falling airplane parts are rarely reported in the media.[10]

The application to Charleston is obvious. There is wall-to-wall media coverage, so people will easily recall what happened there. Such memories will be easily available to influence attitudes and judgments. Whereas Black-on-White crime motivated by racial hatred is vastly more common than the reverse, such events are rarely reported in the national media, and even local media typically ignore racial designations and downplay racial motivation in such attacks. Read more

Yes, the Media Has Blood on Its Hands

The New York Times has reacted with predictable umbrage to any suggestion that the media deluge on the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases had anything to do with the murder of the two policemen in Brooklyn.

Mr. [Bill] de Blasio and Police Commissioner William Bratton, who stood together on Monday afternoon, tried their best to respond to rage with reason.

Mr. Bratton had chosen his words poorly earlier in the day, in a morning TV interview, saying that “the targeting of these two police officers was a direct spinoff of this issue of these demonstrations.” He should have made clear that the only one responsible for the killings is the killer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley. Mr. Bratton’s 35,000 officers, in whom Mr. Lynch has been trying mightily to stoke a sense of grievance and victimhood, need to hear from him that this administration fully supports the police, and that gestures of contempt — like turning their backs on the mayor — are out of place. [my emphasis]

It’s a strange argument, especially coming from the certifiably left — that Mr. Brinsley acted in a complete vacuum, that his cultural surroundings played no role. It didn’t matter that there were protest marches chanting “What do we want? Dead cops!” (ignored by Al Sharpton). It didn’t matter that all the statements and actions by Obama, Holder, and de Blasio supported the protesters and blamed the police for the “climate of distrust” in Black communities.

In general, the left loves arguments that culture is important. They have no problem attributing the behavior of police officers killing Blacks, the performance of Black schoolchildren, Black criminality and every other pathology to a poisonous racism that pervades White society. Discussion of genetic influences are off limits, and unfortunately there are no cultural/environmental cures for low IQ. Black children are therefore not responsible for academic failure and we have to be understanding about the levels of criminality among Blacks.  Read more

Gary Oldman Becomes a Pariah

You have to wonder what Gary Oldman was smoking during his Playboy interview — the one where he defended Mel Gibson and said that Jews “run” Hollywood.

So they persecute. Mel Gibson is in a town that’s run by Jews and he said the wrong thing because he’s actually bitten the hand that I guess has fed him—and doesn’t need to feed him anymore because he’s got enough dough. He’s like an outcast, a leper, you know? But some Jewish guy in his office somewhere hasn’t turned and said, “That fucking kraut” or “Fuck those Germans,” whatever it is? We all hide and try to be so politically correct. That’s what gets me. It’s just the sheer hypocrisy of everyone, that we all stand on this thing going, “Isn’t that shocking?” [smiles wryly] All right. Shall I stop talking now? What else can we discuss?

It seems like every few years a Hollywood celebrity comes out and states the obvious—Marlon Brando, William Cash, Oliver Stone, Rick Sanchez, Mel Gibson, and now Gary Oldman. The list includes not a few Jewish commentators as well, including Joel Stein in the LA Times, Manny Friedman writing  in the  Times of Israel, Ben Stein (see below) and this issue of Moment.
The LA Times, on the other  hand understands how the game is played. Every year around Oscar time they put out editorials and articles bemoaning the “overwhelmingly white male membership of the academy” and that “film, TV diversity doesn’t look like America’s.” Then the next year, they do it all over again because nothing changes.

Some bastions of “White power” are not to be seriously contested. Read more

Jonah Goldberg: The liberal media doesn’t have any influence

Jonah Goldberg recently wrote an op-ed emphasizing how powerful media influences are (“If speech can inspire good actions, it can inspire bad actions, too“). His point:

Liberals decry the toxic rhetoric of the right, conservatives blame the toxic rhetoric of the left.

When attacked – again heedless of ideology or consistency – the gladiators instantly trade weapons. The finger-pointers of five minutes ago suddenly wax righteous in their indignation that mere expression – rather, their expression – should be blamed. Many of the same liberals who pounded soapboxes into pulp at the very thought of labeling record albums with violent lyrics warnings, instantly insisted that Sarah Palin had Rep. Gabby Giffords’ blood on her hands. Many of the conservatives who spewed hot fire at the suggestion that they had any culpability in an abortion clinic bombing, gleefully insisted that Sen. Bernie Sanders is partially to blame for Rep. Steve Scalise’s fight with death. …

I have always thought it absurd to claim that expression cannot lead people to do bad things, precisely because it is so obvious that expression can lead people to do good things. According to legend, Abraham Lincoln told Harriet Beecher Stowe, “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war.” Should we mock Lincoln for saying something ridiculous?

As Irving Kristol once put it, “If you believe that no one was ever corrupted by a book, you have also to believe that no one was ever improved by a book. You have to believe, in other words, that art is morally trivial and that education is morally irrelevant.”

If words don’t matter, then democracy is a joke, because democracy depends entirely on making arguments – not for killing, but for voting. But only a fool would argue that words can move people to vote, but not to kill.



Jonah Goldberg’s op-ed “Leave liberal Hollywood to the liberals” argues that despite the fact that Hollywood is “overwhelmingly, though not uniformly, liberal,” conservatives shouldn’t try to buy up media in order to get their messages out. Buying up media is a waste of time because “Hollywood influence is agonizingly hard to predict or dismiss as unthinkingly liberal.”

This strikes me as head-bangingly wrong, and not the least because the messages put out by Hollywood are quite designedly rather than unthinkingly liberal. A repeated message at  TOO  is that the world would change rather quickly and dramatically if there was one above-ground, widely available, well-funded, mainstream media outlet — a sensible version, say, of Fox  News or MSNBC, but with a perspective supporting the interests of European-Americans and Whites around the world.

But Goldberg’s advice is idiotic even for someone who styles himself a mainstream conservative. The media does have influence and the influence is generally in the direction intended by its creators.

Since I rather doubt that Goldberg is an idiot, I suspect there are some deep motivations going on here—including that Goldberg is not a conservative at all. As Peter Brimelow phrased it, with Goldberg assuming a prominent position at National Review, it had become a “once-conservative, now respected, magazine.”

And yes, I suspect that ultimately it has to do with Goldberg’s Jewish identity. Like other neocons, Goldberg has been an enthusiastic supporter of all of the fundamental positions of the organized Jewish community, including displacement-level non-White immigration and opposition to identity politics for White people (see above link). It’s revealing that Goldberg was not particularly upset by the recent election (“The right isn’t waving a white flag“), claiming that conservatism will come back, as it has before. Not one mention of the demographics of the vote or what that portends for the GOP or what the GOP ought to do about it. Goldberg is quite happy about the ethnic transformation that is making the Republicans, conservatism and indeed White people obsolete.

Goldberg also supported the firing of John Derbyshire from National Review. One wonders why he would care about firing Derbyshire if the media doesn’t have any influence anyway. Why not let Derbyshire continue to have a forum for race realism at National Review? One wonders why the media is so intensively policed to remove voices that conflict with the liberal world view—people like Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs. Why was Media Matters so upset when CNN quoted Brimelow and TOO’s James Edwards on immigration-related issues? Read more

The media drumbeat: The West is evil

A major theme at TOO has been Jewish influence on the media and that the media reflects the attitudes of the wider Jewish community hostile to the traditional people and culture of the West (e.g., Media images of Whites; Media bias). (Relatedly, Frank Salter exhaustively shows that the media in Australia is hostile to the traditional people and culture of Australia.)

It’s a pervasive phenomenon. The first paragraphs of Andrew Joyce’s recent TOO article emphasize the many reviews in the elite media of Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora. While there are some make minor criticisms, the book is taken seriously, and the general conclusion — that the English have had a pathological hatred toward Jews for nearly a millennium — is not challenged. The reviews typically lavish praise on an execrable book—execrable at least partly because it ignores data that fail to confirm its thesis.  The main function of the book and the reviews is to add to the constant condemnatory chorus from the media: the traditional people and culture of the West are evil.

Jewish readers are confirmed in their sense of innocent victimhood; they are once again assured that hostility toward to the people and culture of traditional English society and the West generally is entirely justified.   Read more

The Sexual Subversion of America, Part 1 of 2

An edited abridgement of E. Michael Jones’ 2003 essay, Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos, presented with pictures and captions by Lasha Darkmoon

“Sexual morality is contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life…. If only Americans knew, we are bringing them the plague!” — Sigmund Freud

I never liked the title of Rabbi Dresner’s book: Can Families Survive in Pagan America? This was published in 1995 by Huntington House out of Lafayettte, Louisiana.

The Jews had prospered in America, we learn from the book, but they had paid a price for their prosperity. The chosen people seemed to flatten into normality, according to Dresner’s pessimistic view, becoming what the prophets had warned against: just like the other nations.

They had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in assimilating and achieving success. They even succeeded in remaking American culture in the course of the 20th century in their image, but in doing that they also discovered that they were no longer Jews.

Jews, according to Dresner, have tried all things. In the process they have exhausted modernity. And they have discovered, to their chagrin, the puzzling truth that

 no license has replaced the Law; no symphony, the Psalms; no country club, the synagogue; no mansion, the home; no mistress, a wife; no towering metropolis, Jerusalem; no impulse, the joy of doing a mitzvah; no man, God. (p. 329) Read more

Norman Lear’s “All in the Family” resurfaces

In an argument about Jewish domination of the media, once you get your opponent to admit that yes, Jews do run the media, the usual fall back line is to say that it really doesn’t make any difference. Jews are Americans like everyone else, so we really couldn’t expect anything different no matter who was in charge.

I thought about this reading an LATimes article on the 40th anniversary of Norman Lear’s All in the Family (Norman Lear Recalls ‘All in the Family’s’ Beginning“). The article begins with Lear recounting how proud he is of getting “a reference to sex that would be considered tame today” into the first episode  The show was wildly successful: “The series was brilliant, daring, funny and poignant. Over the seasons, “All in the Family” explored racism, homosexuality, women’s liberation, menopause, impotence, the Vietnam War and the loss of faith. It was the No. 1 series for five years, won 22 Emmys including four for comedy series…”

I remember reading an article about Carroll O’Connor, who played the main character, Archie Bunker, being wildly applauded whenever he went out in public during the height of the show’s popularity. The show was indeed brilliant—brilliant propaganda because it managed to identify ingrain in the American mind the idea that illiberal thinking was a sure sign of being an uneducated buffoon.

It is repeatedly brought out that the main character, Archie Bunker, is uneducated and none too smart—constantly mispronouncing even ordinary words and lacking a basic understanding of geography or history—Lincoln signed the Declaration of Independence, Denmark is the capital of Colorado, and Florida is on the West Coast. But this TV show still shapes current attitudes about people who have a problem with multiculturalism. I found the following posted online by a fan of the show:

This is definitely my favorite show and I am glad that there are re-runs on Nick-At-Nite. One of my favorite episodes is when Archie gets locked in the cellar and is finally “rescued” by a repair man, but Archie is drunk, and he thinks that the repair man is God; little does he now, that the repair man is black! (Not that it matters, but to Archie?!) And when Archie bows down to him and lifts his head to see his “God” the audience roared in laughter as did I. . . . I hope this show remains  on the air for a long time, because I could never get sick of watching All in the Family! (see here) Read more