If you are not of the belief that most of the media is propoganda, you need to rethink this.

Read this post and understand.

The media manipulates via what they choose to show, what they choose not to show, via titles to their works, via the text/words of their works, and via the bias of their works.

The media has 1 hour, sometimes less, sometimes more, in which to give you information. They simply lack the time for in depth on anything and can only take so many stories.

Some examples.

1) what they choose to show.
Children go missing all the time. Lots of children sadly. However we rarely hear about these stories unless the media runs with one.

Then we hear about it endlessly for weeks and months even. This is sensationalism.

Another aspect what to choose to show is the humanitarian projects at times. There is so much good in this world we could not list all such acts. Sometimes, such as in Haiti it's hard to ignore the story, but other times the timing of some stories is off.

Why show habitat for humanity at x time? Yes they are great, but what about other stories? Sometimes it's to distract, others it's to fill for a slow news day (which is to say an oxymoron, there is always news, just perhaps not the desire to report on it, but that's next)

What they choose to show out of hundreds of stories is an important factor

2) what they do not choose to show
Oh how wicked this one is. The examples here number in the billions I suspect. But let us limit it to a few.

The news media avoided talking about the recent floods. More lives were , more property damage happened, and less of a response or care was seen than in what happened in Katrina.

Then we have nonstory about how Obama keeps waiving his ethics rules nonstop and clearly did not intend to follow them.

Then we have further examples like how many murders happened, or rapes, or thefts, or early released prisoners who did crimes again.

The missing element is always a part of the show. The missing should make you curious,

3) The Title is EVERYTHING
Well not everything, but they go a long ways. Catchy title for this section huh?

Sometimes making an absolute where only the possibility of an absolute exists makes peoples perceptions change.

If I made a story of a proposed tax hike and labeled it "without tax hike officers and teachers may lose jobs" it is different than "proposed tax hike not welcomed by many" or "council expects tough fight for proposed tax increase". In this case three titles, and possibly three emotions from a single story you have yet to read about.

Titles can be manipulators from the start.

4) what's being said is important too!
If in the story I say a Senator has resigned during ethics issues, and it is a brand new story, can you reliably choose the party if the person has not been in the spotlight a lot? Most will say no *hush Chris!*.

If I add a (D) or (R) next to it you can know. This is selective removal if I did not place it.

If I then ran with allegations that proved to be untrue then this is selective additions.

What if in the story I leave out who solicited him, or included it? What if I named the unindicted co-conspirators or did not? The story is the information, and adding, removing, or just setting a certain tone can change the story.

5) Bias, Bias, and Damned Bias!
If anyone here doubts Fox News is to the right of MSNBC or CNN then they need help. If they do not think that Chris Mathews has a boner for Obama and will never show anything bad about him they need help.

Bias exists.

The problem is if you accept the bias at face value you are indoctrinated.

An example of bias would be reporting a black Senator got spit upon without proof and never admitting to the wrongfulness when evidence is overwhelming the Senator lied about it.

Another example is CNN reporting only 20,000 TEA Party types in Washington DC on 9-12-2009. Evidence since has proven in excess of 1 million people, verified by two government agencies and scores of independent groups. The highest is 2 million even. No where does CNN convey the truth of the event due to their bias.

To say all do it is partially correct. Some do it deliberately, some do it subconsciously, and even true neutrals can accidently appear to have bias.

Instead what you should do is read it from multiple standpoints. Watch the more diverse news channels (more stories is more often less issues) and watch those who do not let their bias dictate their stories outright.