*related=http://videosift.com/video/Glass-Exploding-at-130-000-fps-aka-Prince-Ruperts-Drop

behind the scenes:

I hope by now people know me well enough to know I am far from a Trump supporter.

But we would be missing out on a huge opportunity here if we didn't highlight that 99% of what politicians say is different looking, but equally foul bullshit.

I'm not joking. If you actually look into the 'facts' and 'statistics' that are used to push and promote the different policies, they are all based in falsehood or manipulation of meaning, a few off the very top of my head:
- Austerity - based on a study that was discredited not long after it was used to strip assets and cut funding for those who need it most
- Immigration caps - Theresa May talks big about reducing immigration now, saying what a problem it has become but she was *home secretary*, responsible for handling immigration policy
- Benefit caps - for years they have painted benefits cheats as the great drain on the British welfare system with TV shows and press releases, but the majority of the benefits bills go towards subsidising low pay (working tax credits, people in full time work that doesn't pay enough to live on) and paying rent to private landlords (rents which are unregulated, landlords who are already privately rich).
- Greater autonomy for local government - sounds great, we get a better say about things that affect us locally, except when we say that we don't want fracking in Lancashire, they over rule us and say we WILL have fracking in Lancashire. Greater autonomy only meant "we're not giving you any more money."

I'm barely getting started. You can go on and on - tax policy when it comes to big multi nationals who don't pay their fair share, but we let them haggle and pay a tokenistic amount - but the reason we don't have enough money is because of the burden of benefits cheats and immigrants??? We paid for the damage done by the financial crash, but the same people are still in charge and now they're taking billions in bonuses too - why don't we get any of it back!??

I can turn on the news at any time and within 30 seconds find something that is skirting with the truth or outright pulling the wool over our eyes.

The entire political system is fucked up in America and in the UK, it's not just Donald Trump. Donald Trump is like a huge fist sized bubble in a strip of freshly laid wallpaper. We don't just need to fix the big obvious bubble; we need to change the way we put wallpaper up because when you look at the rest of the wall, there are thousands of smaller bubbles that amount to the exact same problem of a fucked up wall.

Donald Trump is the dead canary in the coal mine. He's the clear and obvious indicator that something is horribly, horribly wrong. Getting rid of the canary's corpse does not solve the fucking problem.

The blowback from the alt-right, these vicious people spouting nationalism and racism and sexism. AND the constantly bickering and clamouring SJW lefties who want to dominate free thought and free speech. Both these sets of people have been pitted against each other intentionally so that they don't turn on the people at the top. It is the oldest trick in the book - don't blame the guys in charge, blame each other, it gives us longer to get away with it. Divide and conquer. Spread hate, spread war, spread fear, spread anger and people gravitate to the extremes... they are easier to control at the extremes.

...rant over i guess

TLDR
If you found this boring, if you didn't want to look into it, you're part of the problem. You're contributing to the environment in which Trump can flourish.

There is no scrutiny, there is no being held to account. There is only the court of Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers.

This Russia criticism - I don't understand. Is a pickpocket any less guilty because a Russian spotted them stealing from you?

And in my experience, RT is more reliable than the average western sources. It has its own bias, but by Christ if you think Rupert Murdoch is any better than the Kremlin when it comes to self-serving two-facery.. well, I have a magic golden egg laying hen to sell you.

Anything Rupert Murdoch tells it to.

I would say this is pretty much on the button, though. This way clearly isn't working, but the people who have money and power have convinced the majority that nothing can change and even if we could we would be worse off.

I don't think i'm being melodramatic or conspiracy theorising either. Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers tell people what to think and they think it. Democracy has been subverted by money in most western countries with corporate lobbyists willing to spend billions to get a politician on-side, "anti-lobbying" legislation that actually attacks grassroots and activists from broadcasting the truth at election time (and leaves lobbying untouched), and unfair campaign spending/fund-raising that leaves the rich with all the advantage.

The media in Britain have consistently presented a skewed and incorrect representation of the left-wing party leader. It is clearly a campaign by vested interests to stop a man who would bring their reign to an end. The language that they use and the metric by which they judge "their" guy is COMPLETELY different to how they judge the "other" guy.

What's worse is, fairness and balance in the media has deteriorated to such a point that it is now absolutely fine for all this to happen.

As Lawdeedaw said, we are already a long way up shit creek and we didn't even pack the paddle. Some people are getting very rich and are very comfortable, they have immense power and they will say anything to convince you that it's best that it stays that way. Including lying and using manipulative language and statistics in their national publications and television stations. And all you as an individual really has to do is vote someone into power that cannot be corrupted. You've got Bernie, we've got Jeremy.

"Too rich to be corrupted" is farcical though - let's only trust rich people then. Not only does this suggest that rich people are more trustworthy just by dint of having lots of money, but that poor people are less trustworthy because the greedy little paupers can't restrain themselves from 'upping their station'? I would rather judge someone on who i perceive their character to be than based on what is in their bank account, but i guess i'm fucked up like that.

I'm confused - people are saying that Trump gets coverage so that the media group in question make more money (through bigger audiences). But what makes more money in the long run than a useful ally in a position of power?

A little bit naive to think that personal politics (of the owner, who chooses the editor, etc.) plays no part in media coverage. They don't call Rupert Murdoch a king maker for nothing, and it isn't like the Murdoch family has a list as long as my arm of shady dealings, bribery, corruption, etc.

The turkeys don't vote for christmas, and Murdoch isn't going to advertise for someone who believes in workers rights, equality and making sure huge multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

Exchange Murdoch for any billionaire media mogul you like - the Barclay brothers for example, also not very interested in equality and paying a fair share of tax. Yes it's sensationalism, but it's also powerful men using their influence to protect their interests. As the man in the video himself says.

Anyway, it worked for us over here - we got Jeremy Corbyn in despite the best efforts of every prominent news outlet. I'm not sure if America is ready for a bit socialism just yet, but the tide is changing in worldwide public opinion, i hope.

This is exactly the tactic that Rupert Murdoch, Karl Rove, & the Koch Brothers use.

Thanks for finally seeing the light, shiny! You're one of us now. One of us!

Fair-dinkum....HA!!
Wait...does Mr Mark work for Mr Rupert? That would explain them 'standing behind' this kind of story 100%.
*fearmongers

Nor do you want to use a Prince Rupert's Drop for your Prince Albert. Ouch.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Keith Olbermann: Rupert Murdoch Co. Publishing Palin Book. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Remember, Rupert Sheldrake *actually believes* in psychic powers.

In this video he sets up a bunch of straw-men arguments to knock down. Just by using (and abusing) the language of science and framing it inwords like "dogma" that we associate with religion doesn't mean that anything else you have to propose has any validity.

He believes that by "morphic resonance" that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind".

Hmmm. I'm waiting or your peer reviewed paper on this with interest.

http://videosift.com/video/TEDX-Rupert-Sheldrake-The-Science-Delusion

@Sniper007 Quite the road less-traveled pardner but worthy of the task you've set before yourself. Ruperts' a maverick, snake-oil tinctured with hard science, faith fueled by invisible cosmic forces and brass balls. He used to be a regular on the old Art Bell Flour Hour-

He apparently, has been asked by the TED talk's cabal short of a recant, to please, "never come back," which is here on the Videosift, what you are being presented with in the realms of "health"and.....ahem, "science" by the armchair enthusiasts who fancy themselves experts on all subjects above mundane. You are now in the company of the marginally successful Disrupticons of the site whose ulterior M.O. is that of "Ointment Fly."

I commend and salute you, noble sir!

By 'proper science' I'm assuming you mean something which is entirely, 100% empirical, physical, and explicitly non-spiritual. I can't show you anything in that regard. What I'm referring to is exactly spiritual. It's a man's belief (wholly non-physical, not just brain synapses firing) which I'm referring to.

You're asking me to show you something wholly physical, presupposing a priori the non-existance of the spiritual, which then can somehow prove the existence of the spititual. I can't do it, sorry. You can't perform double blind experiments on spiritual elements like love, fear, hate, jealousy, etc. But those things do exist, and their effects and affects are profound.

Now I know, I made some ostensibly outrageous claims as to the power of belief. I can understand the outrage. I'm not really upset about that. I do hope to open up some new areas of thought for those who are medically minded to a religious extent.

See the book, Science Set Free by Rupert Sheldrake.

So in your mind, anyone can say anything about someone, offer no actual proof or veracity and should be allowed to get away with it as long as the person they're talking about is pretty poorly thought of? X D

You're using the same hyperbole (oh sweet irony) that reportage of this issue used, but even Get Up refuse to directly accuse him... (cos, ya know, libel...)

http://nofibs.com.au/2013/09/04/getup-update-murdoch-ad-ban/

"Already, 830,000 people have seen the ad on air or online — but now all three major TV networks are pulling it off air and refusing to run it.1. Some of the network representatives told us directly: they’re not running the ad because they don’t want to criticise Rupert Murdoch."

Not wanting to criticise him is not the same thing as HIM banning the ad...

Thought that was pretty funny too. The guy was born in Melbourne but why pass up the opportunity to hurl such a great insult!

Rupert Murdoch is absolute garbage... but so is this video... and spewing total BS isn't how we're going to beat people like this.