What is exact scientific term called for when people consider a news truth when media keeps on showing it repeatedly even if its lie.

 

Propaganda!
Max.

 

I think the term you are looking for is 'Spin'.

 

Subliminal mind control

 

Fox News Channel?

 

I'm going with Max. "Propaganda" if it's anything about government(s).

 

The government isn't the only source of propaganda or spin.

The media, from one network to another, reports some of the same "news releases" from entities. News releases can have an "agenda", to spin the news so it's more favorable to the entity that released that "news."

There is very few investigative reporting going on these days. One problem is every news organization want's to be the "first" with the news, and that can lead to poor investigation. A prime example was what caused Dan Rather's departure from ABC news.

I hope everyone is cynical when it comes to what is reported as news. There was a poll out that said a lot of people got their news from Jon Stewart's show, the Daily Show, a political comedy show. Other polls indicated the internet as the news source of choice. That poll didn't discriminate as to the source, i.e. a newpaper's website or news agency's website. That is scary when you think about all the misinformation out there on the internet.

The cynical side of me always looks for the agenda when viewing the news.

People claim Rush Limbaugh is news. Nope. He's an entertainer providing entertainment. Same for the other side of the political spectrum. One thing for sure, their ratings include the faithful and the opposition, and I'll bet both for the same reasons. To hear what comes out of their mouths ... which in turn becomes fodder for each.

 

The cynical side of me always looks for the agenda when viewing the news.

It was about 50 years ago when my mother told me, "What ever 'news' is on the TV, think about what it is intended to distract you from." Her point of view was that all "news" is created to misdirect you.

It still works for me.

 

What is exact scientific term called for when people consider a news truth when media keeps on showing it repeatedly even if its lie.

I don't know exactly what you are focusing on, but you might be looking for the term "the big lie", which has two components to it. Basically, it says that if you make an outlandish claim over and over again that many people that initially dismissed the claim with start to believe it based on the reasoning (often done subconsciously) that it must be true to still be being reported over and over. But the same effect applies to smaller lies -- as long as something gets heard from multiple sources (even if those sources are reading the exact same story from the exact same source) it gains a level of legitimacy that can be very persuasive for many people.

There have been instances when News Source A broadcast a story based on an unconfirmed source and then used the fact that News Source B later broadcast the same information as "confirmation" that the story was accurate. But then it turned out that New Source B was only parroting the story it heard from News Source A.

 

The government isn't the only source of propaganda or spin.

You're right, the Mael Brothers did pretty well out of it.

 

What is exact scientific term called for when people consider a news truth when media keeps on showing it repeatedly even if its lie.

While earlier I threw out "the big lie" as the term that might apply, I think a more suitable term (since you aren't indicating any emphasis on big lies, just lies that are heard over and over) is "urban legend".

We usually think of urban legends as being fairly over-the-top tales that are believed by many people over several generations. But the term applies equally well to any widely spread believe that is incorrect. We are actually inundated by things that fall into this category all the time, particularly in election years.

As an example, how often have we heard the claim that fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce? Turns out that this was solely due to an article in which the author noted that in a particular county in a particular year that there were half as many divorce degrees recorded as there were marriage certificates. I don't recall whether the author made the erroneous conclusion that this implied that half of marriages ended in divorce or not, but that is what got reported and in no time it was simply accepted as the truth and people used that figure even in scholarly work without citing any source at all and it frequently got past the reviewers because it was seen as just "common knowledge" that didn't require a specific reference.

 

Actually it turns out to be pretty close.
http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.html

 

Actually it turns out to be pretty close.
http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.html

That site seems all over the map. They first say that if trends continue that the divorce rate will soon exceed 50%, but then in multiple places after that point out that the divorce rate has been declining for decades and that experts believe that the drop may go down even more. But this may or may not be a contradiction because they don't give enough data to distinguish between divorce rates on a per-population basis versus on a per-marriage basis.

Furthermore, relevant to this discussion, what really matters is the probability of divorce at the time that the 50% claim first started being made, which was in the 1970's time frame. It's certainly possible that things have changed over the intervening decades (or could change in the future) to turn an urban legend into actual truth. For instance, two factors that would tend to increase the probability of divorce are (1) the degree to which no-fault divorce has made it extremely easy for someone to get a divorce and (2) the higher level of family indebtedness relative to decades past since financial issues is one of the major causes for marital stress and divorce.

 

Media hype?

 

What's a government for if not to collect data.

"The probability of a first marriage reaching its 20th anniversary was 52% for women and 56% for men in 2006–2010. These levels are consistent with those reported in the NSFG in previous years, and in vital statistics data three decades ago (2,5,6,24). "

Of course we have to wait for everyone to die to have the final number.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf

 

When you have ALL the media, controlled by 5 corporations only, it's ALL propaganda/Spin.

 

At the end of he day...it's all about market share....how many people listen or view you. Nielson and arbitron provide that service to tv and radio, respectively

 

Are you suggesting that sensationalist propaganda draws more viewers than regular, day-to-day reality?

 

If he won't, I will.

 

What's a government for if not to collect data.

"The probability of a first marriage reaching its 20th anniversary was 52% for women and 56% for men in 2006–2010. These levels are consistent with those reported in the NSFG in previous years, and in vital statistics data three decades ago (2,5,6,24). "

Of course we have to wait for everyone to die to have the final number.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf

Do you recall if that probability included marriages ended by the death of one (or both) spouse(s)?