I was very happy to see that CNN will be running a special which shows the level of propaganda that is taking place around the Middle East.
At the very least it will get a lot of people talking about the issue… and hopefully realizing that this is an underlying fundamental problem - of which the current woes are merely a symptom.
Please, somebody, wake up and start fighting the right battles. If you want to believe in the doctrine of preemption, this is the right place for it. Preempt the propaganda that leaves no choice but warfare.
I’ve said it before, to mockery, but I’ll say it again. The pen is mightier than the sword… especially if it is used to motivate hatred and twisted fanaticism amongst millions of people.
The fact that people are finally going to have it pushed in their faces should lead to some progress in thinking. The down side is it may take an entire generation or more to defuse the results of decades of propaganda.
Unfortunately, any ‘counter-propaganda’ will be merely seen as ‘zionist’ propaganda. I honestly believe that a robust counter-propaganda would have a miniscule impact.
It’s like trying to argue with conspiracy theorists. All evidence debunking the conspiracy theory, was manafactured by the conspirators.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I was very happy to see that CNN will be running a special which shows the level of propaganda that is taking place around the Middle East.
At the very least it will get a lot of people talking about the issue… and hopefully realizing that this is an underlying fundamental problem - of which the current woes are merely a symptom.
Please, somebody, wake up and start fighting the right battles. If you want to believe in the doctrine of preemption, this is the right place for it. Preempt the propaganda that leaves no choice but warfare.
I’ve said it before, to mockery, but I’ll say it again. The pen is mightier than the sword… especially if it is used to motivate hatred and twisted fanaticism amongst millions of people.
The fact that people are finally going to have it pushed in their faces should lead to some progress in thinking. The down side is it may take an entire generation or more to defuse the results of decades of propaganda.[/quote]
It will be hard to determine how sincere CNN will be since it to is a part of the U.S. indoctrination system.
Hell, according to a gallup poll conducted in the ‘muslim world,’ the vast majority believe 9-11 was a jewish conspiracty to frame Osama, muslims, and arabs.
So yeah, I maintain counter-propaganda would be seen as part of the Big Satan (US), Medium Satan (much of Europe), and little Satan (Israel) conspiracy. Again, manafactured evidence by the conspirators.
"It turns out an overwhelming majority of people in the Muslim world, according to a Gallup poll, do not believe the attacks of Sept. 11 were orchestrated by Osama bin Laden, or by Arabs, or by Muslims.
Many believe, instead, that the whole thing was a conspiracy orchestrated by Jews."
A “CNN Special On Propaganda”, in all likelihood, is propaganda…
Pentagon Memo Reveals Launch of New PR War
The Associated Press
30 October 2006
In a memo obtained by the Associated Press, Dorrance Smith, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, said new teams of people will “develop messages” for the 24-hour news cycle and “correct the record.”
Pentagon Boosts “Media War” Unit
BBC
31 October 2006
The US defence department has set up a new unit to better promote its message across 24-hour rolling news outlets, and particularly on the internet.
Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?
3/27/2000
What makes the CNN story especially troubling is the fact that the network allowed the Army’s covert propagandists to work in its headquarters, where they learned the ins and outs of CNN’s operations. Even if the PSYOPS officers working in the newsroom did not influence news reporting, did the network allow the military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against CNN itself?
For instance, one PSYOPS officer worked in CNN’s satellite division. According to Intelligence Newsletter, rear admiral Thomas Steffens, a psychological warfare expert in the Special Operations Command, recently told a PSYOPS conference that the military needed to find ways to “gain control” over commercial news satellites to help bring down an “informational cone of silence” over regions where special operations were taking place.
An unofficial strategy paper published by the U.S. Naval War College in 1996 and written by an Army officer (“Military Operations in the CNN World: Using the Media as a Force Multiplier”) urged military commanders to find ways to “leverage the vast resources of the fourth estate” for the purposes of “communicating the [mission’s] objective and endstate, boosting friendly morale, executing more effective psychological operations, playing a major role in deception of the enemy, and enhancing intelligence collection.”
And there you have it. If you can’t convince conspiracy theorists here, how are you going to counter the Jihad propaganda over there? Remember, the vast majority in the ‘muslim world’ blame 9-11 on a zionist conspiracy.
Any attempt to counter their propaganda, will be seen as part of the zionist conspiracy. Facts and evidence? Manafactured by the zionists and the Great Satan!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And there you have it. If you can’t convince conspiracy theorists here, how are you going to counter the Jihad propaganda over there? Remember, the vast majority in the ‘muslim world’ blame 9-11 on a zionist conspiracy.
Any attempt to counter their propaganda, will be seen as part of the zionist conspiracy. Facts and evidence? Manafactured by the zionists and the Great Satan![/quote]
LOL.
You can’t point to a nutbar conspiracy theorist and conclude that because they see conspiracies for everything that nobody will ever listen.
Anyway, as usual, why not try expanding your thinking a little bit. Propaganda is a very powerful tool and there is no reason to imagine you could spend five minutes saying “you are wrong” and think the world situation would be changed.
Fuck, since nobody seems to be able to connect any dots around here, let me drag a pencil between a couple for you.
One, not everyone is a conspiracy theorist. In whatever aspect you wish to measure there will generally be some type of continuum with individuals holding various viewpoints.
Two, everyone, whether a conspiracy theorist or not, has to choose some information sources to view as reliable to at least some degree. For example, we all know the basic legality of most issues in our community, but I’ll bet most wouldn’t know where to look to read the actual text of those laws.
Three, people are connected in networks. If you can talk to one, somewhere, and they view your message as valid and authoritative, then your message is going to be passed along, and the receiver may view the intermediary as much more reliable a source than you or your own propaganda.
Four, if a lot of extreme people start to get influenced in even a tiny way by what might be a less extreme majority, then you can achieve a major overall shift in viewpoint.
Five, some messages, or memes, are self-supporting and self-replicating. A religion is a good example of this (and I’m not denigrating religion here). When we are taught religion we are also taught to teach it to others. Spreading the message and belief is built into the message itself.
Six, information science and networking aren’t limited to the computing world. The computing world has simply coopted these ideas from the real world.
WikiPedia: meme
Now, I’m sure I’m pissing into the wind, but does anybody have anything constructive to say that isn’t whining about how hopeless the situation is?
Alternately, put me in touch with an appropriate branch of your military. I’d be happy to get back into a higher level of game…
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Funny, from the Communist News Network.[/quote]
I’m sure CNN will offer and interesting spin on it. Chances are you’re gonna sit through 59 minutes of ‘reporting’ and then they devote the last minute to tell you why it’s Bush’s fault.
thats a good idea, target the sunnis with anti-shiite propaganda, the shiites with anti-sunni propaganda, sell guns to both sides and have them sort each other out. although who will take care of the kurds . . .should have waited until saddam had finished the job I guess.
Most news is propaganda. There is no such thing as propaganda free and at the same time commercial free news. All commercial news agencies have an agenda. I really do believe all commercial news is reported to scare, and by extension control the general public. Here is the drill-down for a typical headline news show:
Report the deadliest news maker for the day and hype the analysis–to seem more credible get as many people from different sides to editorialize their opinions.
Cut to a Lexus/Cadillac commercial to take advantage of the state of fear the audience is now in–this gives the viewer a false sense of control if he can somehow purchase his way out of an incontrollable event–besides Cadillac/Lexus equals power.
Return from commercial break and report about a new disease or sickness or people dying from some unknown disease or sickness.
Cut to a drug commercial so that people know what products to buy to keep them from dying.
Return from commercial break and attempt to alleviate some fear by reporting a feel-good story–maybe one involving children or a misfortunate animal.
Okay, so you can probably tell I am a little biased against commercial news.
The key is to get as many sources as possible and distill all the information before attempting to process it–but who has the time for that?
Even better would be to just get news reported to us and not commentated to us (I blame our fascination with sports commentary on this). For example–I’ll use an extreme case–on 2001.09.11 was it enough to know what happened or was it necessary to know why it happened? My second question is then can we ever really know why things happen and doesn’t this usually fall into the realm of opinion? Is someone’s opinion news? Does this fashion of reporting news shape our own opinion of the world?
As humans we have a natural curiosity to understand the world we live in but in my opinion it isn’t the news jockey’s job to report this. Reality doesn’t happen behind a desk. Though I think it is important to try and understand world events we need to get over the fact that it is impossible to know everything and do a little of our own leg work.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Most news is propaganda. There is no such thing as propaganda free and at the same time commercial free news. All commercial news agencies have an agenda. I really do believe all commercial news is reported to scare, and by extension control the general public. Here is the drill-down for a typical headline news show:
Report the deadliest news maker for the day and hype the analysis–to seem more credible get as many people from different sides to editorialize their opinions.
Cut to a Lexus/Cadillac commercial to take advantage of the state of fear the audience is now in–this gives the viewer a false sense of control if he can somehow purchase his way out of an incontrollable event–besides Cadillac/Lexus equals power.
Return from commercial break and report about a new disease or sickness or people dying from some unknown disease or sickness.
Cut to a drug commercial so that people know what products to buy to keep them from dying.
Return from commercial break and attempt to alleviate some fear by reporting a feel-good story–maybe one involving children or a misfortunate animal.
Okay, so you can probably tell I am a little biased against commercial news.
The key is to get as many sources as possible and distill all the information before attempting to process it–but who has the time for that?
Even better would be to just get news reported to us and not commentated to us (I blame our fascination with sports commentary on this). For example–I’ll use an extreme case–on 2001.09.11 was it enough to know what happened or was it necessary to know why it happened? My second question is then can we ever really know why things happen and doesn’t this usually fall into the realm of opinion? Is someone’s opinion news? Does this fashion of reporting news shape our own opinion of the world?
As humans we have a natural curiosity to understand the world we live in but in my opinion it isn’t the news jockey’s job to report this. Reality doesn’t happen behind a desk. Though I think it is important to try and understand world events we need to get over the fact that it is impossible to know everything and do a little of our own leg work.[/quote]
Nice to see everyone hates CNN. Do a lot of you folks suffer cognitive dissonance when you are subjected to things that aren’t just blowing smoke up your ass?
I worry that some of the wing nuts around here see propaganda whenever they hear something that doesn’t echo their own ideology and viewpoint.
Anyway, while I’m not sure it qualifies as propaganda, I certainly do get tired of the “fear factor”, which gets used a lot by CNN.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And there you have it. If you can’t convince conspiracy theorists here, how are you going to counter the Jihad propaganda over there? Remember, the vast majority in the ‘muslim world’ blame 9-11 on a zionist conspiracy.
Any attempt to counter their propaganda, will be seen as part of the zionist conspiracy. Facts and evidence? Manafactured by the zionists and the Great Satan![/quote]
For six lousy years not ONE SINGLE THING this current administration has stated as fact has turned out to be true – NOT ONE. Specifically how much they knew before 9/11 and the entire Iraq war.
And some of us already knew they were planning a new propaganda blitz…
Pentagon Moves Toward Monitoring Media
Pentagon officials have defended the program as a necessary tool in the war on terror. But critics have said it contradicts American values of freedom of the press. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0901-06.htm
$226 Million in Govt Ads Helped Pave the Way for War
Prepackaged News Gets GAO Rebuke
Washington Post
February 21, 2005
The Government Accountability Office warned federal departments last week against using a popular public relations tool that already has landed two agencies in hot water for breaking federal anti-propaganda laws. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40318-2005Feb20.html
AP: Bush ads surface as TV news again, this time in education
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has promoted its education law with a video that comes across as a news story but fails to make clear the reporter involved was paid with taxpayer money.
The government used a similar approach this year in promoting the new Medicare law and drew a rebuke from the investigative arm of Congress, which found the videos amounted to propaganda in violation of federal law. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-10-bush-school-ad_x.htm
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged Television News
The New York Times
13 March 2005
This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration’s efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known.
At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source. http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9592
And who could forget the gay porn, phony White House journalist? (The “liberal media” apparently)
Gannongate: It’s Worse Than You Think
So the mystery remains: How did Guckert, with absolutely no journalism background and working for a phony news organization, manage to adopt the day-pass system as his own while sidestepping a thorough background check that might have detected his sordid past? That’s the central question the White House refuses to address. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0223-26.htm
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Most news is propaganda. There is no such thing as propaganda free and at the same time commercial free news. All commercial news agencies have an agenda. I really do believe all commercial news is reported to scare, and by extension control the general public. Here is the drill-down for a typical headline news show:
Report the deadliest news maker for the day and hype the analysis–to seem more credible get as many people from different sides to editorialize their opinions.
Cut to a Lexus/Cadillac commercial to take advantage of the state of fear the audience is now in–this gives the viewer a false sense of control if he can somehow purchase his way out of an incontrollable event–besides Cadillac/Lexus equals power.
Return from commercial break and report about a new disease or sickness or people dying from some unknown disease or sickness.
Cut to a drug commercial so that people know what products to buy to keep them from dying.
Return from commercial break and attempt to alleviate some fear by reporting a feel-good story–maybe one involving children or a misfortunate animal.
Okay, so you can probably tell I am a little biased against commercial news.
The key is to get as many sources as possible and distill all the information before attempting to process it–but who has the time for that?
Even better would be to just get news reported to us and not commentated to us (I blame our fascination with sports commentary on this). For example–I’ll use an extreme case–on 2001.09.11 was it enough to know what happened or was it necessary to know why it happened? My second question is then can we ever really know why things happen and doesn’t this usually fall into the realm of opinion? Is someone’s opinion news? Does this fashion of reporting news shape our own opinion of the world?[/quote]
I would agree and go further to say all news is propaganda of some form (funny that you say commercial news is propaganda and say nothing about state-controlled media). However, omitting the ‘why’ of news can bias it just as much or more than if you included it. ‘Distillation’ of news, IMO, is necessary. The same goes with any science (observation of reality), Darwin’s Origin of Species is his take on evolution and, by some, is a decent stand alone work. But it is a much more powerful work when you apply it in conjuction with Mendel’s work in genetics and subsequent discoveries to advance the truth of the ToE (and even then its ‘truth’ is argued).
Somebody, somewhere must report the ‘why’. Would you be content with ‘news’ that just reported that four planes crashed or just that the WTC collapsed killing several thousand people? Would you feel more comfortable if the ‘why’ portion of the news came from a single ‘official’ source like the Pentagon or NTSB? Or would you prefer more information from several sources and tease out what you believe?
I would agree and go further to say all news is propaganda of some form (funny that you say commercial news is propaganda and say nothing about state-controlled media). However, omitting the ‘why’ of news can bias it just as much or more than if you included it. ‘Distillation’ of news, IMO, is necessary. The same goes with any science (observation of reality), Darwin’s Origin of Species is his take on evolution and, by some, is a decent stand alone work. But it is a much more powerful work when you apply it in conjuction with Mendel’s work in genetics and subsequent discoveries to advance the truth of the ToE (and even then its ‘truth’ is argued).
Somebody, somewhere must report the ‘why’. Would you be content with ‘news’ that just reported that four planes crashed or just that the WTC collapsed killing several thousand people? Would you feel more comfortable if the ‘why’ portion of the news came from a single ‘official’ source like the Pentagon or NTSB? Or would you prefer more information from several sources and tease out what you believe?[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean my state controlled. I do not know of any in the US. PBS and NPR are both publicly ‘owned’–meaning their support comes mostly from donations, grants, some underwriting, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Maybe you meant other countries?
As far as commentary goes–it is fine and good; however, it isn’t news. There are many whom are duped into believing commentary to be fact. My idea of news is what I hear in my car on the way to work. Morning Edition reports the news without commentary. I get to hear the “who, what, where, and when”–sometimes “how”. The “why” segments are all participated in by “experts” in the field and also consist of listener questions and commentary. This comes from the fact that not all journalists will ask the questions that need to be asked and sometimes there are opinions that haven’t been considered.
We need to remember when a anchor asks an expert, “What do you think,” the answer is only an expert opinion not a fact.