2
   

The trouble with your press

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 05:09 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Challenge away. If that makes your chosen ignorance more comfortable, you, not me, will be the loser.

I am not inclined to expend much effort to further your education regarding the recent history of this country (say since 1932).

There is no one so blind as one who will not open his eyes and observe.


The burden of proof lies upon the one who made the original accusation, which is in this case yourself:

Quote:


Are you then suggesting that today's Democrat leaders in the Congress and their supporters in the media don't do the same???? Or that recent and past Democrat administrations didn't do it even more assiduously????


You specifically alleged (though I guess you could dodge and say that you only asked a question, but we both know what you meant) that the top Dems in Congress do the same thing. I asked you to provide evidence to support your assertion that they do the same thing. You have declined to do so, using the old line:

Quote:
I am not inclined to expend much effort to further your education


As you refuse to provide additional information to support your allegations, it's safe to say that they are without merit whatsoever.

I might say, you seem to be getting a little defensive these days; it is poor form to make assertions without providing evidence, and what more, you have taken me to task for this very thing today, only to go on to do the same yourself.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 05:33 pm
Not so much defensive as increasingly disinterested.

I don't acknowledge any burden of proof or anything else for that matter. In particular I don't enjoy games of opening unfounded assertions followed by demands that one provide proof of any qualification or question asked in rebuttal. Blatham's endless anecdotes don't prove anything but themselves: the included implied assertion that these represent a class of exclusively Republican acts is utterly unsupported by anything. Sadly you seem to fail to detect such things. Not my problem.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 05:40 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Not so much defensive as increasingly disinterested.

I don't acknowledge any burden of proof or anything else for that matter. In particular I don't enjoy games of opening unfounded assertions followed by demands that one provide proof of any qualification or question asked in rebuttal. Blatham's endless anecdotes don't prove anything but themselves: the included implied assertion that these represent a class of exclusively Republican acts is utterly unsupported by anything. Sadly you seem to fail to detect such things. Not my problem.


I guess the proper place to start would be to say that nobody forces anyone to read anything Blatham writes. If you don't like his posts, don't read 'em. It's the same advice that has been given to me, when I complain about not liking someone's posts. It turns out that it works very well.

I didn't see the 'included implied assertion' that these are only Republican acts. Did you see that in this post? Can you point out where?

Quote:
This isn't "mere" plagiarism.

Bad enough if the state department was so devoid of researchers that the information from which they plan and provide accounting back to congress and other branches is often just culled from media. But it is worse than that.

First, the media has broadly and pervasively cut foreign offices and field reporting in order to serve corporate profit interests. Much cheaper to just copy accounts from anywhere or to function as stenographers and type/repeat what government or military briefers (or "leakers") give them.

Second, the military and the administration now have huge and sophisticated public relations operations which have, in part, the goal of managing information and attempting to create consensus in the public which will forward their agendas. False information, misrepresented facts, withheld embarrassing info, etc is part of this operation and mission. They will feed stories to media outlets both in Iraq and here for this purpose. Cheney, for example, will commonly make reference to some newspaper/tv reportage to support some claim he's making, thus giving the impression of reliance on disinterested or objective sources for his claim. But as likely as not, that very bit of reportage he's referencing has been 'leaked' to the news outlet a day or two earlier precisely so that he can pull this trick. This is a modern communication control commonplace.

So, what will be the case in much of what that piece above is detailing, will be
1) a story leaked or planted in the media
2) state department copies it
3) it is forwarded to other branches as factual accounting of ongoing situations/progress

In other words, it is (can be, and will be in many cases) entirely circular with no necessary connection to reality at all.

It's information control for political purposes.


Now, these are acts which are being done by Republicans. Does this mean that all Republicans or only Republicans do these things? I didn't see anyone assert or even imply that. Only that the Republicans in power currently are doing these things. I don't see you arguing against that.

I think you are projecting a little onto Blatham. I also think that you have the disadvantage of belonging to a party whose current leadership is completely corrupt and is displaying frequent signs of it. Now, I also belong to a party whose leadership is corrupt; you will note that I make no specific defense of Democrats, only that I think they are slightly less corrupt then the Republicans. That doesn't excuse the behavior.

You will note that, despite our back-and-forth regarding excuses given by you and others, my original statement stands firm: When stupid or nefarious acts of governance are found out, the fact that they may or may not be 'new or of recent origin' is immaterial. The only question is how to stop it. I don't care if Clinton did it and if there's evidence that the top Dems in Congress are doing it, I want that evidence, so that I can decide whether to work at kicking them out of my party. You seem to be quite assured that they are doing this, going so far as to state this; can you provide evidence, or is this just partisan grumbling?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 05:52 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
blatham wrote:
This isn't "mere" plagiarism.

Bad enough if the state department was so devoid of researchers that the information from which they plan and provide accounting back to congress and other branches is often just culled from media. But it is worse than that.

First, the media has broadly and pervasively cut foreign offices and field reporting in order to serve corporate profit interests. Much cheaper to just copy accounts from anywhere or to function as stenographers and type/repeat what government or military briefers (or "leakers") give them.

Second, the military and the administration now have huge and sophisticated public relations operations which have, in part, the goal of managing information and attempting to create consensus in the public which will forward their agendas. False information, misrepresented facts, withheld embarrassing info, etc is part of this operation and mission. They will feed stories to media outlets both in Iraq and here for this purpose. Cheney, for example, will commonly make reference to some newspaper/tv reportage to support some claim he's making, thus giving the impression of reliance on disinterested or objective sources for his claim. But as likely as not, that very bit of reportage he's referencing has been 'leaked' to the news outlet a day or two earlier precisely so that he can pull this trick. This is a modern communication control commonplace.

So, what will be the case in much of what that piece above is detailing, will be
1) a story leaked or planted in the media
2) state department copies it
3) it is forwarded to other branches as factual accounting of ongoing situations/progress

In other words, it is (can be, and will be in many cases) entirely circular with no necessary connection to reality at all.

It's information control for political purposes.


Are you suggesting that ANY of this is new or of recent origin?


george

I'm not sure why you might feel any need to write anything other than, "Citizens of the United States ought not to concern themselves with any matter other than shopping and personal virtue. Those in power will look after you. This is the American way."
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 05:55 pm
I would be fascinated to learn how - short of abolishing the constitution - you plan to stop such things and expunge them from your party. (Sounds a bit remeniscent of Aesop's story about belling the cat). Old Ben Franklin was a particularly adept practicioner of the technique, as of course were the revered Federalists, and even the sainted Thomas Jefferson.

In these matters one expects a certain level of common knowledge and understanding.

I like Blatham a lot, but I don't suscribe to any of his compulsions concerning underground conspiracies of evil property owners.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 06:02 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I would be fascinated to learn how - short of abolishing the constitution - you plan to stop such things and expunge them from your party. (Sounds a bit remeniscent of Aesop's story about belling the cat). Old Ben Franklin was a particularly adept practicioner of the technique, as of course were the revered Federalists, and even the sainted Thomas Jefferson.

In these matters one expects a certain level of common knowledge and understanding.

I like Blatham a lot, but I don't suscribe to any of his compulsions concerning underground conspiracies of evil property owners.


It's the massive, indescribable beauty of the internet. Before, such things were extremely hard to figure out and in practice the number of people who had access to the sorts of information streams necessary to compare and contrast such things (or the equipment to efficiently do so) were few and far between, and mostly centered amongst members of the media and chattering classes.

Now, that's changed. Any podunk guy in Minnesota can go through records, writings, speeches, and releases. We are only just now beginning to see the ways that our information society will transform politics. I firmly believe that it becomes more and more difficult to obfuscate and hide such actions as computer technology and communication ability increase.

It's a difficult thing, imagining removing top members of your own party. There is a large movement amongst the Democrats to do exactly that, as many of our 'leaders' are nothing more then Republican lite; big-business Dems, more beholden to Corporations then their own constituents. There has been some small success in this area though nothing worth noting on a national scale. This is not to say that it isn't worth fighting for, however; surely, it is the correct and Democratic option, to hold one's own leaders to account for their failures? I am not so beholden to any one member of our party to imagine that they couldn't be replaced with someone who doesn't lie, cheat, steal, or break the law, let alone merely mis-representing the wishes of their constituents.

I just don't sit back and accept that my leaders are corrupt and will continue to be so; I wouldn't have thought that I would have heard you make that argument either, but is that not the logical extension of what we are talking about?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 06:06 pm
And I like george too. On the other hand, why would anyone assume that george, who has been so wrong about so much over the last seven years and so reluctant to face or admit it, might now have opinions we ought to much attend to?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 06:13 pm
Well, I never suggested that Ben Franklin, the Federalists, or even that self-absorbed prig Thomas Jefferson were corrupt either.

I think that both you and Blatham are overreacting to something that is and long has been a pervasive and mostly harmless way of manipulating information to influence public opinion. It really is no different from the interview with the second rank DOE official who was touting LED light bulbs during a media interview, or of FDR's many far more artful manipulations of the press ranging from "fireside chats" to assertions that not only he but his dog Falla hated war while he secretly conspired with Churchill to get us in to it.

To achieve the state of hyperindignation you have evidently attained about such an issue requires an amazing state of either forgetfulness or deliberate ignorance.

What forms of persuasion would you then permit? Can you provide ANY historical examples of governments that confined themselves only to them???
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 06:13 pm
I have found that O'George often has things to say which are worth reading. For as often as he is (in my never humble opinion) wrong, he also provides useful and reliable information on many occasions.

I would never tell O'George that, however.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 06:17 pm
goddam!! Even a backhanded and highly qualified compliment from the ever-testy Setanta is something to be treasured.

Cyclo was right though - I am feeling a bit impatient today.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 06:23 pm
Setanta wrote:
I have found that O'George often has things to say which are worth reading. For as often as he is (in my never humble opinion) wrong, he also provides useful and reliable information on many occasions.

I would never tell O'George that, however.


True. Let me rephrase. george has credibility other than on the subject of america post 1965.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 06:50 pm
Must be time for a crank segue, in the immortal words of Adam Clayton Powell... "A public office is a public trust." So anyway some decades ago I was the news director for a chain of small radio and t.v. outlets and during one election cycle I was hired by both the Democrat and Republican State Central Committees as a speech writer. One Sunday i went to my office and wrote 30 speeches using the tried but true, one word from column A, one from column B and one concluding word from column C (plato would have loved these). I put them, stacked neatly in a desk drawer leaving blank the name of the candidate. As the various personalities arrived the following week to pick up their totally personalized speech I would fill in their name and have then sign a billing statement that i would remit to their central committee. I felt I was saying real important things (like "family values" and "personal responsibility" and "god bless america") and also I got a lot more money than I did as a news director.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 07:17 pm
That's how I make love.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 07:19 pm
You put your love in a drawer, and remove it in driblets, penciling in the appropriate name?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 07:23 pm
Driblets, drawers and hopefully, appropriate name. Yes.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 07:46 pm
It's always time for a crank segue from ole shitforbrains (I always liked him). It appears his heart was really in the assembly line Democrat speeches. (Republican ones take shorter words).

My pal Bernie, is notable for many things, but none more than his ability to instantly recall my vagrant failings.

I hope you all get what you deserve - soon! Cool
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 08:15 pm
Galloping here in support of my friend George OB who somehow got surro
unded by hostile tribes related to this thunderbolt in England:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1540993.ece
Quote:


Gordon Brown has exhibited "Stalinist ruthlessness" at the Treasury and has treated his Cabinet colleagues with "more or less complete contempt", according to the Chancellor's former top civil servant.
...........................

Lord Turnbull noted that the Chancellor tended to keep out of the limelight when difficult decisions had to be taken. Comparing him to T. S. Eliot's "mystery cat", who was never to be found at the scene of a crime, he said: "The Chancellor has a Macavity quality. He is not there when there is dirty work to be done."


"Stalinist ruthlessness" at worst, "mystery cat" behavior at best - y'all should be ashamed of yourselves!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 08:22 pm
geprgeob wrote:
It appears his heart was really in the assembly line Democrat speeches.
Funny/interesting, the year of my speech writing was also my first year in New Mexico so I went down to register to vote and stated my party affliiation "Independent" I said. "Oh yes" the clerk said "American Independent Part" (the George Wallace thing) I said "NO, independent as in not affiliated with any party" the clerk said " I don't think we have such a thing here in New Mexico" I probably voted for Pat Paulson that year.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 09:21 pm
I know this is unamerican but how about stating the facts without some political annalist stirring garbage and confusing the voters. Let the voters make up their minds based on the facts as presented truthfully. Most commentators don't have knowledge of how I live my life since making $100,000 puts them out of my lifestyle by 60 grand. Common people they aren't.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:25 pm
Soon (starting next week)it will all be FOX news under different names and there will be no contradictions to be found.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/70780/

The same way they got us to support war will be the same method they get us to support anything. It works. So why not do more of what works. The news is not a tool for us it is a tool for them.


http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

The 2004 election, WMD's, John Kerry's swift boating, so on and so on. we'll buy it. It's proven.

Here is more on how we think and need be they can adjust the news accordingly.

http://www.pipa.org/archives/us_opinion.php

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/senate1959bill28nov07.shtml
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 09:00:17