911 and the Propaganda Model

[stilicho]

D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D'UH BUNKER!!!

I know who Black is jabroni- I read his book, and I do follow the news. The point was that in the grand scheme of things, he is a nobody. Powerful interests are not going to be damaged in any significant way by Black, a crook and a thief, going to jail. The examples Ihave given are instances of real issues of power. Powerful people dont want people stealing from them.

You do? Why did you say that you didn't?

Anyhow, Black wasn't stealing from powerful people. He was a powerful person (owner of the world's third-largest media empire--remember?) stealing from ordinary people. From folks like me and you. And he was caught by a two-person investment firm. Small potatoes people. Ordinary, regular people like you, me and Dylan Avery.

Now--now--now--you will admit you're wrong. Am I right?

 

[mjd1982]

I apologize for not taking your word for it, but I doubt that you are actually getting that reaction very often, from telling people only that there was a third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11. If that's all you're telling them, then the reaction is more likely "Huh, I didn't know that." Which is the same polite reaction you'd get if you told them what the base 10 logarithm of 1000 is.

Absolutely 100% not true. But since you wont take my word for it, go and find out yourself.

But more likely, you're actually telling them more than that. You're probably telling them that there was a third skyscraper that was destroyed by controlled demolition on 9/11. Getting the reaction you describe is not surprising in that case. It's easy to get a "Holy crap, why didn't anyone tell me that?!" reaction by telling people stuff you've just made up. Try the one about how Coca Cola can dissolve an inch-thick steak in half an hour. That gets the "Holy crap!" reaction almost every time.

Nope, I say "How many skyscrapers collapsed in NY on 9/11?" That is all.

This comment had me mystified, until I saw this in your following post:

Holy handgrenades, is that what you mean by "important news journalists?" Dude, those guys are television performers. Journalists are people who research events and then write stories about them for publication in print or audiovisual media. The guys who talk on camera are no more journalists than the guys who pour ink into the printing presses at the newspaper.

He is one example. I have illustrated the mechanism, repeat for Brokaw, Rather, Marr, Kavanagh etc.

That sheds a whole new light on your propaganda theory. The phenomenon you're complaining about does indeed exist! But it's not a malevolent system you're up against here, it's human nature. You're right that there's a filtering process, and it's exactly this: the people who get to be top entertainers, such as important television "news journalists," are the ones who succeed in entertaining people. People find some things more entertaining than others, sometimes contrary to those things' relative importance (just as they find some food more appealing than others, sometimes contrary to those foods' relative nutritional value). The ones who best entertain the most people in the ways that they most want to be entertained are the ones who become "important."

You have touched upon 1 improtant element there. News is part of the capitalist system, and as such, new corps are there to make profit. This has led to a dilution of news- but nt just in terms of "celebritising" news, rather elements the need to make news popular/populist. Appel to base elements in people- project a view of the world that they want to read. This will lead to censorship. It is one of the main elements of capitalist propaganda systems.

If you don't like this state of affairs, perhaps you might suggest a solution besides (1) forcing the audience to listen to more thorough and balanced news coverage even though that's not what they prefer, (2) forcing media producers to provide more thorough and balanced news coverage even though it's not what its audience prefers, or (3) changing human nature to cause people to prefer more wholesome fare. As doing any of these things would require tyrannical measures far more objectionable than the situation they'd be intended to cure, I'd suggest learning to live with the status quo. (The best shot at accomplishing #3 to a limited degree, without tyrannical measures, is to improve education in certain ways. Perhaps that has something to do with us being here at the forums of an educational foundation.)

The info is out there. The point is that in a media system predicated on free market capitalism, you will only end up with one result- a system that serves interests of power.

Is the whole "it's a big conspiracy" a way to pretend that there's another solution to this unfortunate situation? After all, if the problem were not human nature but instead the work of a big conspiracy, then we could solve it by exposing and eliminating the conspiracy! Alas, the problem is not that easily solved. It's clear that the consipracy does not exist because the media that's supposedly protecting the interests of the powerful, is constantly turning against those same powerful figures. (The counterargument that the ones the media turn against are thereby revealed to be not the true powerful interests is, unfortunately, circular. "The democratic propaganda system protects the truly powerful. The truly powerful are the ones that the democratic propaganda system successfully protects.") This phenomenon cannot be logically explained by the propaganda theory, but it can be easily explained by the entertainment theory. It's been known since ancient times that the public finds seeing the reputations of powerful people smeared even more entertaining than building them up.

There is no conspiracy. It is the simple and inevitable result of a media system predicated on free market capitalism.

When you talk of being qualified, do you mean for journalism or for being a TV entertainer? I can't assess your promise for the latter, but I believe you have some of the needed qualities for the former, while lacking others. Your insistence on defending word usages and turns of phrase that 99% of readers would find confusing or misleading (such as "it would be systematic that my reports...") because they are (in some cases) technically gramatically correct, would be a major handicap, as it indicates contempt for the audience.

This is neither here nor there

Are you referring to Phil Donahue's firing from MSNBC in 2002? IIRC, there were two reasons for the firing: that he was getting low ratings, and that he wasn't sympathetic with public opinion on the Iraq war. In other words, he was failing to entertain the audience and tell it what it wanted to hear. The firing wasn't to protect the powerful, it was to protect the public from not being pandered to. Entertainers who fail to entertain the audience get fired.

The memo regarding his firing, can be read in excerpts, here:

http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html

The study went on to claim that Donahue presented a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war......He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

As for Dan Rather, he was by your definition in a high level position, and held that position for decades. Did the conspirators kick out one of their own? That's an awfully slow filtering process going on. I'll also point out that one of his stated goals when he left/was kicked out of CBS was to become more involved in actual journalism. In any case, if Rather himself was "high level" then his firing is not a valid example of the friction that would be inevitable between the "high level" people and the journalists working for them.

They did kick out one of their own, yes, because he got out of line, a la Gilligan and Dyke at the BBC

So, yeah, the MSM sucks. That suckage is directly traceable to human nature acting through free-market economic forces.

Yes! You have understood, in part.

And of course, any shortcomings of the MSM at reporting certain details of some 9/11 events, whether due to democratic propaganda systems or pandering to the audience or circumstances that overshadowed those details and prevented cameras from being nearby, does not prevent buildings from collapsing due to airplane impacts, debris damage, and uncontrolled fire.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The point is that media is systematically servile to power, and will censor to protct powerful intersts. On the basis of this, powerful interests are being protected re: 911

 

[mjd1982]

You do? Why did you say that you didn't?

Anyhow, Black wasn't stealing from powerful people. He was a powerful person (owner of the world's third-largest media empire--remember?) stealing from ordinary people. From folks like me and you. And he was caught by a two-person investment firm. Small potatoes people. Ordinary, regular people like you, me and Dylan Avery.

Now--now--now--you will admit you're wrong. Am I right?

You are so unknowing, it is unbelievable. Actually, it is more ununderstanding, uncomprehending!

Black is a rich media magnate. He stepped out of line. He got punished for it. Tell me how this has threatened the corporate-political power establishment.

And when you cant repent for your unknowingness!

ETA- oh, btw its called sarcasm. D-D-D-D-D-D-D'UH BUNKER!

 

[stilicho]

You are so unknowing, it is unbelievable. Actually, it is more ununderstanding, uncomprehending!

Black is a rich media magnate. He stepped out of line. He got punished for it. Tell me how this has threatened the corporate-political power establishment.

And when you cant repent for your unknowingness!

ETA- oh, btw its called sarcasm. D-D-D-D-D-D-D'UH BUNKER!

OK.

In spite of the judicial system working the way it's supposed to (cf Black, Nixon, Ebbers, et al), you want it to actually start prosecuting and convicting people who are not thieves and liars.

Where would you start, mjd1982? How about beginning with summary convictions of everyone with a net worth of $50 million USD or more? Would that suffice to soothe your envy?

Just be honest. If that's not your proposal then tell us all what it is.

 

[stilicho]

Black is a rich media magnate. He stepped out of line.

He didn't "step out of line" either. I don't know how often I have to repeat this to you before you get it. He stole from his shareholders. A small potatoes investment firm--a bunch of nobodies--caught him.

That was a "Bilderberger". Maybe you can, at the very least, admit that being a "Bilderberger" is no big deal.

That would set you yards above your garden variety conspiracist. I am holding my breath. You show promise.

 

[DGM]

I ask people very simply how many buildings besides the towers were destroyed or damaged.
Almost all say at least one collapsed (some don't remember the name but that's not important) and a majority say at least 5 were damaged.

MJD how many buildings were destroyed or damaged?

 

[mjd1982]

OK.

In spite of the judicial system working the way it's supposed to (cf Black, Nixon, Ebbers, et al), you want it to actually start prosecuting and convicting people who are not thieves and liars.

Where would you start, mjd1982? How about beginning with summary convictions of everyone with a net worth of $50 million USD or more? Would that suffice to soothe your envy?

Just be honest. If that's not your proposal then tell us all what it is.

You have not understood anything so far, have you? Absolutely nothing.

The system is designed to protect power structures. Ebbers, Lay, Black et al going to jail does not affect the power structure. They are a few people who got out of line. Affecting the power structure would be reporting the Downing St memo to preface every report on the Iraq War, etc etc etc. See previous examples.

 

[mjd1982]

He didn't "step out of line" either. I don't know how often I have to repeat this to you before you get it. He stole from his shareholders. A small potatoes investment firm--a bunch of nobodies--caught him.

That was a "Bilderberger". Maybe you can, at the very least, admit that being a "Bilderberger" is no big deal.

That would set you yards above your garden variety conspiracist. I am holding my breath. You show promise.

I dont care about Bilderberg. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

He stepped out of line. Petty theft is not somethign that threatens power interests. It is, in fact, something they dont want.

Tell me how this does threaten powerful interests. If you can do this, you will rise far above the barnyard variety of d'uh bunker.

 

[SDC]

You have not understood anything so far, have you? Absolutely nothing.

The system is designed to protect power structures. Ebbers, Lay, Black et al going to jail does not affect the power structure...

This touches on one of my totally favorite cases: Enron; ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh, it sends chills down my spine, to L3-L4, ouch, herniated disk territory.

In fact, Ken Lay, after conviction, dropped dead, and never made it to jail. (On the 4th of July, I think, though I haven't checked to be sure -- gosh, that is so totally patriotic!) There has been an entire "Ken Lay isn't really dead" movement, but the smart money is betting that he really did join the majority. Sometimes bad things really do happen to bad people.

I miss them so -- the Enron guys, I mean. Reading the reports in the Houston Chronicle used to brighten my day.

Oh, by the way. Why do you find it necessary to lower the general tone with your insults? Can't you just say to your opponents, "you are wrong"? Have you no shame, sir? Can't you move beyond "daddy/ mommy, they hit me first" and rise above the fray?

 

[Z]

Pleeeeeeease.... Why must I say this again and again??? I say it has been overwhelmingly censored, you say it hasnt. Theres a verysimple way to find out which one of us is right. Go out and ask members of the public, and see teh reaction. We all know what it is. Holy crap, how the hell do I not know about that. That is the standard reaction and this is the point.

Go out and ask members of the public where Lichtenstein (sp??) is. The reaction would be the same. Ask them where Afghanistan is. Ask them where Wyoming is. Ask them who the fourth president of the U.S. was. Ask them the name of the child left stranded in her mom's car for eight hours and died was. Ask them how many NASA personnel have died in the space shuttle program.

The reactions will often be the same.

People are ignorant, and they forget less important details. Seven was neither the direct result of a terrorist attack, nor the site of a massive loss of life. As a result, it's forgotten quickly by those with only passing interest in 9/11.

Do you know, without resorting to other resources, the other buildings that were damaged and/or destroyed at Ground Zero? All of them?

Holy hell, how did you not know that?

 

[Oxigen]

Most people in Europe could answer those questions fairly easily. We follow current events.

 

[Z]

Most people in Europe could answer those questions fairly easily. We follow current events.

Excuse my skepticism here, but that's hard to take at face value from someone who misspelled 'oxygen'.

 

[SDC]

Most people in Europe could answer those questions fairly easily. We follow current events.

Oh, come on. These are the questions:

"Go out and ask members of the public where Lichtenstein (sp??) is. The reaction would be the same. Ask them where Afghanistan is. Ask them where Wyoming is. Ask them who the fourth president of the U.S. was. Ask them the name of the child left stranded in her mom's car for eight hours and died was. Ask them how many NASA personnel have died in the space shuttle program."

I sincerely doubt your statement about the knowledge base of the European public. I had my personal moment of revelation when an English friend, with an Oxford doctorate in the humanities, told me not only had she no idea where "Cleveland" was (in England, not the city in Ohio), but she'd never heard of it. I doubt any US educated Ph.d. would be unaware of Wyoming to that degree. (She had worked at the British Library for 30 years.)

The trope of "savvy, well-informed Europeans vs stupid, ill-informed Yanks" is an old one, which has never been true.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Excuse me. The point was facts that get widely accepted, i.e. propagated (whence propaganda)

I say again: what?

 

[Oxigen]

Z:
I miss spelt oxygen to be arty and apparently you're not intelligent enough to get past a single letter. By the way, when I joined the jref forum , I looked out at my garbage disposal system and it was called oxigen, and it seemed to fit completely with the rubbish I was reading.

 

[Pardalis]

Z:
I miss spelt oxygen to be arty and apparently you're not intelligent enough to get past a single letter. By the way, when I joined the jref forum , I looked out at my garbage disposal system and it was called oxigen, and it seemed to fit completely with the rubbish I was reading.

If you want, you can ask the mod team to change your username here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16

 

[Myriad]

Absolutely 100% not true. But since you wont take my word for it, go and find out yourself.

Nope, I say "How many skyscrapers collapsed in NY on 9/11?" That is all.

See, this is why credibility is important. So many times I tell people, "If you don't acknowledge such and such point, or admit such and such mistake, you'll lose credibility here." (I'm not necessarily talking about you personally, mjd.) And they always say, "so what? Why should I care whether you think I'm credible?"

And this is why. It's a real nuisance on both sides. I wish that I could believe what you say without having to doubt and check every point. Most likely you wish I could just believe you when you tell the truth. But no. When credibility is damaged, communication becomes so much more difficult.

However, if you're telling the truth, I have a possible explanation why our experiences are so different. By any chance are you talking mostly to young people? Young people are less likely to be well-informed about 9/11 details because they pay less attention to current events. I and everyone I knew certainly did, when we were in our teens and twenties. But you can't blame the MSM for not reaching people who aren't listening.

You have touched upon 1 improtant element there. News is part of the capitalist system, and as such, new corps are there to make profit. This has led to a dilution of news- but nt just in terms of "celebritising" news, rather elements the need to make news popular/populist. Appel to base elements in people- project a view of the world that they want to read. This will lead to censorship. It is one of the main elements of capitalist propaganda systems.

Part of the problem you're having making this case is that calling this phenomenon "censorship" is very misleading. Censorship is the forceful prevention of someone publishing or communicating something. Market pressures don't qualify as force. If I refuse to publish your novel or news story (for any reason including that I might think it will anger some powerful person) I'm not censoring you. If I prevent you by force from printing the novel or news story yourself, then I'm censoring you.

There are so many things that you could say about populist news media owned by corporate interests that would not come across as mere hyperbole at best. You could say it leads to bias, you could say it leads to minority views being marginalized, you could say it leads to some important information not reaching as wide an audience as it should. Calling it censorship overstates it to the point of falsehood, which makes your argument easy to refute. I'm assuming that's not what you want.

The info is out there. The point is that in a media system predicated on free market capitalism, you will only end up with one result- a system that serves interests of power.

There is no conspiracy. It is the simple and inevitable result of a media system predicated on free market capitalism.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Here's the part I don't agree with: that the result of media pandering to popular interest inevitably serves interests of power. We might make a case that it serves the interests of power more often than not, or more than it should. But I don't see the direct connection, the cause and effect, between free market forces and serving interests of power that makes it a hard and fast rule. For instance, the public likes to see secrets and scandals exposed, and the MSM play to that, which makes it rather difficult for the powerful to suppress secrets and scandals when clearly it would be in their interest to do so.

This is neither here nor there

Agreed.

The memo regarding his firing, can be read in excerpts, here:

http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html

They did kick out one of their own, yes, because he got out of line, a la Gilligan and Dyke at the BBC

Okay, here's the logical problem with that. The system protects the powerful, but not when they get out of line, such as by being caught breaking the law as Black was. Okay... but if it doesn't protect the powerful when they get out of line, what's the point? When else do they need protecting, and from what?

It looks like I could point to one fallen, disgraced, or fired previously-powerful figure after another, from McCarthy to Gonzales, and you can say, "yep, that's another one that got out of line." And all the ones that so far have not been caught in scandal or crime or incompetence or unpopular decisions and brought down: "those are the ones being protected."

If you can only tell who's really "powerful" in hindsight based on who got in trouble and who didn't, it's meaningless. It's circular logic. In the end it provides no evidence that anyone is being protected at all.

Yes! You have understood, in part.

The point is that media is systematically servile to power, and will censor to protct powerful intersts. On the basis of this, powerful interests are being protected re: 911

Since the state of the U.S. mainstream media provides no evidence that powerful interests are being protected, it provides no evidence that they're being protected re 9/11.

At this point, I also have to ask: if there is no conspiracy (and we seem to all agree on that), but rather social, political, and economic forces at work, should we move this thread to Politics?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Oxigen]

Don't plan on changing it! I like oxigen!!

 

[stilicho]

You have not understood anything so far, have you? Absolutely nothing.

The system is designed to protect power structures. Ebbers, Lay, Black et al going to jail does not affect the power structure. They are a few people who got out of line. Affecting the power structure would be reporting the Downing St memo to preface every report on the Iraq War, etc etc etc. See previous examples.

I understand you quite well.

You are stating unequivocally that the individuals comprising the "power structure" are of no consequence. You are stating bold-facedly that it is this "power structure" itself that is the nuisance.

You would censor news broadcasts by prefacing each one with a statement that you, alone, consider to be important. I dare say, you are behaving in a most arbitrary manner.

It does not matter to you that people learned about WTC 7 collapsing by means other than those you consider acceptable. It does not matter to you that the judicial system works in cases where the defendant has been shown to be a thief or a liar. It does not matter to you that the "Downing Street Memo" has nothing to do with WTC 7 collapsing. (I suppose you brought up WTC 7 just to amuse us rather than that its collapse actually implied any wrongdoing).

You also ignore vital details in your sweeping statements against the "power structure" (which has this vague Ickean fog surrounding what it actually is or does): Kenneth Lay did not go to jail; Jeffrey Skilling did. Lay died before his sentencing. Black also hasn't (yet) gone to jail. Richard Nixon, of course, didn't serve any prison time.

You are twisting yourself unconscious in the wind here, mjd1982.

 

[Z]

Z:
I miss spelt oxygen to be arty and apparently you're not intelligent enough to get past a single letter. By the way, when I joined the jref forum , I looked out at my garbage disposal system and it was called oxigen, and it seemed to fit completely with the rubbish I was reading.

Whatever. Don't take it so personal. That's what the smilies are there to indicate. But before you go berating Americans for their ignorance while claiming superiority, maybe you should consider your own apparent lack of ability in grammar, usage, and mechanics. Given the number and type of errors in your posts, you would be best served in making your points if you brought on the evidence concordantly. People can and do judge the quality of your posts on the basis of their mechanical content as well as their evidentiary content; so if someone comes on with 'We all is smarter than youses', they had better forthwith provide evidence or be considered an ignorant braggart.

So were you just being 'arty' when you misspelled 'misspelled', substituted 'arty' for 'artistic', made a run-on sentence, and failed to use proper capitalization on 'JREF' and 'Oxigen'? Of course, if you're Irish (as indicated by the 'Oxigen' product name), a lot of your grammar, spelling, etc. can be forgiven. We've had some experience with the Irish - and even worse, with the Scots - and it seems proper use of language just isn't a point over there (although, I'll gladly take 'Oxigen' over 'Kash N Karry' any day... stupid Americans).