Peter Dale Scott now moving into the MIHOP camp

[JihadJane]

Media censorship

This does not answer the questions I asked. No evidence has been provided.

If you really want evidence I suggest you attend a demonstration or protest in support of some contentious cause then read about it in the media the next day. See if you can recognise the event you attended from their description.

Experience is the best teacher.

 

[metamars]

If there's a Herman & Chomsky Propaganda Model Heaven in Cyberspace, this may be it.

One of the papers linked to at this website, Left Progressive Media Inside the Propaganda Model, by Peter Phillips and Project Censored, gets into the question of the bias shown by the left "alternative media", with a view of considering any observed bias from the point of view of the Chomsky/Herman propaganda model. Unfortunately, after doing a decent job summarizing the case that there is such a bias, (see table on p. 10), the 'investigation' of the details of this bias gets all of about 1 page of woefully skimpy quotes from members and observers of the left media, starting on p.11. Furthermore, the conclusion consists of a single, 3 sentence paragraph. :

Based on the evidence presented we conclude that media concentration, PR consolidation, and post-9/11 sensitivities have all contributed to the continuation of strong support for the propaganda model theory as a significant way to understand corporate media in the US. We understand also that this theory may contribute to the news story selection process inside the left liberal media as well. Further investigation of this evidence will likely continue to develop over the next decade of media research.

The 1st sentence is certainly not contested by me, but is of little interest, since I consider main stream media all but hopeless*, and the the points listed obvious. The second sentence is interesting, but basically restates the question! That's what this paper hopefully would have elucidated.

It's the last sentence that makes this paper worth pointing to, together with the very fact that the right questions are being asked.

* Justice cries out for it to be replaced, rather than reformed. Significant reform is impossible, since it serves it's elite masters so well. By 'replaced', I mean that the public has to deliberately turn away from it, not that legislation must put it to an end.

 

[SDC]

Wow! Did he mention me by name?

No, of course not. To say things a little more clearly, Chomsky has said that 9/11 conspiracy theories are wrong and a waste of time and effort; as you yourself have acknowledged, I believe. Weren't you the poster who, some time ago, said he was sure he could convince Chomsky otherwise, by the way? Maybe you'd better stick to the likes of Scott, who, even at his best, is rather more a lightweight than Chomsky. Or even Nim Chimpsky.

I brought up the 9/11 wiki idea not because I was trying to distract you from working on plumbing. I thought you were investigating setting one up and taking the argument there. So I guess that idea didn't pan out.

ETA: ps This is not a "public forum." It's a private one.

 

[SDC]

If you really want evidence I suggest you attend a demonstration or protest in support of some contentious cause then read about it in the media the next day. See if you can recognise the event you attended from their description.

Experience is the best teacher.

In 1967-68, I attended huge anti-Vietnam war rallies in New York and outside Washington, DC. (Hey, I saw Norman Mailer get arrested outside the Pentagon.) Also the 1973 counter-inaugural.

All were and remain quite recognizable from media and historical accounts.

Experience is only a good teacher if you make use of it.

 

[metamars]

after doing a decent job summarizing the case that there is such a bias, (see table on p. 10),

I should have mentioned that this table displays 10 rows of left media entities, and 8 columns of specific issues, 2 of which are 911 related.

Out of these 20 grid cells, only one was rated 'Yes-D; Coverage of the story as a debate between antagonists'. (Other possible ratings were:

No: Did not cover the story
Yes-P: Partial coverage of the story but left out key points
Yes-N: Opinion statement against the story or negative coverage

)

 

[metamars]

No, of course not. To say things a little more clearly, Chomsky has said that 9/11 conspiracy theories are wrong and a waste of time and effort; as you yourself have acknowledged, I believe.

He's entitled to his opinion. However, I'd like to know hear his opinion of Peter Phillips' work and, specifically, his take on the table summarizing left media bias that I just mentioned. I'd also like to see him answer Barrie Zwicker's points that he raised in his chapter in Towers of Deception called The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left.

Frankly, as far as I can see, he basically ducks the issue of 911 (e.g., dismissing contrary information as "rumours") and I'll bet he'll also duck the issue of left media bias. He may be a good guy, and brilliant, but that doesn't make him perfect. Critical thinking and hero-worship are antithetical - I'm sure Chomsky himself would be the first to agree with this principle.

Weren't you the poster who, some time ago, said he was sure he could convince Chomsky otherwise, by the way?

Nope. I said I would ask Chomsky about investigating media bias by interviewing the players. He wasn't impressed with that notion, but he didn't dissuade me, either. I said I would post his answer to me verbatim, and I did.

Maybe you'd better stick to the likes of Scott, who, even at his best, is rather more a lightweight than Chomsky. Or even Nim Chimpsky.

Maybe you'd better get your fact straight, before giving advice based on non-facts.

I brought up the 9/11 wiki idea not because I was trying to distract you from working on plumbing. I thought you were investigating setting one up and taking the argument there. So I guess that idea didn't pan out.

Before something doesn't "pan out", somebody has to take a serious crack at it. I often share ideas in forums that I think might be useful to somebody, somewhere. I don't think I've actually worked on any of them, though I still want to take a crack at at least the media replacement system that I explicated in a multi-page proposal. I had hoped to have also taken a crack at a voting verification system (via online legal testaments, with id verification via a small charge to credit card), but that didn't happen, either.

ETA: ps This is not a "public forum." It's a private one.

It can be publicly viewed by anybody, and anybody can post who agrees to the TOS. The TOS are not so restrictive that thinking of JREF as a public forum seems wrong, though I suppose that you're technically correct. It takes just a couple of minutes to sign up, and it's free, and it thereafter becomes easier to access this 'private' forum than it does to leave one's house to walk down a public street.

I.e., it's public in any sense that matters to me.

 

[SDC]

Nope. I said I would ask Chomsky about investigating media bias by interviewing the players. He wasn't impressed with that notion, but he didn't dissuade me, either. I said I would post his answer to me verbatim, and I did.

Maybe you'd better get your fact straight, before giving advice based on non-facts.

Cut by me for the purpose of asking: could you provide a link to the answer? I don't recall reading it.

As for the rules of "giving advice," hey, I'm the parent of a teenager. I give advice that is ignored multiple times every day.

 

[240-185]

Experience is the best teacher.

Wut? Like Jean-Pierre Petit (FR), you want to fly one more time a "used" Boeing 757 into the damaged side of the Pentagon on 9/11/01?

 

[JihadJane]

All were and remain quite recognizable from media and historical accounts.

Experience is only a good teacher if you make use of it.

Fair enough. That certainly hasn't been my experience of political activism and subsequent reporting of it.

As an aside, reporting on the attack on Iraq confirmed my perceptions of unselfconscious media distortion.

 

[TexasJack]

He's entitled to his opinion.

Which leads to the question, if 911 CTs have no merit, as Chomsky implies, why should the media cover it?

 

[metamars]

Which leads to the question, if 911 CTs have no merit, as Chomsky implies, why should the media cover it?

If 911 CTs have merit, as Peter Phillips and Project Censored imply, why should Chomsky duck it, and the media not cover it?

Most maddening of all, though, are CT factoids that could relatively easily be confirmed or disconfirmed, if even a modest amount of organization and right effort was to be had. I'm thinking of some of Daniel Hopsicker's work. I'd much rather see some other entities do gumshoe investigations, rather than just report on his claims, and pretentious skeptics of those same claims. What, exactly, would be the point of having a reporter interview Hopsicker, on the one hand, and contemporaneously interview, e.g., a Chomsky, who will dismiss any of his findings as a "rumour", on the other? I want to see verification. Or disconfirmation. Whatever the case may be.

Frankly, the biggest culprit here is the 911 truth movement. I take it as axiomatic that the main stream media is hopeless, and left gatekeeping will make sure that certain taboo subjects won't be seriously covered by the left media, also. I expect such continuing failures. What excuse does the 911 Truth movement have?

While we can't blame the 911 truth movement for not verifying information that would require state power to do so (a point that "debunkers" habitually ignore; gee, I wonder why?), a lot of Hopsicker's factoids don't have this constraint.

 

[metamars]

Fair enough. That certainly hasn't been my experience of political activism and subsequent reporting of it.

As an aside, reporting on the attack on Iraq confirmed my perceptions of unselfconscious media distortion.

Democracy Now covered the shoddy coverage of a huge anti-war demonstration (pre-Iraq invasion) in NYC by the NY Times. They so undercounted the amount of protestors, that it begs credulity to view this as a mistake. The NY Times lied.

 

[SDC]

While we can't blame the 911 truth movement for not verifying information that would require state power to do so (a point that "debunkers" habitually ignore; gee, I wonder why?), a lot of Hopsicker's factoids don't have this constraint.

Cut by me to this. Speaking for myself, I see no need for "state power" to continue the investigations. I think the investigations which have been done have settled the 9/11 matter. The "Truthers" may use this as an excuse for their own inability to discover or learn, of course, but that is a mere excuse. If 9/11 were really LIHOP, MIHOP, or IHOP, or any variation thereof, either 1/ someone would rat on the conspiracy for gain or fame, or 2/ someone would rat on the conspiracy for the sake of his/ her conscience.

There is no "there" there, subpoena power or no. But go ahead and organize your own investigation; just don't demand official support, or public money. If it is worth doing, then it should be done by your effort and your dollar. (I've seen you use UK spelling, so maybe it would be the Canadian dollar, but that currency is just fine, too.)

 

[beachnut]

If 911 CTs have merit, ...

Most maddening of all, though, are CT factoids that could relatively easily be confirmed or disconfirmed, ... ? I want to see verification. Or disconfirmation. Whatever the case may be.

Frankly, the biggest culprit here is the 911 truth movement.

While we can't blame the 911 truth movement for not verifying information ...

There is zero merit in anything from 9/11 truth. They have the same credibility problems you have.

All the factoids of 9/11 truth (usually hearsay and fantasy) have been refuted.

The 9/11 truth movement is a culprit, they spread false information. They have as much evidence as you have; zero.

9/11 truth must verify their own ideas! No government help is required. The only thing they will find by verifications is, their ideas are false, hearsay, and lies.

To refute this broad truth, please present some evidence. But you just posted the truth, you and 9/11 truth are evidence free on 9/11 issues.


Scott's problem, believing false ideas on 9/11 and making up stupid conclusions, can be blamed on his age and, or his political biases negating and overwhelming his rational thought processes.

 

[calebprime]

Good work. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who opposes mass murder and drug dealing by the CIA.

I, for one, warmly embrace our mass murdering, drug-dealing overlords.

Yeah, it's something to behold, isn't it? You can observe similar partisan rigidity and fanaticism (not to mention nastiness) at other forums, such at democraticunderground.com, when you present an idea which doesn't meet with the herd's approval, but even so, it's particularly inappropriate in a forum which is supposed to be friendly to critical thinking.

Maybe that's my problem. The subtitle of the forum actually says,

"a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way".

It doesn't say "employ ... critical thinking", it says "discuss ... critical thinking".

Besides the very human tendency to run with the herd (whatever herd one is identified with, or employed by), I do believe that debunkers are being misled by some of their 'leaders' or opinion makers, who are doing so deliberately. You can search for a post (or maybe two) of mine on Rupert Sheldrake's encounter with a 'professional' debunker. Also, Paul LaViolette reported a conversation he participated in, in which a reporter told him that an agency of the US government (I think it was the Commerce Department, but I don't recall, exactly) would actually offer to instruct reporters on 'debunking' certain science topics. (Or non-science, as the case may be.)

If you listen to Chomsky's CD, 'Propaganda and Control of the public mind', he gets into how much $$ industry pumps into school course material. It was a stunning figure (in fact, so stunning that I have a problem believing it, though it may have only been true in the period after WW2). IIRC, he had been discussing information from the book Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-60.

Anybody who is seriously interested in why I consider Chomsky, Barrie Zwicker, etc., credible on the subject of media distortion and inaction is just going to have to read them. It's not my job to hold their hands. I wouldn't necessarily mind using the forum as a means of teaching, but that's not my priority. If that doesn't suit you, that's just too bad.

That doesn't mean that I'll never again go into some of their works and details of their arguments. In fact, before I shelved Zwicker's Towers of Deception, I had marked off additional sections that I intended to post here at JREF. However, that wasn't a priority when I shelved the book, and it certainly isn't now.

As for the question of why, after already having accepting a Chomsky-like viewpoint, I find the application of his general viewpoint applicable to the specific case of 911 to be valid (even if Chomsky, himself, doesn't go there), I consider this self-evident. Basically, the same forces that mitigate against forcefully challenging political power structures are there wrt both 911 and, say, the question of GW Bush being a war criminal.

Since you couldn't trouble yourself to answer a couple of simple questions of mine, while wanting me to spend great gobs of my own time holding your hand (even if you didn't realize that that's what you're asking for), and since you don't seem to listen very well, it's off to my ignore list you go. Your evasion of my simple questions is duly noted, and congratulations - you're my first ignore-lister at JREF. I suggest that, in your dealings with other posters in the future, if you don't want to make it to their ignore lists, you keep the principle of reciprocity in mind, and don't be overly presumptuous of what you think they owe you, in terms of commitments of their time.

This does not answer the questions I asked. No evidence has been provided.


Astute obsevers will also note that metamars has yet again written many words while saying nothing of consequence nor answering a single one of the relevant questions that has been put to him. This is very telling indeed.

In my twenties, and attorney gave me some great advice, for testifying on the stand. He cut me off after listening to a few of my responses: "Don't deny or say what wasn't the case; rather, assert, affirm, say what was the case." Expensive, but good advice you can have for free, Metamars.

You're about 60% complaining about the herd at JREF, other reactions that just aren't interesting
30% claiming Chomsky as an ally, when he isn't
9% hand-waving--darkly implying something or other

 

[metamars]

30% claiming Chomsky as an ally, when he isn't

Don't you think you should re-phrase this? If not, it just shows me that your compulsion for simplicity and definiteness is so strong, you're quite willing to embrace a false statement, for simplicity's sake.

Also, here's a simple, definite statement, that you can take to the bank: the 911 Commission's actions were a disgrace to the nation, and an insult to the 911 families whose agitation led to it's creation.

Here's another simple, definite statement for you: most 12 year olds, of at least average intelligence, will be able to tell you, after reading this thread, why your BS about my "claiming Chomsky as an ally" is just that.

 

[Travis]

Also, here's a simple, definite statement, that you can take to the bank: the 911 Commission's actions were a disgrace to the nation, and an insult to the 911 families whose agitation led to it's creation.

Yes, because its results did not conform to your ideological bias it must have been a disgrace. I mean unless you have evidence that it failed to meet its goals that, for some reason, you have failed to present up to now.

Here's another simple, definite statement for you: most 12 year olds, of at least average intelligence, will be able to tell you, after reading this thread, why your BS about my "claiming Chomsky as an ally" is just that.

So you are disavowing the Chomsky BS and his mighty "700 references" now?

 

[Drudgewire]

Here's another simple, definite statement for you: most 12 year olds, of at least average intelligence, will be able to tell you, after reading this thread, why your BS about my "claiming Chomsky as an ally" is just that.

And once again my favorite twooferism rears its hilarious head:

"If you'd only think like a child, you'd be able to see things my way."

 

[metamars]

I should have mentioned that this table displays 10 rows of left media entities, and 8 columns of specific issues, 2 of which are 911 related.

Out of these 20 grid cells, only one was rated 'Yes-D; Coverage of the story as a debate between antagonists'. (Other possible ratings were:

No: Did not cover the story
Yes-P: Partial coverage of the story but left out key points
Yes-N: Opinion statement against the story or negative coverage

)

Sorry, I missed 2 cells in a 911 column that simply had 'Yes' in them. Still a miserable record, especially for an "alternative" collection of news sources.

 

[Corsair 115]

If you really want evidence I suggest you attend a demonstration or protest in support of some contentious cause then read about it in the media the next day. See if you can recognise the event you attended from their description.

You're long on rhetoric but short on evidence. Do you have anything to substantiate why and how non-American media, that is, the media of other nations, are going along with this alleged 9/11 conspiracy? It's a rather important question in desperate need of an answer.

Again, I find it odd why you would not take this golden opportunity to prove your point and completely embarrass your opponents.