911 and the Propaganda Model

[mjd1982]

Some handsome chappy has posted this over at 911 blogger. Though as with the wtc 7 testimonies and CR thread I am not expecting any considered or honest responses, well, it'll be worth a larf seeing the animal noises that wil presumably ensue.

The post should put an end to ideas of the media needing to be "in on it" that we here all to often from the herd, and can be extrapolated to all establishment institutions, more or less.

Finally, I should state that I have corresponded with both of the formulators of the PM, Chomsky and Herman, and while I am aware they are not Truthers, their observations exist independently of the need for any validation on their part regarding its interpretation.

Enjoy!

***

Even though you wrote it, you don't need to post the entire thing here as well. Post a paragraph or two and a link. The infraction has been reversed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

Link to removed material: http://911blogger.com/node/10887

 

[twinstead]

mjd we already understand your world view.

People every bit as intelligent and world aware as you totally disagree with you, deal with it. Your arrogance, refusal to ever admit you are wrong about anything, and your total willingness to believe anything that supports your position no questions asked basically means that to me your posts are akin to listening to Charlie Brown's parents.

wah. wah wah wah. wah. wha wha. wha wha wha wha.

Good luck with your whole conspiracy thing. I hope one day you aren't relegated to cut-and-paste posting and spewing your impotent bluster in an obscure internet forum, but for now that's pretty much all you have.

Enjoy.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

blogs..facts...same thing...

 

[A W Smith]

bla bla bla useless words <snip>.

does this propaganda model extend world wide? To include our (us) enemies? I thought not. case dismissed.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

mjd we already understand your world view.

People every bit as intelligent and world aware as you totally disagree with you, deal with it. Your arrogance, refusal to ever admit you are wrong about anything, and your total willingness to believe anything that supports your position no questions asked...

He'd make a great war president, wouldn't he?

 

[beachnut]

What a bunch of junk

celebrities such as Charlie Sheen and Rosie O’Donnell were automatically lampooned as “kooks” and “whackos”,

Are all 9/11 truth movement people kooks and whackos? Or do they just have kooky ideas and whacko conclusions? This is a piece of junk.

 

[funk de fino]

Another example would be to look at the way the Iraq War has been covered. You will routinely see it described, especially by the BBC, as a blunder, a mistake, a quagmire, and so on- but how much focus do you get on the lies that were told to get us into this? Or the sometimes hundreds of Iraqis getting killed every day? You will do well to read a shred of this anywhere, and yet these are the essential facts

Complete and utter tripe, and you know it mjd

British media have a hard on for Bush and the reasons we went to Iraq

Tony Boy blew his legacy on this mainly due to the UK media latching onto the Iraq thing

I see reports everyday about car bombs killing Iraqis

The BBC and the Dr David Kelly thing shows you that the media are not in the backpocket of any politician in this country. Also the cash for questions affair.

As for US media I would not know because, in general, when I am in America I cannot bear to watch it, too many commercials breaks

 

[mjd1982]

Excuse me if there has been some misunderstanding, but this is my work, and so I can post it in its entirety, I believe, though I apologise if I'm wrong.

So here we go again. Cue animal noises once more!

****

Edited by prewitt81: 

Blog content removed. A link to the blog entry can be found in the OP.

See the modified mod box in the OP. Your infraction has been reversed, but a link to your blog is sufficient.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[leftysergeant]

The corporate media filters what the lazy and semi-literatre hear and read. WHADDA SUPRIZE! Those of us who read and listen to alternative radio like AAR and actually have lives which bring us into contact with real people in 3D know someone is gaming us.

And I can see that someone is trying to game the internet, by putting up garbage-laden blogs and invading every political or scientific discussion message board into which they can stick their slimy tentacles.

White nationalism would still be gasping for its last breath, had those useless wankers not found the web.

So now, they can spread disinfo to raise concerns among the exciteable rednecks that the gubmint has gone rougue and there is nothin ya can do about it but getcher gun and go overthrow the SOBs.

9/11 was such a unique event in history that few people can even get their minds around it. Butr an expert counsellor can help them. A counselor can show them how to process that information into an activist attitude.

White nationalists are good at very little in this world, but they do know how to bend people's minds around the idea that government is not to be trusted.

Actually, the white nationalists have it easier than the government. They don't really need to fix any problems.

 

[funk de fino]

had stated in their biennial policy white paper, in September 2000, that the US needed “a catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor”, to initiate a radicalisation in military behaviour

Not this again

It never

 

[chillzero]

If you are going to respond to an OP, then please do so civilly, on topic, and responding to the topic, not attacking the poster. I have moved several posts to AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[DGM]

Another propaganda model was started in 2001 (or there abouts) by what is known today as the "truth movement". They use the internet to influence mostly young males by pleading to their sense of worthlessness. They use scare tactics such as telling them that their freedoms are being taken away by fictitious organizations that will put them in death camps. Their "truth" is all lies but any attempt to dissagree is met with cries of "disinfo" and government shills or sheep.
Here's another example for you MJ, The one that got you. Sheepie!

 

[Brainache]

The Propaganda Model, as it has been formulated and named by Chomsky and Edward Herman, has too many examples to broach any more than I already have. But there is no doubt, that there could not be a more astonishing and important example of it than 9/11. If we proceed on the easily demonstrable premise that mass media censorship of rudimentary and critical issues will occur when powerful interests are to be protected, then you will never find a better example of this than in the mass media’s treatment of the attacks. Possibly the most reported on news event of all time, still eliciting direct comment even today; and yet, the overwhelming majority of the population in the West is unaware, blissfully so, of the most rudimentary facts of that day. Go out and ask people how many skyscrapers fell on 9/11. Out of 100 people, will you get more than 5? I think you will be lucky. Due to the internet groundswell of awareness to the critical issue of WTC7, the 47 story building housing the CIA, Secret Service, Federal Office of Emergency Management, and other federal agencies, that fell in a manner described by Danny Jowenko, a leading implosion expert, thusly: “That is controlled demolition. Absolutely certain. This is a professional job done by a team of experts”, the media is now having to combat this censorship, bit by bit. This will happen with vague apologetics, such as “It was forgotten about in the confusion of the day”, and other evasions; however, nothing can get round the white elephant that is the fact that the collapse of this massive building, though receiving proportionate coverage on 9/11 (indeed being reported as collapsed by the BBC and CNN prior to its collapse), very soon after, disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole, oblivious to the public consciousness.

I'll just take this tiny snippet from your deliciously concise post.

So the most widely reported event in recent years has been censored because most people don't care about WTC7? A building that was damaged severely and burned for more than seven hours before finally collapsing.
Danny Jowenko can say what he likes after being shown a short video clip without audio, but without some kind of study his opinion is no better than anyone else's.

What censorship? I remember it being reported at the time here in Australia. People aren't focused on it because it wasn't attacked by terrorists and nobody died when it fell down.

A "white elephant" is an unwanted gift. I don't see how that makes sense in your post. And then the knowledge of its collapse is oblivious to its own disappearence? What?

Please try to make your points a bit more clearly in future. Maybe you could try using more words.

 

[leftysergeant]

Another propaganda model was started in 2001 (or there abouts) by what is known today as the "truth movement". They use the internet to influence mostly young males by pleading to their sense of worthlessness. They use scare tactics such as telling them that their freedoms are being taken away by fictitious organizations that will put them in death camps. Their "truth" is all lies but any attempt to dissagree is met with cries of "disinfo" and government shills or sheep.
Here's another example for you MJ, The one that got you. Sheepie!

Loose Change. From The People Who Brought You The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

And for the same bloody reason.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Go out and ask people how many skyscrapers fell on 9/11. Out of 100 people, will you get more than 5? I think you will be lucky. Due to the internet groundswell of awareness to the critical issue of WTC7, the 47 story building housing the CIA, Secret Service, Federal Office of Emergency Management, and other federal agencies, that fell in a manner described by Danny Jowenko, a leading implosion expert, thusly: “That is controlled demolition. Absolutely certain. This is a professional job done by a team of experts”, the media is now having to combat this censorship, bit by bit. This will happen with vague apologetics, such as “It was forgotten about in the confusion of the day”, and other evasions; however, nothing can get round the white elephant that is the fact that the collapse of this massive building, though receiving proportionate coverage on 9/11 (indeed being reported as collapsed by the BBC and CNN prior to its collapse), very soon after, disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole, oblivious to the public consciousness.

So, the NWO went to the trouble of wiring WTC7 with explosives so that it would collapse on 9/11, and then went to the trouble of hushing it up so that no-one would know it had collapsed.

Why didn't they just not blow it up in the first place? Surely the best way of ensuring that people don't notice the disappearance of a 47-storey skyscraper is to make sure that it does not, in fact, disappear. Indeed, I really can't think of any other way.

 

[Pardalis]

And yet here is mjd 100% free to express himself and his beliefs...

I think it's been said before, the Truth movement is more a cult of personality, a bunch of pseudo intellectuals stroking their ego, showing off how bright they are to have found out the truth.

 

[jon]

Another propaganda model was started in 2001 (or there abouts) by what is known today as the "truth movement". They use the internet to influence mostly young males by pleading to their sense of worthlessness. They use scare tactics such as telling them that their freedoms are being taken away by fictitious organizations that will put them in death camps. Their "truth" is all lies but any attempt to dissagree is met with cries of "disinfo" and government shills or sheep.
Here's another example for you MJ, The one that got you. Sheepie!

The OP referred back to Chomsky's 'propaganda model', and I think Chomsky's view is closer to that quoted above than that in the OP. In his Distorted Reality, Chomsky considers truther propaganda:

"I've looked at some of it, just out of curiosity, and this seems to me that those who make such claims just do not understand the nature of evidence. After all, why do scientists do experiments? Why not just take videotapes of what's happening outside? The things that are going on in the phenomenal world are just too complicated to study. You're not going to get sharp results from studying them; you're going to get all kinds of confusion, strange things happening that you can't understand, and so on. So what you do controlled experiments." [With] real-world phenomena...you're going to find all sorts of odd things. With the kind of evidence that is being used, you could prove that the White House was bombed yesterday." (p12)
"Plus there is the style of the presentation of the evidence. People who know nothing about civil engineering, except what they picked up on the Internet somewhere, giving an early treaties or more must have happened: How could a building do this... These are not trivial matters. You can't just looked up on the Internet and say ‘I'm an accomplished civil engineer’. So those who make such claims just don't understand the nature of evidence." Truther claims about 911 are diversions: "Even if it were true that the Bush administration had planned and implemented the attacks, that would be a minor point compared with the crimes that they committing against the American people and the world." (p13)

So, MJD, how do you feel about being an unwitting participant in the truther propaganda model

 

[mjd1982]

The OP referred back to Chomsky's 'propaganda model', and I think Chomsky's view is closer to that quoted above than that in the OP. In his Distorted Reality, Chomsky considers truther propaganda:

"I've looked at some of it, just out of curiosity, and this seems to me that those who make such claims just do not understand the nature of evidence. After all, why do scientists do experiments? Why not just take videotapes of what's happening outside? The things that are going on in the phenomenal world are just too complicated to study. You're not going to get sharp results from studying them; you're going to get all kinds of confusion, strange things happening that you can't understand, and so on. So what you do controlled experiments." [With] real-world phenomena...you're going to find all sorts of odd things. With the kind of evidence that is being used, you could prove that the White House was bombed yesterday." (p12)
"Plus there is the style of the presentation of the evidence. People who know nothing about civil engineering, except what they picked up on the Internet somewhere, giving an early treaties or more must have happened: How could a building do this... These are not trivial matters. You can't just looked up on the Internet and say ‘I'm an accomplished civil engineer’. So those who make such claims just don't understand the nature of evidence." Truther claims about 911 are diversions: "Even if it were true that the Bush administration had planned and implemented the attacks, that would be a minor point compared with the crimes that they committing against the American people and the world." (p13)

So, MJD, how do you feel about being an unwitting participant in the truther propaganda model

As I have stated before, I have corresponded with Chomsky on this particular topic twice now, and though I am a big fan of his, his views on 911 are utterly absurd (such as that the TM gets soft treatment in the MSM). He is, as his comment above testifies, fixated on the "implosion" of the TT's as being the TM, rather than realising, or appraising the broader, and more accurate aims of the movement. I would surmise that this is maybe aided by the fact that he doesnt regard 9/11 as anything like serious, compared to the crimes the US commits elsewhere which he documents, so he is less inclined to look into it.

Nonetheless, as I have said, the formulation exists independently of its formulator; I will wait for any responses to the OP. They will not come.

 

[mjd1982]

I'll just take this tiny snippet from your deliciously concise post.

So the most widely reported event in recent years has been censored because most people don't care about WTC7? A building that was damaged severely and burned for more than seven hours before finally collapsing.
Danny Jowenko can say what he likes after being shown a short video clip without audio, but without some kind of study his opinion is no better than anyone else's.

You have instantly misunderstood the most elementary part of the post. 7 is not censored because "most people don't care about WTC7". It is censored because it is detrimental to powerful interests. Ditto the rest of my post.

What censorship? I remember it being reported at the time here in Australia. People aren't focused on it because it wasn't attacked by terrorists and nobody died when it fell down.

What censorship? The fact that no one knows about it, that censorship.

You may want to claim that no one cared about it, since it "wasn't attacked by terrorists", but that a 47 story building can collapse and elicit essentially zero MSM coverage is an ipso fact instance of gross censorship of rudimentary details, just as the PM would predict.

A "white elephant" is an unwanted gift. I don't see how that makes sense in your post. And then the knowledge of its collapse is oblivious to its own disappearence? What?

My bad on the white elephant. I meant that it was a big object sitting there and making people uncomfortable.

2nd point, my quote was "the collapse of the building...disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole, oblivious to the public consciousness." I dont think this is too hard to understand.

Please try to make your points a bit more clearly in future. Maybe you could try using more words.

Would smaller ones help?

 

[Pardalis]

What about the media in other countries?

 

[Alt+F4]

a 47 story building can collapse and elicit essentially zero MSM coverage

The collapse of WTC7 was on the front page on The New York Times on September 12, 2001.

 

[mjd1982]

What about the media in other countries?

There is a slight problem there in that most such news will be sourced/based on what gets reported in the US. Nonetheless, it is, I believe, common currency in most Muslim countries, esp. those not affiliated with the US, that this was an inside job.

 

[Pardalis]

There is a slight problem there in that most such news will be sourced/based on what gets reported in the US.

Nope. The world outside the US does just fine on its own. There are plenty of non US journalists going about in the US.

Nonetheless, it is, I believe, common currency in most Muslim countries, esp. those not affiliated with the US, that this was an inside job.

And they wouldn't have a vested interest that it would be an inside job?

Please...

 

[mjd1982]

The collapse of WTC7 was on the front page on The New York Times on September 12, 2001.

Right. It was also documented with much gravity on the BBC, as we all know.
This is a perfect illustration of the pont that it was big enough news to be reported, unlike some say. However, as soon as it is realised that this story is a threat to power, it gets censored, automatically. There could not be a more astonishing, and Orwellian example of propaganda than this.

 

[mjd1982]

Nope. The world outside the US does just fine on its own. There are plenty of non US journalists going about in the US.

And they wouldn't have a vested interest that it would be an inside job?

Please...

1. Yes. This is what happens, to a significant degree. How many times will you read reports from a country which parrit what has been reported by "Le Monde", "The Australian", or the "New York Times". This is what occurs, though not all the time, to a significant degree.

2. Whether you think that is neither here nor there. It has been reported in these countries.

 

[Pardalis]

1. Yes. This is what happens, to a significant degree. How many times will you read reports from a country which parrit what has been reported by "Le Monde", "The Australian", or the "New York Times". This is what occurs, though not all the time, to a significant degree.

You're propaganda theory doesn't work outside of the US.

2. Whether you think that is neither here nor there. It has been reported in these countries.

Maybe it's their own propaganda?

 

[mjd1982]

Complete and utter tripe, and you know it mjd

What???

British media have a hard on for Bush and the reasons we went to Iraq

Have a hard on for him? Excuse me?!

The point about the PM is not that power will not be criticised, but that there will be limits to such criticism. These are the limits to public discourse. You will read in the BBC about how there were "blunders", but not about how the Bush admin had decided to go to war with Iraq before 911, as reported by many, including his biographer. Even when these matters slip in, they are not "news". They are not treated as the relevant facts.

Tony Boy blew his legacy on this mainly due to the UK media latching onto the Iraq thing

Again, there are strict limits on what can be discussed. Have you heard of the Downing Street memo? Ask yourself why this isnt brought up every time the war is discussed in teh MSM

I see reports everyday about car bombs killing Iraqis

Precisely. Those bastard Iraqi terrorists. But you wont read about Americans killing Iraqis- that is the point.

The BBC and the Dr David Kelly thing shows you that the media are not in the backpocket of any politician in this country. Also the cash for questions affair.

LOL, oh pleeeeease! The Gilligan thing I mentioned in the OP, there is no better example of the PM than that, go back and read. The Levy thing is irrelevant, who gives a toss if someone was maybe offered cash for a peerage? This does not matter.

As for US media I would not know because, in general, when I am in America I cannot bear to watch it, too many commercials breaks

It is possible worse than UK.

I am posting this now for the 7th time. If you would care to be the 1st viewer, you will automaticalyl be more informed about the world than the rest of the jref

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8jkJIya_0KE

 

[mjd1982]

You're propaganda theory doesn't work outside of the US.



Maybe it's their own propaganda?

1. The propaganda model entails the shielding of powerful interests due to those interests being being mass media. They will have the monopoly on mass distributed information in that country. The PM thus applies in whatever country you are looking at, just the controlling/protected interests will differ slightly, though this will depend on the country.

2. If this is so, which it may well be, then you have just illustrated how the PM would work in an Islamic country. Apply it to the US, and you are home and dry.

 

[johnny karate]

Right. It was also documented with much gravity on the BBC, as we all know.
This is a perfect illustration of the pont that it was big enough news to be reported, unlike some say. However, as soon as it is realised that this story is a threat to power, it gets censored, automatically. There could not be a more astonishing, and Orwellian example of propaganda than this.

I see. So it was both widely reported and censored. I'm not sure you know what "censored" means.

 

[Pardalis]

1. The propaganda model entails the shielding of powerful interests due to those interests being being mass media. They will have the monopoly on mass distributed information in that country. The PM thus applies in whatever country you are looking at, just the controlling/protected interests will differ slightly, though this will depend on the country.

But at some point, in some country somewhere, we should expect to see a media outlet to pick up on the story. So far... ZERO.

2. If this is so, which it may well be, then you have just illustrated how the PM would work in an Islamic country. Apply it to the US, and you are home and dry.

The US is not an islamic country, it's a democracy.

 

[The Big Dog]

I noted that you rely very heavily on a You Tube Interview with Jack Kelley. Is that the same Jack Kelley that was a longtime USA Today reporter and nominee for the Pulitzer Prize? But perhaps he is best known for his professional downfall in March 2004, when it came out that he had long been fabricating stories, going so far as to write up scripts so associates could pretend to be sources during an investigation of his actions by others at the newspaper.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

2. If this is so, which it may well be, then you have just illustrated how the PM would work in an Islamic country. Apply it to the US, and you are home and dry.

Al-Queada has released videos wherein they demand Americans submit to the will of Allah.

US authorities responded by seeking the death penalty against the man who appears in the videos.

Islamic propaganda models don't appears to work on Americans at all.

 

[mjd1982]

I see. So it was both widely reported and censored. I'm not sure you know what "censored" means.

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.

 

[mjd1982]

But at some point, in some country somewhere, we should expect to see a media outlet to pick up on the story. So far... ZERO.



The US is not an islamic country, it's a democracy.

1. How do you know that? (I know it's not true, but I am interested in why you woudl make such an assertion...)

2. Hence why I have illustrated how a democratic propaganda system would work. Please read the OP to find out more.

 

[mjd1982]

Al-Queada has released videos wherein they demand Americans submit to the will of Allah.

US authorities responded by seeking the death penalty against the man who appears in the videos.

Islamic propaganda models don't appears to work on Americans at all.

as above. There is a major difference betweem autocratic propaganda systems, and democratic ones. I have outlibed this at length in the OP

 

[mjd1982]

I noted that you rely very heavily on a You Tube Interview with Jack Kelley. Is that the same Jack Kelley that was a longtime USA Today reporter and nominee for the Pulitzer Prize? But perhaps he is best known for his professional downfall in March 2004, when it came out that he had long been fabricating stories, going so far as to write up scripts so associates could pretend to be sources during an investigation of his actions by others at the newspaper.

Who's Jack Kelley?

 

[Pardalis]

1. How do you know that? (I know it's not true, but I am interested in why you woudl make such an assertion...)

I haven't heard any report that indicated 9/11 was an inside job from any major news outlet in the Western world.

OK, let's take your beloved OP... (at least what's pertaining to 9/11, the rest I don't care for):

Due to the internet groundswell of awareness to the critical issue of WTC7,

First of all, wtc7 is not a critical issue, it is only a critical issue for Tuthers.

Most journalists around the world won't mention that collapse because, for one thing, nobody trully knows yet what happened to that building. The NIST hasn't released their findings yet. Journalists aren't there to speculate, their job is to communicate facts. They won't risk their professional integrity by reporting half-assed information and second grade testimonies. It's not censorship, it's plain and simple common sense.

this was indeed a dual attack- the plane hitting the building, and a bomb in the basement. You will not read a shred about this now, in any mainstream journal.

Again, that's your conclusion, based on flimsy evidence. Journalists won't report such rubbish.

This is the first time in a democratic society, that there has been testimony, multiple, independent and corroborating, of a bomb in an important and populous location, that has just been forgotten.

Every journalist knows that on the spot eye-witnesses accounts aren't 100% accurate. Only conspiracy theorists make them more important than they are and take them as gospel.

BTW, "explosions" does not necessarily mean "bomb". Again, that's your false conclusion.

 

[twinstead]

I would imagine that if there were ANYTHING to what would be earth-shattering evidence that you say you have, mjd, there would be journalists all over it.

This is Pulitzer Prize material. Journalists would, and in fact have, risked their very lives for a once-in-a-lifetime story. Are you suggesting that this censorship machine is SO strong as to squelch this in all the Western World?

 

[DGM]

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.

Again with the "truther" propaganda. This is another one of your fantasies. The "testimonies" (noting your wording to gain credibility) are not backed up by the physical evidence. Why is that? Why do you not have a credible reason for this?

PEOPLE WERE THERE CLEANING UP! A DEMOLITION IS OBVIOUS! PEOPLE LOOKING AT VIDEOS ARE THE ONLY ONES DOUBTING THIS! WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS!

If I brought you to a demo site you could recognize it!(yes I'm in construction) And forget that some of the steel was removed quickly because the important pieces of a demolition are near the bottom of the pile (It's funny like that). So unless your ready to say everyone there was in on it, give it up.

You keep saying that we miss the real objectives of the "truth movement" but you continue to campaign these lies. Wake up! As long as the "truth movement" hangs on to CD it will go nowhere. No matter how many words you through at it you can't explain away the lack of physical evidence. Period end of story!

 

[The Big Dog]

Who's Jack Kelley?

C'mon, you are just trolling now, right?

Your OP contains a you tube video that quotes him as the source for your claim that the FBI asserted that there was a bomb in the basement of the WTC on 911.

So, I guess Jack Kelley is the disgraced reporter you are citing as your source?