BF2S Forums Financial Crisis UK Edition

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That's no saying I've ever heard.

And just when did a theory (I hesitate to use the term...probably more appropriately a hypothesis) become a "truism"?

Most of the conclusions drawn from their study and work on the model are basically so apparent and logical that they are truisms.

Things like when 'x' corporation pays 50% of a paper's advertising revenue and funding, the paper isn't likely to publish material that is directly harmful to the companies' interests. These sort of things aren't hypotheses or postulations. They're so apparent that they're obviously true to anyone without any need for study or scrutiny.

That's an absolute load of horseshit. That is an assumption that can't be proven or disproven, so you take it as a fact "without any need for study or scrutiny" because you happen to agree with it. That is unbelievably lazy logic.

Uzique wrote:

The saying may not be a popular idiom but it's still just about right .

I don't buy it, but I guess it depends on how you're using the term "propaganda". If you're using the book definition, which is connotation-neutral, then ALL government types (to include democracies AND dictatorships) use it. If you're using it in the common usage (loosely: influencing a population with lies), which has a negative connotation, then I think you couldn't be further from the truth.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Most of the conclusions drawn from their study and work on the model are basically so apparent and logical that they are truisms.

Things like when 'x' corporation pays 50% of a paper's advertising revenue and funding, the paper isn't likely to publish material that is directly harmful to the companies' interests. These sort of things aren't hypotheses or postulations. They're so apparent that they're obviously true to anyone without any need for study or scrutiny.

That's an absolute load of horseshit. That is an assumption that can't be proven or disproven, so you take it as a fact "without any need for study or scrutiny" because you happen to agree with it. That is unbelievably lazy logic.

Coming from the person who dismissed everything that human rights groups says because you think it's in their interest to find human rights problems?

Who dismissed "everything that human rights group says"? Not me. Are you saying that human rights groups have never been wrong, or that they don't have an agenda?

Or are you saying we should take what they say as fact "without any need for study or scrutiny" because you happen to agree with them?

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Coming from the person who dismissed everything that human rights groups says because you think it's in their interest to find human rights problems?

Who dismissed "everything that human rights group says"? Not me. Are you saying that human rights groups have never been wrong, or that they don't have an agenda?

Or are you saying we should take what they say as fact "without any need for study or scrutiny" because you happen to agree with them?

You seem happy to dismiss their decades of reporting on the Israel situation without actually bothering to find out if they are right or not because you claim they are biased without any supporting evidence. You're also happy to take the word of the Israeli government without any study or scrutiny because you agree with them.

And just where do you get that unfounded notion? Simply because I disagree with your position? I'm sure it couldn't possibly be that I have studied and/or scrutinized the situation and come up with a different conclusion. Nope, couldn't possibly be that. And people call me pompous.

Of course, that is all completely overlooking the fact that I have stated multiple times that I agree with the cause of the Palestinian people (NOT Hamas or Hezbollah) and that I do not agree with many of the policies of the Israeli govt vis a vis the Palestinian people.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your claims or anything.

PureFodder wrote:

The idea that corporations are going to do what's financially in their best interests is hardly a revelation. It's more like the null hypothesis that you'd have to disprove. The notion that a corporation wouldn't go out of it's way to ensure its primary customers (other corporations) are kept happy is a strange argument that requires serious study and scrutiny.

No, it's not a null hypothesis at all. The hypothesis here is that journalists would eschew their ethics and standards in order to produce something more palatable to their advertising base, rather than reporting the facts. That is what must be proven. That is what is being accepted without study or scrutiny as a "truism".

And just where do you get that unfounded notion? Simply because I disagree with your position? I'm sure it couldn't possibly be that I have studied and/or scrutinized the situation and come up with a different conclusion. Nope, couldn't possibly be that. And people call me pompous.

You ARE pompous and thoroughly biased.

Whenever the Israelis do something obviously wrong you side with them, whatever the evidence.
When the Palestinians do anything you swallow the Israelis line unquestioningly - and no-one is permitted to disagree.

Journalists have to sometimes eschew their reporting and be selective in their publishing. It's a matter of job protection and profit maximisation. Do you honestly buy all of these laughable rhetoric about the national press being a bastion of truth and an upholder of free democracy? The newspaper corporations have been in the pockets and the interests of the major financial corporations and conglomerates for a long time.

I don't have lazy logic, thanks a lot. There is a lot of evidence and references to support the model, I just don't care to be a preacher of Chomsky/Herman's idea here on these Forums. If you don't fully understand the model and haven't seen enough evidence to accept it as a virtual truism then it's really down to you to inform yourself. But don't call it "horseshit". It's already been studied to death and hailed as one of the best-standing models in all of the social sciences, in my opinion more studies and 'scrutiny' wouldn't reveal anything that hasn't been shown already.

If you don't buy the saying that propaganda is to democracy what the military is to totalitarianism then I guess we just quite simply have different perspectives. The mass majority of any country needs to be enforced and controlled somehow- if they weren't then the rigid power structures and wealth hierarchies we have wouldn't exist any longer. When a government can't use military presence and brute-force, they instead employ more subtle techniques such as propaganda and the national press. It's a huge topic that of course some people are just convinced is all bullshit. But some of the arguments for it are very credible.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-09-03 05:25:46)

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

So your claim is merely that you've done a superior analysis of the situation than all of the human rights groups in the region combined.

No. Where did I say that?

Human rights groups focus on a single topic, and tend to not worry about anything but the events they are investigating. They have their role...but it is not preeminent over all other roles and context involved in determining systemic or sanctioned abuses.

So that's what you claim to be better than them at, taking all the evidence that they gather and putting it into a broader context. What basis do you have for claiming to be better at it than them?

FEOS wrote:

For this theory to be correct, there would have to be a huge conspiracy involving all democratic governments and all international media to keep the message on theme. Are you claiming that conspiracy exists? Why are you saying that the mass majority of any country needs to be "enforced and controlled somehow"? Is that more Chomsky?

In the US (I can't speak for other democracies), targeting the population for influence operations is illegal. There are multiple non-governmental watchdog groups that independently fact-check everything. Or are they in on it too?

E Herman wrote:

Conspiracy theory. We explained in Manufacturing Consent that critical analyses like ours would inevitably elicit cries of conspiracy theory, and in a futile effort to prevent this we devoted several pages of the preface to an explicit rejection of conspiracy and an attempt to show that the propaganda model is best described as a 'guided market system.' Mainstream critics still made the charge, partly because they are too lazy to read a complex work, partly because they know that falsely accusing a radical critique of conspiracy theory won't cost them anything, and partly because of their superficial assumption that, as the media comprise thousands of 'independent' journalists and companies, any finding that they follow a 'party line' that serves the state must rest on an assumed conspiracy. (In fact, it can result from a widespread gullible acceptance of official handouts, common internalized beliefs, common policies established from above within the organizations based on ideology and/or interests, and fear of reprisal for critical analyses from within the organization or from the outside.) The apologists can't abide the notion that institutional factors can cause a 'free' media to act like lemmings in jointly disseminating false and even silly propaganda; such a charge must assume a conspiracy.

http://human-nature.com/reason/01/herman.pdf
You can test it yourself, just go read some newspapers and focus on the the sourcing. Chances are ninety something percent of the sources will come straight from the government.

The point is, if almost all the journalists use for sources is the US government, how is their message going to be anything different from what the US government wants them to say?

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

So your claim is merely that you've done a superior analysis of the situation than all of the human rights groups in the region combined.

No. Where did I say that?

Human rights groups focus on a single topic, and tend to not worry about anything but the events they are investigating. They have their role...but it is not preeminent over all other roles and context involved in determining systemic or sanctioned abuses.

So that's what you claim to be better than them at, taking all the evidence that they gather and putting it into a broader context. What basis do you have for claiming to be better at it than them?

Please point out where I claimed to be better at anything. Your words, not mine.

I said they don't look at the broader context, not that they're no good at it, or that I'm better at it than they are.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

For this theory to be correct, there would have to be a huge conspiracy involving all democratic governments and all international media to keep the message on theme. Are you claiming that conspiracy exists? Why are you saying that the mass majority of any country needs to be "enforced and controlled somehow"? Is that more Chomsky?

    In the US (I can't speak for other democracies), targeting the population for influence operations is illegal. There are multiple non-governmental watchdog groups that independently fact-check everything. Or are they in on it too?

E Herman wrote:

Conspiracy theory. We explained in Manufacturing Consent that critical analyses like ours would inevitably elicit cries of conspiracy theory, and in a futile effort to prevent this we devoted several pages of the preface to an explicit rejection of conspiracy and an attempt to show that the propaganda model is best described as a 'guided market system.' Mainstream critics still made the charge, partly because they are too lazy to read a complex work, partly because they know that falsely accusing a radical critique of conspiracy theory won't cost them anything, and partly because of their superficial assumption that, as the media comprise thousands of 'independent' journalists and companies, any finding that they follow a 'party line' that serves the state must rest on an assumed conspiracy. (In fact, it can result from a widespread gullible acceptance of official handouts, common internalized beliefs, common policies established from above within the organizations based on ideology and/or interests, and fear of reprisal for critical analyses from within the organization or from the outside.) The apologists can't abide the notion that institutional factors can cause a 'free' media to act like lemmings in jointly disseminating false and even silly propaganda; such a charge must assume a conspiracy.

I see. So all you have to do is put forward some theory, then preemptively say anyone who says your theory looks an awful lot like a conspiracy theory clearly isn't smart enough or "too lazy to read a complex work" (just how fucking arrogant and self-serving is THAT, btw?), and you're good. Beyond question. Suddenly your theory becomes a "truism".
     
Damn that's easy. Wonder why nobody thought of that before?
     
And please go back and read my earlier posts. I'm NOT saying the theory doesn't have merit. I'm saying it's a THEORY, not a TRUISM. Since it's not a truism, it should rightly be questioned and examined. Or is that too inconvenient for the Chomsky worshippers here?
     
Have you even bothered to look into and examine the critiques of this particular theory? Clearly not, since according to you, there's no need to critically examine it...because it's a "truism". You present yourself as a scientific person, yet you accept a social theory such as this one as a "truism". Seems rather contradictory, tbh.
     
Herman basically contends that there must be a model (why the imperative?), and since his and Chomsky's is the only one offered, theirs is the best one. He defends the model with cherry-picked anecdotes to reinforce it, while carefully neglecting to mention any evidence contrary to the model (excoriation of big oil, investigative reports into government misdeeds, FWA, criticism of banking industry, criticism of pharmaceutical industry...those are just the first ones that come immediately to mind). He invokes the use of PR firms as evidence of the truth of the model, for crying out loud. And he (like the fans of the model here) fails to mention that his book was produced by one of the very conglomerates that supposedly control the populace's "consent" through media filters...it would appear that in the case of the book he's so proud of, his proposed media filters failed.
     
But all that's OK...because the model is a "truism" that shouldn't be critically examined.