Government and propaganda, a taste of things to come

[Craig234]

IN WWI, after running against entering the European War, Woodrow Wilson decided - possibly for financial reasons - to reverse imself and enter the war. But he was facing strong public opposition.

One thing he did to deal with this was pretty unique, in that low-tech era: he hired thousands of people to around the country giving speeches to communities in favor of entering the war.

This was somewhat disturbing to some about the role of government in the democracy, among them Walter Lippman. This led him to write his first book on how public opinion works in democracy: "Public Opinion".

It's been called the most depressing book ever written for those who are supporters of democracy in its penetrating commentary about the weaknesses.

Its suggested remedies have been criticized as empty efforts to leave the reader less concerned.

All this little history above is to introduce how the same issues - and i recommended reading that book - haven't changed all that much.

In a democracy, the textbook says the people rule, but the rules know that the more they can have the tail wag the dog, and the government influence public opinion, the better. It's not a polite topic.

Below is a link to the modern equivalent of whoever came up with the speech plan - a senior official close to Obama who is all about how to increase the government's power in this area.

But I ask posters not to make this about Obama and to discuss the larger issue as they like - for the last president and the next too.

This sounds cliche, but it's an issue on which we need awareness and public protections.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/15-13

 

[MotF Bane]

Craiging in a thread-post.

I predict a trainwreck of a troll thread. I'll go further, and say that Craig will state somewhere in this thread that only progressives really care about public interests, so we should elect more of them to save us from government propaganda... except the propaganda he agrees with. Then it is sacred writ, not propaganda.

 

[StageLeft]

I will read that link tomorrow probably. I will part by saying that if the book is as depressing as you say, despite perhaps being otherwise meaningful, I'm not sure I want to read it. Picture me the guy in the Matrix who just wants to eat a steak again. Would it make me feel more informed but also more powerless and ultimately more inept? I'm sure my misanthropy is evolved enough without it growing further

EDIT: I Just skimmed this. I have not googled--is it legit; is this guy in that position and did he write such a paper? Shameful if so. Offensive that a government kept in place by tax dollars would then use those tax dollars to covertly manipulate its citizenry into supporting it further.

 

[Craig234]

I will read that link tomorrow probably. I will part by saying that if the book is as depressing as you say, despite perhaps being otherwise meaningful, I'm not sure I want to read it. Picture me the guy in the Matrix who just wants to eat a steak again. Would it make me feel more informed but also more powerless and ultimately more inept? I'm sure my misanthropy is evolved enough without it growing further

EDIT: I Just skimmed this. I have not googled--is it legit; is this guy in that position and did he write such a paper? Shameful if so. Offensive that a government kept in place by tax dollars would then use those tax dollars to covertly manipulate its citizenry into supporting it further.

Yes. I recommend the book by Lippman, it's a lot more informative and something to consider than it brings you into a bad mood. It waqs just a way of saying he had a lot to say about Deocracy's vulnerabilities.

Remember that Lippman wrote more books and championed the idea about how to make Democracy work better and some of his ideas helped change our system for the better.

I will say it's not easy reading exactly, it can be pretty abstract, but it has some good stuff that you say 'wow, that's like today, but this was long ago'.

On your edit, this appears legitimate. THis is Glenn Greenwald....

 

[cubeless]

and just what about this is remotely unbelievable?

the first step was the 'tell us about web sites that oppose us' site... add in a small extension of franked mail and there u go...

and u r surprised that they would use tax dollars to do this??? u must have missed the payoffs to congress and unions and banks that have been going on lately...

these guys firmly believe that all belongs to the state, and they r the state, so they can use all as they please... and, of course, them staying in power is the highest good, so anything they want to do should, of course, be state funded...

 

[Sinsear]

Can we cry foul over commondreams.org like you libs cry foul over foxnews?

 

[Robor]

Can we cry foul over commondreams.org like you libs cry foul over foxnews?

No because 'speech plan' then = Fox News today.

Edit: ThefLYINGpig got banned? Lolololol. One less troll.

 

[MotF Bane]

No because 'speech plan' then = Fox News today.

Edit: ThefLYINGpig got banned? Lolololol. One less troll.

I'm disappointed that TFP isn't here. He was entertaining. Everyone knows this. :awe:

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm disappointed that TFP isn't here. He was entertaining. Everyone knows this. :awe:

Just when you thought all was lost.....Avvocato Effetti better known as Mr Palco and even called Mr Super hyper conservative Christian returns from the world of the banned.....lol

 

[Craig234]

Can we cry foul over commondreams.org like you libs cry foul over foxnews?

You can try, but you'd be wrong. It's like equating the flat earthers and round earthers, the 'climate change scientists' with the 'climate change deniers', real economists with the 'all tax cuts raise taxes' people.

Fox News can be shown to distort and sometimes put even flat out information constantly becaus they are a propaganda organazation. Commondreams you can't do that. It's an outstanding commentary site.

That's the conservative game - you can't tell the lie directly, but if you can make it into two sides, you try to get the lie passed.

If someone says 2+2=4, the conservative knows they can't say 2+2=6, but they can say 2+2=10 and people will say 'well, it's probably about 6 or 7 since you can' trust either side.'

The whole game is trying to get people to equate the good answer as being as equally corrupt as their obviously false info and not elieve either. They attack 2+2=4 without directly attacking it.

If you hear 2+2=10 all day, every day, from Rush, from Glenn, from Sean, in the WSJ ediitorials, over and over, 2+2=4 gets to make you feel like some kind of commie. Liberals say that! Extremists!

So, no, you can't play that game, since I just explained how you can't show Commondreams to be a false propaganda organization like Fox.

But you will try anyway, because you don't know the difference between good info and false propaganda, and don't seem much to care.

 

[cubeless]

You can try, but you'd be wrong. It's like equating the flat earthers and round earthers, the 'climate change scientists' with the 'climate change deniers', real economists with the 'all tax cuts raise taxes' people.

Fox News can be shown to distort and sometimes put even flat out information constantly becaus they are a propaganda organazation. Commondreams you can't do that. It's an outstanding commentary site.

That's the conservative game - you can't tell the lie directly, but if you can make it into two sides, you try to get the lie passed.

If someone says 2+2=4, the conservative knows they can't say 2+2=6, but they can say 2+2=10 and people will say 'well, it's probably about 6 or 7 since you can' trust either side.'

The whole game is trying to get people to equate the good answer as being as equally corrupt as their obviously false info and not elieve either. They attack 2+2=4 without directly attacking it.

If you hear 2+2=10 all day, every day, from Rush, from Glenn, from Sean, in the WSJ ediitorials, over and over, 2+2=4 gets to make you feel like some kind of commie. Liberals say that! Extremists!

So, no, you can't play that game, since I just explained how you can't show Commondreams to be a false propaganda organization like Fox.

But you will try anyway, because you don't know the difference between good info and false propaganda, and don't seem much to care.

right up until your good info folks are shown to be taking payoffs... i'm just suspicious of anyone who promotes 'the greater good'...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You can try, but you'd be wrong. It's like equating the flat earthers and round earthers, the 'climate change scientists' with the 'climate change deniers', real economists with the 'all tax cuts raise taxes' people.

Fox News can be shown to distort and sometimes put even flat out information constantly becaus they are a propaganda organazation. Commondreams you can't do that. It's an outstanding commentary site.

That's the conservative game - you can't tell the lie directly, but if you can make it into two sides, you try to get the lie passed.

If someone says 2+2=4, the conservative knows they can't say 2+2=6, but they can say 2+2=10 and people will say 'well, it's probably about 6 or 7 since you can' trust either side.'

The whole game is trying to get people to equate the good answer as being as equally corrupt as their obviously false info and not elieve either. They attack 2+2=4 without directly attacking it.

If you hear 2+2=10 all day, every day, from Rush, from Glenn, from Sean, in the WSJ ediitorials, over and over, 2+2=4 gets to make you feel like some kind of commie. Liberals say that! Extremists!

So, no, you can't play that game, since I just explained how you can't show Commondreams to be a false propaganda organization like Fox.

But you will try anyway, because you don't know the difference between good info and false propaganda, and don't seem much to care.

In other words you are right and everyone else is wrong.
As I have said many times the Dems didn't bother to do their homework. There is NO system more complicated and interdependent as health care. Rocket science is trivial. Like the Reps and Iraq, they knew everything in advance. They should have had a dedicated panel of experts guide them in advance of legislation. No, nothing. Why? Oh there were some studies done here and there. Did they look at consequences to a given action? Did they even have all the information needed to make intelligent decisions about things they had no clue about? No.

They won't even address all the problems which exist in what they've already created.

Demonstrated incompetence doesn't inspire trust in rational people.

 

[shiner]

Craiging in a thread-post.

I predict a trainwreck of a troll thread. I'll go further, and say that Craig will state somewhere in this thread that only progressives really care about public interests, so we should elect more of them to save us from government propaganda... except the propaganda he agrees with. Then it is sacred writ, not propaganda.

As I said in another thread. Craig is just a child running around screaming at the top of his lungs. When you disagree with what he is saying he calls you an idiot and goes into

mode.

 

[Genx87]

No because 'speech plan' then = Fox News today.

Edit: ThefLYINGpig got banned? Lolololol. One less troll.

Ahh well once I realized TFP was a troll his posts were actually funny. Sucks he got banned.

 

[Craig234]

In other words you are right and everyone else is wrong.

That is both a worhtless argument, and not what I said, a straw man. Try to be more honest.

As I have said many times the Dems didn't bother to do their homework. There is NO system more complicated and interdependent as health care. Rocket science is trivial. Like the Reps and Iraq, they knew everything in advance. They should have had a dedicated panel of experts guide them in advance of legislation. No, nothing. Why? Oh there were some studies done here and there. Did they look at consequences to a given action? Did they even have all the information needed to make intelligent decisions about things they had no clue about? No.

They won't even address all the problems which exist in what they've already created.

Demonstrated incompetence doesn't inspire trust in rational people.

This is a thread about the govermnent propagandizing in general, not about healthcare.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is both a worhtless argument, and not what I said, a straw man. Try to be more honest.



This is a thread about the govermnent propagandizing in general, not about healthcare.

Unfortunately what we were offered was propaganda disguised as reform. No, it's not the only example, but it shows that it isn't just the Reps.

I do find disturbing your concept that rights come from government. My contention is that the government provides order by taking away the free action of others. At times this is a good thing because few would argue that murder is something that we ought to sanction. Nevertheless, they don't "allow" me to breathe, or have free speech, or anything else. They can merely deprive me of it.

It's not a trivial difference, because I am not a slave by the pleasure of the government. I should not have to appeal to it's largess in any case. We kicked kings out of here some time ago.

Likewise, government didn't grant civil rights back in the 60s. People demanded that the government did away with it's discriminatory back of the bus policies and insisted that it's powers be used to prevent others from lynching and the like. In this case, government was reeled in by the people and made to do it's job which is to serve us.

The government exists at the pleasure of the people and it's only purpose is service, not the other way around. Governments will inherently extend their power. They don't need help to do it.

 

[woolfe9999]

Questioning the credibility of a media source is a tired and tedious internet cliche. Speaking in generalities is meaningless. Making allegations of bias based on a source having a supposed reputation for bias gets you nowhere. The only way to discredit a source is with reference to specifics. For the lazy, other people have in some cases done the heavy lifting and you can link what they have done. But making a dangling assertion of bias is adding polemical filler.

- wolf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Questioning the credibility of a media source is a tired and tedious internet cliche. Speaking in generalities is meaningless. Making allegations of bias based on a source having a supposed reputation for bias gets you nowhere. The only way to discredit a source is with reference to specifics. For the lazy, other people have in some cases done the heavy lifting and you can link what they have done. But making a dangling assertion of bias is adding polemical filler.

- wolf

Replace Hell with P&N

 

[woolfe9999]

Unfortunately what we were offered was propaganda disguised as reform. No, it's not the only example, but it shows that it isn't just the Reps.

I do find disturbing your concept that rights come from government. My contention is that the government provides order by taking away the free action of others. At times this is a good thing because few would argue that murder is something that we ought to sanction. Nevertheless, they don't "allow" me to breathe, or have free speech, or anything else. They can merely deprive me of it.

It's not a trivial difference, because I am not a slave by the pleasure of the government. I should not have to appeal to it's largess in any case. We kicked kings out of here some time ago.

Likewise, government didn't grant civil rights back in the 60s. People demanded that the government did away with it's discriminatory back of the bus policies and insisted that it's powers be used to prevent others from lynching and the like. In this case, government was reeled in by the people and made to do it's job which is to serve us.

The government exists at the pleasure of the people and it's only purpose is service, not the other way around. Governments will inherently extend their power. They don't need help to do it.

If by rights you are referring to the ones guarenteed in the Constitution, then you are right that government does not "grant" them. Yet nor do we just "have" them through osmosis or because, as Jefferson fancifally alleged, a divine agency conferred them upon us. It is more accurate to say that somewhere, someone decided we ought to have certain rights, and that the *law* created by those people restricts the government from infringing on those rights, and in some cases may restrict private parties from doing so.

No government, by the way, is not a recipe for establishing or maintaining individual rights. It is, rather, a recipe for the tyranny of the strong over the weak. In a state of anarchy, what "rights" do you suppose people have. In that circumstance, there is only power and weakness, not rights. Government may not grant rights, but it does protect them. And, of course, if it isn't kept in check, it may also take them away.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Questioning the credibility of a media source is a tired and tedious internet cliche. Speaking in generalities is meaningless. Making allegations of bias based on a source having a supposed reputation for bias gets you nowhere. The only way to discredit a source is with reference to specifics. For the lazy, other people have in some cases done the heavy lifting and you can link what they have done. But making a dangling assertion of bias is adding polemical filler.

- wolf

I have to disagree with you here.

Like any issue, there are true and false claims, and that needs to be recognized. I agree with you about the FALSE claims of bias.

The questin then, is about the true ones. Is it better to make them as I suggest, or not to as you do?

I understand your position - and I've made the point to make the evidence-based case for making the claim, not using it as a throwaway attack.

I don't know your level of experience with the media, but you may not have encontered the volume of propaganda that supports my position.

There's a practical issue that comes into play. There's enough false propaganda to keep you and everyone you know reading and sorting through it all day, and plenty more you don't get to, so you can't do anything about the 'truth'. You can review and knock down 500 false propaganda pieces in a day? Here are 10,000 a day, take your pick.

When you better understand the nature of the media - read David Brocks' "Vast right-wing noise machine" for an overview of the industry - you get a better idea these are not 'competing legitimate viewpoints'.

It's a smothering attack by volume of propaganda, and if you don't want to spend all day refuting a fraction of the same people for the same like you have a thousand times before, you say to ignore them.

I've previously posted a list of many of the few sources I've labelled as having lost their right to any further time based on constant propagandistic abuse.

IMO, people who get better informed come to see these the same way.

Rupert Murdoch-owned opinion ouitlets, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page (not the news.and this goes before Murdoch bought them), Redstate.org, frontpage, National Review (the current one Buckley's son quit in protest over its decline ot the hard right), David Horowitz, John Stossel, Ann Coulter, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute are core outlets on my 'not worth looking at' list.

I think it's right.

I've put hours in here before you were here doing things to show this.

I've taken sources on that list and done random samplings and I measure all the stouries on their front page, to see if they're good or bad, and found high levels oof bad.

I've challenged people to the same between sites I advocate and these. I've done the same for 'my' sites. amd found high levels of accuracy. This isn't new.

Heress a list of media I'd say you can read to be decently inforrmed:

salon.com, commondreams.org, Time, Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, Mother Jones, The Nation, The Progressive, Rolling Stone's poitical articles, a few other web sites to pick from. at least one of the national major newspapers like the NY Times or the LA Times, Thom Hartmann's radio show, Rachel Maddow's TV show, The Guadian - there aremore and that's not including optional things like Bill Maher's lightweight show.

Now, how are you going to keep up with that AND spend all day rebutting 10,000 stories you can get thrown up from the right-wing noise machine? You can't.

Being on my bad list doesn't mean everything they say is wrong, it means they have such a record of frequent bad-faith misleading and propagandizing they don't deserve time.

Detailed factal rebuttals of propagandists with millions behind them doesn't work well.

But you can go to Media Matters for America, and read thousands and thousands of just those rebuttals.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If by rights you are referring to the ones guarenteed in the Constitution, then you are right that government does not "grant" them. Yet nor do we just "have" them through osmosis or because, as Jefferson fancifally alleged, a divine agency conferred them upon us. It is more accurate to say that somewhere, someone decided we ought to have certain rights, and that the *law* created by those people restricts the government from infringing on those rights, and in some cases may restrict private parties from doing so.

No government, by the way, is not a recipe for establishing or maintaining individual rights. It is, rather, a recipe for the tyranny of the strong over the weak. In a state of anarchy, what "rights" do you suppose people have. In that circumstance, there is only power and weakness, not rights. Government may not grant rights, but it does protect them. And, of course, if it isn't kept in check, it may also take them away.

- wolf

If I had meant that anarchy was preferable you would be able to find it. You won't be able too. Government is a necessary evil, and that's exactly why the Constitution is written as it was. "Unreasonable search and seizure" for example wasn't about protecting you from me, it was to explicitly mention that doing so was a right the government does not have.

The Founders were faced with creating something they knew could subvert their concept of freedom, and that's why the Bill of Rights exist. No wiggle room for tyrants.

The concept of "natural rights" is always debatable, but what is not is that no agency or power need approve my freedom of speech. It is a consequence of how humans communicate. Government didn't grant me that right, the Constitution exists to prevent it from being taken from me, and it exists to prevent it from being taken by others. That is it's purpose, and that needs to be remembered.

We are either masters or servants.

 

[Craig234]

Unfortunately what we were offered was propaganda disguised as reform. No, it's not the only example, but it shows that it isn't just the Reps.

I do find disturbing your concept that rights come from government. My contention is that the government provides order by taking away the free action of others. At times this is a good thing because few would argue that murder is something that we ought to sanction. Nevertheless, they don't "allow" me to breathe, or have free speech, or anything else. They can merely deprive me of it.

It's not a trivial difference, because I am not a slave by the pleasure of the government. I should not have to appeal to it's largess in any case. We kicked kings out of here some time ago.

Likewise, government didn't grant civil rights back in the 60s. People demanded that the government did away with it's discriminatory back of the bus policies and insisted that it's powers be used to prevent others from lynching and the like. In this case, government was reeled in by the people and made to do it's job which is to serve us.

The government exists at the pleasure of the people and it's only purpose is service, not the other way around. Governments will inherently extend their power. They don't need help to do it.

And you take a thread on the dangers of government involvement in propaganda from healthcare to the theory of rights. I'm goiung to start calling you Derail Threadabusa.

Anyway, I agree with what Woolfe said to you already. But I'll note I see an anti-government ideology in your post that's wrong.

As someone who loives freedom and rights, I don't let misguided people who commit the fallacy Woolfe mentions, of confusing crippling the government from being able to protect your rights, with freedom.

I've long said that a basic fallacy of the right is not understand the threat from private power. It just doesn't exist for them. So they unwittingly attack the only thing that can protect them.

I've also long said government can be a force FOR the people or AGAINST the people, that it's merely a force and it matters who directs it. Get rid of it and the abuses smoothly slide into worse, private hands.

The idea of democracy was to give people the right to haveprotection from the private concentrated power that has abused the masses for most of human history.

Today, those forces have been foolishly allowed to get so powerful they not only turn government against the people, but convince many the solution is to get rid of the only thing threatening them, the government.

It's sort of catch-22. "See how the government I'm causing to serve my interst hurts you? See, it's bad! Get rid of it! And then you will have freedom when I can really act as I like against you."

Rights DO come from government in a sense. They may not in a moral sense, but the fact is, what does it mean to have a right, something others can't do wrong to you, like silence you? It's a right that SOMEHOW has to be enforced on the people who would act against you. How is that done? Without government, there's nothing preventing them from acting against you hwoever much you say it's your right.

Government can say "free speech is a right" - and it can provide enforcement for the right. That matters. You need that to 'have rights', whatever the 'source' of the right. Bad government doesn't give you rights.

You are on a semantic tangent - my concern is that you properly recognize the proper role of government in acting as the people's representative and protecting them from the few AND the many (including itself).

In my opinion, oen of the greatest threat to mankind's freedom today is the increase of a sort of pseudo-government made of corporate interests, who will LIMIT government poower.

You already see the start of this in the free traqde agreements, which create such crippling penalties for any democratic government who takes action to protect its people as to cripple democracy.

If a government bans a dangerous product, these treaties set up tribunals made of business-selected people with no appeals under binding treaty law who can force the government to pay any company damaged by that law - the maker of the roduct - for all estimated lost sales, which can easily go to the billions of dollars and cause governemnts not to act in the interests of the people.

When California banned gas additive MTBP as unhealthy, a canadian company sued for billions under this provision, and the privaqte tribunal could have made California liable for all lost sales.

These same interests are all about tea party movements - they sponsor some - who say "hate the government".

We need the people to have a better democracy, not to attack it.

 

[Craig234]

If I had meant that anarchy was preferable you would be able to find it. You won't be able too. Government is a necessary evil, and that's exactly why the Constitution is written as it was. "Unreasonable search and seizure" for example wasn't about protecting you from me, it was to explicitly mention that doing so was a right the government does not have.

The Founders were faced with creating something they knew could subvert their concept of freedom, and that's why the Bill of Rights exist. No wiggle room for tyrants.

The concept of "natural rights" is always debatable, but what is not is that no agency or power need approve my freedom of speech. It is a consequence of how humans communicate. Government didn't grant me that right, the Constitution exists to prevent it from being taken from me, and it exists to prevent it from being taken by others. That is it's purpose, and that needs to be remembered.

We are either masters or servants.

You have a far higher risk of being servant to private tyranny than governmet tyrrany. Guess what protects you from private tyranny? Look at kate 19th century conditions for an example of not recognizing this.

 

[Ozoned]

You have a far higher risk of being servant to private tyranny than governmet tyrrany. Guess what protects you from private tyranny? Look at kate 19th century conditions for an example of not recognizing this.

I suppose Yemen could serve to prove, and disprove your point.

In the end, The organic things that come about from natural law will determine what you are servant to. It's all about being in the right place at the right time or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Craig234]

I suppose Yemen could serve to prove, and disprove your point.

In the end, The organic things that come about from natural law will determine what you are servant to. It's all about being in the right place at the right time or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Wthout commenting on most of your post, my statement was specific to him - HE as a resident of the US currently is more vulnerable to private tyrrany.

More often in history, concentrated power hasn't been split private and public - the powerful rich were also, for all intents and purposes if not actually, the government (e.g., monarchy and nobles).

I'ts in the US with its wild idea of democracy that there's a split, with private concentrated power, denied the government directly, making massive efforts to control it other ways, including making citizens hate it.