911 and the Propaganda Model

[SDC]

2 problems here:

2. Firstly, it wasnt the insurance companies taht paid out, as I said before. It was the re, and re re insurance companies.

I'm sorry but I really have to ask. Does this (re, and re re) really mean something in insurance-speak? Honestly I don't know.

And what about the Sun Ra Orkestra? Hah?

[SDC]

I am supported by the polls.

Chwala Bogu! Czy mozna... Polacy...

Oh, sorry. I'm afraid you can't lay this one off on the Poles. "Marsz, marsz, Dabrowski,/ Z ziemi wloskiej do Polski..."

[Myriad]

2 problems here:

1. A strong correlation between 2 things, by definition, suggest causality. There is, of course, the caveat of datamining, and coincidences, but when the correlation is supported by evident facts, some of whih are listed in my OP, then this makes this possibility unlikely.

Not by definition, and "suggests" is about as decisive a verb as you can use there. (Certainly not "proves," and not "implies" or "provides strong evidence" either.)

There is a correlation between watermelon sales and fireworks accidents in the U.S.. What causality is suggested by this? Does watermelon cause fireworks accidents, or do fireworks accidents increase the demand for watermelon? Are these "suggestions" valid?

2. Firstly, it wasnt the insurance companies taht paid out, as I said before. It was the re, and re re insurance companies. These are not the ruling power strctures. The corporate elites, the massive corporations, have benefitted from 9/11, as have the political elites. That some re re insurance companies, not even all of which are American, have had to pay out, is insignificant.

Shuffling the approximately (conservatively) 20 billion dollars in total 9/11-caused insurance payouts (the WTC insurance is the tip of the iceberg) among different companies doesn't make it go away. It takes enormous organized corporate power to come up with 20 billion dollars of liquidity. And what about the banks, the stock brokerages, the entire major industry sectors that were also harmed?

The main power structures have benefitted, as have the US government. Mass censorship of rudimnentary detail suggests that they are being protected by such censorships.

You need to state how you define "the main power structures." What are the criteria you use to differentiate a "main power structure" from an interest that happens to have a lot of money or power but is not a "main power structure"? Note that as long as your only answer is "by whether or not they benefitted from 9/11," your assertion quoted immediately above is a meaningless tautology.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[LashL]

I'm sorry but I really have to ask. Does this (re, and re re) really mean something in insurance-speak? Honestly I don't know.

Yes, reinsurance does mean something in insurance-speak. However, I seriously doubt that it means what mjd1982 thinks it means.

To state it in a somewhat oversimplied manner, it is a means by which one insurance company (the reinsurer) agrees to indemnify another insurance company (the ceding insurer) against loss. For instance, Company A writes a policy to Customer 1. Then, Company A pays a premium to Company B so that in the event of a loss on Customer 1's policy, Company B indemnifies Company A against some or all of Company A's payout to Customer 1.

The impetus behind reinsurance is the same as it is with all insurance; that is, to spread risk. It is a very common practice. It allows the ceding insurer to address their own business needs while still writing large amounts of insurance, and protecting themselves somewhat from a massive catastrophic loss or multiple large losses, among other things.

[SpitfireIX]

Yes, reinsurance does mean something in insurance-speak. However, I seriously doubt that it means what mjd1982 thinks it means.

To state it in a somewhat oversimplied manner, it is a means by which one insurance company (the reinsurer) agrees to indemnify another insurance company (the ceding insurer) against loss. For instance, Company A writes a policy to Customer 1. Then, Company A pays a premium to Company B so that in the event of a loss on Customer 1's policy, Company B indemnifies Company A against some or all of Company A's payout to Customer 1.

The impetus behind reinsurance is the same as it is with all insurance; that is, to spread risk. It is a very common practice. It allows the ceding insurer to address their own business needs while still writing large amounts of insurance, and protecting themselves somewhat from a massive catastrophic loss or multiple large losses, among other things.


It's also worth noting that reinsurance generally has very high deductibles; I seem to recall that the primary insurers of the WTC paid 30% of the total amount of claims, and the other 70% was paid by reinsurers, though I don't currently have a source for this.

[stilicho]

Cos the average person disagrees with you in their droves! I know this because i talk to crowds about this. I have done such today in Parliamant Square. You havent. This is why you are a disconnected fringe movement, indirectly complicit in the murderous, never ending War on Terror.
Pssst, it's spelled "Parliament". Not with an "a" as the final vowel.

Anyhow, I'd like to see a video of your speeches at Parliament Square with all your droves of admirers in attendance. Can you rustle one up and throw us a YouTube of yourself plying your trade?

I promise I won't laugh...much.

[stilicho]

Quote:
2. Firstly, it wasnt the insurance companies taht paid out, as I said before. It was the re, and re re insurance companies. These are not the ruling power strctures. The corporate elites, the massive corporations, have benefitted from 9/11, as have the political elites. That some re re insurance companies, not even all of which are American, have had to pay out, is insignificant.

Shuffling the approximately (conservatively) 20 billion dollars in total 9/11-caused insurance payouts (the WTC insurance is the tip of the iceberg) among different companies doesn't make it go away. It takes enormous organized corporate power to come up with 20 billion dollars of liquidity. And what about the banks, the stock brokerages, the entire major industry sectors that were also harmed?
What about the re-insurers themselves? Good grief, mjd1982, please try and find out what you're talking about before you denigrate a vital industry like that.

This may seem like a small point, but the MSM "corporate propaganda model" has also been derelict in reporting this gem: http://www.swissre.com/pws/media%20centre/news/news%20releases%202006/swiss%20re%20issues%20statement%20on%20wtc%20litig ation%20appeal%20confirmation.html. I figured that it wasn't over when the insurance trade papers excoriated the "pull it" Larry Silverstein in 2003 and 2004. You will still find "truthers" implying that the leaseholder "won big" on 9/11 and that this was the reason the WTC complex was "demolished".

I can't recall exactly, but I believe there are roughly two dozen firms involved in the Silverstein Properties legal battles and I would imagine nearly all of them will use (or have used) this 2006 decision in their preparations.

Again, I have rarely encountered anyone as misinformed or presumptuous as mjd1982 on the internet--and I've seen a lot of misinformed and presumptuous folks. In mjd1982's weird world, all events have just three outcomes:

1] Deliberately supports the "power elites".
2] Ends capitalism entirely.
3] Is "insignificant".

You really have "droves" of admirers supporting that world-view?

[funk de fino]

I am supported by the polls. You are not. People on the street in Seattle means nothing, compared to the polls. They support me, they dont you.

If you dont have people on the street, and only have polls, you have lost.

The TM is a dodo.

Real movements for change actually get out on the streets and fight for what they believe in, they dont hide in forums acting like spoilt children because other people disagree wih them.

Polls mean absolutely zero

Nothing

Get over it

[Slayhamlet]

If you dont have people on the street, and only have polls, you have lost.

The TM is a dodo.

Real movements for change actually get out on the streets and fight for what they believe in, they dont hide in forums acting like spoilt children because other people disagree wih them.

Polls mean absolutely zero

Nothing

Get over it

Yes, it does seem the segment of the population with a strong predilection towards 9/11 Trutherism lacks the level of motivation one would think such a position (conviction?) entails.

[mjd1982]

If people on the street in Seattle mean nothing, why do you put so much stock in the alleged conversations you have with people on the street in your community?
You have missed the point. The opinion of the people is one thing- their activism is another. All we are looking at here is their opinion

[mjd1982]

What about the re-insurers themselves? Good grief, mjd1982, please try and find out what you're talking about before you denigrate a vital industry like that.

This may seem like a small point, but the MSM "corporate propaganda model" has also been derelict in reporting this gem: http://www.swissre.com/pws/media%20centre/news/news%20releases%202006/swiss%20re%20issues%20statement%20on%20wtc%20litig ation%20appeal%20confirmation.html. I figured that it wasn't over when the insurance trade papers excoriated the "pull it" Larry Silverstein in 2003 and 2004. You will still find "truthers" implying that the leaseholder "won big" on 9/11 and that this was the reason the WTC complex was "demolished".

I can't recall exactly, but I believe there are roughly two dozen firms involved in the Silverstein Properties legal battles and I would imagine nearly all of them will use (or have used) this 2006 decision in their preparations.

Again, I have rarely encountered anyone as misinformed or presumptuous as mjd1982 on the internet--and I've seen a lot of misinformed and presumptuous folks. In mjd1982's weird world, all events have just three outcomes:

1] Deliberately supports the "power elites".
2] Ends capitalism entirely.
3] Is "insignificant".

You really have "droves" of admirers supporting that world-view?
This is a swiss company- it is not relevant to a US power structure.

Please think before you write.

[mjd1982]

If you dont have people on the street, and only have polls, you have lost.

The TM is a dodo.

Real movements for change actually get out on the streets and fight for what they believe in, they dont hide in forums acting like spoilt children because other people disagree wih them.

Polls mean absolutely zero

Nothing

Get over it
Polls reflect public opinion. that is all i am using them for, for the mo

[mjd1982]

Yes, it does seem the segment of the population with a strong predilection towards 9/11 Trutherism lacks the level of motivation one would think such a position (conviction?) entails.
This may be so. This is a shame. But, for the moment, it is not relevant.

[milesalpha]

You have missed the point. The opinion of the people is one thing- their activism is another. All we are looking at here is their opinion

Are you suggesting that the activism of people who agree with your position is virtually non-existent? Can you provide an example of this happening with another issue? In every instance I can think of, as public support grew, so did the visible activism. Your argument is that truthers will answer polls but are otherwise lumps in their mother's basements. Hmmm, maybe that is believable.

[dudalb]

Pssst, it's spelled "Parliament". Not with an "a" as the final vowel.

Anyhow, I'd like to see a video of your speeches at Parliament Square with all your droves of admirers in attendance. Can you rustle one up and throw us a YouTube of yourself plying your trade?

I promise I won't laugh...much.


Actually some of the demonstrators I have seen on vacation in London around the Houses of Parliament serve a useful purpose..they keep the Tourists waiting in line to get in Westminster Abbey some free entertainment.

[sleahead]

Propaganda? It's very, very easy.

oO4xDxieqnI

[DGM]

Propaganda? It's very, very easy.

oO4xDxieqnI
MJD;
Is this you? You can tell us.

[SDC]

This may be so. This is a shame. But, for the moment, it is not relevant.

Poor Mjd's posts are looking tired; worn down; as if he has taken last weekend's widespread debacle to heart. I hate to see such a sprightly fellow become so deflated.

Come on, young sprat; if it will make you feel better to attack or abuse me, go ahead. Any theme you like.

I can take it. I've been married for 29 yrs 8 mos. To the same woman.

[MaGZ]

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.

Lefty,

Do you think there will be a revolution in this country?

[Bell]

Lefty,

Do you think there will be a revolution in this country?

Wasn't there supposed to be one a few days ago?

[MaGZ]

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

And for the same bloody reason.

Isn’t Dylan and Bremas Jewish?

Oh, I get it, the Protocols were written by Jews.

[Slayhamlet]

Isn’t Dylan and Bremas Jewish?

Oh, I get it, the Protocols were written by Jews.

Source?

Not that it matters in the real world, but I'm wondering whether you're simply trying to discredit them in your usual twisted way because you disagree with their conclusions (i.e., they don't blame the Jews enough).

[MaGZ]

Source?

Not that it matters in the real world, but I'm wondering whether you're simply trying to discredit them in your usual twisted way because you disagree with their conclusions (i.e., they don't blame the Jews enough).

You mean to tell me you can look at these two characters and not think Jew?

Is it an issue if they are Jewish?

Ha! discredit them. Isn’t the point of this entire forum to discredit them?

[Slayhamlet]

You mean to tell me you can look at these two characters and not think Jew?

No evidence, then?

Is it an issue if they are Jewish?

It is to you. Hence why I said it doesn't matter in the real world, but it does in regard to your twisted motives.

Ha! discredit them. Isn’t the point of this entire forum to discredit them?

Of course it is, but not by saying they must be Jewish, with the implication that Jews always lie. What a disgusting sack of filth you are.

[MaGZ]

No evidence, then?



It is to you. Hence why I said it doesn't matter in the real world, but it does in regard to your twisted motives.



Of course it is, but not by saying they must be Jewish, with the implication that Jews always lie. What a disgusting sack of filth you are.

Don’t you want to know if these two kids are Jewish? Why are you afraid to have an answer to this question? Why is this subject taboo?

[Pardalis]

MaGZ, mjd is not going to be happy that you are derailing his thread.

[MaGZ]

MaGZ, mjd is not going to be happy that you are derailing his thread.

Are they Jewish and does it matter? Why is everyone afraid to discuss this question?

[Slayhamlet]

Don’t you want to know if these two kids are Jewish? Why are you afraid to have an answer to this question? Why is this subject taboo?

It's not taboo. What the hell is wrong with you? Can't you read? I asked you to provide some evidence for why you think they are Jewish. You have not. Why?

And as I said, it makes no difference in the real world (i.e. to everybody but you and your fellow anti-Semites) whether they're Jewish or not. I will gladly acccept the fact that they are Jewish if you can show me some proof of this, but it looks to me like you're just making them out to be Jewish because you think them disagreeable, much as you do with Joseph Stalin.

[Civilized Worm]

It's not that we're afraid to discuss it, it's that WE DON'T CARE.

[stilicho]

This is a swiss company- it is not relevant to a US power structure.

Please think before you write.

Do you know anything about what you write? Or does it just flow effortlessly?

http://www.swissre.com/pws/investor%20relations/corporate%20reporting/annual%20reporting%202003/notes%20additional%20information%20on%20the%20fina ncial%20statements%20swiss%20reinsurance%20company %20zurich.html#Major%20shareholders

The majority shareholders of Swiss Re are not gay chocolate watchmakers from Switzerland. (By "gay" I mean "happy"). They are large American investment corporations including Franklin-Templeton and The Capital Group.

I have a feeling you are just playing--that you've never actually read anything about the insurance industry.

You never answer any questions. You are entirely wrong when you try these "Oscar Wilde" style putdowns. And you are proven so, over and over again.

Why do you keep on maintaining your presumptuousness when you have no idea at all what you're talking about?

[stateofgrace]

Polls reflect public opinion. that is all i am using them for, for the mo

Really ?

Well I reckon that aliens abduct people for kinky sexual experiments, don't argue with me, the polls I have shows that 25% of the public agree with me.

http://atheism.about.com/gi/pages/po...ll_sci0002.htm (http://atheism.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?poll_id=6618609637&linkback=http://atheism.about.com/library/polls/blpoll_sci0002.htm)

Think before you post sunbeam, you have zero to tiny support, unless you agree that a quarter of America agree with me, that’s some 75 million Americans by the way.

You have no more support for your insane theories than I do for my alien theory. Your polls do not reflect public opinion any more than mine does. Or will you join me and demand an investigation into aliens abducting people for kinky sexual experiments?

[mjd1982]

Do you know anything about what you write? Or does it just flow effortlessly?

http://www.swissre.com/pws/investor%20relations/corporate%20reporting/annual%20reporting%202003/notes%20additional%20information%20on%20the%20fina ncial%20statements%20swiss%20reinsurance%20company %20zurich.html#Major%20shareholders

The majority shareholders of Swiss Re are not gay chocolate watchmakers from Switzerland. (By "gay" I mean "happy"). They are large American investment corporations including Franklin-Templeton and The Capital Group.

I have a feeling you are just playing--that you've never actually read anything about the insurance industry.

You never answer any questions. You are entirely wrong when you try these "Oscar Wilde" style putdowns. And you are proven so, over and over again.

Why do you keep on maintaining your presumptuousness when you have no idea at all what you're talking about?
Why must I repeat everything to you time and time again? The major power structures in the US are the major corporate-political interest (the military industrial complex, as Eisenhower touched upon). The fact that there are some rich people who suffered from 9/11 is irrelevant- the major lobbyists- oil, arms, and the political establishment itself (these are the major power structures) have benefitted overwhelmingly. This is what matters.

[mjd1982]

Really ?

Well I reckon that aliens abduct people for kinky sexual experiments, don't argue with me, the polls I have shows that 25% of the public agree with me.

http://atheism.about.com/gi/pages/po...ll_sci0002.htm (http://atheism.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?poll_id=6618609637&linkback=http://atheism.about.com/library/polls/blpoll_sci0002.htm)

Think before you post sunbeam, you have zero to tiny support, unless you agree that a quarter of America agree with me, that’s some 75 million Americans by the way.

You have no more support for your insane theories than I do for my alien theory. Your polls do not reflect public opinion any more than mine does. Or will you join me and demand an investigation into aliens abducting people for kinky sexual experiments?
Oh boy... what is the basis for this poll? Where has it come from? What are you trying to illustrate by listing it?

[mjd1982]

MJD;
Is this you? You can tell us.
I dont know who that guy is, but he sure is pretty...

[Gravy]

MJD;
Is this you? You can tell us.Come on baby, do the loco Moshin.

[mjd1982]

Come on baby, do the loco Moshin.
uh oh, someone's showing their age...

[stateofgrace]

Oh boy... what is the basis for this poll? Where has it come from? What are you trying to illustrate by listing it?

So this poll does not reflect public opinion?

Remember,you said.........................


Polls reflect public opinion


Please think before you post sunbeam.

[mjd1982]

So this poll does not reflect public opinion?

Remember,you said.........................



Please think before you post sunbeam.
D-D-D-D-D-D-D-'UH BUNKER!!!

Whats the sampling methodology of that poll?

A strong suggestion that you remember Rule 12 and cease the name calling.

[mjd1982]

Sorry mate, just noticed I hadnt replied to this:

Not by definition, and "suggests" is about as decisive a verb as you can use there. (Certainly not "proves," and not "implies" or "provides strong evidence" either.)

There is a correlation between watermelon sales and fireworks accidents in the U.S.. What causality is suggested by this? Does watermelon cause fireworks accidents, or do fireworks accidents increase the demand for watermelon? Are these "suggestions" valid?


I think I addressed this in the post you are replying to here

[/quote]
There is, of course, the caveat of datamining, and coincidences, but when the correlation is supported by evident facts, some of whih are listed in my OP, then this makes this possibility unlikely.
[/quote]


Shuffling the approximately (conservatively) 20 billion dollars in total 9/11-caused insurance payouts (the WTC insurance is the tip of the iceberg) among different companies doesn't make it go away. It takes enormous organized corporate power to come up with 20 billion dollars of liquidity. And what about the banks, the stock brokerages, the entire major industry sectors that were also harmed?


But we know which are the most influential lobbies in Washington. The sectors in the military industrial complex. These are the interests which have benefitted from 9/11, these are the major power interests.

Note also that control of the major strategic assets should, in theory, aid the US economy- e.g. petrodollars propping up the currency, control of the oil supply etc. Thus 9/11 is, in the long term, in the interests of US companies, in theory, though they have screwed up the execution pretty bad.


You need to state how you define "the main power structures." What are the criteria you use to differentiate a "main power structure" from an interest that happens to have a lot of money or power but is not a "main power structure"? Note that as long as your only answer is "by whether or not they benefitted from 9/11," your assertion quoted immediately above is a meaningless tautology.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I have never used such a tautology. But your answer is above.

[stilicho]

Why must I repeat everything to you time and time again? The major power structures in the US are the major corporate-political interest (the military industrial complex, as Eisenhower touched upon). The fact that there are some rich people who suffered from 9/11 is irrelevant- the major lobbyists- oil, arms, and the political establishment itself (these are the major power structures) have benefitted overwhelmingly. This is what matters.
It sure isn't irrelevant to the people who did suffer at the hands of the terrorists on 9/11. At the same time, the American-led incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan had a very great effect on the "power elites" there. Didn't they?

But you're again veering off from your thesis--that the "corporate propaganda model" deliberately ignored ("censored" was your ill-advised term) WTC7. Meanwhile, as you've amply displayed, the same "corporate propaganda model" was just as inefficient at demonstrating to you that about the only things "Swiss" about Swiss Re are part of its name and the location of its head office.

So, the CPM is just as bad at advising you when you're wrong as it is of overthrowing the "power elites".

Whether these "power elites" have, in your words, benefitted overwhelmingly from the 9/11 attacks is up to debate. Your arguments are weak, in this sense, because they fail to account for the prestige the USA suffered as a consequence of the attacks. And its response--specifically in the case of Iraq but more and more in the case of Aghanistan and its relations with the governments ruling the states of the former Soviet Union. "Benefitted overwhelmingly" is an unsupportable hyperbole.

At the same time, there actually are mass media publications, resources, and journalists who are actively involved in either "exposing" or otherwise working contrary to the interests of the "power elite". I have referred to them several times on this thread and you simply ignore them because, I trust, you're afraid to admit that you're wrong.

There will be a time when the USA and its "power elites" are gone. Such a thing happened before, many times, throughout history. Generally this happens when another nation or power takes it away from them. All the "corporate propaganda" machines in the world wouldn't have saved the Abbasid Caliphate, the Paleologoi, or the Yuan Dynasty.

But the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were far too incidental, in an historical context, to provide any means to an end to how the world works. Do you think that they ought to have done so?

[twinstead]

I fear that mjd suffers from a common ailment, one that has also cursed the 'end of the world' people since ancient times.

Everybody thinks the important things that are happening in their time will be important as well in the future when things are taken into historical context and signify a major change in history or bring some prediction to fruition.

I suppose it's hard not to be a little myopic about 911 a scant 6 years later, but some people get carried away.

[DGM]

Looks like MJD "truth" has been censored! At least for 3 days

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2964293#post2964293

[Bell]

Looks like MJD "truth" has been censored! At least for 3 days

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2964293#post2964293

j00s!!! :mad:

[twinstead]

Looks like MJD "truth" has been censored! At least for 3 days

If he were a 'debunker' on LC, he would have been totally banned after 4 posts; he should count his blessings.

[stateofgrace]

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

Whats the sampling methodology of that poll?

A strong suggestion that you remember Rule 12 and cease the name calling.

Now, now, now MJD, there is not need to get all upset, we are just having a friendly debate after all.

Methodology?

You have used online polls to support your position that millions, in fact approx 120 million Americans support your position that 911 was an inside job, the vast majority support you, according to you.

I, sunbeam, have used the exact same methodology to support my position that aliens abduct people and perform kinky sexual experiments on them. 25% of the people polled support me. So by your methodology approx 75 million Americans support me.

Annoying isn't it?

[stilicho]

I fear that mjd suffers from a common ailment, one that has also cursed the 'end of the world' people since ancient times.

Everybody thinks the important things that are happening in their time will be important as well in the future when things are taken into historical context and signify a major change in history or bring some prediction to fruition.

I suppose it's hard not to be a little myopic about 911 a scant 6 years later, but some people get carried away.
That myopia is the secret behind the success of local nightly news programmes too, twinstead. It isn't some kind of nefarious "corporate propaganda model" that brings us kittens rescued from neighbourhood trees instead of what's "important".

At the same time, that's why we go to libraries, read books, talk to professionals in their fields, and attend colleges and universities to broaden our comprehension of the world and its various components.

We all might despair that "the others" are allowed to elect officials to positions of responsibility when their clearest view of the world is whether their favourite sports team won this week. But, as many of the "power elite" have been quoted as saying, it's a better system than the alternative(s).

Maybe we can all agree on this once mjd1982 returns from his vacation.

[metamars]

If you could replace market-driven capitalist media, what would you replace it with? To my knowledge the only other model that's ever existed in the real world is media controlled entirely by government and/or by other elites such as guilds, churches, and aristocracies, which is much worse (and protects power even more effectively and ruthlessly). But perhaps I'm overlooking something. Please point to either a real-world model you would emulate, or the details (perhaps a draft constitution) of the unprecedented improved alternative system you'd advocate.



My suggested alternative is linked to below. Admittedly, the thread is rambling, taken as a whole, but I like to think individual posts make sense.....

I don't intend to participate in this thread, though it is interesting. A couple of comments:

Not all self-censorship is good. E.g., the family in which child abuse is going on, and yet will not speak of it.

As far censorship and self-censorship in news organizations, see the documentary "The Corporation" and the books "
Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press" and "The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy ". In a society tending towards fascism in Mussolini's sense ( "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.") , political censorship and self-censorship overlaps economic censorship and self-censorship. How could it be otherwise?

=====================================

My boilerplate:

>> Putting the NY Times Out of Business <<
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media

I have posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.

Broadband access is now up to 42% in the US, so it is quite possible to target TELEVISION, which is how about 48% of Americans get 30+ minutes of news per day (as opposed to only about 9% over the internet). See http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=282

The thread is entitled: "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"

Link:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=76406

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED

[ihaunter]

Since mjd has a little extra time on his hands for a couple days, I wonder if he would consider an addition to his little "experiment." Before asking how many skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11, ask how many skyscrapers were in the WTC prior to the events of 9/11. I suspect there will be a direct correlation regarding who will get each question right.

This "experiment" is more about the psychology of information acquisition and retention than media censorship or propaganda. In a way, there is a type of censorship going on, but neither the government nor the media are doing it. It is the general populace. We only remember the things that are important to us* and disregard the rest.



*And ad jingles for products we have no intention of ever purchasing. Those things can be insidious. :D

[GreNME]

< preceeding stuff snipped >

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED

My largest problem with what you propose is that it is not unlike affiliate advertiser networking in one respect, and not unlike what already exists in another. I don't mean to state that in terms that might be considered pejorative, especially in comparing your proposition with something like affiliate advertising, but the model isn't dissimilar overall.

What you seem to be proposing is a distributed network of individual sources filtered together in different formats, depending on the distributor, in a manner that becomes mutually beneficial for the distributors, the individual sources, and ostensibly the viewers/readers/listeners. The flaw I find with this is that this is not much different than how news is currently assembled: agencies filled with numerous individual reporters who write material that is bought up by either network affiliates or local newspapers / radio / television on a case-by-case basis and presented to the public. The Associated Press, Reuters, BBC World News, National Public Radio-- they all do this stuff, and more than half of what you would read in your daily newspaper is likely to come from these sources. News agencies have ombudsmen that basically serve as the head of the "filtering" department that can present input on whether certain things should be allowed or not. The reason this is a flaw is because 'trust' isn't going to be enough of an impetus for maintaining valid reporting. While picking on FOX News (and rightly so) is all-the-rage in terms of news reporting that has lowered the bar on standards in journalism, the plain truth is that every agency out there, from the largest to the small local agencies, have allowed their standards to drop right along with the rest.

The affiliate advertising network model, on the other hand, is one often espoused by the "alternative" news agencies and some AM radio. This model, not unlike the previously mentioned model, relies on a large number of independent sources producing content that are then collected as per the agency's reporting objectives, often heavily linking the source material to produce the mutually beneficial 'affiliate' revenue flow. Two very notorious examples of this would be Rush Limbaugh, who constantly self-references and references only preferential information sources, and Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet network, in which every single broadcast that is freely available lets the listener or veiwer know that more information (though 'more' is typically synonymous with 'more of the same' in this case) is available if the viewer / listener goes to their website, which in turn links to further downloadable material, often only at a marginal cost, that claims to give a more full and absolute story. This differs from the larger network model in that those further materials also make citations and constant references to other materials, leading the viewer / listener who is convinced to search out the information to feel compelled to buy even more of the media, whether it be videos, radio tapings, a regularly-subscribed newsletter, or something else. This creates for the agency a constantly-revolving flow of revenue, even if the spending isn't done directly on the agency's product initially, because the network of sourced and linked media invariably comes back to the agency's list of products that are for sale, which link and source back to other affiliates, and vice versa.

Relating back to the OP as well, this is a problem I see with not only the over-used "mainstream media" outlets, but from the "truth" outlets as well. It is a mixture of affiliate networking and contributor-based reporting that is already filtered through departments that have been entrusted to maintain the claimed ethical integrity that is claimed by the original agency to begin with. Attempting to apply specific motivations across the entire genres is disingenuous at best, intellectually dishonest at worst, and plays on the assumed ignorance of the consuming population no matter what the degree of the attribution takes place. The problem with both over-arching models and pretty much any new model that may spring from it is that all of them attempt to remove the need for critical thinking from the equation by intending to supply what that model believes is what would be most pertinent information that would otherwise require critical thinking skills to get at in the first place. While every indication may seem that these models are intended to benevolently provide the 'necessary' information to the widest audience possible, the fact is that the sheer amount of data that must be processed on a daily basis either requires the viewer / listener / reader to engage in critical thinking from the beginning or expects to feed the viewer / listener / reader the post-processed information with little or no expectation of critical thinking on the part of the consumer at all. One method taken too far becomes too difficult to gain any traction with a consuming public, and the other method eventually must play to the lowest common denominator on a daily routine (and this FOX excells at doing).

I would like to say I don't mean to be overly critical of your thesis, metamars, but in truth I have to say that I've seen this play out already. Even user-driven models (like Slashdot and Digg) have pretty much become mature enough models that there is little question at their revenue-generating ability. The weaknesses and flaws for each lie not in the models themselves, but in the fact that human beings are, in fact, human beings. Because of this, the desire for presentation over content, flash over substance, and hype over critical thinking are going to be ever-present and powerful temptations. The question isn't going to be if an agency using these models will fall victim to the weaknesses, the question is when they will fall victim and how they can work their way out of it once it happens.

[metamars]

Your reply was serious enough, and directed to my post, so I've decided to reply.


What you seem to be proposing is a distributed network of individual sources filtered together in different formats, depending on the distributor, in a manner that becomes mutually beneficial for the distributors, the individual sources, and ostensibly the viewers/readers/listeners. The flaw I find with this is that this is not much different than how news is currently assembled: agencies filled with numerous individual reporters who write material that is bought up by either network affiliates or local newspapers / radio / television on a case-by-case basis and presented to the public.


Yes, but with a few key differences. First, no advertising is allowed, so censoring due to economic pressure from advertisers is non-existent (well, that's an exaggeration. There would probably be some pressure via threatened lawsuits). If you see the documentary "The Corporation", and then try to imagine a similar scenario wherein solid reporting on Bovine Growth Hormone is suppressed, you will have a lot of problems doing so.

Secondly, there is increased de-centralization, so I expect it to be harder to corrupt the system subtly via the placing, by well-funded entities with vested interests, of covert censors*. In an evironment like JREF, this concern is likely to be automatically treated with disbelief and scorn, but I certainly don't agree. Even if I were wrong, and there was 0 chance that big business, think tanks, intelligence agencies, and God knows who else might want to influence the news covertly, migrating to a structure that would make such a potential source of corruption more difficult can't hurt. If I take a vaccine for dengue fever, but never encounter a dengue fever pathogen, I will not regret my vaccination (unless there's mercury in it...)

There is another key difference, which addresses one of the key irritants with "the media" that got me thinking of this proposal. And that is, that subscribers can "vote with their hands" by directing micro-payments towards the covering of any topic of their choosing. You can't do that now, except indirectly via an irate letter to the editor. As far as I can tell, such letter merely provide venting, and if they've ever sparked the birth of investigative reporting, well, that's news to me.

Perhaps the most striking example of this are the stunning pronouncements that emanated from madcowprod.com. They are either extremely significant, and Hopsicker deserves a medal, OR they are sheer fiction, and Hopsicker deserves to be vilified. The question arises "Which is it?" and the answer is "I don't know". In a science such as physics, multiple experiments by independent researchers is the norm for verification. In the case of Hopsicker's claims, there is neither verification (AFAIK) nor falsification, hence neither the "conspiracy theorist" nor the "debunker" should feel at all confident in passing judgement on Hopsicker's work.



The Associated Press, Reuters, BBC World News, National Public Radio-- they all do this stuff, and more than half of what you would read in your daily newspaper is likely to come from these sources.


Yes, but how good do they do it? Wherever you have centralization, you have the potential for censorship (again, in the broad sense I define below.) And, unfortunately, in a world where lies are plentiful and never-ending, can even "good" factual reporting, which involves quoting official sources, be trusted when the official sources are lying their tails off? This lying would be made much more obvious if new stories were placed in proper context with contradictory facts and quotes.

Fortunately, rather than just speaking to this subject abstractly, there is a partial, and fair, example of what I had in mind. I am speaking of therealnews.com, which is still being born, but will exist via subscription, and will give a more accurate picture of our world than what we have now. They will certainly not accomplish this by over reliance on news-wires, as you have mentioned.

However, if they were to create their own news-wire service, why should that not eventually be a source for other media vehicles, should they indeed come to be trusted beyond Reuters, et. al.?



The affiliate advertising network model, on the other hand, is one often espoused by the "alternative" news agencies and some AM radio. This model, not unlike the previously mentioned model, relies on a large number of independent sources producing content that are then collected as per the agency's reporting objectives, often heavily linking the source material to produce the mutually beneficial 'affiliate' revenue flow. Two very notorious examples of this would be Rush Limbaugh, who constantly self-references and references only preferential information sources, and Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet network, in which every single broadcast that is freely available lets the listener or viewer know that more information (though 'more' is typically synonymous with 'more of the same' in this case) is available if the viewer / listener goes to their website,


No, not what I had in mind. In it's pure form, advertising is forbidden completely, though practical constraints may dictate otherwise.

At the end of the day, though, in a free society, you should be able to pick whatever filters and sources pleases you, and if you really believe that Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones are the cat's meow of objectivity, truth, and fairness, there's not much I can do about it. Any more than I can do much about people restricting themselves to these individuals right now.

However, I think that gentle exposure to facts contradicting one's world view can eventually make one aware as to the limitations of whatever ideological (and non-ideological) blinders are being worn by whatever sources of news and commentary that one has put one's trust in. This is discussed somewhat in Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth. http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/FaultyTowersofBeliefPart_I.pdf Though I wish the author hadn't used the word "demolish", and it's focus is 911, in point of fact it has relevance far beyond 911.

There is a tough constraint to trying to overcome inherent biases, in that human beings are inherently subjective, and this is also true of ostensibly hyper-rational types. I don't want to get into this - it's too big a subject. Suffice it to say that my proposal is meant to ameliorate the current mess we have now, and can't totally overcome frailties of the human psyche that, in large part, may well derive from biological factors. Total solutions are the domain of complete idealists, and I am not a member of such a group. For more info, you might start your reading with the chapter in E.O. Wilson's "On Human Nature" dealing with religion.

So, if alternatives developed enough, I would hope that numerous sources of news and commentary of the quality that I hope 'The REAL News' will manifest should eventually allow large numbers of citizens to inquisitively approach the real world beyond whatever ideological predispositions they may have.



The problem with both over-arching models and pretty much any new model that may spring from it is that all of them attempt to remove the need for critical thinking from the equation by intending to supply what that model believes is what would be most pertinent information that would otherwise require critical thinking skills to get at in the first place.


No, you are taking a very pessimistic viewpoint. It is not so cut-and-dried as this. By analogy, consider the case of a consumer and financial advisor. If the consumer seeks a financial advisor, they should find one that they both can trust (otherwise, why even bother with them, at all?) but also one that they can question, and, upon questioning, be provided with answers that make sense to them. It'd be nice to have such complete trust in a financial advisor - both as to their character and their competence - that the consumer feels that no questions ever need be asked.

However, I think anybody who assumes that even a domain expert with an impeccable character cannot make mistakes is being rather foolish. To err is human, and that's just the way it is. And collections of humans, within organizations such as government and news agencies, are also prone to err.

So, nobody is claiming that critical thinking is be dispensed with. On the contrary, subscribers should be able to easily "vote with their feet", not just "vote with their hands". Whether they feel betrayed by a filtering agent, or whether they simply conclude that they are incompetent or biased (perhaps unconsciously), they can and should fire them and get another that they can trust.



* a "censor", as I am using the term, can mean not just somebody engaged in outright and total suppression of a story, but also somebody who leaves out key elements or, perhaps, merely de-emphasizes key elements of a story. It can also mean somebody who de-emphasizes a story by not publishing an appropriate amount of followup stories - i.e., not giving the story "legs".

In a nutshell, it means somebody who will slant their presentation of the news so as to satisfy an agenda.

[twinstead]

In a nutshell, it means somebody who will slant their presentation of the news so as to satisfy an agenda.

In a nutshell, that pretty much goes for ANYBODY. The question is how does one go about finding something that isn't slanted towards an agenda, especially given the obvious bias one has toward things that support ones world view?

[Z]

If advertising were not allowed, how would the news source be financed?

[HereticHulk]

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.

:D The irony!

[GreNME]

Your reply was serious enough, and directed to my post, so I've decided to reply.
I'm new here, so I am not in on some of the local memes as of yet, but while I appreciate you taking what I said seriously I find your wording here to be phrased in such a way that I find off-putting. If this is simply an odd method of welcoming, then thank you and I apologize for suspicion. If otherwise, I would suggest in good faith that we simply assume we are both going to take each other seriously from the start, until or unless something comes up that would lead us to believe otherwise.

Yes, but with a few key differences. First, no advertising is allowed, so censoring due to economic pressure from advertisers is non-existent (well, that's an exaggeration. There would probably be some pressure via threatened lawsuits). If you see the documentary "The Corporation", and then try to imagine a similar scenario wherein solid reporting on Bovine Growth Hormone is suppressed, you will have a lot of problems doing so.
I'm not going to go reference a documentary that you have not seen in order to make a point when I am engaging you directly. I would appreciate if you could do me the same service. If you think there is a business model and not an ideological model for news agencies to be able to pay the bills in your scenatio, please respond and explain to me how this could be realistically envisioned in the world we have today.

Secondly, there is increased de-centralization, so I expect it to be harder to corrupt the system subtly via the placing, by well-funded entities with vested interests, of covert censors*. In an evironment like JREF, this concern is likely to be automatically treated with disbelief and scorn, but I certainly don't agree. Even if I were wrong, and there was 0 chance that big business, think tanks, intelligence agencies, and God knows who else might want to influence the news covertly, migrating to a structure that would make such a potential source of corruption more difficult can't hurt. If I take a vaccine for dengue fever, but never encounter a dengue fever pathogen, I will not regret my vaccination (unless there's mercury in it...)
Your vaccination allegory is a misdirection of information that was completely unnecessary. That is about the only response I could give to it in the context of what I'm talking about and I encourage you to refrain from using such metaphors unless you can more clearly state the relevance, as it comes close to a tautology of using one alleged conspiracy to support the evidence of another, which is a completely separate discussion from the one I believe we are having at the moment.

You are leaving out the most important aspect of dissemination of media, and that would be a distribution model. Quite literally, the method for allocating air time, bandwidth, radio frequencies, and so on. If your nebulous "big business" isn't going to be the conduit for distribution, what is? Whether you are willing to admit it or not, and we can address this along the way if you are up for it, but everyone has a vested interest in something. People are not going to work hard at presenting something they don't believe in or aren't getting paid very well to produce. From the examples of individuals in my previous post, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones wouldn't produce what they do if it were not something they either believed in to a large degree and/or didn't produce for them a salary that provided them suitably. In both cases one could argue that both stipulations apply to them.

There is another key difference, which addresses one of the key irritants with "the media" that got me thinking of this proposal. And that is, that subscribers can "vote with their hands" by directing micro-payments towards the covering of any topic of their choosing. You can't do that now, except indirectly via an irate letter to the editor. As far as I can tell, such letter merely provide venting, and if they've ever sparked the birth of investigative reporting, well, that's news to me.
This is demonstrably false. This falls clearly into the realm of broadcasting media like the BBC in the UK as well as many programs of those like Alex Jones, not to mention it is the bread and butter of affiliate advertising. I urge you to look up how UK radio broadcasting is distributed and the fees associated with it to the consumers. Jones would not produce what does not sell, and is most adamant in his self-advertising to focus on his productions that he feels are most relevant to current events and, as such, are going to most likely sell to his audience. Affiliate networking simply uses the method of throwing spaghetti on a wall and seeing what sticks, and then producing more of the same.

Perhaps the most striking example of this are the stunning pronouncements that emanated from madcowprod.com. They are either extremely significant, and Hopsicker deserves a medal, OR they are sheer fiction, and Hopsicker deserves to be vilified. The question arises "Which is it?" and the answer is "I don't know". In a science such as physics, multiple experiments by independent researchers is the norm for verification. In the case of Hopsicker's claims, there is neither verification (AFAIK) nor falsification, hence neither the "conspiracy theorist" nor the "debunker" should feel at all confident in passing judgement on Hopsicker's work.
Summarize the questions he's asked, please. I will say that comparing POV media presentation (news) to physics research (science) is an apples-to-oranges scenario, and as such falls short of making a point other than to claim that news is not independently verified and tested before being presented to the public. If that's the case, then the thousands of people employed as fact-checkers for various media outlets don't exist despite their claims to the contrary.

As an aside, this is the second time in your response to me that you have hard-sold the work of someone else as part of your response. You aren't just citing it to me, you are aassuming that this thing you have watched or read is something ubiquitous that I either should have already read / seen / heard of or something I should go view / listen to right now. I am encouraging you to take the ideas and insights you feel you have gained from these things and put them into words to me instead of requiring me to go view / listen to them. The reason I am encouraging this is because if you feel you cannot put across the ideas or insights in a compelling or cogent manner, then perhaps you should go back to researching the ideas and methodologies discussed in those productions until you feel that you sufficiently can do so. The producers of those things aren't here right now-- you are. If you are saying something you feel I am missing, then let me know what it is so that I don't repeat the mistake.

The Associated Press, Reuters, BBC World News, National Public Radio-- they all do this stuff, and more than half of what you would read in your daily newspaper is likely to come from these sources.
Yes, but how good do they do it?
That is a subjective question. In my personal opinion, some do it better than others, but they all do it better than agencies who can't afford the resources to place reporters in parts of the world where they can cover things as close to the things taking place as possible.

Wherever you have centralization, you have the potential for censorship (again, in the broad sense I define below.) And, unfortunately, in a world where lies are plentiful and never-ending, can even "good" factual reporting, which involves quoting official sources, be trusted when the official sources are lying their tails off? This lying would be made much more obvious if new stories were placed in proper context with contradictory facts and quotes.
You are making assumptions that every case is a lie and that it is all censorship. You are further making an assumption that it is all centralized. If it were centralized, there would be more uniformity of messages when there is clearly not. Instead, what we have is a cacaphony of messages that all claim to have the best point of view and very few having the ability or forum through which to present any of it in a time frame that would allow for sufficient contextual presentation.

Fortunately, rather than just speaking to this subject abstractly, there is a partial, and fair, example of what I had in mind. I am speaking of therealnews.com, which is still being born, but will exist via subscription, and will give a more accurate picture of our world than what we have now. They will certainly not accomplish this by over reliance on news-wires, as you have mentioned.
Hard-sell number three. I am now keeping a tally. Subscription news services that are not presented through print media (meaning basically on the internet) have, on the whole, not been very successful for the companies producing them. Additionally, if such an agency presents enough news that its subscribers dislike, the chances are likely that subscribers will begin disappearing, which would lead the provider to adjust its content in order to retain as many subscribers as possible. This is not unlike a number of existing outlets today-- vested interests still exist and the buck still stops at accounts payable.

However, if they were to create their own news-wire service, why should that not eventually be a source for other media vehicles, should they indeed come to be trusted beyond Reuters, et. al.?
I don't know, why not? Reuters itself is exactly what you describe, except it doesn't just provide subscription to its news wire to consumers, it provides regular subscriptions for news agencies to reprint their material (which is the bulk of their revenue).

The affiliate advertising network model, on the other hand, is one often espoused by the "alternative" news agencies and some AM radio. This model, not unlike the previously mentioned model, relies on a large number of independent sources producing content that are then collected as per the agency's reporting objectives, often heavily linking the source material to produce the mutually beneficial 'affiliate' revenue flow. Two very notorious examples of this would be Rush Limbaugh, who constantly self-references and references only preferential information sources, and Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet network, in which every single broadcast that is freely available lets the listener or viewer know that more information (though 'more' is typically synonymous with 'more of the same' in this case) is available if the viewer / listener goes to their website,
No, not what I had in mind. In it's pure form, advertising is forbidden completely, though practical constraints may dictate otherwise.
I will now reference the tally I have of your hard-selling other material as my argument that this is exactly what you had in mind, but were perhaps unaware of what already exists. Advertising doesn't necessarily entail selling soap or automobiles or dishwashers, it is just as often a self-referencing or affiliate-referencing mechanism to create a revenue flow. There is no example of this "pure form" you are talking about, because it doesn't exist. It is an imaginary creature that has no real-world equivalent.

At the end of the day, though, in a free society, you should be able to pick whatever filters and sources pleases you, and if you really believe that Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones are the cat's meow of objectivity, truth, and fairness, there's not much I can do about it. Any more than I can do much about people restricting themselves to these individuals right now.
You mean the free society that we exist in today? Because that is exactly the case in this day and age despite claims to the contrary.

However, I think that gentle exposure to facts contradicting one's world view can eventually make one aware as to the limitations of whatever ideological (and non-ideological) blinders are being worn by whatever sources of news and commentary that one has put one's trust in. This is discussed somewhat in Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth. <link removed due to posting restrictions on new users> Though I wish the author hadn't used the word "demolish", and it's focus is 911, in point of fact it has relevance far beyond 911.
Hard-sell number four, but I'll give it only a half-sell since you used it in a relevant manner to the point you were making. I agree that exposure to a larger world than exists in our backyards or social circles is not only enlightening, but is edifying in a way that gives us a better position from which to make decisions that affect us directly in our own personal worlds. the problem is that there is no example of "gently" exposing people to this who have no desire to be exposed to it. For example, in a perfect world the learning of a different language than one's native tongue would simply be a matter of everyday life, and yet this isn't the case in places like the US. So, in the hope of being available to distribution to as wide a population as possible, most distributors make available their material in US English. Sure, there is programming you can get that is done in languages like Hindi, Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, and more, but those are far fewer and exposing people who don't speak those languages to them doesn't offer very much to them. I can attest, for example, that Spanish and Arabic programming offers points of view that are not only noticably different than what you see in most American media, but provide context outside of general American life in most respects so as to give much better pictures of some issues that are covered by their news services. This is something already available to the average American citizen, but good luck getting them to go through the trouble of learning a whole new language so that they can parse it.

There is a tough constraint to trying to overcome inherent biases, in that human beings are inherently subjective, and this is also true of ostensibly hyper-rational types. I don't want to get into this - it's too big a subject. Suffice it to say that my proposal is meant to ameliorate the current mess we have now, and can't totally overcome frailties of the human psyche that, in large part, may well derive from biological factors. Total solutions are the domain of complete idealists, and I am not a member of such a group. For more info, you might start your reading with the chapter in E.O. Wilson's "On Human Nature" dealing with religion.
I agree that "total" solutions are the realm of idealists, but I would add that "total" problems are generally the realm of such idealists as well. My entire point to you so far is that what you are attempting to propose is not something that doesn't already exist, and that in fact it exists within the realm that you claim to see a problem that needs addressing in the first place.

So, if alternatives developed enough, I would hope that numerous sources of news and commentary of the quality that I hope 'The REAL News' will manifest should eventually allow large numbers of citizens to inquisitively approach the real world beyond whatever ideological predispositions they may have.
There is no one "The REAL News" because there is no single over-arching "truth" that everyone can agree on. If "truth" were something that everyone could come to an agreement on, there would be far less conflict in the world in the first place. This is the number one problem I have with the use of "truth" in the first place, and why I personally view with suspicion those who attempt to frame something to me as an absolute truth.

The problem with both over-arching models and pretty much any new model that may spring from it is that all of them attempt to remove the need for critical thinking from the equation by intending to supply what that model believes is what would be most pertinent information that would otherwise require critical thinking skills to get at in the first place.
No, you are taking a very pessimistic viewpoint. It is not so cut-and-dried as this. By analogy, consider the case of a consumer and financial advisor. If the consumer seeks a financial advisor, they should find one that they both can trust (otherwise, why even bother with them, at all?) but also one that they can question, and, upon questioning, be provided with answers that make sense to them. It'd be nice to have such complete trust in a financial advisor - both as to their character and their competence - that the consumer feels that no questions ever need be asked.
No, I'm taking a very realistic viewpoint that is based on how things actually are. This is based in part from those I know who have at some point worked in the advertising field-- and now hate the field as a whole as it has soured them with its lowest-common-denominator mentality-- and in part from something you touch on with your analogy. Using your analogy, I am saying that one should only use a financial advisor that can demonstrably show results. The alternative is using any advisor who can sell you their services sufficiently. The current model of advertising is focused on presentation, or selling you services with their presentation. Financial advisory is a perfect example of this, what with the multitude of different kinds of financial advice advertising that one could find out there. I could provide for you a few relatively decent advertisements from some financial website that tends to have a good reputation, and based on the reputation of the site that advertisment might hold more wieght to you than some advertisement for the kind of 'advice' like that fellow I've seen on late-night television who claims his guide gives you all the information you need to have to get "free money" from government grants. However, I couldn't make an assumption that one would hold more weight to you than the other unless you have previously visited the financial site I mentioned first, because the only other option is for you to make your own decision based on the presentation of each advertisement. In such an example, I could tell you right now that the former would be more realistic and a better investment than the latter, but since you don't know me from Adam that still leaves you deciding solely on presentation.

Basically, without context you have to rely on the advertiser to convince you that what they are selling is worth it, and it is in their best interests to convince you as fully as possible in as short a time as possible. Such a scenario almost always precludes the opportunity to provide context, which is what will be most valuable to you as the target of the advertisement to posess, and frankly it's difficult to fit a whole lot of context within a 30-second commercial spot. ;)

However, I think anybody who assumes that even a domain expert with an impeccable character cannot make mistakes is being rather foolish. To err is human, and that's just the way it is. And collections of humans, within organizations such as government and news agencies, are also prone to err.
Woah, woah. Who made such an assumption? I certainly didn't. Why this statement of redirection from anything I said in the first place?

So, nobody is claiming that critical thinking is be dispensed with.
Non sequitur. No one has argued as much. In fact, the only thing I said is that the models you present, in the forms that exist today, critical thinking takes a backseat to time slots and the widest possible distribution. :)

On the contrary, subscribers should be able to easily "vote with their feet", not just "vote with their hands". Whether they feel betrayed by a filtering agent, or whether they simply conclude that they are incompetent or biased (perhaps unconsciously), they can and should fire them and get another that they can trust.
Do you understand the ratings system as it exists today? What you describe is exactly the argument used to implement ratings systems like the Neilsens, what basically fuel the entertainment review genre, and pretty much dictate why radio companies pay premiums for certain frequencies over others, including different frequency bands (like FM/AM).

You are describing things that already exist, you are simply attempting to apply different verbiage to the names of these things and call it something new. I know and understand that this is totally not what you mean to do. It is not your intention in the least, from what I can tell of what you've written. That simply does not change the fact that it is still exactly what you are doing.

I have every indication that you are doing this inadvertently because you have not up to this point been given a full enough picture on how the different media outlets and news agencies operate, what goes into their operations, and what different models out there already exist in their various forms. The impression that I am getting from what you've written is that you strongly feel that something needs to change, that you've seen some stuff out there that dovetails very nicely with some of the general ideas you have that something needs to change, but that you have not yet been privy to the kind of information on how these different operations to work in order to give you a context from which to assemble a framework for the something you feel needs changing in the first place. I get the feeling behind your proposal... I really do. What I am telling you is that the model you believe is something that offers change does not, in fact, offer change at all.

In a nutshell, it means somebody who will slant their presentation of the news so as to satisfy an agenda.
This describes everyone and no one. This describes an organizational flaw, not a type of person. If this phenomenon didn't exist, laws would be the same around the world and human beings would have little need for lawyers-- an idealistic and utopian concept (considering the etymology for the word "utopia" means "nowhere"). :)

[metamars]

This is demonstrably false. This falls clearly into the realm of broadcasting media like the BBC in the UK as well as many programs of those like Alex Jones, not to mention it is the bread and butter of affiliate advertising.

I find this hard to swallow. Did you read the entire thread in which I posted my proposal?

I've been to both the BBC web site, as well as the Alex Jones web sites, and I don't remember any facility with which I could both suggest a topic of investigation, so as to encourage investigative reporters (or entities employing same) to post a project towards that specific end which I chose for micro-funding (I envision monthly subscription payments, so the micro-funding would be on the same schedule). I believe that the example I gave was rent-a-coder (or perhaps eguru.com or some such) Nor do I remember any such facility for selecting projects which are already posted, and have begun accumulating funds.

If you had read my proposal's thread through, you should be aware that there is progress towards this end being made, as described in newassignment.net. I certainly don't get that impression from your post, though.

I just checked and, much as I expected, there is also mention of micro-payments:


http://newassignment.net/blog/david_cohn/aug2007/28/innocentive_and_

The basis of the model is micropayments. Independent journalists post what investigations they want to begin. With the potential investigations posted, individual readers can then decide to donate $10 or so to the investigation they are most interested in. If 300 people donate $10 you have $3,000. That’s not a bad monthly wage for an independent journalist.



Of course, everybody can send email to BBC or Alex Jones asking for this or that, but what if they are not interested? Furthermore, what if you do not trust either the BBC or Alex Jones? Why should you not have the freedom to chose another entity or investigator? Hopefully, one with a track record (say a Robert Fisk or Greg Palast.)

[stilicho]

Of course, everybody can send email to BBC or Alex Jones asking for this or that, but what if they are not interested? Furthermore, what if you do not trust either the BBC or Alex Jones? Why should you not have the freedom to chose another entity or investigator? Hopefully, one with a track record (say a Robert Fisk or Greg Palast.)
I have mentioned, in this thread, that Greg Palast actually can be read in the mainstream corporate media. So can Naomi Klein. So could have Marshall McLuhan and Ivan Illich, in their lifetimes. That's naming just a few alternative voices widely recognised through their work in the "corporate propaganda" venue.

Mainstream newspapers like the San Jose Mercury News have even been criticised for being too biased the "wrong" way. (Source: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=15&x_outlet=128&x_article=444 ).

I wonder what people on this thread who are critical of the way the news is presented are really looking for. Is it, perhaps, a muzzling of our choices in what we buy and read?

[metamars]

I have mentioned, in this thread, that Greg Palast actually can be read in the mainstream corporate media.

Irrelevant. Oh, and by the way, I'm quite aware that the colorful Palast works for the BBC, as he often reminds us of this.

The point of mentioning Palast and Fisk is that they have some name-recognition, some people trust them specifically, and thus such people might be quite happy to micro-fund them, as opposed to somebody who they'd never heard of before.

In my case, I'd rather micro-fund either a Palast or a Fisk to verify or debunk the work of Hopsicker, as opposed to giving my money to somebody unknown to me.

When can we expect either the BBC or the Guardian to fund such an investigation, using any of their reporters?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

If something out of the ordinary happens around the time and/or place a traumatic event occurs, the masses will be hard pressed to not connect the two things. A common problem with coincidences. Especially troubling considering that people get distracted around these events, make uncommon mistakes, act abnormally, and say odd things. Strange things happen because people are freaked out, not because they're in on some grand conspiracy.

Thinking the rich and powerful are to blame when traumatic events occur is just everyday jealousy, hatred, and spite.

[GreNME]

I find this hard to swallow. Did you read the entire thread in which I posted my proposal?
I'll counter your question of my integrity with a question of my own: have you been carefully reading everything I'm saying instead of trying to look for ways in which you can dance around my main point?

I've been to both the BBC web site, as well as the Alex Jones web sites, and I don't remember any facility with which I could both suggest a topic of investigation, so as to encourage investigative reporters (or entities employing same) to post a project towards that specific end which I chose for micro-funding (I envision monthly subscription payments, so the micro-funding would be on the same schedule). I believe that the example I gave was rent-a-coder (or perhaps eguru.com or some such) Nor do I remember any such facility for selecting projects which are already posted, and have begun accumulating funds.
First, BBC does not equal the whole of the UK broadcast model. I told you to look at the UK broadcast model and learn how it differs from the USA broadcast model. You see, had you done that simpe little thing and looked into it, you would have found that the public pays regular broadcasting fees for things like radio. However, the model it is today is more a hybrid of commercial interests (advertising as revenue), public funding (think of it like a 'radio tax'), and subsidy. Internet access, even (especially) broadband internet access, is paid for not by monthly fees but by how much traffic is passed for most of the First World in Europe. As a matter of fact, the US is one of the few countries where internet customers seem to have an assumption of no bandwidth caps on their internet services.

I point all of these out because they are indicative of user-funded models, all rely heavily on the public that is consuming their products to remain a viable presence in the market. Nothing you have suggested and nothing that you think is covered in your proposal implies anything newer than these models which have been around for quite some time.

If you had read my proposal's thread through, you should be aware that there is progress towards this end being made, as described in newassignment.net. I certainly don't get that impression from your post, though.

I just checked and, much as I expected, there is also mention of micro-payments: <snipped quote from other website>
All you are doing here is supporting my earlier accusation that you are not aware of the details behind the industry your proposal is allegedly supposed to offer something new for. Public funded news media exists everywhere already, whether it be public radio (PRI, NPR, local stations), public television networks (they vary per broadcast range), and numerous public-access stations for television and radio (hey, guess who got his start there-- Mr. A. Jones, as a matter of fact).

Even this 'newassignment.net' site isn't anything new. There are loads of user-contributed news/op-ed/review websites out there, and they have existed for years. This is why I am telling you that you are quite possibly not aware of what mechanisms actually exist out there and how these things actually work, because otherwise you would already see how the earlier comparisons I've made to the model you describe with the likes of 'newassignment.net' is basically the affiliate networking model. Even more, it is that model almost verbatim, simply using different vocabulary that says the same thing while sounding different.

I really don't mean to be patronizing to you, but how many times are we going to do this "well, what about this?" dance with your examples and me pointing out how it is a mirror of pre-existing models? I really am trying to seriously give you an honest review of your ideas and giving you the benefit of the doubt that the areas I see that display a general ignorance of the industry are simply due to lack of experience or study on your part. I am not calling you stupid (I don't think you are), I am not saying you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty (I think you are sincere), but I also am telling you that you have simply not done enough study into this field to know how and why what you are suggesting is built on untenable notions that have already existed and now exist in hybrid forms throughout different media. I am not saying that you have zero understanding, I am pointing out to you that you very likely have too little for the scale and scope of the proposition you are attempting to make to cover adequately.

Of course, everybody can send email to BBC or Alex Jones asking for this or that, but what if they are not interested? Furthermore, what if you do not trust either the BBC or Alex Jones? Why should you not have the freedom to chose another entity or investigator? Hopefully, one with a track record (say a Robert Fisk or Greg Palast.)
This freedom you speak of already exists, so what do you want to change?

[GreNME]

In my case, I'd rather micro-fund either a Palast or a Fisk to verify or debunk the work of Hopsicker, as opposed to giving my money to somebody unknown to me.
This is no different than most everyone else. People want to put their money toward name recognition and names they trust. Names you know and trust don't typically get that way by doing anything differently than everyone else. They get that way by doing so more efficiently and adequately than everyone else. But do you honestly not see the role that advertising and affiliations have played in giving the individuals you know and trust most the recognition and status that they have today? :)

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

If advertising were not allowed, how would the news source be financed?

That's why I get all my unbiased news from poorly xeroxed pamphlets handed to me on the street by strange men with beards! You know they MUST be on the level!

[twinstead]

That's why I get all my unbiased news from poorly xeroxed pamphlets handed to me on the street by strange men with beards! You know they MUST be on the level!

Wow. I thought I was the only one.

[dudalb]

The truth is that "Alternate" news sources are just as reflective of people's biases as That Evil Demon The MainStream Media.
And Palast and Fisk are two people I would never trust for news since both have their own Hard Left Wing Agendas to push..and push them they do.
The Free Market is not perfect,but it has worked better then anything else.

[Myriad]

My suggested alternative is linked to below. Admittedly, the thread is rambling, taken as a whole, but I like to think individual posts make sense.....

I don't intend to participate in this thread, though it is interesting. A couple of comments:

Not all self-censorship is good. E.g., the family in which child abuse is going on, and yet will not speak of it.

As far censorship and self-censorship in news organizations, see the documentary "The Corporation" and the books "
Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press" and "The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy ". In a society tending towards fascism in Mussolini's sense ( "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.") , political censorship and self-censorship overlaps economic censorship and self-censorship. How could it be otherwise?

=====================================

My boilerplate:

>> Putting the NY Times Out of Business <<
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media

I have posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.

Broadband access is now up to 42% in the US, so it is quite possible to target TELEVISION, which is how about 48% of Americans get 30+ minutes of news per day (as opposed to only about 9% over the internet). See http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=282

The thread is entitled: "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"

Link:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=76406

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED


Hi metamars,

I'm going to keep this short as you're already discussing this with others in this thread and for the first part I'm content to follow along. I just have a few comments.

First of all, I wanted to thank you for addressing my question in the first place, and in exactly the form I asked for (to wit, a reasonably detailed plan). I didn't think anyone would. Certainly mjd didn't. Perhaps he'll have comments on your ideas.

Second, most of these ideas are reasonably familiar. See, for instance, Scott McCloud's "Reinventing Comics" for plans and predictions for how a similar stuctural change might affect the business and creative aspects of the comics industry. The concept essentially boils down to micropayments that permit reduction in the roles of middlemen.

One problem I see with your plan as currently written is the lack of a definition of "advertising." To have any hope of excluding it, you do have to define it (consider, for instance, astroturfing). But I think you'll find that's extremely difficult. And as a content creator the thought of perhaps having to somehow prove that I'm not being paid by anyone to say what I'm saying sounds like a heavier burden than any that exist on content creators now, and the judges who would decide such cases (with the penalty, presumably, being exclusion from the whole "system") sound like more frightening figures than any authorities that exist now.

Another aspect of your plan I take issue with is the repeated empasis on turning written content into audio and video streams. This is counterproductive, value subtracted because it takes many times longer to "read" (except in some cases where informative graphics can be added, but that's a much trickier task and in most cases the original author would be the best person to do, or supervise, the work).

A fundamental possible weakness in your whole analysis is the apparent underlying assumption that concentration of vast arrays of sources of media content into highly filtered "mass media" phenomena is entirely an artifact of concentraion of editorial decision-making in conjunction with editorial agendas. This overlooks the important fact that for many purposes, more widely known content is intrinsically more valuable to the individual. For instance, fifteen-year-old girls don't want to choose from among the 10,000 talented pop bands out there. They want to be listening to the same music their friends are (or better yet, soon will be) listening to. Their value move is therefore to find the largest filter/concentrator of trends in music, and help make it larger. That filter/concentrator will thereby acquire make-or-break power over artists who aspire to that market, and there's nothing your system can do to prevent that, short of refusing to give all those fifteen-year-old girls what they want (so, of course, they'll go elsewhere). Similarly, a large part of the vaule of watching a football game or a TV series is knowing that many of your friends or co-workers will have watched it too.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Oxigen]

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

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

:D

Yes, and by those articulate comments, I take it that you are not racist towards the Irish and the Scots. Please read Chomsky, Parenti, Mc Chesney and Herman as mjd 1982 has suggested,

I have only mentioned in a previous post that most Europeans would be up to date on these issues. If that offends your sensibilities, then I an sorry.

[SDC]

Yes, and by those articulate comments, I take it that you are not racist towards the Irish and the Scots. Please read Chomsky, Parenti, Mc Chesney and Herman as mjd 1982 has suggested,

I have only mentioned in a previous post that most Europeans would be up to date on these issues. If that offends your sensibilities, then I an sorry.

You are "an sorry" fellow indeed. I regret that I don't recognize the dialect, but perhaps "an" is a variant of "ane" or "one"... And my knowledge of English historical dialects is now all used up.

Europeans are no more "up to date on these issues" than Americans are. Or even Canadians. It is too bad, but that is human nature. Have you read any of them, by the way? Please provide chapter and verse for your favorite passages.

By the way, Chomsky dismisses Trutherians. Someone-who-shall-not-be-named said, I think that he figured he could bring Chomsky around with a little more effort, but I won't bet the farm on that one.

[Oxigen]

You're reduced to highlighting a typo, congratulations, Even I cannot be bothered with that,

[SDC]

You're reduced to highlighting a typo, congratulations, Even I cannot be bothered with that,

Sorry, I thought you were using an obscure reference. On another thread recently, someone referred to "old Bill running about" and I had to get a translator who spoke UK English (southern edition). Nothing wrong with obscure references. I toss in Russian, Polish, and the like frequently; my own obsession.

But really if you are going to trumpet the superiority of European (defined however you please) levels of education and current awareness, you are going to have to write a little bit more clearly and precisely. Otherwise it looks silly.

[Oxigen]

I'm not trumpeting anything. Just taking exception to a racist post.

[Z]

Hardly racist at all. If you want to trumpet European superiority to the Americans, at least use some proper language, and take a second to proof your own posts.

But we've had experience here with a couple of Scots and Irish posters, and they definitely put education, language, etc. on the back burner in favor of their bloated egos. 'They' here refers to those particular posters - not Scots and Irish in general.

(BTW - I'm 1/8 Irish myself, and possibly part Scots, so you can take your charges of racism and... well, be creative.)

[Oxigen]

SDC and Z:

I'm sorry for the typo's and misspellings,, the bottom line is that I need a new pair of glasses and haven't got around to it yet: so my proofreading isn't as good as it should be.

Z:
I did not mean to be racist towards Americans, but can I politely say that I believe more Europeans are slightly more aware than the vast majority of Americans of the current world situation (youself excluded obviously).

SDC:
Have read a number of papers and articles by Chomsky, Parenti, etc. Why else would I mention them. I'm familiar with how the MSM works.

I do think we are at a crossroads here. If you are perceived as a truther, then you are ridiculed at this site. And of course, people come and find a lot of aggression, and perhaps react even more aggressively.

[Z]

You can politely say it, but without evidence, I still won't trust your opinion on the matter.

Not that I'm saying Americans are all that aware of anything at all, but if you're going to make a blanket statement like that, you should be prepared to defend it (and, considering the content, to do so eloquently).

And, yes, if you are perceived as a truther, you are ridiculed here - because the whole truth movement is layer after layer of willful ignorance, topped with a fair amount of paranoia, and sprinkled with meaningless attention-whores. I mean, c'mon, it's been six years, and the best the movement can do is make some internet videos filled with fallacies, misdirections, and outright lies? No marches on Washington? No protest rallys with hundreds of thousands of supporters? No Congressional hearings or impeachments?

Nope, the problem is that the vast majority of truthers act the fool, and are treated accordingly.

[SDC]

SDC and Z:

Z:
I did not mean to be racist towards Americans, but can I politely say that I believe more Europeans are slightly more aware than the vast majority of Americans of the current world situation (youself excluded obviously).

SDC:
Have read a number of papers and articles by Chomsky, Parenti, etc. Why else would I mention them. I'm familiar with how the MSM works.



Above trimmed by me.

Your first paragraph: "racist" isn't really the word, since Americans are not a "race" in any recognizable sense. "Biased against" will do. You certainly can politely say what you believe. On the other hand, I believe that no such thing applies. In my travels, research, and reading, I've found Europeans (including British ... that always seems to have to be stated) as across-the-board equally informed and equally ignorant as Americans.

Your belief is your belief, but I seriously doubt you have any way to back it up in convincing fashion. And now, if you bring up Bush, I'll mention Thatcher, and so on and so forth in a useless, endlessly reflecting series of mirrors; "Big fleas have little fleas, on their backs to bite 'em; little fleas have lesser fleas, and so on, ad infinitum." (Ogden Nash, who was an American.) And I will argue that you are repeating a traditional European upper-class, right-wing anti-American trope, and then I will muse about the irony of the European left picking up on that trope.

Your second paragraph, when you say, "why else..." I'm sorry to report that many people cite authors whom they've never read. I do it too, of course, though I hope less frequently than some. I know many people who quote the Bible who've never read it.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

It is funny when someone speaks of Americans being ignorant when in fact they are showing themselves to be ignorant of Americans based on their OWN propaganda that they consume and readily believe because, hell, they want to feel superior.

And yes, truthers deserve to be ridiculed. As do creationists, flat earthers (although I don't think they're serious) and psychics.

[Oxigen]

[QUOTE=SDC;2991803]. It is too bad, but that is human nature. Have you read any of them, by the way? Please provide chapter and verse for your favorite passages.

SDC:
This is a small snippet from an essay I wrote within the last six months. The essay was concerned with the use of photography and the censorship and propaganda of images in relation to American foreign policy.

..... Three centuries later, Wilsonian idealism adopted a similar strategy in America. By this time, the elite sectors in the US and Britain knew that coercion was not an option, new means were needed to tame the beast. These means would have to be able to control the opinion and attitude of the beast/masses. This thought control or propaganda would keep the decision-making in the hands of “largely unaccountable private tyrannies.” In order to control American thinking and public opinion, control of the media was a necessity. The corporate media’s threat to freedom arose because there is no similarity between the corporate media and a “free press.”

Many of the large media company owners are entertainment companies and have vertical integration (ie. own operations and businesses) across various industries and verticals, such as distribution networks, toys and clothing manufacture and/or retailing. While this is good for the business, it means that the diversity of opinion and issues discussed by them will be less well covered. (For example, Disney may not be to keen to discuss sweatshop labour as it has been accused of being involved in this itself.) Interlocking directorates is another problem. Interlocking is where a director of one company may sit on a board of another company. The US media watchdog, Fairness and Accuracy has pointed out that media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, such as banks, investment companies, oil companies, health-care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. In this instance, conflicts of interest can be numerous. One may therefore not see/read much criticism that would reflect negatively on these companies. As Herman and Chomsky have pointed out:

“The mass media serves as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behaviour that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”


The problem here is that the corporate media is required to serve the interests of ownership and maximize profits. Its top down style of leadership means that it will align itself with the political powers that will guarantee increased prosperity. The media therefore is the primary instrument of state policy. Its task is to shape the public’s perception of government and to project a benign image of the US to its own citizens and the rest of the world. Herman and Chomsky have examined a propaganda model in which money and power are able to just that. Selective filtering of the news and dissent are employed in such a way as to allow the government and private interests to get their message across. The essential components of their propaganda model involves a number of successive filters that the raw material of news must pass through. What must be taken into account before a story or image is printed is (1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass-media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by the government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) “flak” as a means of disciplining the media; and5) “anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism.

Since the model was proposed, “anti-terrorism” has now replaced “anticommunism” as a control mechanism.


I have indeed read this material, though I must confess to not having read the Bible.

[Oxigen]

(BTW - I'm 1/8 Irish myself, and possibly part Scots, so you can take your charges of racism and... well, be creative.)

Well then, you might enjoy this little bit of Irish humour. In an ad for Red Mist (I'm not exactly sure what this is), a little girl is reading the newspaper and comes across a passage or two referring to the exploits of the Irish soccer captain, Roy Keane, who in the last World Cup when he decided he had had enough of the coach, Mick McCarthey, who incidentally was born in England, but had in the past played (very well) for Ireland. Keane said, and I'm paraphrasing, "You're an English c**t, and you can stuff it up your b*****s.
Her little brother translated it, for his sister, who did not understand what the *** meant, and this may not be exactly right, "You have an English coat, and you can stuff it under the bananas."

That I think is creative. :D

[Oxigen]

(BTW - I'm 1/8 Irish myself, and possibly part Scots, so you can take your charges of racism and... well, be creative.)

Well then, you might enjoy this little bit of Irish humour. In an ad for Red Mist (I'm not exactly sure what this is), a little girl is reading the newspaper and comes across a passage or two referring to the exploits of the Irish soccer captain, Roy Keane, in the last World Cup when he decided he had had enough of the coach, Mick McCarthey who incidentally was born in England, but had in the past played (very well) for Ireland. Keane said, and I'm paraphrasing, "You're an English c**t, and you can stuff it up your b*****s.
Her little brother translated it, for his sister, who did not understand what the *** meant, and this may not be exactly right, "You have an English coat, and you can stuff it under the bananas."

That I think is creative. :D

[Oxigen]

Sorry, meant to edit and ended up with a double post!!

[Oxigen]

(BTW - I'm 1/8 Irish myself, and possibly part Scots, so you can take your charges of racism and... well, be creative.)

Well then, you might enjoy this little bit of Irish humour. In an ad for Red Mist (I'm not exactly sure what this is), a little girl is reading the newspaper and comes across a passage or two referring to the exploits of the Irish soccer captain, Roy Keane, in the last World Cup when he decided he had had enough of the coach, Mick McCarthey who incidentally was born in England, but had in the past played (very well) for Ireland. Keane said, and I'm paraphrasing, "You're an English c**t, and you can stuff it up your b*****s.
Her little brother translated it, for his sister, who did not understand what the *** meant, and this may not be exactly right, "You have an English coat, and you can stuff it under the bananas."

That I think is creative. :D

[Oxigen]

There is a gremlin here. I did not press the reply button three times.

[Z]

A funny joke told thrice isn't three times as funny...

However, a lame joke told thrice...

:D

[Slayhamlet]

You two done now?

[fezzic]

<message starts>
HQ, better turn down the orbital satellite and tell the hackers to lay off. It and they are getting a bit obvious.
<message ends>

:)

[SDC]

[quote=SDC;2991803]. It is too bad, but that is human nature. Have you read any of them, by the way? Please provide chapter and verse for your favorite passages.

SDC:
This is a small snippet from an essay I wrote within the last six months. The essay was concerned with the use of photography and the censorship and propaganda of images in relation to American foreign policy.

..... Three centuries later, Wilsonian idealism adopted a similar strategy in America. By this time, the elite sectors in the US and Britain knew that coercion was not an option, new means were needed to tame the beast. These means would have to be able to control the opinion and attitude of the beast/masses. This thought control or propaganda would keep the decision-making in the hands of “largely unaccountable private tyrannies.” In order to control American thinking and public opinion, control of the media was a necessity. The corporate media’s threat to freedom arose because there is no similarity between the corporate media and a “free press.”

Many of the large media company owners are entertainment companies and have vertical integration (ie. own operations and businesses) across various industries and verticals, such as distribution networks, toys and clothing manufacture and/or retailing. While this is good for the business, it means that the diversity of opinion and issues discussed by them will be less well covered. (For example, Disney may not be to keen to discuss sweatshop labour as it has been accused of being involved in this itself.) Interlocking directorates is another problem. Interlocking is where a director of one company may sit on a board of another company. The US media watchdog, Fairness and Accuracy has pointed out that media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, such as banks, investment companies, oil companies, health-care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. In this instance, conflicts of interest can be numerous. One may therefore not see/read much criticism that would reflect negatively on these companies. As Herman and Chomsky have pointed out:

“The mass media serves as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behaviour that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”


The problem here is that the corporate media is required to serve the interests of ownership and maximize profits. Its top down style of leadership means that it will align itself with the political powers that will guarantee increased prosperity. The media therefore is the primary instrument of state policy. Its task is to shape the public’s perception of government and to project a benign image of the US to its own citizens and the rest of the world. Herman and Chomsky have examined a propaganda model in which money and power are able to just that. Selective filtering of the news and dissent are employed in such a way as to allow the government and private interests to get their message across. The essential components of their propaganda model involves a number of successive filters that the raw material of news must pass through. What must be taken into account before a story or image is printed is (1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass-media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by the government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) “flak” as a means of disciplining the media; and5) “anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism.

Since the model was proposed, “anti-terrorism” has now replaced “anticommunism” as a control mechanism.


I have indeed read this material, though I must confess to not having read the Bible.

Sorry to have not replied sooner; I missed this. This is standard, low-grade, knock-off, derivative Marxism. As such it is a vast oversimplification of a very complex topic -- oversimplified to the point of being no use at all in serious discussions. Anyhow, I'm certainly willing to accept that you have read the authors you cite.

With regard to the Bible, I'd suggest starting Ecclesiastes (English translation). At least in the King James version, it's beautiful prose, and some days, one cannot but accept the basic premise: "Vanity of vanities, saieth the preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity./ What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?" I keep my great-grandfather's working Bible at my desk. Believe it or not, he was a (Southern US) Methodist minister.

[WildCat]

Has mjd1982 finally given up?

[SpitfireIX]

Has mjd1982 finally given up?


Continuing to debate here is evidently not propitious to his agenda.

[Oxigen]

[quote=Oxigen;3002012]

Sorry to have not replied sooner; I missed this. This is standard, low-grade, knock-off, derivative Marxism. As such it is a vast oversimplification of a very complex topic -- oversimplified to the point of being no use at all in serious discussions. Anyhow, I'm certainly willing to accept that you have read the authors you cite.

With regard to the Bible, I'd suggest starting Ecclesiastes (English translation). At least in the King James version, it's beautiful prose, and some days, one cannot but accept the basic premise: "Vanity of vanities, saieth the preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity./ What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?" I keep my great-grandfather's working Bible at my desk. Believe it or not, he was a (Southern US) Methodist minister.

OK that is nice.

[Oxigen]

[quote=Oxigen;3002012]

Sorry to have not replied sooner; I missed this. This is standard, low-grade, knock-off, derivative Marxism. As such it is a vast oversimplification of a very complex topic -- oversimplified to the point of being no use at all in serious discussions. Anyhow, I'm certainly willing to accept that you have read the authors you cite.

With regard to the Bible, I'd suggest starting Ecclesiastes (English translation). At least in the King James version, it's beautiful prose, and some days, one cannot but accept the basic premise: "Vanity of vanities, saieth the preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity./ What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?" I keep my great-grandfather's working Bible at my desk. Believe it or not, he was a (Southern US) Methodist minister.
So what have you to offer.

[Oxigen]

You two done now?

Probably not. :D

[LashL]

This is standard, low-grade, knock-off, derivative Marxism. As such it is a vast oversimplification of a very complex topic -- oversimplified to the point of being no use at all in serious discussions.


And you'll find lots more of it at the site from which that snippet came (presumably Oxigen's):

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Corporations/Owners.asp

[SDC]

[quote=SDC;3009749]
So what have you to offer.

To offer? Concerning what? I referred you to Ecclesiastes, which is one of the most concise and profound works in the western canon. I was pretty proud of the reference. I even thought it was relevant to your essay. I hope you'll read it and think about it. (I often do.) I'm not advocating religious belief in this, by the way.

If you are asking me for a longer review of your essay, or that piece of an essay, I'm not going to do it. I have other work, mostly overdue. I gave you my brief and honest comment; it's warmed over, low grade Marxism. I don't know whether you regard yourself as Marxist, but the fact is that its basic tenets have become thoroughly assimilated into the general leftist approach to the modern world; you can hardly avoid it.

Ok, one example. Sure, Disney and other media giants want to avoid offending people, so they steer away from or even suppress bad news. Yet the bad news ("bad" ideas, whatever) still gets out and widely disseminated. The media are there to do business; for example, newspaper (and broadcast) revenue is actually from advertising, I believe. But the point of advertising is to sell stuff to as many people as possible, not to control them. The media and advertisers want to sell rather than control.

But one says, aha, they control in order to sell. To cite another less famous book, Fred Pohl/ Cyril Kornbluth... oh I forget the title. Famous science fiction novel about advertising, published in the 1950s. Anyhow, they thought they could control the minds of the masses 50 years ago; it was all new. Well, in certain limited ways, sure. I may buy a particular car or soap, but that doesn't change my politics or larger worldview.

This is simple stuff. The typical warmed over Marxism one encounters these days is no more relevant to the modern world than, oh I don't know, Fiorello LaGuardia to New York City. That is, it's part of our heritage, but citing Marxism is no more useful than saying "what would LaGuardia want us to do?" (I've probably just offended other New Yokers. By the way, LaGuardia was a great mayor in the 1930s-40s. Has an airport named after him. Named the NY Public Library Lions "Patience and Fortitude.")

That's all I'm going to do. I gather you are from Ireland or Britain. Folks from there, like other Europeans, often have astonishingly simple and uninformed views of the US. (And they rarely even notice Canada or Latin America, which I find pretty incredible.) Like my (Yorkshire) friend who, on a visit to NYC, assured me that if he ran out of money he could walk into any police station and they'd give him $10; he said he'd read it in an (English) guidebook. Or the one who figured he would fly to NYC and then rent a car and drive overnight to Arizona; it's almost 3,000 miles.

I prefer to start with facts and work my way to theory.

[SDC]

And you'll find lots more of it at the site from which that snippet came (presumably Oxigen's):

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Corporations/Owners.asp

Gack. I try to avoid this stuff. Had enough of it when I was a young pup. Just what I said before; knockoff, low grade Marxism. Very formulaic; plus X in here and Y in there, presto! The world (and especially that bad, bad, naughty capitalistic America!!) all explained.

I'd rather read Ecclesiastes, both for content and literary qualities.

[SDC]

I meant "plug x in," not "plus."

A little more, as I wait for the family to get organized. That essay (and others of its kind) presents the mass media as closed systems; you get them integrated, or controlled, bingo that is it. All done. But they aren't. Cases:

1/ Publishing. Yep, the tops are consolidating. But as they do that, new enterprises pop up from below. (Look into the history of Workman Publishing). They are born, rise, often sell out, and then new entrepreneurs appear from below and keep churning the process. Why? Because people want to publish different stuff, people want to read different stuff, and everybody wants to earn a living in the way in which they want to earn a living. I like being a bureaucratic; others want to be entrepreneurs, or work in small shops. Don't discount that basic human factor.

2/ International. Yeah, an awful lot of American (or UK, or Irish) media outlets say the same damned things about the same damned story. (Though one gets a rather different view of the world in say the Toronto Star than one does in the NY Post, both of which I believe have tons of readers). But whoops! You can get Al-jazeera in the US, just to choose one very different example from the so-called "MSM". The US is very open to outside information -- not least because so many Americans come from outside. Something like 10+% of the US population is non-native born. (More in Canada, I think). They usually will have ties to the old country, and often follow both US-foreign language media, or the foreign media themselves (satellite dishes!). Even those whose families have been here longer have our foreign points of input. Without wanting to make this personal, I'll just say that I follow non-US media in Canada and England (friends and interests), and a couple of other countries where I have cousins or contacts. I do this more than most, I expect, but it's not unusual.

This is how life really works.

[Oxigen]

Lashl:

I haven't visited that site. My references were taken from Chomsky et al.,
I'm not saying I know everything, (far from it - education is important). I'm studying Cultural Studies at the moment and I do realize that I am only tipping the surface, but it does give you cause to wonder.

[Oxigen]

SDC:

Yes, I will read the reference you gave. I'm interested in good prose. Hard to find it lately.

[LashL]

Lashl:

I haven't visited that site. My references were taken from Chomsky et al.,
I'm not saying I know everything, (far from it - education is important). I'm studying Cultural Studies at the moment and I do realize that I am only tipping the surface, but it does give you cause to wonder.

Well, in your post above, you said that this came from an essay that you wrote:

Many of the large media company owners are entertainment companies and have vertical integration (ie. own operations and businesses) across various industries and verticals, such as distribution networks, toys and clothing manufacture and/or retailing. While this is good for the business, it means that the diversity of opinion and issues discussed by them will be less well covered. (For example, Disney may not be to keen to discuss sweatshop labour as it has been accused of being involved in this itself.)
Compare it to this from the site I linked:

Many of the large media company owners are entertainment companies and have vertical integration (i.e. own operations and businesses) across various industries and verticals, such as distribution networks, toys and clothing manufacture and/or retailing etc. That means that while this is good for their business, the diversity of opinions and issues we can see being discussed by them will be less well covered. (One cannot expect Disney, for example, to talk too much about sweatshop labor when it is accused of being involved in such things itself.)
And this, from your essay:

Interlocking directorates is another problem. Interlocking is where a director of one company may sit on a board of another company. The US media watchdog, Fairness and Accuracy has pointed out that media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, such as banks, investment companies, oil companies, health-care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. In this instance, conflicts of interest can be numerous.
Compare it to this, from the site linked:

Interlocking directorates is also another issue. Interlocking is where a director of one company may sit on a board of another company. As pointed out by U.S. media watchdog, Fairness an Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) for example, Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. ... In these cases where directors from numerous large corporations sit on each others boards and own or sit on boards of large media companies, he points out that conflicts of interest can be numerous.
The question, I suppose, is who is plagiarizing whom?

[SDC]

LashL: I don't know whether you are in or close to the education industry, but it's a common complaint that "kids just cut'n'paste" and think that that is research.

I weep on my keyboard.

[LashL]

LashL: I don't know whether you are in or close to the education industry, but it's a common complaint that "kids just cut'n'paste" and think that that is research.

I weep on my keyboard.

SDC,

I am not in the education industry but I do know that that is a common complaint. My daughter is in her second year of university and, in some courses, the students are required to submit essay assignments to an online service that checks for plagiarism before they are passed along to the profs.

As a trial lawyer, I value top-notch research skills, so it is disheartening, indeed, to see that it is necessary for schools to go to such lengths, thanks to the "cut and paste" culture that has sprung up with the advent of the internet. In addition, of course, there is a little matter of copyright violation, but that's a whole other topic, and quite outside the parameters of this thread.

*sigh*
[/off topic]