4 ms·

Wow. Where to start. The first thing that caught me about your comment was this: as Chomsky says, "If you don't behave in a dictatorship, they'll just bludgeon

Wow. Where to start. The first thing that caught me about your comment was this: as Chomsky says, "If you don't behave in a dictatorship, they'll just bludgeon you over the head." Ignoring the appeal to authority (which always is a red alarm for me) the problem is that dictatorships are completely different entities than are commonly thought. Most people think that in a dictatorship there's one guy in charge and he directly controls the lives and actions of all the people. But that's not true: simple span-of-control theory says that one person, at most, can observe and coordinate the work of 5 to 10 other people. The more control, the fewer number of people. So there are dozens of levels between Kim and his people, each level interpreting things their own way and each level impacting how things are run to a great degree. Nope, dictatorships are actually oligarchies, with a symbiotic relationship between the dictator and the "middle management" so to speak. Even if the dictator took all the middle level management out and had them shot, there would just be a new structure put in place with all the same old problems (and symbiotic relationships) My perception of your comment kind of went downhill from there. Some highlights were comparing "news shows" across several different channels, 1 of which was a news show, 1 was a quasi news show, and 1 was an entertainment show. I seriously doubt such comparisons are going to lead to much value for the reader. Then we had the whole problem of definitions. As I understand it, propaganda is the dissemination of information in order to effect change in public opinion. It doesn't have to be false, involve logical fallacies, or any of that. Some of the best propaganda, as the Pentagon says itself, is simply telling people the truth about stuff they haven't heard before. Then there was the over-reaching narrative of "everything is propaganda" -- joining up marketing, entertainment, sales, etc. It's a sign of a poor definition when it fails to distinguish things. And of course we had to trot out a good dollop of American-bashing with the Creel commission and such. Sometimes I think America-bashing has become the salt and pepper of faux intellectual discourse. Discussion getting a bit tired? Throw in a few jabs at the Yanks. "Easily manipulated into warlike frenzy" and "more controlled by propaganda than North Koreans" (I paraphrase) are serious assertions. Assertions that you began with, then failed to offer any proof, aside from a Chomsky quote. So apologies if I am being a bit harsh. I just didn't get much value from your comment at all.

seabee 16y ago
You don't think there's a link between dictatorships and repressive regimes? You can see examples of this right now in the news with all these protests going on. I also fail to see why news-based entertainment shows (as is my understanding of one of the programmes mentioned) are any less valid a target for propaganda analysis. Do you believe people cannot be influenced by an entertainment programme? If not, why would such an analysis hold little 'value for the reader'? I feel you are taking his points far too literally to be relevant in any real-world situation, even if OP's assertions were overly-emotive hyperbole. Nor are you providing much (relevant) value here, IMO - it's not enough to counter criticism of the US with complaints of "America-bashing" unless you say why the criticism is invalid. As for the propaganda definition you provided (which is a good one), it states the purpose of the disseminations is to change people's opinions. Now you can do that with just plain releasing facts and information (e.g. Wikileaks cables) but it's disingenuous to downplay the role of delivering information by whatever means necessary to produce a specific effect. Propaganda that is 100% factual and non-misleading is called 'facts'. You would be far better off reading Chomsky's own take on it Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, or a documentary like Century Of The Self.
- ashutoshm 16y ago
  link to The Century Of The Self - Adam Curtis http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_...
rdtsc 16y ago
> So apologies if I am being a bit harsh. So why not just rephrase it to be less harsh? Or are you not really sorry, just trying to be civil? > Ignoring the appeal to authority Well you don't really expect him to paste in the contents of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Poli... in the comment box, do you? That is a good resource to study and with plenty of references and sources. In fact, it had to be, because it challenges common assumptions about how propaganda and control works in US. > Most people think that in a dictatorship there's one guy in charge and he directly controls the lives and actions of all the people. Right after you accuse the poster of a common fallacy (appeal to authority) your proceed building a straw man. Dictatorships in most cases are sustained by military leaders, party leaders, or an extended family network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud). However I do not see how your discussion of power structure and distribution in a dictatorship applies directly to the article above. > Nope, dictatorships are actually oligarchies Ok, so? You can call it the "military-industrial complex" or "a ruling family", it doesn't matter. The majority of the people are controlled by a very small and powerful minority and use propaganda to effect that control better. I thought that was the point. > Some highlights were comparing "news shows" across several different channels, 1 of which was a news show, 1 was a quasi news show, and 1 was an entertainment show. I seriously doubt such comparisons are going to lead to much value for the reader. You, me and everyone here probably know that these news sources are heavily biased but I don't think the majority of Americans know. I believe that most would be willing to swear that American news agencies are free of censorship and also provide objective news. There is the party division of Fox vs MSNBC or CNN but I think most would pick one of those and identify it as a valid news source. > It doesn't have to be false, involve logical fallacies, or any of that. Some of the best propaganda, as the Pentagon says itself, is simply telling people the truth about stuff they haven't heard before. Yes you are applying the Lippmann & Bernays definition of it. It has acquired a negative connotation over time for a reason -- because it is usually used to mislead and lie rather then inform and educate. The problem with Pentagon news is that they are not objective. The way the news are worded, and most importantly, which news are selected to be reported, and which are not, introduces a tremendous amount of bias. > Then there was the over-reaching narrative of "everything is propaganda" Ok, let's apply your definition "Propaganda = dissemination of objective information." So everyone is interested in educated the people? Every one of those powerful entities like the government and corporations will always report the objective truth, without spinning it, even when it ends up harming it? You really believe that? > "Easily manipulated into warlike frenzy" and "more controlled by propaganda than North Koreans" (I paraphrase) are serious assertions. Assertions that you began with, then failed to offer any proof, aside from a Chomsky quote. But you also fail to provide a counter-argument and don't explain how American public went from isolationism to hating Germans in such a short time? How do you explain the fact that so many Americans still claim that Saddam was involved with al-Qaeda or had weapons of mass destruction?

seabee 16y ago

You don't think there's a link between dictatorships and repressive regimes? You can see examples of this right now in the news with all these protests going on. I also fail to see why news-based entertainment shows (as is my understanding of one of the programmes mentioned) are any less valid a target for propaganda analysis. Do you believe people cannot be influenced by an entertainment programme? If not, why would such an analysis hold little 'value for the reader'? I feel you are taking his points far too literally to be relevant in any real-world situation, even if OP's assertions were overly-emotive hyperbole. Nor are you providing much (relevant) value here, IMO - it's not enough to counter criticism of the US with complaints of "America-bashing" unless you say why the criticism is invalid. As for the propaganda definition you provided (which is a good one), it states the purpose of the disseminations is to change people's opinions. Now you can do that with just plain releasing facts and information (e.g. Wikileaks cables) but it's disingenuous to downplay the role of delivering information by whatever means necessary to produce a specific effect. Propaganda that is 100% factual and non-misleading is called 'facts'. You would be far better off reading Chomsky's own take on it Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, or a documentary like Century Of The Self.

ashutoshm 16y ago
link to The Century Of The Self - Adam Curtis http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_...

rdtsc 16y ago

> So apologies if I am being a bit harsh. So why not just rephrase it to be less harsh? Or are you not really sorry, just trying to be civil? > Ignoring the appeal to authority Well you don't really expect him to paste in the contents of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Poli... in the comment box, do you? That is a good resource to study and with plenty of references and sources. In fact, it had to be, because it challenges common assumptions about how propaganda and control works in US. > Most people think that in a dictatorship there's one guy in charge and he directly controls the lives and actions of all the people. Right after you accuse the poster of a common fallacy (appeal to authority) your proceed building a straw man. Dictatorships in most cases are sustained by military leaders, party leaders, or an extended family network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud). However I do not see how your discussion of power structure and distribution in a dictatorship applies directly to the article above. > Nope, dictatorships are actually oligarchies Ok, so? You can call it the "military-industrial complex" or "a ruling family", it doesn't matter. The majority of the people are controlled by a very small and powerful minority and use propaganda to effect that control better. I thought that was the point. > Some highlights were comparing "news shows" across several different channels, 1 of which was a news show, 1 was a quasi news show, and 1 was an entertainment show. I seriously doubt such comparisons are going to lead to much value for the reader. You, me and everyone here probably know that these news sources are heavily biased but I don't think the majority of Americans know. I believe that most would be willing to swear that American news agencies are free of censorship and also provide objective news. There is the party division of Fox vs MSNBC or CNN but I think most would pick one of those and identify it as a valid news source. > It doesn't have to be false, involve logical fallacies, or any of that. Some of the best propaganda, as the Pentagon says itself, is simply telling people the truth about stuff they haven't heard before. Yes you are applying the Lippmann & Bernays definition of it. It has acquired a negative connotation over time for a reason -- because it is usually used to mislead and lie rather then inform and educate. The problem with Pentagon news is that they are not objective. The way the news are worded, and most importantly, which news are selected to be reported, and which are not, introduces a tremendous amount of bias. > Then there was the over-reaching narrative of "everything is propaganda" Ok, let's apply your definition "Propaganda = dissemination of objective information." So everyone is interested in educated the people? Every one of those powerful entities like the government and corporations will always report the objective truth, without spinning it, even when it ends up harming it? You really believe that? > "Easily manipulated into warlike frenzy" and "more controlled by propaganda than North Koreans" (I paraphrase) are serious assertions. Assertions that you began with, then failed to offer any proof, aside from a Chomsky quote. But you also fail to provide a counter-argument and don't explain how American public went from isolationism to hating Germans in such a short time? How do you explain the fact that so many Americans still claim that Saddam was involved with al-Qaeda or had weapons of mass destruction?