4 ms·

What "authoritative sources debunked it nearly in realtime"? If these sources were authoritative, why did the corporate media & the US government (e.g. State De

What "authoritative sources debunked it nearly in realtime"? If these sources were authoritative, why did the corporate media & the US government (e.g. State Dept) beat the drums of regime change? Why did we go to war? It sounds like the "authoritative sources" were all in on the war. You can say that there were "contradictory reports", but in shaping public opinion, what matters is what is shown & the narrative presented to the public. These "contradictory reports" you mentioned were buried under enormous heaps of propaganda. What is to stop the "authors" of the "authoritative sources" from burying the "contradictory reports" on contemporary issues? In short, it's about power. Whoever has the power determines the narrative coming from the "authoritative sources". Whoever has the power is incentivized to further their own interests to maintain their power. The "author's" narrative, under the pretense of truth & whatever else justifies the authority, sole purpose is to shape public opinion to further strengthen the "author's" hold on power.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> What “authoritative sources debunked it nearly in realtime”? Much of the corporate and public media. > If these sources were authoritative, why did the corporate media & the US government (e.g. State Dept) beat the drums of regime change? The “corporate media” largely didn’t, it reported both the government claims as claims and the information about how they were manipulated, invented, and falsified, and how both public information and the stream of leaks coming out of the US and UK government showed that the governments were lying as part of a deliberate strategy, all as, often, big-headline page-1 news (in print, and the equivalent in other media.) The government of course drove to war because that was the preconceived policy of the government. > These “contradictory reports” you mentioned were buried under enormous heaps of propaganda. No, they weren’t. People whipped into a storm of Islamophobia in the wake of the 9/11 attacks saw through the eyes of a desire for a less amorphous, more tractable enemy to attack. They didn’t need the truth to be buried at all to ignore it. “The truth was buried under enormous heaps of propaganda” is just revisionism because its more comforting to believe that the truth was hidden than that the people of an advanced democracy would en masse ignore the truth when it was right in front of their faces and rush to war anyway.
- briantakita 5y ago
  > Much of the corporate and public media. Like who? I know that CNN has almost 24 hours of pro-war coverage. > The “corporate media” largely didn’t, You are going to need some sort of citation from an "authoritative source" to be credible about this claim</sarc> > “The truth was buried under enormous heaps of propaganda” is just revisionism because its more comforting to believe that the truth was hidden than that the people of an advanced democracy would en masse ignore the truth when it was right in front of their faces and rush to war anyway. This sounds like revisionism though. Not to say it's inaccurate, as revisionism often is effective at deriving more perspectives than "authoritative" history. You can also apply the truth being "right in front of their faces" for many controversial contemporary issues, where an opinion of "authoritative sources" is pushed on the public. Interesting note, many of those who thought critically of the WMD policy are thinking critically today about policies foisted upon us from the other "side" of the political spectrum.
- unity1001 5y ago
  > Much of the corporate and public media. You are just making things up.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> What “authoritative sources debunked it nearly in realtime”? Much of the corporate and public media. > If these sources were authoritative, why did the corporate media & the US government (e.g. State Dept) beat the drums of regime change? The “corporate media” largely didn’t, it reported both the government claims as claims and the information about how they were manipulated, invented, and falsified, and how both public information and the stream of leaks coming out of the US and UK government showed that the governments were lying as part of a deliberate strategy, all as, often, big-headline page-1 news (in print, and the equivalent in other media.) The government of course drove to war because that was the preconceived policy of the government. > These “contradictory reports” you mentioned were buried under enormous heaps of propaganda. No, they weren’t. People whipped into a storm of Islamophobia in the wake of the 9/11 attacks saw through the eyes of a desire for a less amorphous, more tractable enemy to attack. They didn’t need the truth to be buried at all to ignore it. “The truth was buried under enormous heaps of propaganda” is just revisionism because its more comforting to believe that the truth was hidden than that the people of an advanced democracy would en masse ignore the truth when it was right in front of their faces and rush to war anyway.

briantakita 5y ago
> Much of the corporate and public media. Like who? I know that CNN has almost 24 hours of pro-war coverage. > The “corporate media” largely didn’t, You are going to need some sort of citation from an "authoritative source" to be credible about this claim</sarc> > “The truth was buried under enormous heaps of propaganda” is just revisionism because its more comforting to believe that the truth was hidden than that the people of an advanced democracy would en masse ignore the truth when it was right in front of their faces and rush to war anyway. This sounds like revisionism though. Not to say it's inaccurate, as revisionism often is effective at deriving more perspectives than "authoritative" history. You can also apply the truth being "right in front of their faces" for many controversial contemporary issues, where an opinion of "authoritative sources" is pushed on the public. Interesting note, many of those who thought critically of the WMD policy are thinking critically today about policies foisted upon us from the other "side" of the political spectrum.
unity1001 5y ago
> Much of the corporate and public media. You are just making things up.