5 ms·

> 1960-70's sensibilities I'd argue there was more to that. The political climate needed the public to be aligned with meddling a lot with foreign countries (

> 1960-70's sensibilities I'd argue there was more to that. The political climate needed the public to be aligned with meddling a lot with foreign countries (and the Vietnam war was still happening), and passing it as something that isn't just happening, but needs to be done. The more modern equivalent would be 24h (the tv series), which basically shoved to the public the notion that torturing and going extra-legal ways was something heroes had to do.

cobbzilla 1y ago
Interesting perspective! Is this a component of what’s been called “manufacturing consent”?
- balamatom 1y ago
  Absolutely. It's part of a very elaborate society-wide system that went online during the 2nd half of the XX century, for the purpose of establishing a global ingroup. You can see it working today as the participation-ensuring building block of the contemporary "attention economy", which is based on the democratization of the same technology, namely the tools for creating convincing intermedia narratives. What's new about it is that as the means of creating the requsite affective environment of hyperreality ("engagement") gradually became available not only to nation-states but to private parties (down to the individual amateur influencer starting with no political agenda), they managed to interpose themselves as the very means of our critique of themselves. Which on the meta level is a genius, as it establishes whole new channels for inter-reality exchange (a.k.a. cultural osmosis) on a first-come-first-serve basis, knowledge arbitrators love those. Not everyone necessarily finds it too comfy to find themselves in the same ecosystem as said ingroup though. Hence also the equally elaborate evolution in faux-antisystemic reaction since the turn of the century (while they try to bury the potential of technology as means of critique and bottom-up social reengineering.)
- rayiner 1y ago
  Have you read the book? “Manufacturing Consent” is about how incentive structures align to achieve the effect of coordinated propaganda without actual formal coordination. The classic example offered in the book is establishment media giving favorable treatment to information leaked by the White House in order to ensure future information coming their way. 24 isn’t an example of “Manufacturing Consent” because there’s no alignment of interests of incentive structure. It’s an example of a different thing, that is an underlying cultural pattern that’s reflected both in media and foreign policy. Americans love their heroes to shove weenie bureaucrats in the locker. 24 is just Dirty Harry in a more contemporary law enforcement setting.
rayiner 1y ago
> The more modern equivalent would be 24h (the tv series), which basically shoved to the public the notion that torturing and going extra-legal ways was something heroes had to do. 24 was developed before 9/11. The pilot was filmed in March 2001 and production started July. It was just a freak coincidence that it was released around the same time as 9/11. Moreover, heroes going outside the rules is a longstanding trope in American film. Most American law enforcement movies in the 1970s-early 2000s portrayed “the system” as holding back the good guys with bureaucracy and rules. Dirty Harry was 1971. It’s just because we’re Americans, not Europeans.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  I didn't have 9/11 in mind regarding this, so I guess we're in agreement ? > It’s just because we’re Americans This is a specific political ideology that I don't think defines the country. In theory, in 20 years the USA could have a completely different political landscape.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > didn't have 9/11 in mind regarding this, so I guess we're in agreement ? 9/11 was when the “War on Terror” started. > This is a specific political ideology that I don't think defines the country. But it’s not a “specific political ideology.” My friends and I loved “24” in college and most of us had supported Al Gore. “Break the rules to get the bad guys” is just Americanism.
    - makeitdouble 1y ago
      > War on Terror This was just slapping a name and an official policy on something that has been going on for way longer. In a way, 9/11 was the point where it could be put as is on the public place and be accepted politically ? > Break the rules to get the bad guys I'd offer you "agencies that have their own extra-legal rules and only need some higher up's approval" as a better description. The CIA doing it's own drug trafficking to balance its sheets would be a real life example of this.
idiomat9000 1y ago
well, the us stopped meddling and the world returned to a new round of the great game . sudan and Ukraine come to mind.

cobbzilla 1y ago

Interesting perspective! Is this a component of what’s been called “manufacturing consent”?

balamatom 1y ago
Absolutely. It's part of a very elaborate society-wide system that went online during the 2nd half of the XX century, for the purpose of establishing a global ingroup. You can see it working today as the participation-ensuring building block of the contemporary "attention economy", which is based on the democratization of the same technology, namely the tools for creating convincing intermedia narratives. What's new about it is that as the means of creating the requsite affective environment of hyperreality ("engagement") gradually became available not only to nation-states but to private parties (down to the individual amateur influencer starting with no political agenda), they managed to interpose themselves as the very means of our critique of themselves. Which on the meta level is a genius, as it establishes whole new channels for inter-reality exchange (a.k.a. cultural osmosis) on a first-come-first-serve basis, knowledge arbitrators love those. Not everyone necessarily finds it too comfy to find themselves in the same ecosystem as said ingroup though. Hence also the equally elaborate evolution in faux-antisystemic reaction since the turn of the century (while they try to bury the potential of technology as means of critique and bottom-up social reengineering.)
rayiner 1y ago
Have you read the book? “Manufacturing Consent” is about how incentive structures align to achieve the effect of coordinated propaganda without actual formal coordination. The classic example offered in the book is establishment media giving favorable treatment to information leaked by the White House in order to ensure future information coming their way. 24 isn’t an example of “Manufacturing Consent” because there’s no alignment of interests of incentive structure. It’s an example of a different thing, that is an underlying cultural pattern that’s reflected both in media and foreign policy. Americans love their heroes to shove weenie bureaucrats in the locker. 24 is just Dirty Harry in a more contemporary law enforcement setting.

rayiner 1y ago

> The more modern equivalent would be 24h (the tv series), which basically shoved to the public the notion that torturing and going extra-legal ways was something heroes had to do. 24 was developed before 9/11. The pilot was filmed in March 2001 and production started July. It was just a freak coincidence that it was released around the same time as 9/11. Moreover, heroes going outside the rules is a longstanding trope in American film. Most American law enforcement movies in the 1970s-early 2000s portrayed “the system” as holding back the good guys with bureaucracy and rules. Dirty Harry was 1971. It’s just because we’re Americans, not Europeans.

makeitdouble 1y ago
I didn't have 9/11 in mind regarding this, so I guess we're in agreement ? > It’s just because we’re Americans This is a specific political ideology that I don't think defines the country. In theory, in 20 years the USA could have a completely different political landscape.
- rayiner 1y ago
  > didn't have 9/11 in mind regarding this, so I guess we're in agreement ? 9/11 was when the “War on Terror” started. > This is a specific political ideology that I don't think defines the country. But it’s not a “specific political ideology.” My friends and I loved “24” in college and most of us had supported Al Gore. “Break the rules to get the bad guys” is just Americanism.
  - makeitdouble 1y ago
    > War on Terror This was just slapping a name and an official policy on something that has been going on for way longer. In a way, 9/11 was the point where it could be put as is on the public place and be accepted politically ? > Break the rules to get the bad guys I'd offer you "agencies that have their own extra-legal rules and only need some higher up's approval" as a better description. The CIA doing it's own drug trafficking to balance its sheets would be a real life example of this.

idiomat9000 1y ago

well, the us stopped meddling and the world returned to a new round of the great game . sudan and Ukraine come to mind.