I too was surprised at the many number of words you used, Player.
Keep it up! Seriously, it’s interesting to hear what you think.
Lausten. OmG you are so Orwellian in your responses. He didnt say news is censored. Rather when it reaches us it has been filtered. He point is dissenting ideas can be silenced with very little effort.
Player, censorship or filtering are basically interchangeable in this context. You have done nothing to show how news is filtered. The question is how some easily verified facts are claimed to be lies by a large group of people. Tee is specifically asking about Trump voters and I expanded that to a wider variety of people with cognitive dissonance.
Let me ask about a more specific example. I met a Republican woman who was bothered that I thought all Trump voters were racist. I said I didn’t think that exactly, but, as a comparative point of reference, I watched both Presidential conventions and saw a more diverse audience at the Democratic one. She said that’s because the media portrayed it that way. She had worked at the convention as a volunteer serving food and she said she saw lots of black people. Tell me, if she’s right, if the Republican convention had just as many minorities attending, how does the media pull off that lie?
That’s the thinking, the mind set, that the OP is asking. If you want, take some common example where a Democrat believes something that is not true. Whatever, but be specific, not some general rant about “you have no idea about the propaganda machine”.
.
//..irrational ideas have nothing in common other than the mental errors that lead to them.//
I’ve interracted with some of these people. They are deadly serious as fuck.
Somehow they have managed to combine every conspiracy theory on the planet and make everything lead to … Donald Trump.
Check out the Qanon conspiracy chart https://imgur.com/a/ZMBZtbS and the Qanon “Great Awakening” map https://imgur.com/a/eeBNRhV
My observation is that unlike Loch Ness and Bigfoot monster fans, the QAnon and Satanic Panic proponents and Fundamentalist Christians overlap strongly and have a lot in common. Their view of mankind is exceedingly dark. They believe that nothing is as it seems, because the devil (or an evil cabal, the Illuminati) is really in charge, just below the surface.
Just as Fundamentalists (well, all Calvinists) believe in the Total Depravity of Mankind, the Satanic Panic proponents had people believing in “recovered memories” in which their parents, relatives, music teachers, local police, pastors, etc etc had molested them in Satanic rituals…and Q claims MOST elected officials, wealthy people and Hollywood actors are pedophiles who drink children’s blood.
The bottom line for all 3 is that most people are evil, extreme acts of perversion are typical, no one who SEEMS good really is, and you can’t trust anyone or anything except _____. EVIL…IS…EVERYWHERE.
It has to be SO depressing to think that way.
It would be funny, except that these crazy ideas have real-world consequences:
Trump’s Encouraging QAnon May Result in Violence—Just ask the FBIResearchers at Media Matters have tracked multiple violent incidents and threats of violence linked to QAnon adherents, including:
*A Washington man who murdered his brother with a sword;
*An Oregon man who threatened to kill YouTube employees over what he believed were acts of censorship;
*A man accused of murdering an alleged crime boss;
*An armed Nevada man whoblocked the Hoover Dam with an armored vehicle;
*An Oklahoma man who threatened to assassinate Trump
Trump's Encouraging QAnon May Result in Violence—Just ask the FBI
>
'Pizzagate' shooter sentenced to 4 years in prisonThe North Carolina man who fired an assault rifle inside a Washington, DC, pizzeria while investigating an online conspiracy theory known as “Pizzagate” was sentenced to 48 months in prison Thursday.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/pizzagate-sentencing/index.html
Of course, the Satanic Panic ruined countless lives, including all the adults & children affected by the McMartin Preschool scandal.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/the-mcmartin-preschool-trials
This is an excellent thread. I would like to make a particular point and then shut up about it: Intelligence does not immunize one from having very stupid beliefs. In fact a very intelligent person can be MORE effective in constructing a rationalization of a very stupid belief. People can be intelligent but they still tend to have emotions and other personal contingencies that make the truth less palatable for their liking. One very intelligent person can gradually, thru the processes of resolving their cognitive dissonances, come to believe things that are 180 degrees from the truth. But I will shut up about this part of the discussion in this thread, because I think it is a red herring.
Now, again with the self-serving Noam Chomsky. Are his assertions based on some verifiable research or are we as usual supposed to rely on his supposed reputation of grand “expertise”? As far as I’m concerned, claims from Chomsky, have the full force of opinions, which we know are like a-holes, in that everybody has one.
Thirdly, one might consider baseless conspiracy theories to be a prime example of what one might call “fake news”. They spread more rapidly and effectively than any truth based news. And Trump has the spreading of baseless conspiracy theories as a fundamental part of his success as a political figure. The latest fake conspiracy that he is promoting is that the Clintons were involved in Epstein’s recent death. He ignores the fact that Epstein was in the custody of a poorly run federal prison that is overseen by Trump’s own (loyal to Trump) Department of Justice.
So instead of Trump having any responsibility for the death of the most infamous prisoner, in the USA, dying in the custody of a poorly run federal prison, that is overseen by the DOJ, that is headed by the most obsequiously loyal to Trump Attorney General (Bill Barr), Trump proposes to the nation that the Clintons somehow got Epstein killed. Now what could be a greater example of totally ridiculous fake news? Yet just about everyone in the country, by now, has heard this extreme BS as being what might have happened.
There is such a thing as fake news. Fake news that gets reported over and over. But the most bombastic ridiculously fakest of false news is promoted by Trump and the conspiracy theorists of the right. And so far it has tended to work well for them.
“Player, censorship or filtering are basically interchangeable in this context. You have done nothing to show how news is filtered. The question is how some easily verified facts are claimed to be lies by a large group of people. Tee is specifically asking about Trump voters and I expanded that to a wider variety of people with cognitive dissonance.”
>The media is owned by the rich who are beholden to their corporate advertisters. News that can have a determental effect on their profits or power strutures will removed from the public arena. Why this is controversial to you stumps me. Examples look at the reporting on the iraq war, on climate change, on israel palestine, on assange, on alternative economic theories, on corporate welfare, on institutionalised corruption so on and so on.
>Chomsky brillantly checkmated Marr when he claimed that nobody tells him what to think or write with
If you thought differently you would not be sitting where you are.<
Now how do you expect to have a civil intelligent and honest conversation with a trump supporter by with an opening remark that all supports are racist and then complain that that did not go down well? Are you feeling ok?</p>
>If you are really left, why didnt you bring up healthcare, taxation, wages and underemployment, corruption, private debt etc. Wouldnt this have been more productive in challenging their understanding of the world and exploring revealed contradictions. >But no you cant. Just stick to go to topic and be confrontational. That got you real far.
"The question posed by the writer is a bogus one as it presents the media as a honest one and is a distraction to real critic on what is going on. How many people were at the inauguration, trump shook putins hand, trump using twitter, trump talks worse than bush - who gives a fuck.
In summation on how dissconnected you are to what is being put to you, how does this
“We have competing ideas about economics and politics now. How do you think Ocasio-Cortez got elected?”
marry up with this
“Any slight difference these corporate giants might have with Fox news on trump will all be forgiven when we have trump vs bernie. Thats my point”
Your example would better be “Trump v. Warren” rather than “trump vs Bernie”. Elizabeth may not win the nomination, but her chances, right now, are better than Bernie’s.
I do think that much of our media is biased towards presenting info that will increase their profitability (e.g., ratings)
So we should all be on guard in trying to get around that “filter” (as I presume Player would call it.)
“I do think that much of our media is biased towards presenting info that will increase their profitability (e.g., ratings)”
higher taxes??
Player: I’ll stop complaining you typing too little.
“The media is owned by the rich…” Duh. There is also PBS and media that is not owned by the rich and there are books and libraries, so people can find information if they want. Media could not maintain its credibility if they were as far from the truth as you seem to be saying they are.
“how do you expect to have a civil intelligent and honest conversation with a trump supporter…” I didn’t open with saying she was racist, she opened by accusing me of thinking that. I did bring up those other issues at other points in the afternoon we spent together. It was mostly very civil. Just answer the questions I ask, don’t make a bunch of assumptions about what I did or didn’t do.
“Any slight difference these corporate giants might have with Fox news on trump will all be forgiven when we have trump vs bernie. Thats my point”
I didn’t respond to this point earlier because I don’t get what the point is. Are you saying there are small differences between Fox and other news outlets and they just want to make money off the heat generated by the horse race?
Media already around warren trying to split the Bernie camp. If she wins the nomination she will be dropped faster than flies around cows arsehole. Show me the poll with warren ahead of bernie
Demonstrate how the media is giving Warren more attention than she deserves? Or that they have some kind of agenda regarding either one of them? Or how do you know Bernie should be getting more coverage or different coverage? And stay on topic. You just dodged all the earlier questions.
Yeah, Player, I often have to guess to try to understand what you are getting at. I shouldn’t have to (at least not so often). I can understand someone occasionally making posts that seem out of left field due to not being careful enough that their post or reply makes sense, but you seem to make it your SOP.
For example, your last reply being the cryptic “higher taxes??”
It’s not worth the confusion of trying to have a dialogue with you.
Here’s you poll. Not that I care. It’s irrelevant to whatever point you are making.
“The media is owned by the rich…” Duh.”
So how does that get played out in news reporting???
“There is also PBS and media that is not owned by the rich and there are books and libraries, so people can find information if they want. Media could not maintain its credibility if they were as far from the truth as you seem to be saying they are.”
people get their daily news from books?? Are you that disconnected…PBS newshour was one of the biggest fear mongers in spreading anti Russian propaganda. How they go in presenting on the topics I mention above eg wages, climate change, alternative economic theories…???
If the criticism of trump is genuine and objective by the media with no agenda , even called the worst president by some, then why would they fall behind trump rather than Bernie (unless you disagree that they would of course)???
Media want to have her for ratings you say? How they feel about her tax hikes???
Okay, you’re just spouting baseless statements and not connecting anything to anything. I’m sure there’s some data in your head somewhere but you can’t coalesce it into an intelligent sentence.
No, people don’t get their news from books, but enough people read books that if the news was completely lying to us, we would know. Chomsky can’t answer the basic question that any conspiracy theorist can’t; if the truth is so suppressed, how does he know it?
Also, are aware that anyone can broadcast their analysis of current events now? Some of the people that do that are pretty smart.
Here you go
and answer the question. Do you think corporate media will support trump over Bernie???
“Okay, you’re just spouting baseless statements and not connecting anything to anything. I’m sure there’s some data in your head somewhere but you can’t coalesce it into an intelligent sentence”
i have given you examples to explain what I am talking about, while you give me platitudes. Sir - you are an imbecile
Player
I’m not sure I follow everything you’ve said here, nor can I answer to much of it. But a few thoughts:
First, FWIW, I’ve never worked for any corporate news outlet. I spent 30 years at small/medium newspapers covering local news. I can tell you how newsrooms work, in general. I can’t tell you what it’s like at USA Today or Newsweek. But nobody pays me to have a particular opinion or to take a particular side. I have no loyalty except to my own values.
Second, the Chomsky-Marr interview took place in 1995, prior to the rise of the Internet as we know it today. Americans today have tens of thousands of news sources, trustworthy and not. Whatever “take” you want to find on the news, you can find it. Everyone can access their own facts and alternative facts. Nobody needs to depend on “the mainstream media” for “truth” (and I’m not even sure how we can know what “truth” is, anymore.)
Third, Chomsky’s point about “The Propoganda Machine” is so huge and nebulous it’s essentially meaningless. Chomsky starts talking about the way journalists begin learning to conform … in kindergarten. It reminds me of the "“Old Man Yells At Cloud” "Old Man Yells At Cloud" - Album on Imgur meme, you can be upset at the way things are, but that’s the way things are.
Society “should” be different than it is. Men, Caucasians, Christians, the upper-class, and physically attractive people shouldn’t be privileged, but they are. The media is a propaganda machine… but so are education, business, the legal system, entertainment, politics, religion, language, and medicine. (But let’s blame it all on the media.)
Fourth, this whole argument, ironically, reeks of privilege. There seems to be an expectation that journalists be saintlike, above they fray and willing to sacrifice all to “tell the truth.” But crazy as it may seem, journalists, their bosses, and their bosses’ bosses have debt, mortgages, and mouths to feed.
I’m not being flippant, just pointing to reality. Media outlets are businesses. For good or ill, we do live in a Capitalistic society, and to turn a profit, media outlets need to give the public what it wants.
AND THE PUBLIC DOESN’T REALLY WANT WHAT THEY THINK THEY WANT.
My personal anecdote on this: For a decade, my job at the paper was to oversee a special section that focused on positive news about people in my community. I won several awards for my work. I heard every day from readers who enjoyed it, because they were so tired of reading about murders, rapes and scandals.
But advertisers know how many people read certain sections, compared to other sections, based on response. And even though readers SAY they hate reading about murders, rapes and scandals, those are the sections more of them actually READ. The last 2 years I was there, my boss paid my salary from revenue in other sections of the paper because he WANTED to keep the section, and me. Eventually, it (and I) became economically unviable for them.
People want journalists to “speak truth to power,” “stick it to da man,” and “think outside the box.” They should go to dangerous neighborhoods and lands, interview people who won’t be interviewed, and access secret documents. They should risk their lives, be on the job 24 hours a day. And they should be independently wealthy, so they don’t have to worry about income, or being fired.
If you can figure out a model that works, that would be nice.