Concision in the Media

[TimmyBoy]

Does forced concision in the media prevent critical thought and marginalization of the people?

Here is a cool thought from Chomsky:

..." suppose I'm talking about international terrorism, and I say that we ought to stop it in Washington, which is a major center of it. People back off, "What do you mean, Washington's a major center of it?" Then you have to explain. You have to give some background. That's exactly what Jeff Greenfield is talking about. You don't want people who have to give background, because that would allow critical thought. What you want is completely conformist ideas. You want just repetition of the propaganda line, the party line. For that you need "concision". I could do it too. I could say what I think in three sentences, too. But it would just sound as if it was off the wall, because there's no basis laid for it. If you come from the American Enterprise Institute and you say it in three sentences, yes, people hear it every day, so what's the big deal? Yeah, sure, Qaddafi's the biggest monster in the world, and the Russians are conquering theworld, and this and that, Noriega's the worst gangster since so-and-so. For that kind of thing you don't need any background. You just rehash the thoughts that everybody's always expressed and that you hear from Dan Rather and everyone else. That's a structural technique that's very valuable. In fact, if people like Ted Koppel were smarter, they would allow more dissidents on, because they would just make fools of themselves. Either you would sell out and repeat what everybody else is saying because it's the only way to sound sane, or else you would say what you think, in which case you'd sound like a madman, even if what you think is absolutely true and easily supportable. The reason is that the whole system so completely excludes it. It'll sound crazy, rightly, from their point of view. And since you have to have concision, as Jeff Greenfield says, you don't have time toexplain it. That's a marvelous structural technique of propaganda...."

 

[Deegan]

Does forced concision in the media prevent critical thought and marginalization of the people?

Here is a cool thought from Chomsky:

..." suppose I'm talking about international terrorism, and I say that we ought to stop it in Washington, which is a major center of it. People back off, "What do you mean, Washington's a major center of it?" Then you have to explain. You have to give some background. That's exactly what Jeff Greenfield is talking about. You don't want people who have to give background, because that would allow critical thought. What you want is completely conformist ideas. You want just repetition of the propaganda line, the party line. For that you need "concision". I could do it too. I could say what I think in three sentences, too. But it would just sound as if it was off the wall, because there's no basis laid for it. If you come from the American Enterprise Institute and you say it in three sentences, yes, people hear it every day, so what's the big deal? Yeah, sure, Qaddafi's the biggest monster in the world, and the Russians are conquering theworld, and this and that, Noriega's the worst gangster since so-and-so. For that kind of thing you don't need any background. You just rehash the thoughts that everybody's always expressed and that you hear from Dan Rather and everyone else. That's a structural technique that's very valuable. In fact, if people like Ted Koppel were smarter, they would allow more dissidents on, because they would just make fools of themselves. Either you would sell out and repeat what everybody else is saying because it's the only way to sound sane, or else you would say what you think, in which case you'd sound like a madman, even if what you think is absolutely true and easily supportable. The reason is that the whole system so completely excludes it. It'll sound crazy, rightly, from their point of view. And since you have to have concision, as Jeff Greenfield says, you don't have time toexplain it. That's a marvelous structural technique of propaganda...."

Yes, we are all sheep, and Chomsky is the only informed, rational, educated person on the planet.:roll:

What a bunch of hot air this man is. People that run news programs don't have lunatics like these people on their programs because it would offend their audience and possibly open them up to lawsuits from those implicated by these crack pots. It has nothing to do with these people being afraid to ask the hard questions, and everything to do with being responsible. Again, Chomsky has shown his self to be not worthy of much attention, and or consideration.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Chomsky eh.. Yep no Bush hating agenda there. :rofl

 

[curt]

Chomsky eh.. Yep no Bush hating agenda there. :rofl

Be fair now, every US President since Eisenhower is a war criminal in Chomsky's high opinion. Although I'm mentally stretched to come up with any idea on how Carter deserves to be in that group.

This guy really belongs beneith a bridge and a tinfoil hat. Does anyone wonder why his cult following is so small?

 

[akyron]

Here is a cool thought from Chomsky:

"

Add this to the oxymoron list.

 

[mesue]

Whether you agree with Chomsky or not one does have to recognize that the degree of propaganda is increasing or maybe their just getting more blatant about it and we are all starting to see it.
Three political pundits were paid to promote certain things Bush wanted, then there are the prepackaged video news releases or VNRs, they are presented by some news channels and the news channels do not mention that these reports are totally government paid for, they look like a reporter reporting a story, the thing is when your news reports consist of government sponsored reports then you are definitely having propaganda used to influence your opinion and then on top of that you the taxpayer are paying for it.
one of the pundits paid was (an excerpt, more on website)
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/11/1446234&mode=thread&tid=25
The Bush administration paid prominent African American pundit Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote its controversial No Child Left Behind legislation on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.
Williams was required "to regularly comment on No Child Left Behind during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.

His contract was part of a 1 million dollar government deal with public relations firm Ketchum that produced fake, prepackaged new reports - known as video news releases, or VNRs - that were designed to look like news reports and were used to promote No Child Left Behind. The Bush administration used similar releases last year to promote its Medicare prescription drug plan, prompting a scolding from the Government Accountability Office, which called them an illegal use of taxpayers" dollars.

Just last week, the GAO scolded the Bush administration a second time for distributing VNRs, this time produced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy concerning the dangers of marijuana.

 

[Deegan]

Whether you agree with Chomsky or not one does have to recognize that the degree of propaganda is increasing or maybe their just getting more blatant about it and we are all starting to see it.
Three political pundits were paid to promote certain things Bush wanted, then there are the prepackaged video news releases or VNRs, they are presented by some news channels and the news channels do not mention that these reports are totally government paid for, they look like a reporter reporting a story, the thing is when your news reports consist of government sponsored reports then you are definitely having propaganda used to influence your opinion and then on top of that you the taxpayer are paying for it.
one of the pundits paid was (an excerpt, more on website)
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/11/1446234&mode=thread&tid=25
The Bush administration paid prominent African American pundit Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote its controversial No Child Left Behind legislation on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.
Williams was required "to regularly comment on No Child Left Behind during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.

His contract was part of a 1 million dollar government deal with public relations firm Ketchum that produced fake, prepackaged new reports - known as video news releases, or VNRs - that were designed to look like news reports and were used to promote No Child Left Behind. The Bush administration used similar releases last year to promote its Medicare prescription drug plan, prompting a scolding from the Government Accountability Office, which called them an illegal use of taxpayers" dollars.

Just last week, the GAO scolded the Bush administration a second time for distributing VNRs, this time produced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy concerning the dangers of marijuana.

Problem is, Chomsky is not discussing this case, or anything like this case, he is indeed off on some rant, some wild eyed accusation that the media is refusing to cover serious, important news stories. He is also suggesting that they will not bring on certain people, because their views may seem crazy......guess what, they are crazy, f**king nuts to be precise.:roll:

In this instance, it was inappropriate for the admin to use tax payer money for this, but this "propaganda" is merely a president trying to do what he thinks is best for kids. This is hardly something I would concern myself with, or choose to label "propaganda" of the negative type.

 

[mesue]

Problem is, Chomsky is not discussing this case, or anything like this case, he is indeed off on some rant, some wild eyed accusation that the media is refusing to cover serious, important news stories. He is also suggesting that they will not bring on certain people, because their views may seem crazy......guess what, they are crazy, f**king nuts to be precise.:roll:

In this instance, it was inappropriate for the admin to use tax payer money for this, but this "propaganda" is merely a president trying to do what he thinks is best for kids. This is hardly something I would concern myself with, or choose to label "propaganda" of the negative type.

You have got to be kidding, you think propaganda being used to manipulate you or anyone is ok because you agree with the president's policy. Is propaganda ok if you don't agree with it? Have you looked at the no kid left behind plan? Every teacher out there is against it, and to top off that, there is no new funding for it. It takes funding away from programs that are working. If the plan was so good why would the Bush Administration need to try and sell it through propaganda?

There are many others ways the news media has manipulated your opinion, like Chomsky is talking about, when they were discussing the war on tv on the news channels they showed 97% of the pundits and people for the war, only 3% against it and of those three percent, not one pundit was shown against the war, only the man on the street and of course each time they would pick the most odd looking person they could find, one that most Americans would not identify with. When they are showing political pundits for the war and none against it and there were plenty to choose from that were against the war, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out they are working to form your opinion for you, not educate you on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VNR
A video news release (VNR) is a public relations or a propaganda technique whereby a video or radio program is produced, edited and distributed to various media outlets, with the intent to shape public opinion, or to promote and publicize a media personality, commercial product or service, or to advocate a particular point of view.

Targeted broadcasters of produced VNRs may be local and national television, radio stations and cable networks (collectively, "media outlets") by PR firms, advertising agencies, marketing firms, corporations, and government agencies. (The term "VNR" is used primarily in the United States, where the use of VNR's produced by the U.S. government has brought public condemnation.)

While unbounded by recognized standards of journalistic ethics, the most widely used form of VNR is crafted in the style of a news report and used, in whole or in part, primarily, during news and public affairs programs; yet, almost without exception, no mention is made within these programs that the source of a particular story is, in fact, a VNR. A related technique is the satellite media tour.


mesue writes, And if they are using propaganda against you to sell you this, then surely one must wonder what else? What other propaganda and disinformation are we getting as news? What else are they lying about and selling it to you as the truth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_administration_payment_of_columnists
Bush administration payment of columnists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
The Bush administration payment of columnists refers to the payment of public funds to right-wing media commentators by several U.S. executive departments under Cabinet officials to promote various policies of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration. Thousands of dollars were paid to at least three commentators to promote Bush administration policies.

The payments were revealed on January 7, 2005, in an investigative report by Greg Toppo of USA Today. USA Today had obtained the information through documents provided by the U.S. Department of Education after the newspaper had made a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents showed that Armstrong Williams, a prominent syndicated columnist and commentator on CNN and CNBC, had received $241,000 of tax money through the Education Department's contract with Ketchum Communications, a public relations firm. In exchange for the money, Williams promoted the No Child Left Behind initiative and encouraged other journalists and commentators to provide favorable views of the law. Williams admitted that he had received the payments and wrote a column entitled "My Apology," admitting to the charges but writing that he "did not change [his] views just because my PR firm was receiving paid advertising promoting the No Child Left Behind Act." Williams' column was cancelled by the Tribune Company, which had previously syndicated his work.

A second syndicated columnist, Maggie Gallagher, was revealed to have also accepted public funds from the Bush administration. An article by Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post first reported on January 26 that Gallagher had received $41,500 in two federal contracts from the Department of Health and Human Services for authoring brochures, a magazine article and a report and briefing government employees in support of Bush's marriage initiative, which redirected welfare funds to pay for premarital counseling and abstinence education.

Michael McManus is the third person to be implicated, in an article by Tom Hamburger of The Los Angeles Times on January 28. It was revealed that McManus, who is a self-described marriage advocate and writes the "Ethics & Religion" column that appears in 50 regional newspapers, was paid through a subcontractor with a consulting firm that does work for the Department of Health and Human Services. The payments were said to be $4,000 plus travel expenses, with an additional $49,000 paid to his organization, Marriage Savers Inc.

For more on the use of propaganda against you, also see

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_propaganda_and_disinformation

 

[Deegan]

You have got to be kidding, you think propaganda being used to manipulate you or anyone is ok because you agree with the president's policy. Is propaganda ok if you don't agree with it? Have you looked at the no kid left behind plan? Every teacher out there is against it, and to top off that, there is no new funding for it. It takes funding away from programs that are working. If the plan was so good why would the Bush Administration need to try and sell it through propaganda?

There are many others ways the news media has manipulated your opinion, like Chomsky is talking about, when they were discussing the war on tv on the news channels they showed 97% of the pundits and people for the war, only 3% against it and of those three percent, not one pundit was shown against the war, only the man on the street and of course each time they would pick the most odd looking person they could find, one that most Americans would not identify with. When they are showing political pundits for the war and none against it and there were plenty to choose from that were against the war, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out they are working to form your opinion for you, not educate you on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VNR
A video news release (VNR) is a public relations or a propaganda technique whereby a video or radio program is produced, edited and distributed to various media outlets, with the intent to shape public opinion, or to promote and publicize a media personality, commercial product or service, or to advocate a particular point of view.

Targeted broadcasters of produced VNRs may be local and national television, radio stations and cable networks (collectively, "media outlets") by PR firms, advertising agencies, marketing firms, corporations, and government agencies. (The term "VNR" is used primarily in the United States, where the use of VNR's produced by the U.S. government has brought public condemnation.)

While unbounded by recognized standards of journalistic ethics, the most widely used form of VNR is crafted in the style of a news report and used, in whole or in part, primarily, during news and public affairs programs; yet, almost without exception, no mention is made within these programs that the source of a particular story is, in fact, a VNR. A related technique is the satellite media tour.


mesue writes, And if they are using propaganda against you to sell you this, then surely one must wonder what else? What other propaganda and disinformation are we getting as news? What else are they lying about and selling it to you as the truth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_administration_payment_of_columnists
Bush administration payment of columnists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
The Bush administration payment of columnists refers to the payment of public funds to right-wing media commentators by several U.S. executive departments under Cabinet officials to promote various policies of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration. Thousands of dollars were paid to at least three commentators to promote Bush administration policies.

The payments were revealed on January 7, 2005, in an investigative report by Greg Toppo of USA Today. USA Today had obtained the information through documents provided by the U.S. Department of Education after the newspaper had made a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents showed that Armstrong Williams, a prominent syndicated columnist and commentator on CNN and CNBC, had received $241,000 of tax money through the Education Department's contract with Ketchum Communications, a public relations firm. In exchange for the money, Williams promoted the No Child Left Behind initiative and encouraged other journalists and commentators to provide favorable views of the law. Williams admitted that he had received the payments and wrote a column entitled "My Apology," admitting to the charges but writing that he "did not change [his] views just because my PR firm was receiving paid advertising promoting the No Child Left Behind Act." Williams' column was cancelled by the Tribune Company, which had previously syndicated his work.

A second syndicated columnist, Maggie Gallagher, was revealed to have also accepted public funds from the Bush administration. An article by Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post first reported on January 26 that Gallagher had received $41,500 in two federal contracts from the Department of Health and Human Services for authoring brochures, a magazine article and a report and briefing government employees in support of Bush's marriage initiative, which redirected welfare funds to pay for premarital counseling and abstinence education.

Michael McManus is the third person to be implicated, in an article by Tom Hamburger of The Los Angeles Times on January 28. It was revealed that McManus, who is a self-described marriage advocate and writes the "Ethics & Religion" column that appears in 50 regional newspapers, was paid through a subcontractor with a consulting firm that does work for the Department of Health and Human Services. The payments were said to be $4,000 plus travel expenses, with an additional $49,000 paid to his organization, Marriage Savers Inc.



http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_propaganda_and_disinformation

If your rhetoric were correct, then the country would not be changing it's mind on this war. There are more then a few pundits that disagree with the war, I would offer Aaron Brown for one, as he is one I watch from time to time. He often times shows the names of the dead, and that is his way of showing his displeasure, if you want raving lunatics, read more Chomsky my friend, it ain't gonna happen on responsible news channels. Unfortunately, they have more then one type of person to cater to, there is nothing wrong with this, only to those arrogant enough to believe their view should be 24/7, i.e, you and Chomsky.:roll:

 

[mesue]

If your rhetoric were correct, then the country would not be changing it's mind on this war. There are more then a few pundits that disagree with the war, I would offer Aaron Brown for one, as he is one I watch from time to time. He often times shows the names of the dead, and that is his way of showing his displeasure, if you want raving lunatics, read more Chomsky my friend, it ain't gonna happen on responsible news channels. Unfortunately, they have more then one type of person to cater to, there is nothing wrong with this, only to those arrogant enough to believe their view should be 24/7, i.e, you and Chomsky.:roll:

Oh would that be the same Aaron Brown who is no longer working for CNN? If it went down as earlier reports came out he got fired. The reason public opinion is changing is not because of the news you are watching, its due to the many news sources we have today available to us like the internet, and sources not controlled by the mainstream media and corporations.

You are correct in that there are many pundits against the war, and I noted this also, but none were shown early on in any interviews leading up to the war. While you may not like Chomsky (and I did not say I agree with him on everything, you assume too much) the fact is not one pundit against the war was shown on any news channels during the lead up to war but dozens upon dozens of, for the war pundits, were interviewed. Tell me how that is presenting both sides of the picture? The best you can do is tell me that Aaron Brown showed the names of the dead and therefore he showed his displeasure over the war and that made him a pundit who spoke out against the war, many would say that mentioning their names was just a form of respect for the military person who died in combat. But you view even mentioning their names as protesting the war. Now that is sad! You praise their valor in combat but then the mention of their names once their gone is considered by you as a protest of war.

I gave you facts not rhetoric about propaganda but hey just keep on believing those VNR's and the paid pundits who at least three, have admitted to actually getting paid by the government to give you a certain viewpoint. and apparently its working,

 

[Deegan]

Oh would that be the same Aaron Brown who is no longer working for CNN? If it went down as earlier reports came out he got fired. The reason public opinion is changing is not because of the news you are watching, its due to the many news sources we have today available to us like the internet, and sources not controlled by the mainstream media and corporations.

You are correct in that there are many pundits against the war, and I noted this also, but none were shown early on in any interviews leading up to the war. While you may not like Chomsky (and I did not say I agree with him on everything, you assume too much) the fact is not one pundit against the war was shown on any news channels during the lead up to war but dozens upon dozens of, for the war pundits, were interviewed. Tell me how that is presenting both sides of the picture? The best you can do is tell me that Aaron Brown showed the names of the dead and therefore he showed his displeasure over the war and that made him a pundit who spoke out against the war, many would say that mentioning their names was just a form of respect for the military person who died in combat. But you view even mentioning their names as protesting the war. Now that is sad! You praise their valor in combat but then the mention of their names once their gone is considered by you as a protest of war.

I gave you facts not rhetoric about propaganda but hey just keep on believing those VNR's and the paid pundits who at least three, have admitted to actually getting paid by the government to give you a certain viewpoint. and apparently its working,

You are just not factually correct, there are many pundits who are openly against the war, but they are pundits, and that is their job. Now if you are discussing real news men, their job is to be the moderate, not to form opinions, to bring both sides to the table, and remain neutral. There is nothing wrong with this, having Dean on one side, and Melman on the other, this is what I see most Sunday mornings, I don't know what you have been watching. I had not heard Brown was fired, but he probably did cross the line from responsible news man, to partisan pundit, and was replaced by someone who could handle themselves appropriately. As a publically held corp. you have certain rules that are followed, this is the way it is, and I am glad it is. The alternative would be a war of distortions, and lies, that's what the internet and others are for, your own self satisfaction, mental masturbation, and to hear exactly what you want to hear, and believe.

 

[mesue]

You are just not factually correct, there are many pundits who are openly against the war, but they are pundits, and that is their job. Now if you are discussing real news men, their job is to be the moderate, not to form opinions, to bring both sides to the table, and remain neutral. There is nothing wrong with this, having Dean on one side, and Melman on the other, this is what I see most Sunday mornings, I don't know what you have been watching. I had not heard Brown was fired, but he probably did cross the line from responsible news man, to partisan pundit, and was replaced by someone who could handle themselves appropriately. As a publically held corp. you have certain rules that are followed, this is the way it is, and I am glad it is. The alternative would be a war of distortions, and lies, that's what the internet and others are for, your own self satisfaction, mental masturbation, and to hear exactly what you want to hear, and believe.

When I use the word pundit here in relation to the person being interviewed I am not talking about the journalist. I am talking about the learned person who is invited in to give their opinions based on their expertise. And I will say again not one scholar was invited in for an interview to tell why they were against the war in the days before the war or early on when the war first began.
Brown was supposedly let go by CNN due to the ratings being low, his show was replaced by Anderson Cooper. Brown was one of my favorites too, Though I admit I watch very little of CNN and most of the other corporate news media usually just to check out how much of the story their telling. For every hour you watch you probably only get about 25 minutes of the news and part of that is made up of fluff news (do good stories, pets and entertainment folks, sports) its really pathetic what they are presenting as news these days.
Anyway you keep telling me that many of the journalists were openly against the war? Which ones? I missed it.