The Perfection of Propaganda

[rightwinger]

1960s : The War, The Draft, Civil Rights

2014: Heathcare, Benghazi, End of the War in Afghanistan

I see the connection

Funny you should mention the Civil Rights movement. Today the unemployment rate for Blacks is around 13% while the national average is 7%.

Where is the outrage? Blacks even voted for Obama twice with about 98% of Blacks voting for Obama.

It seems that being the most powerful man in the world is not as cracked up as it seems I suppose.

I think it a fair assessment by the establishment that they can completely ignore the plight of blacks since Obama is himself black.

Do you understand what the Civil Rights movement was about?

 

[occupied]

Interesting, you discount the participation of the media entirely.

But then, how do we learn about the wars abroad? Is it not the media?

I remember how the media was handling the Syria situation. All media outlets were carrying the hysteria of mass casualties regarding use of WMD's. This was 24/7 coverage, but inexplicably, the American people were no longer buying into it as poll numbers indicated. Obama then backed down and shown to be the fool regarding his fabled crossing of the "Red line" statement.

Don't get me wrong, the establishment has not given up on Syria, no, far from it. They are simply waiting to figure out a better method to secure support from the war weary citizens of the US before proceeding.

I think the establishment learned a great deal from Vietnam. In fact, Hitler learned a great deal from the uprisings in Germany during WW1. Hitler insisted that all money be spent either to aid the war effort or the nanny state at home. The thinking was that so long as the average German had a standard of living that was enjoyable, there would be no uprisings at home. The war weary populace would endure both a world war and genocide. In short, they were all bought off.

Do we not see elements of this in today's society?

During Vietnam, the media, especially TV, was so complicit that it would be astounding in this day and age. That really didn't end until relatively late.

It is clear to me that those in the media are no longer free to do and say what they like.

This was especially made clear as Obama was allowed to infiltrate their communication through the NSA monitoring their phone calls and internet use.

Nothing was done about it. I could only imagine how I would feel if I had mouths to feed.

Give it up, there was never a golden age of news media. It's always been a pile of bullshit and purposely ignored issues.

 

[Votto]

During Vietnam, the media, especially TV, was so complicit that it would be astounding in this day and age. That really didn't end until relatively late.

It is clear to me that those in the media are no longer free to do and say what they like.

This was especially made clear as Obama was allowed to infiltrate their communication through the NSA monitoring their phone calls and internet use.

Nothing was done about it. I could only imagine how I would feel if I had mouths to feed.

Give it up, there was never a golden age of news media. It's always been a pile of bullshit and purposely ignored issues.

Agreed. However, are things worse today?

Put another way, if the establishment had power over the media in the 1960's, why would they allow coverage of the Vietnam war that ran contrary to policy?

Did they want uprisings?

 

[occupied]

It is clear to me that those in the media are no longer free to do and say what they like.

This was especially made clear as Obama was allowed to infiltrate their communication through the NSA monitoring their phone calls and internet use.

Nothing was done about it. I could only imagine how I would feel if I had mouths to feed.

Give it up, there was never a golden age of news media. It's always been a pile of bullshit and purposely ignored issues.

Agreed. However, are things worse today?

Put another way, if the establishment had power over the media in the 1960's, why would they allow coverage of the Vietnam war that ran contrary to policy?

Did they want uprisings?

No, things are better. We have access to the truth, it's your own fault if you only listen to news that has been spun to suit your political leanings.

 

[Votto]

Give it up, there was never a golden age of news media. It's always been a pile of bullshit and purposely ignored issues.

Agreed. However, are things worse today?

Put another way, if the establishment had power over the media in the 1960's, why would they allow coverage of the Vietnam war that ran contrary to policy?

Did they want uprisings?

No, things are better. We have access to the truth, it's your own fault if you only listen to news that has been spun to suit your political leanings.

This is not about me, this is about society and propaganda within such a society.

Would you say that people are listening to the truth or merely buying into what the establishment wants them to believe?

 

[francoHFW]

IT AS THE DRAFT. oUR MEDIA HAS NEVER BEEN WORSE THAT IT IS NOW...RATINGS AND CONTROVERSY MAD, FINDING THE TRUTH NOT A GOAL, THE rw MEDIA IS A LYING LOUDMOUTH DISGRACE, THE LSM too cowardly to tell the truth...

 

[occupied]

Agreed. However, are things worse today?

Put another way, if the establishment had power over the media in the 1960's, why would they allow coverage of the Vietnam war that ran contrary to policy?

Did they want uprisings?

No, things are better. We have access to the truth, it's your own fault if you only listen to news that has been spun to suit your political leanings.

This is not about me, this is about society and propaganda within such a society.

Would you say that people are listening to the truth or merely buying into what the establishment wants them to believe?

There are all kinds of establishments, that's why you have all kinds of spin. If there was only one version of any story to be had anywhere then you could say that the media was controlled. What you have failed to consider is that America is not nearly as obsessed with politics as us and find stories of celeb break-ups and Justin fucking Beeber to actually be interesting. They are not interested in the nuance of policy or the dry drone of facts and figures. If you want to talk propaganda it's the fluff that makes people not care about politics that is the danger, not any kind of easily disproved spin.

 

[Votto]

I WAS THE DRAFT. oUR MEDIA HAS NEVER BEEN WORSE THAT IT IS NOW...RATINGS AND CONTROVERSY MAD, FINDING THE TRUTH NOT A GOAL, THE rw MEDIA IS A LYING LOUDMOUTH DISGRACE, THE LSM too cowardly to tell the truth...

There used to be the "Fairness Doctrine". Media were restricted from saying what they wanted on the basis that they could not do so without giving adequate retort to that particular view. However, during the Reagan administration it got overturned.

Before this, all we had was Walter Cronkite saying, "And that's the way it is..."

I think perhaps the establishment simply felt powerful enough to give more freedom to the press, knowing that they no longer were a valid threat since government had become so powerful. It gave the added illusion of openness.

 

[Votto]

No, things are better. We have access to the truth, it's your own fault if you only listen to news that has been spun to suit your political leanings.

This is not about me, this is about society and propaganda within such a society.

Would you say that people are listening to the truth or merely buying into what the establishment wants them to believe?

There are all kinds of establishments, that's why you have all kinds of spin. If there was only one version of any story to be had anywhere then you could say that the media was controlled. What you have failed to consider is that America is not nearly as obsessed with politics as us and find stories of celeb break-ups and Justin fucking Beeber to actually be interesting. They are not interested in the nuance of policy or the dry drone of facts and figures. If you want to talk propaganda it's the fluff that makes people not care about politics that is the danger, not any kind of easily disproved spin.

I don't question the notion that ignorant stories are part of the propaganda, but to additionally think that no spin is provided to relevant stories is borderline insane.

 

[occupied]

This is not about me, this is about society and propaganda within such a society.

Would you say that people are listening to the truth or merely buying into what the establishment wants them to believe?

There are all kinds of establishments, that's why you have all kinds of spin. If there was only one version of any story to be had anywhere then you could say that the media was controlled. What you have failed to consider is that America is not nearly as obsessed with politics as us and find stories of celeb break-ups and Justin fucking Beeber to actually be interesting. They are not interested in the nuance of policy or the dry drone of facts and figures. If you want to talk propaganda it's the fluff that makes people not care about politics that is the danger, not any kind of easily disproved spin.

I don't question the notion that ignorant stories are part of the propaganda, but to additionally think that no spin is provided to relevant stories is borderline insane.

Do you think it is possible to present a story totally without spin and it still be interesting? It's a fools dream to think such mechanical neutrality is possible in anyone involved enough to write a news piece. You are complaining about human nature, useless. Media has to appeal to it's audience or who would listen?

 

[Votto]

There are all kinds of establishments, that's why you have all kinds of spin. If there was only one version of any story to be had anywhere then you could say that the media was controlled. What you have failed to consider is that America is not nearly as obsessed with politics as us and find stories of celeb break-ups and Justin fucking Beeber to actually be interesting. They are not interested in the nuance of policy or the dry drone of facts and figures. If you want to talk propaganda it's the fluff that makes people not care about politics that is the danger, not any kind of easily disproved spin.

I don't question the notion that ignorant stories are part of the propaganda, but to additionally think that no spin is provided to relevant stories is borderline insane.

Do you think it is possible to present a story totally without spin and it still be interesting? It's a fools dream to think such mechanical neutrality is possible in anyone involved enough to write a news piece. You are complaining about human nature, useless. Media has to appeal to it's audience or who would listen?

Neutrality? What are you babbling about?

I'm talking about propaganda here. Do you acknowledge it's existence or deny it?

 

[Moonglow]

The issues of this war is that we were attacked and we offered Afghanistan democrat people if they wanted our help driving out the cruel and oppressive Taliban. But in Nam we were practicing babysitting nations under control of Japan that were liberated by the allies in WWII. They felt theses countries could not govern themselves since Nam was a French dominated the country practising colonialism and the natives had littel knowledg of running the nation.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Would our nutters please try to keep their misrepresentation of the facts and of our History to one attempt per post? It gets tiresome when you bunch them together like this.

 

[occupied]

I don't question the notion that ignorant stories are part of the propaganda, but to additionally think that no spin is provided to relevant stories is borderline insane.

Do you think it is possible to present a story totally without spin and it still be interesting? It's a fools dream to think such mechanical neutrality is possible in anyone involved enough to write a news piece. You are complaining about human nature, useless. Media has to appeal to it's audience or who would listen?

Neutrality? What are you babbling about?

I'm talking about propaganda here. Do you acknowledge it's existence or deny it?

I'll give you an example of a neutral news story.

President Obama said "quote" in the white house rose garden. The end.


Well what does that mean? Bring on the analysis and the spin that many take to be propaganda, whether it is or isn't depends on your perspective but some part of every reporter's perceptions and values becomes part of the story. My point is that by depending on journalistic analysis we get exposed to multiple spins and views that we may agree with and make them our own opinion or not. None of our opinions are truly our own, at some point we agreed with some sort of spin.

What the hell is propaganda anyway? No clear answer in our society as we have no real control of the media, it's entirely up to the observer to sift though the mountain of conflicting information for the "truth".

 

[Votto]

Do you think it is possible to present a story totally without spin and it still be interesting? It's a fools dream to think such mechanical neutrality is possible in anyone involved enough to write a news piece. You are complaining about human nature, useless. Media has to appeal to it's audience or who would listen?

Neutrality? What are you babbling about?

I'm talking about propaganda here. Do you acknowledge it's existence or deny it?

I'll give you an example of a neutral news story.

President Obama said "quote" in the white house rose garden. The end.


Well what does that mean? Bring on the analysis and the spin that many take to be propaganda, whether it is or isn't depends on your perspective but some part of every reporter's perceptions and values becomes part of the story. My point is that by depending on journalistic analysis we get exposed to multiple spins and views that we may agree with and make them our own opinion or not. None of our opinions are truly our own, at some point we agreed with some sort of spin.

What the hell is propaganda anyway? No clear answer in our society as we have no real control of the media, it's entirely up to the observer to sift though the mountain of conflicting information for the "truth".

Propaganda is using media to steer opinion.

It's pretty simple really.

You obviously don't think that it is an art nor that the US government is engaged in it.

 

[Votto]

The issues of this war is that we were attacked and we offered Afghanistan democrat people if they wanted our help driving out the cruel and oppressive Taliban. But in Nam we were practicing babysitting nations under control of Japan that were liberated by the allies in WWII. They felt theses countries could not govern themselves since Nam was a French dominated the country practising colonialism and the natives had littel knowledg of running the nation.

And Libya?

Did you think Obama should have gone into Syria as well?

 

[occupied]

Neutrality? What are you babbling about?

I'm talking about propaganda here. Do you acknowledge it's existence or deny it?

I'll give you an example of a neutral news story.

President Obama said "quote" in the white house rose garden. The end.


Well what does that mean? Bring on the analysis and the spin that many take to be propaganda, whether it is or isn't depends on your perspective but some part of every reporter's perceptions and values becomes part of the story. My point is that by depending on journalistic analysis we get exposed to multiple spins and views that we may agree with and make them our own opinion or not. None of our opinions are truly our own, at some point we agreed with some sort of spin.

What the hell is propaganda anyway? No clear answer in our society as we have no real control of the media, it's entirely up to the observer to sift though the mountain of conflicting information for the "truth".

Propaganda is using media to steer opinion.

It's pretty simple really.

You obviously don't think that it is an art nor that the US government is engaged in it.

I never said that, look at the news media sources, we have thousands of websites and dozens of channels and they say all kinds of different things spun to appeal to all kinds of audiences, government propaganda is only really effective when it is the only source of information, alternative views spoil the effect. So yes, technically, every bit of info coming from the government should be suspected as bullshit propaganda, but there is always another view to counter it and thankfully we are free as a bird to access it and form our opinions.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Does anyone remember the protests of the 1960's?

View attachment 29219

The youth of America was up in arms over wars abroad.

However, what of today? Where are the protests? Could it be that the establishment has learned to perfect the art of propaganda? Young people around the country lined up to vote the Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama that has helped bring peace to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. And guess what, they would vote for him again if the could.

I remember that time very well. I remember coming home from Viet Nam, landing at San Francisco ( to change planes) and being cursed at by hippies. Yeah I remember those times quite well.

I also remember that piece of trash Cindy Sheehan (Wonder what happened to that turd). Apparently she's fine with Barry's war….

I also remember this:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


I wonder how many of these "hippies" named "Moonglow" or "Sunshine" have ever bothered to read this…...

 

[Clementine]

Do we really need a thread about the difference between the 60's and today?

Do you need to waste our time stopping by a thread you're not interested in so you can take up space with a stupid post?

A lot has changed since the 60s and not all for the better. That was a time when kids actually learned things in school or they were lectured by parents and teachers.

Of course, the hippie age and drugs turned people into mellow, anti-war, anti-establishment potheads.

Now, we have kids who are spoonfed propaganda with their free lunches. Anyone who does pay attention and protests against the government, like the tea party, gets bashed by the media and government. Only those launching protests to support the rhetoric of the administration get praise even if they don't deserve it, like the Occupoopers did.

In the 60s, no one would have gotten away with saying the majority of school children are starving and grossly overweight at the same time. Common sense was more prevalent then. No one was demanding free shit and those temporarily on welfare hoped they could keep that a secret until they were on their feet again. And they actually tried.

The left is impressed with vulgarity, like Miley's performances, and disgusted by the site of a family praying at the dinner table. Many things have changed.

I miss the 60s.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Do we really need a thread about the difference between the 60's and today?

Do you need to waste our time stopping by a thread you're not interested in so you can take up space with a stupid post?

A lot has changed since the 60s and not all for the better. That was a time when kids actually learned things in school or they were lectured by parents and teachers.

Of course, the hippie age and drugs turned people into mellow, anti-war, anti-establishment potheads.

Now, we have kids who are spoonfed propaganda with their free lunches. Anyone who does pay attention and protests against the government, like the tea party, gets bashed by the media and government. Only those launching protests to support the rhetoric of the administration get praise even if they don't deserve it, like the Occupoopers did.

In the 60s, no one would have gotten away with saying the majority of school children are starving and grossly overweight at the same time. Common sense was more prevalent then. No one was demanding free shit and those temporarily on welfare hoped they could keep that a secret until they were on their feet again. And they actually tried.

The left is impressed with vulgarity, like Miley's performances, and disgusted by the site of a family praying at the dinner table. Many things have changed.

I miss the 60s.

I miss the moral fabric that existed then - when construction workers would leave their jobs to beat the hell out of protesting hippies - just for the hell of it. Remember the phrase: America - Love It or Leave It.

Funny, as an old man of 69 - I STILL live by that credo…..