Noam Chomsky - "10 strategies of manipulation" by the media

PapPap Posts: 28,989
edited July 2012 in A Moving Train
1. The strategy of distraction

The primary element of social control is the strategy of distraction which is to divert public attention from important issues and changes determined by the political and economic elites, by the technique of flood or flooding continuous distractions and insignificant information. distraction strategy is also essential to prevent the public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics. “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance. Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think, back to farm and other animals (quote from text Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).

2. Create problems, then offer solutions

This method is also called “problem -reaction- solution. “It creates a problem, a “situation” referred to cause some reaction in the audience, so this is the principal of the steps that you want to accept. For example: let it unfold and intensify urban violence, or arrange for bloody attacks in order that the public is the applicant‟s security laws and policies to the detriment of freedom. Or: create an economic crisis to accept as a necessary evil retreat of social rights and the dismantling of public services.

3. The gradual strategy

acceptance to an unacceptable degree, just apply it gradually, dropper, for consecutive years. That is how they radically new socioeconomic conditions ( neoliberalism ) were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s: the minimal state, privatization, precariousness, flexibility, massive unemployment, wages, and do not guarantee a decent income, so many changes that have brought about a revolution if they had been applied once.

4. The strategy of deferring

Another way to accept an unpopular decision is to present it as “painful and necessary”, gaining public acceptance, at the time for future application. It is easier to accept that a future sacrifice of immediate slaughter. First, because the effort is not used immediately. Then, because the public, masses, is always the tendency to expect naively that “everything will be better tomorrow” and that the sacrifice required may be avoided. This gives the public more time to get used to the idea of change and accept it with resignation when the time comes.

5. Go to the public as a little child

Most of the advertising to the general public uses speech, argument, people and particularly children's intonation, often close to the weakness, as if the viewer were a little child or a mentally deficient. The harder one tries to deceive the viewer look, the more it tends to adopt a tone infantilising. Why? “If one goes to a person as if she had the age of 12 years or less, then, because of suggestion, she tends with a certain probability that a response or reaction also devoid of a critical sense as a person 12 years or younger (see Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).

6. Use the emotional side more than the reflection

Making use of the emotional aspect is a classic technique for causing a short circuit on rational analysis , and finally to the critical sense of the individual. Furthermore, the use of emotional register to open the door to the unconscious for implantation or grafting ideas , desires, fears and anxieties , compulsions, or induce behaviors …

7. Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity

Making the public incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslavement. “The quality of education given to the lower social classes must be the poor
and mediocre as possible so that the gap of ignorance it plans among the lower classes and upper classes is and remains impossible to attain for the lower classes (See Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).


8. To encourage the public to be complacent with mediocrity

Promote the public to believe that the fact is fashionable to be stupid, vulgar and uneducated…

9. Self-blame Strengthen

To let individual blame for their misfortune, because of the failure of their intelligence, their
abilities, or their efforts. So, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual autodesvalida and guilt, which creates a depression, one of whose effects is to inhibit its action. And, without action, there is no revolution!


10. Getting to know the individuals better than they know themselves

Over the past 50 years, advances of accelerated science has generated a growing gap between public knowledge and those owned and operated by dominant elites. Thanks to biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the “system” has enjoyed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically. The system has gotten better acquainted with the common man more than he knows himself. This means that, in most cases, the system exerts greater control and great power over individuals, greater than that of individuals about themselves.
Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,592
    interesting.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,086
    I like Chomsky fine, and I get his point(s), but this has a conspiracy vibe to it.

    P.S. what is this 'system', and how do I join?
  • peacefrompaulpeacefrompaul Posts: 25,293
    It is now more about pack journalism than really looking for the real scoop... journalist interpretation rather than honest reporting...
  • PapPap Posts: 28,989
    Go Beavers wrote:
    P.S. what is this 'system', and how do I join?

    The "system" are they who actually rule our world. Don't confuse them with their puppets (politicians). I'm talking about the big economic interests here (banks, oil companies and other cartels). I guess you don't want to join them but fight against them. Of course if you try doing this in an openly-public way, i hope you know you're dead the very next moment. The "system" unfortunately has the power to "swallow" everyone of us. So you would ask me: Then what? It seems very much like a dead-end situation. But it's not in my humble and optimistic opinion. You can first make yourself a better person and then try to make the world that you live in a better place little by little.
    It is now more about pack journalism than really looking for the real scoop... journalist interpretation rather than honest reporting...

    This and they say what the big heads allow them to say. It's all about their interests. We're talking about mass hypnosis here. Otherwise known as mass manipulation. They try to create new generations of robots which are programmed to obey them. Look at the youths of today. They are only interested in Fakebook and catatonic films and music. They live like zombies. They don't have a social life. They are already problematic kids (disposable kids). And then, our friends come to suggest them how they should live in order to make their lives better. The rest is history.
    Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Chomsky's theories are outdated by about 15-20 years.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • PapPap Posts: 28,989
    know1 wrote:
    Chomsky's theories are outdated by about 15-20 years.


    Maybe. He is certainly not the first who talked about this subject. You can find many interesting opinions in the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers. I know I know, they didn't watch television back then but mass manipulation is certainly a diachronic matter. Can you please suggest an up-to-date article or book on this topic?
    Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Pap wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    Chomsky's theories are outdated by about 15-20 years.


    Maybe. He is certainly not the first who talked about this subject. You can find many interesting opinions in the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers. I know I know, they didn't watch television back then but mass manipulation is certainly a diachronic matter. Can you please suggest an up-to-date article or book on this topic?

    I'm just saying that the ability of the media to manipulate is dying.

    Access to information is now prolific and instant and not really controlled by any one entity. I get more news from people on Twitter and Facebook than anywhere else.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • PapPap Posts: 28,989
    know1 wrote:
    I'm just saying that the ability of the media to manipulate is dying.

    Access to information is now prolific and instant and not really controlled by any one entity. I get more news from people on Twitter and Facebook than anywhere else.


    I don't see that - the ability of the media to manipulate is dying - but I hope someday it does happen. As far as the access to information and the fact that is not controlled anymore is concerned, I respectfully disagree. Unfortunately, there are still many countries (Latin America, South Africa etc.) on this planet which still don't have free access to this kind of information (prolific and instant). They only allow them to see what they want to. Of course, in this case you must have your ears, your mind and your eyes open (critical ability), otherwise you can easily become another one of their pawns.
    Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Pap wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    I'm just saying that the ability of the media to manipulate is dying.

    Access to information is now prolific and instant and not really controlled by any one entity. I get more news from people on Twitter and Facebook than anywhere else.


    I don't see that - the ability of the media to manipulate is dying - but I hope someday it does happen. As far as the access to information and the fact that is not controlled anymore is concerned, I respectfully disagree. Unfortunately, there are still many countries (Latin America, South Africa etc.) on this planet which still don't have free access to this kind of information (prolific and instant). They only allow them to see what they want to. Of course, in this case you must have your ears, your mind and your eyes open (critical ability), otherwise you can easily become another one of their pawns.

    OK - I'll grant you that in some areas the media can still manipulate where the the internet is not pervasive or oppressive governments exist. But those areas are slowly getting smaller.

    But...it really is a dying issue. Think about how much easier it was to be manipulated in the 1800s and even right up into the late 1990s. There is FAR less ability/opportunity to manipulate now than ever before.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • PapPap Posts: 28,989
    know1 wrote:
    OK - I'll grant you that in some areas the media can still manipulate where the the internet is not pervasive or oppressive governments exist. But those areas are slowly getting smaller.

    But...it really is a dying issue. Think about how much easier it was to be manipulated in the 1800s and even right up into the late 1990s. There is FAR less ability/opportunity to manipulate now than ever before.

    That's true (There is FAR less ability/opportunity to manipulate now than ever before.). As far as this statement - oppressive governments exist. But those areas are slowly getting smaller - is concerned, I would say that yes indeed they are getting smaller but not always in the right way (they try to inject their "democracy" with what they call war for democracy and freedom). We better ask those peoples what they really want. For all I know - while we're at the information access subject - they want free access to unbiased information like everyone of us who is still wide awake. On second thoughts, even we who live in the so-called developed world we can't have access to this kind of information. So, again we have to use our mind and always think critically.
    Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    edited July 2012
    Are you kidding? Mass media's manipulation is certainly not dying, it's only growing! And if you rely on Twitter and Facebook for your information, then you are being fooled by the wide world of non-truth, word-of-mouth, opinions and marketing. Wake up and realize that as long as you are attached to a TV, computer, radio or at the very least, you live in society, you are being manipulated every single day.
    Post edited by Jeanwah on
  • PapPap Posts: 28,989
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Mass media's manipulation is certainly not dying, it's only growing! And if you rely on Twitter and Facebook for your information, then you are being fooled by the wide world of non-truth, word-of-mouth, opinions and marketing. Wake up and realize that as long as you are attached to a TV, computer, radio or at the very least, you live in society, you are being manipulated every single day.

    You covered me.
    Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Are you kidding? Mass media's manipulation is certainly not dying, it's only growing! And if you rely on Twitter and Facebook for your information, then you are being fooled by the wide world of non-truth, word-of-mouth, opinions and marketing. Wake up and realize that as long as you are attached to a TV, computer, radio or at the very least, you live in society, you are being manipulated every single day.

    My point is that you have access to many, many, many, many more OPINIONS and sources of information these days as to what is going on in the world than you did just 15-20 years ago. With access to more sources of information and opinions, you have a much better chance of actually defining the truth as opposed to just having to resign yourself to take things as they're presented to you.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    know1 wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Are you kidding? Mass media's manipulation is certainly not dying, it's only growing! And if you rely on Twitter and Facebook for your information, then you are being fooled by the wide world of non-truth, word-of-mouth, opinions and marketing. Wake up and realize that as long as you are attached to a TV, computer, radio or at the very least, you live in society, you are being manipulated every single day.

    My point is that you have access to many, many, many, many more OPINIONS and sources of information these days as to what is going on in the world than you did just 15-20 years ago. With access to more sources of information and opinions, you have a much better chance of actually defining the truth as opposed to just having to resign yourself to take things as they're presented to you.

    Do you know anything about the media 20+ years ago? It was about delivering a public service. It was about delivering the facts. It was about integrity. Media nowadays depends on opinion and celeb gossip not facts. So you can't possibly compare media from 20 years ago when we were actually told factual info by Walter Cronkite and today's circus where journalism is truly dead.

    Yes, you have more options for "news" now, but all you're doing is seeking out verification for what you want to hear, and yes, the internet is so open and widespread that you will find what you're looking for from somewhere. Doesn't mean it's truth! Questioning absolutely everything you see and hear will get you closer to truth than anything else. Just because there's more mediums and sources of info does not equal better - it just equals more bullshit to sift through in searching out the truth.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Do you know anything about the media 20+ years ago? It was about delivering a public service. It was about delivering the facts. It was about integrity. Media nowadays depends on opinion and celeb gossip not facts. So you can't possibly compare media from 20 years ago when we were actually told factual info by Walter Cronkite and today's circus where journalism is truly dead.

    Yes, you have more options for "news" now, but all you're doing is seeking out verification for what you want to hear, and yes, the internet is so open and widespread that you will find what you're looking for from somewhere. Doesn't mean it's truth! Questioning absolutely everything you see and hear will get you closer to truth than anything else. Just because there's more mediums and sources of info does not equal better - it just equals more bullshit to sift through in searching out the truth.

    That's hilarious because I have a totally different view. I think we TRUSTED way too much that we were getting factual info by Walter Cronkite and others and therefore it was much easier to manipulate us. Go back even further and as people had less and less access to info, they were more subject to being manipulated. I do not think for one minute that news sources back in the day were unbiased, but it was just far too difficult to fact check them. Not so much anymore.

    I agree that journalism today is a circus, but it's because we just don't really need it. I also agree that questioning everything gets you closer to everything, and I think the availability of info today makes it soooo much easier to question.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    know1 wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Do you know anything about the media 20+ years ago? It was about delivering a public service. It was about delivering the facts. It was about integrity. Media nowadays depends on opinion and celeb gossip not facts. So you can't possibly compare media from 20 years ago when we were actually told factual info by Walter Cronkite and today's circus where journalism is truly dead.

    Yes, you have more options for "news" now, but all you're doing is seeking out verification for what you want to hear, and yes, the internet is so open and widespread that you will find what you're looking for from somewhere. Doesn't mean it's truth! Questioning absolutely everything you see and hear will get you closer to truth than anything else. Just because there's more mediums and sources of info does not equal better - it just equals more bullshit to sift through in searching out the truth.

    That's hilarious because I have a totally different view. I think we TRUSTED way too much that we were getting factual info by Walter Cronkite and others and therefore it was much easier to manipulate us. Go back even further and as people had less and less access to info, they were more subject to being manipulated. I do not think for one minute that news sources back in the day were unbiased, but it was just far too difficult to fact check them. Not so much anymore.

    Are you hearing me? Back then, news was a public service. Go read Cronkite's book. Look up any true news photojournalist of at least 20 years ago and see what they think about what's going on. Journalism was about digging for the truth out of government including all of their scandals, not government controlling journalists and tying their hands with censorship threats. Media in general is manipulation but more-so it's marketing and advertising. The news business is newer to the mass manipulation game. We weren't manipulated as much long ago, because the news was not controlled by the govt!
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Jeanwah wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Do you know anything about the media 20+ years ago? It was about delivering a public service. It was about delivering the facts. It was about integrity. Media nowadays depends on opinion and celeb gossip not facts. So you can't possibly compare media from 20 years ago when we were actually told factual info by Walter Cronkite and today's circus where journalism is truly dead.

    Yes, you have more options for "news" now, but all you're doing is seeking out verification for what you want to hear, and yes, the internet is so open and widespread that you will find what you're looking for from somewhere. Doesn't mean it's truth! Questioning absolutely everything you see and hear will get you closer to truth than anything else. Just because there's more mediums and sources of info does not equal better - it just equals more bullshit to sift through in searching out the truth.

    That's hilarious because I have a totally different view. I think we TRUSTED way too much that we were getting factual info by Walter Cronkite and others and therefore it was much easier to manipulate us. Go back even further and as people had less and less access to info, they were more subject to being manipulated. I do not think for one minute that news sources back in the day were unbiased, but it was just far too difficult to fact check them. Not so much anymore.

    Are you hearing me? Back then, news was a public service. Go read Cronkite's book. Look up any true news photojournalist of at least 20 years ago and see what they think about what's going on. Journalism was about digging for the truth out of government including all of their scandals, not government controlling journalists and tying their hands with censorship threats. Media in general is manipulation but more-so it's marketing and advertising. The news business is newer to the mass manipulation game. We weren't manipulated as much long ago, because the news was not controlled by the govt!

    Are you hearing me? I think he's lying and many of them were lying when they chose what was important and what spin to put on it.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,086
    Pap wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    P.S. what is this 'system', and how do I join?

    The "system" are they who actually rule our world. Don't confuse them with their puppets (politicians). I'm talking about the big economic interests here (banks, oil companies and other cartels). I guess you don't want to join them but fight against them. Of course if you try doing this in an openly-public way, i hope you know you're dead the very next moment. The "system" unfortunately has the power to "swallow" everyone of us. So you would ask me: Then what? It seems very much like a dead-end situation. But it's not in my humble and optimistic opinion. You can first make yourself a better person and then try to make the world that you live in a better place little by little.
    It is now more about pack journalism than really looking for the real scoop... journalist interpretation rather than honest reporting...

    This and they say what the big heads allow them to say. It's all about their interests. We're talking about mass hypnosis here. Otherwise known as mass manipulation. They try to create new generations of robots which are programmed to obey them. Look at the youths of today. They are only interested in Fakebook and catatonic films and music. They live like zombies. They don't have a social life. They are already problematic kids (disposable kids). And then, our friends come to suggest them how they should live in order to make their lives better. The rest is history.

    I have to disagree with your point about the youth of today only being interested in facebook, etc. The same thing was said about my generation with our Atari and Walkmans. There's always popular consumables for every generation. I think what's Chomsky's describing is essentially consumer psychology, marketing, and manipulation techniques that companies use to sell goods. I don't think it's so sinister. They're essentially techniques learned and shared in the field in order to sell things. Multi-national conglomerates do a good job of this. The media would be included, because they also have something to sell. People have always been drawn to the dramatic story and resistant to factual stories which can be a lot to take on. Take the example of media covering wars. Broad access by the media in Vietnam was later criticized and used as reason by people for limiting access of the media in the Iraq war. Look at the good/bad president thread and the quote from Jimmy Carter which essentially is a critique on our consumer society. He's often regarded as the worst modern day president. People being who they are, are a contradictory bunch. To critique our consumer society brings to the surface of our minds that our economic system is based on consumerism. You then are questioning our entire economic livelihood and we haven't figured out how we will change and transition our economic system into something else. I think we'll figure this out, but it will happen gradually over the next 100 years of so.

    News in the Cronkite era still had gatekeepers, and I don't think we should confuse trust with trustworthy. Now, instead of 4 to 12 channels, we have a hundred. The lowest common denominator is used to get ratings. This is usually dramatic fringe stories or stories used to manipulate people by fear. Where we can make greater effort is focused education for youth about how to digest media and how to find the manipulation in the message. I was fortunate to grow up in an educational community where this was encouraged.
  • PapPap Posts: 28,989
    Go Beavers wrote:
    This is usually dramatic fringe stories or stories used to manipulate people by fear. Where we can make greater effort is focused education for youth about how to digest media and how to find the manipulation in the message. I was fortunate to grow up in an educational community where this was encouraged.

    Very well said.
    Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Pap wrote:
    1. The strategy of distraction

    The primary element of social control is the strategy of distraction which is to divert public attention from important issues and changes determined by the political and economic elites, by the technique of flood or flooding continuous distractions and insignificant information. distraction strategy is also essential to prevent the public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics. “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance. Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think, back to farm and other animals (quote from text Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).

    2. Create problems, then offer solutions

    This method is also called “problem -reaction- solution. “It creates a problem, a “situation” referred to cause some reaction in the audience, so this is the principal of the steps that you want to accept. For example: let it unfold and intensify urban violence, or arrange for bloody attacks in order that the public is the applicant‟s security laws and policies to the detriment of freedom. Or: create an economic crisis to accept as a necessary evil retreat of social rights and the dismantling of public services.

    3. The gradual strategy

    acceptance to an unacceptable degree, just apply it gradually, dropper, for consecutive years. That is how they radically new socioeconomic conditions ( neoliberalism ) were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s: the minimal state, privatization, precariousness, flexibility, massive unemployment, wages, and do not guarantee a decent income, so many changes that have brought about a revolution if they had been applied once.

    4. The strategy of deferring

    Another way to accept an unpopular decision is to present it as “painful and necessary”, gaining public acceptance, at the time for future application. It is easier to accept that a future sacrifice of immediate slaughter. First, because the effort is not used immediately. Then, because the public, masses, is always the tendency to expect naively that “everything will be better tomorrow” and that the sacrifice required may be avoided. This gives the public more time to get used to the idea of change and accept it with resignation when the time comes.

    5. Go to the public as a little child

    Most of the advertising to the general public uses speech, argument, people and particularly children's intonation, often close to the weakness, as if the viewer were a little child or a mentally deficient. The harder one tries to deceive the viewer look, the more it tends to adopt a tone infantilising. Why? “If one goes to a person as if she had the age of 12 years or less, then, because of suggestion, she tends with a certain probability that a response or reaction also devoid of a critical sense as a person 12 years or younger (see Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).

    6. Use the emotional side more than the reflection

    Making use of the emotional aspect is a classic technique for causing a short circuit on rational analysis , and finally to the critical sense of the individual. Furthermore, the use of emotional register to open the door to the unconscious for implantation or grafting ideas , desires, fears and anxieties , compulsions, or induce behaviors …

    7. Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity

    Making the public incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslavement. “The quality of education given to the lower social classes must be the poor
    and mediocre as possible so that the gap of ignorance it plans among the lower classes and upper classes is and remains impossible to attain for the lower classes (See Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).


    8. To encourage the public to be complacent with mediocrity

    Promote the public to believe that the fact is fashionable to be stupid, vulgar and uneducated…

    9. Self-blame Strengthen

    To let individual blame for their misfortune, because of the failure of their intelligence, their
    abilities, or their efforts. So, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual autodesvalida and guilt, which creates a depression, one of whose effects is to inhibit its action. And, without action, there is no revolution!


    10. Getting to know the individuals better than they know themselves

    Over the past 50 years, advances of accelerated science has generated a growing gap between public knowledge and those owned and operated by dominant elites. Thanks to biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the “system” has enjoyed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically. The system has gotten better acquainted with the common man more than he knows himself. This means that, in most cases, the system exerts greater control and great power over individuals, greater than that of individuals about themselves.

    I started reading this, but there's so many grammatical, and other errors, I gave up after the first paragraph. You maybe need to fix it up a bit?
  • PapPap Posts: 28,989
    Byrnzie wrote:
    You maybe need to fix it up a bit?



    1. The strategy of distraction

    An essential element of social control is the strategy of distraction, which is to divert public attention from problems and important changes decided by the political and economic elites, by the technique of Flood or flooding of constant distractions and trivial information. The strategy of distraction is also essential to prevent the public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of ​​science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics. "Keep the public busy, busy, busy, with no time to think; back on the farm with the other animals". (Quoted in the text Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars).

    2. Create problems and offer solutions.

    This method is also called "Problem-reaction-solution." It creates a problem, a "situation" created to cause some reaction in the audience, so that this is the norm of the measures you would accept. For example: Let unfold and intensify urban violence, or organizing bloody attacks, so that the public is the applicant's law security and policies to the detriment of freedom. Or: Create an economic crisis to accept as a necessary evil retreat of social rights and dismantling of public services.

    3. The strategy of gradualism.

    To make acceptable an unacceptable measure, gradually apply enough, drop by drop, for consecutive years. It is that way new radical socioeconomic conditions (neoliberalism) were imposed during the 1980’s and 1990’s: the minimal state, privatization, insecurity, flexibility, mass unemployment, wages that do not ensure decent incomes, many changes that would have given rise to a revolution if they had been applied all at once.

    4. The strategy of deferring.

    Another way to accept an unpopular decision is to present it as "painful and necessary", gaining public acceptance at the time, for future application. It is easier to accept a future sacrifice than an immediate sacrifice. First, because the measure is not used immediately, then because the public, the masses, always have the tendency to expect naively that "everything will improve tomorrow" and that the sacrifice required may be avoided. This gives more time for public get used to the idea of ​​change and accept it with resignation when the time comes.

    5. Address the public as you would a little child.

    Most targeted advertising to the general public uses discourse, arguments, characters with especially childish intonation, often targeting frailty, as if the viewer were a creature of very young age or mentally impaired. The more you try to fool the viewer, the more childish the adopted tone. Why? "If one goes to a person as she had the age of 12 years or less, then, because of suggestion, that person tends, with some probability, to respond or react without much thought as a person 12 years old or younger would (see "Silent Weapons for quiet wars")".

    6. Appeal to the Emotional aspects rather than critical thought.

    Make use of Emotional response is a classic technique to cause a short circuit on rational analysis and finally the critical sense of the individual. Moreover, appealing emotions opens the door to the unconscious for implanting or grafting ideas, desires, fears and doubts, compulsions, or induce behaviors...

    7. Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity.

    Making sure the public is incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslave. "The quality of education given to the lower social classes should be as poor and mediocre as possible so that the gap of ignorance between the plans lower classes and upper classes is and remains impossible to achieve for the lower classes (see "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars")".

    8. Encourage the public to be complacent with mediocrity.

    Promote to the public to believe that being stupid, vulgar and uneducated is fashionable...

    9. Reinforce self-blame.

    To make believe the individual that he/she is the culprit for their own misfortune, because of the failure of their intelligence, their abilities, or their efforts. So, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual devaluates and blames himself, which generates a depressive state, one of whose purposes is creating a lack of action, and without action, there is no revolution!

    10. Understand individuals better than they understand themselves.

    During the past 50 years, rapid advances in science have generated a growing knowledge gap between public and those owned and used by the dominant elites. With biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the "system" has enjoyed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically. The system has gotten better at knowing the common folk than what he knows of himself. This means that in most cases, that the system has a greater control and a great power over individuals, than the power that individuals have on themselves.
    Athens 2006 / Milton Keynes 2014 / London 1&2 2022 / Seattle 1&2 2024 / Dublin 2024 / Manchester 2024
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    Working off this wonderful piece on media manipulation, some new information.

    http://fair.org/home/an-unqualified-success-at-media-manipulation/

    An Unqualified Success at Media Manipulation
    On Tuesday, April 5, Bernie Sanders won the Wisconsin Democratic primary by double digits, and his victory speech ran for half an hour on CNN, a rare media moment when he was able to repeat the issues that have resonated with many Democratic primary voters.

    After the Wisconsin loss, the Hillary Clinton campaign went into high gear, sending emails out announcing a new strategy of going negative. The next day, CNN (4/6/16) ran a piece by senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny that began, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign is taking new steps to try and disqualify Bernie Sanders in the eyes of Democratic voters.” The story laid out Clinton’s new “three-part strategy” with regard to Sanders: “Disqualify him, defeat him and unify the party later.”

    Political strategists know well that attacks can backfire, especially for candidates with high negatives such as Hillary Clinton. Accordingly, the Clinton campaign attacked Sanders through a common political maneuver: They used surrogates.

    CNN’s Zeleny reported:

    A Clinton campaign fundraising appeal after the Wisconsin primary offered a glimpse into the new approach. The campaign’s deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, argued that Sanders is unqualified, sending a full transcript of a New York Daily News editorial board interview of Sanders. [Emphasis added.]

    “We’ve said for a long time that this primary is about who’s really going to be able to get things done. And from reading this interview, you get the impression Senator Sanders hasn’t thought very much about that,” Reynolds wrote. “In fact, even on his signature issue of breaking up the banks, he’s unable to answer basic questions about how he’d go about doing it, and even seems uncertain whether a president does or doesn’t already have that authority under existing law.”

    Though as FAIR (4/7/16) pointed out, the banking issue was a red herring. (“When asked how he would break up the big banks, Sanders said he would leave that up to the banks,” economist Dean Baker wrote. “That’s exactly the right answer.”) But by Wednesday, MSNBC’s Morning Joe (4/6/16) had already picked up the Clinton campaign’s talking points. Host Joe Scarborough repeatedly tried to get Clinton herself to weigh in on whether Sanders was “unqualified” to be president. Instead of answering yes or no, she reiterated the campaign’s carefully massaged strategy: “I think he hadn’t done his homework, and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions.”

    (As Salon—4/8/16—pointed out, “question” is what Donald Trump did in 2012 regarding Barack Obama’s birth certificate: “I don’t consider myself birther or not birther, but there are some major questions here.”)

    The Washington Post (4/6/16) jumped in with a story headlined “Clinton Questions Whether Sanders Is Qualified to Be President.” Though it parrots the Clinton campaign’s talking points against Sanders, it attributed them to anonymous “critics” rather than to the campaign:

    Clinton’s comments follow a New York Daily News interview with Sanders that critics say revealed his inability to explain specifically how he would accomplish goals such as breaking up the biggest banks. [Emphasis added]

    On Wednesday night, Sanders responded to the charges at a rally at Temple University, where he suggested Clinton was getting a little nervous. “And she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president.” He went on to use the phrase as a rhetorical devise to criticize her policy record:

    I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is, through her Super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your Super PAC. I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you are qualified if you’ve supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs.

    The next move revealed the sophisticated media-handling of Clinton campaign strategists. Clinton operatives Christina Reynolds and Brian Fallon went on the offensive with, as Salon (4/8/16) put it, “sanctimonious incredulity,” saying, “This is a ridiculous and irresponsible attack for someone to make.” They complained that Clinton herself had never said such a thing, yet Sanders opened his comments with “quote, unquote.”

    And that’s when the media storm hit. In the face of Clinton denials, media opened with Bernie Sanders going negative:

    NBC (4/7/16): “Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton Not ‘Qualified’ to Be President. The gloves are truly off between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Less than 24 hours after Sanders’ big win in Wisconsin, the senator from Vermont hammered Clinton for not being “qualified” to be president.”
    NPR (All Things Considered, 4/7/16): “The Democratic presidential race has turned negative. Bernie Sanders now says Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to be president.”
    Huffington Post (4/7/16): “Sanders’ criticisms of Clinton focused on her policy positions, but to many of her supporters they came off as a personal insult…. Especially for many older supporters, they have heard throughout their lives that they’re not as qualified as their male counterparts, and they relate personally to the struggles Clinton has faced.”
    Paul Krugman (New York Times, 4/8/16): “The way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues…. There was Wednesday’s rant about how Mrs. Clinton is not ‘qualified’ to be president…. Is Mr. Sanders positioning himself to join the ‘Bernie or bust’ crowd, walking away if he can’t pull off an extraordinary upset, and possibly helping put Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the White House?”
    The ‘Factcheckers’ Step In

    By late Thursday afternoon, the website PolitiFact (4/7/16) evaluated Sanders’ claim, asking and answering, “Did Hillary Clinton Say Bernie Sanders ‘Not Qualified’ to Be President? Not Directly.” Sanders’ claim was “mostly false,” it found, citing Morning Joe, where Clinton only “questioned” his qualifications. When the Sanders campaign pointed to the CNN report saying that the Clinton campaign would “disqualify him, defeat him and unify the party later,” PolitiFact retorted that the CNN article says “Clinton spokeswoman Christina Reynolds argued that Sanders is unqualified,” not Clinton.

    Even more curious was the Washington Post’s (4/7/16) review of Sanders’ claim in a piece titled “Sanders’ Incorrect Claim That Clinton Called Him ‘Not Qualified’ for the Presidency.” The Post gave Sanders three-out-of-four pinocchios for dishonesty, saying: “Sanders is putting words in Clinton’s mouth. She never said ‘quote unquote’ that he was not qualified to be president…. He can’t slam her for words she did not say.”

  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    The Post gave itself no pinocchios for headlining its own article the day before, “Clinton Questions Whether Sanders Is Qualified to Be President.” It offered instead, “The art of headline writing is an imperfect art.” Not only doesn’t the Post hold Clinton responsible for her campaign’s negative attacks, it treats her use of surrogates to make negative attacks as a positive, saying “she diplomatically went out of her way to avoid saying” that Sanders was unqualified.

    In the face of Sanders’ responding in kind, Clinton retreated by way of a similarly disingenuous comment she made to reporters outside Yankee stadium on Thursday. CBS (4/7/16) and other media reported that Clinton laughed off the attack when reporters asked her to react to Sanders: “Well, it’s kind of a silly thing to say.” She added, “I don’t know why he’s saying that. But I will take Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump or Ted Cruz any time, so let’s keep our eye on what’s really at stake in this election.”

    As Clinton backed off from the “disqualify” strategy, Sanders backed off as well, telling the Today show (4/8/16), “I respect Hillary Clinton, we were colleagues in the Senate, and on her worst day she would be an infinitely better president than either of the Republican candidates.” He acknowledged to Charlie Rose (CBS Evening News, 4/7/16) that he was responding to the Clinton camp’s declarations that “they’re going to go much more negative on us.”

    But in the aftermath of the Wisconsin win, the media frame was not about Sanders’ momentum, Clinton’s connection to the Panamanian tax haven or, as US Uncut (4/8/16) reported, three major policy wins for Bernie Sanders, but how Sanders had gone negative and was untruthful. It occupied the news cycle for days, knocking out a barrage of bad press that was hobbling her in the run-up to the New York primary. With a lot of help from media friends, the Clinton people rewrote the news.<\b>
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    Time and again the media has proved itself to be in Hillary's pocket. Thankfully, we have a more broad spectrum of information on the internet. Hopefully more people will begin to seek out that information and rely less on the major media news forces that dominate television. Sadly, the average American thus far is still tuned into the boob tube, if they are tuned in at all.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













Sign In or Register to comment.