The United States Propaganda system

Commy

The beauty of mainstream television (where the majority of Americans used to get their news) is that it only allows for regurgitation of conventional ideology. No new ideas can be presented. There isn't a concentrated effort to keep out alternative ideas, its just the way the shows are structured. But its very powerful. Only conventional ideology can be presented. And, sometimes conventional thought becomes conventional with nothing substantial to back it up. If enough stations report a story, it might as well be true. (if anyone can find evidence that Osama Bin Ladin was behind 9/11 I'm interested-he is according to the media, but what are they basing that on?).

Think about it.

You have 2 minutes to get a point across, at most, in a 4 or 5 minute conversation-then its off to a commercial. There's no room for alternative theories or anything substantial in that window. Unless you are repeating conventional thought-things like "the US saved Iraq", "the US is fighting terrorism", unless you are saying something already generally accepted, there isn't enough time to back up your statement. If you say something not very well accepted, something like "The United States is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world", you are going to need more than the 2 minute window given to back up that statement. Facts reports, studies from universities, quotes from US officials and on and on. But if you say something like "Saddam was responsible for the sanctions in Iraq" or some other such nonsense, there's no need to provide any evidence whatsoever to back that up, because its generally accepted to be true. The structure of television only allows for the regurgitation of conventional ideology.

Its why you'll never see people like Noam Chomsky on even the Daily show. Simple statements take 5 minutes to back up, because they may not be generally accepted. Jon could ask maybe 1 question a commercial break, and even then, Chomsky wouldn't have time to answer the question.

Add editors and producers with agendas into the mix and the system gets even more scary, I think. It can be used as a tool, as a government mouthpiece. Bush part one used it demonize Saddam, which didn't take much to do, and played large part in the invasion itself. And relatively speaking Saddam Hussein was nothing compared to some of our allies in Turkey or Colombia at the time. But again, that little 2 minute window on the news wouldn't have been enough time to relay that information, and with producers picking guest, people like that don't even get the chance to try. Standard operating procedure, for the media, is to find out what government wants, then demonize said bogeyman of the day. Such as Saddam Hussein or the Taliban or Osama bin Ladin...while ignoring far worse tyrants and dictators, if they happen to be US allies. The real bad guys are out there...but we never hear about them. Nor will we soon I imagine.

Its all really quite impressive when you think about it, if it wasn't so damaging to accurate accounts of events.

Its why Yugoslavia was bombed.
Why so many people think Saddam was on par with Hitler (not saying hes a good guy, far from it, but he's no Hitler)
Why Africa may be a wasteland
Why no one know the accurate borders of the US empire
Why we have a war on terror
Why NATO is still around (it was cold war alliance to deal with the Soviet Union-how is still relevant? and why did it bomb Yugoslavia?)


And on and on.



Noam Chomsky, paraphrased.

Byrnzie

The U.S has brought Democracy to Iraq.
Israel is defending itself.
Iraq posed an imminent threat to world peace.
Israel and the U.S are brokers for peace in the Middle East.
Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel.
Iraqi insurgents are the enemies of freedom.
Leonard Peltier is guilty.
Reagan was a great President.
We must rid the world of evil-doers.
Madonna is an artist.
The Columbine massacre was the fault of rock music and video games.
e.t.c, e.t.c.

John Briggs 2008

To the OP, your user name says all I need to know. Every government and country is corrupt and fucked up. Tell us we suck because we are the USA. Not like Americans don't hear that shit all the time. This country was founded on ideology. You should visit abovetopsecret.com. You would fit right in.

Byrnzie

Dr. Strangelove is alive and well.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

The U.S has brought Democracy to Iraq.

true.

Byrnzie wrote:

Israel is defending itself.

sometimes true but the main stream media will also report the bad things Israel does.

Byrnzie wrote:

Iraq posed an imminent threat to world peace.

media has quickly debunked that

Byrnzie wrote:

Israel and the U.S are brokers for peace in the Middle East.

true

Byrnzie wrote:

Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel.

true

Byrnzie wrote:

Iraqi insurgents are the enemies of freedom.

true.

Byrnzie wrote:

Leonard Peltier is guilty.

never head of him

Byrnzie wrote:

Reagan was a great President.

some might think so, sure.

Byrnzie wrote:

We must rid the world of evil-doers.

sounds good

Byrnzie wrote:

Madonna is an artist.

some might think so, sure.

Byrnzie wrote:

The Columbine massacre was the fault of rock music and video games.

recently debunked by the main stream media.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

The U.S has brought Democracy to Iraq.

true.

Byrnzie wrote:

Israel is defending itself.

sometimes true but the main stream media will also report the bad things Israel does.

Byrnzie wrote:

Iraq posed an imminent threat to world peace.

media has quickly debunked that

Byrnzie wrote:

Israel and the U.S are brokers for peace in the Middle East.

true

Byrnzie wrote:

Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel.

true

Byrnzie wrote:

Iraqi insurgents are the enemies of freedom.

true.

Byrnzie wrote:

Leonard Peltier is guilty.

never head of him

Byrnzie wrote:

Reagan was a great President.

some might think so, sure.

Byrnzie wrote:

We must rid the world of evil-doers.

sounds good

Byrnzie wrote:

Madonna is an artist.

some might think so, sure.

Byrnzie wrote:

The Columbine massacre was the fault of rock music and video games.

recently debunked by the main stream media.

I see that you're also a fan of soundbites.

Soundbites and one-word replies are useful when someone is incapable of supporting anything they say with facts.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

I see that you're also a fan of soundbites.

Soundbites and one-word replies are useful when someone is incapable of supporting anything they say with facts.

whast facts are you look for? want me to take an opinion poll on how many people like Madonna?

I'm sure you know how to use google, not my job to educate you.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

I see that you're also a fan of soundbites.

Soundbites and one-word replies are useful when someone is incapable of supporting anything they say with facts.

whast facts are you look for? want me to take an opinion poll on how many people like Madonna?

I'm sure you know how to use google, not my job to educate you.

What does the amount of people that like Madonna have to do with whether she qualifies as being an artist or not?
An artist in the field of music is someone who writes their own music and/or lyrics. Madonna isn't a songwriter, she's just a performer. The fact that millions of idiots don't realise this doesn't change the fact.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

What does the amount of people that like Madonna have to do with whether she qualifies as being an artist or not?
An artist in the field of music is someone who writes their own music and/or lyrics. Madonna isn't a songwriter, she's just a performer. The fact that millions of idiots don't realise this doesn't change the fact.

you really want to debate whether or not Madonna is an artist? you aren't talking in facts. some can easily argue that a performer is an artist. there is no definition of an artist... and with a simple google search this site says she wrote or co-wrote many of her songs.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.stuar ... discs.html

but I'm not really going to debate this.

Commy

John Briggs 2008 wrote:

To the OP, your user name says all I need to know. Every government and country is corrupt and fucked up. Tell us we suck because we are the USA. Not like Americans don't hear that shit all the time. This country was founded on ideology. You should visit abovetopsecret.com. You would fit right in.

I do visit abovetopsecret.com sometimes.

This is not from them however.

This is mainly based on the words of a professor from MIT, who was once the most cited living man on the planet. Good luck debunking this one. Many have tried. Of the hundreds of thousands of pages that Chomsky has written over the decades, nothing substantial has EVER been shown to be factually inconsistent. Believe me, they want nothing more than to shoot him down.

He was called "arguably the most important intellectual alive" by the NY Times-the most widely read newspaper at the time, and what is used as the official record.

Today he is simply ignored by mainstream.

Like Ghandi said,
First the ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win

chomsky's on about his 100 go at that.


So feel free to have a go at him. could be interesting.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

The U.S has brought Democracy to Iraq.

true.

right. feel free to vote for a pro US candidate, that's your only choice.

Byrnzie wrote:

Israel is defending itself.

sometimes true but the main stream media will also report the bad things Israel does.

Not as much as you might think. According to FAIR (fair and accuracy in reporting-who have since gone to shit) they did a study on mainstream news coverage of exactly this thing.

Israeli casualties were reportied most of the time, even repeatedly.
Palestinian casualties were not.

regarding children the ratio is even more severe, and very pro Israeli.

And Israeli actions are always "in response to" or something similar

Even Jon Stewert and Bill Maher are pro-Israeli.

There is NO dissent on this one. Media is overwhelmingly pro-israeli.

Byrnzie wrote:

Iraq posed an imminent threat to world peace.

media has quickly debunked that

Much too late.

The war could have been avoided if media was responsible, and that's the point of this thread.

They were a gov't tool from day one...reporting the "yellow cake" made up story as if it were fact, extensive coverage. the american people had no chance. Iraq bad, kill Saddam. send in the troops.

The media did break ranks (after it was too late) , which in a way showsjust how bad Bush really was. The last time the media were disobedient to the power structure was during Nixon and watergate.

And good journalists, which there are some, use that window when its presented to focus on other crimes. torture was brought to mainstream, and has since, (apparently) been dealt with.

just have to wait for the window.

Byrnzie wrote:

Israel and the U.S are brokers for peace in the Middle East.

true

name 1 legitimate case of this happening.

Byrnzie wrote:

Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel.

true

which follows

"Israel must renounce violence and recognize Hamas".

Byrnzie wrote:

Iraqi insurgents are the enemies of freedom.

true.

how is resisting foreign occupation fighting against freedom?

Byrnzie wrote:

Leonard Peltier is guilty.

never head of him

this is a case left out of the media. I'm not surprised you haven't heard about it. again, it would take some explaining to understand the case, you can't just come out and say, the "FBI is holding a political prisoner". it could be done, but not in their nice little 7 minute off to commercial system..

Byrnzie wrote:

Reagan was a great President.

some might think so, sure.

but absolutely no discussion about the relevant policies of his
cutting social spending putting people on the streets,
cutting college scholarships etc....

That's another form of propaganda. The way they "debate"

Today there isn't a a discussion about whether or not we should even be in Afghanistan. Its accepted that we should be there. the debate is whether or not to violate Pakistani sovereignty or try to get them involved in the fight. Its a given we have a right to be there.

Byrnzie wrote:

We must rid the world of evil-doers.

sounds good
[/quote]

just don't mention the leader in this category, or any of its allies.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Iraqi insurgents are the enemies of freedom.

true.

how is resisting foreign occupation fighting against freedom?[/quote]

Iraqi insurgents dont seem to interested in killing Americans. they blow themselves in front of Mosques, schools, markets, or Iraqi Police stations. they target innocent civilians.

I suppose that does put American presence in a bad light so I can see why you would support that.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Iraqi insurgents dont seem to interested in killing Americans. they blow themselves in front of Mosques, schools, markets, or Iraqi Police stations. they target innocent civilians.

I suppose that does put American presence in a bad light so I can see why you would support that.

I don't care about any of that.

its an example of how effective American propaganda is,using the term insurgent.



If Iraq invaded the US would the militias be "insurgent fighters"? Or "terrorists"?


Implied in the term "insurgent" is the idea that Iraq doesn't have the right to defend itself. Its been accepted.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Iraqi insurgents dont seem to interested in killing Americans. they blow themselves in front of Mosques, schools, markets, or Iraqi Police stations. they target innocent civilians.

I suppose that does put American presence in a bad light so I can see why you would support that.

I don't care about any of that.

you should.

Commy wrote:

its an example of how effective American propaganda is,using the term insurgent.



If Iraq invaded the US would the militias be "insurgent fighters"? Or "terrorists"?


Implied in the term "insurgent" is the idea that Iraq doesn't have the right to defend itself. Its been accepted.

insurgents are largely from other countries. they aren't interested in Iraq or its people. they are there to reek havoc by killing innocent people and destabilizing the country. they are quite effective.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

you should.

Commy wrote:

its an example of how effective American propaganda is,using the term insurgent.



If Iraq invaded the US would the militias be "insurgent fighters"? Or "terrorists"?


Implied in the term "insurgent" is the idea that Iraq doesn't have the right to defend itself. Its been accepted.

insurgents are largely from other countries. they aren't interested in Iraq or its people. they are there to reek havoc by killing innocent people and destabilizing the country. they are quite effective.

What evidence is there that these guys are "largely from other countries?"

And what difference does that make anyway? Canadians would be "insurgent fighters" as well, but in my eyes would be perfectly justified in defending the United States.

And i'm not defending their actions, killing innocent people is wrong, no matter who does it (and the reason wars like this should be avoided at all cost).

Its just the term insurgent tends to justify killing them, that they don't have a right to defend themselves.

Austicman

There was no suicide bombings or Al-qaeda in Iraq before the US invaded it. It wasn't until the US occupied Iraq that we started to see these "insurgents" there. The vacum of power they created by ousting Saddam and his subordinates was filled by these guys. The local police and military are trained by the US and are serving a government installed by the US. In their eyes they are legitimate targets. Especially when they can't get at US troops. If they could garunteed they'd be their primary targets.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

insurgents are largely from other countries. they aren't interested in Iraq or its people. they are there to reek havoc by killing innocent people and destabilizing the country. they are quite effective.

What evidence is there that these guys are "largely from other countries?"

And what difference does that make anyway? Canadians would be "insurgent fighters" as well, but in my eyes would be perfectly justified in defending the United States.

And i'm not defending their actions, killing innocent people is wrong, no matter who does it (and the reason wars like this should be avoided at all cost).

Its just the term insurgent tends to justify killing them, that they don't have a right to defend themselves.

but they arent defending themselves. they are only there to destabilizing the country by killing innocent people, thus undermining American credibility in the country.

jlew24asu

Austicman wrote:

There was no suicide bombings or Al-qaeda in Iraq before the US invaded it. It wasn't until the US occupied Iraq that we started to see these "insurgents" there. The vacum of power they created by ousting Saddam and his subordinates was filled by these guys. The local police and military are trained by the US and are serving a government installed by the US. In their eyes they are legitimate targets. Especially when they can't get at US troops. If they could garunteed they'd be their primary targets.

thats true. there were no suicide bombings. saddam and his sons openly killed and tortured anyone who opposed them. there was no need for suicide bombers.

well since they cant get to US troops, its perfectly fine to kill anyone with range. they are fighting for freedom right?

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

but they arent defending themselves. they are only there to destabilizing the country by killing innocent people, thus undermining American credibility in the country.

really.

Insurgents are not from Iraq and are fighting, not to kick the foreign invaders out, but to "destabilize" the region?

To what end?

why do they care so much about American credibility?



Do you seriously believe they are blowing themselves up to make the US look bad?

mrvedderson

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

I see that you're also a fan of soundbites.

Soundbites and one-word replies are useful when someone is incapable of supporting anything they say with facts.

whast facts are you look for? want me to take an opinion poll on how many people like Madonna?

I'm sure you know how to use google, not my job to educate you.

What does the amount of people that like Madonna have to do with whether she qualifies as being an artist or not?
An artist in the field of music is someone who writes their own music and/or lyrics. Madonna isn't a songwriter, she's just a performer. The fact that millions of idiots don't realise this doesn't change the fact.

An artist is someone who creates art, art is identified by the viewer, one might think something is art while another thinks it is not, does not mean it is or is not art, BUT, Madonna was accepted in the musical art community as an artist, therefore she is an artist, pwnd

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

but they arent defending themselves. they are only there to destabilizing the country by killing innocent people, thus undermining American credibility in the country.

really.

Insurgents are not from Iraq and are fighting, not to kick the foreign invaders out, but to "destabilize" the region?

To what end?

why do they care so much about American credibility?

Do you seriously believe they are blowing themselves up to make the US look bad?

yes, absolutely. in doing that, they get support from people like you when innocent people die. must be the US's fault! Death to America! Death to America! see its working.