The war of propaganda

[mimil]

The current war in Iraq is not only on the ground, but also in the news. On one side, you have the western channels, Fox news, cnn, abc, bbc. In asia a more independent channel, channel news Asia and in the middle east Aljazeera who has become a very important counter balance to the western channels.

The war on propaganda is as fierce as any. Yesterday night, Simon Marks from channel news Asia said it was becoming difficult for journalists to stay independent. He mentioned that with his report than most Jordan people didn't agree with what they feel was a US aggression on iraq came several letters from colleague from fox news insulting him for being an anti-American.

As a matter of fact, the iraqi propaganda is working well in the middle east and the public opinion is drifting. As day pass the support for the iraqi people (And not the regime) is growing.

US claim that the iraqi regime is losing its grasp over the country. Aljazeera report that the iraqi minister of foreign affairs is able to flight to Cairo for the Summit of the Arab League


Aljazeera was asked not to broadcast images of POW to comply with international law. They replied that US didn't bother to gather support in the UN to make this war legal. They also mentioned about Guantanamo bay.

US official have claimed that Russia sold weapons to the iraqi, Russia officially denied.

The war is said to end fast, and the iraqi are said to give little resistance. Opposition claims that out of the 250 000 thousand so called troops, most of them are simply support functions, the "fighters" being at most 50 000. Iraqi forces are hard to estimate but are known to be at least 10 times this amount.

Iraqi are showing dead bodies. Americans are talking about "lost troops” and "casualty".

US claims that are to free the iraqi people. The UN doesn't seem to agree and fears huge humanitarian crisis. In Basora one million people do not have water or electricity since Friday night. On the Kuwaiti border, no humanitarian aid is going threw.

This new war has only started, and it seems it is far from being over.

[mimil]

A al Jazeera reporter has not been allowed to enter wall street today.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030325/media_nm/media_nyse_aljazeera_dc_1

[Johnny Yuma]

Hey Mimil! I hear you can't chew gum and walk at the same time, in Singapore. Why don't you tell the nice people here what happens to you if you chew gum in public, there?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
The current war in Iraq is not only on the ground, but also in the news. On one side, you have the western channels, Fox news, cnn, abc, bbc. In asia a more independent channel, channel news Asia and in the middle east Aljazeera who has become a very important counter balance to the western channels.

The war on propaganda is as fierce as any. Yesterday night, Simon Marks from channel news Asia said it was becoming difficult for journalists to stay independent. He mentioned that with his report than most Jordan people didn't agree with what they feel was a US aggression on iraq came several letters from colleague from fox news insulting him for being an anti-American.

As a matter of fact, the iraqi propaganda is working well in the middle east and the public opinion is drifting. As day pass the support for the iraqi people (And not the regime) is growing.

US claim that the iraqi regime is losing its grasp over the country. Aljazeera report that the iraqi minister of foreign affairs is able to flight to Cairo for the Summit of the Arab League


Aljazeera was asked not to broadcast images of POW to comply with international law. They replied that US didn't bother to gather support in the UN to make this war legal. They also mentioned about Guantanamo bay.

US official have claimed that Russia sold weapons to the iraqi, Russia officially denied.

The war is said to end fast, and the iraqi are said to give little resistance. Opposition claims that out of the 250 000 thousand so called troops, most of them are simply support functions, the "fighters" being at most 50 000. Iraqi forces are hard to estimate but are known to be at least 10 times this amount.

Iraqi are showing dead bodies. Americans are talking about "lost troops” and "casualty".

US claims that are to free the iraqi people. The UN doesn't seem to agree and fears huge humanitarian crisis. In Basora one million people do not have water or electricity since Friday night. On the Kuwaiti border, no humanitarian aid is going threw.

This new war has only started, and it seems it is far from being over.

This wreaks of Falun Gong; always suspicious of everyone's motives, and always hinting at dark and sinister plots.

Mimil, are you validating the Fa with reason, clarifying the truth with wisdom, spreading the Fa and offering people salvation with benevolence (Rationality)?

I understand that there was a controversial issue surrounding propaganda from the Chinese embassy in Singapore....

[mimil]

My aim here is not to take party on whether such or such information is relevant. The point is to show that information can be interpreted in different way depending on what is your goal.

It is the case anywhere, from Europe to the US, in the Middle East or as you just mentioned Singapore.

I don't have any intention to distinguish the truth from the false, and doubt anyone rational enough would claim to do so.

Propaganda is a reality and I believe that anyone who says that either Fox News, or CNN or Al Jazeera is independent journalism is a fool. As the situation is a complex one, it is not relevant to stick to one source of information.

As for Singapore, yes it is forbidden to chew gum, yes you get death penalty for murder and drug smuggling, the list is much longer and will spare you the rest as it has nothing to do with the above matter.

[localbrew]

Originally posted by mimil


US official have claimed that Russia sold weapons to the iraqi, Russia officially denied.



Nowhere in the media have I seen Russia deny this. Even if they are stupid enough to do so it won't be long before we will pluck the goods off dead Iraqi soldiers for all the world to see. The world media is there en mass.

[mimil]

Originally posted by localbrew
Nowhere in the media have I seen Russia deny this. Even if they are stupid enough to do so it won't be long before we will pluck the goods off dead Iraqi soldiers for all the world to see. The world media is there en mass.

"Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov hotly denied selling military equipment in violation of international sanctions against Iraq. "No fact supporting the Americans' anxiety has been found," he said. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030325/ap_wo_en_ge/na_gen_us_russia_iraq_1

BTW, you might believe I think they did not sell anything. Actually I think they did. I also believe that saddam is either dead or seriously wounded.

[JustPat]

Ah yes, propaganda, what a wonderful tool. Mine says you are a liar, you rebuff my reports, and somewhere in the mix is the truth. Can we say who is biased in what direction? Almost definitely. But, who gives us the most facts to be able to discern the truth? The western press with its embedded reporters gives us live or shortly delayed footage of what is going on. Al-Jazeera isn't playing to the western world, thus they don't give anything unless it inflames the Arab population. The Brits report as if they are the only ones fighting, and the rest of the world uses what suits their agenda.

Mimil seeks to educate us about the use of propaganda, how kind and thoughtful. But what about the facts? Are you concerned for the facts or just a reed blowing in the propaganda breeze? Fact, Iraq has possession of and has used banned weapons that they failed to report and denied having. Fact, Iraq violated the Geneva Convention in its treatment of POW's, a crime to which Al-Jazeera is complicit. Fact, Iraq has sabotaged oil wells, AGAIN, and had intended to dump millions of gallons of crude in the Gulf, AGAIN. Fact, it ain't over and the potential is great for the discovery of even greater atrocities. Fact, Russian businesses, not the government, supplied Iraq with banned technologies and weapons. Fact, French firms supplied Iraq with banned weapons that are currently being used against its partners in NATO and supposed allies.

I think I am smart enough to go beyond the hype and headlines. Who knows, I might even recognize the truth when I see it.

[mimil]

Originally posted by JustPat
Ah yes, propaganda, what a wonderful tool. Mine says you are a liar, you rebuff my reports, and somewhere in the mix is the truth. Can we say who is biased in what direction? Almost definitely. But, who gives us the most facts to be able to discern the truth? The western press with its embedded reporters gives us live or shortly delayed footage of what is going on. Al-Jazeera isn't playing to the western world, thus they don't give anything unless it inflames the Arab population. The Brits report as if they are the only ones fighting, and the rest of the world uses what suits their agenda.

Mimil seeks to educate us about the use of propaganda, how kind and thoughtful. But what about the facts? Are you concerned for the facts or just a reed blowing in the propaganda breeze? Fact, Iraq has possession of and has used banned weapons that they failed to report and denied having. Fact, Iraq violated the Geneva Convention in its treatment of POW's, a crime to which Al-Jazeera is complicit. Fact, Iraq has sabotaged oil wells, AGAIN, and had intended to dump millions of gallons of crude in the Gulf, AGAIN. Fact, it ain't over and the potential is great for the discovery of even greater atrocities. Fact, Russian businesses, not the government, supplied Iraq with banned technologies and weapons. Fact, French firms supplied Iraq with banned weapons that are currently being used against its partners in NATO and supposed allies.

I think I am smart enough to go beyond the hype and headlines. Who knows, I might even recognize the truth when I see it.

It seems you have properly learnt your lesson, booo to the bad French, and the bad Russian ... and eventually the bad Iraqi.

In your description, you seem to have forgotten a certain amount of information, about who gave weapons to who. About who is not following international laws, whether we are talking about POW or the UN resolutions.

In the end you are a perfect proof of my point. Propaganda does work and you have lost any objectivity as you only look at one side of the issue.

You have also forgotten that I did not try to find out what was the truth but to mention that there are different views. And you cannot just believe everything western channel tells you.

Something else you have forgotten: Have you ever wondered about the consequences of what is happening now in Iraq?

You probably also forgot that USA are still searching for a relevant reason to what they are doing ... It is as if a judge was to put you in jail saying that the proof will come later.

Finally and so that you stop blaspheming Einstein name, here is a couple of his quotes which will probably give you a better understanding of the one you use:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." -- Albert Einstein

[JustPat]

Originally posted by mimil
It seems you have properly learnt your lesson, booo to the bad French, and the bad Russian ... and eventually the bad Iraqi.

In your description, you seem to have forgotten a certain amount of information, about who gave weapons to who. About who is not following international laws, whether we are talking about POW or the UN resolutions.

In the end you are a perfect proof of my point. Propaganda does work and you have lost any objectivity as you only look at one side of the issue.

You have also forgotten that I did not try to find out what was the truth but to mention that there are different views. And you cannot just believe everything western channel tells you.

Something else you have forgotten: Have you ever wondered about the consequences of what is happening now in Iraq?

You probably also forgot that USA are still searching for a relevant reason to what they are doing ... It is as if a judge was to put you in jail saying that the proof will come later.

Finally and so that you stop blaspheming Einstein name, here is a couple of his quotes which will probably give you a better understanding of the one you use:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." -- Albert Einstein
Thanks for your support, but you have obviously forgotten how to read, or at least to comprehend. Let me simplify for you.
1. Propaganda exists, deal with it.
2. Propaganda is used by all sides. Filter carefully until you have distilled the truth.
3. Those who focus on the ills of propaganda are a distraction from the truth, ignore them, I will.

[mimil]

Originally posted by JustPat

3. Those who focus on the ills of propaganda are a distraction from the truth, ignore them, I will.

This is where I believe you are mistaken. You can not simply ignore the power of propaganda. Why ? Because it is changing the opinion of the Arab world. Shall you ignore it ? No. Why again? Because they are a growing force in the world whether you like it or not. Where the west is having birth rate of around 2.5, the Arab have 5 or 6. If you look at any geopolitical estimation of how power is to distributed in the following decades, the Arab will have a growing share of it and will have non-negligible influence.

Look at the fact, al Jazeera did not have the influence it has even 10 years ago. But again, we should overlook the issue. Whatever they say does not matter as it is only a lie. You don't realize that in the end the truth does not even matter any more. What matter is what people believe. In place what the Arab world believes.

But still, western countries led by the US do not look at the obvious reality. Our future is jeopardized by the stupidity of this war. Whatever the truth again, we might not be able to enjoy the life the way we did in the XXth century because of what is happening.

[elke]

Originally posted by mimil
This is where I believe you are mistaken. You can not simply ignore the power of propaganda. Why ? Because it is changing the opinion of the Arab world. Shall you ignore it ? No. Why again? Because they are a growing force in the world whether you like it or not. Where the west is having birth rate of around 2.5, the Arab have 5 or 6. If you look at any geopolitical estimation of how power is to distributed in the following decades, the Arab will have a growing share of it and will have non-negligible influence.

Look at the fact, al Jazeera did not have the influence it has even 10 years ago. But again, we should overlook the issue. Whatever they say does not matter as it is only a lie. You don't realize that in the end the truth does not even matter any more. What matter is what people believe. In place what the Arab world believes.

But still, western countries led by the US do not look at the obvious reality. Our future is jeopardized by the stupidity of this war. Whatever the truth again, we might not be able to enjoy the life the way we did in the XXth century because of what is happening.

You made some good points in this post, IMO: propaganda cannot be ignored, especially when it's not factually correct. The truth gets lost, and rational decisions cannot be made. As a result, rationality and common sense of the general population - the key ingredients for democracy, - are undermined.

There is, however a difference between propaganda based on lies and half-truths, and that based on "spin". No media can avoid the latter, - simply because the individual correspondents become emotionally involved in the story. This is the "sin" of the Western media: too much emotional involvement that slants and spins the events to their existing point of view. The stated goal of the Western media, supported by evidence of being willing and able to present all sides of the issue, or at least attempt to do so, - is to present facts on the ground. Al Jazeerah, on the other hand, while saying that their goal is the same, does not have an interest in "giving a platform" to certain people. No Western journalist worth his/her salt will ever state such a thing: in the West, the media simply doesn't think this way.

As to the Arab world multiplying much more quickly than the West: again, it's a valid point, except that they will have to feed all these kids. In order to raise the standard of living in their population, - or indeed, just in order to provide adequate food for it, - they will have to learn to have less kids, or starve. Sooner or later, the oil is going to run out. It's not going to be a pretty picture when that happens, since with few exceptions in the Gulf states and Jordan, - there are no provisions apparently being made for that eventuality.

[Johnny Yuma]

So Mimil... again, I ask you: Are you a practioner of Falun Gong? It is, no matter how much you deny it, relevant; it goes to motive.
Are you, or are you not?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by mimil
This is where I believe you are mistaken.
You believe I am mistaken because you read into my statement something I did not say. I have already proven we are like minded on the topic of propaganda. I said I will ignore those who want ot make propaganda the issue. In the words of my favorite teacher, "Eat the hay and spit out the sticks."

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by mimil
Because it is changing the opinion of the Arab world. Shall you ignore it ? No. Why again? Because they are a growing force in the world whether you like it or not. Where the west is having birth rate of around 2.5, the Arab have 5 or 6. If you look at any geopolitical estimation of how power is to distributed in the following decades, the Arab will have a growing share of it and will have non-negligible influence.


1. Who cares?
2. Once the oil dries up, the only gross national products left are terrorism.
3. Perhaps Mediocrates can paste several articles on "using the womb as a weapon" and how it has drastic effects on a population over time, meaning starvation. I looked for it and could not find it, but a very interesting read.
4. The Arab world can not survive on its own. It has not evolved enough. They can't even feed their own people and their economies are unsustainable without exporting oil and importing food.

So basically, they have 2 choices:

1. Play along with the west (globalization)
2. Or be forced to play along with the west (globalization thru war)

[JustPat]

Originally posted by mimil
You can not simply ignore the power of propaganda. Why ? Because it is changing the opinion of the Arab world. Shall you ignore it ? No. Why again? Because they are a growing force in the world whether you like it or not. Where the west is having birth rate of around 2.5, the Arab have 5 or 6. If you look at any geopolitical estimation of how power is to distributed in the following decades, the Arab will have a growing share of it and will have non-negligible influence.
Ah yes, propaganda at work!

The Arab world has twice our birthrate ... OH NO!
They also have four times our infant mortality rate and half our life expectancy. That leaves them with a growth rate that will allow us to out live them in my lifetime! And, with the likes of Saddam we cans see that community shrink even faster.

Thanks for the prompt. It's always nice when we get a little sunshine in our day. :cool:

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by JustPat
Ah yes, propaganda at work!

The Arab world has twice our birthrate ... OH NO!
They also have four times our infant mortality rate and half our life expectancy. That leaves them with a growth rate that will allow us to out live them in my lifetime! And, with the likes of Saddam we cans see that community shrink even faster.

Thanks for the prompt. It's always nice when we get a little sunshine in our day. :cool:

Go out an word search Singapore+propaganda. It's bizarre, to say the least.

For some reason, in Singapore, "propaganda" has become a buzz word , and a lot of people there are really hung up on it; afraid, actually.

If another country says anything....., "it's propaganda". It reminds me of the early sixties, when people in this country were hung up on it, and a communist was hiding in every bush.

[mimil]

Johnny, your only way of defense is to attack a person, not the fact. BTW, the answer to your question is no. This being said, I would like to ask Elke a question:

What is worse, an obvious lie or a “spined” truth?
Let me use the American history. What is said about the “sinking of the main”? Not much, a ship was sunk without any true mention about who sunk the said ship. The truth is that nobody really knows the reason, accident, Spanish attack, or even an American move to justify the war. Whatever the truth, the “spin” of media and propaganda made it a powerful tool to justify the war.

“Remember the Alamo”, this one was used to start a war with Mexico. What happened exactly at Alamo? Once again it is not that clear, America made a move and asked the Mexicans to build a town where both culture would live together. Both sides didn’t fully comply with what they said they would, someone is said to have crossed the river first. Anyway, the exact fact again don’t matter, what matter is how the “spin’ of it made “remember the Alamo” again a truly powerful tool.

A couple of years after the end of the war, Americans wanted to build a railway, but the best itinerate was to pass by Mexico. No big deal lets go and see them and negotiates the purchase of Gadsen. “Hello Mr. president, I come here with no bad intentions, we would like to purchase from you this little piece of land, we offer you three time the amount it is worth. Ho I forgot to introduce my host, Mr X chief commander of the army but I am sure you remember him”. The “spin” of the truth claimed the grandiosity of America, we were at war with them, now we buy them land for three time the amount.

My feeling is that this “spin” is not just a matter a feeling or emotional involvement, but surely a true intention to manipulate and control.

[Communication]

Sun Tzu said “All war is deception":

But it's not just deception of one's enemies. It also involves one's own people and allies. Take Bin Ladin for example. He made it a religious duty to kill the Crusaders and the Jews.

"The purpose of the Afghan Camps and the ties to the Taliban and Pakistan Koranic schools were not simply for military training in terrorist and guerrilla activities, but for the purposes of indoctrination and brainwashing through the use of cult mind-control techniques centered around creating hypnotic suggestive conditions through repetition of the Koran and obscure teachings. The purpose here is the destruction of the original identity of the recruit and the substitution of a cult self, without self-opinions, judgment or independent thought. The member eventually has no other identity beyond that of being a human missile for the use of the cult. Mind-control is established through thought control programmes where a totalistic ideology is indoctrinated repeatedly into the minds of the subjects giving them set answers to questions and an outlook, which sees everything as black and white, good and evil, God and Satan. All their actions are therefore justified as the work of God or Allah against Satan and the Devil represented by the West and the US especially. As martyrs for the holy war, Fatwah or Jihad, there are to be rewarded for their suicide by special treatment above ordinary Muslims, which lifts them immediately to the 7th Heaven and eternal bliss.

In this Al Qaida acts like all cults in that it sees itself as on a supra-historical mission, carrying out the direct work of God. This sense of historical mission gives its followers a sense of mystique, superior and special qualities and rights above and beyond the rules of human society. It provides them a supernatural meaning of life, even if that is to be crowned in the significance of their deaths."



The No Win War: Why the US is loosing the war on Terrorism

[elke]

Sure there are people who wish to manipulate and control other people, and that isn't limited to the "non-Western" press and governments. There is no way to assure complete lack of "spin", whether emotionally based or politically motivated.

However, outright lies do something that "spin" cannot do: they corrupt the base belief system, as well as the common sense of the audience. While in the "spinned" news it is possible to distinguish truth from spin, with some basic training, with lies one cannot do that. In addition, the decisions based on false information cannot be rational, while - again, - decisions based on "spinned" information can be, especially if the spin is removed in the individual's mind.

Humans have evolved to live in groups, which among other things, requires respect for authority. Respect for authority has also been continuously reinforced in the general population throughout the millenia, through sometimes brutal means. All this translates into belief in what the "authorities" tell us. In the "Third World", the media is the voice of authority; while in the West the media is pitched against the authority. Because simultaneously with the inbred respect for authority, humans also have a dissenting streak, which is emphasized in the Western democracies, the Western media will give a cacophony of "spin" on the facts, where one can distill in one's own mind what has actually happened.

[Jen]

This is my idea of spin. This is a conservative view, but I know both sides of any issue can twists certain facts, or fail to let all the facts be known when they are trying to win the reader over.

http://www.frontpagemag.org/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6588

This is my favorite paragraph for the article. I just wanted to paste this part here for those that would choose not to read the long article.

During the 2000 presidential campaign a spurious leftwing academic study of death penalty reversals was given front-page coverage by the Times and therefore by a large sampling of the nation’s press to the detriment of the Bush campaign. The study was tendentious because it suggested, for example, that two-thirds of California’s death penalty cases were reversed through legal incompetence, concluding that the system was broken and Bush’s death penalty position was therefore unreasonable. The report ignored the fact that the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, Rose Bird, had publicly declared that she would vote to reverse every death penalty on principle – which she did, all thirty-nine that came to her for review. California voters recalled Bird and her two cohorts on the bench for precisely this reason. But the report (from Columbia University) ignored this (and many other counter-facts) because its real purpose was to exert a negative impact on the Bush campaign which thanks to the liberal control of the media it did.

[michael]

Originally posted by elke

However, outright lies do something that "spin" cannot do: they corrupt the base belief system, as well as the common sense of the audience. While in the "spinned" news it is possible to distinguish truth from spin, with some basic training, with lies one cannot do that.

I think there is a reasonable argument that the very opposite is the case.

Outright falsification is open to correction by the supply of later information. Take for example the case of the “Scud missile” attack on Kuwait in the first days of the invasion , or Iraq’s claims of downed planes/helicopters that are never seen.
Or an example close to the heart of many on this forum – claims of massive civilian deaths at Jenin. Easily proven false by later information, clearly they were powerful weapons of argument at the time, but in the long run are self-defeating because they undermine credibility. Lies are the simplest and crudest weapon of propaganda.

Much more powerful is “spin”.

The early American propagandist (or, if you prefer - public relations expert), Harold Lasswell described it as;

“..the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols….Collective attitudes are amenable to many modes of alteration..”

Good and evil are probably the most powerful.

The practical outcome is the avoidance of certain questions and restricting the scope of debate.

Thus in the investigation of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, Lt. Calley was able to say in his defence;

“….nobody ever told us they [the Vietnamese] were human…”

The rhetoric of the West is replete with reference to such symbolism; “the evil empire”, “axis of evil” etc.

The current conflict is no different, Saddam is a “monster”, “evil incarnate”, an “evil regime” etc. and Anglo-American motives are cloaked in the rhetoric of righteousness; “humanitarian”, “respect for human rights”, “love of freedom”, ”liberation” etc.

As a result, the natural human revulsion to death and destruction can be muted - all in a good cause.

[wellofvow]

Originally posted by mimil
Where the west is having birth rate of around 2.5, the Arab have 5 or 6.

Because of a debate with an email friend of mine, I went to an internet site by asking Google to give me religion and population.

There are about 1 billion Moslems in the world. There are about 2 billion "Christian-affiliated".

The AMERICAN Moslem birthrate is 4.5 per COUPLE. The overall AMERICAN birthrate is nothing close to this. I'm not sure if it is even 2 per couple any more.

There are 1 million Black Muslem converts in America. The Islamic religion is extremely active in proselytizing.

The Moslem birthrate elsewhere in the world is 6 per MOSLEM WOMAN . Remember that the Islamic religion allows for multiple wives. There are extremely few fertile Moslem women who are not married.

There are several countries in the world (isn't Germany one of them?) with an overall negative population growth figure. This, of course, will not control for the Moslem birthrate. There are, I believe either 2 or 3 million Moslems in Germany. There are 3 million in France.

Yes, most Moslems live in countries with very high infant mortality rates. But many Moslems live in countries with very low infant mortality rates. Therefore, with all respect to Mimil, I believe that Moslems, by pure demographics, will become the dominant religion of the world in the not-too-distant future. My prayer is that the rabid, fundamentalist, radical sects of Islam will NOT be in control of the minds and minarets.

[Salim]

Originally posted by wellofvow

There are several countries in the world (isn't Germany one of them?) with an overall negative population growth.

True, the German Arier will approximately cease to exist at the end of this century.

[Mediocrates]

This is a big deal in Italy which once had a high growth rate and now does not, and other countries as well. EU government are stuck in a hard place. OTOH they have the high cost and people requirements of their retiree systems which are consuming ever larger chunks of their budgets. OTOH they have an ever growing population explosion on the bottom end where all those productive workers are not going to be productive for years because so many of them are so young. In demographic terms its an hour glass shaped curve - lots of children lots of old people not so many employed workers.

I think that the EU are trying to immigrant their way out of the problem but it sounds pretty desperate. One way or the other they face stark poverty of too many mouths to feed coupled with a near total cultural submergence. As their societies transform to high population growth, low age, predominately Islamic societies the changes will not be pretty.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by wellofvow
Because of a debate with an email friend of mine, I went to an internet site by asking Google to give me religion and population.

There are about 1 billion Moslems in the world. There are about 2 billion "Christian-affiliated".

The AMERICAN Moslem birthrate is 4.5 per COUPLE. The overall AMERICAN birthrate is nothing close to this. I'm not sure if it is even 2 per couple any more. ...
Your data analysis is flawed in this. My comments were based an the UN's demographics. If you factor in longevity, infant mortality, and child mortality (which I left out) you will find it very difficult to prove the point that Islam will take over by birthrate. The Chinese will overtake us all before Islam becomes the dominant culture.

[Johnny Yuma]

The 173rd Infantry Division has parachuted into northern Iraq and captured a major airfield. :eek:

The 4th Mechanized Infantry Division (30,000) strong will soon be landing...... somewhere in the region. :rolleyes:

Spin that!!!

[mimil]

I still don’t feel really at ease with this all idea of “spin”, or propaganda, or urban legend or anything else alike.

There are some of the things that I acknowledge: lies corrupt. Manipulated report can always be corrected. Omitted information can always be added. All this works fine as long as you make the effort to search such information and deliberately try to avoid being manipulated.

Ever since we were allowed to say “I”, which is not actually that long ago, we basically all have an opinion on pretty much everything. Regarding information, we either search for it ourselves, or wait to be feed. The reason can be that we do not bother about it, or that we are to busy with something else, after all it does not matter. If we look at a basic report on the news, we have the following:

- War in Iraq, report on the progress, some comments from a total stranger. A comment by a leader
- War in Iraq, protest around the world.

Then it goes to something else (As for Singapore)

- SARS, second death in Singapore, all school to be closed until 6 of April.

First thing to notice, SARS is a much greater concern here than the war. But still people talk about it and have an opinion. So I went around and ask some friends and co-worker what do they think. Here is a sample of result:

- I wish it ends fast, it is no good for economy.
- Why do you bother it is so far away.
- It’s bad.
- I am concerned about the consequences of it.
- I can’t do anything about it. Why shall I bother.

The opinion here is still not totally pro or against the war or even the US. This is also due to the extreme care of the local government to avoid heating up the issue.
Now, if you change the news reports and adds up either one of the following:

- Popular uprising in Iraq, people welcome the liberation from the oppressive regime.
- Expatriate Iraqi going home to fight the American invader.


Both of the above statements are true, not even “spinned” yet. Even like this, if you properly feed the information to the mass, you will have your expected result.

[elke]

Originally posted by michael
[QUOTE][B]I think there is a reasonable argument that the very opposite is the case.

Outright falsification is open to correction by the supply of later information. Take for example the case of the “Scud missile” attack on Kuwait in the first days of the invasion , or Iraq’s claims of downed planes/helicopters that are never seen.
Or an example close to the heart of many on this forum – claims of massive civilian deaths at Jenin. Easily proven false by later information, clearly they were powerful weapons of argument at the time, but in the long run are self-defeating because they undermine credibility. Lies are the simplest and crudest weapon of propaganda.

This is true only if/when other information is available. In a government-controlled media, this other information will not become available in time for the population to make rational decisions and choices, - if ever. Take the Egyptian belief that they won the Yom Kippur War: it has no basis in reality, there are eyewitnesses to bits and pieces within Egyptian society, but yet the belief persists 30 years later, even though it is an outright falsification of facts. As a matter of fact, same (minus the 30 years bit) can be said about Jenin: many still believe that it was a "massacre".

The other point I was trying to make is this: the lies, some of them at least, are indeed found out, - even through the haze of the centralized media coverage. When that happens, suspicion and conspiracy theories flourish. People do not know what to believe, become highly cynical; which ultimately serves the despots very well. Cynicism is not a healthy attitude, really: it is a perversion of scepticism, not a "higher level" of it.

Much more powerful is “spin”.

The early American propagandist (or, if you prefer - public relations expert), Harold Lasswell described it as;

“..the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols….Collective attitudes are amenable to many modes of alteration..”

Good and evil are probably the most powerful.

The practical outcome is the avoidance of certain questions and restricting the scope of debate.

Thus in the investigation of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, Lt. Calley was able to say in his defence;

“….nobody ever told us they [the Vietnamese] were human…”

The rhetoric of the West is replete with reference to such symbolism; “the evil empire”, “axis of evil” etc.

The current conflict is no different, Saddam is a “monster”, “evil incarnate”, an “evil regime” etc. and Anglo-American motives are cloaked in the rhetoric of righteousness; “humanitarian”, “respect for human rights”, “love of freedom”, ”liberation” etc.

As a result, the natural human revulsion to death and destruction can be muted - all in a good cause.

The natural human revulsion to death and destruction should also come into play against Saddam's regime, don't you think?

Ultimately, rhetoric, while powerful and effective, does not "fiddle" with the underlying parameters of what is happening, while lies do.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil

Ever since we were allowed to say “I”, which is not actually that long ago, we basically all have an opinion on pretty much everything.

When you talk about "we" being allowed to say "I", precisely whom are you talking about?

Freedom of speech is not a new concept to Americans, dear. We've been able to speak our minds for a couple of hundred years, without too much fear of reprisal.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
When you talk about "we" being allowed to say "I", precisely whom are you talking about?

Freedom of speech is not a new concept to Americans, dear. We've been able to speak our minds for a couple of hundred years, without too much fear of reprisal.


Johnny, Johnny, you are as hard as you pretend I am. I was talking about our western civilization, about the way we look at the world and think. The time we started saying I as you mentioned is just about a couple of hundred years ago. It was just not so integrated to our culture again not so long ago.

When I was younger, and was always saying I want, I want, I want; my parents use to tell me "The king says we want". It actually took me a long time to understand what they meant :).

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
Johnny, Johnny, you are as hard as you pretend I am. I was talking about our western civilization, about the way we look at the world and think. The time we started saying I as you mentioned is just about a couple of hundred years ago. It was just not so integrated to our culture again not so long ago.

When I was younger, and was always saying I want, I want, I want; my parents use to tell me "The king says we want". It actually took me a long time to understand what they meant :).


You don't live in the West, if you live in Singapore.....

[Johnny Yuma]

Here's a little more excrement for the turbine unit; a blast from the past; the lyrics to a song written by Frank Zappa; and a much simpler explanation than all the psycho-babble you've been reading.



I'm The Slime:

I'm gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I am the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I am the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
Well, I'm the slime oozin' out
From your TV set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don't need you
Don't go for help...no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

That's right, folks...
Don't touch that dial

Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin' room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go
I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin' room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Freedom of speech is not a new concept to Americans, dear. We've been able to speak our minds for a couple of hundred years, without too much fear of reprisal.
Not after september 11:th. Then famous US celebrities puplicly argues againts the Iraq-war, they taking a risk. Especially in the media- and entertainment-industry, and especially if they have most of their career still ahead of them. And if the war doesnt progress as expected the next couple of weeks/months, then it will escalate even further. Before you know it you have McCartyism all over again.

Check out this site: http://www.progressive.org/webex/mcwatch.html

[Mediocrates]

Meaning what? That speaking out is proof that freedom of speech does not exist? Meaning what that hundreds of thousands of protestors is proof that freedom of assembly is void?

What planet do you live on? Open up the window and look outside.

Yes Homeland Security has the potential to abridge freedoms but there is little if anything to suggest that it is happening now.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Ralph63
Not after september 11:th. Then famous US celebrities puplicly argues againts the Iraq-war, they taking a risk. Especially in the media- and entertainment-industry, and especially if they have most of their career still ahead of them. And if the war doesnt progress as expected the next couple of weeks/months, then it will escalate even further. Before you know it you have McCartyism all over again.

Check out this site: http://www.progressive.org/webex/mcwatch.html

Really? Perhaps we should beat the rush and take the Constitution, and turn on the shredder? How about we wait, as you say, a couple of more weeks/months and perhaps, just perhaps, when those same actors see the results of Saddam's shredding escapades (of his dissenters), they'll change their minds?

[michael]

Originally posted by elke

Ultimately, rhetoric, while powerful and effective, does not "fiddle" with the underlying parameters of what is happening, while lies do.

I think you misunderstand. Propaganda is not simply rhetoric. It is the pervasive and systematic attempt to manipulate and control opinion, ie. the desired outcome is known and attempts are made to achieve that outcome. In war this is done by rigorous efforts to control the flow of information. Not just by omission but by vetting what is presented. Lies will simply not do the job.

This has been well understood by the military, as Commander Arthur Humphries of the US Navy noted in 1983:

"In spite of a perception of choice in a democratic society, the Falklands War shows us how to make certain that government policy is not undermined by the way a war is reported… Control access to the fighting, invoke censorship, and rally aid in the form of patriotism at home and in the battle zone"

[michael]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Freedom of speech is not a new concept to Americans, dear. We've been able to speak our minds for a couple of hundred years, without too much fear of reprisal.

Sorry to butt in, but I think you'll find that your'e not quite right. That was only confirmed by the US Courts in the 1960's which is only about 40 years.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by michael

This has been well understood by the military, as Commander Arthur Humphries of the US Navy noted in 1983:

"In spite of a perception of choice in a democratic society, the Falklands War shows us how to make certain that government policy is not undermined by the way a war is reported… Control access to the fighting, invoke censorship, and rally aid in the form of patriotism at home and in the battle zone"

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
—Samuel Johnson

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by michael
Sorry to butt in, but I think you'll find that your'e not quite right. That was only confirmed by the US Courts in the 1960's which is only about 40 years.

... a constitutional test.

[michael]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
—Samuel Johnson


I couldn't agree more.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by michael
I couldn't agree more.

What he said, along with this, was that an argument would stand on its own merits; that you don't have to wrap it up in a flag for support. He wasn't saying that partriotism was wrong.

[elke]

Originally posted by michael
I think you misunderstand. Propaganda is not simply rhetoric. It is the pervasive and systematic attempt to manipulate and control opinion, ie. the desired outcome is known and attempts are made to achieve that outcome. In war this is done by rigorous efforts to control the flow of information. Not just by omission but by vetting what is presented. Lies will simply not do the job.

This has been well understood by the military, as Commander Arthur Humphries of the US Navy noted in 1983:

"In spite of a perception of choice in a democratic society, the Falklands War shows us how to make certain that government policy is not undermined by the way a war is reported… Control access to the fighting, invoke censorship, and rally aid in the form of patriotism at home and in the battle zone"

That may well be. In the midst of military operations, it is difficult to discern where the concern for the operational security - i.e. the legitimate reason for military censorship, - ends; and the propaganda war begins. Come to think of it, it is also difficult in relatively peaceful times, since hostilities exist even when they do not erupt into an outright clash of physical weapons.

However, as I understand it, you are saying that spinning the facts to fit an agenda is as - if not more - harmful than outright lies to support an agenda. I fail to see that. I have a great deal of faith in my own, and my fellow-humans', ability to think rationally. I have no faith, however, in our ability to "know" the truth when it's not reported. We do not have telepathic powers, and we do not have a real "truth serum" to apply here. All we have is common sense, which is to be used to compile a full picture, based on information we get from various sources. "Various sources" is the operative concept here, something the vast majority of the MidEast countries do not have. What you are taking for granted: namely, that truth will win out in the end, - is far from fact in countries with government-controlled press.

[Johnny Yuma]

Background
The concept of Shared Values was first mentioned in October 1988 by the then First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. It was to be a blueprint for the development of a National Ideology which Singaporeans of all races and faiths could subscribe to and live by.
The aim of this National Ideology was to sculpt a Singaporean identity by incorporating the relevant parts of our various cultural heritages as well as the attitudes and values which have helped us survive as a nation. It would also help safeguard against undesirable values permeating from more developed countries which may be detrimental to our social fabric.
This concept of a National Ideology was already practiced by some of our neighbors. For example, Indonesia had drawn up the ‘Pancasila’, a set of common beliefs to unite its peoples.
In January 1989, the then President Mr Wee Kim Wee elaborated on the rationale behind the proposal in his opening address to Parliament.
He said that Singapore’s status as a cosmopolitan city left it wide open to external influences. While this had put us in close touch with new ideas and technologies from abroad, it also exposed us to alien lifestyles and values.
"Under this pressure," he continued, "in less than a generation, attitudes and outlooks of Singaporeans, especially younger Singaporeans, have shifted. Traditional Asian ideas of morality, duty and society which have sustained and guided us in the past are giving way to a more Westernized, individualistic and self-centered outlooks on life."
"Not all foreign ideas or values are harmful. We cannot shut the outside world, and turn inwards on ourselves. As Singapore develops, we must adapt our customs and traditions to suit new circumstances."
He asked: "What sort of society will we become in another generation? What sort of people do we want our children to become? Do we really want to abandon our own cultures and national identity? Can we build a nation of Singaporeans, in Southeast Asia, on the basis of values and concepts native to other peoples, living in other environments? How we answer these questions will determine our future."
He listed four central ideas which had been identified as helping national progress. They were: placing society above self; upholding the family as the basic building block of society; resolving major issues through consensus instead of contention; and stressing racial and religious tolerance and harmony.
President Wee called for these views to be enshrined in a National Ideology as "such a formal statement will bond us together as Singaporeans, with our own distinct identity and destiny."
The young were seen as the main target group and moral education, the use of the mother tongue, strengthening the teaching of values in schools and the mass media were cited as means by which these ideas could be disseminated.
On 20 January 1989, Mr Goh Chok Tong announced that a Green Paper, or discussion paper, would be drawn up. This was to be followed by a Parliamentary Committee which would gather feedback. "The outcome," he said, "should be a document crystallizing the consensus. It should include a formal statement... which should enshrine the values we want to preserve." BG Lee Hsien Loong, the then Minister for Trade and Industry, was tasked to lead a team to draw up the paper.
National Ideology was then renamed "Shared Values" as, BG Lee explained, it "more modestly and accurately described what the values attempted to do."
In January 1991, during his first New Year’s Day address as Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong announced that the White Paper on Shared Values was to be mooted in Parliament, together with the Elected President Bill. This was in lieu of spelling out the Government’s long-term plans for Singapore.
The White Paper which presented the Government’s position on the matter was released on 5 January 1991. The values as they first appeared were:-
1. Nation before community and society above self
2. Family as the basic unit of society
3. Community support and respect for the individual
4. Consensus, not conflict
5. Racial and religious harmony
A nation-wide debate ensued. The general feeling however, was one of support from all races and religions. A Feedback Unit dialogue mainly suggested rephrasing the third and fourth values.
Parliament debated the issue from 14-15 January. On 15 January 1993, two amendments were made to the third and fourth values before the House adopted the five statements as the nation’s Shared Values.

[Johnny Yuma]

Shared Value – Nation
Putting the interests of society ahead of individual interest has become a major factor in our success. This attitude has enabled the country to overcome difficult challenges, such as the withdrawal of British forces in the early 1970s and the severe economic recession in 1985.
If we had insisted on our individual rights and prerogatives, and refused to compromise these for the greater interests of the nation, we would have restricted the options available for solving these problems. Promising solutions would have been ruled out as unacceptable to one group or another.
Instead, we have shown ourselves willing to make temporary individual sacrifices for the sake of the whole. The results have shown that over the long term, this leads to greater success for all.

Shared Value – Family
The sanctity of the family units is not unique to Singapore. All major faiths consider this a cardinal virtue.
The family is the fundamental building block out of which larger social structures can be stably constructed. It is the group within which human beings most naturally express their love for parents, spouse and children and find happiness and fulfillment. It is also the best way human societies have found to provide children with a secure and nurturing environment in which to grow up, to pass on society’s store of wisdom and experience and to look after the needs of the elderly.
However, recently many developed countries have witnessed a trend towards more permissive social mores as well as a heavier reliance on the state to take care of the aged. These include the increasing acceptance of ‘alternative lifestyles’ such as casual sexual relationships and single parenthood.
Such lifestyles weaken the family unit.

Shared Value – Community
While stressing on the whole, it is recognized that the individual has rights which should be respected and not lightly encroached upon. This value stresses that a balance should be struck between the individual and society - not one emphasized at the detriment of the other.
The need for the community to support the individual, especially having compassion for the less fortunate, surfaced repeatedly in the discussion of the Shared Values. Concern that disadvantaged individuals may be left out of the free market system here prompted its inclusion.
Every citizen must be given equal opportunities to have a good start in life. The economy must not only generate wealth, but also distribute it fairly and widely. It must not only take care of the winners, who have the ability to do well for themselves in any system, but also those who are less able to do well.
While the majority have benefited from economic growth, a small number have not kept up, as happens in every society. Although we may never eradicate this problem completely, we must continue to do all we can to assist the needy. This means helping to meet some of their pressing needs, training and equipping them with skills to upgrade themselves, and giving their children a better start in life, especially in terms of their education, so that poor families can make good in the next generation as they have done in the past.
One way we can put society above self and show concern for others is by participating personally in this effort. For example, we may volunteer for community work or contribute to community and welfare programs. These not only help in a practical way to solve the problems of the poor, but also strengthen the sense of togetherness, cohesion and self-reliance of the society.
Initially read as "Regard and respect of community for the individual", the values was changed to "Community support and respect for the individual" because the word ‘respect’ "makes it clearer that respect for the individual is one major component of the idea," said BG Lee Hsien Loong. "It is not just regard, not just polite obeisance to a person, but respect, meaning that you acknowledge him, you will defer to him."

Shared Value – Consensus
Resolving issues through consensus instead of conflict complements the idea of putting society before self. It highlights the accommodation of differing views as well as the development of a consensus on particular courses of action which have majority but not unanimous support.
National unity is a valuable asset. Preserving it requires a willingness to compromise. Without this give and take, a split into contending factions unable to reconcile their differences may arise.
"Consensus, instead of contention" was reworded to "Consensus, not conflict" because ‘contention’ in the former implies discussion and argument, which are essential to reaching a consensus.

Shared Value – Harmony
Racial and religious harmony are fundamental to our national well-being. Unless the different communities live harmoniously together, neither the majority nor minority communities will be able to prosper as they have done. Once the social fabric is torn, it cannot easily be sewn together again.
Racial and religious harmony have been the distinguishing trait of Singaporean society since Independence. This is not because our social fabric is inherently stronger than other multi-racial societies, or that we are immune to such problems. It is because a great deal of hard work and care has gone into tending and strengthening it. It should not be taken for granted.

[Mediocrates]

michael employs many of the common techniques of propaganda:

strawmen
rhtorical questions to draw the opposite of ones opnion
putting words in others mouths
critcism of a point never made
baiting

[wellofvow]

Hmmmm. I've never thought about "spin" versus "propaganda".

But now that I have, how about this:

Spin: "Western Iraq has pretty much been secured against making an attack on neighboring countries "

- to be translated (but never, never even to be whispered, shhhhh! "Israel" SSSHHHHHHHHHH

Propaganda: "Five hundred women and children were brutally massacred while at the market in Jenin."

- to be translated to "Fifty armed and brainwashed psychotics were shot while hiding behind pregnant women and toddlers and lobbing grenades on Israeli soldiers in Jenin."

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by wellofvow
Hmmmm. I've never thought about "spin" versus "propaganda".

But now that I have, how about this:

Spin: "Western Iraq has pretty much been secured against making an attack on neighboring countries "

- to be translated (but never, never even to be whispered, shhhhh! "Israel" SSSHHHHHHHHHH

Propaganda: "Five hundred women and children were brutally massacred while at the market in Jenin."

- to be translated to "Fifty armed and brainwashed psychotics were shot while hiding behind pregnant women and toddlers and lobbing grenades on Israeli soldiers in Jenin."


Perfecto!

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by wellofvow
- to be translated to "Fifty armed and brainwashed psychotics were shot while hiding behind pregnant women and toddlers and lobbing grenades on Israeli soldiers in Jenin."
Well, usually it is the Israeli soldiers who shoot while hiding safely in tanks and helicopters. Sometimes they just fire some missiles from a jetfighter.

Thats what I call exploiting an military-technological advantage to the max.

[elke]

Originally posted by Ralph63
Well, usually it is the Israeli soldiers who shoot while hiding safely in tanks and helicopters. Sometimes they just fire some missiles from a jetfighter.

Thats what I call exploiting an military-technological advantage to the max.

Would you expect them to get out of the tank with a sign saying "shoot me"? You are a real comedian, Ralph: that's a real knee-slapper! :rolleyes:

...and of course, there is no difference whatsoever between hiding in a tank and behind a woman's skirt, is there, Ralph? :rolleyes:

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Ralph63
Well, usually it is the Israeli soldiers who shoot while hiding safely in tanks and helicopters. Sometimes they just fire some missiles from a jetfighter.

Thats what I call exploiting an military-technological advantage to the max.

What else would it be called? Best block, no be there?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Ralph63
Well, usually it is the Israeli soldiers who shoot while hiding safely in tanks and helicopters. Sometimes they just fire some missiles from a jetfighter.

Thats what I call exploiting an military-technological advantage to the max. Where would you fight a war from?

[michael]

Originally posted by elke

However, as I understand it, you are saying that spinning the facts to fit an agenda is as - if not more - harmful than outright lies to support an agenda. I fail to see that. I have a great deal of faith in my own, and my fellow-humans', ability to think rationally. I have no faith, however, in our ability to "know" the truth when it's not reported. We do not have telepathic powers, and we do not have a real "truth serum" to apply here. All we have is common sense, which is to be used to compile a full picture, based on information we get from various sources. "Various sources" is the operative concept here, something the vast majority of the MidEast countries do not have. What you are taking for granted: namely, that truth will win out in the end, - is far from fact in countries with government-controlled press.

Yes, I think outright lies are a lesser problem, because they are only part of it. As you go on to suggest, rightly, that we have difficulty ;
“….to "know" the truth when it's not reported”

Exactly. That is in essence what I have argued-not too well it seems!
As can be seen from the last few wars, the military is greatly concerned with controlling reporting for this very reason. It wants, what it believes to be the right story, to be the one on our TV screens each night, because as you say, we have a rather limited ability to know what is kept from us.

As for my arguing “…that the truth will win out”, my point was just the opposite. It can only “win out” if we know the full story. Propaganda is centrally concerned with avoiding this state of affairs -controlling information and thus framing attitudes and beliefs (or “manipulating public opinion” as the father of propaganda-Edward Bernays, put it). For this reason, outright lies are, as I said, the crudest of weapons. However, combined with aggressive control of information and manipulation of attitudes, they can become the truth, as “We do not have telepathic powers….”, to know otherwise.

An American historian, Daniel Boorstin, had something to say on the development and use of propaganda techniques in the US;

“We think that it has meant an increase in untruthfulness. In fact it has meant a reshaping of our very concept of truth”

As a result he saw that, “…not truth, but credibility is the modern test”

It seems that “…spinning the facts to fit an agenda…” is only part of the story. The major task is to control the agenda and then establish credibility.

[elke]

But it still does not explain why you believe that lies are better than spinned truth. If lies are found out as such, even belatedly, - they erode that self-same credibility you are referring to, and create the atmosphere of distrust in public. IMO, that's what we are witnessing in the MidEast: that's where all those conspiracy theories, morbid interest in the ugly side of life, and complete inability to see the whole picture and their role in it, comes from.

[michael]

Originally posted by elke
But it still does not explain why you believe that lies are better than spinned truth. If lies are found out as such, even belatedly, - they erode that self-same credibility you are referring to, and create the atmosphere of distrust in public. .


I don’t think they are “better”, simply more open to factual correction.

I partialy agree as I said in my first response to you;

“Easily proven false by later information, clearly they[lies] were powerful weapons of argument at the time, but in the long run are self-defeating because they undermine credibility. “post#22


Which is why I introduced the points made by Daniel Boorstin. To be effective, the agenda must be tightly controlled. It’s not simply about hiding “untruthfulness”, but “reshaping the truth”.

Hence the current jargon of being “on message”. The rules are clear enough; stick tightly to the predetermined agenda; limit independent access; invoke censorship as necessary.

The “embedded” journalists are a feature of this, in combination with the strict reporting criteria they must agree to, to be part of the show. So too, the pre-briefing breifings that are given to identify questions and opinions “out of left field” prior to press briefings so that the appropriate responses and strategies can be determined.

As for "credibility". I refer to credibility in the reshaped truth. For instance, in the current conflict, it has all beome about tactics. According to most media it seems the question now is only of success or failure and thus discussion and criticism is primarily about "tactics". Are they right or wrong, did the US go in with too few troops or too little equipment? etc. In this agenda the "experts" sought for comment are retired generals, brigadires, colonels, admirals etc. Why? Because in this context they have credibility and their comments are generally limited, as required, to discussion of tactics.

The basic features of an effective propaganda campaign have been clearly identified and documented at length in the social sciences literature of the 20thC. It would be naive to assume that these lessons have not been well learned by those with an interest in, and the ability to, mould public opinion.

If you want see for yourself, try these basic texts;

Bernays, E. L. “Manipulating Public Opinion:the why and the how”; American Journal of Sociology,33(6),p.958-71.

Bernays, E.L. “The Engineering of Consent”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,250(March), p.114

Lasswell, H.D. “Propaganda”, Encyclopedia of Social Sciences,MacMillan, New York.(1954)

[elke]

Originally posted by michael
[QUOTE]I don’t think they are “better”, simply more open to factual correction.

Only if they are actually corrected, which doesn't always happen, especially in state-run media. As I mentioned before, it came as a great shock to me to know that Egyptians to this day believe that they won the Yom Kippur War. You are looking at it from the standpoint of the West, where the truth usually - but still not always, - comes out.

Many of my memories from childhood in FSU include the deafening sounds of jamming on my father's short-wave radio in the middle of the night. Those were the sounds of truth being suppressed! Most of the people did not have short-wave radios, and even if they did, were not able to get at "the truth" because its Russian version was jammed, and they did not speak adequate English to get at it. My father actually learned English originally for this purpose!

The information that we had, even such little things as "in the US, you have to put money into the meter in order to get electricity", and "people pay to breathe", - patently false, but learned in a 5th grade Geography class, no less!

You do not understand the nature of state-run media. You do not understand the dearth of information in countries who have it, and are therefore basing your hypothesis on an inaccurate premise. In fact, this demonstrates exactly what I am trying to say: we have to have correct information in order to make rational decisions. Information based on lies cannot lead to reasoned action.

I partialy agree as I said in my first response to you;

“Easily proven false by later information, clearly they[lies] were powerful weapons of argument at the time, but in the long run are self-defeating because they undermine credibility. “post#22


Which is why I introduced the points made by Daniel Boorstin. To be effective, the agenda must be tightly controlled. It’s not simply about hiding “untruthfulness”, but “reshaping the truth”.

Hence the current jargon of being “on message”. The rules are clear enough; stick tightly to the predetermined agenda; limit independent access; invoke censorship as necessary.

The “embedded” journalists are a feature of this, in combination with the strict reporting criteria they must agree to, to be part of the show. So too, the pre-briefing breifings that are given to identify questions and opinions “out of left field” prior to press briefings so that the appropriate responses and strategies can be determined.

As for "credibility". I refer to credibility in the reshaped truth. For instance, in the current conflict, it has all beome about tactics. According to most media it seems the question now is only of success or failure and thus discussion and criticism is primarily about "tactics". Are they right or wrong, did the US go in with too few troops or too little equipment? etc. In this agenda the "experts" sought for comment are retired generals, brigadires, colonels, admirals etc. Why? Because in this context they have credibility and their comments are generally limited, as required, to discussion of tactics.

The basic features of an effective propaganda campaign have been clearly identified and documented at length in the social sciences literature of the 20thC. It would be naive to assume that these lessons have not been well learned by those with an interest in, and the ability to, mould public opinion.

If you want see for yourself, try these basic texts;

Bernays, E. L. “Manipulating Public Opinion:the why and the how”; American Journal of Sociology,33(6),p.958-71.

Bernays, E.L. “The Engineering of Consent”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,250(March), p.114

Lasswell, H.D. “Propaganda”, Encyclopedia of Social Sciences,MacMillan, New York.(1954)

All this is very interesting, and worth investigating. However, the control excercized by the military over the media is something that everyone is very much aware of. Once the operations end, this information will come out - nothing surer.

As far as why the discussion is now limited to "tactics" - that's simple: the war is a "fait accompli" now, so just how much point is there in trying to discuss the pros and cons of doing it? This process will re-start again once the war is over: analysis of history, so that we did not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[michael]

Originally posted by elke
Only if they are actually corrected, which doesn't always happen, especially in state-run media.
You do not understand the nature of state-run media. You do not understand the dearth of information in countries who have it, and are therefore basing your hypothesis on an inaccurate premise.

As far as why the discussion is now limited to "tactics" - that's simple: the war is a "fait accompli" now, so just how much point is there in trying to discuss the pros and cons of doing it? This process will re-start again once the war is over: analysis of history, so that we did not repeat the mistakes of the past.

You're quite right about the hypothesis. It does not describe such places as the FSU. This hypothesis is only relevent to the freer democracies. As someone once said(can't remember who) "propaganda is to democracy what coercion is to dictatorship".

David Hume (one of the original thinkers on democracy) argued that Governments are founded on control of opinion which "extends to the most despotic and most military, as well as to the most free and most popular". What varies is the method of control - lies and limits, or the management of opinion and consent.

This is crucial where you argue that,
"the war is a 'fait accompli' now, so just how much point is there in trying to discuss the pros and cons of doing it?"

The principle of retroactive consent has been well understood for a long time;

"If in latter years [people] see and admit that the disputed relation was for the highest interest, it may be reasonably held that the authority has been imposed with the consent of the governed"- Frances Hutcheson on the US 'liberation' of the Phillipines in the 19th C.

So now, despite lack of majority support for a war without UN authorisation, the hope is that public opinion can be held long enough to achieve the stated aims in Iraq. Then the '"highest interest" will be seen and prior opposition will become irrelevant. This is the "consent without consent" advocated by people such as Edward Bernays. Thus control over the media in times of war, through the techniques outlined before, is paramount. Media restricting debate to the merits of various tactics is a crucial part of controlling the agenda. Uncomfortable and damaging discussion of legality and morality are safely left behind.

Your expectation that "Once the operations end, this information will come out - nothing surer" is on rather shaky ground. Stories that were given prominence prior to the Gulf War and helped mobilise public opinion, were latter proven to be false (not mistaken but actually engineered in one case)- the Kuwaiti hospital babies and the Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi Arabian border. Yet this readily available correction has not, to my knowledge, been presented once in the mainstream media as a note of caution in the flurry of "facts" presented by the US Govt to justify this war.

It's a reasonable hope that the "mistakes of the past" will not be repeated, but it's extremely generous to describe past actions as mistakes, given that history suggests otherwise. They are often presented thus, but are rarely so in fact.

[Mediocrates]

We live in a post modernist post deconstructivist world where facts are what you make them. We don't simply call it revisionism, we call it a 'fresh look'. In the last year I've read an historical treatise that concludes McCarthyism was probably not that bad because his methods aside he was at least partially correct in that there were some Soviet spies in the US at the time. So if you start from the premise that excuse is in the 'facts' then you can find whatever facts you want to demonstrate their new historical relevance.

I've also read Gar Alperovitz new look at Truman's decision to use atomic weapons. And he starts from his new conclusion that it was unnecessary and quai racist and works backwards to interpret old sources in new ways to prove that.

The problem with both of these approaches is that they assume an historical perspective that's somewhat backwards. They assume that all those actors were acting out of a conviction that history would eventually prove them right. It ignores all the other actors at the time and discounts the immediate politics that lead to each and every step along the way.

Propaganda is persuasion not history. It is not bound by 'facts'. IT would serve no useful purpose if it was.

[michael]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
We live in a post modernist post deconstructivist world where facts are what you make them. We don't simply call it revisionism, we call it a 'fresh look'.

Propaganda is persuasion not history. It is not bound by 'facts'. .

I agree, that is the sutuation we find ourselves in. This is the pragmatic displacement of 'truth' by desirable belief. Ethical objection to democratic propaganda virtually disappeared by the end of WWII. As a result we are less concerned with ideals than with image, despite the rhetoric of the West which emphasises the principle of freedom.
Edward Bernays encapsulated this- the "engineering of consent" is;
"...the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest"

The problem with this approach is that it is rooted in cynicism and contempt for people. Lasswell made this clear;

"...men are often poor judges of their own interests",

the "...masses ar still captive to ignorance and superstition",

Propaganda is "the one means of mass mobilisation which is cheaper than violence, bribery or other possible control techniques".

The dangers of this were spelled out by Bertrand Russell in 1945,

"The concept of 'truth' as something dependant on facts largely outside human control has been one of the ways in which philosophy hitherto has inculcated the necessary element of humility. With this check upon pride removed, a further step is taken on the road to a certain kind of madness- the intoxication of power...any philosophy which, however unintentionally, contributes to this is increasing the danger of vast social disaster"

[mimil]

A couple of days ago, after the liberation of Bagdad, the US president did a declaration translated in arab to be broadcast by planes to the iraqi. This speech was aimed, in theory, to the iraqi people and the bagdadi themselves. One small detail so, Bagdad had no electricity at that time.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by mimil
A couple of days ago, after the liberation of Bagdad, the US president did a declaration translated in arab to be broadcast by planes to the iraqi. This speech was aimed, in theory, to the iraqi people and the bagdadi themselves. One small detail so, Bagdad had no electricity at that time.
Three minor points in your observation.
1. This was noted by Centcom
2. There are those with battery powered radios, not a new invention.
3. The Iraqi grapevine has shown to travel at almost light speed. I think the evidence of the people getting the message is clear.