What is Reddit's opinion of
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
123 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
Or just Chomsky's essays on Vietnam, widely available for free online.
The US were the aggressors in a war of imperialism at first to maintain French colonial control of Indochina and then excused their Holocaust of Vietnamese civilians and combatants defending their homeland from bombs and genocide and torture with unverified notions of "domino theory" as part of a larger ideological war repeatedly used to excuse imperialism, torture, surveillance, genocide, repression, and domestic wealth disparity.
They engaged in widespread, consistent carpet-bombing, torture, repression, chemical and biological warfare, environmental destruction, Roman Plowing, and massacre on the people of South Vietnam. They installed a puppet regime and eliminated democracy and purged dissidents and civilians alike. They marched through destroyed villages and massacred the survivors after bombing them with millions of tonnes of bombs, far greater in a few years, than all the bombs dropped during WWII. Their environmental destruction is still devastating and lead to widespread famine and starvation and poverty.
Some reliable historians estimate 2 million Vietnamese died, or some figures have it at 1.5M. A great, great many were civilians and the combatants were defending their homeland against these atrocities, so they were also innocent. The war accomplished nothing but a communist victory in Vietnam and the US repeatedly broke their own peace agreements concluding the war. They pushed Vietnam into systemic, long-lasting poverty thereafter. The only thing the war accomplished was widespread suffering.
>More specifically, it's Disney lobbying very hard
Yes but lets not mince words here, there has been many times the government has been able to protect the public interest but didn't.
Our governments do not work like we think they do because we've been mis-educated.
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Public attitudes are shaped and driven by the media. If the public doesn't care, it's because we've spent years conditioning them not to care. If the public in general can't name many middle eastern cultures beyond "Muslim", that is very much the fault of the media.
If prominent newspapers started giving front page headlines to the plight of the Kurds, you'd certainly see a considerable public reaction, but right now the cycle is dominated by the anti-communist Hong-Kong protest coverage because it serves an agenda for the United States. Kurds being killed because the American government made the decision to abandon them? That's a bad look on America and the media won't give it nearly as much attention. See Manufacturing Consent on this dynamic.
I really really recommend reading Manufacturing Consent to anyone who hasn't. Its as relevant today as when it was written. One of its focuses is on New York Times: https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499 or however the heck you read books. I don't think Noam would give a crap if you pirate it.
Prof. Chomsky literally co-wrote the book on how the media is used by the ruling class to get the public to buy into the establishment narrative.
Give this book a read. https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
Noam Chomsky lays out in Manufacturing Consent how the major media entities have acted as an arm of the US intelligence agencies since the start of the Cold War, AP in particular. Also be aware the CIA uses "anonymous sources" to pick winners and losers in journalism, feeding the story to those who "play ball".
I don't, I remain cynical of everything I hear coming out of government agencies and politicians and then I laugh at mainstream society as they argue and fight each other over stupid things like masks and mayo sauce on hamburgers.
We've got to do better, but public opinion is easily controlled and divided. Check out the book https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499 if you have never read it before.
I hope society changes and people do better but I'm certainly not optimistic about it :(
Wow, the Leftists are the exact definition of Mainstream media NPCs, they belive on everything the Mainstream media tells them. Those guys are the exact definition of Manufacturing Consent.
Oh sweetie... Allow me to present to you the book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media A book that came out back in 1988 that talks about how the media is a right wing vehicle to promote the status quo of supporting military intervention on the behalf of defending Capital.
>The difference is that the left is, ime, skeptical of the outcomes of the market
Of course. There are huge, big problems with corporate control of media, and the left has been talking about it for ages. But our proposed solutions have never been about forcing privately held media to carry particular content -- that's the insanity being discussed here.
If you want to talk about funding publicly-owned media (social or otherwise) or regulating the market itself (anti-trust measures, FCC oversight of mergers and consolidation, etc.) I'm all ears. But proposing a policy shift that would compel a private actor to carry a fucking lie because it came from a government representative, that is the antithesis of 400 years of the liberal tradition.
> In the end if people enjoy it and purchase it that's all that really matters, it really doesnt affect anyone else.
don't think, just consume, consume, consume.
> Blaming this on "the general public" is a great way of shifting responsibility
Except the media's institutions never served the public to begin with, that was the myth we were sold.
It just means that media outlets such as the NYTimes, Reuters, CNN, Fox, WaPo, etc. have proven time and time again to be highly cooperative towards US state propaganda interests. There’s an entire book full of examples beyond just the WMDs in Iraq. The pattern is the same:
Step one make up some atrocity that the target country is committing.
Have think-tanks produce “studies” that “prove” the atrocities.
Have the aforementioned media outlets write stories based on those “studies” to get everyone to believe it.
Have those media outlets cite each other as references to make people believe it even more.
Make sure the atrocities committed by us and our friendly countries don’t make the front page so they are drowned out by stories about our target country.
Profit by selling a ton of weapons.
Profit even more if we can convince the public that the target country deserves to be invaded and plundered.
If you had asked me that question before your prior comment, I might have been inclined to answer at more length. But the bluster is a turnoff -- if you're already pretending to know what you're talking about when you clearly don't, there's little incentive for me to continue here. While you're certainly living up to your username, it just doesn't make for a pleasant or productive conversation.
But as a start, I'll offer the following: bias is something (all) people/media organizations have. Propaganda is something (some) people/media organizations make. One no doubt regularly plays a role in the other, but it is hardly the only qualifying criteria. For the rest of the explanation, I'd start with wikipedia and go from there.
Read Manufacturing Consent.
https://www.amazon.de/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
>The issue you are describing is very disconnected from the german public broadcasting service's reality.
It is only disconnected from the reality that you have accepted, and that doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong.
>there are mechanisms in place to prevent influencing by politicians.
It's not any particular politician or anything that influences it. It's the whole superstructure and incentives. These mechanisms you're talking about don't really work in reality when it really comes down to it, and only work just enough to convince the public that it does for the more trivial stuff which incidentally, acts as a more sophisticated form of control.
You’re going to have inform leftist MIT professor Noam Chomsky that he believes in “a deep state conspiracy theory” since he is the one that wrote the book. Lmao.
Pick up a copy sometime. It’s worth a read:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375714499/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_N3DgFbHJH6SMM
I don't have time to respond to all of this, but I'll cite this yet again. Chomsky painstakingly refutes each and every one of these claims, detailing the source of the information and how the media was complicit in spreading this narrative based on the influential propaganda model that he and Herman present and apply to various case studies, including this one.
The US didn't "fight" with a "carelessness" of civilian lives. They deliberately sought out to destroy civilian lives for political reasons. When they couldn't adequately control the political sphere of South Vietnam because their installed regime was brutal and unpopular, they decided to use their strengths - advantage of military strength - to achieve their ends of control. Thus, to this end, they deliberately sought out to destroy civilian life in South Vietnam until they had complete control over the political sphere to wage war against the North.
You're first several paragraphs are also inaccurate and take the mainstream line presented in the NYT and other contemporary publications. It's apocryphal. Please read about the pretext to the war and why the US joined, ideally by alternative as well as mainstream sources for a more robust and comprehensive picture. Chomsky has by far the best analysis I have encountered in my career and he has published many essays about it, many of which appear in reputable books of wide publication and renoun.
You haven't read a single book on Vietnam outside the Cato Institute. Jesus christ this is false.
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
There never was a free press. Anyone who followed how the government propaganda was sold by the US mass media before the Iraq invasion, or kept silent on torture, mass surveillance, and so on and so forth understands that. And that's in the "most democratic country of all".
> Supporting and reporting information told by a government with less than reliable information isn't showing support for the war
Shutting out any information that was contrary is!
>I'm sorry but go read a book
Try this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
Then maybe you will understand what is happening in this country.
>Now piss off fool.
You are helping to start another Civil War, and I'm the fool?
Only because I haven't fled the country... yet.
Every time one news story is presented another is ignored.
What was being ignored?
The spot light is only so big you have to understand that narratives and stories are presented in different ways for a reason.
Everyone in this comment chain needs to read Noam Chomsky's
Colbert is very likely the platonic love child of Noam Chomsky and George Carlin...Seriously, it would be unfair to compare Colbert with the father of modern linguistics.
Chomsky's book on manfactured consent defines what Colbert is fighting against every day, strapped in that Bill O'Reilly straightjacket.
In a nutshell, the classic steering mechanism for public opinion used to be Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky) or Engineering Consent (Bernays) which generates propaganda to achieve more of a public consensus whereas Adam Curtis' HyperNormalisation looks at the shift from that to neutralizing the pubilc into inaction by polarizing them with conflicting information or misinformation (patently false information) so that NO consensus can be reached. Both achieve the same goal of allowing the power elite to carry out the policies they wish while reducing the influence of an ostensibly democratic public which, in conjunction with more and more police state-like authoritarian measures making them more compliant, can no longer tell what is truth and what is misinformation. The public descends into arguing amongst themselves as opposed to those in power.
Edit. I would highjly recommend watching Adam Curtis' famous documentary The Century of the Self which looks at Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew) and the origins of the consumer society, public relations and propaganda.
Have you read "Manufacturing Consent"? Possibly Chomsky's most important works.
> The net is that the article isn’t really about DC or the protesters, but rather to raise awareness about the reliability of video as a medium and how we should be critical consumers in this viral video age.
And take it one step further, with a sprinkling of Chomsky salt: the media has an agenda and they will do their best to exploit cherrypicking of video, text, audio, etc. to tell their own narrative. Viral videos are certainly dangerous since there's no level of editorial oversight. But even editors at large corporate media see their "wall" between content and business broken down to spin stories a certain way. The most common tool is "lie by omission" since it technically isn't lying or dirty. In fact, it's even similar to the original Lincoln Memorial video.
edit: I realize a book isn't the most accessible source for /r/neutralnews, but the wikipedia article does a decent enough job summarizing the main topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
Everyday people are actually far smarter than we're led to believe. Part of the problem with people being "uniformed" about politics is that there is basically one media narrative that is universally broadcast. The political media actually acts more or less identically to the way you would expect a state-controlled propaganda agency to behave.
This happens for 5 reasons: 1. Basically all media outlets are owned by 6 corporations. There is a massive concentration of ownership in newsmedia. 2. Virtually all media relies almost completely on advertisers. Advertisers are themselves usually giant corporations who can pull their ads if a story is run that is ideologically opposed to their world view. This is not just a theoretical threat either, corporations act on this all the time. 3. There are a few centralized outlets where information is readily available, access to which is controlled by the powerful. An example of this is the White House Press Corps. Media outlets that behave in ways that anger the powerful interests who control these information sources will be expelled from them and have to rely on other media sources to do secondary journalism. 4. Flak. If one newsperson or outlet goes rogue and reports in a way that is threatening to the powerful, the other news outlets will step in to discredit them. The rich also have the power to engage in long and expensive lawsuits that can be used to silence individual or organizational critics. 5. Anticommunism/anti-terrorism as a national religion. Americans have a tendency to build up larger than life enemies who are always lurking in the shadows, at least in the public consciousness. Many Americans in the past have been willing to sacrifice many of what they consider their core values in order to combat these threats, like basically giving up on the 4th Amendment in the aftermath of 9/11.
None of these are my ideas. This is a summery of a fantastic and groundbreaking book written by Dr. Noam Chomsky and Dr. Edward S. Herman in a book called "Manufacturing Consent" that I can't recommend highly enough. In the book, they argue that media in the U.S. is legally extremely free, but in practice has been little more adversarial than the press in the Soviet Union, and try to explain why that is. It is seriously a worldview shaking book to read and can be purchased here (https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1528690634&sr=1-1&keywords=manufacturing+consent+noam+chomsky) and is probably available at your local library.
Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman
Publisher's Blurb:
In this pathbreaking work, now with a new introduction, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky show that, contrary to the usual image of the news media as cantankerous, obstinate, and ubiquitous in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order.
Based on a series of case studies—including the media’s dichotomous treatment of “worthy” versus “unworthy” victims, “legitimizing” and “meaningless” Third World elections, and devastating critiques of media coverage of the U.S. wars against Indochina—Herman and Chomsky draw on decades of criticism and research to propose a Propaganda Model to explain the media’s behavior and performance.
Great video. Inventing Reality doesn't get the praise it deserves but you certainly did it justice here.
I think anyone who reads Manufacturing Consent or Inventing Reality should read the other book, so one can see what is "allowed" to exist as a critique of our society vs what will be actively swept away for fear of being too accurate, case and point?
Look at Manufacturing Consent vs Inventing Reality on Amazon:
Manufacturing Consent, still widely printed and published: https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
You can find a copy for 20$ or less.
Inventing Reality: https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Reality-Michael-Parenti-1993-05-25/dp/B01K0TX6EC
Going for hundreds of dollars, because it's no longer in print and you can get one from people who are selling used copies.
EDIT- Seems that some copies of Inventing Reality can be found for around 45$-50$. Now would be a great time to grab a copy, the last time I checked, which was about 4 months ago, they were still going for 200ish.
*sigh...*
Again please... please provide any prove of "genocide". Where are the mass graves? Where are all the refugees? Where is all the outry showing us the horrible depictions of burnings, war crimes, ethnic cleansings etc. like there was during the genocide against the Rohingya in Myanmar? Where are the horrible stories about all the executions, mass murder and so forth?
What makes you think there is a "genocide"? If you can show me any credible source (that is not already disproved in the post) of something even remotely close to "genocide" I will immediately reverse my position and whole-heartedly condemn the CCP for their atrocitites. If your only source for the worst possible crime against humanity is "I heard it", "it is consensus" or "everyone knows" then Im sorry I cannot accept it. As every leftist knows, the media is Manufacturing Consent and Inventing Reality.
> news came from reputable sources
Roflmao
I have a book you should read (first edition published 1988): https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
The Russell Howard Hour: "The Russell Howard Hour is a British topical comedy news show, which airs on Sky Max...The show is in a similar style to his previous show, Russell Howard's Good News, which aired on BBC Three and then BBC Two from 2009 to 2015."
Your Mass Media propaganda bullsh*t has no credibility here. I suggest reading "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.
Required reading this weekend (homework):
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
I see you are highly trained at recognizing CCP propaganda but you have no idea what western propaganda looks like. Maybe read some books, eh?
Here are a few that I recommend:
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375714499/
Overthrow https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805082409/
Or this one, if you're interested in the regular molding of American public opinion.
They are right and you are wrong, what a wild ride to read though. There's a book link for you https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
I'm not pretending, that is my belief borne out by observation.
>The Department of Justice announced today that the Chair of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department and two Chinese nationals have been charged in connection with aiding the People’s Republic of China.
What hallowed institution is immune from corruption?
>On October 21, 2020, it was reported that Purdue Pharma had reached a settlement potentially worth US$8.3 billion, admitting that it "knowingly and intentionally conspired and agreed with others to aid and abet" doctors dispensing medication "without a legitimate medical purpose."
Regarding media corruption specifically, Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent lays out overwhelming evidence that infallible outlets like AP and NYT do mislead the public and reliably serve as a hidden arm of the US military and intelligence agencies since the start of the Cold War. The world is perhaps more complicated than you're imagining. That's certainly been the case for me.
>In this pathbreaking work, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky show that, contrary to the usual image of the news media as cantankerous, obstinate, and ubiquitous in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order.
>
>Based on a series of case studies—including the media’s dichotomous treatment of “worthy” versus “unworthy” victims, “legitimizing” and “meaningless” Third World elections, and devastating critiques of media coverage of the U.S. wars against Indochina—Herman and Chomsky draw on decades of criticism and research to propose a Propaganda Model to explain the media’s behavior and performance. Their new introduction updates the Propaganda Model and the earlier case studies, and it discusses several other applications. These include the manner in which the media covered the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and subsequent Mexican financial meltdown of 1994-1995, the media’s handling of the protests against the World Trade Organization, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund in 1999 and 2000, and the media’s treatment of the chemical industry and its regulation. What emerges from this work is a powerful assessment of how propagandistic the U.S. mass media are, how they systematically fail to live up to their self-image as providers of the kind of information that people need to make sense of the world, and how we can understand their function in a radically new way.
In light of the anti-Mainstream Media posts in response to the attempt to interview the mods...
Manufacturing Consent the Documentary
Manufacturing Consent the Book
Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is a great introduction to understanding how the Media is used to craft narratives, and understanding where the bias lies for any given outlet.
I disagree with the notion that "watching the news" is the issue and posit in its stead that mainstream Western media as a category is the problem. Its very design is to limit the talking points down to two very basic but charged stances and get the viewer riled up about "the other side". Here's some alternative sources for news and news-related knowledge that I recommend.
I did a little write-up a few weeks ago in a similar thread so I'll paste it here too.
Pasted answer:
This is I guess unsurprisingly a more complicated question than it would seem on the surface, but I'll try to break it down as best I can. Spoiler: I'm a leftist and thus most of the shit I ingest is of that persuasion. It's important to be able to recognize and correct for biases and not fall into the trap of seeking out the non-existent "no bias" media that pretenders like AP and Reuters (owned by billionaires and who print stories subject to US government approval, hint hint) claim to be.
Most of my personal news consumptions comes from the following:
-For straight-faced daily news rundowns, I typically watch:
Democracy Now. They're about as simple as it gets and their 10-13 minute daily headlines are easy to routinely watch on youtube.
I subscribe to the Foreign Exchanges: World Roundup newsletter. Any of the Discontents content seen to the right there is usually pretty good analysis as well.
The Nation is generally pretty good.
-For more critical analysis of things that are trending in the news:
The Socialist Program with Brian Becker is pretty good although Brian is a bit of a massive dork. I only listen to this show when there's something in the news that is of personal interest to me, but I find him and his staff's analysis decently engaging.
The Majority Report is good for domestic news, although the host tends to get involved in these annoying twitter/youtube squabbles with the right-wing goons, which is totally offputting to me because I couldn't care less.
Back in the day, The Michael Brooks Show (RIP Michael) was excellent (although he did the youtube beef thing as well). It's still worth digging through the archive if there's a particular episode that is of interest to you.
Not really news, per se, but the show This is Hell! is a treasure trove of critical analysis of all manner of things that have been presented to us as one way by the news media and the host tries to get on guests who are experts in recent events around the world, so it's quasi-news.
-For critical analysis of news, and to learn more about the ins and outs of how news media twists truth to bend to its will:
Citations Needed is highly, highly recommended. Among the best outlets for critical analysis of media that's ever existed and highly listenable.
A few books on the topic include Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti -PDF-, Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, and for a more history-based analysis of how public memory works and how history takes shape on a longer scale, Silencing the Past by Michel-Rolph Trouillot
Most of the examples given are pretty generalized and therefore stretched way too thin to be relied upon to do regular robust and full-on histories of things that are currently in the news, so it's important to dig deeper into history if you want to paint a full portrait. For this I can recommend any number of books, podcasts, etc on various topics but just to provide a few examples of what these sorts of things look like:
Blowback is an excellent podcast that has covered some facets of history and is currently doing a multi-episode rundown of Cuba's political history with the United States.
Guerrilla History is one of my favorite podcasts that runs a gamut of topics, but this link goes to a critical history of vaccine intellectual property rights, which were/are in the news lately for obvious reasons.
Any number of books by Stephen Kinzer can be relied upon as factual as it pertains to US intervention in foreign nations (kind of his MO), from Iran to Guatemala, Nicaragua to Iraq. This is just one author of many I could recommend in this sort of capacity. And Kinzer himself is pretty much a normie, so he's good for "both sides" type analysis.
These are just a few examples. Like I said, it's not as easy as plopping down on the couch and flipping on CNN.
I did a little write-up a few weeks ago in response to a similar question in a normie sub so I'll paste it here too.
Pasted answer:
This is I guess unsurprisingly a more complicated question than it would seem on the surface, but I'll try to break it down as best I can. Spoiler: I'm a leftist and thus most of the shit I ingest is of that persuasion. It's important to be able to recognize and correct for biases and not fall into the trap of seeking out the non-existent "no bias" media that pretenders like AP and Reuters (owned by billionaires and who print stories subject to US government approval, hint hint) claim to be.
Most of my personal news consumptions comes from the following:
-For straight-faced daily news rundowns, I typically watch:
Democracy Now. They're about as simple as it gets and their 10-13 minute daily headlines are easy to routinely watch on youtube.
I subscribe to the Foreign Exchanges: World Roundup newsletter. Any of the Discontents content seen to the right there is usually pretty good analysis as well.
The Nation is generally pretty good.
-For more critical analysis of things that are trending in the news:
The Socialist Program with Brian Becker is pretty good although Brian is a bit of a massive dork. I only listen to this show when there's something in the news that is of personal interest to me, but I find him and his staff's analysis decently engaging.
The Majority Report is good for domestic news, although the host tends to get involved in these annoying twitter/youtube squabbles with the right-wing goons, which is totally offputting to me because I couldn't care less.
Back in the day, The Michael Brooks Show (RIP Michael) was excellent (although he did the youtube beef thing as well). It's still worth digging through the archive if there's a particular episode that is of interest to you.
Not really news, per se, but the show This is Hell! is a treasure trove of critical analysis of all manner of things that have been presented to us as one way by the news media and the host tries to get on guests who are experts in recent events around the world, so it's quasi-news.
-For critical analysis of news, and to learn more about the ins and outs of how news media twists truth to bend to its will:
Citations Needed is highly, highly recommended. Among the best outlets for critical analysis of media that's ever existed and highly listenable.
A few books on the topic include Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti -PDF-, Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, and for a more history-based analysis of how public memory works and how history takes shape on a longer scale, Silencing the Past by Michel-Rolph Trouillot
Most of the examples given are pretty generalized and therefore stretched way too thin to be relied upon to do regular robust and full-on histories of things that are currently in the news, so it's important to dig deeper into history if you want to paint a full portrait. For this I can recommend any number of books, podcasts, etc on various topics but just to provide a few examples of what these sorts of things look like:
Blowback is an excellent podcast that has covered some facets of history and is currently doing a multi-episode rundown of Cuba's political history with the United States.
Guerrilla History is one of my favorite podcasts that runs a gamut of topics, but this link goes to a critical history of vaccine intellectual property rights, which were/are in the news lately for obvious reasons.
Any number of books by Stephen Kinzer can be relied upon as factual as it pertains to US intervention in foreign nations (kind of his MO), from Iran to Guatemala, Nicaragua to Iraq. This is just one author of many I could recommend in this sort of capacity. And Kinzer himself is pretty much a normie, so he's good for "both sides" type analysis.
These are just a few examples. Like I said, it's not as easy as plopping down on the couch and flipping to CNN. (Or in the case of this conversation here, the NYT.)
I'm not the guy you asked but I answered this same question a few weeks ago so I'll paste what I wrote here because I took the time to write it all down. Happy to discuss any of these sources.
Pasted answer:
This is I guess unsurprisingly a more complicated question than it would seem on the surface, but I'll try to break it down as best I can. Spoiler: I'm a leftist and thus most of the shit I ingest is of that persuasion. It's important to be able to recognize and correct for biases and not fall into the trap of seeking out the non-existent "no bias" media that pretenders like AP and Reuters (owned by billionaires and who print stories subject to US government approval, hint hint) claim to be.
Most of my personal news consumptions comes from the following:
-For straight-faced daily news rundowns, I typically watch:
Democracy Now. They're about as simple as it gets and their 10-13 minute daily headlines are easy to routinely watch on youtube.
I subscribe to the Foreign Exchanges: World Roundup newsletter. Any of the Discontents content seen to the right there is usually pretty good analysis as well.
The Nation is generally pretty good.
-For more critical analysis of things that are trending in the news:
The Socialist Program with Brian Becker is pretty good although Brian is a bit of a massive dork. I only listen to this show when there's something in the news that is of personal interest to me, but I find him and his staff's analysis decently engaging.
The Majority Report is good for domestic news, although the host tends to get involved in these annoying twitter/youtube squabbles with the right-wing goons, which is totally offputting to me because I couldn't care less.
Back in the day, The Michael Brooks Show (RIP Michael) was excellent (although he did the youtube beef thing as well). It's still worth digging through the archive if there's a particular episode that is of interest to you.
Not really news, per se, but the show This is Hell! is a treasure trove of critical analysis of all manner of things that have been presented to us as one way by the news media and the host tries to get on guests who are experts in recent events around the world, so it's quasi-news.
-For critical analysis of news, and to learn more about the ins and outs of how news media twists truth to bend to its will:
Citations Needed is highly, highly recommended. Among the best outlets for critical analysis of media that's ever existed and highly listenable.
A few books on the topic include Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti -PDF-, Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, and for a more history-based analysis of how public memory works and how history takes shape on a longer scale, Silencing the Past by Michel-Rolph Trouillot
Most of the examples given are pretty generalized and therefore stretched way too thin to be relied upon to do regular robust and full-on histories of things that are currently in the news, so it's important to dig deeper into history if you want to paint a full portrait. For this I can recommend any number of books, podcasts, etc on various topics but just to provide a few examples of what these sorts of things look like:
Blowback is an excellent podcast that has covered some facets of history and is currently doing a multi-episode rundown of Cuba's political history with the United States.
Guerrilla History is one of my favorite podcasts that runs a gamut of topics, but this link goes to a critical history of vaccine intellectual property rights, which were/are in the news lately for obvious reasons.
Any number of books by Stephen Kinzer can be relied upon as factual as it pertains to US intervention in foreign nations (kind of his MO), from Iran to Guatemala, Nicaragua to Iraq. This is just one author of many I could recommend in this sort of capacity. And Kinzer himself is pretty much a normie, so he's good for "both sides" type analysis.
These are just a few examples. Like I said, it's not as easy as plopping down on the couch and flipping to CNN. (Or in the case of this conversation here, the NYT.)
> What news source do you like or trust?
I answered this same question a few weeks ago so I'll paste what I wrote here. Happy to discuss any of these sources since you're being a nice person (unlike many people who are trying to engage with me on this topic outside of this particular conversation). I think the source most relevant to the conversation you and I are having and which I highly recommend to you if you truly are interested in these sorts of questions is Citations Needed. In fact, their most recent episode touches on a lot of the points we've gone back and forth on today, so it's a great place to start.
Pasted answer:
This is I guess unsurprisingly a more complicated question than it would seem on the surface, but I'll try to break it down as best I can. Spoiler: I'm a leftist and thus most of the shit I ingest is of that persuasion. It's important to be able to recognize and correct for biases and not fall into the trap of seeking out the non-existent "no bias" media that pretenders like AP and Reuters (owned by billionaires, hint hint) claim to be.
Most of my personal news consumptions comes from the following:
-For straight-faced daily news rundowns, I typically watch:
Democracy Now. They're about as simple as it gets and their 10-13 minute daily headlines are easy to routinely watch on youtube.
I subscribe to the Foreign Exchanges: World Roundup newsletter. Any of the Discontents content seen to the right there is usually pretty good analysis as well.
The Nation is generally pretty good.
-For more critical analysis of things that are trending in the news:
The Socialist Program with Brian Becker is pretty good although Brian is a bit of a massive dork. I only listen to this show when there's something in the news that is of personal interest to me, but I find him and his staff's analysis decently engaging.
The Majority Report is good for domestic news, although the host tends to get involved in these annoying twitter/youtube squabbles with the right-wing goons, which is totally offputting to me because I couldn't care less.
Back in the day, The Michael Brooks Show (RIP Michael) was excellent (although he did the youtube beef thing as well). It's still worth digging through the archive if there's a particular episode that is of interest to you.
Not really news, per se, but the show This is Hell! is a treasure trove of critical analysis of all manner of things that have been presented to us as one way by the news media.
-For critical analysis of news, and to learn more about the ins and outs of how news media twists truth to bend to its will:
Citations Needed is highly, highly recommended. Among the best outlets for critical analysis of media that's ever existed and highly listenable.
A few books on the topic include Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti -PDF-, Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, and for a more history-based analysis of how public memory works and how history takes shape on a longer scale, Silencing the Past by Michel-Rolph Trouillot
Most of the examples given are pretty generalized and therefore stretched way too thin to be relied upon to do regular robust and full-on histories of things that are currently in the news, so it's important to dig deeper into history if you want to paint a full portrait. For this I can recommend any number of books, podcasts, etc on various topics but just to provide a few examples of what these sorts of things look like:
Blowback is an excellent podcast that has covered some facets of history and is currently doing a multi-episode rundown of Cuba's political history with the United States.
Guerrilla History is one of my favorite podcasts that runs a gamut of topics, but this link goes to a critical history of vaccine intellectual property rights, which were/are in the news lately for obvious reasons.
Any number of books by Stephen Kinzer can be relied upon as factual as it pertains to US intervention in foreign nations (kind of his MO), from Iran to Guatemala, Nicaragua to Iraq. This is just one author of many I could recommend in this sort of capacity.
These are just a few examples. Like I said, it's not as easy as plopping down on the couch and flipping to CNN. And they do that shit on purpose.
Having free press does not mean that the press is incentivized to tell the truth. Have you ever read this book?
“Free” press lies just as much if not more than CCP media.
Where did you get this 2/3 fraction from? Do you know that China has 39,000 mosques and 25,000 of them are in Xinjiang? (For comparison, the US only has around 2,000 mosques). 2/3 of 25,000 would be more than 16,000 mosques, and the ASPI only has satellite images of 900 mosques being destroyed.
Speaking of the ASPI, this is another source that is just completely untrustworthy. Of the articles that don’t use Adrian Zenz as their source, the ASPI is the second most common. If you go to the ASPI website you will see that they list Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and other American military industrial complex corporations as their funding. These companies are selling billions of dollars worth of money to Taiwan and other American military bases surrounding China all the time. This is a huge conflict of interest and suggests to me that the ASPI is more interested in manufacturing consent for weapons sales and development than telling us the truth. The ASPI is the source of the mosque images as well as the “facilities” which are may as well just be random buildings they chose to fearmonger if you look at their report.
The “leaked” documents by the NYTimes do not “detail” anything even close to genocide. There is no violence in them nor cultural erasure. The English words that the NYTimes chose to write in their article that reports those articles is not at all in line with the tone of the documents themselves. Considering NYTimes history of being highly aligned with United States propaganda goals in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bolivia, etc. I can be quite confident that they are simply continuing to be a propaganda outlet today. There is an entire book that details the many, many, many examples of such propaganda perpetrated by the NYTimes, Reuters, CNN, BBC, and others.
Please show me the testimony of “large numbers” of Uighurs who have described the cultural genocide. I have never seen testimony from any amount of Uighurs that I could consider large.
Also please show me the local officials who claim to be detaining massive numbers and have quotas. I would not be surprised if this one were actually true, because I do believe the government is doing SOMETHING to SOME Uighurs. I’m just not convinced that the things they are doing are actually evil or even different from what they say they are doing - which is to teach them Chinese language, pledge allegiance to the flag (like I did in America every morning at public school), and then helping them to find jobs.
May I offer this: https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
As something to provoke thought. Not saying I agree with everything these guys say, but a lot seems to ring true with regards to US Foreign policy and mass media.
>interessado
Não achei a tradução, mas em inglês é "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"
Tem o documentário tb
No, it's something that anyone can see when he reads basic history or lives in the real world and observes things.You should read this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
Concerning your example, just one concrete example: the willingness of capitalist banks to more readily give you loans compared to workers coops, so cheaper access to capital distorts competition.
PS: deluded capitalists think they won the argument when they just embarrass themselves 100% of the time :)
>In my reading of that exchange Noam seems to say that he won't even acknowledge these situations because western governments have don't much worse. I would describe that as a what-about-ism, and a hand waving.
I'll preface this by saying I don't particularly agree with Chomsky in this exchange (more explanation below), but... he does acknowledge the ethical horrors of these situations. He disagrees that they ought to be called 'genocidal,' but he refers to Srebrenica as '8000 outright murders without provocation' and posits that upwards of a million civilians were needlessly killed in Rwanda.
Really what he's refusing to do here is not 'acknowledge these atrocities,' but rather 'condemn Herman and Peterson (authors of The Politics of Genocide) for whitewashing these atrocities.' He indicates he is doing this for two reasons:
1) It's not so much that 'the West has done worse,' but rather that 'the enemies of the West get all the airtime, particularly when considered relative to their impact.' That is, he's not saying that these things were 'okay' -- he's instead criticizing their canonical status among a liberal intelligentsia which rarely treats genocides carried out by the US/UK in a similar manner. This still reads, to me, as a kind of petty whataboutism, but it's an argument about the discourse around the actions, not the actions themselves.
2) He thinks he should only be held accountable for his own words, and that writing a foreword for a book does not necessarily mean one endorses every last word therein. Thus, he thinks he has nothing to apologize for. While I can sympathize with Chomsky's resistance to the guilt-by-association game, Monbiot is entirely right that most readers will take the contribution of a foreword to signal an agreement with a book's contents unless there's some evidence to the contrary.
(Finally, there's a third, unstated reason here which I would suggest is equally worthy of consideration: one of the two authors in question is a long-time collaborator with Chomsky, including on the work that is arguably the single most important piece of his legacy as a public intellectual. One can imagine this might be a motivation against wanting to publicly drag his name through the mud.)
>I hope some countries finally wake up from their corruption-ridden lives and just... do something about this. Send peace troopers, political clout, reduce dependency on factories in China, wage war. I DON'T CARE! this is so saddening to watch, and all I hope is that everyone who participated, thought about it, paid for it, authorized such torture goes to hell in this world and the after life. videos like these ruin my mood for the day, but it is an important reminder that the world is never just. its never fair. May Allah remove all corruption in the world, inshallah.
I hope you use this as a learning opportunity on how Western propaganda manipulates gullible people.
Here's the original news report and where the OP got the video: https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4527646073953083
The girls in the video are not Uyghur. The video was taken in Guizhou province. Now use google translate and read the comments. Notice how the comments are criticizing the Chinese government on their leniency on child abuse. Notice how people were actively trying to find this man before he was arrested by police. Why do all videos of Uyghurs being abused turn out to be fake?
You just called for an all out war against a nuclear power. And you wanted to wage an economic war against the most populous country in the world which would enviably hurt the very people you're trying to "save".
Have you ever read a book called Manufacturing consent? You fell for the propaganda quite easily. Might I recommend you give it a read so you're less gullible next time around?
I'm a Sanders supporter. I only support Trump because he's the not part of the establishment. Authoritarian governments control their population through violence, democratic governments control their population through propaganda. RT and the NYT operate in the same capacity.
I encourage everyone to read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent.
>In this pathbreaking work, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky show that, contrary to the usual image of the news media as cantankerous, obstinate, and ubiquitous in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order.
>
>Based on a series of case studies—including the media’s dichotomous treatment of “worthy” versus “unworthy” victims, “legitimizing” and “meaningless” Third World elections, and devastating critiques of media coverage of the U.S. wars against Indochina—Herman and Chomsky draw on decades of criticism and research to propose a Propaganda Model to explain the media’s behavior and performance. Their new introduction updates the Propaganda Model and the earlier case studies, and it discusses several other applications. These include the manner in which the media covered the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and subsequent Mexican financial meltdown of 1994-1995, the media’s handling of the protests against the World Trade Organization, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund in 1999 and 2000, and the media’s treatment of the chemical industry and its regulation. What emerges from this work is a powerful assessment of how propagandistic the U.S. mass media are, how they systematically fail to live up to their self-image as providers of the kind of information that people need to make sense of the world, and how we can understand their function in a radically new way.
That's a little too political for me to answer honestly and I'm afraid I'll go on a list if i do.
Noam Chomsky is your way to go for "exporting democracy."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42982196?seq=1 https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499 https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/four-horsemen-documentary/
Your every welcome, feel free to ask any more if you wish. As far as Rand Paul goes he's got a few good takes but he does this weird thing where he puts nonsense into a hat shakes it up and pulls it out into a convincing sentience. For a comprehensive analysis of how this gets done in the media by not just Rand Paul and other conservatives but everyone I would suggest the book (or documentary) Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman. It was published in 1988 but the core of their argument is still open relevant today. Here's the Amazon link: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375714499/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_M-dHDb9W0NBBH
Here's the YouTube link to the 1992 documentary: https://youtu.be/AnrBQEAM3rE
And here's a short into to it produced by Al Jazeera with voice over by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!: https://youtu.be/34LGPIXvU5M
> Thankfully again, we're not reliant on mainstream media in this part of the globe.
LOL
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
This is one of the most misinformed posts I have ever read holy christ.
Lets do this thing.Before we start
>but the current black lives matter movement is a hoax...
Fuck off with that shit.
>but the officer was acting within protocol
That doesn't fucking matter?????????????? ARE YOU DAFT ARE YOU FUCKING DAFT?
>The autopsy ultimately found George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose and video was release of him repeating "I can't breath" while in the cop car before they put him on the ground.
Dismissing a mans death because he od'd on Fentanyl is fucking backwards ass thinking. It does matter that he had it in his system that is true but dismissing his death as purely due to the fentanyl overdose is really just saying 'he would have died even if the cops were not there' which is not a statement one can make with validity. That is just a bad faith argument used to dismiss the actions of the officers.https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-autopsies-of-george-floyd-arent-as-different-as-they-seem/
>I could go into countless more examples, but media sensationalism and biased reporting of these unfortunate police incidents is causing some serious racial and political division in this country. I don't know where Tyler Childers truly lies on this issue, but this video is eerily similar to the line touted by the countless mega-corporations who I can guarantee you don't give a flying fuck about the legitimate struggles of black Americans. "Black Lives Matter" which used to be a genuine grass-roots idea, has become a big money organization which conceals several other agendas that certainly don't have any interest in our lives or the lives of our black neighbors.
BLM knows all of this. This entire paragraph is a critique of the neo-liberal establishment that BLM has quite literally made entire speeches and statements about. Black lives matter is still a fucking grassroots movement that is organized by the people. Corporations are using it to sell products that is true. But corporations are NOT IN CONTROL. You very clearly are using the virtue signalling of big corporations that BLM and other socialist organizations fight against in order to justify your dismissal of the movement as a whole.
Biased reporting is a bullshit statement. The liberal media is literally in favor of the police officers 9 times out of 10. Even when they write an article condeming police actions they NEVER pin the blame on the insitutions and run with the 'one bad cop mentality' you almost never hear voices of the ACTUAL FUCKING PROTESTORS in the MSM landscape. I can garauntee that the stories you are reading and hearing about are the ones the MSM wants you to hear and not the countless stories of these events and how they actually occur.https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/protests-lebanon-us-media-reporting-police
>This movement has absolutely no intention of discussing reality or solutions other than "abolish the police" and "burn it all down". I certainly think police brutality is an issue, but why don't we discuss changing the protocols? How about increasing funding in order to provide a better pool of candidates and better training?
The ignorance of this statement is appalling. It really just seems like you have never even tried to inform yourself of what BLM is or what the modern civil rights movement stands for at all.https://blacklivesseattle.org/our-demands/
You have not linked a single source that states how increasing funding will do fuckall to help people when all that money goes to equipment and supplies that they do not need.<strong>https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/defunding-the-police-will-actually-make-us-safer/</strong>
Edit: I have also just noticed you have previously posted in Anarcho-Capitalist subreddits. You don't understand your own fucking ideology if you are in favor of INCREASING Police funding.
>Anyone offering an opinion or solution that even slightly deviates from the mainstream narrative is silenced and labeled as "racist"... it's very scary to me.
>
>Here are a few other red flags:
>
>https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/
>
>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/black-lives-matter-fundraising-handled-by-group-with-convicted-terrorist-on-its-board
A) Shut the fuck up you fucking snowflake
B) BLM was and always has been founded on Marxist ideals I have no clue why the fuck you think this is a red flag. If you really think that the word marxism is so scary that you cannot fathom the idea of a marxist org existing in the united states you should really take some history lessons on Nelson Mandela, MLK, Malcolm X, Nearly every pre 1980s labor union, the Black panther Party and any other minority peoples movements in the United states. I can garauntee that more than 90% of them either have direct marxist roots or are founded on marxist ideals.
C) This is literally a perfect example of the liberal MSM being a corporately owned bullshit spewer. They took a man who has fucking reformed his life and turned him into a political talking point because of his past. This is the exact same appeal to the fear americans have of the dirty terrorists in our country that we used to invade and kill 2 million + Iraqi citizens.
Edit: In conclusion fuck you, fuck your opinions, and read some fucking books.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=when+they+call+you+a+terrorist
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/08/black-oppression-racism-dr-king-colonialism
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/09/black-lives-matter-laquan-mcdonald-mike-brown-eric-garner
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/resistcooptpgh
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/revolutionary-abolitionist-movement-burn-down-the-american-plantationhttps://www.charisbooksandmore.com/understanding-and-dismantling-racism-booklist-white-readers
Actually I do fact-check and look for multiple sources and the origin of those sources when researching everything I look at. Thank you for your obnoxious concern though.
Oh and you might want to read this sweet summer child.
You should pick up this book as well while you're at it.
yup, read Manufacturing Consent
I think Chomsky would probably start with the debates from the Constitutional Convention and how, from the beginning, the state was designed to protect "the opulence of the minority". He's done this in a lot of speeches/interviews, but for your purposes you might want to start with "Manufacturing Consent", a documentary based on a book of a similar title written by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman. The documentary/book's main focus is how mass media in liberal democracies uses propaganda to a) set the limits of what is acceptable to talk about in public sphere debate in order to b) promote the interest of a ruling elite class.
(Edited for clarity.)
Manufacturing Consent. Start there, here is a video break down, but read the book.
>the weight of an EULA is actually worth something in the US, apparently.
It's not just the US, all capitalist states function similarly. You'd do well to read works by Noam Chomsky.
https://chomsky.info/warfare02/
Manufacturing consent:
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Manufacturing consent vids:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
Everyone needs to read Manufacturing Consent
International incarceration rates (per 100,000 people)
China = 118 England/Wales = 148 Scotland = 134 US = 737 DPRK (estimated) = 600-800
Average annual police shootings in China = <10 Average annual police shootings in the US = >1,000
China has problems in terms of freedom of expression. I won't deny that. But it's not some miserable, totalitarian hellhole. Pew polls citizens of different countries about the direction of their country every year, and for the past decade Chinese citizens have topped the list with more than 80 percent satisfied.
My main point in mentioning Taiwan is not to exculpate China of any wrongdoing. It's just to say that people are often unconscious of how their own opinions are influenced by the policy agendas of their governments. Noam Chomsky wrote a whole book about it.
> How can you make an educated decision when the information you've been given
See who rich people are killing and what they believe. There would be no need to kill or marginalise them them if they didn't have the truth.
Overthrowing other peoples governments
http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list
Wikileaks on TTIP/TPP/ETC
https://youtu.be/ABDiHspTJww?t=17
Energy subsidies
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
Manufacturing consent (book)
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
Testing theories of representative government
Democracy Inc
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed- Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
From war is a racket:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]
"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]
"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]
General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of traumatised soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/
Blum:
http://williamblum.org/aer/read/137
US distribution of wealth
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Centre for Investigative Journalism
Some history on US imperialism by us corporations.
The real news
The same news paper who essentially denies climate change.
For more details, read this book.
Obligatory mention of "Manufacturing Consent"
No, I want proof that there has ever been any substance behind any of the scandals. There's no way to deny that she's been embroiled in scandal after scandal, that's pretty obvious. But she's never been convicted of shit; which makes me doubt whether or not she's actually done anything wrong, or if, like a human being, she's done the best she can with imperfect and ever-evolving information. Hard to prove what's a lie and what isn't without knowing what information was available and known to her at all times. And if we're going by Politifact, she "lied" significantly, significantly less than the other candidate in this election, so it seems a little precious to call her a scandalized liar so vociferously given the alternative.
My honest opinion, and I'm offering it freely to you to consider without any expectation of it changing your mind, is that the American public got a glimpse through the wikileaks of political sausage-making, and they didn't like it. To make things worse, I'd wager that an insanely tiny percentage of the population both read all of those emails and had the experience and knowledge to make heads or tails of it, so most people got their opinions about the emails through the grapevine, so to speak; secondary sources with agendas telling them what to think about it. But nevertheless, we got a glimpse at the strategy and wheeling and dealing that every politician engages in, and just because we "stuck it to Hillary" and punished her for things that either didn't even happen (e.g. Podesta drinking blood) or weren't even that bad (e.g. strategizing about how to beat Bernie... like duh they were trying to beat him), doesn't mean that they aren't still happening in the realm of politics. And no amount of "swamp-draining" is going to change that.
So either we as a population are intentionally blind to a lot worse things and a lot more blatant lies going on each and every day because of some bias rattling around in our brains (not sure what it is, tbh), or we're being fed extremely biased information by echo chambers, and fake news/clickbait which very much shapes the way we perceive the world.
So, I guess if the President-Elect holds true to his campaign promise of hiring a special prosecutor (doubt it) to indict Hillary, we'll finally get to the bottom of it. Until then, to me it's mostly just hearsay or baloney.
You may be interested in this book. Manufacturing Consent
>. If you research this old scandal for a bit you might finally realise how much the USA pressures its client states, if things such as TPP etc aren't obvious enough for you - and in geopolitical matters this pressure is only larger.
What, that some Polish politicians don't like the balance of power between the US and Poland? You also don't have any understanding of what a client state is.
>That only ever happened under Stalin, for a fraction of the USSR's total existence, but the Western narrative is different, of course.
While it declined after Stalin, documents released under Glasnost show silencing of dissent continued after his death. No western narrative, just russian documents.
>Allow me to make a much more worthwhile recommendation to you - an entire book written by someone with an actual name - http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499 .
And ignoring the argument/evidence. Evidently Dartmouth isn't a name. I mean, if we're linking books, you can try this one
That one time the Brits did not immediately go to war (that even Obama seriously did not want, and which he probably was very glad was averted thanks to Putin's chemical weapons discarding initiative) does not show anything. The USA doesn't have absolute control over every political decision of NATO members, but it still pressures them hard to toe the line. Opposing Russia is NATO's raison d'etre, it's insane to believe NATO members would be inclined to be friends with Russia, because then they wouldn't need NATO. If you research this old scandal for a bit you might finally realise how much the USA pressures its client states, if things such as TPP etc aren't obvious enough for you - and in geopolitical matters this pressure is only larger.
> The USSR is not even remotely comparable to NATO or the EU.
It is comparable, but it's different, of course. Warsaw Pact would be comparable with NATO and COMECON would be comparable with the EU; the USSR's analogue is the USA.
> Everyone who had a different one "disappeared". To a gulag.
That only ever happened under Stalin, for a fraction of the USSR's total existence, but the Western narrative is different, of course.
> Finally, I'll leave you with a link to a lecture by a Russian on the techniques used to indoctrinate people into the "fortress russia" mentality.
Allow me to make a much more worthwhile recommendation to you - an entire book written by someone with an actual name - http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499 .
I think you got lost on the way to r/bandwagon and ended up in r/skeptic.
Putting links up from a site whose only purpose is to further the alarmist position makes you at the least, unable to criticize sources. But then again, really skeptical thinking, rationally, went out the window a long time ago as soon as this became a religion..
I refer you to this fantastic article about the subject...
--"The United Nations’ then-top climate scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, acknowledged...the faith-based nature of climate-change rhetoric when he resigned amid scandal in February. In a farewell letter, he said that “the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”--
"nstead of letting political ideology or climate “religion” guide government policy, we should focus on good science. The facts alone should determine what climate policy options the U.S. considers. That is what the scientific method calls for: inquiry based on measurable evidence. Unfortunately this administration’s climate plans ignore good science and seek only to advance a political agenda."
"Climate reports from the U.N.—which the Obama administration consistently embraces—are designed to provide scientific cover for a preordained policy. This is not good science. Christiana Figueres, the official leading the U.N.’s effort to forge a new international climate treaty later this year in Paris, told reporters in February that the real goal is “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years.” In other words, a central objective of these negotiations is the redistribution of wealth among nations. "
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-change-religion-1429832149
If you truly believe that in order for there to be systematic problems at the top that can lead to gross examples of implementation there must be a "global scientific cabal" then you literally have not been paying attention at all while you have been alive. I suggest this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
as a good starting point.
So, IDF-Shill... now it's time to do some math...
I got this from Mike Rosen:
All greenhouse gases account for only 2% of the total atmosphere; 3.62% of greenhouse gases are CO2; 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity; 22% of world CO2 emissions come from the US; Cap & Trade would reduce US man-made CO2 output by 15%.
Source: National Center for Policy Analysis
So, do the math: 0.020.0360.034*0.22 = 0.0000053856 or about five ten thousandths of 1%. That’s the US human-activity contribution to worldwide CO2 levels.
Next, if you multiply that by the effect of US Cap & Trade policies, worldwide CO2 emissions would be reduced by: 0.020.0360.0340.220.15 = 0.000000807840 or about eight-one-hundred thousandths of one percent.
This example puts in perspective the contribution of CO2 caused by US human activity to the worldwide level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and then the impact of a US Cap and Trade policies on worldwide CO2 levels:
A 200 pound man is made up of about 130 lbs, or 15.6 gallons of water.
Those 15.6 gallons of water represent the entire atmosphere.
Of those 15.6 gallons of atmosphere, 2%, or 0.3 gallons, represents the greenhouse gas portion of the atmosphere.
Of that one third gallon of greenhouse gases, 3.6%, or 2.9 tablespoons, represents the CO2 portion of the greenhouse gases worldwide.
Of those 2.9 tablespoons of CO2, 3.4%, or 0.3 teaspoon, represents the portion of the CO2 attributable to worldwide human activity.
Of that one third teaspoon of worldwide CO2 contribution, 22%, or 0.3 gram, is attributable to American activity.
Of that one third gram of American CO2 contribution, 15%, or 0.05 gram, might be eliminated by cap and trade and other governmental mandates.
This is approximately equal to a single drop of water from an eyedropper.
You are no skeptic.
> don't really see how that can be disputed.
This book might help you understand.
> Mainly, the fact that the state is the ultimate arbiter of what is "right" and "good" knowledge, actually.
So in other words, it doesn’t actually matter to you that they’re being educated properly, you’re just opposed to it even when you can point to numerous successful cases.
> We're "supposed to be skeptical of the government" (not that I expect anyone on the left to be inherently skeptical of the state - unless it happens to be under Republican control at the time), but that's pretty tough to do when the state is literally spoon feeding people "information" like "government is how we solve problems!" from age five.
How is State mandated education incompatible with governmental skepticism? In other words, where does the Japanese government go wrong in it’s mathematical education of it’s people? Germany in Chemistry? Finland in virtually anything? That’s what government education is. I can’t magically will myself to be educated, nor can you, we have to get it from somewhere. Education tout court, involves a vast outlay of resources, teachers who in turn have to be educated, printers, books, water, electricity, etc. There’s no goddamn way to expect each individual to be able to procure all that’s needed to educate people throughout a country. In plain dollar terms, the average American family of four can’t afford 20k a year to pay for their kid’s education (that’s the minimum cost of education in the US, public or private), so we depend on a system of subsidies and taxation to provide for basic services that are necessary for all of us.
> No. I have. We spend more than the OECD average, and score below the OECD average on the international PISA test - predominantly because of the low performance of black and hispanic students, which is probably due to the fact that they live in impoverished communities, and the U.S. school system forces them to put their kids into schools based on where they reside (in impoverished communities).
Which takes us back to the original point I made. How does the recognition that our educational performance is substandard at international levels, buy you the conclusion that the remedy for that is to abolish public financing of education all-together? Since the cases that I mentioned and alluded to are direct disproofs of your assertion, you can’t point to them and claim they’re lacking sufficient education in some capacity, and every time I've pushed you into a corner on that point, you retreat and cry: "But it's not the State's right to be involved in my kid's life!," and oppose it on moral grounds. But if that's the bottom line in your philosophy, then evidence and argument is wholly superfluous to your point and in reality means nothing. Moreover, the disproportionate failure in educational achievements in black and hispanic communities is as much a function of culture (as you yourself admit, neglecting taxation at that point) and doesn’t speak to the efficacy or say anything about the logic or proposed solutions a market could offer in addressing it (which is what you're trying to establish).
> It's a pretty fucking spectacularly stupid system, one which the left contends would be all fixed right as rain if the Evil Rich People™ would just, you know, stop voting for their children's best interests, and just be okay with their property taxes and good teachers going to schools their children are literally forbidden from attending.
Like the systems I mentioned? Yeah, that’s a real failure of education, bro, one that you’ve still not contested directly. And personally, I don’t know what the hell your issue is in your inability to speak about the issue objectively, instead leaving others with the impression that the Illuminati, or for that matter some evil, liberal satanic cabal running the world is out to poison the minds of children everywhere. In democratic political systems, it’s already been known that there’s good reasons for thinking it’s impractical to want an educated population if you’re seeking votes for political office. I can admit your point without all the bullshit and rhetoric. And it's no secret.
> The state should not be the ultimate arbiter of what is or isn't "knowledge."
Ignoring all the philosophical problems with this, given the fact that that’s not likely to happen, the only real question at hand is how best to use the resources at our disposal to provide effective education.
(continued below)
Is he lying in these books?
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
Hegemony or Survival : America's Quest for Global Dominance
I don't think so. You should actually read them.
You seem to be hell bent on assassinating his character and discounting his other valuable contributions because he tows the government line on JFK and 9/11. I don't think that is a particularly prudent or intelligent approach to sifting through information. Or is this ad hominem attack really an attack on the concept of "Manufacturing Consent" which seemed to upset you so much yesterday?
Access. Read this book
Instead he stopped working for me to read Manufacturing Consent?.
> By mainstream I mean the dominant cultural values expressed by a country, or in this case, the West more generally.
And by what mechanism do you arrive at your conclusion that liberals are advocating for equality of outcome/identity? Because with cultural values, much like human nature, I can find whatever I'm determined to go out and look for. I can look at the Bible Belt in the South and determine that America is overwhelming fundamentalist, or I can look to the liberal metropolises like Silicon Valley, Houston, New York City and find a liberal culture.
> Academia, the media, corporations even to a degree, yes. The mainstream determines what is politically correct, or acceptable.
The mainstream media (as a large corporation, along with many others) set's the political agenda in our society, and that's no secret. That's different from being politically correct, and unless you're able to give substantive examples, I'm hitting nothing but the wind.
> As far as climate change and ISIS, just google the terms. Martin O'Malley was recently pointed about the issue. The State Department's Marie Harf wanted to put the focus on a lack of job opportunities for the rise and success of ISIS.
So because a politician said something controversial (even though the original article didn't mention ISIS, but was a reasonable extrapolation nonetheless), the overarching conclusion you have drawn is that Liberals in this country are aggressively pushing for equality of outcome? How does that make any sense?
> It's related to equality of outcome because the ideology is that we're all the same.
What ideology? What is it called? Where did it come from? How did it originate? Where did it first pick up traction? Are there any books / studies that have been done on this nefarious everybody-is-the-same, ideological phenomenon that you speak of?
> They (western liberals) would use any excuse imaginable to avoid confronting the obvious reality that fundamentalist interpretations of Islam are posing a massive challenge and confrontation to the modern world.
Which liberals in particular? Virtually nobody has denied that Salafism is creating a very bad political and social climate throughout the world. Liberals and Conservatives may disagree about what the correct steps are to mitigate the threat, yes, but that doesn't buy you the conclusion to keep coming back to.
Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky
Manufacturing Consent is a personal favourite
If you have the opportunity, take either a physical or cultural anthropology course. Either one will explain why race is not a positive (phenotypical) thing but rather an exclusionary social construct. If I frame a particular piece of "truth" or knowledge that "All arabs are lazy" I've just created a power structure that marginalizes arabs but only insofar as the arab (read: you) consents to that "truth". Power is more than a top-down structure; it requires authorization from society and individuals to work. In a top-down power structure, solutions to power abuse are relatively straight-forward; the French cut off their king's head... twice. In a knowledge-power (biopower) structure, the tool controling you/society/reality is so close to your face that it's difficult to see. When you're being innundated by the mass media, society, institutions, government, other individuals, etc... to believe in a particular "truth" for the majority of your life, it's hard to imagine alternatives.
Edit:
Found Foucault's Wikipage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
Manufacturing Consent on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424766829&sr=8-1&keywords=manufacturing+consent
(I recommend this book to every one, especially Americans!)
>how is buying other nations some rockets so they can kill their enemies help that!?
You've been purposely mislead your entire life, go get a copy and have a read:
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
>This is your opinion being manufactured for you if you let it.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Manufacturing-Consent-Noam-Chomsky/dp/0375714499
> In this pathbreaking work, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky show that, contrary to the usual image of the news media as cantankerous, obstinate, and ubiquitous in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order.
Now that I'm not at work let me generate a list of links for you because my irate ass ain't going to convince you, I know that.
The irreplaceable podcast "The Dig" by Daniel Denver
Richard Wolff's latest lecture on Capitalism's decay
Noam Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent'
Rosa Luxemburg's 'Reform or Revolution'
Albert Einstein's 'Why Socialism?'
V. Lenin's 'State and Revolution'
Now here's articles about police on jacobin:
Now here's some about our insane empire:
The United States is in decay, and you are young. The 21st century is moving fast and eventually you will wonder why this country is the way it is. It's because of the mixture of nice people, loving people like your family, living in a hegemonic capitalistic hellscape, not mobilizing to put the check needed on our government.
Sorry to tell you but you are historically illiterate.
Overthrowing other peoples governments
http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list
Energy subsidies
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
Manufacturing consent (book)
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
Testing theories of representative government
too stupid to read Manufacturing Consent?
>Because Canadians are woefully uneducated about how our political process actually functions
Canadians are totally politically illiterate period
Reasoning and the human brain doesn't work the way we thought it did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Manufacturing consent
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.
This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY
Brezinski at a press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY
The real news:
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r
http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/
Look at the following graphs:
IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
And then...
WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM
Free markets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Free trade?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju06F3Os64
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/
"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.
In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."
Important history:
Rule of thumb: Factor the absolute subservience of news channel towards their corporate owners before reacting to anything these news channels have to say.
Relevant link: How Reliance took over IBN group of channels and used it push its own agenda, at the cost of objective journalism
Obligatory Noam Chomsky plug: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
Americans are totally politically uninformed sadly...
Reasoning and the human brain doesn't work the way we thought it did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Manufacturing consent
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.
This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY
Brezinski at a press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY
The real news:
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r
http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/
Look at the following graphs:
IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
And then...
WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM
Free markets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Free trade?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju06F3Os64
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/
"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.
In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."
Important history:
That is understandable. No one wants to believe they are being manipulated. While hundreds of billions of dollars spent every year in PR and advertising prove otherwise.
> The media is nuts.
No, the media is just doing "its job". Its job is to represent our 2-party duopoly.
Ron Paul's views about foreign affairs, the US military and empire, the war on drugs, and civil liberties are what Noam Chomsky termed in his famous book Manufacturing Consent, outside of the "acceptable range of political debate". The corporate mass media and Republican establishment will never let Paul be the Republican nominee.
Paul could run as a so-called "third" party candidate, but there are reports that Republican power brokers are telling Paul that if he runs as a third party candidate that money will flow and his son will be defeated as a US Senator, so that avenue is unlikely.
First, our electoral system in the US is rigged. Laws bias our elections towards our 2-party duopoly. This includes everything from "equal access" media laws which have been interpreted to only apply to Republicans and Democrats, to the way the gov't pays for the primary elections of only the Republican and Democratic parties, to restrictive individual state laws regarding ballot access. Hell, the last non-Democrat/Republican presidential candidate who tried to get on the nationally-televised presidential debates was simply arrested instead of getting to appear on TV -- despite being on the ballot in all 50 states.
So with that context, politifact does not report issues. They only analyze the he-said/she-said statements of politicians of the ruling duopoly.
This tactic was described in detail by Noam Chomsky in his book Manufacturing Consent. Our political system and mass media create the illusion of a lively -- even vicious -- debate. But that debate is constrained into a narrow, well-defined, restrictive area of the political spectrum. Politifact functions entirely in that small area of conventional wisdom and thus functions to bolster our ruling duopoly.
Noam Chomsky did this spectacularly well in 1988 without being sensationalist.
Absolutely. In these countries few people take the media seriously. I've lived in the Middle East a long time, and everyone above a certain economic level gets satellite tv and western channels. I don't think I've ever met a single person who actually watches the rubbishy state tv news. CNN and BBC are far more watched, and the youth get their news from the internet like everywhere else.
Secondly, the Iranian and Chinese governments never pulled anything off like managing to embed reporters from the private sector into the army of the invading force under the guise of respectability and impartiality. To get the private sector to eat your message so wholeheartedly is a feat of propaganda that even Goebbels would be jealous of.
Thirdly, have you ever taken a look at media ownership in the US? When you have single corporations publishing news from different political perspectives then you should be very scared.
The point I'm trying to make is that the media in these countries make no pretense of being free. They don't claim to be free. No one thinks they're free. The US, however, has managed to consolidate its media through capitalism because everyone is under the impression that the media is totally free.
Perfect Example: The media's reaction to the McChrystal affair. From 1:00 to 9:20. Best part 5:40.
And if you still don't believe me, read Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky
Sounds like George watched The Money Masters, read Manufacturing Consent, then saw The Century of the Self, read The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, and went from there.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
https://www.foreignaffairs.com
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/historical-collections
Look for sources where experts are writing to an audience of other experts. Still read CNN and OAN and NYT and RT, not as their target audience, but as an observer watching a propaganda outlet communicate to their audience.
To begin to understand the current media environment and the extent to which it has been captured by the CIA and other intelligence agencies since the start of the Cold War: https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
> I think extremists in general are crazy.
Then you don't know much about reality, if it weren't for many 'extremists' and rebels many people would still be living under slavery. One man's extremist is another mans freedom fighter.
You should go and have a read because you really come off as historically and politically illiterate.
Actually some of it does make sense because the food does already change our genes. Take Candida Albicans, a fungi that can take root in our gut and out-compete our micro-flora and then starts to create enzymes that alter our genes so that we crave more sugar, what it craves / needs for fast replication, ultimately making us into a symbiont, and we usually end up with diabetes and cancer in short order unless we rid ourselves of it.
This sounds out of this world but it is actual fact.
Also, 'Food Inc' and 'The World According to Monsanto' are very accurate, care to point out where they aren't? Understanding biology? Care to rebut the fact that glyphosate is extremely carcinogenic?
Sounds like another GMO / Sodium Fluoride / mercury and aluminum vaccine cheerleader with no actual science on their side. God damn there are a lot of you on reddit! Are you a paid commenter or just deluded?
Vandana Shiva "profits" off of alarmism?! Wasn't your camp saying the same thing about the climate crisis 10 years ago and how everyone on the left was trying to blow it out of proportion "for profit"? LFMAO.
"Lay of information involving RT!"
LOL, why because they are "Russian propagandists"?!
Dude, you have no clue, not a single one, it's a sad state of affairs when media consolidation is so bad in this country that we have to rely on RT for accurate information. That's a fact. Care to say anything bad about Chris Hedges? Prepare to get laughed out of the sub-reddit. Youre deluded dude. Big time.
No shortage of ignorance in this world.
Do yourself a favor and buy this book.. This is the basics kids, they are far more sophisticated, OP just posted a recent example.
Let me tell you about a little book called Manufacturing Consent
You’re guessing wrong.
Shapiro’s statement is from an article about the racist Donald Sterling. It has nothing to do with college campuses restricting free speech.
Chomsky's is from Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. It’s a broad critique of how “news media work to defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order.”
If you don’t defend free speech in the broadest terms authoritarians will exploit any opportunity to restrict it. It’s right on point.
> Faith, religion, Christianity, or any other religious affiliation aren't mentioned in the article.
"There is evidence to suggest that Republicans may be less accurate than Democrats at discerning real from fake news headlines (Pennycook & Rand, 2019b)." [second last paragraph of Introduction].
The study is referring to conservative Republicans and the majority of conservative Republicans are Christians [1].
> You seem to think it wouldn't be, why is that? Are you saying that there are questions that we aren't allowed to investigate?
Neither is acceptable. Also, anti-Christian attacks and Christianophobia are on the rise in Europe [2], [3], [4].
> if you can point out where the study is biased or where the methodology is flawed or where the conclusions are illogical or where the premises are incorrect I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you. If you can't access the study, I suggest using sci-hub to unlock it and give it a read.
"Supporting Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, political conservatism was negatively correlated with ratings of vulnerability (p <.001), ratings of severity (p ¼ .002), and news discernment (p < .001) and positively correlated with ratings of conspiracy (p < .001) and media exaggeration (p < .001)." [see results of Study I]
In this study, who defines what is "fake news" and what is accurate news? Who are the "fact checkers"? Who is fact checking the fact checkers? Who is fact checking the fact checkers who are fact checking the fact checkers?
The authors of this study believe they have the ability to accurately discern between real and fake news; otherwise they won't be able to perform this study. Real propaganda is extremely subtle and sophisticated. Anyone claiming they can accurately distinguish between real and fake news are disingenuous.
The mass communication media "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication [“Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky].
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
Very eye opening book I would recommend :)
Edit: I’m deleting this comment because I forget that writing the word “trump” anywhere on Reddit brings the r/politics brigade.
You’re in a conspiracy sub, folks. Leave your identity politics behind.
Popular alternatives to Manufacturing Consent: The ...
