"Reverse" Propaganda and the Narrative of Defeat

[rammstein]

I still say Bush's single greatest error as President was saying suspected weapons of mass destruction were part (or as the media later spun, the ONLY part) of the justification for going to war. We were, as far as I know, justified as soon as Saddam violated the agreements which ended the first Gulf War. I think he threw in WMD as icing on the cake, to play off of fears a bit and gain some additional support. It backfired really hard on him, and had he stuck to his guns and went in under the obvious, concrete reasoning that already existed there would have been less of a fallout politically afterwards.

I stand by my media statements. However, the fodder that the media is using against Bush is a much bigger deal than Whitewater scandals or what-have-you. They are playing manipulator of data involving a war, and a mass-scale change of United States policy towards perceived terrorist threats, and misrepresentation of THIS stuff is a threat to the well-being of the world.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Originally Posted by frogger

Get over it.

Typical, reasoned response, citing instances and providing countervailing arguments to those posed.

Can't deal with the message, attack the messenger.

Charlie is a neocon, so dismiss him.

Yeah. No interest in, or aptitude for, persuasion. Simply dismiss categorically.

Turn the knob 12.

JP

[frogger]

You're response is childish. I said he has the same political bent as the administration, so he might be biased. Your whole thread is about media bias. Once again, get over it.

[Overpaid Slacker]

"Can't deal with the message, attack the messenger."

Originally Posted by frogger

You're response is childish.... Once again, get over it.

I'd rather keep having you make my point.

13, anyone?

Insert childish emoticon here.

JP

[frogger]

I'll go to 14 if it'll stop the whining.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by rammstein

I think the media is pro-WHATEVER-GETS-RATINGS.

Conflict

The story is always in the conflict..........according to current media standards.

Exploit the conflict even if you have to make it up or invent it.

[Rick Lee]

I don't think Krauthammer agrees with the Bush admin. on even close to a majority of the issues. I've been reading his column every Friday for about the last 12 yrs. IIRC, he was once a speech writer for Jimmy Carter. He even wrote a column around 2001 supporting slavery reparations. He certainly has gone conservative in his old age though.

[cairns]

I LOVE Krauthammer. His opinions echo mine and are expressed far more eloquently.

And while I agree with the point about the media using conflict (or anything else) to sell their wares I also think they are overwhelmingly liberal. This has been extensively documented by the media themselves (see Poynter, PEW etc.)

A recent real world example is Hillary's hiring of Sandy Berger. On the very day this came to light the Washinton Post featured a front page above the fold puff piece about how Hillary is a "uniter". Berger's hiring was never reported- ever.

But I also think the Post wants Hillary elected because it will give them a wealth of stories and controversy to report. That 'ol Tiger Bill has not changed his stripes- and I bet they're salivating at the chance to follow him around town. And the local news? Love Juice at 11- Spunkmaster B snags some sweet stuff- and her mama likes him too.

[DanielDudley]

Originally Posted by Overpaid Slacker

rammstein -- I don't know if I agree.
Look at the institutional resistance by MSM to publicize (and this is just off the top of my head)

William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson's actions
Harry Reid's shady (understatement of the day) real estate dealings
Hillary Rodham Clinton's fundraising issues (though these have become so HUGE that even they're having to pay grudging attention to them)
ANY of the various Clinton "-gates"
UN fiascos galore (Oil-for-Food: largest defrauding in the history of the world; Rape; sexual harrassment/intimidation; general inefficacy)
Sandy Berger
False claims of John Kerry (medals, where/when served, discharge questions) and his CONTINUED refusal to sign a form authorizing release of his records.
Carter's unprecedented and unhinged meddling in foreign affairs, as well as his strident anti-Israel (anti-Jewish?) views.
Their own failures -- Scott Beauchamp, Jason Blair, Ward Churchill, Michael Bellesiles

Were it not for the pajamas media, we would not have known much of anything about any of the foregoing.. not to mention Monica Lewinsky or the de-bunking of Dan Rather's Memo.

... speaking of which, the foregoing doesn't even touch upon non-scandals that the MSM fabricates and won't let go -- W's ANG service, and its sufficiency as a matter of record and the host of "there's no THERE there" scandals cooked up against the Right, which are like a mind-numbing Gregorian Chant, repeated in this liberal echo chamber for the first 2 or 3 days after "revelation", only later to be proven wrong... but mysteriously never recanted.

JP

Sounds like it all goes one way in your world. The labeling is a nice touch.

[DanielDudley]

Originally Posted by Overpaid Slacker

Typical, reasoned response, citing instances and providing countervailing arguments to those posed.

Can't deal with the message, attack the messenger.

Charlie is a neocon, so dismiss him.

Yeah. No interest in, or aptitude for, persuasion. Simply dismiss categorically.

Turn the knob 12.

JP

Look in the mirror. What you are doing seems to be exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

Where did the middle ground go in this country ? It surely exists, but nobody is willing to go there. Factoids have replaced facts, and opinions are based on the flavor of factoids that one prefers. Opinions have become the order of the day, and it seems more important that one feels strongly about one's beliefs than it does to ascertain the correctness of the basis of those views.

Of course most Democrats are idiots ! And Republicans are inherently corrupt. At the leadership level of course.
The truth is that reality is up for grabs, and the media at most levels seems to be incompetent at the job of sifting facts from factoids.

I believe it should be obvious that there are biases on both sides. But I also believe that there is a machinery driving a pupose . Obviously the Democrats are too disjointed as a whole to be able to do this, so that would leave Who ?

''Some call you the ruling elite, but I call you my base.''

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by DanielDudley

''Some call you the ruling elite, but I call you my base.''

Huh? Candidate Bush made this joke at the 2000 Al Smith dinner ("This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base"). Pretty funny. Gore's jokes were good too. What does it have to do with anything?

[Mule]

Originally Posted by frogger

You must have been in an alternate universe, Chris. All I ever heard was Whitewater, the various bimbos he was poking, Kenneth Starr, Monica and cigars, impeachment, yada yada, yada. It was relentless.

I used to look at that stuff & wonder, "Is this to keep people from noticing serious issues like the treasonous actions in the Loral Corp. scandal?"

[legion]

Originally Posted by Mule

I used to look at that stuff & wonder, "Is this to keep people from noticing serious issues like the treasonous actions in the Loral Corp. scandal?"

I thought I already made a post that said exactly that. Looking back, I guess I didn't.

[frogger]

If that was his strategy, it sure was a bold one!

[Shaun @ Tru6]

You boys are gonna need a set of these. Bold strategy indeed!

[frogger]

+1

[RoninLB]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010861

The Insanity of Bush Hatred


crop

But Bush hatred is different. It's not that this time members of the intellectual class have been swept away by passion and become votaries of anger and loathing. Alas, intellectuals have always been prone to employ their learning and fine words to whip up resentment and demonize the competition. Bush hatred, however, is distinguished by the pride intellectuals have taken in their hatred, openly endorsing it as a virtue and enthusiastically proclaiming that their hatred is not only a rational response to the president and his administration but a mark of good moral hygiene.

crop

Our politics suffer when passions overcome reason and vitriol becomes virtue.

crop


In short, Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims--who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance--to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.

Prof. Starr shows in "Freedom's Power" that tolerance, generosity, and reasoned skepticism are hallmarks of the truly liberal spirit. His analysis suggests that the problem with progressives who have succumbed to Bush hatred is not their liberalism; it's their betrayal of it................ crop

[legion]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

You boys are gonna need a set of these. Bold strategy indeed!

Were you and Frogger at the punch bowl when that was taken?

[Moneyguy1]

Just a question...

But doesn't the President reduce things to stark black-and-white arguments, simplifying complex problems to impossibly simplistic solutions?

This may not be altogether wrong, but I can understand why it infuriates people who see the world as a very complicated place, not reducable to "one price fits all" solutions.

What I worry about more than anything else is the cost in blood and treasure we are expending as the world's police force. Perhaps necessary, but sooner or later, like the constant dripping of water on a rock, it will wear us away.

[frogger]

Originally Posted by legion

Were you and Frogger at the punch bowl when that was taken?

I had the lamp shade on, thank you.