swatter555 wrote:
At the same time, I take it that you have no plans to move to Iran,Syria,Iraq,North Korea, or Egypt. If our governments are no better, Ill be expecting your postcards.
Hi Swatter. Good point (despite the heavy sarcasm), but once again, you’ve missed my meaning entirely. The policies of the U.S. government make life relatively easy for many U.S. citizens (though not all, by any means) but create a living nightmare for Turkish Kurd familes who are being blasted to hell by U.S. munitions and for East Timorese peasants whose government until recently was able to carry out a policy of extermination with the U.S.’s connivance, material support and active co-operation. And I could extend that list enormously.
swatter555 wrote:
I think the point is that your standards for what governments should be are unrealistic. The fact is that a our governments are made up of human beings, therefore its going to be screwed up.
This is a familiar argument. And is a council of despair. It’s the soothing voice of the media once again which frequently just shrugs its shoulders or makes light of Western violence abroad. This provides governments with exactly what they want, silence and aquiescence. The consequence of your view – if we all held it - is that governments would feel at liberty to go on killing and maiming people round the world without anything to hold them back. Do you really believe this? Think about it. And by the way, it is not just human beings, there are also systemic reasons for our present pickle.
swatter555 wrote:
“The current Middle-Eastern situation is not the 'fault' of ‘the West’, but Western governments have had a very significant role in generating and maintaining it.”
That may have been true thirty years ago, but the people in the ME hold their fate in their own hands. At what point do they stop blaming all their problems on others and direct their anger inwards towards the dictatorships the oppress them.
O come off it, Swatter! We live in a global world. No state is independent of others. It has been a clear foreign policy objective of Western powers for century to maintain control of those areas of the world which are in possession of essential resources (like oil) or which offer important trade routes etc. And the classical way of maintaining control is to create political ‘instability’ in those areas. Britain pursued this policy very successfully around the globe in the 19th century. The U.S. is pursing it at this moment in Central America and elsewhere. The last thing the U.S. wants is a nationalist or Islamic movement to develop in the Middle East because such movements are exclusive and make it harder for other nations to penetrate them economically and politically.
The ME holds their fate in their own hands??? You say this when there are U.S. military bases dotted all over the area (not least now, a whole series of new ones in Iraq, all close to important oil fields), while the highly aggressive (not just defensive) state of Israel is armed to the teeth by the U.S. Where the major industrial powers of the world, now including China (which recently ceased to be self-sufficient in energy) are bearing down on the region with an eye to gaining access to or control of oil. Where many of the dictatorial regimes, originally installed by the West are still being politically maintained and manipulated by them. Arab nations are far from in control of their own destiny.
swatter555 wrote:
“ In the following years, I also watched the United States, Britain and other Western states conduct devastating wars of economic self-interest on helpless populations round the globe”
I really don't want to take the time to properly give the response this comment deserves. I don't think any war that America has engaged in was soley based on economic self interest. If you study what happened closely you will find there are many reasons that the various wars occured.
What happened historically depends on which history books you read and whether you accept the establishment view or not. There is not one history, there are many. The establishment view, of course, prevails in schools and in the media. In my view, most of its accounts don’t hold up to scrutiny.
Squatter, please don’t patronise me with this kind of ‘if you study…’ nonsense. We have clearly both studied this subject but have undoubtedly read different books, thought in different ways and come to different conclusions.
swatter555 wrote:
“Not so. Tyrannical states use direct censorship of the media to control people's minds. Western governments use more subtle (and probably more effective) methods… “
You really arent trying to make an argument as much as just making statements I cannot prove or disprove. You did mention that the media has establishment sources, and I agree but for different reasons. The same sources are utilized because they are lazy, there is no need to link it to indoctrination. Also, the media is a business and that is the most important fact to consider these days. They will cover whatever drives the ratings.
Your posts too, offer nothing but a series of assertions. For example, you say ‘the same sources are used because they are lazy.’ (This is an argument?) Like you, I could spend a lot of time which I don’t have accumulating evidence for you and taking up reams of space on the forums. Read my note at the end.
Having said that, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with your view about the laziness of reporters. I’m sure it is quite likely that one reason for their continued access to the same sources is that they are lazy about it. Another reason is that reporters like to cultivate and maintain their connections with those in power. By neglecting or antagonising their sources, they lose them, and so lose their value to their employers and ultimately their jobs. As these sources are generally establishment sources the utcome, as before, is a conventionally establishment bias in the media. I am not proposing a ‘conspiracy’ theory of Western media distortion, by the way. The bias operates at a more institutional level.
I agree with you about the ratings. You might also be interested in something I discovered during the Iraq war. A friend of mine had access to both U.S. and European broadcasts of Fox News. We followed them for a bit, and discovered that the slant put on the news was quite different on the two channels. With U.S. politics being skewed much more heavily to the right than anything in Europe, Fox clearly could not raise an audience here with the same rubbish they were putting out in the States. So, what price objectivity!
swatter555 wrote:
“But to answer a couple of your points, the Western media will challenge its own government on a regular basis. What it will not do except in the rarest outburst of honesty is to challenge the general view of the establishment (the state – both parties - and the economic and military elites).”
Are you mad because the media isn't left wing enough?? Also, your defintions of "establishment" are murky and how this affects the media is unprovable.
I don’t regard myself as a left winger. The left wing media provide just as much misinformation as the right - sometimes more, and their distortions are often harder to see through. By ‘establishment’ I mean national ‘power structures’: the government and all the apparatus of the state (including the military, and the intelligence services) and most specifically the ecomonic elite whose collective and sometimes individual business requirements dictate the direction of policy. It probably also includes the educational establishment. Does that help? Or not? There are various models of how the establishment view dominates the media. I don’t know if they are ‘provable’ in any scientifically rigorous sense, but they are certainly demonstrable. See my notes at the end.
swatter555 wrote:There is an intense debate going on in this country as to the direction of American foreign policy. … This seems to be what you think the media should be doing, pursuing truth and pushing a point of view... that is not the job of the media.
Of course. I’m aware of that. At this present time, the American establishment are themselves highly divided over the issue of the war. You would expect that to be reflected in the media. We heard doubts expressed very early on not just from the left but from the intelligence services and, if I remember correctly in this instance, even parts of the security services. The vast cost of the enterprise which is being borne from taxes is no doubt also exercising the minds of the ‘business community’ right now.
swatter555 wrote:
I watched the entire spectrum of coverage in America, including the most professional and trusted cable news program, The News Hour with Jim Lehr. I saw all points of view, including Hezbollah. If you think I missed something, feel free to quiz me.
As you must realise, without regular access to U.S. media I cannot do that. I left my comment as a suggestion for you to follow up yourself – if you wanted to. But if you want to scan me something which you read and regard as anti-establishment I would be happy to comment.
swatter555 wrote:
“ …the massive Serbian genocide reported in the press began after the NATO aerial attacks, not before.”
Well, I was speaking of the greater conflict that flared up in the balkans in the 90s
I wasn’t. I was specifically referring to the use (or misuse) the media made of the Serbian policy of genocide to justify NATO intervention and to give it a ‘humanitarian’ gloss that it frankly didn’t have. Once engaged in this conflict, NATO specifically made a point of bombing civilian targets (as the coalition did in Iraq on both occasions). The stated policy was to ‘encourage’ the population to take ‘political’ action and remove Milosovic. To force a political change by targeting civilians is, by definition, an act of ‘Terrorism.’ It is a definition which is in use by the U.S. army among others. Where have you seen this view seriously discussed in the media? It’s unthinkable – NATO engaged in an act of terrorism! If it ever appeared at all it would take up about one column inch and be buried deep in the middle of the paper. Much of the propaganda message of the Western media is managed through the selective use of language.
swatter555 wrote:
“It is interesting that at no point did any Western statesman attempt to justify the attack on Serbia by reference to a Serbian genocide until after the event."
You make alot of claims. I would be it wouldn't be hard to prove this statement wrong.
No, very easy, look back at the record. You just need to do the work. This same statement could be made of almost everything you have written.
If this is the kind of thing you regard as ‘evidence’ Swatter, then I don’t think there is much point in pursing it. In any case, it demonstrates nothing of relevance to the point I was making about the way the media distorted time lines over the genocide.
swatter555 wrote:----------
“OK, so there is one apple in the orchard. “
C'mon now, I call you out and you say its the exception to the rule... your not playing nice. Ive got another for you, Kim Jong Il....
You are tilting at a straw men, Swatter. Demonising opponents of Western regimes is a common procedure in the media. You see it frequently. If you are looking for scientifically exclusive principles of action in human affairs then I think you are going to be disappointed. Because the practice is not universal it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist and more importantly, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a very significant propagandistic effect – which is the point of the argument.
BTW. So Kim reads pornography? You’ve just picked up on a common media tactic to create a sleazy image of offical ‘enemies’ of the state. If you create such an image you automatically generate a figure of derision and no further analysis of governmental actions or motives is therefore required, and certainly no self-examination. It is an Ad Hominem argument. Aristotle would have recognised it as a rational fallacy 2,500 years ago. We haven’t moved on much. (How many people in Washington do you think read porno magazines, by the way? )
swatter555 wrote:
If you don't make a proper coherent argument backed up with something other than belief, I just can't take the above seriously.
Swatter, which of my statements do you disagee with? Let me know and I will refer you to as much evidence as you like. The history of political mind-bending in the U.S. is extremely well documented You might start with ‘Selling Free Enterprise’ by Elizabeth Fones-Wolf (University of Illinois Press) There are also many accounts of the early espousal of ‘PR’ by American governments. A well developed version of the ‘Propaganda model’ of the media was developed by Edward Herman in his book ‘Manufacturing Consent’. As you must know, I cannot provide you with evidence for such a broad based view in a few sentences and I don’t regard recourse to simple ‘authoratative’ statements as qualifying as evidence, since it is a matter of assessing agendas as well as just pointing to assertions.
swatter555 wrote:
Let me apologize for the personal insults, I was being rude. I am disappointed that I allowed myself to post personal attacks. I really hate when people do that, including me.
Swatter. Thank you for saying this. That is generous minded of you. Like you I sometimes overstep the boundaries that I set for myself so I certainly understand the levels of frustration that can build up in a debate like this.
swatter555 wrote:
I am thinking that you are so far out of the norm that it is hard for us to reach a common ground. I don't mean that as in insult, but an observation. Your choice of words clearly puts you outside of the establishment. Correct me if I am in error.
.
The idea of my views being ‘so far out of the norm’ makes me feel a bit strange. I don’t tend to think of them in this way. In certain circles they are perfectly normal and probably far more widespread than you suspect.
So, since you have indicated an interest, here is a snapshot of where I am coming from. I’ve been influenced by and rely on the work of a number of writers. My basic understanding of how capitalism operates comes from Marx. His political economy seems to me to be very solid, and none of the attempted rebuttals I’ve read really seem to amount to much. I’m a lot less convinced by his historical theories though. A lot of modern historical research, particularly at the local level, seems to throw them into question.
I try (not always successfully) to base my position on compassion for the victim wherever he/she may be in the world rather than on the interests of one nationalistic power group or the other. Capitalism, with its competitive need for growth and profit at all costs and its unparalleled success in raising the productive power of society (and specifically of the military machine), seems to me to be the most destructive force human society has ever produced. And when discussing this I would regard most of the nations of the world, including the former Soviet Union, as being capitalist states. (And BTW I’m very sure Marx would also have considered the USSR to be a capitalist state too.)
For media analysis I would go principally to Chomsky (though I am not convinced about his politics which seem simplistic to me, though I haven’t studied them in detail). Chomsky is very useful thinker because he is incredibly rigorous and only makes statements when he can back them up with barrowloads of evidence. My comments about Serbia are largely derived from his work, backed up with some research of my own. The two Davids at Media Lens, offer a very interesting analysis of the media, though again, I would often disagree with their focus. I think they sometimes get so caught up challenging the Western media view that they sometimes comes close to giving comfort to some fairly dubious regimes – unintentionally, I suspect.
Then there are a load of other writers and thinkers: Mark Curtis, Milan Rai, Alex Carey, Edward Herman…
I think this discussion is already getting a bit too big for the boards, and to be honest Squatter I haven’t got a lot of time for it. But if you do want to pursue an occasional debate with me, I’d be happy to do that through pms. Do reply to this, if you want to, though I will probably only respond with a few sentences.
