My own thought is that Glenn and others are building a case. When the day comes when we have the power to present it -- and I think it will.... -- William Timberman

Keep dreaming bozo. Who constitutes "we" in your fantasyland? You will "have the power" when Obama gets elected, correct? I will meet you back here, six months in to his tenure, so that you can explain to us why nothing has changed, no one was held accountable and why anyone should ever again listen to your "play the game and everything will be better" nonsense.

Remember the following Tinearman? Do us all a favor and get out of the way.

Propagandists

[Read the article: The warped reality of our media stars]

GG said...

They take the conventional Beltway wisdom they pass amongst one another -- all generated by their White House confidants and other right-wing sources who have long ruled Washington (and therefore "their world") -- and they mindlessly assume it to be true and then run around repeating it without any effort to determine if it is actually true (or they know it's false and repeat it anyway).

At what point do we simply call it what it is? Namely propaganda dissemination. Glenn might be saying this in a round about way but, unless I missed it, the word propaganda is found nowhere in his post. I wonder if this elite pundit class would change their ways if they were called what they are? Words matter. Describing their consistent adherence to talking points matters but shouldn't we begin to actually use the words that most accurately describe them? That blockquote above amounts to the definition of propaganda dissemination. -- adnoto

Permalink Tuesday, April 17, 2007 07:38 AM

....

The problem with callng it propaganda

[Read the article: The warped reality of our media stars]

Adnoto, I agree with you that what you read and see, from Time and Newsweek -- in my opinion the ur-infotainment publications -- to the Sunday bobbleheads is propaganda, but it isn't propaganda pure and simple.

By that I mean that there isn't a single Bureau of Propaganda hidden somewhere in the Department of Homeland Security, or in Party Headquarters (Republican.) The talking points don't all come openly from a single source, but seem to be adopted by a somewhat complicated hydraulic machinery based largely on the principles of Conventional Wisdom and osmosis. There may be a Party Line, but is isn't the party alone which is disseminating it, and there aren't point-by-point copies of the dos and don'ts lying around somewhere for the mouthbreathers to read.

So...how is this obvious propaganda distributed to the shills, and how do they know what is and isn't part of it? When the party line shifts, as it now appears likely that it's about to vis-a-vis Iraq, how do they find out abot the new version? Is it as simple as a telephone call from Karl Rove? Somehow, I doubt it.

...

To sum up, I don't really mind calling it propaganda, but it does seem important to distinguish how the Soviet Union once managed social control from how it's presently managed in the United States. -- William Timberman

Permalink Tuesday, April 17, 2007 08:04 AM

....

WT,

This is why I have a problem with you. You often want to try to impress by digressing into the nuances of a subject and in the process you confuse the issue.

The fact is that these so called journalists and pundits are not bothering to fact check any of the power structure's assertions and thus they are disseminating propaganda. Whether or not you believe that the RNC, Karl Rove, and right-wing corporations that own the bulk of the media are equal to an "official" Soviet styled propaganda dept. is beside the point. These "journalists" and pundits don't bother with seeking any sort of truth. They simply repeat what the are told, often in the face of facts that contradict their assertions. They are guilty of propaganda dissemination. To my mind they are worse than the Soviet era "journalists" precisely because they are not being forced to comply on the threat of being disappeared. They are only threatened with limited access or perhaps losing their jobs. It's disgusting.

I don't truly know or care whether there is a group of wingnuts sitting in a room writing up official propaganda. I think it is clear that something like that is happening but, again, that is neither here nor there with regard to the point I am trying to make. I care that many of our "respected" media personalities either don't care that a) they are being used and/or b) they are actively and purposefully disseminating lies. As a result, I think calling them what they are - disseminators of propaganda - might yield positive results. I think even the most dimwitted American knows: propaganda = bad. -- adnoto

Permalink Tuesday, April 17, 2007 09:32 AM

I'd rather risk my job and protest in the streets (legally)

...

blah, blah, blah

...

Now's the time to lend a hand and help to clean up the mess.

-- sinjan

If you aren't doing at least some bodily form of the former (legally or illegally), then you aren't doing the latter.