Propaganda- Why You Think What You Think

Do you learn all about from 60 Minutes? There's a definite limit on what corporations can do. I don't care how much money is donated to a politician, there is no way the people of the country will allow say the strip mining of the Rocky Mountains.

i can't really disagree with the OP's first sentence because we live in a capitalistic world which is based upon marketing, which of course is propaganda...

beyond that the guy seems to have an agenda ..... and where exactly does he get his information and how does he know that it's the truth?

I have to agree with your premise Allen. Money controls the masses, not some ideals of religion or social justice. People as such, Soros, do have a huge impact.

Marketing is not propaganda! Marketing is simply introducing people to produces and services. Most marketing is not done well at all. Still, how many times have you bought something that you saw advertised and found out it was a lie? Not common. Even if it wasn't to your likening most products have a generous return policy. I once bough running shoes that were advertised as "changing the world of running" or something like that but they were awful to me. So I returned them and the company had to pay the price of their "propaganda".

You are implying a singular agenda. And I'm discussing the role of corporations in our democracy, because in your original post you lumped who writes our "grade and/or high school history books" with large media companies, the medical industries, and rolled it all up in the general " revolving door of corporate lobbyists".

I'm saying that we have a multitude of influences. A multitude of industries, with each industry comprised of many different corporations. We also have non-corporate influences such as not for profit ngos, unions, private citizens... that's not fascist. All of this is reported thru a variety of media sources, mass media and the internet. Big sources and small sources, left leaning, right leaning, special interest focused, etc.

fuot78o wrote:

Do you learn all about from 60 Minutes? There's a definite limit on what corporations can do. I don't care how much money is donated to a politician, there is no way the people of the country will allow say the strip mining of the Rocky Mountains.

I don't watch TV- haven't for 30 years.

Throw yours away.

interesting... wrote:

i can't really disagree with the OP's first sentence because we live in a capitalistic world which is based upon marketing, which of course is propaganda...

beyond that the guy seems to have an agenda ..... and where exactly does he get his information and how does he know that it's the truth?

I obtain information from a multiplicity of sources and historical documents. That includes many sources from outside the US and from numerous writers. Through this one must be using critical thinking skills and observing historical patterns. As well fundamental questions should always be asked such as, "Who benefits?" If that's an "agenda" I would suggest more adopt it.

"If you knowingly tell lies and get paid for it you are not lying, just doing ones job."

A widely held belief in America

Countries With illiteracy wrote:

I'd say countries with higher illiteracy rates are more effected by their country's propaganda. Americans for the most part can read and find a random british or canadian article about something. Countries where most people can't read and rely on others to tell them what is true, those countries are most effected by propaganda.

Consider Rachel Maddow, a"beloved" Rhodes scholar, who offers her academic acumen to "educate" the public. Hard to believe that people still believe in the objectivity and prestige of Rhodes scholars and Ivy League PhDs. The Corbett Report has done a series of videos and podcasts on WWI, from which Corbett has spun off other topical videos. This one, "History is Written by the Winners," has some great interviews that document how the teaching of history, or "the shaping of public opinion," has been co-opted through such means as Rhodes scholars and the "philanthropic" work of the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, who continue their work through PBS, NPR, and such liberal media outlets.

There's a lot of talk about Trump ushering in fascism, but part of fascism is the creation of a false narrative of a nation, and that's been going on in Amerikan education, quite consciously, for a century.

Allen53 wrote:

interesting... wrote:

i can't really disagree with the OP's first sentence because we live in a capitalistic world which is based upon marketing, which of course is propaganda...

beyond that the guy seems to have an agenda ..... and where exactly does he get his information and how does he know that it's the truth?

I obtain information from a multiplicity of sources and historical documents. That includes many sources from outside the US and from numerous writers. Through this one must be using critical thinking skills and observing historical patterns. As well fundamental questions should always be asked such as, "Who benefits?" If that's an "agenda" I would suggest more adopt it.

"If you knowingly tell lies and get paid for it you are not lying, just doing ones job."

A widely held belief in America

...and what source is that from????

btw, your "multiplicity of sources and historical documents" are no more guaranteed to be the truth than anything else.

not disagreeing that fundamental questions should always be asked but your delivery is a bit on the arrogant side

Allen53 wrote:

Consider Rachel Maddow, . . .

A curious choice of examples from someone who hasn't watched TV in 30 years.

Thinking what I think wrote:

Allen53 wrote:

Consider Rachel Maddow, . . .

A curious choice of examples from someone who hasn't watched TV in 30 years.

You would have to be in a cave not to know who Maddow is. It was an excellent example to illustrate the propaganda of one of TEEVEE's known pseudo-journalist's.

The referenced video is obviously on the web- you glossed over that untidy reality. Why is that? Did you watch the video? Do you ever challenge your assumptions or do you merely stick to illogical, mindless one line retorts?

interesting... wrote:

Allen53 wrote:

I obtain information from a multiplicity of sources and historical documents. That includes many sources from outside the US and from numerous writers. Through this one must be using critical thinking skills and observing historical patterns. As well fundamental questions should always be asked such as, "Who benefits?" If that's an "agenda" I would suggest more adopt it.

"If you knowingly tell lies and get paid for it you are not lying, just doing ones job."

A widely held belief in America

...and what source is that from????

btw, your "multiplicity of sources and historical documents" are no more guaranteed to be the truth than anything else.

not disagreeing that fundamental questions should always be asked but your delivery is a bit on the arrogant side

BTW do you know what a logical fallacy is? You've just thrown two into the fray. One is the relativist fallacy- arguing that "nothing can be known" is not an argument at all- it's a typically evasive way for somenoe who can't argue their point to avoid the points being made- we may as well say the "sky is green."

The other is basic ad hominem- arguing on perceived tone, on one's "delivery" is not an intelligent counterpoint- it's a logical fallacy. That too is classic avoidance.

Allen53 wrote:

Consider one example of how propaganda works in the American education system itself. Take your grade and/or high school history books. Have you ever wondered who wrote that chapter on "The Civil War" or "The American Revolution" that appears in your monolithic 8th grade history textbook? Who produces those textbooks, who writes them, who profits from them and how are the historical narratives determined? There are rarely if ever any clearly defined authors in such books- it's as if god has sent down scripture to our local school and we as "good citizens" are to accept these holy words in these sacred texts as absolute truths.

There are a plethora of different sources, and financial beneficiaries, for texts written about our historical wars. I can't take your stance seriously after you tried to make the case that it's difficult to weave through the propaganda on these topics.

I would actually say that it has gotten much worse since Carey wrote his seminal work "Taking the Risk out of Democracy". Alex Carey was looking back on a time when the corporate PR industry was working very hard to drive their message home. The oil and gas industry produced slick videos about how CO2 would make crops grow faster. I even remember PR flaks coming to my elementary school in the 1970s to do a program on how chemical waste could be safely stored and disposed. This was after everyone freaked out about Love Canal. But back then, industry was diligently trying to teach people about their own narrative.

Then came Karl Rove and the new political strategists. This was a bipartisan effort with people like James Carville doing essentially the same thing for the Democrats. The new version of propaganda is a political strategy that very intentionally avoids any sort of substantive interaction with the electorate on the issues. Instead, political campaigns are packed with as much nastiness as possible to turn off as much of the electorate as possible. The billions spent on campaign ads are mostly spent to keep people from going to the polls by making the process so disgusting that everyone is turned off. Then, the campaigns use branding and wedge issues to fight over the small segment of the population that can hold their nose and still care enough to vote. The wedge issues are things like abortion, immigration and religion. The legislators have very little intention of doing anything about these issues but they get the dedicated base out to vote. The rest of the campaign is just branding that is exactly the same sort of branding that companies do with soda, pharmaceuticals and cars. "I'm with her", "Hope and Change", "Flip flopper", "Make America Great Again". So, on election day, half the population doesn't care. Most who vote are just following branding. The small percentage of the population that is actually informed about the issues just follow their herd because neither party will ever put out any specific proposals.

Just look at Beto O'Rourke's campaign website. You would think that this great liberal candidate would be heaving with support for raising the minimum wage, taking action on climate change and bringing about medicare for all. Nope. The only discussion about the environment is under a tab for "Energy". Not a word about raising the minimum wage. And very loosey goosey support for medicare for all (basically supports anything that would provide universal coverage, including MFA). That is because Beto ran as a brand. Good looking and fun guy who seems to be liberal enough.

So, when you look at Fox News and CNN, you will see less and less substance and more and more commentary on the branding. They are far more interested in spending all day commenting on Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's dancing video than really taking apart her New Green Deal proposal. For the media, personal scandals and political horse racing is everything. Substantive coverage is all but dead.

Thus, the new propaganda is to very purposefully avoid any sort of substantive engagement on the real issues. Instead, the new propagandist wants people to focus on the branding and personalities. If any issues are actually allowed to be discussed, they are wedge issues that legislators have no real intention of addressing.

I've never said it was difficult- can you find where I did? In fact it's quite easy to sift through the propaganda once you get started.

In the excerpt I cited I was being quite specific with the questions. Can you name the companies that publish the textbooks that are then used in schools? Hint: It is not a plethora.

And what is the process used? How is the curriculum determined?

I won't be able to take you seriously if you can't answer the questions.

Bunch of BS from a blabbery pseudo intellect. TL:DR. OP stick to slow running, think that you're better at that. Good luck on breaking 20 minutes, per another thread.

BS meter wrote:

Bunch of BS from a blabbery pseudo intellect. TL:DR. OP stick to slow running, think that you're better at that. Good luck on breaking 20 minutes, per another thread.

You sound like a good unthinking 'Merikan that pledges his allegiance to the almighty corporation.

So, the OP is telling everyone "why YOU think what you think." Well we'll, I certainly know enough to not believe anyone who claims that they know the real truth and EVERYONE ELSE is misinformed.

ftyi567ik wrote:

Marketing is not propaganda! Marketing is simply introducing people to produces and services. Most marketing is not done well at all. Still, how many times have you bought something that you saw advertised and found out it was a lie? Not common. Even if it wasn't to your likening most products have a generous return policy. I once bough running shoes that were advertised as "changing the world of running" or something like that but they were awful to me. So I returned them and the company had to pay the price of their "propaganda".

It’s this kind of ignorance that is scary.

Take Brexit. A political and economic movement used data from marketing to influence the vote, by using propaganda.

They are all related.