Propaganda 101 or Fairness Doctrine, Anyone?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by b.c., Aug 24, 2009.

  1. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,254
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,666
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    The issue came to mind while watching a commercial this afternoon. In it, opponents of healthcare reform tell voters to "call your senator (in our case, Senator Mary Landrieu) and tell her to vote NO on Obama's Plan."

    Note the subtlety of the message. Not call and say "no" to healthcare reform, but say "no" to OBAMA'S plan. As if all they have to do is link the President's name to anything to get "no".

    There's are interesting works regarding these tactics, in particular, a book by one David Brock titled "The Republican Noise Machine".

    RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA MACHINE, Brock's book

    Now this is not to suggest that there isn't left winged propaganda. In fact, if one looks up this additional information regarding the Fairness Doctrine, one might note that the far left is just as opposed to the revival of it as the right.

    Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Which begs the question. Fairness Doctrine, anyone? Good or bad? A violation of First Amendment rights? Ensures balance in the media? More government intervention?

    BTW, I'm not proposing the discussion with any particular point of view on this. I see pros and cons. And Obama's position on this has been as follows (from the above link):

    "In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President):

    "Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.


    In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine."
     
  2. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    I grew up with the FCC following the Fairness Doctrine and it seemed like a reasonable burden for the media to accept. However, if you're up on the history of it's eventual deconstruction and final repeal, one has to accept that Republicans never liked it and during the terms of Reagan and Bush the Elder completely repealed it.

    To me, it didn't appear to interfere with any political party or person's freedom of speech. In fact, it held both major political parties feet to the coals to have equal time for rebuttal. But in the Republican world, at that time, just by being burdened with having to be engaged in a legal rebuttal was "an infringement on one's free speech if they wished not to respond." But hey, that's the way the GOP rolls. After Franklin Roosevelt won a fourth term, the Republicans drew up the idea and put into place that no president could serve more than two terms as president. Then, when Nixon was starting his second term, Republicans decided to find a way to repeal their own law by forming an official committee to re-elect the President. I forget the actual name of the committee, but it's letters spelled the acronym CREEP. Very befitting.
     
  3. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    "Not call and say 'no' to healthcare reform, but say 'no' to OBAMA'S plan. As if all they have to do is link the President's name to anything to get 'no'."

    Just offering a slightly different perspective; is it possible when it was said it was said from the perspective that health-care reform isn't the opposition in this case, it's this particular plan for it. Isn't it possible that the attachment of the name is more for identification purposes, to separate it from the overall goal, rather than for malicious targeting?

    It's like... not call and say no to life, say no to oppressed life. Specifying a particular kind of life, rather than the whole category. Same as with healthcare reform and Obama's plan for it.


    Sure, we know the conservative party is mostly immoral and digging for reaction to bend the situation in their favor(as the liberal party does the same; just the reasoning behind that favor differs), but I wouldn't expect the above to be completely impossible, just a little less likely than the aforementioned digging.
     
  4. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,254
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,666
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    Which particular plan? And as opposed to what other plan (the one offered by the Republicans)?

    I ask that because:

    1) Obama's plan isn't so "particular" so long as it has certain elements in it that he (and most voters) feel are vital for real reform, and

    2) The only Republican plan I found sounds like the Obama plan, except they don't want a government offered plan.

    I just think coverage for everyone (without exclusion of care options and pre-existing conditions) is an honorable goal. Prior to "Obama's Plan", there was no Republican plan. Now there is. And regardless of what reform finally gets passed, we'll have Obama to thank for that.

    And just to show "fairness" here is the Republican plan:

    http://blunt.house.gov/Read.aspx?ID=1140
     
    #4 b.c., Aug 24, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2009
  5. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,254
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,666
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    Well, as I said, there's pros and cons. A "pro" would be that if you said something that's pure bullshit, the other would have the opportunity to respond, which I guess would force the bullshitters to present hard facts and evidence or be exposed as "full of shit", to coin the phrase.
     
  6. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    Yeah but what I mean is that traditionally, conservatives are not supposed to be the ones who focus on effect, they're the cost-minded side of our political system. The reason most republicans are against it, logically according to the conservative viewpoint, is actually exactly as most have stated; it's too expensive.

    The problem is that in our current day political system, we have "Politicians"; people who are educated in law in place of the people who are educated in business who should be there. In many groups of government, there is always a fundamental division between the common person and the business person; our system tries to capture this by having two primary aspects- one team which chooses directions for expenditures(eg; we need to fix this problem), and one team which conserves resources(eg: We can't fix this problem at this point in time because it's too expensive).

    However, as classic businessmen who are not corrupt by money, they do not cheat customers, and only charge a fair price for their time and effort. Profits go towards being able to provide to more people, which comes from two directions of development. Either you increase production amount, or you find ways to produce the product for less money. Note that in both of these paths, quality does not change, we're talking the exact same product, requiring the same types of resources to make it able to perform a particular task. So understand that the current selection has lost their way.

    If we were to consider the Liberal and Conservative as a question asked at a moment where a choice needs to be made, the Liberal is the aspect which asks "What can I do?" and the Conservative is the aspect which asks "Is it worth the investment?". Scientifically, we would call Liberals the inventors, and conservatives the innovators which *IMPROVE* on the design(not make it cheaper by reducing the quality of the design). So when a conservative viewpoint is saying no to a particular plan, it's because that plan is too expensive. What the Conservatives SHOULD be doing, is instead of trying to work out the plan; figure out what we would NEED to make healthcare able to be provided at a fair cost to all, regardless of what the private industry does, total up how much it would cost to get what we need to reduce the cost, and see if it's less than the current plan; it likely is.

    I myself can even think of many technologies which would actually be relatively inexpensive to develop that would help the current situation; Automated Diagnostics, and even better, automated treatment, would have a massive impact. Cheap and renewable energy resources are also ideal; a renewable resource technology is far less subject to supply and demand, therefore saves vast amounts of money in the long run as the supply is cheap enough to develop(based on a renewable source, eg the sun or wind) that the price can be very low and profit can still be made. Energy technology would affect everything else as well; and in the end, it wouldn't cost more than a couple hundred million. Far less than the trillion of the current healthcare plan, and it all should be effective at reducing the cost of providing healthcare to a manageable amount(perhaps no more than a billion a year).
     
  7. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,254
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,666
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    Interesting observations, but about propaganda, "spin", equal media time, and the whole Fairness Doctrine debate...

    ?
     
  8. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    I always feel that the best way to fix a problem that involves the markets is to use the markets to your advantage. Right now, the news outlets have become completely biased due to interpretation. All of these interpretations stem from similar source, so I would say instead of reinstating the fairness doctrine which would *require* companies to carry and give equal credence to all controversial issues, I think we should instead suggest by way of a sizable chunk of government cheese, a system which correlates all news reports based on their topic and makes them all accessible to a user. The idea is that selection of a given topic offers many versions of the same story with NOTED SKEW. In other words, they are sorted from far left towards far right. This way, an individual is always faced with a selection of interpretations of reports from different news companies with different known slants. The secondary function is a reverse of this function; people can say what they want to hear about, and that information is transferred to the news organizations; it may take some time for a report to be made, but it's likely to be made eventually when many people request the same information.


    This way, every right to tell it the way you want to(freedom of speech), and right to choose what you do with your funds(without being forced one way or another) is preserved, while leaving open room for new companies to move in and know what topics to focus on to cover what the other news companies won't.

    Not only does this give direction to the private sector, but it would do so in a way which preserves free market principles without the inevitable effects of unregulated avarice of a company.
     
  9. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Anyone familiar with Chomsky's writing is well aware of how vagaries of language have been (and continue to be) used by those in control of the messages to influence audiences and further their own agendas.
     
  10. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    Yeah, hence why I figure that's the more probable intention, but I figure not every single one can be corrupt in every possible way; there's got to be some virtue left, else we would be chipping away at stone to make their monument(Think Bender Pharaoh in Futurama).



    It reminds me of how that impact is seen in laws. In my mind, laws should be written in one certain way; the way such that when the interpretation is taken in every literal and dynamically interconnected way, the result is the same interpretation which is common to the entirety of the populace. That is to say, the one way to state the law that exists exactly in the middle of all possible interpretations based on variations of reasoning, whether verifiable or not.

    We do this through a sort of literal interpretation propagation. So, for an example which I believe to be a very good example of such a method, I bring up the Declaration of Independence.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

    In this statement, we begin with a single premise, that the following truths are self-evident; All men are created equal. All men are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, which include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    These self-evident truths are listed in order of their priority, as one naturally would. The first priority is Equality. The second priority are Rights: Rights which are equal in importance(first priority affects upon second priority), and among these equal rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    Under the fundamental aspect of Equality, every constituent unit is considered exactly the same as another. Under the eyes of equality, no one unit is more important or more valuable than another, likewise, no one group is more important or valuable than another. This means that in the initial part of the statement "All men", is to be interpreted as "mankind" aka "Humankind", rather than "Men" as in "Group of males" or "Group of white males". This means that as each individual unit or group is considered equal, it is considered as deserving of equal investment in the eyes of Equality.

    Rights are aspects of equality which are unalienable from the sentient individual; a fundamental basic rights to:
    Survival- which includes GOOD health, as BAD health reduces your likelihood of Survival.
    Freedom- we've been gifted and cursed with free will, forever stuck between doing what we're told and doing what we want, so each individual has a fundamental right to enact that freedom in equal proportion to any other individual. If A can go skydiving, B can go skydiving, or something of equal overall value. If A can do anything, save for violate the basic fundamental unalienable rights, B can do anything, save for the same.
    Pursuit of Happiness- Happiness is something so individualistic and difficult to obtain, what this means is that people do not have an equal right to Happiness but rather an equal right to the ability to Pursue Happiness. If you don't know what would make you happy, you have the fundamental right to enact your freedom and do whatever you wish with your own life that you please, and so you have the ability to try anything you feel like trying to see what your passions in life really are. Whether you actually obtain happiness or not is all down to the individual.


    So we see a simple hierarchy of compounding literal association;
    All individuals possess Equality, Equality is supported by fundamental rights which individuals in an equal society *agree* to equally protect and act towards, those rights are Equally composed of many things, among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    In fact, even through direct consideration of *strictly* violation of these principles, you get a pretty well defined list of what is acceptable, and what is unacceptable.

    Poisoning your body with alcohol and drugs is okay.
    Doing so while terrorizing people in the streets is not.

    Building bombs at home and using them in designated safe areas well away from others is okay.
    Doing so in your backyard with many occupied dwellings nearby is not.

    Professing your belief of religion in a passive way in a location is okay.
    Doing so and interrupting peoples enjoyment of the town, such as by being too loud, getting in the way and obstructing movement is not.

    Owning and operating firearms in firing ranges and safe areas is okay.
    Doing so in a busy street corner is not.

    So long as your individual act of Freedom does not impede any other individual's ability to act Freely, you should be able to do anything you want. The system should be engineered to support this; education such that people can choose any job they would like, technology such that less people need to work or less resources are needed to do something so everyone has equal ability to pursue happiness. With specific note to the right to Pursue happiness, we are being guaranteed the right to look for happiness, NOT the right to be happy at all times at the expense of others. If you are unhappy in this system, it's because you're not looking hard enough for it by your own choice.


    Like I said, it's a very good example, I just wish we'd actually follow it.
     
  11. mynameisnobody

    mynameisnobody New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT, USA
    I wouldn't call that subtle. It's fundamental. One can be in favor of reform, but not at all in favor of Obama's notions of reform. To favor "reform" is not the same thing as spasmodically grabbing the first thing which passes by.

    To deny this is perhaps slightly more subtle. Opponents of "Obama's plan" (whatever it is this week) can be smeared as troglodytes or agents of "special interests" who are opposed to any type of reform at all. Perhaps some of them are. Others, obviously, are not.
     
  12. Cowabanga

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    373
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    northwest
    Verified:
    Photo
    I think before we can engage the fairness doctrine act, first address election reform and get rid of lobbyist. After watching Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul get eliminated from the media debate, because of money, it saddly dictates that whoever has the most money wins the election, and corporation can donate far more than the people.

    Insurance company are spending 1.5 million dollar per day just to tell you they will go broke if Obama pass his plan, but wont break a sweat giving away 1.5 million dollars per day. That the kind of lunacy in their argument for wealthcare debate. Election reform first, before we can engage in any kind of progressive discussion in politics.

    Also I think it would be wise to take away the entity rights of corporation to that of an citizenship rights of the people, and put it squarely back to the people that run the corporation. We can judge individual for murder, but we cant judge CEO that knowingly allow the company to sell tainted peanut butter as homocidal crime? In China CEO commits suicide for crimes like this, here they pay a fine!
     
    #12 Cowabanga, Aug 25, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2009
  13. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,254
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,666
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    I think my original points would make this argument moot in that as long as dialogue results in some kind of substantial reform (real reform that accomplishes what it's intended to do), then it doesn't matter who contributed what. I've not only already stated that, I provided a link to the Republican plan.

    And yes, those opposed to any type of meaningful reform are in fact "troglodytes".
     
  14. cameltoelover

    cameltoelover Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    367
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minneapolis
  15. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    When propaganda is served up as an anti-propaganda film, it's like watching a whore call someone a slut. Nothing to learn here, except to not pay too much attention to either side, take the info from all angles and make your own decision.
     
  16. B_Enough_for_Me

    B_Enough_for_Me New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Agreed.
     
  17. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    As HazelGod noted, Chomsky blew the lid off of right and left wing propaganda machines decades ago. Although he used the Viet Nam War for most of his material when writing Manufacturing Consent, it still holds true to the shenanigans practiced today. Even more so. What I find really sad is that Manufacturing Consent is a perennial best seller in Mèxico, Central and South America as well as Europe. Adults buy it and read it to keep themselves informed. However, in the USA the same book is practically impossible to find in a bookstore, because Chomsky´s government --- the United States of America --- prefers to keep Chomsky marginalized and out of pubic view. And he´s not the only MIT almunus to be held in such contempt by his government for writing the truth.

    I´d be surprised if Noam´s substantial published out put even shows up on 1% of the shelves of libraries in the USSA.
     
    #17 midlifebear, Aug 26, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2009
  18. B_Enough_for_Me

    B_Enough_for_Me New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought you might enjoy this little story: Colorado GOP Calls for Apology After Democratic Office Vandalism - Political News - FOXNews.com

    Summary: Somebody breaks the windows out of the Democratic headquarters in Denver, leaving an anti-socialized healthcare message. The Democrats blame the Republicans. The police catch the guy that did it, turns out he works for the Democrats.

    Speaking of manufacturing consent. I think this is like the 4th or 5th time something like this has happened.
     
  19. B_Enough_for_Me

    B_Enough_for_Me New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting. Some of the ol' "we are the underground".

    I do have horrible news. I only had to look for 7 seconds before I found Manufacturing Consent for $12. It's still ranked 16,000th on Amazon's best seller list (and 1st in some catagories) despite being 21 years old. I have found Chomsky on the shelves of every Barnes and Noble I've ever been in. I'll check again and tell you exactly what they have at my B&N. Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, was a best seller in the US and many of the left leaning countries. Chomsky isn't some underground author, he's amassed a fortune selling his books in the US.

    The spanish version of Hegemony is ranked 114,000th at Amazon.
     
  20. B_Enough_for_Me

    B_Enough_for_Me New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
Draft saved Draft deleted