From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 18:45:22 GMT
Platt,
>At least you admit there have been ad hominem attacks on me, a
>conservative. As for your O'Reilly charge, can you furnish some examples?
>
I don't archive O'Reily's broadcasts, but here is something you can do. Go
to Google, type in "liberal" and "asshole" (or your choice of "ad hominem"
attack). Search either "web" or "groups". If you can't find any evidence
doing this that "conservatives" engage in "ad hominem" attacks just as
vociferously as "liberals", then let me know.
> > It's truly sad that many of the tactics enunciated by Goebbles are the same
> > tactics employed by Rove and the conservative propaganda machine. I do not
> > feel the conservatives are political fascists, but propaganda serves any
> > master, regardless of ilk.
>
>Tactics enunciated by Goebbels used by Rove? How about telling us what
>those tactics are and how, when, and where Rove used them? Compared to
>Michael Moore, Goebbels was an amateur.
As I've said, propaganda serves any master. But several things undertaken
by the conservative media, in regards to manipulating language, stand out.
One is the redefining of "patriotism" as "blind obedience to government".
Following 9/11, any criticisms to the Bush Dynasty was met with villifying
rebuttals of "traitor" (as evidenced most strongly in Ann Coulter's books).
Second was the near ubiqutous acceptance of the existence of WMD's in Iraq
as justification for invasion, followed by a masterful media blitz of how
this really didn't matter after-the-fact. "Intelligent Design" is also a
masterful stroke of rhetorical propaganda, as is the deceptive use of
"faith-based" to replace "religious" in government edicts. Your recently
cited MRC, nothing more than a conservative propaganda machine, was
designed to provide a seemingly "objective" face to media research, while
delibertately skewing or falsifying (as Ant, Mark and others has already
demonstrated) reports to promote conservative rhetoric. Rupert Murdoch's
blatantly false "fair and balanced" is another masterful use of
manipulative language. Indeed, the entire myth of liberal media bias
follows a Goebbelian trajectory, which condemned "mass media" for its
"Jewish" bias, and promoted the Ministry as the only "fair" outlet for
news. The Ministry, then of course, only promoted the party, and anything
reported in the "mainstream media" was dismissed as "jew bias". Doesn't
this sound eerily, and possibly coincidentally, familiar?
Rove as also repeatedly championed the use of "talking points", a
long-standing political tactic to be sure, but one used very heavily by
conservatives under Rove. About this Goebbels said, "Propaganda must
therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. The most brilliant
propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental
principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few
points and repeat them over and over." To this end Goebbels also made clear
that once "stuck", these talking points were immune to later review.
Indeed, the whole talking point "liberal media" is a skillful move to
manipulate discourse.
Just for kicks I went to the websites for cbs and abc news, cnn and
foxnews. I could find nothing on any main topic page that could be
construed as evidence of a "liberal bias". Indeed, everything was very
supportive of Bush, from the Rice to Gonzales nominations, to articles
about Louisiana reinstating its ant-gay marriage ban. For a "real liberal
bias", I turned to Guerrilla News, and found just what I'd expect. Very
critical, outright criticisms of Bush and the conservative administration.
> > But I have, and others have as well. The Wired article, on several key
> > agenda items of the "conservative" administration, warned repeatedly of
> > increasing loss of privacy and invasive government. I posted a link to a
> > Newsweek story, that also ran over CNN, about the memos of the soon-to-be
> > attorney general. This is gaining some press, sure, but ask why the first
> > agenda for this term will include being able to declare US citizens as
> > "terrorists", and hold them without representation or inditement. There is
> > also Patriot Act II, which will likely pass with ease, which further
> > increases the breadth and invasive power of the federal government.
>
>If it was as bad as you say, how come the Congress overwhelmingly passed
>the Patriot Act and the courts haven't thrown it out?
Well, the courts have thrown out many elements of PA1, but with more
conservatives appointed to the bench, it is likely that future reviews will
likely pass. Already, the technology industry is bracing for a revision of
battles it one during Bush's first term, that will likely be renamed and
slipped into other bills. As for congress, please, these are the same
people who voted to rename "french fries" as "freedom fries".
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 18:49:31 GMT