World's Biggest Comspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

now you're just being a smartass and possibly picking on insignificant innacruacies of my simplification. i'm pretty sure that it's very common interpretation of his main thesis

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:59 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:52 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

flol eugene

ROFL MATE NICE REPLY SO APT.

 

i don't understand why do you even get into such threads.

I provided a substantial response to your initial comments and then requested that you provide some information about chomsky's present use of ideas from manufacturing consent. You referred to me as a mindless follower and ignored my request which is not surprising since your subsequent posts make it quite evident that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You come into this thread and puff out your chest like you're some hot shot ready to throw down and then when people take you at your word you can only muster this deflated straw men parodies an ignore direct comments and inquiries. And simultaneously call people names and act like your position is so thoroughly impenetrable that you can't even begin to provide basic evidence or explanations.

"Flol" is about the most concisely apt response I can think of honestly.

Look, his points are much more nuanced than you're making out.

Let's take two facets of the Propaganda Model.

1) Media outlets are owned by corporations, and corporations tend to act in favor of their shareholders rather than the public good. In fact, in cases where corporations don't act in the best interests of their shareholders they are often sued.

It should be easy to imagine what effect this has on media's programming: the dynamic will tend to select for information that favors the wealthy, for instance.

2) Furthermore, (old) media makes money by selling audiences to advertisers. Advertising is (for obvious reasons) aimed at the consumerist class (as opposed to, say, homeless people). Therefor media is subject to the will of advertisers. Regarding the effect on programming, this dynamic will tend to select for information that benefits advertisers.

And yes there are many more factors

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:40 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:59 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:52 PM, Alcofribas said:

flol eugene

ROFL MATE NICE REPLY SO APT.

 

i don't understand why do you even get into such threads.

I provided a substantial response to your initial comments and then requested that you provide some information about chomsky's present use of ideas from manufacturing consent. You referred to me as a mindless follower and ignored my request which is not surprising since your subsequent posts make it quite evident that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

You come into this thread and puff out your chest like you're some hot shot ready to throw down and then when people take you at your word you can only muster this deflated straw men parodies an ignore direct comments and inquiries. And simultaneously call people names and act like your position is so thoroughly impenetrable that you can't even begin to provide basic evidence or explanations.

 

"Flol" is about the most concisely apt response I can think of honestly.

 

no you provided a substantial misreading of my points and i didn't think you need help googling "manfucaturing consent chomsky internet". that one wiki article on gatekeeping is a good start on debunking chomsky but it just doesn't seem that you were receptive.

if limpyloo thinks that propaganda model has any relevance to the age of internet and that his position is somehow considered sensible then there's no amount of targeted evidence on my part will help.

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:49 PM, eugene said:

 

if limpyloo thinks that propaganda model has any relevance to the age of internet and that his position is somehow considered sensible then there's no amount of targeted evidence on my part will help.

 

Any website that's either owned by a corporation or that deals with advertisers is subject to the Propaganda Model. Those things didn't go away just because of the internet.

"GUYS GUYS THE INTERNET IS HERE! NOW ALL WE'LL GET IS THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH!"

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:49 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Look, his points are much more nuanced than you're making out.

 

 

Let's take two facets of the Propaganda Model.

 

1) Media outlets are owned by corporations, and corporations tend to act in favor of their shareholders rather than the public good. In fact, in cases where corporations don't act in the best interests of their shareholders they are often sued.

 

It should be easy to imagine what effect this has on media's programming: the dynamic will tend to select for information that favors the wealthy, for instance.

 

2) Furthermore, (old) media makes money by selling audiences to advertisers. Advertising is (for obvious reasons) aimed at the consumerist class (as opposed to, say, homeless people). Therefor media is subject to the will of advertisers. Regarding the effect on programming, this dynamic will tend to select for information that benefits advertisers.

 

 

And yes there are many more factors

and of course if you would simplify it a bit more you will arrive at approximately the same sentence i brought up, i.e. the press is intentionally filtered that way that it favors the corporate interest or in simpler words corporations control the content of the press.

even that statement is quite easy to attack in strictly capitalist terms, because of the fact that media corps work for profit it is quite possible that truthful information might have more value that government propaganda or other untruthful info, the public good (i.e. truthful information) might simply conflate with moneyed interest.

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:04 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:49 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Look, his points are much more nuanced than you're making out.

 

 

Let's take two facets of the Propaganda Model.

 

1) Media outlets are owned by corporations, and corporations tend to act in favor of their shareholders rather than the public good. In fact, in cases where corporations don't act in the best interests of their shareholders they are often sued.

 

It should be easy to imagine what effect this has on media's programming: the dynamic will tend to select for information that favors the wealthy, for instance.

 

2) Furthermore, (old) media makes money by selling audiences to advertisers. Advertising is (for obvious reasons) aimed at the consumerist class (as opposed to, say, homeless people). Therefor media is subject to the will of advertisers. Regarding the effect on programming, this dynamic will tend to select for information that benefits advertisers.

 

 

And yes there are many more factors

 

the press is intentionally filtered that way that it favors the corporate interest or in simpler words corporations control the content of the press.

 

even that statement is quite easy to attack in strictly capitalist terms, because of the fact that media corps work for profit it is quite possible that truthful information might have more value that government propaganda or other untruthful info, the public good (i.e. truthful information) might simply conflate with moneyed interest.

 

No it's not intentional. It's a system that favors certain things and selects against others. Like Nature. It's not people actively being deceptive.

I can't take this anymore. You are not listening to what me or Chomsky are saying so I'm done.

  Quote

 

 

AM – Question 8: Does the internet age (blogging, podcasting, etc.), and the

challenge this poses to the traditional media (as the internet provides people with

alternative sources of news), mean that the Propaganda Model will become

increasingly marginal in its applicability?

 

EH/NC: It is possible that this might happen, but it hasn’t yet and there are

several factors protecting the hegemony of the traditional media: (1) the traditional

media themselves have occupied the internet and are dominant news providers

there; (2) they have the resources and pre-existing audiences to give them a huge

advantage over alternative media potential rivals; (3) the alternative operators on

the internet seek advertising revenue to fund their operations, compromising their

alternative character, and the biggest, like Google and Yahoo, are heavily

dependent on advertising revenue (and they are not inclined to put resources into

original news origination); (4) much of the new media on the internet is oriented

toward facilitating social connections, with politics secondary at best, and the best

of the new alternative media have limited resources and outreach and specialize in

critical analysis rather than news-making.12 What would make the Propaganda

Model more ‘marginal in its applicability’ is not the rise of blogging, podcasting

and other potential media vehicles, but rather the diminution of class and

hierarchically organized social orders, and the spread and deepening of

egalitarianism. As long as highly unequal and unfair economic and social orders

persist, their dominant elites will have to justify themselves and they will continue

to need supportive propaganda. The media structures that will help them will keep

the Propaganda Model and its filters relevant.

i dunno if that helps anyone but it's from The Propaganda Model after 20 Years:

Interview with Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:59 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:49 PM, eugene said:

 

if limpyloo thinks that propaganda model has any relevance to the age of internet and that his position is somehow considered sensible then there's no amount of targeted evidence on my part will help.

 

 

Any website that's either owned by a corporation or that deals with advertisers is subject to the Propaganda Model. Those things didn't go away just because of the internet.

 

facebook is owned by a corporation, and while there is some filtering and rules can you honestly say that it is filtered in a remotely similar way, with governmental involvement as chomsky portrayed in the book ?

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:11 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:59 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:49 PM, eugene said:

 

if limpyloo thinks that propaganda model has any relevance to the age of internet and that his position is somehow considered sensible then there's no amount of targeted evidence on my part will help.

 

 

Any website that's either owned by a corporation or that deals with advertisers is subject to the Propaganda Model. Those things didn't go away just because of the internet.

 

facebook is owned by a corporation, and while there is some filtering and rules can you honestly say that it is filtered in a remotely similar way, with governmental involvement as chomsky portrayed in the book ?

 

Err governmental involvement in Facebook? When NC talks of governmental involvement he predominately means that governments can reward and punish media outlets with things like access, thus influencing their programming. It's not like a CIA dude goes down to NBC and writes the 11 o'clock news or whatever you might be imagining.

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:09 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:04 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:49 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Look, his points are much more nuanced than you're making out.

 

 

Let's take two facets of the Propaganda Model.

 

1) Media outlets are owned by corporations, and corporations tend to act in favor of their shareholders rather than the public good. In fact, in cases where corporations don't act in the best interests of their shareholders they are often sued.

 

It should be easy to imagine what effect this has on media's programming: the dynamic will tend to select for information that favors the wealthy, for instance.

 

2) Furthermore, (old) media makes money by selling audiences to advertisers. Advertising is (for obvious reasons) aimed at the consumerist class (as opposed to, say, homeless people). Therefor media is subject to the will of advertisers. Regarding the effect on programming, this dynamic will tend to select for information that benefits advertisers.

 

 

And yes there are many more factors

 

the press is intentionally filtered that way that it favors the corporate interest or in simpler words corporations control the content of the press.

 

even that statement is quite easy to attack in strictly capitalist terms, because of the fact that media corps work for profit it is quite possible that truthful information might have more value that government propaganda or other untruthful info, the public good (i.e. truthful information) might simply conflate with moneyed interest.

 

 

No it's not intentional. It's a system that favors certain things and selects against others. Like Nature. It's not people actively being deceptive.

 

 

I can't take this anymore. You are not listening to what me or Chomsky are saying so I'm done.

 

it's the corporate interest and intent to publish information that will give them more profit and filter out information that won't, it's intentional by any sensible definition of the word, it's an system that is inentionally designed to make money.

fwiw that ten page interview I posted addresses most, if not all, of eugene's criticisms.

can we talk about the TPP now? it's a real comspiracy, I promise

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:11 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:59 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:49 PM, eugene said:

 

if limpyloo thinks that propaganda model has any relevance to the age of internet and that his position is somehow considered sensible then there's no amount of targeted evidence on my part will help.

 

 

Any website that's either owned by a corporation or that deals with advertisers is subject to the Propaganda Model. Those things didn't go away just because of the internet.

 

facebook is owned by a corporation, and while there is some filtering and rules can you honestly say that it is filtered in a remotely similar way, with governmental involvement as chomsky portrayed in the book ?

 

 

Err governmental involvement in Facebook? When NC talks of governmental involvement he predominately means that governments can reward and punish media outlets with things like access, thus influencing their programming. It's not like a CIA dude goes down to NBC and writes the 11 o'clock news or whatever you might be imagining.

well continue your own logic ffs, does government prevent access or punish facebook users in order to influence their postings in a similar way to what chomsky portrayed ?

male

israel

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:18 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:09 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:04 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:49 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Look, his points are much more nuanced than you're making out.

 

 

Let's take two facets of the Propaganda Model.

 

1) Media outlets are owned by corporations, and corporations tend to act in favor of their shareholders rather than the public good. In fact, in cases where corporations don't act in the best interests of their shareholders they are often sued.

 

It should be easy to imagine what effect this has on media's programming: the dynamic will tend to select for information that favors the wealthy, for instance.

 

2) Furthermore, (old) media makes money by selling audiences to advertisers. Advertising is (for obvious reasons) aimed at the consumerist class (as opposed to, say, homeless people). Therefor media is subject to the will of advertisers. Regarding the effect on programming, this dynamic will tend to select for information that benefits advertisers.

 

 

And yes there are many more factors

 

the press is intentionally filtered that way that it favors the corporate interest or in simpler words corporations control the content of the press.

 

even that statement is quite easy to attack in strictly capitalist terms, because of the fact that media corps work for profit it is quite possible that truthful information might have more value that government propaganda or other untruthful info, the public good (i.e. truthful information) might simply conflate with moneyed interest.

 

 

No it's not intentional. It's a system that favors certain things and selects against others. Like Nature. It's not people actively being deceptive.

 

 

I can't take this anymore. You are not listening to what me or Chomsky are saying so I'm done.

 

it's the corporate interest and intent to publish information that will give them more profit and filter out information that won't, it's intentional by any sensible definition of the word, it's an system that is inentionally designed to make money.

 

My point is that the system is like a B.F. Skinner system where some behaviors are rewarded and others are punished and the behaviors that are rewarded tend to be repeated whereas the behaviors that are punished tend to perish. So if a news outlet is unusually critical of the government and stops getting invited to press events or whatever then if they want to survive they will ease off the criticism. To clarify, it is not that the news outlets are in cahoots with the government and the programming is biased per the ideology of the writers or reporters. So yes it's intentional in that humans are making the decisions, but what's not intentional is the ideology that is ultimately spit out of the television screen.

It's the different between natural selection and artificial selection, or spontaneous order vs externally-exerted order.

damn you guys fed the troll big time

aww fuck, you got me. everything i say influenced by zionism and my understandable, inherent hate of chomsky and therefore completely irrelevant.

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:27 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:11 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:59 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:49 PM, eugene said:

 

if limpyloo thinks that propaganda model has any relevance to the age of internet and that his position is somehow considered sensible then there's no amount of targeted evidence on my part will help.

 

 

Any website that's either owned by a corporation or that deals with advertisers is subject to the Propaganda Model. Those things didn't go away just because of the internet.

 

facebook is owned by a corporation, and while there is some filtering and rules can you honestly say that it is filtered in a remotely similar way, with governmental involvement as chomsky portrayed in the book ?

 

 

Err governmental involvement in Facebook? When NC talks of governmental involvement he predominately means that governments can reward and punish media outlets with things like access, thus influencing their programming. It's not like a CIA dude goes down to NBC and writes the 11 o'clock news or whatever you might be imagining.

well continue your own logic ffs, does government prevent access or punish facebook users in order to influence their postings in a similar way to what chomsky portrayed ?

 

I don't know how the mechanism would work regarding Facebook. Facebook isn't a news outlet (per se) so the effect would most likely be random and obtuse. But again, I don't know.

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:31 PM, eugene said:

aww fuck, you got me. everything i say influenced by zionism and my understandable, inherent hate of chomsky and therefore completely irrelevant.

Ignore him Eugene. Nobody else is making that claim.

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:31 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

damn you guys fed the troll big time

i've got a theory that every time eugene asks a question with a space in front of it, he's inserted an invisible trollface in the gap.

debate what exactly ?

too bad Limpyloo never addressed my long response

too bad godel would rather tell me to fuck off than talk about the implications of the TPP passing

nothin but grudge matches in here today

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:32 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:27 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:11 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:59 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:49 PM, eugene said:

 

if limpyloo thinks that propaganda model has any relevance to the age of internet and that his position is somehow considered sensible then there's no amount of targeted evidence on my part will help.

 

 

Any website that's either owned by a corporation or that deals with advertisers is subject to the Propaganda Model. Those things didn't go away just because of the internet.

 

facebook is owned by a corporation, and while there is some filtering and rules can you honestly say that it is filtered in a remotely similar way, with governmental involvement as chomsky portrayed in the book ?

 

 

Err governmental involvement in Facebook? When NC talks of governmental involvement he predominately means that governments can reward and punish media outlets with things like access, thus influencing their programming. It's not like a CIA dude goes down to NBC and writes the 11 o'clock news or whatever you might be imagining.

well continue your own logic ffs, does government prevent access or punish facebook users in order to influence their postings in a similar way to what chomsky portrayed ?

 

 

I don't know how the mechanism would work regarding Facebook. Facebook isn't a news outlet (per se) so the effect would most likely be random and obtuse. But again, I don't know.

 

well then i think we're onto something, it does seem difficult applying his model on the way information is presented with the help of facebook corporation, which is what i wanted to show. and i see no reason why it shouldn't be considered a news outlet, in many cases it is customized to work as such, an aggregator of sources that post various articles and stories, official or not.

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:37 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

too bad Limpyloo never addressed my long response

i'm sorry man gimme twenty minutes or so

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:40 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:32 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:27 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 10:11 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:59 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:49 PM, eugene said:

 

if limpyloo thinks that propaganda model has any relevance to the age of internet and that his position is somehow considered sensible then there's no amount of targeted evidence on my part will help.

 

 

Any website that's either owned by a corporation or that deals with advertisers is subject to the Propaganda Model. Those things didn't go away just because of the internet.

 

facebook is owned by a corporation, and while there is some filtering and rules can you honestly say that it is filtered in a remotely similar way, with governmental involvement as chomsky portrayed in the book ?

 

 

Err governmental involvement in Facebook? When NC talks of governmental involvement he predominately means that governments can reward and punish media outlets with things like access, thus influencing their programming. It's not like a CIA dude goes down to NBC and writes the 11 o'clock news or whatever you might be imagining.

well continue your own logic ffs, does government prevent access or punish facebook users in order to influence their postings in a similar way to what chomsky portrayed ?

 

 

I don't know how the mechanism would work regarding Facebook. Facebook isn't a news outlet (per se) so the effect would most likely be random and obtuse. But again, I don't know.

 

 

well then i think we're onto something, it does seem difficult applying his model on the way information is presented with the help of facebook corporation, which is what i wanted to show. and i see no reason why it shouldn't be considered a news outlet, in many cases it is customized to work as such, an aggregator of sources that post various articles and stories, official or not.

 

Just because I don't know doesn't mean there's a hole in Chomsky's theory.

You asked specifically about the government factor. You didn't ask about advertisers or shareholders. Yeah I don't know what effect the government has on Facebook. I honestly don't. That doesn't mean there isn't one. It doesn't mean there has to be for the theory to be valid. Etc etc