|
Josef bugman posted:But that isn't inherently good. If you have to wrestle it into 'but what if I build a human thresher using Truth?' to come up with a counter argument then you're basically conceding everything up to that absurd point. And even then idk what a hypothetical people thresher would even have to do with truth as it pertains to media literacy.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
Interesting Atlantic piece about the role of outrage engagement driving social media algorithms and what effects that has had https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/quote:If you constantly express anger in your private conversations, your friends will likely find you tiresome, but when there’s an audience, the payoffs are different—outrage can boost your status. A 2017 study by William J. Brady and other researchers at NYU measured the reach of half a million tweets and found that each moral or emotional word used in a tweet increased its virality by 20 percent, on average. Another 2017 study, by the Pew Research Center, showed that posts exhibiting “indignant disagreement” received nearly twice as much engagement—including likes and shares—as other types of content on Facebook.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
Pretty sure that is just people not wanting to have an unproductive argument for the 100th time so they're skipping to the 'so what can be done about it?' stage
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Yeah I don't this argument is particularly productive. Manufacturing Consent is indisputably influential and much discussed, and people disputing it need to debunk, not dismiss. I like Chomsky and broadly consider him a net positive, but he needs to be understood in light of his own blindspots and especially the big one of 'what is the appropriate level of skepticism and scrutiny to apply when something truly horrible genuinely is happening and it aligns, at least nominally, with american (or chinese/russian for that matter) interests? How do you not end up years later having to explain why you downplayed the cambodian or serbian genocides because you assumed it was being exaggerated as an american casus belli? It's popular because it's digestible and it fills a role similar to maybe 'a people's history' in that it's useful for getting through to people who still see the world through a highschool history textbook pov. I very much haven't seen or heard chomsky's scholarship brought up earnestly in ages. MC in particular is one of those books people should read, and then they should learn the critiques of and I'm guessing that's also the context in which it finds itself on most syllabi. Worth remembering too that it came out at a time when Americans had grown up steeped in a bunch of fantastical cold-war narratives and just ridiculously exceptionalist propaganda that was by all accounts, earnestly bought into to an extent that there's no real contemporary comparison for. Injecting some doubt into the ways people related to media was much more novel and at the time even fringe. Now you can go on substack and find 50 different flavors of skeptical counter-narratives from open conspiracy to far right to far left to pro-china to anti-Russian and everything in between. Imo the last time the media ecosystem that Chomsky wrote about was the dominant media paradigm was the early 2000s up to maybe the mid 2000s.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
genericnick posted:But can you really expect any model to never lead you wrong? I haven't read MC or interacted with Chomsky's writing for something like 15 years so I'll bow out of that part of the discussion. However the only examples of him being wrong that I've seen brought up are Yugoslavia and Cambodia. And without looking at the claims in detail and whether they were reasonable at the time, being wrong two times in 50 years is not particularly damning of a world view. And I have to echo Ytlaya: What is the big risk in overcaution here? The US wasn't going to cooperate with Vietnam in taking out Pol Pot, no matter what Noam Chomsky says. No and honestly that's why this thread is here because simply evaluating stuff on a level of does it serve a single major national narrative doesn't have much to do with the current media reality where you can find some group that is benefitting from almost any narrative, both governmental and non-governmental alike. The danger is that you end up downplaying the injustices others are facing or end up accidentally functioning as a useful idiot for some large, lovely empire.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:What are the two books you’re referencing here? Herman's The Politics of Genocide, presumably?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
It certainly does seem to have led Herman astray to an extent that 1) should absolutely give people pause and 2) goes way beyond 'making a fussy little point about terminology', Herman says, for instance, "the majority of victims were likely Hutu and not Tutsi." I'm actually at a loss for how you'd even describe that, it's not even denial, it's straight up accusing the victims of being the actual perpetrators of the genocide (he even clarifies that he isn't describing the retaliatory killings, but suggests that it was the Tutsi's genociding the Hutu from the beginning. There of course exists no credible evidence of this timeline and he cites as his source for this two rpf officers who participated in the genocide. Or as one reviewer puts it (and indeed you can go read many of the reviews from when it came out, it caused an uproar because they were writing 15 years after the Rwandan genocide when the facts were very much discernible and not obscured by the fog of war) quote:In 2010, the longtime leftist critic Edward S. Herman joined with a blogger, David Peterson, to produce a book, The Politics of Genocide, for Monthly Review Press. The authors went so far as to contend that the depiction of a Hutu genocide of Tutsis was the reverse of what had actually occurred in 1994; that the principal agent of genocidal killing was the RPF; and that Hutus constituted a majority of victims. As I argued upon the book’s appearance, this was “the equivalent of asserting that the Nazis never killed Jews in death camps—indeed, that it was really Jews who killed Germans.” I accused the authors of “the most naked denial of the extermination of at least half a million Tutsis by agents of ‘Hutu Power’ that I have ever read in an ostensibly scholarly source.” This radically revisionist—one might say fantasist—stance was based “on ‘evidence’ that, even on cursory examination, proves to be the sheerest gossamer, when it is not simply hearsay and idle speculation." I do think it is reasonable for people to wonder how tf Herman got to this point and how Chomsky ended up writing the forward for this. I don't generally find it possible to separate the art from the artist, particularly when the failure of it is so relevant to their body of work.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Kinda seems like it's a poorly defined model with a mount everest sized pile of baggage and that likely is why Chomsky isn't really academically relevant outside of the field of linguistics beyond people reading him in survey classes or w/e
Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:It's being argued that any model which proposes the media dichotomizes coverage based on whether an atrocity is committed by friend or an enemy, is invalid because it necessarily leads to genocide denial. Well, if that's invalid then it must be the case that the media doesn't dichotomize coverage in that way. But then how do we grapple with the deep-seated genocide denial in our society with respect to Yemen and the way our society's media coverage directly contributes to it? The only response I can think of is to say, there is no genocide happening in Yemen, and the media doesn't cover it because it's not newsworthy or relevant, whereas what's happening in Xinjiang is a real genocide deserving of many times the media attention as Yemen. But that would be tantamount to genocide denial. Or you could let go of the argument that believing in a model like the PM necessarily leads to genocide denial and recognize there is an imperialist bias in the media. But that would mean throwing out everything that's been asserted over the last few pages. I'm not saying you will make either argument, I just don't see what other argument can be made which will reconcile both the inconceivability of dichotomized coverage of atrocities and the reality that the US media has swept one genocide under the rug while heavily emphasizing another. So, how would you reconcile that? American media coverage of yemen is specifically what broke the political willingness to continue supporting KSA's efforts there. It was a huge media push and the NYT even won a pulitzer over it and it culminated in one of the very few actually bipartisan bills getting passed out of the senate in years. Since 2019 media coverage of yemen has been almost universally anti-intervention and considerable investigative efforts have gone into making sure the us military is not actually backdooring some support to saudi arabia. This is significant because opposing Iranian influence in yemen via the houthis should be, on paper, one of the top geopolitical efforts of the us/ksa/israel etc alliance. It's significant too that while the votes against continuing involvement in yemen were bipartisan, they didn't reflect some total institutional rejection of the conflict: 90% of republican senators were still in favor of supporting saudi efforts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
The headlines have been exceptionally straight forward about what's happening in yemen and it doesn't seem like you've even followed reporting on yemen if that's the conclusion you come to. Also you should read the rest of that article before you say 'same as ever'
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
What on earth are you talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:Why do you keep evading the question? You are being incredibly dishonest. I want to focus on the disparity in language because it refers to something simple and observable. Don’t agree that the disparity exists? Show that the media labeled Yemen a genocide. pulitzer winning reporting: AP https://apnews.com/article/37485a888de646918dfd4e7b8de3df73 You'll notice this first one is completely unambiguous about identifying the UAE as (then) US partners in the conflict. Another one about how the US is literally working with al-qaeda https://apnews.com/article/saudi-arabia-united-states-ap-top-news-middle-east-international-news-f38788a561d74ca78c77cb43612d50da WaPo pulitzer prize for photojournalism for highlighting the toll of the saudi war in yemen. disclaimer very  child famine pictureshttps://www.pulitzer.org/winners/lorenzo-tugnoli-washington-post NYT also https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-war-yemen.html This stuff was really publicized in the worst possible way and explicitly at odds with the hawkish efforts of the trump administration (who vetoed the first senate resolution condemning american involvement and support of the saudis). Frankly I've seen nothing in american media reporting on what's happening to the Uighurs that is comparable in directness and raw horror as the yemen reporting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
The Jack Posobiec believer has logged on
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:We're not debating the secret histories of 9/11 here stop. Coward mods shutting this down right before we were about to get some really good content
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:What would you consider to be hard evidence that the P2 believes something as a result of the secret M1, as opposed to coming to the conclusion on their own or hearing it from some other source and then the P1 realizing that they can use the P2 for their goal because they already believe it? The only thing I can think of is timing, i.e. the P2 doesn't start advocating a certain message until immediately after they meet P1 or come into their employ. Could mean that but RT et al habitually stopped having their contributors put RT on their profiles because they realized it was having a negative effect as RT's reputation is, to put it very lightly, lower than dirt and the people that they're seeking to influence are not the people who are already on board with RT (or related outfits). Btw if anyone can track it down, I recommend reading Packaging the Contras : A Case of CIA Disinformation by Edgar Chamorro which discusses primarily the efforts to get favorable pieces published by foreign media and the various ways to launder stories via intermediary newspapers/news services and occasionally manipulative interviews or scripted tours. Obviously what he writes about is several decades old, but the core principles of what they're trying to do, and I'd emphasize that this applies to a lot more than just the US, despite being a case study of a CIA-backed effort. It actually makes for an interesting foil to Russia's struggles to get an international message going wrt it's war in Ukraine and how those efforts repeatedly get derailed by indiscriminate violence against civilians and warcrimes. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Nov 8, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2022 14:42
|
|