Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 120
Thanks Tree59Thanks

Thread: The Smear

  1. #41
    Veteran Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    25,066
    Thanks
    24115

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    It is the liberals like you that know nothing of reality
    Are you from Veles, Macedonia?

  2. #42
    Veteran Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    25,066
    Thanks
    24115

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    She did?!? I believe she said HALF of Trump's supporters were 'deplorables'. Which would be more like 20% of the electorate.

    And that sounds about right to me.

    You just took out some fake news!

    "US Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has called half of Donald Trump's supporters a "basket of deplorables".
    Speaking at a fundraiser, she said they were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it".
    Mrs Clinton later apologised for her criticism of Mr Trump's supporters but promised to keep fighting "bigotry and racist rhetoric"."
    Last edited by Dangermouse; 14th May 2018 at 04:20 AM.

  3. #43
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,670
    Thanks
    3904

    Chapter One (This ought to be controversial).....

    "Birth of the Modern Smear"

    Atkkisson goes all the way back to Hamilton and Jefferson, whom, according to a professor of Journalism at the University of Maryland, wrote anonymously for partisan newspapers and planted salacious sex accusations against each other. According to the source, this was pretty obvious to observers at the time, though the Sally Hemmings accusation has been both supported and invalidated by various historians (my comment, based the on the Burns vid on Jefferson; Atkkisson seems pretty sure the accusations were true).

    The full title of the chapter suggests the author's suggested genesis of the modern smear: Spies, Bork and the Clintons.

    Now I may already be straddling the line of copyright violations, so I will go outside the book to remind folks of the Bork confirmation hearings and ask the PH community if this seems about right to them?

    One of my personal favorite news sources, NPR.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...-maybe-forever

    The whole episode, however, enraged many Republicans. Bork's name became a symbol of conservative grievance, and a new verb — to "bork" — was born, defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "to defame or vilify a person systematically
    The nomination changed everything, maybe forever," says Tom Goldstein, publisher of the popular SCOTUSblog, which extensively covers the Supreme Court. "Republicans nominated this brilliant guy to move the law in this dramatically more conservative direction. Liberal groups turned around and blocked him precisely because of those views. Their fight legitimized scorched-earth ideological wars over nominations at the Supreme Court, and to this day both sides remain completely convinced they were right. The upshot is that we have this ridiculous system now where nominees shut up and don't say anything that might signal what they really think
    Sound about right to you?
    Last edited by kmiller1610; 15th May 2018 at 12:11 AM.

  4. #44
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,670
    Thanks
    3904

    Also in chapter one is an examination of WW2 propaganda methods that foreshadow many of the methods of the smear.

    (unlike any right wing hack I have ever seen) Atkkisson starts with the US military and three varieties of propaganda, which boil down to (trying not to quote here) propaganda through direct means, through third parties and through untraceable parties. After this, she turns to Goebbels, whom everyone seems to quote to blame their opponents for their propaganda. Note that many historians view the Nazis as right wing. The point is that these techniques of propaganda have been adopted by portions of our media and some of our politicians. Here are a few Goebbels principles summarized by Leonard Dobb.

    Joseph Goebbels - Propaganda Principles

    Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

    2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.

    a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.

    b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.

    c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences

    3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.

    4. Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and action.

    a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence

    b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions

    c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself

    d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity

    5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign
    Now we are facing the foundation aspect of the smear. It REQUIRES collusion between multiple parties to be fully effective.
    Last edited by kmiller1610; 15th May 2018 at 05:03 AM.

  5. #45
    your better Rev. Hellh0und's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    40,036
    Thanks
    4374

    From
    NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    No, but the Wiki article says that's why she left CBS. She claims they wouldn't let her be a right wing hack.



    They wouldn't let her have right of center views. Hardly proof of hackery.

  6. #46
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    26,874
    Thanks
    5063

    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Obviously, the smear is in full swing, right here in this thread.

    Try addressing the only point we have examined so far.

    Are politicians and their news outlets too close to each other for the objectivity of the news outlet to be maintained?

    I see it everywhere, all the time. How about you?

    In the past 10 years, how often have you seen CBS confronting Obama or Fox confronting Trump?

    Add up the number of chummy 60 minutes interviews or chummy Fox News interviews with one or another major politicians.

    For every Chris Wallace who knows how to confront, there are a dozen commentators on Fox who just grease the wheels of their common interest.

    For every ? at MSNBC, there are pre-aligned commentators cheering on the demise of Trump every day.

    These kinds of alignments are part of the News business model.

    Think that is good for the News?
    How many times here on PH have we heard the term "debunked"

  7. #47
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    26,874
    Thanks
    5063

    Abby Martin Blasts Rachel Maddow for 9/11 Comments | Weapons of Mass Distraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkjIpgthWs

    Martin blasts Maddow as a political schill. A propaganda media host.

  8. #48
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,670
    Thanks
    3904

    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    Abby Martin Blasts Rachel Maddow for 9/11 Comments | Weapons of Mass Distraction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkjIpgthWs

    Martin blasts Maddow as a political schill. A propaganda media host.
    In the examples from the first chapter, victims of smears return the favor. The Clintons were smeared and they became preoccupied with politics as blood sport and returned the favor.

    Clarence Thomas was smeared and somebody dug out dirt on Anita Hill and smeared her.

    Sort of a vicious cycle.

  9. #49
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,670
    Thanks
    3904

    This rather lengthy chapter focuses quite a lot on the Clintons, but as I had suspected when I bought the book, Atkkisson documents both the smears perpetrated against the Clintons and by the Clintons.

    In my view, this material establishes that the smear became a common practice by both parties and by smear artists of both parties. To summarize, after the methods of mass media propaganda were perfected by the US military and the Nazi hierarchy, those methods served as models for political propaganda.

    When Bork was borked, there was no response. A fully qualified candidate for the court was shot down for his values as a human being. And there was no counterattack.

    When the same thing was attempted against Thomas, the pattern was established. Fight back. Fight hard. Tell lies that include a grain of truth. Smear the agents of the Smear. David Brock's career was born*.

    Smear agents were ready to go after Bill Clinton before he was even elected. And the Clinton "war room" was ready to mount counter attacks.

    *

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.e65e8e258a08

    The career of the silver-haired smear artist has come full circle with a report in the New York Times that Brock directed $200,000 from his political action committee empire into an effort to encourage women to go public with accusations of sexual offenses against President Trump — and that one of Brock’s most devoted donors kicked in even more. (My effort to get a response from Brock for this column was unsuccessful.)

    That news comes nearly a quarter-century after Brock launched his lucrative brand by walking point on the so-called Arkansas Project. Funded through a seven-figure donation by Pittsburgh billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife to the American Spectator magazine, the project sent Brock rooting through the misdeeds — whether real or fictitious did not appear to matter — of then-President Bill Clinton during his years as governor of Arkansas.
    Last edited by kmiller1610; 18th May 2018 at 01:12 AM.

  10. #50
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68,636
    Thanks
    50570

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    In the examples from the first chapter, victims of smears return the favor. The Clintons were smeared and they became preoccupied with politics as blood sport and returned the favor.

    Clarence Thomas was smeared and somebody dug out dirt on Anita Hill and smeared her.

    Sort of a vicious cycle.
    Potato or potahto. The way I see it, the Clintons were smeared and defended themselves.

    The truth was told about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill was smeared. They aren't equivalent.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Do AL Voters Believe the WaPo Smear on Moore
    By John T Ford in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 227
    Last Post: 16th December 2017, 04:18 AM
  2. Carson smear campaign rages on...
    By carpe diem in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 7th November 2015, 07:55 PM
  3. Smear Attempt
    By vikingbeast in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 16th April 2014, 11:54 AM
  4. Police smear victim in New London CT
    By Sparta in forum Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 3rd December 2010, 11:16 AM
  5. The GOP/RNC's new smear campaign against the Dems
    By freckles in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 27th August 2007, 04:44 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed