"How we are manipulated by media and politicians"- A discussion on a users great post.

Jul 2011
54,130
10,370
NYC
#1
Posted by highway234:

It's really not overwhelming, and I heard the same claims about WMDs in iraq. remember the ny times saying after Colin Powell's fake UN speech that you'd have to be an idiot not to believe it?

The Russiagate hoax, just like the WMDs in Iraq hoax, is based on repetition. They simply repeat their lie enough times that people believe it out of sheer exhaustion. Not only is there still no actual evidence Russia interfered in any meaningful way, it's still not even clear what the allegation is. That's just like the WMDs in Iraq fraud. Was hussein building nerve gas? A nuke? Anthrax bombs? an ICBM? was he responsible for 9/11? was he brutal to his own people? Did his soldiers dump babies out of incubators? You could never pin down what the story even was, you just knew you were supposed to think Saddam was a real bad guy, and you had to be real scared.

Same thing here. Did Putin put Trump in the white house? did he tamper with the Vermont power grid? was he behind Black Lives Matter? Is anyone you don't agree with a Putin bot? Is it Putin's fault there are memes about Jesus watching you masturbate? It's the exact same gaslighting modus operandi. The story is incoherent but amplified endlessly with the help of the corporate media, and it's meant to make you afraid, but you notice you're not being asked to actually do anything except hate Putin, distrust nonestablishment information sources, and be scared. Just like you weren't being asked to do anything except hate Saddam, be scared, and go shopping.


Those are the two biggest red flags you're dealing with an establishment lie. The allegation is never clarified and you're never told what to do to make the problem better. It's not like we're being told to contribute to victory gardens or conserve rubber. We're just being told we have to hate putin and we have to be scared.

It's really pretty obvious. Sorry.



****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************'




When @highway234 posted this, it was so spot on I suggested he should make this a thread. Well I am not waiting for you pal, i started it for you. This is a great observation of how we are manipulated by politicians and the media.

i would love to see a discussion on his post separate from other topics. Thanks
 
Jan 2015
43,408
11,875
Great State of Texas
#2
The problem is there were WMD's, it was not a hoax, and Colin Powell and the US Intelligence Agencies were not the only ones involved in saying so.

Forgive me, but ......

Thread Fail !!!!
 
Feb 2010
16,170
6,795
Where'm I At, Doe?
#3
Ho boy, now I'm in for it.

The thing is, I can be wrong about Russiagate, just like I could have been wrong about WMDs in Iraq. I was actually sorta surprised when they never came up with anything they could even massage into evidence of WMDs. (John Ford, above, notwithstanding.)

But if I'm wrong, so what? Because we're not being asked to do anything. If you didn't buy war bonds, you were gonna wind up speaking German. If we didn't hire COBOL programmers to fix the Y2k bug, maybe the lights would have gone out. But I don't fondle my pearls in terror over Vladimir Putin, nothing changes, and that's the only thing I'm being asked to do.

Russiagate is a criminal investigation if it's anything, and criminal investigations do not benefit from press scrutiny and popular hysteria. that only makes getting a fair trial more difficult. So the fact there is so much coverage of Russiagate is, itself, evidence that it's a media frenzy and a moral panic. If the press really wanted justice done, they'd move on, let the Feds do their job, and cover something else.
 
Jul 2011
54,130
10,370
NYC
#4
Ho boy, now I'm in for it.

The thing is, I can be wrong about Russiagate, just like I could have been wrong about WMDs in Iraq. I was actually sorta surprised when they never came up with anything they could even massage into evidence of WMDs. (John Ford, above, notwithstanding.)

But if I'm wrong, so what? Because we're not being asked to do anything. If you didn't buy war bonds, you were gonna wind up speaking German. If we didn't hire COBOL programmers to fix the Y2k bug, maybe the lights would have gone out. But I don't fondle my pearls in terror over Vladimir Putin, nothing changes, and that's the only thing I'm being asked to do.

Russiagate is a criminal investigation if it's anything, and criminal investigations do not benefit from press scrutiny and popular hysteria. that only makes getting a fair trial more difficult. So the fact there is so much coverage of Russiagate is, itself, evidence that it's a media frenzy and a moral panic. If the press really wanted justice done, they'd move on, let the Feds do their job, and cover something else.



Ebola "outbreak"

Bird flu

Year of the shark
 
Sep 2017
5,081
6,050
Massachusetts
#5
The problem is there were WMD's
The war was waged on the basis of false claims that Iraq had massive stockpiles of WMDs, active WMD manufacturing, and that it had been working to build a nuclear arsenal. That was all false.

it was not a hoax
At first, it could have been called an honest mistake, instead of a hoax. The US intelligence agencies, which have a long history of badly overestimating threats (e.g., the supposed missile gap the Soviets had on us), did what they always do and hyperventilated their way into honestly believing there was a big hidden WMD threat in Iraq. What transformed it from stupid mistake to hoax was the reaction when the information started coming in showing we were wrong. First, famously, there was the fact that the Iraq/Niger link was shown to be based on a bad forgery. At that point, we knew that there was someone out there --someone with the ability to inject false information into our intelligence stream-- who wanted to trick us into starting a war with Iraq. Then the weapons inspectors were readmitted, and started heading to the sites that our intelligence sources had sworn up and down were WMD-manufacturing facilities and storage depots. The inspectors then discovered they were nothing of the sort. At that point, we knew that our intelligence sources were crap -- mostly just exiles with a vested interest in getting us to kick over the Hussein regime for them, and willing to tell us any lie to trick us into doing that.

At that stage, any sane person would have put on the brakes. We had been given a shocking wake-up call, telling us that the "slam dunk" evidence we'd been relying on was made up, in whole or in significant part, of fabricated bullshit designed to fool us into invading. The obvious wise decision, at that point (when Iraq was contained and there was no need to rush) was to give inspectors more time and to start a fresh top-down review of our supposed WMD intelligence, in light of the new knowledge about which of our sources were liars. But, at that very point, the Bush team not only didn't put on the brakes, but they actually hit the accelerator. After promising to get a UN vote before invading, Bush decided to hurry up and start the killing without the promised vote. Our close allies, like Germany and France, were giving us good counsel to let the inspectors have more time, but Bush wanted to commit us to invasion immediately.

Why was Bush suddenly in such a rush? That's obvious. He could see as well as the rest of us that the case for war was falling apart. Every time the inspectors showed up at one of those facilities we'd identified as a WMD facility, and found out it wasn't, our credibility frayed even more. He could see that it was only a matter of weeks before the rest of the world realized what his own team had figured out: our intelligence assessment was based on garbage. Then his precious war plans would fall apart. So, he rushed us into the war, figuring that even if we didn't find WMDs, it would be such a glorious cake walk that nobody would care. And here we stand, a few trillion dollars and countless lost lives later.

That made it a hoax, in my book. Bush had every reason to know he was starting a war based on lies, and did it anyway.
 
Sep 2017
5,081
6,050
Massachusetts
#6
If the press really wanted justice done, they'd move on, let the Feds do their job, and cover something else.
That's not how the press works. The vast majority of them are employees of giant for-profit corporations. They serve up what the public is interested in. And the public has a deep and abiding interest in Russia's subversion of our last election. And that's understandable: it's one of the most consequential stories in decades.
 
Sep 2017
5,081
6,050
Massachusetts
#7
Ebola "outbreak"

Bird flu

Year of the shark
The ebola outbreak hysteria was particularly weird. I mean, a story about a possible flu pandemic that doesn't end up materializing still makes sense, since the flu is a proven mega-killer. The 1918 flu shows how a flu could kill hundreds of millions.... and even a regular flu season has a death toll that makes "big stories" like 9/11 look like a rounding error. But ebola is another matter. There have been many outbreaks of ebola and other hemorrhagic fevers over the years, and they never kill anywhere near the number of people who die in even the mildest of flu seasons -- and they kill almost nobody outside of a few recurrent hot zones. Yet the press obsessed over it -- especially the conservative press, which saw it as a way to bash Obama (for following expert guidance about travel restrictions, rather than panicking into locking things down). And the hysteria went on for months, compared to the "summer of the shark" BS, which was basically just a quick national craze that hit for a few weeks.
 
Likes: Friday13
Jul 2011
54,130
10,370
NYC
#8
The ebola outbreak hysteria was particularly weird. I mean, a story about a possible flu pandemic that doesn't end up materializing still makes sense, since the flu is a proven mega-killer. The 1918 flu shows how a flu could kill hundreds of millions.... and even a regular flu season has a death toll that makes "big stories" like 9/11 look like a rounding error. But ebola is another matter. There have been many outbreaks of ebola and other hemorrhagic fevers over the years, and they never kill anywhere near the number of people who die in even the mildest of flu seasons -- and they kill almost nobody outside of a few recurrent hot zones. Yet the press obsessed over it -- especially the conservative press, which saw it as a way to bash Obama (for following expert guidance about travel restrictions, rather than panicking into locking things down). And it went on for months, compared to the "summer of the shark" BS, which was basically just a quick national craze that hit for a few weeks.



you were doing so good until you went super-partisan.... So the conservative press hyped it? They made obama name an ebola czar? Fact it was one of those stories all of the press hyped, on both sides as well as the administration, it was fear mongering.
 
Feb 2010
16,170
6,795
Where'm I At, Doe?
#9
That's not how the press works. The vast majority of them are employees of giant for-profit corporations. They serve up what the public is interested in. And the public has a deep and abiding interest in Russia's subversion of our last election. And that's understandable: it's one of the most consequential stories in decades.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-healthcare-economy-immigration.aspx

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Healthcare, the economy and immigration top a list of issues that voters consider important to their vote for Congress this year. Other issues that at least seven in 10 voters rate as "extremely" or "very" important include the treatment of women in U.S. society, gun policy and taxes. The investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election and climate change rank at the bottom, although roughly half still consider them important."

Russiagate is B.S. The people don't care about it. That's actually one way it differs from the WMDs in Iraq. The WMDs in Iraq hoax landed a lot better.

Bit of a shame climate change ranks so low, I think that's one of the most important issues of our time, right up there with perpetual war and the loss of our civil liberties (which also don't seem to be on here). But there definitely is not a groundswell of interest in the Russiagate hoax, so it's not reasonable to claim that this is the reason why the for-profit media are covering it so breathlessly.
 
Sep 2017
5,081
6,050
Massachusetts
#10
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-healthcare-economy-immigration.aspx

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Healthcare, the economy and immigration top a list of issues that voters consider important to their vote for Congress this year.
Certainly, those are the issues that voters like to tell pollsters they're interested in. However, news-coverage decisions aren't made based on how voters like to hold themselves out to pollsters. They're based on what maximizes the profitability of the corporations that run the news. And that has almost nothing to do with the self-branding of voters. It has a great deal to do with how news consumers actually behave when deciding what to consume. It's about clicks, paper sales, and ratings points. News outlets measure those things carefully and are exquisitely sensitive to public tastes. If stories about Russia's subversion of our democracy, and the Trump team's collusion with Russia, stopped getting clicks, they'd stop being written.

Russiagate is B.S.
Russia gate is a large and important scandal.

The people don't care about it.
What you mean to say is that YOU don't care about it, and you'd like the same to be true for the people. Yet, when the clicks are counted, the reality is revealed. The people care very much about it.... and, as one of "the people," I'm with them (which is a bit unusual for me, since much of what the people care about, like the latest events in the lives of the Kardashians and the English royals, bores me silly).

Bit of a shame climate change ranks so low, I think that's one of the most important issues of our time...
I agree. But it's the kind of story that most people tune out, because it is slow-developing, statistical in nature, and requires a certain education to understand. Russiagate is more interesting to the people, not because it's so important (though it is), but because it makes for juicier reading. Even the people who call it a hoax are interested enough to engage on the story in detail in order to push that spin job.