DISCUSSION : FAKE NEWS
“War is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.”
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) 1903 – 1950
“However, it depends what we mean by ‘war’, in the context that conventional war must be avoided at every conceivable cost.”
“Narratives are one thing, but we get nowhere by making enemies. Thus, the notion of enemy requires a different working paradigm and interpretation, ours, and which is not the official, though in a deeper sense, it is.”
“Enemies are friends, and friends are enemies. It is a complicated world.”
updated 04/07/2017 (most recent appears last)
Look at the CONTEXT of what is utterly phony
How did a reality TV star become President of the USA?
The celebrity culture has spewed into every aspect of U.S. society and politics – Garbage politics, no less, which miniaturizes large complex problems at home, while maximizing ‘threats’ from abroad
An image-based, warrior culture – one dominated by garbage politics, communicating through narratives, through pictures and carefully orchestrated spectacle, as well as through manufactured pseudo-drama
Cinematic political celebrities indistinct with foibles, thus, theater in politics is now interchangeable. Images and entertainment fulfill the need for instant gratification. The propensity to seek for reality is gone, because reality is boring – rather, is the need to be indulged, to be comforted by clichés, by stereotypes of the pathetic and by supposed inspirational messages that tell of being whoever one seeks to be.
Reality is not comforting, one can this way phase out from it
Couple this context with being told one lives in the greatest country, that one is endowed with superior moral and physical qualities
Thus in fantasy, the future will always be glorious
In REALITY, quite the opposite extreme prevails, for most
CUE : Here, what is theatrically presented – a suggestive/manipulative CUE is the trigger for a response to be carried out over a specific period of time. The nature of the response (insight into / manipulation of audience makeup) is what is sought, but also can be the identity and location of the responder/s.
The expressions on people’s faces give the audience visual cues about feelings and which they subsequently identify with
Expressions of emotion serve as a very powerful signal and/or suggestion
>> allusion, implication, inference, innuendo, insinuation; denotation, supposed evidence, guidepost, mark, overtone, pointer, sign, signal, tell-tale, token assistance, nod, prompt, tip, tip-off, wink, feeling, foreboding, intuition, premonition, presentiment, suspicion; augury, foreshadower, foretaste, harbinger, omen, portent, presage, and so on <<
The enemy of my enemy is my friend – typical geopolitics
Supposed ‘leaks’ – secret sharers – scandal sells – fact/authenticity checking of which is most often non-existent
(C-I) To begin, let’s stay with press reports in so far as they are accepted as such (gutter trash can be an appropriate description) – this description/title (i.e. fake news) has a place in public awareness at the moment. However, it’s always been the case that the factual nature of much of mainstream media has always been questionable. The target audience is already prepped for dressed up versions of events, often flipped out of all semblance of truth, if there was any to begin with. Some say it is merely politics, but one must consider what is at stake, and there is more to it.
As we know, and as we are the propaganda Unit, thus adept (we’ll say more as to why we are so, later), in order to elicit the response intended, the objectives must be clear at the outset. However, there are a few obvious factors;
Society is very complex, multifaceted and one cannot envisage the same extent of uniform response across a vast array of interest groups. One might wonder whether the fake news facilitators understand the collective psyche, how this comprises multiple frames which often overlap, fade in and out of each other. Or can, if manipulated appropriately, but we’re talking about news media, not psychological warfare experts. One can ask, in respect of certain news reports, whether the creators in fact need to understand the collective psyche of their audience? The latter question is relevant.
On audience ‘prepping’, as I said, the audience (any audience, but let’s stay with that of the UK and USA), is already being bombarded with three-dimensional information – this information has extremely effective, emotionally seductive elements (narratives) weaved tightly around its core, its intended message, thus dressed up literally in attire that fits the role already being played out on the established stage – the stage comprising of a fabric of equally synthetic, plastic, phony un-realities. You know the kind of thing; nationalism, values claimed as meaningful; “we are the virtuous, all the rest are ******* not,” films and not just the subject of these, but the messages imparted by the utterly phony heroes, the array of mentors who no one really knows from Napoleon Bonaparte, but whose endearing qualities, even those from way back when and never, the ones out of the sky, these are updated, bastardized from their original and taken in by the already susceptible who need it.
You cannot say to people; “If you can’t hold the proposition up to reality, then it has no meaning,” because most won’t know what you’re on about.
“The human mind seeks for meaning in the environment by imposing templates upon its perception until a pattern is found that, for desired purposes, fits observation sufficiently well.” – (C-I) THE MAKING OF FALSE NARRATIVE
Collective insecurity if provoked acts as a lubricant, because much that is told is embraced. If you add certain endearments into the communiques which empower the insecure, such as; “We are the strong and morally superior nation – it says so on dollar bills, in god we trust.” This makes all that we stand for and say, right, does it not?
While to some (many), there is a question involved (doubt), the question is still asked from within the established paradigm. Why would anyone disregard press reports/media reports/their government, when what is known about the supposed baddies (eg.Russians or whoever) is literally less than nil?
Psychological warfare is effective when constantly applied, but you can argue that the press have a monopoly on ‘consistency’ because of what I just said. It does not matter if the story’s subject changes into another; it is the same vehicle of mind candy consumed and satisfying the conditioned (addicted) taste buds.
News reports, fake and made up junk does make money, they adhere like mental glue. The presentation is dramatic, contains a punch and often the reader can flick between that and soap opera news and pictures of tits.
Accompanying advertisements, cleverly placed in similitude, containing smiling people who cannot exist like that in the real world but the reader can enter the same utopia and be just the same.
You have to consider that objectifying, rationalizing, watching and listening to the process of intellectual discourse via members from different and relevant experience in the matters at hand – that whose format very effectively allows accuracy to emerge is a far superior paradigm. However, and it has to be said, that it can be boring in contrast to the impact-laden, soccer player endorsed, voice.
This is why (obviously) the accuracy purveyors are easy to attack. They become the fakers and one can make a case for this, via various means – an amalgam of what I said earlier.
A further point; truth and accuracy become effectively submerged, though it has to be said that being a liar and shown to be ought really to carry weight, but it doesn’t necessarily, if at all, in what are the cheating spouse scenarios which abound. “I am the one having an affair but I can deal with it by saying she/he is the one doing it. That makes it right.”
End of Introduction
“…and when the reader knows that the writer is lying, and the writer knows that the reader knows, but continues to lie… “
(C-I) So now we should discuss this and what I missed out, let’s keep it interesting and contentious.
(C-V Admin) Well, the ‘audience’ : Who does it matter to, whether news is fake? Why burst the personalized bubbles?
Though, in addition, one has to be cautious regarding your particular tendency to easily bestow qualities upon the masses. I say this because it’s different now and because qualities really are emergent – structural components – that people in the past had none of, and this does facilitate a social awareness coming into being. As you have said before, all are empowered via harnessing the neutral means – technological – so to become ‘aware’ by exploiting the global multi-polar knowledge base which uses these means (the neutrality is then given life). Many have known only this state of affairs, but equally many are able to contrast this open door to a kind of emancipation in this respect. One person can be ‘aware’ *** via a process of discovery and questioning, thus find one’s own way.
My point is; that the audience comprises of multiple stakeholders who have equally as many roads to information. I know that you are going to say they become ”aware of what?”Much is literally an insult to intelligence – but there’s something about that.
>> Which is, that more often than not the root cause of something is left out of the news because it is simply not possible to know, even despite the technological means. What information is supposedly leaked and on the face of it accurate, has a purpose unbeknown to those eager to own it. When this happens, which it does all of the time, the accurate picture is not disseminated, though the subsequent ‘media gatekeepers’ assume otherwise, that they are supposed ‘truthers’. <<
The media, both mainstream and alternative (yes, can clump them together on this point), would argue against, and very obviously, by a claim to be seeing in terms of who and what we only ever judge as being useful and / or expendable to us. But as you said, that’s how the operation proceeds. This manipulation does not apply to all scenarios. This is why there is ‘secret intelligence’ as opposed to mainstream or online news.
Some say and particularly with regard to the USA, that the mainstream media is fed, which is the case, it’s no secret, but this is missing the point of what and why – these media outlets because they are controlled and paid by the intelligence services, one in particular, have a claim to knowledge, to accuracy, to whatever, but more often than not their official narrative serves a very different agenda and this agenda they can never know.
(C-I) That’s one way of looking, and it, I’m not so much in agreement but to move on; it is very complex, while there are quite literally colossal amounts of information which the citizen cannot be expected to deal with. This information is obfuscated and as you said, the importance of which has significance attached which the both the purveyors and the audience are unaware.
But in the context of what the media decides to invent, exaggerate and dress up as a pantomime come alive – this is what we wanted to discuss.
Have you seen the weather outside?
Nowhere in the UK is cut off, nowhere exists in a state of isolation. This is not the case elsewhere and which makes these places that you see scattered across the wasteland prey to banal and ridiculous sentiments, as those who, in their opioid acting fantasies are responsible for doing it, know well. In reading what’s referred to as ‘local media’ – some make Jim Jones look like an amateur. ** See our stuff (attempts thereof), on ‘mind control’.
There is a crossover between media and advertising techniques in their capacity for duping. I was looking at some of the banned ads and certain of these are just cruel – because of their cutting deep into sensibilities. Getting people into debt and feeding stupid rubbish information commandeer and grip emotions in the same way. For example; the mother sat with a crying child who has no gifts because she can’t afford them, enter flashes of happy kids opening all sorts of things, answer; credit card. The result is a child, smiling amidst the brightened room and who is surrounded by the same stuff, lots to be unwrapped.
The world is beautiful; it’s the people who are in it that invariably, with a few exceptions, are not.
(C-V Admin) Who is beautiful, just for the record?
(C-I) Angela Gheorghiu. She has my vote.
Certain people, and as does she, because of her effect, makes much of what’s out there completely pointless, devoid of any meaning, no matter what extent the desire to be otherwise. This leads us to our own psyop strategies which confront, pull at emotion, debilitate and are subsequently filled with states of difference. That’s the ideal.
It is my view that many mistakenly seek and find truth in the completely wrong things, and they, as a consequence perpetuate what is quite literally, awful. We share with many awful societies in this respect, but there are the most true, the most beautiful for this and they, few, are completely different. John Keats was very perceptively right.
(C-V) Effect – Consequences of : Much that is facilitated by fake news, one sided and of complete prevarication can be dangerous as recent events have demonstrated. Erroneous news, while it has emotional impact, empowers some to consider and worse, to perpetrate terror attacks, engage in atrocity. Those who perpetuate such lies as opposed to perpetuating truth need to be aware of this.
Accusatory – distortion, serving the interests / perpetuation of desired political realities – that of state apparatus – but often not the state per-se, but can be that of one person. Accusatory faking does work against what is a desired global combating of terror.
(C-I) If the intention is to accuse truth as being fake (even though truth can be easily verifiable), who stands to benefit, and in what way?
It is a process in motion constituting a neo-Liberal / neo Conservative dumbing down, accusatory ‘red baiting’ (historically Russia friendly folk as per Eugene McCarthy et al, during the 1960’s), via attacks upon thought and person-centered question asking – within the context/system of all being subject/subservient to the market economy and to those who control it (Wall Street, the Industrial – Military machinery, Oil Industries, Walmart in the current time, etc.) – I mean, not to question the authenticity of, or be seen to be comparing with a socialist model (the spreading of wealth, a people centered culture), otherwise there is a ”list” and which very effectively aims to prevent funding, work opportunities, social security, etc, (for those on the list), so to tow the established line via fear of censure……This movement appears to have re emerged in the USA during the present, but times are much different now, I say, and it is the case that thinkers, academics, influencers, journalists there, and so on, are able, quite effectively, to make their statements, their ‘defense of truth’ heard (not to forget the questioning of foreign policy decisions in play). Whereas during the 1960’s it was very awkward, in that print media (unlike the internet is now,) was controlled by the state apparatus, et cetera…….Not so good a situation, but it’s not the case everywhere, mostly it is where there is an elite, whose hegemonic psychosis is under dire threat from those outside.
(C-V) In the UK. we patronize the Arts, the Social Sciences, and are by appeal to these disciplines, free from censure to express ourselves, as is very obvious to people yonder. If it is made to be the case (which it won’t here) that the only preoccupation becomes one which the free market controllers, the defense industries and so on, value – I mean they come to not want to recruit creative people – and the latter are left disadvantaged, it would be a horrible state of affairs.
(C-I) But it goes further, if you consider that the meanings of words are their use, reality is a social phenomena, and there becomes a third party force in action to distort meanings, in accord with that third party vision, gradually there will be a shift into totalitarianism because very essentially, knowledge has discarded what was deemed to be ‘anti-establishment’. Associated with these discarded meanings would be values, the emotional responses – made redundant as though they were never the case.
But as we said, it is not possible now to close out the world’s essentially multifaceted, complex nature and the real time access to facts. It is not possible to create a changed society in the way outlined. It did not work in the USA during the 1960’s either, but there was the movement fronted by Eugene McCarthy, which made the attempt.
Adolf Hitler’s rise to power during the 1930’s is more an example of success in this respect – along with the arch manipulator of social reality and advocate of fake ideas; Josef Goebbels, the resultant movement complete with its scapegoating and appeal to human nature, in that the persecution of those deemed ‘different’ (a threat) means something other than repression, murder and genocide.
(C-I) There is a further facet we should touch on today, it’s a rather large concern, the implications being profound, I mean. This is, that when certain events occur and they require a response which is beyond the extreme of most so to do (respond), then what of that response? Is it that somehow there is a particular kind of interpretation offered and which either paints it as being something else – thus becomes ‘diluted’ via associations made that for example, atrocity took place among a party deemed whatever (were on a certain ‘side’)?
When ‘interests’ are at stake and for example, when there is the issue of support and those whom are supported commit the most heinous crimes – the owners of the interests appear often, but not always, to try and orchestrate distortions of the reality because those whom have interests cannot be shown to be culpable in the way that they certainly are. What of the situation wherein bodies of children (men and women too, of course) are discovered shot in the head in a school, their bodies dismembered and organs removed, as is currently the case among myriad similar (in Syria)? When pregnant girls are killed by marauding and laughing militia groups and this is ignored by the western press (ours), or spoken of as though the victims were somehow ‘rebels’ or occupied a supposed rebel area? The perpetrators enjoy support, are deemed as being somehow, in a distorted nightmare fantasy, to be ‘useful’. This should be hard, if not impossible to believe, even given the orchestrated non-caring, the made naiveté, which subsequently abounds – that we occupy time with this, what requires the application of a set of concepts we simply do not have.
The implications are firstly; that when instincts run amok the worst that the human imagination can concoct very often becomes reality. We as a civilized society should understand this exactly for what it is and the interests of whomever, for whatever reason should never enter in, and the subsequent hand-washing via distorted (fake) reporting should never be the case. Secondly; and unfortunately, this is NOT so. We have discussed this issue before, that though an audience is not of one capacity in its responding, the attempt to deliver fake accounts creates ambivalence which is a direct result of one-sided agenda. In certain respects, though it does not apply to all, the reaction is impregnated by that very agenda. In other words, the audience by and large is made, in varying degrees, not to care.
There are those who know that what they are reporting is an altogether distorted version and they also know the reason why, but their own desire for reward is paramount. What can one say to these people who perpetuate falsehoods in this particular context?
(C-V) There is something absolutely pathetic, awkward for my mind to grapple with. I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, and add; such awful circumstances – the perpetrators (scum) and the geographically distant contrivers (of those circumstances), the latter are well capable of manipulating what they create, what they encourage, and to their advantage. It doesn’t matter to them, who dies or how, plain and simple. Further, given that the worst imaginable grief could be avoided, and is not – there is the submerging effect through extraneous detail, what is a morass of complete media junk serving to cajole. Like you say, so many occupy cloud cuckoo land that stepping out from its confines is asking a great deal.
>>It is not that reality and fantasy are in battle; it is that fantasy is reality.<<
(C-I) To put it bluntly; marauding psychopaths are tolerated by ‘some’, and as a result their raping is not rape, torture is not torture, murder is not murder. It is otherwise, only when reported EXACTLY FOR WHAT IT IS, the audience see it and understand it, exactly for what it is.
It is the case that when propaganda messages are true, their defense is unnecessary. When propaganda messages are blatantly untrue, the subsequent requirement on their makers is to defend them by constructing a new world and to exert control over its inhabitants such that they unquestioningly believe and participate in it. Thus, to effect and maintain this outcome all means necessary are brought into play.
15 01 2017
From a propaganda perspective; what is going on in the USA, and how is that different than here in the UK? Particular emphasis being on what is the premise of the New Mind War.
It appears that there is a real pressure to discredit /de-legitimize the President elect Donald Trump, via pernicious media reporting of non-fact based material, which is constitutive of a universe orchestrated and sustained via campaigns of innuendo and character assassination. When/if impeachment of Trump is finally proposed, which looks to us like the intention, he will have little public support and few allies and will have become a figure of open ridicule in the corporate media.
In addition, the intention is to bolster the neo-McCarthy smear campaign against independent voices,to justify the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe and the billions if not trillions of in profits made there by the US arms industry, and not to forget attaining plausible cover for the Democratic Party’s failure at the election and likely collapse. qA tactic used in much of propaganda campaigns is to make the target feel what they are accused of – to get under the skin, ie. by virtue of the self fulfilling effect.
To create atmosphere containing a lack of skepticism regarding what told, even if it’s ridiculous
Evidence does not need to be the case, because the sources refer reiterate the ‘ground-breaking’ – with all manner of additives tagged on.
A good question is; whether they inhabit a fact based reality, or they need to – whether it’s a phony bizarre reality or otherwise, where the media set the tone for a world made up of demonstrably false narratives.
They have to create and sustain a continuing atmosphere – what is a lack of skepticism, inability to be skeptical at all regarding what told, even if it’s ridiculous. Paint dissenters as anomalies.
Neo McCarthyism is directly related to US foreign policy – has repercussions on a global stage. Nuclear powers at odds and this is extremely worrisome.
Why? Democrats and Republicans operate on similar bases. They appear to blame others for their own failures – domestic issues become others fault – notably foreign state actors (Russia, the PRC)
There are serious dislocations happening within America – an inability on the part of the establishment to face what they are doing – inability to self-reflect, constitutive of a questionable political health.
When you look at the UK media and its freedom of expression, there is no comparison whatsoever with the example of the US, where it’s not easy to challenge the dominant narrative. The power elites– what neo-liberalism means – an attack on anything that can be seen as ‘public’ – privatize everything (large corporations make and sustain profits) – is not about informing/empowering the commonality of folk. Not at all.
It’s likely they will shut down electronic avenues of dissent.
Both US parties belong to the corporate party, as seen by the alliances; silence the other voices, enrich the defense corporations, promote some other version of democracy.
(C-I) Yes, it depends what is news, or is ‘something more’ – or it’s a psyop operation. That makes it appear as elements of the latter, but there are further considerations which *** pointed to. These considerations are authoritative control over not only the nature of the receptivity of the audience (they believe it, unquestioningly), but control over dissenting voices. If the latter become fifth columnists, are outlawed (we’ve talked about his before), that’s moving the whole thing into a different schema.
Gosh, if you look at the media here in the UK, it’s so much free expression, I mean there is no one saying anything should be curtailed at all, let alone eradicated completely (inconceivable). Personally, I can’t see this materializing in the US, though the attempt might transpire vis a vis political posturing. It is rather unacceptable here and we, collectively, are socialists, conservatives, social democrats and so on, who share the same aim, to foster and support the democratic ideals in place give or take whatever differences, desires, vision.
“…and though it ought to be the case, the dynamics of history are not the dynamics of any particular individual, because of the underlying dynamics of institutions and even though it is true that certain individuals have incredible intellect, talent, style and charisma – there still exists that same enduring, institutionalized reality which usurps them…”
The Notion of counterfeit news
It is all about the bottom line, that is – ratings, so to make a buck.
Being careful to omit certain things.
Spreading the notion of guilt by association.
Holding different people to different standards.
Adding emoticons so to add emotionality.
Cherry coating downright lies.
Who has friends, who has not?
Searching for reasons to cause upset.
Being careful in the process not to do this (cause upset) to oneself, ones organization.
The country is divided and news makes it more divided still.
Where is honesty? A very naive question. Likewise, is asking whether the system has integrity.
The throwing of bots.
The claiming of anonymous sources. Likewise, those ‘restricted / classified’ – convenience.
Saying the same word and / or phrase over and over again.
One media is the PR for one political party, and not others.
The media elects Presidents and Prime Ministers.
04 07 2017
(C-V) Do you think that the media is ”the fourth pillar of democracy”?
(C-I) Hmm. So, discounting the other ”three pillars” of which I’m not certain…. I am in a way, but not likely in accord with who is proclaiming the media to be the fourth….Why are you asking?
(C-V) It appeared on the internet in regard to the UK media.
(C-I) I see. No, to be honest. I see the public at large, the fact of their societal differences and how these differences are manifest in the design and the continuity – this is democracy. Sorry if it’s a weak answer, but it does, in my opinion, subsume any categorizing, and especially the use of the word ‘pillar” which suggests a support. The media is not representative of the complexity and breadth of our society, rather has its own agenda – generally speaking, that of who controls its voice. This is not remarkable, really.
(C-V) What comprises it’s own agenda? Here is what I think and it’s relevant in that we have to show that we are not just sympathetic of the differing voices in our society, but that we understand their reason.
(C-I) I agree with that.
(C-V) I think the notion of ”public voice” – what is democratic participation – the freedom to think, to challenge – the enjoyment had in public affairs – this is what is open to debate at present, re; the current Conservative and Labour Manifestos.
(C-I) It’s a valid gripe and the defence is interesting too. The two Manifestos are very different, ideologically speaking, and to espouse one, is representative of obvious bias so we must show we understand the differences that are very evident during this current time. Is that OK? I am referring to looking outwards and to the wider global system, and taking the other’s view while looking back – what others think, how they act according to what they perceive is going on.
(C-V) Yes but, the argument that the media is a pillar of democracy, is the issue here. To narrow things and focus. The very notion of public voice – this came under attack from the 1960s on, and consequentially, by those who wanted to concentrate wealth and power by imposing the business model – to subscribe all to ”free market forces,” i.e. to profit, which before they saw as being negatively affected – designing out what was before – a social engineering effort if you want to call it that. If the business model incorporsates the media, then the media embrace this model. During the Thatcher years, this was the plan, and under the present Tory govt. who are privatizing everything, this continues unabated. Now, the effects are being felt, it appears that the govt. are in gross disfavour among a good fifty per cent of the country. They feel its effects.
(C-I) What do you think, in a nutshell, that the media is actually doing?
(C-V) Fantasy peddling, because illusory content can, by and large, be imposed onto social systems via clever means, the intention being to quell and to channel a population toward a state pre-defined at the outset. Once in operation, it is easy to reinforce – dress it up – dramatize the messages – cause people to want to be like fake mentors, and believe and copy what they say – Basically, to fill people full of crap, but those affected do not necessarily view it that way, those who believe it, live inside its frame. The US propaganda machine (the epitome of the free market) is very adept, especially when directed toward same language speakers, such as the UK. In addition, to tell how things are – better, brighter, free, etc. – via this model, and while ignoring what it is not prudent to tell…..When the propaganda is questioned or fought against for whatever reason, a state of doubt / confusion can occur; ‘Who are we? What are we? Where is our mammy?
(C-I) So the epitome of free enterprise is mammy?
(C-V) What has to be realized is that the statement – ”the media is the fourth pillar of democracy” – is itself an impotent propaganda ploy, in conjunction with the content to which they refer (the media). The UK media is mostly fake news, is biased and obviously not fact-driven, because it is not in its interests to be so – which is not unremarkable like you say, and even anyone with a functioning brain cell can see this. Fifty per cent of the UK population cyrrently see mainstream media as perpetuating tyranny. So given the fact that neoliberal policies reign supreme, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that there are those paid to spout this crap. Whether they actually understand the fullness of our democracy, the implications of the current trend – what is recent experience and the complexity inherent, not to forget the gross disenchantment of fifty per cent of the population to which they refer, is unlikely to be the case.
The issue is; that if one is representing one’s own country, an altogether multifaceted examination has to proceed, not one which is the sole voice of one ideologue. This is just amateur BS….Socially, and because of the disconnect evident across the population, the situation in the UK is at a volatile point (fifty per cent are actually demanding the govt. resign), the reason why they are must be understood – their point of view, its history, nature and global context, otherwise one-sided, opinionated flim-flam, – which is tendered as meaningful, accurate, and which really is downright the opposite of the truth, bias-ridden garbage, will make the situation worse still – and this is in no one’s interests.
(C-I) You have to look at the reason why neoliberalism is wrapped and tendered by the media, what is felt to be at stake by those involved, the interrelationships, the transnational networks of influence, who owns what, basically.
We have talked about neoliberalism already. What is means and how it is understood, as opportunity and threat – depending on who is making the judgment prime mover, or those who feel disregarded by its policies.
The US is interesting in this respect, here is something I copied from the internet, written by an American, quote ;
”The media is NO LONGER COMPRISED OF HONEST JOURNALISTS. Instead, it is a propaganda arm of pseudo-elites – effectively driving/manipulating the DEMOCRATIC party. Journalism no longer is double sourced documentation, unbiased coverage and factual. It sickens me because these pseudo-journalists are products of our universities. I don’t know how, or how long it will take to restore honesty to this profession.”
Anyone claiming that the media supports democracy and without dealing with the intrinsic nature of the extreme differences, often volatile, which undeniably exist, the effects of these differences in the public arena – ignoring these in favor of one neoliberal paradigm, are likely to have a specific reason for so doing. Are very likely the media themselves (of certain representatives therein), they are not social scientists, nor indeed as a consequence, do they demonstrate a full and proper comprehending, or understanding of the ramifications of their stance. The ramifications being; making what is manifest social unrest even worse, and inspiring consequent wider events – the effects on the economy for one, vis a vis the instability perceived from outside.
CONFIRM NOR DENY, NEITHER DENY NOR CONFIRM
in progress – stay with us
Updated 04 07 2017 (c)
(C-I) (C-V Admin)
Secret Intelligence Service
Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum