DrRingDing said:
At times and at others it is black propaganda.
Isn't it all, though?
Vidi-felch prole-feed designed to terraform the minds of the listener into accepting without question the 'terms of debate' as dictated by the PTB.
Take (as you did) for example the 'debate' regarding the illegal invasion of iraq - almost the only points of view presented regarded the existence or non-existence of 'WMD'.
The whole question of whether '
planning and waging an aggressive war' against a sovereign nation (regardless of whether it has certain weapons or not - which
we have and they didn't) should even be considered was completely excluded from the discourse.
In general, where a view contrary to that of the 'establishment' does get a few nano-seconds of airtime, the person invited to express it will invariably be the most timid, weedy-voiced inarticulate gimp that they can find, while the establishment viewpoint will be expressed by a smooth-talking articulate gentleman oxbridge graduate type, who will calmly re-assure the public that his opponent is somehow unaware of the *facts* and portray the opposing view as one based on an irrational, emotional and therefore invalid interpretation, rounded off by smugly implying that 'if they were only as calm, well informed and rational' as the oxbridge type, they would, of course, see sense.
Propaganda 101.
Post 'Hutton', their role (obligation) as a vehicle for disseminating propaganda regardless of the actual facts is more apparent.
Billions of 'newsworthy' events occur everyday, which necessitates 'filtering' of what ends up being spewed out of the millions of Telescreens and into the conciousness of the masses.
The question of who does that filtering and upon what criteria is one I rarely hear discussed, the assumption being that the 'content' that makes it past the filters is some sort of objective 'truth', and that by imbibing enough of that 'truth' we will be able to form a coherent, accurate view of the world.
That's not to say the odd thing doesn't get through. I'm reminded of Andrew Marr's look of bewilderment when he interviewed Noam Comsky back in '96. The fresh-faced Marr was
interviewing the Chom on 'The Propaganda Model', when Marr seemed to get defensive about what was being described, suggesting that Chomsky was accusing him of self-censorship:
Chomsky said:
I don't say you're self-censoring - I'm sure you believe everything you're saying; but what I'm saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting.
(Vidi-felch
here.
)
