What do you think about the role of media and the court of public opinion that is taking place all over the world? Instant videos and minute by minute updates. Speculation presented as news and people drawing instant conclusions based on bare bone facts and information. How the media sways the public to cry for a certain action.
The Role of Media and the Court of Public Opinion
- Thread starter Nixie
- Start date
The likes of Noam Chomsky on the left say that the elites use media to 'manufacture consent' whilst people on the right say its used to 'manufacture dissent'!
one side sees the media being used to gently corral popular opinion in certain directions like cowboys managing a herd whilst the other side sees the herd being deliberatly riled up so that changes to laws and society can be justified off the back of collective fears
I think there is truth in both views
Whats often telling is how certain movements are often funded by powerful people who aren't necessarily interested in the movements cause but rather in unsticking the glue that currently holds society together in order to create a new society in the shape that they want
Billionaire David Rockefeller wrote his thesis at university on Fabian Socialism. To me socialism is when the workers take control of the means of production but for david socialism means that the means of production are centrally controlled by billionaires in a centrally planned system
Media is extremely pervasive and highly pursuasive. Our generation might resist certain changes but younger generations who grow up knowing only the new system will be more compliant. All the elties need to do to achieve their aims is be patient and that's the essence of fabian socialism.
Here's some text explaining this approach off wikipedia:
The Fabian Society, which favoured gradual change rather than revolutionary change, was named – at the suggestion of Frank Podmore – in honour of the Roman general Fabius Maximus (nicknamed "Cunctator", meaning "the Delayer"). His Fabian strategy advocated tactics of harassment and attrition rather than head-on battles against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal.
An explanatory note appearing on the title page of the group's first pamphlet declared:
one side sees the media being used to gently corral popular opinion in certain directions like cowboys managing a herd whilst the other side sees the herd being deliberatly riled up so that changes to laws and society can be justified off the back of collective fears
I think there is truth in both views
Whats often telling is how certain movements are often funded by powerful people who aren't necessarily interested in the movements cause but rather in unsticking the glue that currently holds society together in order to create a new society in the shape that they want
Billionaire David Rockefeller wrote his thesis at university on Fabian Socialism. To me socialism is when the workers take control of the means of production but for david socialism means that the means of production are centrally controlled by billionaires in a centrally planned system
Media is extremely pervasive and highly pursuasive. Our generation might resist certain changes but younger generations who grow up knowing only the new system will be more compliant. All the elties need to do to achieve their aims is be patient and that's the essence of fabian socialism.
Here's some text explaining this approach off wikipedia:
The Fabian Society, which favoured gradual change rather than revolutionary change, was named – at the suggestion of Frank Podmore – in honour of the Roman general Fabius Maximus (nicknamed "Cunctator", meaning "the Delayer"). His Fabian strategy advocated tactics of harassment and attrition rather than head-on battles against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal.
An explanatory note appearing on the title page of the group's first pamphlet declared:
"For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless."[SUP][[/SUP]
The Mexican-American War began under questionable circumstances that wouldn't be resolved regarding which side had initiated conflict at the Texas-Mexico border. President Polk justifying his cassus belli by claiming that Americans had been killed on American soil, while Mexico claimed they had been attacked on Mexican soil. Then senator Abraham Lincoln objected, demanding to be shown the spot whence fighting broke out.
The Spanish-American War began two months after the highly publicized sinking of the USS Maine, which would later be deemed an accident. The publication practices in use by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer would be labeled 'yellow journalism' for its sensationalism and exaggerated presentations.
Citizen Kane, one of the most highly regarded films, is thematic both in its use and criticism of sensationalism basing its story in large part on William Randolph Hearst.
Of course we also have the Iraq war and its 'weapons of mass destruction'.
The Spanish-American War began two months after the highly publicized sinking of the USS Maine, which would later be deemed an accident. The publication practices in use by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer would be labeled 'yellow journalism' for its sensationalism and exaggerated presentations.
Citizen Kane, one of the most highly regarded films, is thematic both in its use and criticism of sensationalism basing its story in large part on William Randolph Hearst.
Of course we also have the Iraq war and its 'weapons of mass destruction'.
I found the Trevyon Martin Case to be a really good example of what I am talking about. Most people's basic understanding of the media is that they are unbiased and tell the truth. I have questioned the media's role for a long time. First of all, who owns them? Normally really rich people who have a certain agenda. Secondly, you will see media "endorse" a candidate. WTF? So much for unbiased. Lastly, I believe NBC apologized or something for manipulating some type of digital media in the whole Treyvon Martin case, can't remember what. The interent has also made it easier to access information but what is the quality of this information? Our new media world requires individuals to become much more active participants in filtering the information they receive but it seems our society is becoming more passive and wants to be spoon fed their information.
The first gulf war was caused after the USA sold slant drilling technology to Kuwait who then began sucking up the oil of their neighbour Iraq which enabled them to sell oil cheaper to the US but threatened to bankrupt Iraq so Saddam Hussein invaded Kuweit after first checking with the US that they would not react (Hussein had been funded by the USA in his war with Iran so he had reason to trust the USA)
This was a trick however and the US then betrayed Hussein as they then launched an attack on Iraq. To win over congress a witness was brought into testify to congress who claimed she was a Kuweiti nurse who had witnesses atrocities being committed in Kuwet by the Iraqis. it turned out later that she was actually the daughter of the Kuweiti ambassador to the US and that her claims were unsubstantiated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)
The US bombed all of Iraq's food producing infrastructure including a baby powder producing factory. the US then imposed sanctions on Iraq that killed, by some estimates over a million people ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions) not to mention the million iraqis that the US has killed in the second gulf war through violence or the people dying or deformed as a result of depleted uranium shells fired in the first gulf war, leaving radioactive waste scattered across Iraq (much like the use of Agent Orange (manufactured by Monsanto who now produce all of the US seed supply!) by the US in the vietnam war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_orange
Then there was the Gulf of Tonkin incident which never happened which the US used to justify declaring war against Vietnam which saw the deaths of hundreds of thousands on all sides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident