♦ nivek ♦ Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 "Hitler’s dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and the loud-speaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man." -- Albert Speer Hitler’s Minister for Armaments Source: at his trial after World War II http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Albert.Speer.Quote.505D "The modern press itself is a new phenomenon. Its typical unit is the great agency of mass communication. These agencies can facilitate thought and discussion. They can stifle it…. They can play up or down the news and its significance, foster and feed emotions, create complacent fictions and blind spots, misuse the great words and uphold empty slogans." -- Commission On Freedom Of The Press Source: A Free and Responsible Press, 1947 http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Commission.On.Freedom.Of.The.Press.Quote.38E0 "Protection against government is now not enough to guarantee that a man who has something to say shall have a chance to say it. The owners and managers of the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public." -- Commission On Freedom Of The Press Source: A Free and Responsible Press, 1947 http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Commission.On.Freedom.Of.The.Press.Quote.38DF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 A Russian friend of mine once told me that Stalin had a theory that 90% of the population will go along with whatever you tell them. He believed that the other 10%, those who think critically, were a threat. I don't have documentation to back this up, but I think it's probably pretty accurate. So here's the problem with the press in the US. It is possible to get a broader view via the internet and other alternative sources. However, 90% of the population gets all there info via mainstream sources. Mainstream sources are 100% owned by corporate conglomerates due largely to deregulation of FCC rules over the past couple of decades. Therefore, the vast majority of the population is being sent just one single message and views the world from just one narrow angle even though it is possible to get a broader view. In the US, 10% who think critically can easily be ignored so they are not a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Not much has changed. Some of us knew that Sadam was not much of a threat and that the fuss that Bush and his cronies made over Sadam was bollox. It was not too long before it was clear that the Homeland Security Advisory System was being used by Bush to scare the electorate into voting Repubilcan. Fools! And yes I would say that only 1 in 10 seemed to say anything about it for several years and no one in the press dared criticize the administration. I'm sure America likes to look back in history and think that McCarthyism was something purpetrated by a few bad senators and a minority of dumb Americans consoling themselves with "...but I never believed it." Ignorance is a powerful force. Mongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirac Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 It is possible to get a broader view via the internet and other alternative sources. However, 90% of the population gets all there info via mainstream sources. Mainstream sources are 100% owned by corporate conglomerates due largely to deregulation of FCC rules over the past couple of decades. Therefore, the vast majority of the population is being sent just one single message and views the world from just one narrow angle even though it is possible to get a broader view. In the US, 10% who think critically can easily be ignored so they are not a threat. Interesting post, Vigile; it's the same here in the UK. Our best-selling paper is The Sun, which is owned by one Rupert Murdoch. He also owns a popular news channel and satellite-television empire, and our second-largest circulation broadsheet, The Times. It's gutting looking back at how unconcentrated, uncorporatised and varied the press used to be. Have you read Propaganda by Edward Bernays? I think the corollary of having such a successful is that those who are aware of the situation, and so deliberately seek out alternative sources of information to get at the truth, are filled with a numbing sense of helplessness to change anything for the better: how can things change when so few people even know what's going on? If you look at all the successful social movements, the requirement is a critical mass of popular participation. The guys with power know this full well, the system is so obviously designed to keep the masses stupid. Within the 'aware' population, I've no doubt a good reason so few of them go along to groups is because of this sense of helplessness; they just don't even see the point in trying. Thus even much of the 10% of the 'aware' population may as well not be. All in all, through ignorance or laziness, you've got a very small percentage of the population actually genuninely making an effort to fight the status quo. That makes progress much harder, in some cases impossible. And it's made still harder given the power of the interests ranged against the active 'aware', not to mention the atomised society we have in which we are so completely separated from each other, indeed scared of each other. I live in a town, and yet do not know anyone within a half-mile radius of my house; some of my friends are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirac Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I mentioned Rupert Murdoch. Has this been reported widely in the US? One of his newspapers, the Sunday version of our largest-circulation newspaper, is in the shit for hacking people's mobile (cell) phones: News of the World phone hacking: Guardian shows MPs new evidence Murdoch papers paid £1m to gag phone-hacking victims Needless to say, the pigs are pulling out all the stops to uncover the truth: Home Office asks why police did not revisit phone-hacking inquiry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Not much has changed. Some of us knew that Sadam was not much of a threat and that the fuss that Bush and his cronies made over Sadam was bollox. It was not too long before it was clear that the Homeland Security Advisory System was being used by Bush to scare the electorate into voting Repubilcan. Fools! And yes I would say that only 1 in 10 seemed to say anything about it for several years and no one in the press dared criticize the administration. I'm sure America likes to look back in history and think that McCarthyism was something purpetrated by a few bad senators and a minority of dumb Americans consoling themselves with "...but I never believed it." Ignorance is a powerful force. Mongo A good example of what I was talking about comes from your country. My wife and I were in Seattle for a few months while the war in Iraq was just getting underway. From Seattle we were able to get Vancouver news. Juxtaposing Iraq coverage between Canadian news and US news was quite enlightening. The US news made the war look like a video game wrapped in a flag. The Canadians, OTH, showed the war on the ground, showed the victims and all it's bloody, dirty mess. They also emphasized the fact that the inspectors had been hamstrung by the Bush admin. It's no wonder that Canadians had an entirely different opinion on the morality of that war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirac Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Yah, I found it! In the words of the uploader, "this book costs at least £125 ($250) to buy, if you can find it. Happy Reading!" Crystallizing Public Opinion by Edward Bernays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts