The best comment on this appeared as a letter (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E3DD1F38F936A35753C1A9629C8B63) in the New York Times:
David Brooks explains, ''When you see someone talking about crying with a war widow, you know that's Bush.'' I would prefer a president who does not needlessly and recklessly create war widows to cry with.
Then surely there was a greater need to attack North Korea, which actually did have nuclear weapons in addition to the dictatorial regime of Kim Jong-Il. But no, let's pick on the guy who doesn't have WMDs, 'cause he's the weakest link. Why not attack Castro or Qaddafi, too, as long as we are in the business of removing dictators wherever we want? But for some reason, the U.S. has preferred not to do it for over 40 years. There are plenty of dictators around the world. Why not attack and remove all of them? Let's "spread liberty around the world" like peanut butter, no, not even "spread", let's shove it really deep down other people's throats, maybe they like it even more that way.
Yeah, I know he's everybody's friend now, but why didn't it seem a good idea to remove him then, when he was everybody's enemy? I mean to remove him exactly like Saddam was removed.
Neither is North Korea now. There is a ceasefire agreement which both sides more or less observe.
I am concerned about the Syrian and Iranean involvement in the Iraqi situation. Iran is a special case, but Syria could have been and should have been neutralized without a serious military involvement. Standards may have changed after 9/11, but I wonder how much.
This is strictly IMHO; I am not an expert. I just hate to see diplomats and military people fighting each other instead of fighting a common enemy.
The boundary between propaganda and not propaganda is pretty blurry. Some cases are clear and some are not. The same situation may or may not be classified as propaganda denpending on the context in which it appears.
For example, what I've written is my opinion of the situation in Iraq as a private person. I would like to propagate this view, however, so one can argue that in some sense it may be propaganda. But I lack the sufficient means for doing so, so it's more likely one guy's opinion than propaganda.
The soldier's reply to Rumsfeld may have been honest and heartfelt, as may have been the captain's (?) account of it. However, if this case is picked up, for example, by the army's or government's official PR machine in the way that contradicts the totality of the situation there, it would definitely become propaganda, whether it was true or not.
Yes, I think this is correct. What makes a piece of text propaganda is how it is used, not the contents of the text. (And not whether or not the author wants to "propagate" it. :-))
More precisely, not just the contents: the way a text is written may be part of the presentation, that is, "usage". The same facts and ideas might be put together in a more neutral way.
The main reason I have asked the question in the first place is that I am trying to figure out (1) how much propaganda there is in the regular news we are getting from the regular news sources, including the press and government and various warring factions; (2) what and who makes the news propaganda (versus neutral reporting); and (3) how much propaganda there is in the news and hearsay we are getting from the unofficial and non-journalistic sources such as blogs and private correspondence.
I am considering cases where there is no known distortion of the facts, just a biased presentation. Those who misrepresent the facts are just liars, this is not very interesting.
The main goal is for me to decide how much trust to put into sources that do propaganda without lying. This is related to all sources: the press, government, and prvate ones.
I tend to take such sources with a huge grain of salt, but my experinece in the recent years tells me I am in a danger of losing almost all available sources. This is what happened to me during the Kosovo air campaign. The result is I still cannot form a definite opinion about that war.
Yes, the key word is "needlessly". If the war was needless then any small gestures seem hypocritical. Would you want someone who abused you horribly to come with condolences? Or would you feel this adds insult to injury?
And even if the war was needed, Rumsfeld planned it badly. (And he had all the time he needed to plan it properly -- he was the first to know it'll happen, he'd make sure it did!) I'm sure he has enough armor around him when he travels to Iraq. But he has told soldiers "why do you want armor, it won't protect you anyway". People are maimed because of his neglect, and now he comes with condolences?
When people say "Saddam should have been removed" it's as if the removal was the only consequence of the war. The question isn't "should have been removed or not" but "is the removal worth the cost", and the cost must include things such as the lowering of barrier to starting wars.
Also, the letter reminds me of "Lenin i pechnik". Which I think we can all agree was propaganda.
So, you think it is propaganda. I can agree with that.
This letter was pro-Rumsfeld (and pro-war etc), and it was honest. I saw honest letters that were anti-Rumsfeld and amti-war etc; I am sure you too have read such letters. Are they propaganda?
(I am skipping the references to Rumsfeld's alleged mishandling of the war preparation.)
I'm not sure what you're trying to determine. The word "propaganda" connotes unfair use/presentation of information, where the aim is not to find the truth but to achieve a pre-determined effect. Fahrenheit 9/11 was definitely propaganda. Here, the _letter_ itself seems heartfelt and isn't propaganda. But the use of the letter to paint Rumsfeld as a caring guy is propaganda.
>I am skipping the references to Rumsfeld's alleged mishandling of the war preparation.
Well I think they're most relevant here. If he did mishandle the war, he loses the moral right to pose for photo-ops with wounded soldiers.
I agree with the first part, but disagree with the second one. If a soldier wants to express his support to Rumsfeld, the latter should accept it, unless he himself thinks he is not deserving of it.
Well, it seems that notestaff is saying something else: Rumsfeld lost the moral right to ask for this soldier's support, not the legal right to accept it. BTW, as I recall, Rumsfeld was pretty reluctant in accepting the soldier's support, or even his hand, or even reluctant to talk to him in the first place. Although that may be not beucase he feels guilty, but simply because he's mean and green (a version I choose to accept and propagate), or lacks personal touch, or something like that.
>Rumsfeld lost the moral right to ask for this soldier's support
Not the right to ask for support. The right to flaunt this support before the telecameras. If Rumsfeld wants to show he cares about soldiers, he should first do all he can for their practical needs. If he didn't do that then his expressions of concern look fake, even if inside of him he feels he's being sincere.
And now let's see why we are all so high about the issue.
Insufficient troop protection. This is being reported by the press, right? Like the shark attacks a few years back, this is the news of the hour, a hot topic.
It would be natural to expect the Army to spin the issue as if there were no armor deficiency (which is not what they are saying), or as if there were nothing unusual about it (which is what they are saying). It is, unfortunately, just as natural to expect the press to spin it the other way, as a blunder on the part of the Secretary of Defence.
Now I have two questions. First: how do we get through the spin and get to know which way it is? Ans second: how do we get to know if this issue is important at all?
>The main goal is for me to decide how much trust to put into sources that do propaganda without lying.
There is no such thing as completely dispassionate reporting, reports are written by humans with opinions. You can only ask for sources that are "more" fact-based, not those that don't give any coloring to the reports.
>I think this is propaganda. :-)
No, it's a valid point. "Caring" for someone is expressed in deeds, not just words. So _if_ Rumsfeld did endanger soldiers needlessly (even in a needed war), his expressions of concern for soldiers ring hollow, and the whole interpretation of the incident described in the letter changes. And using the incident to portray Rumsfeld as a caring guy becomes all the more offensive propaganda.
But you are right: now this if is the key word. And it's a big if. (See what I just wrote in an answer to turgutbakmak up the thread.)
As for dispassionate reporting, of course this is rarely even possible. But often the way the spin works can be understood and then the text unspinned, so to speak. Yet sometimes the "unspinning" does not yield any useful information: whatever was there is getting lost in the process. In my experience, propaganda pieces are often constructed like that.
Я не знаю, как это воспримет "средний американский читатель". Лично мне было очень весело. Но и "Forrest Gump" для меня был очевидной, и очень остроумной, сатирой на американское общество, тогда как именно американское общество его восприняло всерьез и с восторгом.
Всё не так просто. Того же FG можно воспринимать на разных уровнях. На первичном уровне он очень сентиментальный. На следующем философский. На ещё более высоком, пожалуй, этнографический. (Дальше, наверно, идёт только постмодернистский.) Так вот я не уверен, что имеет смысл задерживаться на одном уровне и забывать о других.
Примерно так же и в случае с письмом. Можно, конечно, подшучивать над простотой и наивностью, либо прожжённостью и цинизмом, участников описанной истории. Но когда погуляешь по определённым местам Манхэттена (да и Москвы, а уж Израиля), кажется важным и более базисное восприятие.
Вот насчет "базисного восприятия" у меня и сомнения. Понятно, что любая эмоция, вызванная такими-то ощущениями (плюс жизненный опыт), будет базисной, и поэтому имеющей право на существование. Но откуда взялись эти ощущения, как они, после их появления, были подправлены специальным воздействием, вот тут я начинаю сомневаться. Просто из здравого смысла: большую часть осмысленной информации об окружающем мире человек получает не впрямую, а от других. А эти другие - обычно люди, которые умеют подавать информацию, и при этом еще другие люди им платят деньги. Так что "кому верить" - становится очень серьезным вопросом. Сорри, если что, пьяный очень :)
В FG титульный персонаж знал очень мало, а понимал ещё меньше. Но зато и сам не манипулировал людьми, не играл в эти игры. Там речь типа о том, что главное не что у человека в голове, а что в сердце (это я для очень пьяного).
То же самое, что в кино, бывает и в жизни, только редко в такой концентрированной форме.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
David Brooks explains, ''When you see someone talking about crying with a war widow, you know that's Bush.'' I would prefer a president who does not needlessly and recklessly create war widows to cry with.
Robert McKean
Newbury Park, Calif., Oct. 2, 2004
no subject
But my question still stands. Is this propaganda or not?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Neither is North Korea now. There is a ceasefire agreement which both sides more or less observe.
I am concerned about the Syrian and Iranean involvement in the Iraqi situation. Iran is a special case, but Syria could have been and should have been neutralized without a serious military involvement. Standards may have changed after 9/11, but I wonder how much.
This is strictly IMHO; I am not an expert. I just hate to see diplomats and military people fighting each other instead of fighting a common enemy.
no subject
no subject
For example, what I've written is my opinion of the situation in Iraq as a private person. I would like to propagate this view, however, so one can argue that in some sense it may be propaganda. But I lack the sufficient means for doing so, so it's more likely one guy's opinion than propaganda.
The soldier's reply to Rumsfeld may have been honest and heartfelt, as may have been the captain's (?) account of it. However, if this case is picked up, for example, by the army's or government's official PR machine in the way that contradicts the totality of the situation there, it would definitely become propaganda, whether it was true or not.
no subject
More precisely, not just the contents: the way a text is written may be part of the presentation, that is, "usage". The same facts and ideas might be put together in a more neutral way.
The main reason I have asked the question in the first place is that I am trying to figure out (1) how much propaganda there is in the regular news we are getting from the regular news sources, including the press and government and various warring factions; (2) what and who makes the news propaganda (versus neutral reporting); and (3) how much propaganda there is in the news and hearsay we are getting from the unofficial and non-journalistic sources such as blogs and private correspondence.
I am considering cases where there is no known distortion of the facts, just a biased presentation. Those who misrepresent the facts are just liars, this is not very interesting.
The main goal is for me to decide how much trust to put into sources that do propaganda without lying. This is related to all sources: the press, government, and prvate ones.
I tend to take such sources with a huge grain of salt, but my experinece in the recent years tells me I am in a danger of losing almost all available sources. This is what happened to me during the Kosovo air campaign. The result is I still cannot form a definite opinion about that war.
no subject
Many texts can be used as propoganda.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And even if the war was needed, Rumsfeld planned it badly. (And he had all the time he needed to plan it properly -- he was the first to know it'll happen, he'd make sure it did!) I'm sure he has enough armor around him when he travels to Iraq. But he has told soldiers "why do you want armor, it won't protect you anyway". People are maimed because of his neglect, and now he comes with condolences?
When people say "Saddam should have been removed" it's as if the removal was the only consequence of the war. The question isn't "should have been removed or not" but "is the removal worth the cost", and the cost must include things such as the lowering of barrier to starting wars.
Also, the letter reminds me of "Lenin i pechnik". Which I think we can all agree was propaganda.
no subject
This letter was pro-Rumsfeld (and pro-war etc), and it was honest. I saw honest letters that were anti-Rumsfeld and amti-war etc; I am sure you too have read such letters. Are they propaganda?
(I am skipping the references to Rumsfeld's alleged mishandling of the war preparation.)
no subject
The word "propaganda" connotes unfair use/presentation of information, where the aim is not to find the truth but to achieve a pre-determined effect. Fahrenheit 9/11 was definitely propaganda.
Here, the _letter_ itself seems heartfelt and isn't propaganda.
But the use of the letter to paint Rumsfeld as a caring guy is propaganda.
>I am skipping the references to Rumsfeld's alleged mishandling of the war preparation.
Well I think they're most relevant here. If he did mishandle the war, he loses the moral right to pose for photo-ops with wounded soldiers.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Not the right to ask for support. The right to flaunt this support before the telecameras. If Rumsfeld wants to show he cares about soldiers, he should first do all he can for their practical needs. If he didn't do that then his expressions of concern look fake, even if inside of him he feels he's being sincere.
no subject
Armor deficiency
Insufficient troop protection. This is being reported by the press, right? Like the shark attacks a few years back, this is the news of the hour, a hot topic.
It would be natural to expect the Army to spin the issue as if there were no armor deficiency (which is not what they are saying), or as if there were nothing unusual about it (which is what they are saying). It is, unfortunately, just as natural to expect the press to spin it the other way, as a blunder on the part of the Secretary of Defence.
Now I have two questions. First: how do we get through the spin and get to know which way it is? Ans second: how do we get to know if this issue is important at all?
I am still trying to figure it out.
Re: Armor deficiency
Kinda reminds me of this famous exchange about what Goldfinger expects of James Bond.
The whole war
no subject
I explained this in an answer to
>I am skipping the references to Rumsfeld's alleged mishandling of the war preparation.
Well I think they're most relevant here. If he did mishandle the war, he loses the moral right to pose for photo-ops with wounded soldiers.
I think this is propaganda. :-)
no subject
There is no such thing as completely dispassionate reporting, reports are written by humans with opinions. You can only ask for sources that are "more" fact-based, not those that don't give any coloring to the reports.
>I think this is propaganda. :-)
No, it's a valid point. "Caring" for someone is expressed in deeds, not just words. So _if_ Rumsfeld did endanger soldiers needlessly (even in a needed war), his expressions of concern for soldiers ring hollow, and the whole interpretation of the incident described in the letter changes. And using the incident to portray Rumsfeld as a caring guy becomes all the more offensive propaganda.
no subject
As for dispassionate reporting, of course this is rarely even possible. But often the way the spin works can be understood and then the text unspinned, so to speak. Yet sometimes the "unspinning" does not yield any useful information: whatever was there is getting lost in the process. In my experience, propaganda pieces are often constructed like that.
no subject
no subject
Примерно так же и в случае с письмом. Можно, конечно, подшучивать над простотой и наивностью, либо прожжённостью и цинизмом, участников описанной истории. Но когда погуляешь по определённым местам Манхэттена (да и Москвы, а уж Израиля), кажется важным и более базисное восприятие.
no subject
Просто из здравого смысла: большую часть осмысленной информации об окружающем мире человек получает не впрямую, а от других. А эти другие - обычно люди, которые умеют подавать информацию, и при этом еще другие люди им платят деньги. Так что "кому верить" - становится очень серьезным вопросом.
Сорри, если что, пьяный очень :)
no subject
То же самое, что в кино, бывает и в жизни, только редко в такой концентрированной форме.