Contributors

Saturday, August 13, 2011

14 Points

Cynthia Boaz's recent post regarding the 14 propaganda techniques used by Fox News to brainwash Americans should be extended to the entire right wing pundit machine...especially the right wing blogsphere. Here are a few that jumped out at me.

3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

Hilarious! And very true. This happens on my site constantly and when it occurs from now on, I'm simply going to respond by cutting and pasting this paragraph. In fact, many of her points are salient when it comes to some of my regular readers so I foresee much cutting and pasting in the future.

Here are some other notable mentions.

4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.

Several of my readers suffer from this but this is part and parcel to the adolescent power fantasy.

All in all, I found her points to be completely accurate and an excellent summation of the conversational framework with the right these days. Sadly, I don't see it changing any time too soon but her points have inspired me to summarize something that has been kicking around in my head right now.

Why is that the money of wealthy people is "hard earned" yet the money of poor people, who often work two or three jobs, is not?

16 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

Several of my readers suffer from this but this is part and parcel to the adolescent power fantasy.

So it seems do several of the authors of this blog.

Why is that the money of wealthy people is "hard earned" yet the money of poor people, who often work two or three jobs, is not?

Another voice in your head M? The only ones here who ever complain about "unearned" money are the eat-the-rich crowd.

Juris Imprudent said...

Hey, that's pretty funny putting up a critique of the right-wing blogosphere from the left-wing blogosphere.

Or are you claiming truthout is an unbiased source?

Anonymous said...

3. Projection/Flipping.

You mean like awarding government largesse, and mandating private sector largesse, based on people's ethnicity, gender and/or sexual orientation, and then calling those who object to such practice racists, sexists and homophobes?

4. Rewriting History.

You mean like, for example, portraying Che Guevara as other than a mass murderer? Or claiming that John Kerry isn't regarded as a hero by the Communist Vietnamese?

Just trying to be clear on what does and does not qualify.

Mark Ward said...

Yes, Anon, I think you've done an excellent job of illustrating both of those points:)

Anonymous said...

Just trying to be clear on what does and does not qualify.

Did you miss this sentence? Or are you being deliberately ambiguous?

Do you contend that the first example is not an example of projection, but calling attention to it is?

Are you suggesting that the second is an example of history that has been rewritten (Che was not a mass murderer, the Vietnamese do not regard Kerry as a hero), or are you suggesting that those points are in fact accurate, and that history has been rewritten to conceal them?

Your current answer is the equivalent of "yes" in response to an either/or question. Is this post intended to actually inform, or is it solely an outlet for smartass tendencies? Please understand, I obviously have no problem with smartass, but when smartass is mistaken for genuine information, problems arise.

Larry said...

I would've been a lot more impressed by Ms. Boaz's post if she could've taken a modicum of time and effort to actually come up with some examples of what she claims Fox News does as a matter of course. You know -- evidence.

For example, I'm flummoxed by this assertion: "We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism,". Now I see this all the time from the left, where anybody bothered by massive illegal immigration is routinely smeared as racists, regardless of how anti-racist they may actually be. However, I'm having trouble thinking of a similar instance of where Fox News paints pro-illegal immigrant activists as racists, except of course for the La Raza types who are quite proudly racist. Perhaps Mark can enlighten us with some actual examples? He claims to completely understand and empathize with Boaz's claims, so maybe he can back those claims up? How about it, Mark? Got some actual examples to use as evidence? Or is my asking for that another example of how you're being oppressed?

Mark Ward said...

Larry, it takes all of one second to look at what happened with Sonia Sotomayor to see a great example of Projection/Flipping. I think you are missing the point.

Santa said...

Larry's response to projection/flipping is to project/flip. Another classic for this blog!

Larry said...

Asking for fucking evidence and examples is not projection, you flipping morons. And what in hell are you talking about regarding Sotomayor in regard to immigration?

Juris Imprudent said...

Or are you being deliberately ambiguous?

I believe the word you were looking for there is disingenuous.

Seems that M is suffering from a rather major breakout of that condition.

Larry said...

Why is that the money of wealthy people is "hard earned" yet the money of poor people, who often work two or three jobs, is not?

Nobody has said that except you and other ignorant, deluded, and or dishonest liberals, Mark. Why do you hate poor people so?

Anonymous said...

For the record, define "racism", please. It's obvious we're not meaning the same thing by the use of that word.

Larry said...

I'm still waiting for the linkage between Sotomayor (anti-racist as the libs would have it, the idea of wise Latina able to offer better court decisions because she is Latina left aside for now) being labelled as racist by Fox News over her immigration views. And all I hear are crickets chirping. Buehler? Buehler?

Anonymous said...

Since you apparently decline to offer your definition of racism, I'll provide one, courtesy of Wikipedia:

"Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined, and that, as a consequence, racial discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally) is justified."

Would you care to offer your own definition? Or would you rather explain how La Raza and Sonia Sotomayer are "anti racist" by the definition above?

Larry said...

Nothing but crickets chirping from the Proggy chorus...

Typical.

Anonymous said...

My my, this thread has gone dead.

So you're anxious to use the "14 points" as ammo, but apparently it's only ammo rather than a factual part of any debate, right? Since after all, you have spent most of a week steadfastly ignoring the only thread in which you were challenged on the validity of any of those 14...

Mark, you are forever being condescending about how you'd be willing to have an actual debate if others would stop attacking and start using facts... your response (silence) here suggests that debate is lower on your priority list than poo-flinging, since you demand the right to use your 14 points to fling poo with, but decline to have the debate to make them valid (or not) points.