'Something Is Not A Secret Just Because You Don’t Know About It'

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Government control of media is one of the defining points of fascism.

Correct. Did the President gain airtime through coercion? Was Jon Stewart in peril of losing his job if he did not cooperate? Would the FCC, the relevant government body, have revoked the networks privileges? Are you implying that the President, as a public figure, does not have the right to associate with like minded citizens? Please expand upon your comment.

Rolling Stone on the matter...

This is just so entertaining.

I'm going to miss this guy. A lot.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
That's all well and good mate. But just because it happens to be something you/we agree with, it doesn't automatically mean it's not propaganda.

Indeed, and that's where evidence and facts come in.
You're still required to make a decision based on the available evidence, but it still doesn't redefine what propaganda is.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
To claim both the left and right leaning western governments aren't scratching a few backs, in order to get there message out though popular culture, is incredibly shortsighted, imo.

I haven't claimed that they're not, in fact far from it!
I just stated in a comment that Obama invited YouTube personalities to the White House to discuss things like the Affordable Care Act. It's no secret that he did this to help spread awareness of the program.

That's STILL NOT PROPAGANDA.
It's merely a government using media outlets to inform the public.
When it's lying, deceptive, intended to give the public a perception about something that they can't readily see for themselves, that is propaganda.

The problem here is that people are redefining that word to cover everything they don't like.
A company advertising a product on TV is not propaganda, a government informing their public of actual, real and genuine things through media is not propaganda either, a science show educating the audience is not propaganda.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Government control of media is one of the defining points of fascism.

You might want to tell Putin that, seeing as he has implemented laws to take full control of Russia's media industry, to the point of seizing companies from their owners, who then had to flee to America for safety.

And in comparison, you still have US broadcasters mocking your politicians.

Show me the wealth of comedy and satire produced in Russia directed at Putin or the Kremlin, I'll wait.

Care to source that?

Here, let me Google that for you...

Russia enacts 'draconian' law for bloggers and online media

Russian blogger law puts new restrictions on Internet freedoms

Legislative restrictions on popular bloggers come into force in Russia

Russia Quietly Tightens Reins on Web With ‘Bloggers Law’

Are people really becoming so desperate to deny reality that they refuse to even run a simple Google search and just hope the person making the point doesn't offer it?

originally posted by: justQ

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Now, you would have thought RT would know the difference, given that it is known to be a direct mouthpiece of the Kremlin, and given that the Kremlin actually DOES inflict media control, and actually DOES arrest, detain and imprison those who criticize it, and actually HAS implemented laws allowing even random bloggers to be

See this is what's wrong with the world

People like you not willing to tell the truth

ALL MAJOR news organisations like CNN fox MSNBC etc

Have full time CIA officer working with the editor to control the mainstream news

This fact came out even 20 years ago, and you have the audacity to dish it out at RT

No they do not. And why would they? Nobody would allow that. When the FCC was going monitor news agency's to measure how they may be slanting news story one way or the other it caused a crap storm of epic proportions from the media for just suggesting they might be monitored in anyway. And if that was remotely the media would not be broadcasting leaks all the damn time. We used to CNN the Classified News Network and would have loved to have had some control over them. Alas that was not the case. I am always amused by what people on the outside think the CIA does.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Government control of media is one of the defining points of fascism.

Correct. Did the President gain airtime through coercion? Was Jon Stewart in peril of losing his job if he did not cooperate? Would the FCC, the relevant government body, have revoked the networks privileges? Are you implying that the President, as a public figure, does not have the right to associate with like minded citizens? Please expand upon your comment.

The New York Times recently changed a headline for Hillary Clinton.
What if you were to find out that most of what you get to digest in media, whether news or entertainment was brought to you through the input of a central government figure or group of them?
I am not saying that is necessarily happening.
I have no proof.
I am saying that it is something to think about and keep watch to see if it does happen.
That's all.

a reply to: butcherguy

Did you know that Hillary Clinton is currently a private citizen and that freedom of the press allows newspapers to print anything they want, even if a private citizen requests it?

originally posted by: butcherguy
The New York Times recently changed a headline for Hillary Clinton.

Wrong.
The NYT recently changed a headline of a story when a complaint was received about the inaccuracy of that story and headline. They CHOSE to change it on review, probably after realizing that the wording used was not factually correct and could therefore presumably lead to legal action being taken.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: butcherguy
The New York Times recently changed a headline for Hillary Clinton.

Wrong.
The NYT recently changed a headline of a story when a complaint was received about the inaccuracy of that story and headline. They CHOSE to change it on review, probably after realizing that the wording used was not factually correct and could therefore presumably lead to legal action being taken.

All part of the planned technique.

Do the damage first and "correct" it later after the message is instilled.

Very effective.

'Something Is Not A Secret Just Because You Don’t Know About It'

Perhaps one of the most profound statements in the history of the Human Species.

originally posted by: xuenchen
All part of the planned technique.

Do the damage first and "correct" it later after the message is instilled.

Very effective.

I don't know about that story but the suggestion that a later retraction is more politically effective than not extending the desired message I would heartily agree with. I hope we all hold that consideration. A healthy scepticism is always wise position otherwise who knows how easily we might be be taken in by any seemingly innocuous suggestive question or statement.

xuenchen. Consider the narrative. Good reminder.