[Vision2020] Manufacturing Consent & Media

Fri Oct 13 22:20:05 PDT 2006

Bruce et. al.

The idea that media filters operate with a self conscious deliberate
conspiracy at work is explicitly discussed in Chomsky's "Manufacturing
Consent."  And the conclusion is reached that media filters sometimes
operate almost unconsciously, perhaps in some ways like ideational filters
in the human personality that will block information without conscious
intention, except on a mass social scale.

Consider that for many US patriots the idea that we may be undermining
fundamental civil and or human rights in the USA is "unthinkable."  This is
not possible in our freedom loving nation that is the world's shining light
for democracy, the savior of the free world during WWII.

Thus, events that suggest we are fundamentally undermining the very civil
and human rights that are basic to democracy will be filtered...
unconsciously, in the media and elsewhere.

Ted Moffett

On 10/11/06, Bruce and Jean Livingston <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
>  Ted, apology accepted, and indeed, not necessary.
>
> I agree that the debate and media coverage was slanted, in that it focused
> on the definition of torture and potential impacts on Geneva Convention
> protections without much mention of the prohibition of habeas corpus rights
> to non-combatants.  I have not read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent."  And
> when I declined to speculate on why the debate/legislation was so focused,
> or the legislation was so written, it appears that I misunderstood your
> question to me.  But I still can't suggest that there is a conspiracy to
> omit the habeas corpus part of the story on the part of the media, when I
> don't really know that, and deep down I am guessing that they just think
> that arguments about torture are more sexy and sell more papers.
>
> Bruce
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* Bruce and Jean Livingston <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>
>  *Cc:* Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:52 AM
> *Subject:* Manufacturing Consent & Media
>
>
> Bruce et. al.
>
> Thanks for your detailed response...
>
> Perhaps stating in broad terms that you are above "hoi polloi plebian"
> speculation was a hasty and ill advised ad hominem oriented statement,
> of the sort I usually try to avoid on Vision2020...
>
> I am sorry!
>  But you did not address the primary focus of my earlier concerns, which
> dealt with the debate, both in the US Congress and in the news
> media, regarding the recent congressional legislation on detainee legal
> issues in the "war on terror," which I believe did not aggressively inform
> the public about the details of the gutting of habeas corpus, before the
> legislation went to a vote, not with reading anyones mind.
>
> Perhaps you have never read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky...?
>
> When fundamental issues and facts regarding public decision making are not
> prominently discussed and debated in news media, or in the US Congress,
> while other issues dominate the conversation, one does not have to be a
> "mind reader" to point out the debate was "slanted" a certain way, that
> critical facts or information were ignored or marginalized (I don't think
> "speculation" is the correct word, because when it can be determined by a
> survey of the news media that critical issues or facts about pending
> legislation in the US Congress were not featured prominently in the public
> debate, this is not speculation, it is a fact).
>
> It appears we misunderstood each other?
>
> The "rapscallions" are those who control debate and media information to
> serve their ends, misinforming, marginalizing or slanting the information
> the public receives in the process.  I do not need to read the actual
> contents of anyones mind to recognize that this sort of process is
> occurring, a process most people recognize, regardless of their political
> orientation.
>
> Who doubts this is a critical issue when misinformation, and the
> downplaying of critical counter views, is utilized in the process
> of bringing a nation to war?  I can't read Bush's mind regarding his
> intentions in the invasion of Iraq (Was he sincerely trying to bring
> democracy and freedom to the Middle East, or just protecting oil resources?
> Did he really believe Iraq represented a serious national security threat to
> the USA via WMDs, or just using WMDs as a scare tactic to manipulate the
> public and the US Congress into buying his "oil war?"), but I can discover
> that some of the critical "facts" he presented to the nation to justify this
> invasion were seriously in doubt, and that other critical facts and credible
> sources that contradicted Bush statements, were not prominently featured in
> the media, during the months in the lead up to the war.
>
> By the way, one of the most interesting subjects in philosophy regards the
> existence of other minds.  I find it amazing how easily people assume they
> know the contents of other people's minds, given the astonishing complexity
> of human personality and the human mind (brain?).  In this easy ridiculous
> assumption we so readily know the contents of other peoples minds, is
> perhaps a clue to why people so often do not understand each other.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
> On 10/10/06, Bruce and Jean Livingston <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >  Ted, you rapscallion!
> >
> > Indeed last night's MCA reservoir forum was an opportunity to
> > "speculate" on what might be done to address local concerns about water
> > supply, including as a primary focus, trying to address reservoir issues
> > like where would it be; how many, one or a series; what would it cost; how
> > would we pay for one; is it a good idea or not; etc., etc.  The short answer
> > for Nils is that everyone seemed to agree on the need for a feasibility
> > study, and that a site up on the forested, granite slabs near Moscow
> > Mountain seemed promising for a variety of reasons -- cleanliness, less
> > silt, less leakage, less expensive land, and perhaps more recreational
> > opportunity.
> >
> > Now, for those not privy to my private message to Ted, in which I
> > declined to "speculate" on whether the real reason for recent federal
> > legislation that grossly limits the availability of habeas corpus was to
> > eviscerate habeas corpus (as opposed merely to limiting torture in the name
> > of fighting the war on terror, [as I try to recall the question he posed]),
> > let me say this, so that I may try to shed his label about me being "above"
> > such speculatory "hoi polloi plebian activity."
> >
> > Habeas corpus has been grossly limited in numerous ways and is
> > continually under attack, not only for non-citizens labeled non-combatants,
> > but for citizens who reside in this country.  I disagree with the various
> > attempts to limit the writ of habeas corpus, whether it be done to
> > non-combatants or citizens on death row.  Limiting habeas corpus directly
> > correlates to increasing the likelihood that the innocent languish in
> > prison.  Period.  It was important enough to explicitly protect in the
> > Constitution (Suspension clause -- Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 2), when the Framers
> > of the Constitution recalled George III and his tyranny and abuse of the
> > citizenry through extended incarceration without charges.  The writ of
> > habeas corpus is just as important now.
> >
> > I  found myself roundly applauding Garrison Keillor's condemnation of
> > the Senate for caving in on the afore-mentioned legislation, gutting habeas
> > corpus, and handing President Bush more tools with which he will cede the
> > moral high ground and bring us down, closer to the level of our enemies.  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610040035oct04,1,2100411.column
> >
> > And Ted, I still don't care to speculate on trying to discern the
> > reasons of discrete politicians for agreeing to certain language.  I can't
> > read their minds.  What matters is the plain language that gets enacted.
> > But I do agree with the importance of the topic and appreciate your
> > heartfelt postings on an important subject of debate.
> >
> > Bruce Livingston
> >
> >
> >
> >  ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> > *To:* Bruce and Jean Livingston <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>
> > *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:09 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruce et. al.
> >
> > The intentions of this MCA meeting sound like speculation about whether
> > a reservoir is a reasonable solution to the Palouse's future water needs...
> >
> > I thought you did not engage in "speculation" on Vision2020?
> >
> > Perhaps this post is just advertising a meeting where "speculation" will
> > occur, so you are not engaging in those lowly thought provoking perhaps
> > incorrect ideas that come under the heading of "speculation," on
> > Vision2020.
> >
> > You are above that sort of hoi polloi plebian activity, after all...
> >
> > Still respecting your commitment to human rights...
> >
> > Ted Moffett
> >
> >
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061013/774947f4/attachment.htm 