Posted on 02/23/2007 9:37:21 AM PST by DJ Taylor
Nikita Khrushchev remarked to the New York Times on Sept. 29, 1957 that "The press is our chief ideological weapon." So it came as no surprise when North Vietnam's leader Ho Chi Minh echoed Mao Tse-tung's truism that by using the "media and elitist peace activists, an enemy of America could convince the American people" that they couldn't win a war. The trick was not to defeat the military - they knew they couldn't - but rather to use the media and activists to break the will of the American people. And the beat goes on. Pulitzer Prize winning liberal Arthur Schlesinger Jr. noted recently, referring to Vietnam, that "We suffered defeat in an unwinnable war... Vietnam was hopeless enough, but to repeat the same folly 30 years later in Iraq is unforgivable." Here we go again - breaking the will of the American people and our troops. Most military experts will point out that the Viet Cong were all but destroyed four years into the war when it went from insurgency to a more conventional war between the south and north. But the media convinced Americans that we had already lost. The most accurate similarity between the two wars is the manipulation of the public by the traditional media - from Walter Cronkite to Jon Stewart. (Yes, most 18- to 35-year-olds get their hard news from the Daily Show on Comedy Central.) The high priest of the print media, Joseph Pulitzer, commenting on the power of the press in 1947, said "The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalism of future generations."
(Excerpt) Read more at hernandotoday.com ...
5th column bump.
save
Good Lord! We were having this discussion in the kitchen this morning before leaving for work -- it's starting to sink in with us -- we're not alone. Whew! We thought we were on the endangered species list. It is becoming a daily experience for us. If I didn't think it sounds crazy, I'd say the walls were bugged. We say it here, it comes out there. Wha's-up? ;-)
They ARE!
Shut down your cable/satelite service. Why pay them to spread propoganda? You can get better news sports and entertainment off the internet anyway!
They try to think for us. They fail miserably.
Got that correctly on the nose.
In several responses to posts here at FR I have mentioned I refuse to watch television. This is the reason. I actually threw some TV sets out the door to crash onto the patio back in the 70's (Jimmuh Cahtah era) due the out and out lies I would hear from the news media. No newspapers either. I don't like being lied to.
I get my news from the articles here at FR the past few years. I know they are the same as in the MSM, but here at least I can post retorts to their duplicity, and members post many news articles and opinion articles that reflect quality journalism as well.
Then they got another thought commin'.
(I think.)
On many other posts, I've made the point that in the beginning of this great experiment called America, we were a close-knit group of people. Yes, we fought like cats and dogs over issues, were guilty of all original sin (envy/pride), but we talked to each other. We didn't have a monopoly feeding us information, we didn't need it -- we talked.
One of the greatest gifts the Internet has given us is the ability to reach across distances and share our experiences and facts. We can still beat up on one another, but we also reach out to each other with "knowledge" and "information". This forum (and others like it), however it is used and wherever the user is on the political spectrum -- it is the most cherished gift the world has ever received -- other than salvation -- and it just might be another arrow in the Almighty's quiver toward that end as well.
The internet brings us closer to the American experience at the time of the founding. Back then there were many printing presses. Notices and pamphlets and newsletters were printed and distributed to many people.
As the number of people in the country increased it became more and more difficult to print and distribute material to enough people to make a difference. The effective dissemination of information fell into the hands of a few. The internet has changed things back to the point where anyone can distribute information and opinion widely.
Because of this we should consider publication on the internet to be protected by the first amendment freedom of the press. Those who think the wide ranging availability information and disinformation is somehow antithetical to the ideas of the founders have no idea of what was being published back then.
I'm the same way, I only watch movies and such. A part of me is terrified that knowledge that I don't seek is constantly being put into my head. Latest example: Why do I need to know that Brittany Spears shaved her head, Who this K-Fed person was, that Anna Nicole Smith hadn't been buried yet. Not once have actively sought that information, but even without watching regular TV, it's knowledge I still have without my consent.
So long as you can have the chance for rebuttal of disinformation, I say go for broke. The more we talk, the more we think, the more we think, the more we do. That's the way we got-er done in the old days -- even when not everyone was able to read all those gol-danged fliers they distributed and the notices they posted in the town squares. At least we managed to know what was going on which I would think those in governance would appreciate. They don't have to be out of touch with their constituents anymore. No excuses.
I inadvertently chastened a young paralegal here yesterday when she was in angst over Britney Spears daily perils. I just looked up and said, "What I can't get is why anyone over the age of 14 would care." I saw shock on her face and realized we didn't see things in quite the same vein. I made a note to self to avoid that subject or temper my remarks to "How sad, it must be so difficult for you." WHAT??? I was just thinking out loud -- WHO KNEW?
Most often the movies you watch are by design subjecting you to messages of the Left subliminally or otherwise. Quite often blatantly. I don't even watch the movies because of that. I don't want to hear, or see their message as I don't consider their message as entertainment. Aren't movies supposed to be entertainment?
Her reaction had to be funnier than hell. But seriously, my theory is that the American republic is addicted to schaedenfraud(sp?). Taking pleasure in the misfortune of others.
The MSM, Oprah, Doctor Feel, all these (Entertainment type)shows do is allow people to look at others and relish their misfortune, just so they can feel better about themselves.
They are, I can handle a film's message, even if it's left wing, because I have the power to stop it. But because of the reasons you listed, that happens to be the reasons why I read alot more instead. I stick with my favorite stuff, sci-fi and history. the occasional horror book gets my attention as well. My imagination has always been better than the best special effects.
I heard a great sermon on that just the other day. The Pastor was talking about how we will be held accountable for things we never even thought about -- like gossip -- how damaging it can be. I had to really examine my propensity to sarcasm (which has been my stock and trade). I get the biggest kick out of dry humor, satire and the like. I just have to make sure the joke is on me and doesn't diminish anyone else.
But, you're right. After my initial shock that SHE was serious, it was all I could do to hide the smile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.