Booman’s latest front page post (3/19/12, 10AM EDT) is titled This Is Ideological Warfare.
In it, he writes:
There have been several studies (e.g. this one) over the last few years that have shown that Fox News viewers are not just more misinformed than consumers of other news outlets; they are more misinformed than people who watch no news programming at all. In other words, if you watch Fox News, you are going to be misled and you will form opinions based on lies. This fact alone should lead civic-minded citizens to worry about the negative impact of right-wing news organizations…
Really, man.
Have can you possibly have not yet realized that all major media news is misinformation? (All major media content of any kind, to be accurate.)
Misinformation? It’s either that or disinformation, actually.
“Ideological warfare?” You bet. Across the board. With the exception of about 1% or less of what is available in the mass media, the content is all “ideological,” all of the time. And that ideology is entirely economic imperialist in nature. Bet on it.
Fox’s “news” is just simpler to decipher because it is aimed at older and/or stupider viewers.
Booman continues:
It’s one thing, after all, to disseminate news with a political perspective. It’s quite another to simply replace news with completely nonfactual information and perspectives. The former is normal political debate; the latter is simple disinformation. It’s this making-people-stupid element of the Mighty Right-Wing Wurlitzer that makes it an appropriate target for more than just Democrats, but concerned and responsible citizens of all stripes.
No Booman, you are wrong. “Political perspective” during these corporate-owned PermaGov media days means disinformation.
All you have to do is listen to the talk that Noam Chomsky gave at last spring’s 25th Anniversary celebration of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) to get a good picture of what’s really up with the media.
Read on for more.
In his own gentle, self-deprecating and deceptively meandering way, Professor Chomsky literally stripped the U.S. and major U.S. allied media bare…so-called “liberal” media, centrist media, right-wing media, just about all media…regarding anything other than their total disinfo/misinfo status. Either those who run the media are totally unaware of the truth(s) of the matter…thus dispersing misinformation…or they are perfectly conscious of what they are doing and are acting in the capacity of disinformation specialists. Unlike almost everything else in this world there is no middle ground possible here, because the lies are so blatant and so easily seen through once one realizes what is happening that a smart 10 year-old could figure out what’s up in about 15 minutes of web search. Why is this kind of realization not happening across the general population of the media-controlled world? Mass hypnosis is the only answer that makes any sense to me. A mass trance state created by the complete suspension of disbelief that is required for people to spend a lifetime daily consuming vast amounts of mass media-produced bullshit.
For those of you with an aversion to looking directly at the face of truth that is plainly apparent in the above video, I give you some written samples of what Professor Chomsky said as he deconstructed the lie machine that is Omertica’s media. He concentrated on the U.S. attempt to jury-rig another U.S. owned regime in Egypt and thus shore up/continue U.S. control of Middle Eastern oil…a policy that continues unabated today, believe it… but it goes up and down the whole system. Politics, culture, local news, entertainment of every variety…the works.
If you still don’t get what is happening after reading/listening to Professor Chomsky’s message here, then you are absolutely beyond hope.
The U.S. and its allies will do anything they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world. The reason is very simple. Across the region, an overwhelming majority of the population regards the United States as the main threat to their interests. In fact, opposition to U.S. policy is so high that a considerable majority think the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons. In Egypt, the most important country, that’s 80 percent. Similar figures elsewhere. There are some in the region who regard Iran as a threat — about 10 percent. Well, plainly, the U.S. and its allies are not going to want governments which are responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not only will the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out. So that’s obviously an intolerable result.
—snip—
…another near historical universal. You check history, virtually every resort to force, by whoever it is, is accompanied by the most noble rhetoric. It’s all completely humanitarian. That includes Hitler taking over Czechoslovakia, the Japanese fascists rampaging in northeast China. In fact, it’s Mussolini in Ethiopia. There’s hardly any exceptions. So you produce that, and the media and commentators present — pretend they don’t notice that it has no — carries no information, because it’s reflexive.
And then — but in this case, they could also add something else, which has been repeated over and over again, namely, the U.S. and its allies were intervening in response to a request by the Arab League. And, of course, we have to recognize the importance of that. Incidentally, the response from the Arab League was tepid and was pretty soon rescinded, because they didn’t like what we were doing. But put that aside. At the very same time, the Arab League produced — issued another request. Here’s a headline from a newspaper: “Arab League Calls for Gaza No-Fly Zone.” Actually, I’m quoting from the London Financial Times. That wasn’t reported in the United States. Well, to be precise, it was reported in the Washington Times, but basically blocked in the U.S., like the polls, like the polls of Arab public opinion, not the right kind of news. So, “Arab League Calls for Gaza No-Fly Zone,” that’s inconsistent with U.S. policy, so that, we don’t have to honor and observe, and that disappeared.
Now, there are some polls that are reported. So here’s one from the New York Times a couple days ago. I’ll quote it. It said, “The poll found that a majority of Egyptians want to annul the 1979 peace treaty with Israel that has been a cornerstone of Egyptian foreign policy and the region’s stability.” Actually, that’s not quite accurate. It’s been a cornerstone of the region’s instability, and that’s exactly why the Egyptian population wants to abandon it. The agreement essentially eliminated Egypt from the Israel-Arab conflict. That means eliminated the only deterrent to Israeli military action. And it freed up Israel to expand its operations — illegal operations — in the Occupied Territories and to attack its northern neighbor, to attack Lebanon. Shortly after, Israel attacked Lebanon, killed 20,000 people, destroyed southern Lebanon, tried to impose a client regime, didn’t quite make it. And that was understood. So the immediate reaction to the peace treaty in Israel was that there are things about it we don’t like — we’re going to have to abandon our settlements in the Sinai, in the Egyptian Sinai. But it has a good side, too, because now the only deterrent is gone; we can use force and violence to achieve our other goals. And that’s exactly what happened. And that’s exactly why the Egyptian population is opposed to it. They understand that, as does everyone in the region.
On the other hand, the Times wasn’t lying when they said that it led to the region’s stability. And the reason is because of the meaning of the word “stability” as a technical meaning. Stability is — it’s kind of like democracy. Stability means conformity to our interests. So, for example, when Iran tries to expand its influence in Afghanistan and Iraq, neighboring countries, that’s called “destabilizing.” It’s part of the threat of Iran. It’s destabilizing the region. On the other hand, when the U.S. invades those countries, occupies them, half destroys them, that’s to achieve stability. And that is very common, even to the point where it’s possible to write — former editor of Foreign Affairs — that when the U.S. overthrew the democratic government in Chile and instituted a vicious dictatorship, that was because the U.S. had to destabilize Chile to achieve stability. That’s in one sentence, and nobody noticed it, because that’s correct, if you understand the meaning of the word “stability.” Yeah, you overthrow a parliamentary government, you install a dictatorship, you invade a country and kill 20,000 people, you invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people — that’s all bringing about stability. Instability is when anyone gets in the way.
—snip—
And you dare to criticize Fox News? How is it any worse than a media that uses the “words” stability” and “instability” in such a grossly false manner?
Please.
Time’s getting short.
Please.
Wake the fuck up.
Station WTFU once again signing off.
And now the newzs…
President Obama today signed yet another bill for the good of humanity…
Please!!!
AG