[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
I understand your point, but it raises a question – where do you (either you-**mswas **or you-society in general) draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable?
Perhaps it would help your point if you can give three hypotheticals. First, an absurd example of a similar operation (media/propaganda) that clearly crosses the line; second, a situation that falls somewhere closer to the line – a gray area that would have you raising your eyebrow; and third, a situation that is clearly innocuous.
Of course, it’s possible—and conceivably rational—that you (not to waggle a finger directly at you or mischaracterize you based on a couple posts) don’t think there is a line, that the Executive branch should be unfettered in their attempts to sway public opinion. If this is the case, can you rationalize the overall outcome on society, and what would happen should a powerful, charismatic president whose beliefs you strongly disagree with would do with such power?
Lastly, I could be reading your post wrong. Do you mean to distinguish between considering it a wrong action, and acting surprised by its revelation?
[/QUOTE]
It’s only limited by the ability to counter the disinformation. We live in a society of spin. That’s not going to change. Managing psychology and the neurolinguistic imprints of society are big businesses, and that’s a more fundamental level than simply managing information. We have factions seeking to manage HOW you think, let alone WHAT you think. There is no such thing as a neutral point of view in this context. Politics is as much about creating reality as it is about reflecting it. They are sharing the opinion they want you to have, it’s important to recognize this. It’s a matter of better critical thinking. We call them on their shit when they are wrong, but getting incensed that they are pushing an agenda is pointless. Everyone is pushing an agenda.
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
People respect authority, and seek authoritative opinions. In and of itself that isn’t wrong. But, you have to keep in mind what you are asking. If you want to know how to fight a battle, you ask a military man. If you want to know whether to fight a battle, you need an unbiased source.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Them too. But the grifter is always more to blame than the mark.
[/QUOTE]
In this case ‘the mark’ is the American public, not the networks.
The Pentagon didn’t sit down and say “Let’s fool the networks into presenting our viewpoint in the best possible light” rather they decided to “fool the people into supporting us without question”.
I’d like to see the Times turn this analysis (such as it is - much of it looks like dressed up innuendo to me) on the thousands of talking heads on TV and in print representing all sorts of industry and interest groups nobody knows much about.
Name a topic - farm policy, education, energy policy, whatever, and the talking heads come out. Everybody knows why they do - anchors and producers know next to nothing about the stories they cover, and talking heads at least know their stuff. But I don’t know anyone who thinks these stories are sourced particularly well - it falls to eagle eyed people like us to spot biases and conflicts of interest and report them.
So the Pentagon talked to people who were actually going to be on TV? Big deal. A real scandal is that oftentimes these guys and a very few defense beat reporters are the only ones actually asking questions in the first place. I was just posting in another thread about awful Army barracks conditions - I found in no time a FY 1994 Army report saying they planned to have their barracks modernization done in 23 years. Now, did the press raise a big outcry in the mid-1990s over this fact? I never saw it.
So, if they didn’t make a stink about that, then they can’t say anything about this? Do you really think a scandal in the procurement sector rises to the level of propagandizing for war?
