Liberal "Propaganda" Cannot Exist

[The Minus World]

Some conservatives (and liberals) have taken the misstep of using the term "propaganda" when referring to liberal sources of media. Here is my opinion on how the term "liberal propaganda" is nothing but a spectre:

As stated in Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 reader, propaganda is disseminated by a ruling party; it endeavors to obscure truth, and replace it with fallacious opinion. Such would be of benefit to those who strive to maintain power.

For liberals to effectively distribute "propaganda", one would have to believe - rather erringly - that liberals control a majority of media outlets, and that they must use a systemic approach of distortion and disinformation, in order to galvanize the message of their party.

Now, one might wander into Barnes & Noble, only to be faced with row upon row of books dedicated to criticism and confrontation of an increasingly unpopular Bush administration. Resultantly, on the surface, one might be led to believe that this is the work of some insidious tentacle belonging to a leviathan of progressive thought - a conspiracy of radical leftists, determined to undermine the strength of a representative democracy by shaping public opinion to suit their own self-interested agenda. This couldn't be further from the truth, and it borders on projection.

Americans have largely woken up to the incongruities between the Bush administration's policies, and their own political, spiritual and philosophical beliefs. As I previously stated, such opinions are increasingly finding representation in various media of self-expression. Therefore, it is not unthinkable that, for purposes of simple self-preservation, many major news networks are now adopting a more critical stance on the current administration's policies.

This shift in popular discourse, however, is not the work of liberal activists within media outlets, but, rather, the work of public pressure on those media outlets to reflect popular opinion.

The inundation of bookstores with anti-Bush material (as opposed to pro-Bush/pro-war material) comes as a very encouraging sign, as it thrives against all odds, in a society whose popular media chooses not to reflect the current of public opinion.

Individual authors, unrestrained by an alleigance to the narrow values of modern-day "conservatism", are attempting to uphold a semblance of journalistic integrity. However, they are forced to exist in the shadow of a corporate-owned media entity that has drifted from right-of-center, to far-right, as a result of masterfully controlled post-9/11 hysteria. "Liberal media"? I see nothing short of a groundswell of disgruntled Americans searching for scraps of truth, anywhere they may be available.

Conclusion: liberal-leaning books - not propaganda; SwiftBoat smear campaigns, and their ilk - propaganda.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. kick

[NMDemDist2]

2. kicked and nominated n/t

[The Traveler]

3. Uh ... that is almost as Orwellian

as what comes out of Roves mouth. No offense, but we must be careful to not become overmuch like those we oppose. The Chinese have an old proverb that goes something along the lines of "The dragon slayer becomes like the dragon."

Hitler employed propaganda long before he achieved power.

HOW we win is important. If we win through the use of character asassination, distortion of truth, repetitive use of the Big Lie then we will have lost the WHY.

That being said, I do not regard F9/11 as propaganda ... while slanted there is no systematic attempt to deceive the public.

[The Minus World]

4. I'm not sure you read correctly,

This is not a primer on the use of propaganda. It's an essay on how many Americans are deceived into believing there is such a thing as "liberal propaganda."

[The Traveler]

5. I got that point

Where I disagree is that I think there is.

My point is that one does not have to be in power to deploy propaganda.

We are locked in a fierce battle for the future of America. It is my view we are confronted (to use simplistic terms) by evil forces which threaten the very foundation of American Democracy. (In my opinion we are fighting fascism in America, but I digress.) It is only human to want to fight back with the same weapons these forces have successfully employed, and I think some liberals have done this.

This is contrary to the liberal impulse, which is based on a healthy respect for the importance of truth in the achievement of the public good. So it is a long time since it has gotten out of hand. (Though there some really low moments back in the 70's.) And at its worst liberal propaganda has failed to achieve the depths routinely achieved by Rove and his goons.

Still, desperate folk will sometimes do unwise things. I am concerned that the "Dragon slayer becoming like the dragon" syndrome takes over.

For example, I never want the liberal movement to produce its own Ann Coulter.

[The Minus World]

6. Agreed.

Some have turned politics into a sport, and issues of life and death into footballs. Rooting for, and uncritically embracing either "team", is a symptom of man's tendency towards accepting groupthink, no matter what the individual's affiliation is. I've seen many examples of such willingness to "win at all costs" during my trips to scoop up chatter on random conservative message boards; although, this board isn't free of such sentiment, either.

There are many who would unflinchingly employ the same tactics Rove uses, in order to defeat him. It is important for us to understand that (as you say) we must not become the beast in the process of destroying it. I have issue with individuals who deign to fight dirty in order to acheive cleanliness; however, I think that seldom few (if any) liberals have stooped to such extremes as Rove has.

And, you must also remember that Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and their doppelgangers, rely on distortion after distortion of the truth, in order to create the illusion of unity and consistency within their party. I believe that such behaviour is not hard-wired into a more liberal, fact-based, realistic way of thinking.

[rfrrfrrfr]

7. Its worse than that.

Those in charge on the conservative side and many who follow them are inflexible and very narrowminded. They carry a lot of pre-concieved ideas which are reinforced daily by Limbaugh, hannity and the bush administration. Whenever these people encounter reality that does not square with their preconcieved ideas the information is liberaly biased, incorrect or can't be true.

PBS is a prime example of this according to the repulican/neo-con it is a bastion of liberal propaganda and lies. The reality is it reports things as they are and as they are understood by today's scientists. But because much of the real world and the facts in them go against their pre-concieved world view its liberal and biased.

We on the otherhand when confronted with facts and other evidence that shows our initial view to be incorrect or misinformed don't say well it can't be true. We go research and verify that yes what we were just told is in fact true and since we were wrong in the first place we change our
view/s rather than say reality is biased or false.

It comes from the nature of being liberal, always questioning what we see and read when we don't know the source or the material very well and then going and doing the research needed to verify or refute. Critical thinking and questioning authority are two of our mainstays and both seem to be very lacking in the supporters of the bush administration.

You can even see it when they post on forums you visit. They post one claim or another as fact without any material to back them up and it takes us 10 seconds to google the information or a few minutes to look it up in the local library 99% of the time they have their facts wrong and are just regurgitating what they have heard without ever bothering to check to see if its true or not.

While there are people on the liberal side who can be just as blind and stuborn there are far fewer of them just from the questioning nature of being a liberal.

[The Traveler]

10. On review, it is clear

we are on the same page.

[MatrixEscape]

8. I am not so pleased

With the use of the word propaganda as, in itself, a negative term. Any information that is spread for the purpose of promoting a cause is propaganda. That applies to politics, religion, and so on.

Oddly, it seems that the frequent combination of the words Communist and propaganda has altered its original meaning. And yet, the word "agitprop" does not seem to have made it into the mainstream. That word conveys the implication that propaganda now has, and it is more precise, while still carrying the Communist undertone. It is a good alternative and fresh.

I see a lot of obvious agitprop issuing from the Right, especially the kind that is created primarily as a counter-attack on an original idea, message, or documentary from the Left, e.g., Faren-HYPE, Stolen Honor, etc.

[blitzen]

9. you nailed it....n/t

[Selwynn]

11. Outstanding

[jdots]

12. Reaction question

Where does reaction confront logic

[Selwynn]

13. I'm not sure what you mean?