Chomsky: Trump is a distraction

[Koyaanisqatsi]

my point is wtih Obama, coverage of drone strikes was an ongoing thing. Now strikes are accelerated, but it's not even on the mainstream radar. An example supporting Chomsky's argument.

Except that it is most definitely on the mainstream's radar. I just took this screenshot:



Note the different dates and publications as well as the 665,000 number of hits my search generated.

Like I said, it's low hanging fruit, the intellectual equivalent of whataboutism. All anyone has to do is say something along the lines of what you just said, "The mainstream media isn't covering it!" And yet...they are, you're just not paying attention because it's basically impossible to constantly read ten different news sources simultaneously at all times.

Does that mean that the msm is perfect? Far from it. Does it mean that the msm is not essentially/effectively controlled by its conservative ownership? Absolutely not. Any objective check on msm bias will definitely yield an emphasis on right wing/conservative issues, but is that necessarily a result of ownership bias or the fact that the right wing knows better how to manipulate the press? If it bleeds, it ledes. Republicans bleed all over the fucking place constantly.

Plus, it's not binary; it's not either/or. Sometimes there's political bias/influence from the ownership on down; sometimes there's pushback and journalists and editors standing their ground; sometimes there are fuck ups; sometimes there are pulitzer prize winning pieces that turn out to be plagiarized or straight up fiction. As with ALL human institutions, it's a clusterfuck, which simply means that it's every citizen's duty to act as the superior judge and do their homework (find primary sources, always; never re-quoting a reporter's hearsay or interpretation), that kind of thing.

Chomsky used to say something that I found primarily true and insightful, which was that to get the most accurate news in a capitalist/corporatist society like ours, you had to read the papers that the money managers read (i.e., the Wall Street Journal). Well, now the WSJ is owned by Murdoch. So that means, you have to dig deeper (or boot up McLuhan).

The "tl;dr" lulz culture birthed by the interwebz is really what's fucked us all over. It's Syme's dream (Orwell's nightmare) coming true. In the age of information, more forces people to use less and less forces people to abandon depth.

But there is hope. Twitter expanded to 280 characters. So, you know...there's that....

 

[Horatio Parker]

So you support a program you don't care about. Ok.

No. As Koyaanisqatsi, pointed out, it's a better than invading entire countries. For some reason you think you've caught me in some godawful contradiction, but the fact is that the drone program is something I don't think is relevant to this discussion, nor is it of primary importance right now. Take up this particular argument with someone else.

I'm not arguing for or against drones.

What has changed with Trump dominating coverage is that some issues are less visible, and therefore less discussed than before.

Whether you don't care about things you support is your issue, I merely commented. Sounds strange to me, but I can live with it.

 

[Horatio Parker]

my point is wtih Obama, coverage of drone strikes was an ongoing thing. Now strikes are accelerated, but it's not even on the mainstream radar. An example supporting Chomsky's argument.

Except that it is most definitely on the mainstream's radar. I just took this screenshot:

View attachment 15733

Note the different dates and publications as well as the 665,000 number of hits my search generated.

Like I said, it's low hanging fruit, the intellectual equivalent of whataboutism. All anyone has to do is say something along the lines of what you just said, "The mainstream media isn't covering it!" And yet...they are, you're just not paying attention because it's basically impossible to constantly read ten different news sources simultaneously at all times.

Does that mean that the msm is perfect? Far from it. Does it mean that the msm is not essentially/effectively controlled by its conservative ownership? Absolutely not. Any objective check on msm bias will definitely yield an emphasis on right wing/conservative issues, but is that necessarily a result of ownership bias or the fact that the right wing knows better how to manipulate the press? If it bleeds, it ledes. Republicans bleed all over the fucking place constantly.

Plus, it's not binary; it's not either/or. Sometimes there's political bias/influence from the ownership on down; sometimes there's pushback and journalists and editors standing their ground; sometimes there are fuck ups; sometimes there are pulitzer prize winning pieces that turn out to be plagiarized or straight up fiction. As with ALL human institutions, it's a clusterfuck, which simply means that it's every citizen's duty to act as the superior judge and do their homework (find primary sources, always; never re-quoting a reporter's hearsay or interpretation), that kind of thing.

Chomsky used to say something that I found primarily true and insightful, which was that to get the most accurate news in a capitalist/corporatist society like ours, you had to read the papers that the money managers read (i.e., the Wall Street Journal). Well, now the WSJ is owned by Murdoch. So that means, you have to dig deeper (or boot up McLuhan).

The "tl;dr" lulz culture birthed by the interwebz is really what's fucked us all over. It's Syme's dream (Orwell's nightmare) coming true. In the age of information, more forces people to use less and less forces people to abandon depth.

But there is hope. Twitter expanded to 280 characters. So, you know...there's that....

So the mainstream media is reporting, but in the age of Murdoch you have to dig deeper...sorry that's not much of an insight. And not inconsistent with the all knowing and powerful Chomsky.

BTW drones and bombs aren't the same.

 

[jab]

I'll mirror what Koyaanisqatsi said about Chomsky. I'll add to it too. If there's a true distraction somewhere around here. His name is Chomsky. I have never been a fan, myself.

Nor have I, beginning with his whole-cloth, non-too-scientific theories about language.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So the mainstream media is reporting, but in the age of Murdoch you have to dig deeper...

Those are not dependent concepts. The point was that the msm is reporting—it is on their “radar” contrary to what you asserted—you just evidently didn’t notice. Iow, it is a failure of your observation, not the msm.

BTW drones and bombs aren't the same.

But the point of whether or not the msm was consistently reporting on our government using military force in the world is.

 

[Underseer]

No matter what, Trump voters will still be voting long after Trump is gone.

The attack on American institutions and the American traditions is far from over. Our descent into totalitarianism has only begun and the only way to stop it is to convince conservolibertarians that they're wrong, so nothing can stop it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No matter what, Trump voters will still be voting long after Trump is gone.

The attack on American institutions and the American traditions is far from over. Our descent into totalitarianism has only begun and the only way to stop it is to convince conservolibertarians that they're wrong, so nothing can stop it.

Well, again, the “descent” is predicated on the fact that Trump cheated and not on the fact that a majority of Americans wanted him in office and/or backed his policies or ideological bent. We can stop it and already are fighting against almost everything he’s been trying to institute, but all it would take to stop him is if we retake either the House or the Senate this November. It will also be a tough fight—since the GOP have rigged those elections as well—but we keep seeing examples of our winning that fight regardless.

And since it’s looking more and more like Mueller’s investigation will only get the minor players and not the kingpin, these elections are all the more important.