Каждый заслуживает знать правду! Чтобы приблизить Событие и Раскрытие информации


Вы не подключены. Войдите или зарегистрируйтесь

“Действительность”, отредактированная в режиме реального времени: новые технические шоу и почему не стоит доверять новостям

Предыдущая тема Следующая тема Перейти вниз  Сообщение [Страница 1 из 1]

Тамара


Редактор форума
автор Мелиса Дайкс, 22 марта 2016


Я даже не уверена, как описать видеофильм, который Вы собираетесь смотреть.

Так называемая “действительность” может быть отредактирована в режиме реального времени.

Это - матрица.

Это проект  совместных усилий  Стэнфорда, Института информатики Макса Планка  и университета Эрлангена-Нюрнберга. Согласно резюме проекта Стэнфордского университета


Да, ничего в этом хорошего. Также возникает вопрос,  а с каких пор  эта технология действительно доступна? Все мы знаем, что независимо от того, какую технологию показывают населению  в настоящее время,  военно-промышленный комплекс скорее всего на десятилетия опережает.

В разделе комментариев данного видео множество людей указало на опасность этой технологии . Один человек сказал, что это должно быть остановлено из-за страшного потенциала при неправильного употреблении, на которое кто-то еще ответил, “Потенциал для неправильного употребления? Я не могу даже придумать зачем первоначально нужна была эта технология кроме как для злоупотребления.


И если демонстрации программы могут выглядеть столь же реальными как реальная вещь …
Вы можете доверять тому, что Вы видите в “новостях”?

И если не верить тому что мы видим и слышим...  
Насколько наша реальность уже виртуальна?

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/03/reality-edited-in-real-time-new-tech-shows-why-you-cant-trust-anything-you-see-on-the-news.html

Vallum


Здраствуйте!
Спасибо за перевод. Сейчас обкатывается новый вид троллига. Сначала от имени сообщества или кого нибудь публикуется достоверная информация. Собирается большое количество читателей или подписчиков. Затем выставляют себя глупыми дураками. После этого достоверная информация обесценивается. Потом уже разбираться становится трудно, кто прав, кто виноват.

dimslav


Администратор
American Mind Control: The Cost of Secrecy Part 1 – Examining the Effects of Secrecy, Propaganda, and Organized, White-Collar Crime
This will be the first installment of what I hope to turn into a series:
. The latest focus of my writing has been to bring to light the fact that there is much more to the story of recent American history than any of us were initially  told by mainstream sources. This information consists mostly of recently declassified documents from the CIA and other official departments, the testimony of those who participated in the various programs in question, as well as the victims of such programs whose rights and lives were violated thereby. I also intend to investigate whether or not the methods used to commit such violations are still being used in modern-day America.   Though I do not necessarily enjoy writing about subject-matters that may be seen as negative or demoralizing, I feel that it is my responsibility (as well as the responsibility of all who consider themselves active American citizens) to be fully aware of their own political environment so as to ensure justice, fairness, and freedom for all of us. In order to ensure this, we must be fully informed.    The Common Secrecy  One commonality we find upon reading on declassified American history is the fact that many officials and departments within American governance have been engaged in perpetuating blatant and definitive crimes (many times, crimes against humanity), yet very few (if any) ever faced trial or punishment for these crimes. We find that the typical means of dealing with these crimes is that they are either ignored and dismissed, or they are buried and classified in the name of “national security”, deliberately keeping the American public in the dark and uninformed of these blatant, ethical infractions.  My intention within this series is to bring these crimes to light, and to call them to the sober attention of those who believe in the ethical integrity of American governance. I intend to make the point that any amount of white collar crime (or any type of crime), when left unchecked and unpunished for a long enough period of time, will inevitably grow, spread, and can eventually consume an entire nation, and that the only way to ensure justice is to demand transparency and accountability in all aspects of government. (One interesting fact to note, in American today, definitive corruption is considered a normal aspect of the system.)  This issue of secrecy has been of concern for decades by those who appreciate the importance of transparency in maintaining a free and civil society. Though it may seem that presently, there are few that advocate for such issues, there have always been those who have stood for the principle. One of these men could be considered a trail-blazer in this matter, and though he may have paid the ultimate price for his fight, he fought valiantly for the cause of transparency. This man was John F. Kennedy.    During John F. Kennedy's final speech, he touched on a very sensitive subject that virtually no one has come close to suggesting since. (There are many ordinary citizens who have continued this fight for transparencies, but they have, for the most part, been ignored.) During this speech, Kennedy delved into the subject of secret societies subverting the American way, and revealed to us all how secrecy posed a greater threat to the people of America than any foreign army. Here is an excerpt from this revealing, and yet forgotten speech.  “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are sited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it, and there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security would be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of censorship and concealment.  For we are apposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expending its sphere of influence; on infiltration instead of invasion; on subversion instead of elections; on intimidation instead of free choice; on gorillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its decenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned; no rumor is printed; no secret is revealed.”  (President John F. Kennedy at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961. "The President and the Press" before the American Newspaper Publishers Association)  Secret societies who take secret oaths, who operate and deal in secrecy... These were real concerns from one of the most respected commanders in chief this country has seen. These concerns are valid, and this threat of abuse of secrecy is as real now as it was then. This excessive secrecy is not the way any truly free country can operate, as any functional and open society requires full knowledge of the situations in which the voters' right holds stake. So we see that these secret societies were a serious concern for JFK, and we also see that not long after this speech, he was assassinated (Nov. 22, 1963). Not only this, but it seems that very few (if any) who succeeded him were willing to mention this issue of secrecy, and pursue it with the same valor that he showed. It also seems that as the years went on after his death, the U.S., as well as the much of the rest of the world, became more and more similar to this dire scenario that Kennedy spoke of during his final speech. With this in mind, the possibility seems quite strong that someone (or someone's) behind this secret-society issue wanted him out of the way. (However, at this point, this is only speculation.)  Many years after JFK's premature death, another man stood up and took the exact same stance, only this time, it was in greater detail. One cannot say why he himself is still alive to continue such a quest. (Though they may consider the possibility that any secret plan, given five decades to either end, or to progress, might not be in very much jeopardy due to general exposure. There still lies the possibility that exposure of the secrets of the extremely wealthy and resourceful is not dangerous at all.  However, we have not yet reached that point in the discussion.) Still, this man testified to actions very similar to those about which Kennedy warned. For those familiar with the name “John Perkins”, this is not exactly news. Perkins is the author of the autobiography, “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”, and in this account, he gives the details of his job as an NSA operative. According to Perkins, the repugnant secrecy described by Kennedy now represents the norm in modern-day, American society.  In light of this issue of secrecy, one may be inclined to respond with a bit a skepticism that such secrecy could survive in the “age of information”. However, it must be realized how many black-budget programs have been initiated and completed, how many bills that have been either rushed through the voting process, or hidden completely from the public eye, and how many laws have been dictated and passed by presidents without any knowledge or consent of the American people. In light of this, this secrecy must be realized as that fact that it is. To what degree this secrecy exists is what we intend to uncover. Lets continue.    An Agenda in Progress  According to John Perkins, this secrecy is alive and well. As said before, Perkins is an author and former employee of the NSA, and had the position termed “economic hitman” which basically consisted of traveling to foreign countries and extorting those countries for their wealth and resources on behalf of American corporations. Perkins has given many lectures and interviews, elaborating upon information that falls right in line with what Kennedy warned about. It would seem that in light of Perkins testimony, these plans made in secret have not at all ended, but have instead, advanced substantially. Below is an example of how Perkins describes his former job.  “It's been our job to basically cheat third-world countries around the world out of trillions of dollars... ...and then funnel those dollars into US corporations, and also a few wealthy people in those third-world countries.  The most typical way that we work is that we'll identify a third-world country that has resources that we covet (the Panama Canal, a labor force in Haiti, for example... Often, it's oil.), and we'll make an arrangement with the leaders of that country for them to accept a loan from the World Bank or it's affiliates, and the condition of that loan is that 90% of it will never leave the United States. It'll be sent from banks in Washington to banks in Houston, San Francisco, and New York, where the big engineering firms are.  These companies then, in association with many others will build projects in this third-world country like power plants, industrial parks, ports, that primarily serve the very, very rich people. Usually these things don't help the poor people at all. In fact, the countries then settle with a huge debt that they can't possibly repay, which is part of the plan.  So at some point, we economic hit men go back and say, “Look, you owe us a lot of money. You can't repay your debt. Therefor, sell all of your oil to our oil companies really cheap, or vote with us in the next U.N. vote that's critical to us, or provide land for our military base in your country.” It's a form of slavery, in a way.”  This is the state of America today. We still raise the same flag, we celebrate the same holidays, and see the same “support our troops” ads. The appearance of order, ethical integrity, honor, and respect for equal rights are still promoted as common-place. We still celebrate the 4th of July, we still listen to the latest “State of the Union” speeches, and read about or view congressional hearings on TV, but behind the glamour, the song, and the dance lies something much, much different than that which appearances reveal. We see the impoverished state of many third-world nations, and the apparent efforts that the United States makes to aid these countries, but behind the scenes, this same governance is contributing to the destruction and impoverishment of the very nations it claims to be aiding (as the majority of this “aid” is given exclusively to the excessively wealthy).   Though this extortion, bribery, and manipulation may be despicable to learn of, it is only the beginning of the job of an economic hitman. In this speech, Perkins goes on to describe an elaborate method of coercing foreign leaders to sell out their own countries for the sake of avoiding violent opposition from a deceived American military (as military is usually given a version of the situation which omits the financial blackmail, and monetary interests happening behind the scenes). During this process of bribery, the foreign leader might be offered, drugs, money, or women. If they bite, the deal is done, at which point their country basically belongs to American corporations. If they refuse, then subversive operatives are sent in. These people (referred to as “the jackals”) commonly start riots, violent uprisings, or cues. If these uprisings don't convince the foreign leader to play the game of American corporations, this is when assassination becomes the plan. If these corporate assassins are unsuccessful, then the military is sent into the country. The military forces typically decimate the country's cities, and eventually overthrows the government. This is the method by which this hitman program operates, and this method has worked for decades. It is very possible that many of the news stories we hear regarding the justification for invading foreign nations have often been smoke screens for this economic hitman program.    At this point we have proven the possibility that there is much more to the dark underbelly of the United States than the average person may know (or want to know). We see that the underlying corruption goes much farther than a simple bride here and there to this or that politician for the sake of an upcoming vote, but that instead, this operation functions with the efficiency of organized crime (though such crime is so enormous, there is no actual law against it, according to Perkins). These are crimes committed and perpetuated by the very people who swore an oath to uphold justice.  We are faced with this grim reality of organized, criminal activity from the very governance we have depended upon to take care of this country. The question is, how did all of this happen without anyone noticing, and attempting to stop it? The answer is the same as it has always been. When conducting any secret operation, one does not reveal one's actions to those who would most certainly appose them. All questionable and/or unethical actions are either kept secret, or are excuse away as irrelevant. There is a more effective way of dealing with this information which ensures that few if anyone will appose the undertaking of these unethical actions. This brings us to the subject of propaganda.  Getting Our Propaganda Fix  During Kennedy's last speech, he touched upon the issue of a free and open press. He expressed concerns of clear manipulation of the press by government interests who may have had much to loose from the disclosure of certain, “sensitive” information. In recent times, we have gained more knowledge about the details of this secrecy, but the main concern was that concealment of pertinent information cannot, and does not lead to the healthy, open society which America claims to have. Much of the information tampering, both then and now may easily be considered propagandistic in nature. The question is, has the American governance ever deliberately resorted to propaganda as a means of swaying public opinion in any given direction. The answer is “yes”.    The fact is that propaganda has a long and intimate history with the United States governance. It would be somewhat relieving to learn that this distribution of propaganda was limited to foreign nations who were at odds with the United States, but this is unfortunately not the case. According to Wikipedia, the use of American propaganda extends for decades. One such description begins at the onset of the First World War.  World War I  “The first large-scale use of propaganda by the U.S. government came during World War I. The government enlisted the help of citizens and children to help promote war bonds and stamps to help stimulate the economy. To keep the prices of war supplies down (guns, gunpowder, cannons, steel, etc.), the U.S. government produced posters that encouraged people to reduce waste and grow their own vegetables in "victory gardens". The public skepticism that was generated by the heavy-handed tactics of the Committee on Public Information would lead the postwar government to officially abandon the use of propaganda.”  World War II  “During World War II the U.S. officially had no propaganda, but the Roosevelt government used means to circumvent this official line. One such propaganda tool was the publicly owned but government funded Writers' War Board (WWB). The activities of the WWB were so extensive that it has been called the "greatest propaganda machine in history". Why We Fight is a famous series of US government propaganda films made to justify US involvement in World War II.  In 1944 (lasting until 1948) prominent US policy makers launched a domestic propaganda campaign aimed at convincing the U.S. public to agree to a harsh peace for the German people, for example by removing the common view of the German people and the Nazi party as separate entities. The core in this campaign was the Writers' War Board which was closely associated with the Roosevelt administration.  Another means was the United States Office of War Information that Roosevelt established in June 1942, whose mandate was to promote understanding of the war policies under the director Elmer Davis. It dealt with posters, press, movies, exhibitions, and produced often slanted material conforming to US wartime purposes. Other large and influential non-governmental organizations during the war and immediate post war period were the Society for the Prevention of World War III and the Council on Books in Wartime.”  The Cold War  “During the Cold War, the U.S. government produced vast amounts of propaganda against communism and the Soviet bloc. Much of this propaganda was directed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under J. Edgar Hoover, who himself wrote the anti-communist tract Masters of Deceit. The FBI's COINTELPRO arm solicited journalists to produce fake news items discrediting communists and affiliated groups, such as H. Bruce Franklin and the Venceremos Organization.”  The Iraq War  “In early 2002, the U.S. Department of Defense launched an information operation, colloquially referred to as the Pentagon military analyst program. The goal of the operation is "to spread the administration's talking points on Iraq by briefing ... retired commanders for network and cable television appearances," where they have been presented as independent analysts. On 22 May 2008, after this program was revealed in the New York Times, the House passed an amendment that would make permanent a domestic propaganda ban that until now has been enacted annually in the military authorization bill.  The Shared Values Initiative was a public relations campaign that was intended to sell a "new" America to Muslims around the world by showing that American Muslims were living happily and freely, without persecution, in post-9/11 America. Funded by the United States Department of State, the campaign created a public relations front group known as Council of American Muslims for Understanding (CAMU). The campaign was divided in phases; the first of which consisted of five mini-documentaries for television, radio, and print with shared values messages for key Muslim countries.”  The examples given by Wikipedia span roughly an entire century of time. From WWI to the Iraq War, every last one was spurred on by a manipulated public opinion, and the tool of choice (as always) was propaganda. Considering the fact that this is openly admitted by a mainstream source such as Wikipedia, one would find it unreasonable to deny the fact. This makes the notion of this same tactic of propaganda being used to promote the notorious “War on Terror” very likely. I don't imagine very many people needing to be reminded that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found, but, as Perkins has revealed, there were plenty of resources to covet. However, since evidence is what we are looking for in this matter of propaganda, lets examine some.    On December 23, 2015, Naturalnew.com published an article regarding the issue of American propaganda. This article describes the U.S. government as being the “second largest P.R. firm in the world”, and accurately so. Here is what Natural News had to say.  “It's no secret that many people feel that the U.S. Government is synonymous with all things shady, filled with half-truths, loopholes and lingo that sounds fancy, but is really a self-serving set of words designed to offer minimal benefits to the rest of society.  Supporting these opinions is a finding from an Open the Books report which details what people think about the U.S. government – their public relations activities in particular. In a nutshell, Open the Books, which is described as a "nonpartisan, non-profit organization focused on providing transparency in government," found that the U.S. government spends a shocking amount of money on its public relations efforts. How much, you ask? Enough to report that the "U.S. Government ranked 2nd largest Public Relations Firm in the World"   The report suggests that the U.S.government spent a total amount of about $4.5 billion over the past eight years, which is broken down as follows: 1) some $2.347 billion in salary and bonus payments to federal employees and 2) $2.02 billion spent on outside contractors.”  The article continues to give a breakdown of how these funds are used in the efforts to sway public opinion. Following this, the article continues this eye-opening revelation on government spending for the sake of propagandizing its own people.  “The Open the Books report explains that their goal is to shed light on information that's otherwise buried and kept from the public awareness. As such, they state their belief that "Federal agencies ... not only resist transparency but often pretend to be transparent when, in reality, they are engaged in self-promotion. Too often, they use their charge to disclose information as a cover for public relations campaigns that are designed to advance their interests (i.e. their desire for more funding and higher salaries) rather than the public interest."  So we see that this business of propaganda is considerably lucrative in nature. If ever governance intends to behave badly, (according to what history has shown us) it becomes necessary for the people to remain ignorant or deceived about such behavior. If this governance would spin this behavior as necessary for “defending national security”, for example, it would pass more easily than if the public knew the entire, money-motivated truth. Therefor it is necessary to convince the public through various means to ensure their compliance and agreement with the actions of governance. After all, no government action is able to stand without the consent of the people.  We have examined the evidence that the United States government has been recently and historically engaged in psychologically manipulating its own people via propaganda, and reviewed multiple examples of the fact. This is sufficient for the sake of information. However, to drive such a point home, lets add one more piece to this body of evidence.  A Play on Media  In 2014, David Heilbroner produced a documentary entitled, “The Newburgh Sting”. This documentary would go on to win an Emmy for Outstanding Investigative Journalism, and there is no mystery as to why. The Newburgh Sting reveals the shocking reality that many of the instances of violent “terrorism” in the United State and elsewhere are fictitiously perpetrated either by hired help, or by unsuspecting citizens who end up being entrapped by authorities. These actions were admittedly perpetrated by the FBI and are said to function as propaganda to boost public opinion for advancement of the “war on terror”.   This may sound unbelievable, but these proposals are not hear-say. They are not speculation, or theory. These are document facts, and are supported by video evidence collected by the FBI themselves during this “sting” operation. During this documentary, we see several men (none of them Muslim) who come from an impoverished neighborhood, being bribed ($250,000 each) into committing a violent act that turns out to be nothing more than a play. They are handed fake weapons, fake equipment, strung along by FBI agents under cover, and when they finally do what they were told to do by the FBI, they are stopped, arrested and put in prison for 25 years. However, it is not necessary to blindly believe these words. Simply watch the documentary and see for yourself.  This is definitively, and admittedly fake news, presented as real in order to push an agenda that was questionable from the beginning. Once again, we see government agencies propagandizing their own citizens not for the sake of the common people, but only for the sake of getting ahead on their own budget, and placing their own job security ahead of the respect for human rights. It would seem that the state of American governance is more than willing to break the law for the sake of money. If this is not corruption at its worst, I would say that it's pretty close.  We see here that the issue of propaganda, as apposed to honest and thorough communication to the American people, is the norm in the present state of the country. However, this propaganda is only part of the issue which concerned Kennedy. One of the main issues he discussed in his final speech was freedom of the press to provide open, through, and unhindered information to the public, but in modern-day America, this freedom is virtually nonexistent. The following article from Huffington Post details a legal investigation into the case of one New York times reporter, James Risen, who stood for this freedom of the press.  "They've said in that there is no reporter's privilege," Risen said. "I think they want the court to rule on a fundamental constitutional issue of whether or not there is a reporter's privilege in a criminal case, which makes this case kind of have a broader import than it might otherwise have."   "That's why I think it's become a pretty important case," he continued. "It's a fairly basic constitutional issue for the press, whether or not there is a reporter's privilege. It's something a lot of people outside the press don’t really understand, don't really care about. I think the basic issue is whether you can have a democracy without aggressive investigative reporting and I don't believe you can. So that's why I'm fighting it."  The hardline stand against reporter's privilege -- the DOJ briefs always put the term in quotation marks -- is a hallmark of the Obama administration's unprecedented crackdown over leaks. So is trying to throw the book at the alleged leakers.  The Obama administration has charged six government officials accused of providing classified information to the media with violations of the Espionage Act, a World War I-era law intended to prohibit aiding the enemy. That’s more uses of Espionage Act for that purpose than under all previous presidential administrations combined.   While the Obama administration hasn't prosecuted those responsible for torture during the Bush years, it is taking a strong stand against a former official believed to have supplied information to the media about use of torture and other controversial tactics during the previous administration."  It seems that there is little concern from clear and evident crimes against humanity. However, when it comes to the revelation of those crimes (which were classified per procedure), there is no mercy for those who reveal them. Not only does it seem that the present-day governance stands either neutral, or side with those who commit crimes against humanity, but this modern governance seems to consider its own citizenry as “the enemy” (hens the misuse of the Espionage Act).  Another poignant article from The Guardian details the account of Bradley Manning, the army operative who passed off information to Wikileaks regarding the United States active torture program. Manning was subjected to general court-martial and faced charges which included aiding and embedding the enemy. Here is what The Guardian had to say.  “The conviction of Bradley Manning under the 1917 Espionage Act, and the US Justice Department's decision to file espionage charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden under the same act, are yet further examples of the Obama administration's policy of using an iron fist against human rights and civil liberties activists.  President Obama has been unprecedented in his use of the Espionage Act to prosecute those whose whistleblowing he wants to curtail. The purpose of an Espionage Act prosecution, however, is not to punish a person for spying for the enemy, selling secrets for personal gain, or trying to undermine our way of life. It is to ruin the whistleblower personally, professionally and financially. It is meant to send a message to anybody else considering speaking truth to power: challenge us and we will destroy you.  Only ten people in American history have been charged with espionage for leaking classified information, seven of them under Barack Obama. The effect of the charge on a person's life – being viewed as a traitor, being shunned by family and friends, incurring massive legal bills – is all a part of the plan to force the whistleblower into personal ruin, to weaken him to the point where he will plead guilty to just about anything to make the case go away. I know. The three espionage charges against me made me one of "the Obama Seven".  In early 2012, I was arrested and charged with three counts of espionage and one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA). (I was only the second person in US history to be charged with violating the IIPA, a law that was written to be used against rogues like PhilipAgee.)  Two of my espionage charges were the result of a conversation I had with a New York Times reporter about torture. I gave him no classified information – only the business card of a former CIA colleague who had never been undercover. The other espionage charge was for giving the same unclassified business card to a reporter for ABC News. All three espionage charges were eventually dropped.  So, why charge me in the first place?  It was my punishment for blowing the whistle on the CIA's torture program and for confirming to the press, despite government protestations to the contrary, that the US government was, indeed, in the business of torture.    The general issue of ethical failure on the part of the United States governance becomes more and more clear each time they falsely accuse brave whistle-blowers like Manning of aiding the “enemy”. The article continues.  This policy decision smacks of modern-day McCarthyism. Washington has always needed an "ism" to fight against, an idea against which it could rally its citizens like lemmings. First, it was anarchism, then socialism, then communism. Now, it's terrorism. Any whistleblower who goes public in the name of protecting human rights or civil liberties is accused of helping the terrorists.  That the whistleblower has the support of groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or the American Civil Liberties Union matters not a whit. The administration simply presses forward with wild accusations against the whistleblower

dimslav


Администратор
American Mind Control: The Cost of Secrecy Part 1 – Examining the Effects of Secrecy, Propaganda, and Organized, White-Collar Crime
http://discerningthemystery2000plus.blogspot.co.il/2016/02/american-mind-control-cost-of-secrecy.html
For a long while now, I have had in mind to write an article on the topic of specific techniques of thought manipulation by way of propaganda. In modern-day America, the use of propaganda is common-place in virtually every media source available. We have this manipulation on TV, movies, magazines, internet publications, video games... Just about every medium employs propaganda in one form or another.  The question of who or why may be answered in another article some time in the future, but for the moment, the matter of definition is of first priority. To be personally educated on the matter of informational accuracy is vital in a free and open society, I believe, and the ability to discern between fact and fiction is of key importance as well (as many times, both fact and fiction are communicated side by side with little or no obvious distinction). This article is intended to open the eyes of the reader so as to provide the tools necessary for discerning the information they perceive.    Propaganda is a favored tool of manipulative governments around the world, and has been for ages. It may be surprising to some that this method of thought, feeling, and behavioral manipulation has been habitually employed by the American governance for decades, but the fact stands. Wikipedia provides a fairy extensive list of historic uses of this propaganda throughout multiple war-time ad campaigns, as well as numerous situations of foreign tension, throughout American history.  World War I  “The first large-scale use of propaganda by the U.S. government came during World War I. The government enlisted the help of citizens and children to help promote war bonds and stamps to help stimulate the economy. To keep the prices of war supplies down (guns, gunpowder, cannons, steel, etc.), the U.S. government produced posters that encouraged people to reduce waste and grow their own vegetables in "victory gardens". The public skepticism that was generated by the heavy-handed tactics of the Committee on Public Information would lead the postwar government to officially abandon the use of propaganda.”  World War II  “During World War II the U.S. officially had no propaganda, but the Roosevelt government used means to circumvent this official line. One such propaganda tool was the publicly owned but government funded Writers' War Board (WWB). The activities of the WWB were so extensive that it has been called the "greatest propaganda machine in history". Why We Fight is a famous series of US government propaganda films made to justify US involvement in   World War II.  In 1944 (lasting until 1948) prominent US policy makers launched a domestic propaganda campaign aimed at convincing the U.S. public to agree to a harsh peace for the German people, for example by removing the common view of the German people and the Nazi party as separate entities. The core in this campaign was the Writers' War Board which was closely associated with the Roosevelt administration.  Another means was the United States Office of War Information that Roosevelt established in June 1942, whose mandate was to promote understanding of the war policies under the director Elmer Davis. It dealt with posters, press, movies, exhibitions, and produced often slanted material conforming to US wartime purposes. Other large and influential non-governmental organizations during the war and immediate post war period were the Society for the Prevention of World War III and the Council on Books in Wartime.”    The Cold War  “During the Cold War, the U.S. government produced vast amounts of propaganda against communism and the Soviet bloc. Much of this propaganda was directed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under J. Edgar Hoover, who himself wrote the anti-communist tract Masters of Deceit. The FBI's COINTELPRO arm solicited journalists to produce fake news items discrediting communists and affiliated groups, such as H. Bruce Franklin and the Venceremos Organization.”  The Iraq War  “In early 2002, the U.S. Department of Defense launched an information operation, colloquially referred to as the Pentagon military analyst program. The goal of the operation is "to spread the administration's talking points on Iraq by briefing ... retired commanders for network and cable television appearances," where they have been presented as independent analysts. On 22 May 2008, after this program was revealed in the New York Times, the House passed an amendment that would make permanent a domestic propaganda ban that until now has been enacted annually in the military authorization bill.  The Shared Values Initiative was a public relations campaign that was intended to sell a "new" America to Muslims around the world by showing that American Muslims were living happily and freely, without persecution, in post-9/11 America. Funded by the United States Department of State, the campaign created a public relations front group known as Council of American Muslims for Understanding (CAMU). The campaign was divided in phases; the first of which consisted of five mini-documentaries for television, radio, and print with shared values messages for key Muslim countries.”   As we see, the United States governance (an organization which boasts freedom, equality, and liberty) has historically used this manipulative method not only upon the citizens of potential, foreign adversaries, but on its own citizenry. As stated before, this has been going on for nearly a century, unbenounced to the American public. Although, the legal propagandization of the American public officially began in 2012. This topic is an area of interest at Stanford University. Two researchers, Manzaria and Bruck, wrote an extensive essay which provides specific examples of how this propaganda is used in modern society to sway attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.  "The previous picture and poem is a clear example of propaganda which is a form of persuasion used to influence people's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. A working definition of propaganda is the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. While propaganda has been around for almost a thousand years, only recently (last 100 years) with the advent of technologies that allow us to spread information to a mass group has it evolved to a scientific process capable of influencing a whole nation of people. While propaganda is most evident in times of war as in the poster, it is constantly being used as a political and social means in even less obvious ways to influence peoples attitudes. This is currently evident with all the election commercials on TV, where the candidates are using propaganda techniques to elevate themselves above their competitor. Another place propaganda is being exploited is by the use of the media in its portrayal of countries that have nuclear technology.  Modern propaganda uses all the media available to spread its message, including: press, radio, television, film, computers, fax machines, posters, meetings, door-to-door canvassing, handbills, buttons, billboards, speeches, flags, street names, monuments, coins, stamps, books, plays, comic strips, poetry, music, sporting events, cultural events, company reports, libraries, and awards and prizes. It is most likely that some of these media uses are surprising, but that only serves to show how easy it is to not even recognize propaganda as such. For the purpose of our paper we will focus on mainly the usage of the press in their tactics of shaping people's opinions. The press (newspapers and magazines) is important because the most current news and issues are spread every day through them. The Dune affect is a term we coined--after the movie Dune--which explains that those who control and have access to media have access to and potential control of public opinion.   Indeed, propaganda is so powerful because everyone is susceptible to it. This is true as explained by Robert Cialdini, an expert in influence, because people exist in a rapidly moving and complex world. In order to deal with it, we need shortcuts. We cannot be expected to recognize and analyze all the aspects in each person, event, and situation we encounter in even one day. We do not have the time, energy, or capacity to process the information; and instead we must very often use our stereotypes, our rules of thumb, to classify things according to a few key features and then to respond without thinking when one or another of these trigger feature are present (Cialdini 6). While this makes people highly susceptible to a propagandist who understands persuasion, in general it is the most efficient for of behaving, and in other cases it is simply necessary. Additionally, propaganda includes the reinforcement of societal myths and stereotypes that are so deeply embedded within a culture that it is often difficult to recognize the message as propaganda.   For example I just used a persuasive technique that propagandist use all the time by introducing Cialdini as an expert. The heuristic this follows is the obedience to authority and is a rule that when someone credible and in this case by title of an expert, a person will automatically believe the information to be correct. "Titles are simultaneously the most difficult and the easiest symbols of authority to acquire. To earn a title normally takes years of work and achievement. Yet, it is possible for somebody who has put in none of this effort to adopt the mere label and receive an automatic difference" Cialdini 181). After all, what really makes Cialdini an expert?"  If there is one thing I appreciate about instruction of this type, it is the way that these authors brings to the attention of the reader that these tactics can be used without the consumer ever realizing they are being propagandized. This also calls attention to the fact that in order to build an immunity to this type of manipulation, one must develop a greater level of self awareness, and an awareness of the media they frequent. The article continues.  "Since propaganda has become a systematic process it is possible to analyze how the media has used it in shaping our opinions about France having a nuclear bomb verse Pakistan. Propaganda can be broken into ten stages when analyzing it in detail. These stages are: 1) the ideology and purpose of the propaganda campaign, 2) the context in which the propaganda occurs, 3) identification of the propagandist, 4) the structure of the propaganda organization, 5) the target audience, 6) media utilization techniques, 7) special various techniques, Cool audience reaction to various techniques, 9) counterpropaganda, if present, and 10) effects and evaluation (Jowett and O'Donnell 213).   While it is possible to go into detail about each point, we are mainly concerned with numbers six and seven: What techniques the media uses. There are many techniques and persuasion tactics the media uses to disseminate information. We will specifically focus on three case studies in the France / Pakistan nuclear issue that highlight different tactics the media use. What is important to understand about all the tactics is that no matter which one is being used they all follow the same criteria: it must be seen, understood, remembered, and acted upon. Thus, propaganda can be evaluated according to its ends and interestingly enough this is the same criteria that advertiser use every day in ads, and commercials in "selling" a product."  This portion of the Stanford article details one specific example of a propaganda campaign directed at influencing the opinions of Americans with regard to the respective nuclear programs of two separate countries. These are France and Pakistan.  "Studying media coverage of Pakistan’s nuclear achievement, it becomes clear that a certain amount of propaganda was used to make Pakistan appear threatening. The fact that Pakistan developed the technology was not what shaped the articles, but rather how this information was presented to the reader. In a sense, the propagandists were looking to turn Pakistan into an enemy of sorts, a country to be feared, instead of embraced.  One method used to by propagandists to create an enemy is through the technique of social proof. One way in which we process information is by observing what other people are doing that are similar to us or linking them to social norms. "When we are unsure of ourselves, when the situation is unclear or ambiguous, when uncertainty reigns, we are most likely to look to and accept the actions of others as correct" (Cialdini 106). Since it is almost impossible for the common American to be an expert in nuclear cause and effects, he looks to what others say as a means to form his opinion. This allows him to be persuade to an ideology not of his own. Furthermore, it is possible to rely on past stereotypes as form of linking one idea to another group.  For example, articles that took such an approach attempted to use a subset of social proof, where one casts the enemy by declaring it to be a friend of an already established enemy. For instance, in order to persuade the American public to think of Pakistan in such terms, media will link Pakistan to historically defined United States enemies such Libya, Iran, Iraq and the former Soviet Union. This tactic plays on the principle of social proof in which people look for justifications to quickly form their beliefs. Thus, linking to a country America already has shared beliefs about quickly allows one to associate and project the existing beliefs on the new group, which in this case is Pakistan." These examples are significantly revealing with regard to how persuasive, and yet undetectable these methods of propaganda can be. Below is an even more extensive list of the tactics of manipulation used against the American public (as well as the citizenry of many other countries) on a daily basis. These methods are tested over the course of decades, and proven to be effective in swaying public opinion in any direction that is most advantageous to the propagandists (as well as their employers). The following is an excerpt from a report from Southern Methodist University which details multiple devices used by propagandists.  "Propaganda makes use of a collection of devices and tricks intended to influence your thinking. What follows is a compendium of these techniques synthesized from several sources. Some of them are related and may overlap. Learning to recognize these techniques can go a long way toward immunizing yourself from the effects of propaganda.   o Ad Hominem Attack: If you can't refute the argument, attack the person presenting the argument. The intent is to discredit said person, as well as to distract you and make you think the argument has been refuted.  o Apology: Sometimes a corporation will make a public apology for something it has done. If that something is really bad, the technique may not work.  o Appeal to Authority; Some "higher authority" is invoked as evidence in support of a claim. Always be sure to check out that authority.  o Appeal to Emotion: A common fallacy. A "sob story" is used to support a claim. The problem is that the sad story doesn't really represent the whole picture.  o Appeal to the People: A common fallacy of attempting to support a claim on the basis of popularity. Remember that something that "everybody knows" can be wrong.  o Arguing from Ignorance: A common fallacy of claiming that some hypothesis is true based on lack of information. Think of claiming that something seen in the sky is an alien spacecraft because we have no other explanation at hand at the time. If you have no information, all you can say is that you don't know.  o Assertion: An Assertion is a simple statement of something as fact, usually with enthusiasm and without regard for whether it is true or not. It is a common feature of modern advertising. An Assertion is usually repeated often for maximum effect.  o Astroturf: "Astroturf lobbying" is a term attributed to Senator Lloyd Bentsen (TX). It refers to "grass roots" movements which are actually created and funded by corporate interests. This technique of lobbying can be very effective but is also very expensive. See Sharon Beder's paper in Public Relations Quarterly, Summer 98. Also see the Front Groups entry.  o Bad Logic: This will include all logical fallacies.  o Bad Science: This refers to research that is biased, poorly done, or containing major flaws. It can also mean a "scientific" claim that is not based on research at all. Appropriate misrepresentation can distort good science into bad science.    o Bait and Switch: This is an old technique from both retailing and politics. In retailing it means advertising a neat product at a low price, then saying it is "out of stock" before offering you a more expensive item. In politics it can mean underestimating the cost of some program; it is also called lowballing. The technique is very deceptive and not easy to detect in advance. It is not hard to find government programs that cost far more than the initial estimates that were used to sell it.  o Bandwagon: "Everybody is doing this." You've heard that before. The idea here is to convey the notion that if you don't get aboard you will be left out.  o Begging the Question: This is simple circular logic. You make a claim, then "support" with a reason whose meaning is simply a restatement of the claim.  o Big Lie: A Big Lie is an outright falsehood presented as fact. The conventional wisdom is that such a lie, repeated often enough, will be accepted as truth. The harder it is to debunk the lie the better.  o Buzz: Buzz is a cultural phenomenon used to promote a new product. The idea is to use word-of-mouth campaigns to create "buzz" about the product (or idea) such that others will think that they absolutely must know about it.  o Card Stacking: This can also be called Cherry-Picking. The propagandist uses only those facts and details that support their argument. The selected reasons are used to support the conclusion. You will get misled if you do not notice that important details are missing. The worst part of card-stacking is that it can be very difficult to detect if you are not really knowledgeable about the subject.  o Cartoons: Cartoons can be used to convey a false impression. Consider a cartoon portraying some politician as a demon of some kind; the visual impression can be influential.  o Celebrities: It is helpful to make shrewd use of celebrities, like film stars or athletes. Having one introduce and praise you at a public appearance is good. This will start you off with a favorable impression. Having movie personalities endorse candidates is a good strategy.  o Comic Books: A larger form of Cartoons. These can tell a story in cartoon form. The favored characters can be portrayed as superheroes. Comic books are inexpensive to produce, which is one of their advantages. Another is the visual nature of the medium.  o Composition: A logical fallacy wherein an assertion is made about some part that is not true about the whole.  o Concision: Concision is an unfortunate result of the structure of broadcast journalism. The time segments (between breaks) are short. Complex points simply cannot be made. Only simple and concise statements can be accommodated. This tends to restrict the topics to very conventional subjects.  o Controlling the Message: This is a strategy of planning exactly what the public message will be and then sticking to it. "It is critical to develop a set of key message points: simple declarations of fact relevant to the fact pattern. Once they have developed key message points, professionals practice them and keep delivering them succinctly and repeatedly in response to media inquiries." (Ingrid Cummings) See PR students examine crisis situations. The idea is to plan responses in advance and not deviate from them. All people speaking to media follow the same line - no exceptions.    o Demonizing the Opposition: This is done by portraying the "others" as something evil, disgusting, etc. Example: Stating that anyone wanting to do X is a bigoted racist.  o Disinformation: This technique is simply the release or planting of incorrect information for the specific purpose of deceiving the audience. Disinformation can contain elements of truth, but the payload is the lies.  o Divide and Conquer: This tactic is a devious attempt to label the propaganda user as a reasonable and moderate entity between competing groups. The tactic can be extremely sneaky and use a lot of misinformation, distortion and outright lies. See Building Bridges and Splitting Greens from PRWatch.org.  o Division: A logical fallacy in which an assertion is made about the whole which is not true for all of the parts.  o Doublespeak: This is the use of language and words carefully constructed to conceal the actual meaning. Euphemisms work well here. For example, "enhanced interrogation" actually means torture.  o Echo Chamber: The more sources there are for a claim or idea, the better it looks. An Echo Chamber is a loose network of outlets that tend to copy each other's material, all of which (on one topic) is traceable back to a single source. Bogus stories or information echoes through this system, seeming to come from multiple reliable sources.  o Either/Or Fallacy: This is the False Dichotomy fallacy. It consists of framing the issue to make it appear that there are only two options. One option is made to look terrible, with th implication that the other option presented is the only choice.  o Evading the Issue: Did you ever see a politician who didn't do this? When asked a tough question, the speaker gives an answer to something else. They may really emphasize "peace, justice and the American Way," but the answer does not respond to the question. This is not hard to detect and is very annoying.  o Extrapolation: This is simply making spectacular predictions on the basis of very few currently available facts. Such predictions tend to be extremely unreliable. Physicist Niels Bohr is credited with "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."  o False Analogy: To facilitate explanation, a complex issue may be portrayed as similar to a simple issue that everyone can understand. The trick with this technique is for the simpler issue to really not be a good comparison, but rather be close enough to pass. With clever design, the misleading simpler model will misdirect thought about the complex issue.    o False Cause: The order of some sequence or set of events is confused with actual causation. In propaganda the confusion is intentional. See Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.  o Fear: This technique is simple - warn the audience that some disaster will overtake them if they do not do what is suggested. If this succeeds, the audience's attention will be deflected from details or merits of the proposed action and toward what can be done to reduce the fear. When coupled with incomplete information, uncertainty and doubt, the fear technique can be very effective. Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) take advantage of general ignorance.  o Forged Documents: Forgeries are an excellent method of planting disinformation. The media will often pick these up and circulate them widely. Governments will use this tactic to create a diversion or justify some action. They can also have other uses; remember the Killian memos of the 2004 Presidential campaign.  o Front Groups: These are organizations that purport to represent one agenda while in reality being funded by someone with different ideas. The name of the front group is often Americans for _______. Fill in the blank. It is usually interesting to find out who is bankrolling the group.   A good example was reported in the Dallas Morning News for 22 April 2011. A local-option election was coming up in Mesquite to allow the sale of beer and wine in stores. The DMN reported:  Thre was fear that the large retail chains were strong-arming Mesquite when a group called Save Our Stores invested six figures to back alcohol in the 2007 campaign. Meanwhile, the treasurer for the opposing group Save Our Children was citing family values - only to be exposed as a beer and wine retailer in neighboring Balch Springs who stood to lose Mesquite customers.  o Glittering Generalities: These are vague, broad statements that will connect with the audience's beliefs and values. They really don't say anything substantive. Slogans make great examples. The vagueness means that the implications, though varying for different people, are always favorable. Think of peace, freedom, justice, family values, etc. o Greenwashing: [attempting to promote the idea that a program or policy is environmentally friendly:
o Guerilla Marketing: There are a lot of ways to get a message, whether commercial, political or other, out into the community. See 100 marketing weapons on gmarketing.com. Many of these methods have the advantage of costing nothing.    o Image Manipulation: Today's image manipulation software makes this easy. The tactic is to produce a fake photograph by altering a genuine one, then release it into the wild. If the fake is well-done it can get a lot of mileage (and effect) before the hoax is exposed. Photos can also be staged for effect. Pictures which appear to tell a great story can be actually staged and posed.  o Junk Science: This is a label applied to honest scientific and public interest groups, while the term "sound science" is applied to "science" which is biased in the direction desired.  o Misinformation: Sometimes a public statement contains information that is not true, although not by design. It was not done deliberately. If propaganda contains untruth it is deliberate.  o Name-Calling This is the use of negative words or labels to create prejudice against some person, group or idea. If you fall for this you have been driven to reach a conclusion without examining the evidence.  o Plain Folks: The person speaking will adopt a demeanor that makes them look like "everyman." They will appear to connect with the audience and their point of view. Careful choice of clothing, vocabulary, and mannerisms is necessary to make the identity connection.  o Poisoning the Well: The "poisoned well" tactic is really a pre-emptive strike at the opposition. They are labeled as evil, stupid, corrupt, criminal or something else bad. It is not necessary for the derogatory information to be true. Once this is done, anything the target person or group says will be taken less seriously. See the Wikipedia note.    o Policy Laundering: A tactic of excusing unpleasant government actions on the grounds that "the internation treaties require it."  o Politics of Personal Destruction: [a tactic of demonizing the opposition via personal attack] o Political Code Words: Words which, on the surface, look reasonable enough, but call on an unstated assumption to promote some agenda. Example: The idea that the President's job is to "Protect America." Sounds good. If, however, you check the President's oath of office you will find that the President swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United State of America." Very different.  o Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: A common fallacy. It confuses temporal relation with causation. The fallacy is that since B came after A, then A must have caused B. Consider that there may be several possibilities for what caused B and the time relationship could be just coincidence.    o Product Placement: How many times have you seen a TV show or movie in which you saw recognizable products? An April 19, 2006 bulletin from Broadcasting and Cable opened with "Two thirds of advertisers employ 'branded entertainment' -- product placement -- with the vast majority of that in commercial TV programming."  o Public Service Announcements: [a message communicated by media without charge] o Push Poll: This is far less a poll than a propaganda technique. It will use a "question" which actually implies something unfavorable about the subject of the question. A push poll question is often used to spread misinformation about someone or something. Suppose a pollster asked you "Would you be inclined to vote for Senator Fiddle if you knew he had a drinking problem?" Your answer to the question is not important; your ultimate reaction to the drinking problem allegation is.  o Quote Mining: This can also be called Quoting out of Context. It is often possible to lift a short quote out of a speech, essay, etc. and make it appear to say the opposite of what the speaker/writer meant. The real meaning is obvious when the quote is seen in its full context, but that context is conveniently omitted. Be wary when you see short quotes, particularly on controversial subjects, that are standing outside of their full context. You don't know what has been omitted. Political campaigns can produce some of the worst examples of quote mining.  Taliban Dan add from Florida campaign"   Don McLeroy's quote mine - a good example.  o Repetition: Did you ever see a TV commercial run twice in a VERY short time period? Advertisers know that a message must be repeated many times for it to be absorbed. The same goes for propaganda (see Big Lie above). Pres. Bush (G.W.) is quoted as saying "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." In propaganda, truth is squishy and hard to find. See The Ostrich Approach, 6th paragraph.    o Straw Man: The user of this tactic invents some misleading picture of an opponent's views in order to attack it. The straw man tactic involves misstating an opponent's ideas so that the fake view can be knocked down easily. Since the original idea has been misrepresented and distorted, the audience may think that the original idea has been knocked down when only the fake straw man view has been hit.  o Swiftboating: This originated in 2004 with an anti-Kerry campaign that undermined Sen. Kerry. The idea is to concoct a story with just enough truth in it to use as a smear campaign.  o Talking Points: A talking point is a simple key message or idea. A number of these can be compiled and used whenever dealing with reporters. The user will stick to the listed messages and focus attention on them. They are to be used to answer any tough question in one form of Evading the Issue. They are also very annoying.  o Testimonial: This technique has a well-known someone endorse, recommend or approve of a product, cause or program. Pop celebrities can work well here. Remember that testimonials aren't worth much, particularly if the endorser is not an authority in the field.  o Transfer: This is an effort to transfer your approval of something you respect and approve of to another something that the propagandist wants you to approve of. Flag-waving helps.  o Vagueness: Watch for this everywhere, even in news reporting. It can be a form of disinformation. "Remember the first rule of disinformation analysis: truth is specific, lie is vague. Always look for palpable details in reporting and if the picture is not in focus, there must be reasons for it." (Greg Sinaisky) See Detecting Disinformation Without Radar.  o Video News Releases]

Предыдущая тема Следующая тема Вернуться к началу  Сообщение [Страница 1 из 1]

Права доступа к этому форуму:
Вы не можете отвечать на сообщения