PDA

View Full Version : ""Post Truth" politics"



sufi
17-11-2016, 11:03 AM
"Post-truth politics" translates as 'I don't understand why my side is losing, when we are cleverer, to stupid people I don't like"
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/799163815606816769
Best thing I read so far on this so called phenomenon, which has now attained full msm recognition (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/post-truth-named-oxford-dictionaries-word-year-brexit-trump-947812).

I quoted another article on another thread,

blah blah "post-truth" media, blah blah - this article (pre 11/9) https://theawl.com/when-truth-falls-apart-b4667d39575b blah blah blahbut sunder nailed it

sadmanbarty
17-11-2016, 05:42 PM
"Post-truth politics" translates as 'I don't understand why my side is losing, when we are cleverer, to stupid people I don't like"

If that were the case wouldn't the term have found wide usage when Bush won, when Cameron won, etc.

Wouldn't you agree that Trump's brazen lying during the campaign is unprecedented in modern historical memory, especially when considering the fact that it doesn't seem to cost him politically?

To a much lesser degree, Leave also clearly lied during the referendum and it was similarly rewarded politically.

Leo
17-11-2016, 08:12 PM
i blame reality tv.

i'm being facetious but it could be a factor, here in the states anyway. bored senseless people plopped in front of their television sets every night blankly staring at episodes of "reality" filled with conflict and mock outrage that are actually anything but real life. viewers can't tell the difference after awhile, TV and politics merge into a dull blur of entertainment. trump's outrageous statements on the campaign trail compete for attention not with that of his opponent but with last night's episode of the kardashians or "big brother". politics becomes "american idol" and the masses vote for what "feels" right.

actually, i have no fucking idea.

baboon2004
17-11-2016, 09:06 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I

firefinga
17-11-2016, 10:32 PM
"Post Truth" politics IMO means: a politician/political spectrum claims something despite being disproven, keeps claiming those unfactual things even more afterwards. Voters/Supporters of course believe those fabricated "facts" simply bc it's not coming from "the system". The effect highly exacerbated by the social media echo chambers. There are millions of people around basically these days who get their world view from those said echo chambers. See also the pre-emptive "explanations" of lost elections - "the system" has rigged it! Usually you find the "Post Truth" types on the political right/populist - but not exclusively.

jenks
18-11-2016, 09:19 AM
This interview
https://www.channel4.com/news/milo-yiannopolous-questioned-on-donald-trump-and-stephen-bannon

last night on Ch4 seemed to sum up the alt right

Corpsey
18-11-2016, 09:44 AM
Read a few articles recently about the social media echo chamber and its possible effect on politics.

https://theringer.com/social-media-echo-chamber-2016-election-facebook-twitter-b433df38a4cb#.ch6oktdlc

I think on balance Facebook hasn't been good for humanity at all.

(Still on it, of course.)

Mr. Tea
18-11-2016, 09:48 AM
i blame reality tv.

i'm being facetious but it could be a factor, here in the states anyway. bored senseless people plopped in front of their television sets every night blankly staring at episodes of "reality" filled with conflict and mock outrage that are actually anything but real life. viewers can't tell the difference after awhile, TV and politics merge into a dull blur of entertainment. trump's outrageous statements on the campaign trail compete for attention not with that of his opponent but with last night's episode of the kardashians or "big brother". politics becomes "american idol" and the masses vote for what "feels" right.

actually, i have no fucking idea.

I don't see this as a facetious thing to say at all - I mean, didn't Trump become a household name in the USA as a result of hosting The Apprentice? I'm sure he was well-known before that but I was under the impression it was this that really made him someone that everyone knows by sight. Could be wrong of course.

firefinga
18-11-2016, 10:26 AM
I think on balance Facebook hasn't been good for humanity at all.

(Still on it, of course.)

Not at all, and even exacerbated by the fact people switch to their mobile phones to check it out = even more emphasis on "meme"-ism (bc of the small phonescreens etc)

I don't think it's coincidential at all that the rise of those populists/right wingers happens (ed) in accordance with the rise of social media, especially FB.

personal sidenote: I run a small business and use FB for this (I don't have a personal profile) - I don't have a problem with that bc a) it in fact helps my buisness and b) creepy FB is only interested to sell their members to advertisers or sell shit to them directly, so why not use them in the same way.

Mr. Tea
18-11-2016, 11:23 AM
Today's xkcd:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/blame.png

baboon2004
18-11-2016, 11:24 AM
This interview
https://www.channel4.com/news/milo-yiannopolous-questioned-on-donald-trump-and-stephen-bannon

last night on Ch4 seemed to sum up the alt right

I watched that earlier, Yiannopolous horrendously empty and wilfully stupid as usual. I thought Cathy Newman was exemplary in interviewing him, refusing to be drawn into his absurd word games. Desperately need more interviewers like her, because most on mainstream TV are way too willing to listen respectfully to far-right ideas.

Mr. Tea
18-11-2016, 11:25 AM
...and today's C&H:

http://files.explosm.net/comics/Dave/altright.png?t=3C27EB

Corpsey
18-11-2016, 01:23 PM
From David Remnick's piece 'Obama Reckons with a Trump Presidency (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency?mbid=social_twitter)':

“Until recently, religious institutions, academia, and media set out the parameters of acceptable discourse, and it ranged from the unthinkable to the radical to the acceptable to policy,” Simas said. “The continuum has changed. Had Donald Trump said the things he said during the campaign eight years ago—about banning Muslims, about Mexicans, about the disabled, about women—his Republican opponents, faith leaders, academia would have denounced him and there would be no way around those voices. Now, through Facebook and Twitter, you can get around them. There is social permission for this kind of discourse. Plus, through the same social media, you can find people who agree with you, who validate these thoughts and opinions. This creates a whole new permission structure, a sense of social affirmation for what was once thought unthinkable. This is a foundational change.”

The new media ecosystem “means everything is true and nothing is true,” Obama told me later. “An explanation of climate change from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist looks exactly the same on your Facebook page as the denial of climate change by somebody on the Koch brothers’ payroll. And the capacity to disseminate misinformation, wild conspiracy theories, to paint the opposition in wildly negative light without any rebuttal—that has accelerated in ways that much more sharply polarize the electorate and make it very difficult to have a common conversation.”

...

What I’m suggesting is that the lens through which people understand politics and politicians is extraordinarily powerful. And Trump understands the new ecosystem, in which facts and truth don’t matter. You attract attention, rouse emotions, and then move on. You can surf those emotions. I’ve said it before, but if I watched Fox I wouldn’t vote for me!”

Benny B
18-11-2016, 05:23 PM
I watched that earlier, Yiannopolous horrendously empty and wilfully stupid as usual. I thought Cathy Newman was exemplary in interviewing him, refusing to be drawn into his absurd word games. Desperately need more interviewers like her, because most on mainstream TV are way too willing to listen respectfully to far-right ideas.

she should have asked him about the bald patch

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s278/dogyears_photos/bald_1.jpg (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/dogyears_photos/media/bald_1.jpg.html)

Slothrop
18-11-2016, 05:33 PM
I've recently found out that he was actually - pre name change - the annoying attention seeking kid from a couple of years below me at school. Which is a strange mix of mindblowingly weird and totally plausible in retrospect.

Also, a few schoolfriends on Facebook are now trying to remember whether he was one of the people who got put upside-down in the bin in the sixth form common room, and wondering how much influence it might have had on his subsequent path in life if he was.

droid
18-11-2016, 11:01 PM
I've recently found out that he was actually - pre name change - the annoying attention seeking kid from a couple of years below me at school. Which is a strange mix of mindblowingly weird and totally plausible in retrospect.

Also, a few schoolfriends on Facebook are now trying to remember whether he was one of the people who got put upside-down in the bin in the sixth form common room, and wondering how much influence it might have had on his subsequent path in life if he was.

Oh dear god, let this be true - and if it is, let there be photos.

Mr. Tea
19-11-2016, 12:01 AM
Does this mean he could, in some very indirect way, be Slothrop's fault?

Nice one, mate. No really, way to go there. :mad:

droid
19-11-2016, 12:57 AM
Alt history alert!

sufi
21-11-2016, 12:11 PM
This is a good tweet from an insightful twitter thread by a journalist who's been writing about Philipines.

6/ The "unhinged populist" style is perfectly suited for today's media ecosystem; it plays traditional + social media against each other.
https://twitter.com/AdrianChen/status/798223543611723777
or, as some smart-ass loser put it last week:
"!We took Trump literally but not seriously, his supporters took him seriously not literally!"

sufi
21-11-2016, 12:18 PM
This is a pretty interesting take too:


In China, that foundation of reality is eroded alongside trust in institutions previously tasked with upholding the truth. Contrary to popular sentiment in the US, Chinese readers don’t blindly trust the state-run media. Rather, they distrust it so much that they don’t trust any form of media, instead putting their faith in what their friends and family tell them. No institution is trusted enough to act as a definitive fact-checker, and so it’s easy for misinformation to proliferate unchecked.
https://medium.com/@xuhulk/watching-the-election-from-the-post-truth-future-97a0d66bdcfe

firefinga
22-11-2016, 05:40 PM
One could as well post the following in the Trump thread or the election 2016 doom thread, but also here:

It's also ironic that the regime of neoliberalism has corrupted (western) societies to the extent that now even several of the main propagandists of this said regime (conservative parties, lapsed former "social" democratic parites, cancerous media tycoons like Murdoch) are being swept away by products of (the permanent crisis produced by) neoliberalism, namley the populists and their disgruntled supporters.

The really said part is, we possibly get something even worse in return - authoritarian or downright fascist regimes instead of free market fundamentalism.

baboon2004
22-11-2016, 07:21 PM
One could as well post the following in the Trump thread or the election 2016 doom thread, but also here:

It's also ironic that the regime of neoliberalism has corrupted (western) societies to the extent that now even several of the main propagandists of this said regime (conservative parties, lapsed former "social" democratic parites, cancerous media tycoons like Murdoch) are being swept away by products of (the permanent crisis produced by) neoliberalism, namley the populists and their disgruntled supporters.

The really said part is, we possibly get something even worse in return - authoritarian or downright fascist regimes instead of free market fundamentalism.

I know what you're saying, and I agree that the tensions that we're seeing are remarkable, but I'd be cautious about what you say has been swept away. Conservative parties still have an awful lot of power, in countries like the UK and Spain (not to mention America - I think the demise of the trad Republicans has been much overstated), and the Murdochs of this world are stronger than ever, surely (he got exactly what he wanted with Brexit)? Obviously social democratic parties are dying everywhere, that's very true, hollowed-out hosts slowly dying after being stripped bare of all their original function from inside (Blair as zombie wasp?).

There is an obvious surface tension between nationalist fascism and neoliberalism, but I would imagine an accommodation between these two centres of power is not too far away. Neither of them have much of a problem with making the rich yet richer. Trump is doubtful to follow through on many of his promises to poor people, once he's embroiled in the political system, for example. He recognised the need for populist rhetoric, but so far nothing in actuality has changed structurally - his history shows him to be as neoliberal as the best of them.

This is interesting and I think the conclusion is right: https://www.opendemocracy.net/john-weeks/trumps-victory-is-fulfilment-of-neoliberalism-not-its-failure
"Fulfilment of the neoliberal transformation to unregulated capitalism is incompatible with electoral democracy. A polity can have one or the other, but not both. The dark genius of Donald Trump lies in following this incompatibility to its logical conclusion — if his brand of capitalism and electoral democracy conflict, it is democracy that will be undermined."

craner
22-11-2016, 08:18 PM
There's a deep antipathy between nationalist fascism and liberal capitalism, it's a historic mistake to associate or conflate them, it was made in the 30s by the Communists and led to catastrophe.

droid
22-11-2016, 08:25 PM
Capitalism and fascism get on just fine. The ideal worker is a captive one.

droid
22-11-2016, 08:30 PM
The truth must be spoken with a view to the results it will produce in the sphere of action. As a specimen
of a truth from which no results, or the wrong ones, follow, we can cite the widespread view that bad
conditions prevail in a number of countries as a result of barbarism. In this view, Fascism is a wave of
barbarism which has descended upon some countries with the elemental force of a natural phenomenon.

According to this view, Fascism is a new, third power beside (and above) capitalism and socialism;
not only the socialist movement but capitalism as well might have survived without the intervention of
Fascism. And so on. This is, of course, a Fascist claim; to accede to it is a capitulation to Fascism.
Fascism is a historic phase of capitalism; in this sense it is something new and at the same time old.
In Fascist countries capitalism continues to exist, but only in the form of Fascism; and Fascism can be
combated as capitalism alone, as the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive, and most treacherous
form of capitalism.

But how can anyone tell the truth about Fascism, unless he is willing to speak out against capitalism,
which brings it forth? What will be the practical results of such truth?

Those who are against Fascism without being against capitalism, who lament over the barbarism
that comes out of barbarism, are like people who wish to eat their veal without slaughtering the calf.
They are willing to eat the calf, but they dislike the sight of blood. They are easily satisfied if the butcher
washes his hands before weighing the meat. They are not against the property relations which engender
barbarism; they are only against barbarism itself. They raise their voices against barbarism, and they
do so in countries where precisely the same property relations prevail, but where the butchers wash
their hands before weighing the meat.


...

vimothy
22-11-2016, 08:35 PM
The dark genius of Donald Trump

From one myopic extreme to the next ...

vimothy
22-11-2016, 08:52 PM
On the subject of fascism and Richard Spencer, Ross Douthat tweeted (https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/800891598322225152) the following yesterday:


1. Last thought on Spencer: One issue is that Trumpism rose so suddenly that there's no clear intellectual substructure for his populism.
2. There's no equivalent of, say, Eric Zemmour in France or Thilo Sarrazin in Germany. Bannon is an operator, not a self-conscious theorist.
3. So there's an opening for someone like Spencer to say, "look at me, I'm the Snazzy Fascist AND the Mind of Trumpism!"
4. But he isn't. Go profile Steve Sailer or Mickey Kaus or the Journal of American Greatness guys instead.

I'm not sure about his recommendations, but I think the rest of it is largely true. Spencer is (as Douthat says elsewhere) a clever troll, and one who is not shy about taking the 15 minutes of fame offered to him by the press.

baboon2004
22-11-2016, 09:08 PM
From one myopic extreme to the next ...

not the words i would have chosen either (fwiw i agree that the talk of idiot and genius is equally tiresome), but i think that's missing the main point.

baboon2004
22-11-2016, 09:11 PM
There's a deep antipathy between nationalist fascism and liberal capitalism, it's a historic mistake to associate or conflate them, it was made in the 30s by the Communists and led to catastrophe.

i temporarily forgot that the Spanish Civil War was fought between Franco and the liberal capitalists

Liberal capitalism is only a temporary and pragmatic compromise anyways; it's not an ideology. The committed capitalist will soon abandon liberal principles as quickly as he adopted them, if it suits

vimothy
22-11-2016, 09:15 PM
Quite possibly, although I think it reflects the general tenor of hysterical pessimism into which the media has now fallen.

firefinga
22-11-2016, 09:20 PM
In the case of Murdoch and Brexit, I think it's a Pyrrhic victory, at best. Big chunks of his (and other media tycoons) core audiences are flocking to the social media echo chambers, diminishing their profits and there's no end of that in sight. But, those social echo chambers are even worse, bc they get unchecked mainly due to financial interests of the likes of Zuckerberg.

I concede though, the Murdochs of the world are far from finished, yet losing influence by the minute and now look like the zombies they ever were.

baboon2004
22-11-2016, 09:30 PM
the power of social media vs trad media is definitely an interesting issue, but it seems incredibly difficult to get anywhere near the truth on that one. probably no-one has much of an idea right at the moment as to their relative influences. are there many individual social media bubbles that get a consistent editorial line (well, allegedly consistent...)anywhere near the reach of the Sun/Mail (thinking of the UK)?

Murdoch bought myspace but ruined it, didn't he?

firefinga
22-11-2016, 09:40 PM
the power of social media vs trad media is definitely an interesting issue, but it seems incredibly difficult to get anywhere near the truth on that one. probably no-one has much of an idea right at the moment as to their relative influences. are there many individual social media bubbles that get a consistent editorial line (well, allegedly consistent...)anywhere near the reach of the Sun/Mail (thinking of the UK)?

Murdoch bought myspace but ruined it, didn't he?

The tabloids and things like Fox still reach far more people, that's true, but it apparently just takes a considerable amount of people who form those social media echo chambers who are not reachable any more via other ways and will vote for the populists.

In Germany as well as Austria the last two, three years have seen the massive rise of this phenomenon and it'S usually the populists profiting from this - wrong stories (for example on refugee related crime and such) get viral extremely quickly, if they get disproven people dont't believe the facts - Afd or in Austria the Freedom party has the most followers/likes. Those people have created a whole "alternative" media system without the checks of traditional media (be it due to laws, code of decency and so on)

craner
22-11-2016, 11:15 PM
Baboon temporarily forgot the details but that's how things are these days.

craner
22-11-2016, 11:16 PM
It's hectic.

baboon2004
22-11-2016, 11:53 PM
i still didn't understand your remark about the '30s

Mr. Tea
23-11-2016, 01:29 PM
A question for anyone in the "Fascism is just capitalism on steroids" camp:

Leaving aside the early history of (Italian) Fascism and National Socialism, and looking at just at how the word's been used post-1945 up to the present, surely it has to be accepted that Fascism of any period is nothing without nationalism? Now there has very obviously been a huge resurgence in nationalism in many countries over the last few years, culminating in this year's dismal events in the UK and USA as well as a wave of nationalist populism across Europe. But as vimothy (mainly) has described elsewhere, the primary attitude of late capitalism/neoliberalism towards the nation-state is that it is not much more than an annoying impediment to the free flow of money, goods and labour, or that at best, it's something for the proles to hang the remains of their cultural identity onto, while globalization leads to an ineluctable homogenization of culture, until it's as easy to find dim sum in Rome and pizza in Shanghai as vice-versa.

I would argue that nationalism is much more important to the definition of Fascism that capitalism is. The Strasserist tendency within Nazism was genuinely national-socialist, in that it was both nationalistic (obviously) and socialistic (but not Marxist, of course). And there's a National Bolshevist movement in Russia, for fucks's sake. Are they Fascist, too? It's hard to say.

vimothy
23-11-2016, 02:50 PM
Bernie Sanders takes a similar view, incidentally. Here he is being interviewed (http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation) by an incredulous Ezra Klein:


Ezra Klein
You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing ...

Bernie Sanders
Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.

Ezra Klein
Really?

Bernie Sanders
Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. ...

Ezra Klein
But it would make ...

Bernie Sanders
Excuse me ...

Ezra Klein
It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?

Bernie Sanders
It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that.

baboon2004
23-11-2016, 02:55 PM
A question for anyone in the "Fascism is just capitalism on steroids" camp:

Leaving aside the early history of (Italian) Fascism and National Socialism, and looking at just at how the word's been used post-1945 up to the present, surely it has to be accepted that Fascism of any period is nothing without nationalism? Now there has very obviously been a huge resurgence in nationalism in many countries over the last few years, culminating in this year's dismal events in the UK and USA as well as a wave of nationalist populism across Europe. But as vimothy (mainly) has described elsewhere, the primary attitude of late capitalism/neoliberalism towards the nation-state is that it is not much more than an annoying impediment to the free flow and goods and labour, or that at best, it's something for the proles to hang the remains of their cultural identity onto, while globalization leads to an ineluctable homogenization of culture, until it's as easy to find dim sum in Rome and pizza in Shanghai as vice-versa.


Quick answer - the attitude of neoliberalism towards the state is not as you suggest at all. For example, neoliberalism has depended upon the state for its own continued existence, as after the phenomenal bailouts - and that was not happenstance, it's all part of the systemic logic of neoliberalism, that it can run wild with the knowledge that its monumental gambles will be insured against. Neoliberalism relies upon the state to bar the kind of movement it doesn't want - its championing of free flow of goods and labour is only ever on its own terms, the rest is simply propaganda. And as described many times, proponents of free markets only ever like free markets because it will disadavantage their (less advanced) competitors and overrun their incipient industries - America or any other major power obviously isn't built on free markets, but protectionism. It's totally pragamatic, and barely an ideology in any real sense - which is why I have sympathy with some who question whether 'neoliberalism' has much meaning at all (not to say I agree with them - I would certainly say it describes a wide range of related ideas in late capitalism, though not a v coherent/consistent ideology in the way that I understand ideology)

Ha-Joon Chang is pretty readable on all this stuff.

Btw, obvs agreed on the link between fascism (as popularly understood now) and nationalism; although as said above, the propaganda of fascism and the actual structural change a fascist state might/might not bring about in the 21st century, are v different things (and pretty open to speculation at this stage, without a whole lot of evidence - and hopefully it will stay that way).

droid
23-11-2016, 03:07 PM
Precisely. The aim of neo-liberalism is not to destroy the nation state, but to hollow it out so it solely serves market interests.

Mr. Tea
23-11-2016, 03:12 PM
Hmm, excellent point about the bank bailouts. And it's certainly true that "free trade" or the "free market" is a complete chimera.

I agree that neoliberalism isn't coherent/consistent, but you can say much the same thing about Fascism. I would say neoliberalism in itself is not really an ideology, more just an economic system, but that the conviction that it's the best or only way to run an economy constitutes an ideology of sorts.


Precisely. The aim of neo-liberalism is not to destroy the nation state, but to hollow it out so it solely serves market interests.

OK, so the nation-state is not destroyed wholesale but reduced to a sort of life support system for big business.

Edit: still, that's very different from nationalism, which aims to preserve and reinvigorate the cultural/religious/ethnic unity that nations were (once upon a time) defined by.

vimothy
23-11-2016, 03:24 PM
There is a difference between a nation-state and a state per se.

baboon2004
23-11-2016, 03:25 PM
But wasn't that unity of nations always just a narrative used to serve other ends anyways (imagined communities and all that)? In a way neoliberalism needs nationalist propaganda more than previous versions of capitalism, precisely because of the nation's hollowing out in reality. Fervent protestations that the nation is a real thing.

In terms of 21stC fascism and how its particular form of nationalist propaganda will play out, I think it's difficult to tell at this stage. And of course Marine Le Pen is very different from Donald Trump.
As a side point, it is interesting how much of the press wants to ascribe a clear, consistent ideological outlook to people like Le Pen and Trump. Seems like the political version of the intentional fallacy to me - these people are fucking mad, proper batshit crazy (whatever their technical skills in manipulation of the public) . As if to say, "if we can only understand the logic in what they're saying, then maybe we can somehow come to fight it or accept it"

Mr. Tea
23-11-2016, 03:52 PM
But wasn't that unity of nations always just a narrative used to serve other ends anyways (imagined communities and all that)?

As vim intimates, it depends on what you mean by a 'nation', a 'state' and a 'nation-state'. I'm sure being a Jute or a Pict or whatever really meant something to people in the days when they defined themselves as such, but that's many centuries before the rise of the nation-state in modern terms. And many of the indigenous ethnic groups in North America regard themselves as 'nations', although of course that's just an English translation of their own words.

Kings and governments may have encouraged a sense of nationhood when it suited their purposes (being at war with a foreign power, most obviously), but I think it's probable they were tapping into something that existed independently of that. It's a nice idea to think that people wouldn't have a concept of nationality were it not for the pernicious influence of self-serving elites, but that strikes me as a bit of socialist romanticism. (Although of course you could be saying the opposite, i.e. in the absence of central authority at a national level, we'd naturally exist in a situation of more or less constant micro-level mutual strife, clan against clan and village against village, which sounds like a fair description of life in a lot of present-day hunter-gatherer and pastoralist societies, actually.)


Seems like the political version of the intentional fallacy to me - these people are fucking mad, proper batshit crazy (whatever their technical skills in manipulation of the public) . As if to say, "if we can only understand the logic in what they're saying, then maybe we can somehow come to fight it or accept it"

I think looking for consistency in Fascism is a fool's errand, really. Italian Fascism grew in large part out of Futurism, which fetishized technology, industry and urbanism and scorned everything that was old-fashioned, slow, traditional and rustic. National Socialism grew out of a reactionary ecological cult which despised cities, intellectualism, industry and capitalism and valued 'traditional' country living, pre-Christian nature worship, handicrafts and organic food. And yet the Fascists co-opted the symbolism of ancient Rome and consciously set about ordering Fascist society as a modern-day reincarnation of the Roman Empire, while the Nazis became technologists par excellence because Panzers and Messerschmidts are superior weapons to swords and spears.

Mr. Tea
23-11-2016, 04:12 PM
Bernie Sanders takes a similar view, incidentally. Here he is being interviewed (http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation) by an incredulous Ezra Klein:


There was a time — I think under Roosevelt, maybe even under Truman — where it was perceived that working people were part of the Democratic Party. I think for a variety of reasons, a lot having to do with money and politics, that is no longer the case.

Money and politics. Yep, they're probably the main two factors here! :cool:

vimothy
23-11-2016, 05:23 PM
There's some truth to the idea that the Jutes or Picts were nations - at least in the original (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nation) (Roman) sense of the term, but clearly they were not nation-states. Equally, a state hollowed out by capitalism -- "so it solely serves market interests" -- might indeed be a state, but it has little to do with nations or with nation-states. Liberal capitalism, at least in the imagination of those who think about such things, has superceded nation-states, just as it has also superceded nations.

In the 19th century, Mazzini wrote (http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1852mazzini.asp) of the citizens of the emerging nation-state of Italy,


They speak the same language, they bear about them the impress of consanguinity, they kneel beside the same tombs, they glory in the same tradition; and they demand to associate freely, without obstacles, without foreign domination, in order to elaborate and express their idea; to contribute their stone also to the great pyramid of history.

The emerging -- increasingly dysfunctional -- "market state" (Philip Bobbit) of 21st century globalised, liberal capitalism is another matter entirely.

baboon2004
23-11-2016, 06:34 PM
As you say with your reference to 'imagination', we're talking about large doses of fantasy and propaganda here in terms of nationalism and the upholding of the nation state, not an on-the-ground reality. Many would argue that this has always been the case. e.g according to Hobsbawn via Wikipedia, only 50% of the french people spoke French at the time of the French revolution. America has never been a coherent nation state in the way that many mean it, and 'Make America Great Again' is obviously incoherent because its underlying yearning is for a white America that never existed.

I didn't know who Mazzini was, but I read that he was an activist for Italian unity. Also a fantasist, cos apparently only 2.5% of the population could speak standardised Italian properly in 1861. Post-truth politics in the 19th century!

So we increasingly have the neoliberal market states/hollowed states/whatever we want to call them, but I don't see how that excludes an appeal to nationalism/the coherent state on the level of fantasy and propaganda - business as usual, basically, albeit in unusual circumstances. After all, it's a common occurrence that the parts of a country most concerned about immigration are those parts where there is least actual immigration. Nationalism is the objectionable glue that neoliberalism may rely on to hold barely functional states together, for a while at least.

baboon2004
23-11-2016, 06:44 PM
It's a nice idea to think that people wouldn't have a concept of nationality were it not for the pernicious influence of self-serving elites


Definitely not saying that (as tbf you suggested yourself), rather that that concept has been pretty strong through much of human history, and how else are you going to tie together the people who live on often arbitrarily defined land masses? The idea of nation has always involved a large quotient of fantasy, but the nation-state pushes the fantasy quotient into new realms.

craner
23-11-2016, 07:42 PM
I would like to hear more about this interesting theory that Fascism sprang largely from Futurism. Surely the most consequential artistic intervention in world history?

firefinga
23-11-2016, 08:34 PM
Precisely. The aim of neo-liberalism is not to destroy the nation state, but to hollow it out so it solely serves market interests.

To paraphrase and sharpen (a bit) - the neoliberal agenda wants and needs the state and pretty much everybody to transform into a machinery serving specific market interests and the specific interests of a very small group - the 1-5 % of the really wealthy. Main aim - to sustain the 10+ % annual income growth for that said tiny group. In times of general weak growth rates for the last lets say 15 years (more or less) throughout the west this could only work by: tax the middle class/cut back on the welfare system/privatice former public services (railways, motorways etc) - this worked somehow up until now bc of the cheap goods imported from (mostly) asia which clouded the fact of decades of income stagnation for the majority of people in most of the OECD countries.

craner
23-11-2016, 08:37 PM
Ultimately any political regime that threatens neoliberal capitalism (in its current form, globalism) will be its enemy - like Nazism and Communism were.

firefinga
23-11-2016, 08:37 PM
I would like to hear more about this interesting theory that Fascism sprang largely from Futurism. Surely the most consequential artistic intervention in world history?

Fascism was mainyl a reacton to the Russian/Soviet revolution and a reaction of disappointed Italian nationalists after WW1 which didn't bring them the gains they had expected. Couple this with a large group of brutalized men between 18-45.

Futurism and facism had overlapping aspects, but it was definitely not a crucial reason for Fascism to develop.

craner
23-11-2016, 08:38 PM
Any movement that claims the Jews are in charge of money is going to be antithetical to neoliberalist capitalism - as Richard Spencer is.

craner
23-11-2016, 08:42 PM
It wasn't my theory Monsiuer Fire Finger, it was Mr Tea's. I'm waiting for the exposition.

firefinga
23-11-2016, 08:49 PM
It wasn't my theory Monsiuer Fire Finger, it was Mr Tea's. I'm waiting for the exposition.

Fair enough, I overlooked that actually. Still, my statement is on point, like usual.

craner
23-11-2016, 08:52 PM
I have a few quibbles with it actually, but not enough to sidetrack the main event, which is Mr Tea's new theory of the origin of Italian Fascism.

After that we'll move onto Nazism being an ecological movement.

Mr. Tea
23-11-2016, 10:22 PM
I have a few quibbles with it actually, but not enough to sidetrack the main event, which is Mr Tea's new theory of the origin of Italian Fascism.

Ha, OK, I've set myself up for this, rather. "In large part" may have been an exaggeration, but I don't think it's considered controversial to say that Futurism was a significant influence on early Italian Fascism. The Futurists were all about POWER and VIOLENCE and MALENESS - remind you of anything? They scorned liberalism and democracy and thought women were basically pretty useless except for fucking and making babies. The movement's founder, Marinetti, co-wrote the Fascist Manifesto and founded a short-lived Futurist Party which soon merged with Mussolini's official Fascist militia movement (forerunner to the Fascist Party per se).

Where I think the movements differed is that Marinetti was very much put off by Fascism's use of Italy's historic past, and of the Roman Empire in particular, to instill a sense of national unity in a country that had, after all, only become one country just 50 years earlier, and he left the Fascists in a huff after just a couple of years as a result. He saw Fascism (as it should be) as an entirely revolutionary movement, and thought all the SPQR bollocks terribly reactionary. Having said that, I think he was much later semi-reconciled to Fascism and even briefly served in the army in WWII.


After that we'll move onto Nazism being an ecological movement.

Come on, this is textbook stuff! Blut und Boden, "racial purity", the obsession with "hygiene" - it's all there right from the start. Read this (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html) and check out this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Walther_Darr%C3%A9) fascinating chap.

Mr. Tea
23-11-2016, 10:53 PM
So you've got these two movements that started out poles apart and eventually converged to the point that, today, they're virtually synonymous. This happened over the course of the '20s and '30s, firstly due to Hitler's admiration for Mussolini, and then much later because of the Nazi influence on Italy when it became clear the latter was very much the junior partner in the alliance.

In particular, the racism in early Fascism was of a rather 'soft' and basically cultural kind, nothing like the pseudoscientific biological racism of the Nazis, and Mussolini in fact rejected the notion of biological race. They later adopted anti-Semitic laws but this was pretty much a German import and was widely unpopular.

craner
23-11-2016, 10:58 PM
To be fair, I was being rude. But, yes, you did set yourself up for this by, I think, trying to be too clever in defining Fascism and Nazism by fairly esoteric influences and offshoots to the main movements, which where in Southern and Northern variants only tangentially influenced by or related to aesthetic, ecological, pagan and neo-classical movements, fascinating as these strands were. Power, race, militarism, nationalist statisism, were the fundamental blocks. Futurism was an old exotic add-on for the Fascists; kind of irrelevant for Mussolini, who had no time for Marinetti. The Nazis, by the time they took power, where a broad church, could indulge Himmler's weird esoteric fancies. But they were ultimately about power and race. That was their world view and motivation, not ecology, vegetarianism and Indian caste rules.

craner
23-11-2016, 11:00 PM
Also, you're correct to note that Italian Fascism was not, initially, anti-semitic, but it was racist and militaristic, as evidenced by the African campaigns.

vimothy
23-11-2016, 11:03 PM
In other words, Mr Tea you're a hipster fascist.

Mr. Tea
23-11-2016, 11:17 PM
In other words, Mr Tea you're a hipster fascist.

Me, yesterday:

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/234/963/755.jpg

craner
23-11-2016, 11:45 PM
Only trying to help!

vimothy
24-11-2016, 12:01 AM
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

vimothy
24-11-2016, 12:04 AM
Don't let my facetiousness derail the thread.

Mr. Tea
24-11-2016, 07:45 AM
Fascetiousness, surely?

Mr. Tea
24-11-2016, 09:17 AM
In other words, Mr Tea you're a hipster fascist.

I regret that missed the opportunity for a gag along the lines of "HOW VERY DARE YOU! I am NOT a hipster!!!"

baboon2004
24-11-2016, 02:05 PM
I regret that missed the opportunity for a gag along the lines of "HOW VERY DARE YOU! I am NOT a hipster!!!"

"Hipster, Я?"

craner
24-11-2016, 08:03 PM
Is Gulnara Karimova dead?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3960390/amp/Billionaire-princess-daughter-former-Uzbek-president-locked-psychiatric-hospital-two-years-successor-fatally-POISONED.html?client=ms-android-samsung

Mr. Tea
25-11-2016, 09:54 AM
Fun fact: Jarvis Cocker read Marinetti's Futurist Manifesto and was not impressed. He said it read like something Jeremy Clarkson would come out with.

baboon2004
25-11-2016, 10:48 AM
Is Gulnara Karimova dead?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3960390/amp/Billionaire-princess-daughter-former-Uzbek-president-locked-psychiatric-hospital-two-years-successor-fatally-POISONED.html?client=ms-android-samsung

Sting would know

Corpsey
25-11-2016, 10:56 AM
Interesting article from the NYT about how Facebook personality quizzes are used by a Republican/Breitbart-backed company to help target news stories at specific types of people:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/the-secret-agenda-of-a-facebook-quiz.html

Mr. Tea
25-11-2016, 11:25 AM
Is Gulnara Karimova dead?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3960390/amp/Billionaire-princess-daughter-former-Uzbek-president-locked-psychiatric-hospital-two-years-successor-fatally-POISONED.html?client=ms-android-samsung

Wow. Fucking tragic, if true.


Harvard-educated Gulnara - a judo black belt who at the height of her nepotistic power was the wealthiest woman oligarch in the former Soviet Union as well as a pop star, catwalk model, socialite, fashion designer, foreign diplomat, heir apparent, and, in her own words, an 'exotic Uzbekistan beauty'.

That's like, not even James Bond levels of ridiculous - sounds more like an Austin Powers character!

craner
25-11-2016, 03:39 PM
It's probably not true. But she has definitely been, uh, "disappeared".

sadmanbarty
01-12-2016, 04:02 PM
https://twitter.com/JonathanMerritt/status/804310057424928768

firefinga
03-12-2016, 11:59 PM
Interesting article from the NYT about how Facebook personality quizzes are used by a Republican/Breitbart-backed company to help target news stories at specific types of people:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/the-secret-agenda-of-a-facebook-quiz.html

It goes deeper than that, read a news magazine article recently (it's in German and unfortunately not availabe on the net) how Facebook is being paid for targetting specific audiences regarding according policies by campaign/party managers - and they pay big bucks for this by now. Article was dealing with German speaking countires but I assume Trump did just the same. Facebook has become a monstrosity out of control. What used to be midly amusing, became more annoying oin the process is now a vote deciding factor for crying out loud.

Leo
04-12-2016, 01:22 AM
"This is the problem with the media. You guys took everything Donald Trump said so literally," said Corey Lewandowski, a former Trump campaign manager who served as a CNN commentator after leaving the campaign, the network reported.

"The American people didn't. They understood it. They understood sometimes when you have a conversation with people, whether it's around the dinner table or at a bar, you're going to say things and sometimes you don't have all the facts to back it up."


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/308419-trump-clinton-aides-clash-at-post-election-gathering

Trump surrogate Scott Nell Hughes:


"Well, I think it's also an idea of an opinion. And that's—on one hand, I hear half the media saying that these are lies. But on the other half, there are many people that go, 'No, it's true.' And so one thing that has been interesting this entire campaign season to watch, is that people that say facts are facts—they're not really facts. Everybody has a way—it's kind of like looking at ratings, or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth, or not truth. There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts."

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a51152/trump-surrogate-no-such-thing-as-facts/

vimothy
08-12-2016, 05:13 PM
Despite having decisively won the presidential election by the only measure that counts, the Electoral College, Donald Trump recently decided to call the legitimacy of the entire process into question. “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” Trump tweeted.

There was instant widespread condemnation of Trump. The New York Times ran a headline declaring that Trump’s claim had “no evidence.” ABC News declared it “baseless,” NPR went with “unfounded.” Politico called it a “fringe conspiracy theory.” Those news outlets whose headlines about the tweet did not contain the word “false” were criticized for failing their responsibility to exercise journalistic scrutiny.

The Washington Post swiftly sicced its top fact-checker on Trump. Glenn Kessler denounced Trump’s “bogus claim.” Kessler gave Trump a lecture on the importance of credibility, writing that since Trump was now “on the verge of becoming president, he needs to be more careful about making wild allegations with little basis in fact, especially if the claim emerged from a handful of tweets and conspiracy-minded websites.” Should Trump persist in wildly distorting the truth, he “will quickly find that such statements will undermine his authority on other matters.”

The media demanded to know where Trump had come up with such a ridiculous notion. The day after the tweet, Trump spokesman Jason Miller was asked by NPR whether there was any evidence to support the idea that millions of people had voted illegally. But surprisingly enough, Miller did have a source: The Washington Post.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/12/the-necessity-of-credibility

Very good article on the media panic about "fake news".

luka
08-12-2016, 09:31 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-democracy-truth-internet-search-facebook?CMP=share_btn_tw

My sister told me I should read this. It's quite long. I do think google is broken

firefinga
09-12-2016, 12:40 PM
Very good article on the media panic about "fake news".

Another "very good" article that's not very good at all. The basic idea of it is that "classic" media is prone to spread fake news themselves and that press scutiny needs to be reinforced. Furthermore, the author implies that people actually would go back to a more trustworthy "classic" media again if it went back to be err- more thustworthy. I have my doubts about the latter, a large number of people have learned to build their "safe spaces" (mostly online) in the recent years and will do fuck all to leave those (social)-media comfort zones.

Plus, press srutiny (well researched articles etc) is costly, todays mainstream media keeps losing revenue, can't keep good writers, isn't hiring good journalists bc of that and so on. I agree with the writer's assessment of the "old" media becoming a bit crappy over the last decade or so, but he doesn't suggest anything else than "get the job done better" when investigative journalism is dead (or has been killed by aset of reasons) and no revival is in sight.

vimothy
09-12-2016, 12:59 PM
You've described the article; what do you actually disagree with - simply that people would be more likely to trust the media if it was in fact more trustworthy?

firefinga
09-12-2016, 01:03 PM
You've described the article; what do you actually disagree with - simply that people would be more likely to trust the media if it was in fact more trustworthy?

It's all in my reply, read it.

Leo
09-12-2016, 02:22 PM
"very good" was a bit of an overstatement, i get his point that MSM aren't perfect but it came off as too much of a straw man argument. as is often the case with armchair academic exercises, he cherrypicks a few examples where a mainstream media outlet screwed up and extrapolates it into "all mainstream media are fools and liars", which is absurd. what about the vast (vast) majority of times when MSM like the washington post or ny times get it right, or are the first to uncover legitimate wrongdoing?

they aren't perfect, and i guess one will always be critical and disappointed if one's criteria is media perfection. say what you will about publications like the post and times, but we'd be fucked without them.

droid
09-12-2016, 02:25 PM
Fucked without them... fucked with them.

Mr. Tea
09-12-2016, 03:04 PM
From now on I intend to learn about goings-on in Foreign Parts only by listening in rapt, gawping attention to the tales told by road-worn travellers in the local inn when their tongues have been loosened by a few flagons of ale.

Leo
09-12-2016, 03:15 PM
Fucked without them... fucked with them.

i'm not saying they should be a person's only source of information, or that everything they write should automatically be held as true. i am saying they are the ones that usually do the hard work of uncovering scandal and wrongdoing that then gets pontificated upon by others on the sidelines. there's an expression here: "monday morning quarterback"...

they aren't perfect, but i give then credit where credit is due.

firefinga
09-12-2016, 03:36 PM
as is often the case with armchair academic exercises, he cherrypicks a few examples where a mainstream media outlet screwed up and extrapolates it into "all mainstream media are fools and liars", which is absurd. what about the vast (vast) majority of times when MSM like the washington post or ny times get it right, or are the first to uncover legitimate wrongdoing?


Plus he's demanding full disclosure of sources (if I remember correctly, can't be bothered to re-read it), well, in some cases you'd better not go that far - "Deep Throat" and the Watergate scandal is a prime example.

droid
09-12-2016, 03:42 PM
This situation is a direct result of the success of the propaganda model. You can only distort, frame and lie in the service of power for so long before you lose credibility and alienate the general populace. The financial crash, austerity and the reporting around it was the final straw.

vimothy
09-12-2016, 03:51 PM
It's all in my reply, read it.

You say that the article is "not very good at all", but your only disagreement, as far as I can see, is that readers won't come back to the "classic media", even if it does become more trustworthy. Is this true? Maybe. What if it is?

What the article shows (through numerous examples) is that the complaints about "fake news" are often hypocritical -- transparently so -- attempts at rubbishing the output of those on the other side of the partisan divide. The moral panic that is currently gripping the great and the good in the media should not simply be accepted at face-value, but also understood as part of a project to delegitimize political opponents and reassert dominance over the narrative, control of which has evidently slipped (if the election of Donald Trump is anything to go by).

Watching its funding model implode is by itself probably enough to drive the press to a certain amount of dubious behaviour, but the threat to its world-view is also an important driver of the trend. Society is supposed to be gradually converging on liberal democratic capitalism -- it's not a process that is meant to work in reverse.

firefinga
09-12-2016, 04:02 PM
You say that the article is "not very good at all", but your only disagreement, as far as I can see, is that readers won't come back to the "classic media", even if it does become more trustworthy. Is this true? Maybe. What if it is?

Watching its funding model implode is by itself probably enough to drive the press to a certain amount of dubious behaviour, but the threat to its world-view is also an important driver of the trend. Society is supposed to be gradually converging on liberal democratic capitalism -- it's not a process that is meant to work in reverse.

I don't consider the article "very good at all" exactly bc the author bags on "classic media" (rightly so, and there I agree), but doesn't say a word why it fell for sensationalism, is dropping good journalists/journalism etc. and how this could be reversed. Just demanding "get more trustworthy again (and audiences will come back)" isn't enough by far. And IMO the funding model imploding IS the crucial point here. And even if this trend could be reversed, and investigative journalism could be revived - I have serious doubts that people would have the patience in these day and age when they get more and more conditioned to the alert-ism of social media.

vimothy
09-12-2016, 04:12 PM
It seems pointless to complain that the article isn't something else entirely. As a careful exposé of the gap between the media's self-image and reality with respect "fake news", I think it's extremely useful.

Leo
09-12-2016, 04:31 PM
except "the reality" is that this whole fake news element represents a very small aspect of what most reputable MSM provide. yes, they've screwed up and stupidly tried to cover their tracks on occasion, but a much greater proportion of their coverage is legitimately fair, some even critically vital. the evidence doesn't support the notion that everything's gone to shit. some of it has gone to shit, it needs to change and journalists need to be held accountable, but the notion of media perfection can lead to throwing the baby out with the bathwater*.


* pleased to have shamelessly used TWO crass cliches in one morning!

firefinga
09-12-2016, 09:01 PM
This situation is a direct result of the success of the propaganda model. You can only distort, frame and lie in the service of power for so long before you lose credibility and alienate the general populace. The financial crash, austerity and the reporting around it was the final straw.

"Old" Media doesn't really "lie" tho - lying means intentionally say unfactual things - sure thing, if you read the financial times you'd hardly see a critical word bout the elite/establishment (meaning the actual elite, those who run the economy). Problem today rather is, that a lot of people now call special angles of media coverage "lies" just bc that particular angle doesn't go down well with their views (or rather, prejudices). Big problem in the German speaking countries, (mostly) right wing (populists) calling mainstream media "lügenpresse" = "lying press" for giving a more positive view of the refugee crisis.

sadmanbarty
19-12-2016, 04:09 PM
"We rated 82 out of a total 666 right-wing Facebook posts as mostly false, for a percentage of 12.3%. Another 169 posts (25.4%) were rated as a mixture of true and false. Viewed separately or together (38%), this is an alarmingly high percentage.
Left-wing pages did not earn as many “mostly false” or “mixture of true and false” ratings, but they did share false and misleading content. We identified 22 mostly false posts out of a total of 471 from these pages, which means that just under 5% of left-wing posts were untrue. We rated close to 14% of these posts (68) a mixture of true and false."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis?utm_term=.nblMkZMgX#.nvmAkrA2O

Leo
19-12-2016, 04:37 PM
there's always been a certain amount of half-truths ("spin") and flat-out fabricated lies in different media. the two big differences now: anyone can now start their own blog/website to spew wherever they want (and amplify it virally with social media sharing), and the fact that lots of people now simply don't care if something is true or not. in other words, it's not necessarily that they think the ny times is "lying", it's that they don't care about the facts written about in the ny times.

Mr. Tea
19-12-2016, 05:26 PM
there's always been a certain amount of half-truths ("spin") and flat-out fabricated lies in different media.

Further, a lot of people have extended this in their heads to "The 'MSM' lies about everything all the time", so that any news (or 'news') source saying something drastically different from what is being reported by CNN, BBC, NYT, The Guardian or whatever is automatically given credence. (In the case of the Guardian, this is complicated by the fact of it being clearly an example of 'MSM' while at the same time frequently publishing editorials that align pretty well with much of the 'anti-MSM' media.)

vimothy
30-12-2016, 11:57 AM
Bernie Sanders takes a similar view, incidentally.

Chomsky on the relationship between capitalism and racism (from Understanding Power):


See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist — it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because its anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic — there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced — that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.”

The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of any predetermined quality -- sex, family, nationality -- they are impediments to the free flow of goods, labour and capital, the great deterritorializing agents of globalisation.

vimothy
13-01-2017, 02:11 PM
The BBC is to assemble a team to fact check and debunk deliberately misleading and false stories masquerading as real news.

Amid growing concern among politicians and news organisations about the impact of false information online, news chief James Harding told staff on Thursday that the BBC would be “weighing in on the battle over lies, distortions and exaggerations”.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/12/bbc-sets-up-team-to-debunk-fake-news?CMP=share_btn_tw

vimothy
13-01-2017, 02:13 PM
Meanwhile:


Fake news has a real meaning — deliberately constructed lies, in the form of news articles, meant to mislead the public. For example: The one falsely claiming that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump, or the one alleging without basis that Hillary Clinton would be indicted just before the election.

But though the term hasn’t been around long, its meaning already is lost. Faster than you could say “Pizzagate,” the label has been co-opted to mean any number of completely different things: Liberal claptrap. Or opinion from left-of-center. Or simply anything in the realm of news that the observer doesn’t like to hear.

“The speed with which the term became polarized and in fact a rhetorical weapon illustrates how efficient the conservative media machine has become,” said George Washington University professor Nikki Usher.

As Jeremy Peters wrote in the New York Times: “Conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself . . . have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.”

So, here’s a modest proposal for the truth-based community.

Let’s get out the hook and pull that baby off stage. Yes: Simply stop using it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/its-time-to-retire-the-tainted-term-fake-news/2017/01/06/a5a7516c-d375-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?utm_term=.0335858eb06c

droid
13-01-2017, 02:20 PM
lol.

droid
13-01-2017, 07:19 PM
Are we supposed to have forgotten that the BBC fired someone for pointing out that an intelligence document was dodgy?

vimothy
16-01-2017, 06:01 PM
The fight against fake news moves to Germany:


The Federal Press Office in the Chancellery is slated to take the lead in creating the defense center "since the focus is on public relations," the staff member wrote in the note. The press office, headed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, has over 500 employees.

The note named specific groups that are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to fake news, including "Russian-Germans" and people with Turkish origins, the magazine reported.

The ministry recommended that "an intensification of political education work" should be carried out with those specific groups.

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-plans-creation-of-center-of-defense-against-fake-news-report-says/a-36887455

luka
26-01-2017, 02:45 PM
https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/


He [Assange] decides, instead, that the most effective way to attack this kind of organization would be to make "leaks" a fundamental part of the conspiracy's information environment. Which is why the point is not that particular leaks are specifically effective. Wikileaks does not leak something like the "Collateral Murder" video as a way of putting an end to that particular military tactic; that would be to target a specific leg of the hydra even as it grows two more. Instead, the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy's information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire.

luka
27-01-2017, 08:34 PM
https://groupnameforgrapejuice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/ideal-objects-delerium-and-other-pizza_27.html?showComment=1485549213924&m=1#c2932906981742855577

sadmanbarty
30-01-2017, 02:34 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/statistics-trump-administration-numbers-manipulation?CMP=twt_gu

Leo
01-02-2017, 03:24 PM
matt taibbi:

A lot of us have this idea that the truth has a kind of magical power, that if the truth is out there it will convince the country to unite behind it. But this isn't so. People can simply decide to not believe a version of events now. They can shop for information the same way they'd shop for everything else, and they pick the reality they find most pleasing.

Back when I was thinking about the rapture movement or the 9/11 truther movement, what struck me was that there are bubbles now that you can stay in and you don't have to engage with reality if you don't want to. So it occurred to me that in the future, people might decide en masse to completely tune out. Even the idea of having a debate with people about a commonly accepted body of facts seemed to be slipping away at the time.

And that's kind of what happened in this election. It was one group of people believing one thing and another group of people seeing something completely different.

http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/2/1/14412450/donald-trump-matt-taibbi-elections-2016-hillary-clinton-media

Leo
17-04-2017, 10:21 PM
The Associated Press reports:


Alex Jones is a performance artist whose true personality is nothing like his on-air persona, according to a lawyer defending the "Infowars" broadcaster in a child custody battle.

Attorney Randall Wilhite said at a pretrial hearing in Austin last week that evaluating Jones based on his on-air comments is like judging Jack Nicholson based on his role as the Joker in "Batman."

for some reason, this does not put my mind at ease.

also, his ex-wife isn't buying it: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/infowars-host-jones-disputes-persona-in-custody-dispute/ar-BBzWxGp

firefinga
18-04-2017, 05:34 PM
I have to admit, before the Trump debacle I wasn't aware of the existance of Alex Jones. Watched a few of his vids on youtube (meaning the first few seconds) and couldn't help it but think this must be satire. Of course, it isn't. And that's the creepy part.