RT

[JackRiddler]

MacC, the claim that Soros activities provide any kind of causal influence on anti-Trump movements and the current majority opinion against Trump in the United States is purest defamation. I take it as an overt act of hostile propaganda against me and millions of my people.

(emphasis added)

Jack, whether or to what extent Soros-funding* causes or influences anything was not the point at issue. I was just explaining why neither you nor Luther need expect to get a check from him, because you keep on bringing that up as it were a knockdown argument.

Actually, no. We're not bringing it up as an argument. (I never have and I'm sure Luther doesn't mean it as an argument, either. He'll tell us however.) It is only a bitter joke heard among the many people who have been directly confronted with this particular defamatory claim. I've had it thrown at me a few times, enough that I forget how many. I'm sure you can search and find examples of this here. It's common as dirt. It's the daily Limbaugh rant. Seriously. Come live here for a while and see how long it takes before you hear it applied to you. So when I say that, I'm not presenting evidence. I mean it more like this: "Do we really have to hear this shit again?"

Otherwise, I've had my say on the subject here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39996&start=30#p610443

.

There is no way to define the industry of "advertising" independently from that of "propaganda." They are the same shit.

.

[MacCruiskeen]

another acre of blather that merely confirms everything I and Jack have argued, and then:

Yes, Bernays, Chomsky, speak of the old Gods. And they wonder why the Left is in decline.

I am losing the will to live. Trying to argue rationally with you is like hoping for correct calculations from a random number generator.

[Elvis]

There is no way to define the industry of "advertising" independently from that of "propaganda." They are the same shit.

To wit:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc91AB7bIeU

Crazy, man, that Nixon cat is with it!

::::::::LANDSLIDE


The history of these ads is fascinating. If you haven't read it, try The Selling of the President 1968 by Joe McGinniss. I remember the political ads of that era, the Nixon ads were always best—the montages, the music, the odd warmth of Nixon's voice—they moved you in some deep-down place inside you, like a really good balsamic vinegar.

[dada]

If consumer culture is the brand you are promoting, I would still say that the propaganda must come first. You need to create your market.

Don Draper borrows the passive, unity and one world at peace paradigm from the "counter culture" to bring back to the dominant capitalistic Madison Ave. culture to sell more coke. And it is hugely popular because it speaks to the non-dominant narrative contra the standard propaganda (America is number 1#).

I saw the finale as a comment on how when it comes down to it, things like love, loyalty, and being true to yourself overshadow the games which we distract ourselves with to avoid coming to terms with death. Towards the end of the series, Don is searching for something. He finds peace when he realizes that the search is just as empty as advertising. And he discovers his own nature. He's a shallow man, with a surprising bit of heart that bubbles up now and then. That's what he's always been. I thought it was clever.

[Elvis]

You need to create your market.

Yes.

If you want to sell margarine, call Hill & Knowlton.

If you want to sell an attitude, call Hill & Knowlton.

If you want to sell a war, call Hill & Knowlton.

[Elvis]

Stephen Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at NYU and Princeton. He is a Nation contributing editor and author of many books including Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War.



DB: So what sources do you turn to to get information about
what’s happening in the Donbass region?

SC: Well, there are a lot of young Europeans, particularly
women, who seem exceptionally courageous. Give them a
TV camera and an uplink and they’re there on the front
line. And the Russians are there. You could take the view
that the Russians misreport. For example, now the
Russians are in Aleppo. This is one value of RT, Russia
Today, which has been demonized here. I used to work in
TV. Footage can be made to lie, but only so much. So the
footage tells the story, but the footage we get is coming
primarily from European and Russian sources. But any
reasonably educated person would like to hear all sides of
the story, hear all the reports, and decide for him- or
herself. Therefore, I do watch Russian TV. I watch the
regular nightly news. It comes here at 9 o’clock on
delayed tape, and I watch a half an hour of RT
international news—not the stuff that’s produced in
Washington but the international news that comes out of
Moscow—to see what they’re saying.

I don’t care about the spin. Any fool can see a spin. It’s
called advertising. We Americans are the experts at it. I
can look at an ad on TV and know when I’m being jerked
around. The same thing with politics. But I want to see
what they show and what stories they’re covering that are
blacked out or just ignored here, because sometimes
they’re important stories. RT has been in Aleppo since the
siege began. What you see there is not what you read in
The New York Times. It’s compatible with it, but the Times
is deleting half of the story. And so is the Washington Post
and so is American television.

Russian mainstream prime-time talk shows—and they’ve gone
talk-show crazy, and a big subject is American-Russian
relations—fairly regularly put on neocon Americans and
wild Ukrainian nationalists, just so the audience can jeer
them. But it’s heard by babushkas in the villages, because
it goes to millions and millions of viewers.

We don’t do that here. Even those of us who are trying
to push back against Cold War, including people with
bigger credentials than mine, cannot get on these
television broadcasts and cannot get on The New York
Times op-ed page. They’re rejected. We haven’t talked
about the new McCarthyism and the shutdown here, but
the graver the danger of the new Cold War, the more
seems to be this labeling anybody. It became national with
Trump, when Clinton decided to run against not Trump-
Pence but Trump-Putin. That will forever be the shame of
the Clinton campaign. But they haven’t cranked it back.
Now they’re claiming that the Russians may have cost her
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. This is madness. But
it’s going to stay in our bloodstream. It’s shrunk the space
here for debating a new policy.

When the Washington Post runs front-page stories
claiming that scores of websites are essentially Russian
agents, without a shred of evidence, this is McCarthyism.

https://www.alternativeradio.org/collec ... ts/cohs001

Reheating the Cold War

Program #COHS001. Recorded in New York, NY on December 03, 2016.

[kool maudit]

Re: "a few of the right-wingers who claim "neither left nor right" on this very board"...

I have seen this charge from AD as well, it implies dishonesty and has been used in several threads in which i critiqued his views.

I don't want to be associated with such a claim, and I suspect that in a small way (I am an unprominent poster) I am.

I am a temperamental conservative who leans politically to the right. Though I am anti-war and at times anti-capitalist, I am not of the left. The writer who most closely approaches my views is probably John Michael Greer.

[Searcher08]

Advertising is propaganda is advertising is propaganda.

Ever notice that North Korean cable news propaganda station KNN is piped into airports and cocktail lounges all around the world? (what, no?)

Speaking for myself, I'm here on RI as a part of my struggle to break free from a lifetime of North Korean social conditioning. I must say, RT has helped.

Cheers. My death certificate nearly said "Muesli inhalation while reading Elvis"

[American Dream]

RT does pander to the illusions of the "neither right nor left" crowd to a significant degree and seeks to win over others to the views which the network is supporting. It functions as an echo chamber, enabling the true believer to brainwash themselves ever deeper.

Their propaganda stream includes plenty of progressives who really are upset about the bad things done by Wall Street, NATO, the Pentagon and whatever else. These sorts of pundits get public exposure- and pay- but in a very real way they are getting used, too. The ultimate editorial control is pursuing its own reactionary agenda, which answers to an axis of power competing with the one previously alluded to. Putin and his inner circle of oligarchs he is close to, along with allied spy chiefs, generals, political advisors represent that pole of power.

Is RT and its milieu inherently worse than other power blocs and their propaganda organs.? No, but it does pose a unique danger to Conspiracy Culture, as we are specifically targeted group and they clearly hope to co-opt us. To some degree they already have.

Fox News, the NYT and etc. fulfill a similar role but with their own unique spin and chosen groups targeted for their information warfare agenda.

[brekin]

RT does pander to the illusions of the "neither right nor left" crowd to a significant degree and seeks to win over others to the views which the network is supporting. It functions as an echo chamber, enabling the true believer to brainwash themselves ever deeper.
Their propaganda stream includes plenty of progressives who really are upset about the bad things done by Wall Street, NATO, the Pentagon and whatever else. These sorts of pundits get public exposure- and pay- but in a very real way they are getting used, too. The ultimate editorial control is pursuing its own reactionary agenda, which answers to an axis of power competing with the one previously alluded to. Putin and his inner circle of oligarchs he is close to, along with allied spy chiefs, generals, political advisors represent that pole of power.
Is RT and its milieu inherently worse than other power blocs and their propaganda organs.? No, but it does pose a unique danger to Conspiracy Culture, as we are specifically targeted group and they clearly hope to co-opt us. To some degree they already have.

Advertising is propaganda is advertising is propaganda.
Ever notice that North Korean cable news propaganda station KNN is piped into airports and cocktail lounges all around the world? (what, no?)
Speaking for myself, I'm here on RI as a part of my struggle to break free from a lifetime of North Korean social conditioning. I must say, RT has helped.

Cheers. My death certificate nearly said "Muesli inhalation while reading Elvis"

Fox News, the NYT and etc. fulfill a similar role but with their own unique spin and chosen groups targeted for their information warfare agenda.

Jackriddler wrote:
There is no way to define the industry of "advertising" independently from that of "propaganda." They are the same shit.

It is just sloppy to say advertising = propaganda and leave it at that. That is like saying news = entertainment. Or tabloid = news. Or propaganda = news.
Yes, there is overlap, and in some instances there is an almost complete overlap producing a hybrid, but they are not the same thing because then their definitions would be meaningless.
Because you could basically say then: propaganda = advertising = entertainment = tabloid = news = propaganda = advertising = entertainment = tabloid = news,
to where they are exactly the same thing. Which you could argue is the case in North Korea, and probably a few other places, but that isn't even the case really, and to say the same thing about more open societies is just redonkulous. If anything we have more often have advertising = news = entertainment = tabloid because with corporate mergers, the media giants want us to buy more and more of their shit and consume, not necessarily repeatedly genuflect constantly to the State and its supreme leader. Whereas in North Korea I don't imagine they have much advertising at all because as a totalitarian impoverished prison socialist state what choice would you have in products or amenities? So, instead of advertising = propaganda there, its all propaganda.

And if advertising = propaganda, how much advertising is happening on RT? RT is news, and it nearly, basically, is propaganda = news/news = propaganda because it is state run masquerading as an independent objective voice and has to carry out what the Kremlin wants. But not all news = propaganda/propaganda news because with even other news stations being lead or in bed with the State they have some leeway or independence in how or what they report on. So if someone said CNN is just propaganda, that would probably be false because the propaganda (passed down/oversight/vetting from the State or other ptb) may only be 10% or who knows 25%. Whereas RT has to be near 100%. So, yes RT is going to tell you some of the truth, but only the truth that serves its propagandist goals (which granted may be insightful for those who aren't aware of such matters). But to assume it is going to tell the truth all the time about the US is again doubly redonkulous because it will omit anything that jeopardizes its interests that rely on duping the US, and its partners in crime over here.

[PufPuf93]

The concept of "The medium is the message" (Marshall McLuhan) explains albeit in a hazy fashion the nuance in the continuums and Venn diagrams of advertising- propaganda-education-information content and video-radio-print-internet or MSM-Alternative-RT-Other provider.

The reception by the consumer is a function of their own perception as well as the intent (covert and overt) of those that produce (and select the producers) the programming (note that content is called programming) and chose the medium.

[JackRiddler]

So seriously brekin, you sound like the Washington Post having a conniption.

I will not be reductio ad absurded.

Your fuzzy mixing of every term until nothing means nothing may be related to a failure to even define terms in the first place, but take them as fixed and givens.

Propaganda is the modern professionalized practice of public speech aimed at persuading people to believe and act according to a given agenda, by any means available, independently of truth (although what is said may actually be true), and without necessary scruple as to the integrity of the logic or facts deployed in effecting the persuasion. Professional propagandists seek to communicate in a disciplined way according to purported scientific principles and always speak to the agenda they promote, not to their own possibly contrary thoughts.

Advertising is... oh shit! How'd that happen?

The distinction is not unlike that between whether to call insurgents "freedom fighters" or "terrorists." Are they ours or are they theirs?

Those who spoke of propaganda in the early 20th C. later started calling what they did advertising. Or "public relations." There is a thorough division of labor within the broad industry. As you have line workers and engineers and also first responders at the factory, so too you have media consultants and advertisers and public relations specialists and lobbyists and campaign managers and branders and crisis teams and dedicated academics and so forth within the present-day persuasion industry. Also all kinds of volunteers! The factory's product remains the same: bullshit.

Necessary to maintaining the structures of class power and wealth and privilege distribution, propaganda is more sophisticated and plays a more important function in freer societies, where coercion is less prevalent. The products are often more sophisticated and persuasive, thus powerful.

In current everyday usage, propaganda is political, advertising is commercial. If you buy space or time on media in order to sell consumer products, it's called advertising. If you distribute leaflets or videos or memes to advocate a political stance, it might be called propaganda. Curiously, if your space or time on media is for a candidate for office, it's called campaign advertising. Ouch.

And AD, thanks for repeating the obvious with regard to RT, but this was really the nub and already suffices:

Fox News, the NYT and etc. fulfill a similar role but with their own unique spin and chosen groups targeted for their information warfare agenda.

Earlier today RT had a guy interviewed at length describing the veteran's protest at Standing Rock. He went into detail on how agents seek to undermine it. I see that as someone using an available platform. Good for him. I'm not too worried about RT coopting the left. Right now they're on a pro-Trump line, so anyone who falls for it is their own patsy and fuck them. I'm not looking to persuade. I'm looking for allies who want to organize. That's how the Right did what they just did.

.

[brekin]

And AD, thanks for repeating the obvious with regard to RT, but this was really the nub and already suffices:

Fox News, the NYT and etc. fulfill a similar role but with their own unique spin and chosen groups targeted for their information warfare agenda.

Christ on a cracker, yes Fox News, NYT is the same as RT a state run and owned entity. Really? There is a difference between degrees of collusion and outright management.

Jesus, even this State Dept. guy gets it.



And Jack you are still equating Western advertising and propaganda in commercial countries (as fascinating and intriguing as it is) with RT, which isn't the more classic manipulation of consumer culture and public opinion. Granted, we watch it as just another outlet among many and may take it that way, but it is being produced by a more closed, repressive countries government for a determined political agenda that itself has very narrow band of tolerant public opinions and aim is to do the same to the targeted audience. It's like the difference between Rock and Christian Rock, the former is yes pushing a life style, point of view, culture and wants you to buy shit, but the other is looking for all that and convert you to a closed totalistic system.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

Christ on a cracker, yes Fox News, NYT is the same as RT a state run and owned entity. Really? There is a difference between degrees of collusion and outright management.

I can't speak to the degree of collusion in the production of RT's content, but the degree of collusion in corporate managed Western media is massive and quite well documented. As this thread demonstrates, that documentation does not prevent the propaganda's effectiveness. On the contrary, the lack of the appearance of direct draconian censorship lends itself to a mindset in the populace that believes its own bullshit.

People, especially Americans, tend to think that propaganda is a government run enterprise for the purpose of presenting the government view. This may be the ultimate purpose of, say, RT, I dunno, but this model for analysing Western media content is flawed. It ignores the fact that in the corporate states of America and elsewhere it is big business which manages state propaganda, even if publicly funded entities like the CIA influence much of the product. And given the presence of the same individuals in positions of appointed public influence and the boards of the wealthiest private institutions in constant revolving door access pedalling, any distinction in the Western world between propaganda pedalling and the work of entertainment & advertising industries is foolhardy -- likely representing the mind of someone under the greatest influence of the most sophisticated propaganda yet developed.

[JackRiddler]

So PBS is propaganda (or will be until the next budget privatizes it or puts it out of business), but NYT and FOXNEWS are not. German ARD is a propaganda channel, but RTL is just a commercial venture and therefore more trustworthy. Etc.

At least I've reduced your non-responses to a shorter form.

Present definitions of your terms or rant, but keep it short if the latter.