Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
uk.media.radio.bbc-r4
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion 'They Had It Coming' Brigade - Propaganda Getting Smarter
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
SteveL  
View profile  
 More options Sep 21 2001, 9:10 pm
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc, uk.media.radio.bbc-r4
From: SteveL <Ste...@stevelon.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 01:10:05 GMT
Local: Fri, Sep 21 2001 9:10 pm
Subject: Re: 'They Had It Coming' Brigade - Propaganda Getting Smarter
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 21 Sep 2001 14:26:59 -0700, wav...@club.lemonde.fr (Wavell) wrote:

>My impression is that, in the main vehicles for UK popular opinion -
>the radio talk shows and the newspapers - the THIC-ers are getting
>subtler.

>After all, the best sort of propaganda doesn't feel like propaganda -
>the well-known footage of the Palestinian street-party celebrating the
>attack might well be thought to have been organised by the CIA (had
>they not proved themselves incapable of organising a pissup in a
>brewery).

Actually, a lot of the time they succeed. Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua
(in the end). Sure they screw up a lot too, but your dismissal of them
is complacent.

>One of the key emotions their campaign is intended to engender in the
>British public is guilt. Guilt, that is, for their support of the US
>in general, and, in particular, for their support of US military
>action following the WTC attacks.

That's some master plan you've dreamed up. However, "we" have no
campaign. The campaigners are Bush's "crusaders".

>And one popular line used for this purpose is 'America [and, by
>extension, Britain] thinks its lives are more important than [several
>names could fill the blank]'.

>This is a great line for the THIC-ers. It's short, and wraps up two
>lies in one.

>First, it suggests that anyone who doesn't care the same about every
>human life on the planet is unnatural in some way, subhuman, even. The
>fact that Americans devote so much airtime (and politician-time) to
>the deaths of a few thousand on its soil - but ignore the greater loss
>of life in [fill in the blank] means they have been blinkered by their
>money-grubbing, obsession with consumption, etc, etc, and lost a key
>element of their humanity.

And there are plenty of options for the blanks. Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran,
Kuwait, and others I'm too tired to remember now.

The cliches about insular Americans have been doing the rounds as long
as I've been around. It's a truism that the average American only
knows or really cares about America. American servicemen stationed
abroad always refer to the US as "the world". How about the tales of
Americans not wanting to fly to Britain during the Balkan troubles
because they thought Britain is so close to Yugoslavia and they might
get caught up in it.

Well, you know the cliche about cliches. Ever watch the US news? 95%
domestic. And foreign news is pitched at an emotional kindergarten
level, Middle eastern coverage is basically Israel=good, and
arabs=bad. And it rarely goes any deeper than that.

And before you get on my case, I'm American. Give me credit for
knowing my own people.

>The welter of globalophobe propaganda in recent years (albeit directed
>to a different purpose), together with pre-existing prejudices, mean
>that a significant part of the British population is now accustomed to
>thinking of Americans as greedy and selfish (in the context of global
>warming, for instance).

<snip>

>It's a great line because it links up with the 'geopolitical
>illiteracy' line of attack. Obviously part (not the biggest part) of
>the reason for the ranking is a parallel ranking of knowledge of other
>countries. They seem to imply that the mere fact of American
>prosperity and the global impact of the system that underpins it makes
>an American holding anything less than a graduate degree in
>international relations guilty of smug and wilful ignorance.

You should read some of the "let's nuke Afghanistan now, so we can get
back to normal" posts in alt.politics before you defend accusations of
American ignorance. And these aren't totally dumb people. Many of the
people showing this ignorance of the effects of nuclear weapons are
fully aware of the fine details of internecine domestic politics. But
their picture of the outside world is all broad strokes in primary
colors - and that's being generous.

>The other lie is the same point from the reverse viewpoint. Other
>peoples, especially in the Third World, but to a lesser extent in
>Europe, have a natural empathy with their brethren all over the world.
>They are closer to nature as being less sullied by American
>materialism (despite the best endeavours of the capitalist behemoth).
>They are better human beings than the Americans.

>This is usually not stated in so many words. But, clearly, if the
>Americans are relatively less caring about the citizens of other
>nations, it follows that other peoples are more caring.

>The lack of any evidence to support this conclusion doesn't dampen its
>propaganda effect much.

Nonsense. People are people. That's all. Nobody's "better" than anyone
else. That's the *point*. What pisses me off is the automatic
assumption by the American press and politicians that the US has a
moral superiority, virtually by default - and all because, for once,
they are the victims of a terrible and evil act.

>For an extended version of the sort of stuff I'm referring to, savour
>this thoroughly nasty piece of work from the BBC
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/from_our_own_correspondent/new...

>Our correspondent is effusive about his hosts

>"I have never known such consistently courteous, generous people." The
>coded meaning is obvious - and not a little racist, you may think.

That interpretation is full of shit. So saying nice things about
Pakistanis is out of order now is it?

<snip the rest>

So Pakinstanis aren't perfect. Wow. They have violence in their past.
Bigger wow.

Criticism of US foreign policy has been a regular occurance in the
British news for decades. Politicians and commentators from all over
the spectrum have expressed this on a regular basis. Sometimes with
anger. Often with a kind of bemused or patronising "wish they'd stop
and think" attitude.

There's nothing new about this, and in my view they're right. The
awful events of Sept 11th doesn't alter the fact that past US abuses
have caught up with them.

While we're on the subject of lies, how about the official American
answer to why it could possibly be that these foreigners could hate
the US enough to commit such an act. Why of course, they hate the
freedoms we enjoy, especially the religious freedom, and women having
the vote. Hell they just *hate*.

That's a very convenient answer.....

The Wall St Journal (perhaps this organ meets with your approval where
the BBC doesn't) had a survey of wealthy Muslim businessmen on Sept
14th. They expressed resentment of US policies of supporting Israel's
"crimes", the US's constant vetoing of UN sanctions against them. They
resented the continued US military attacks on Iraq, the bombing of
Iraqi civilians, and supporting anti-democratic regimes in the area.

These were well to do, educated people. Aren't the ordinary dirt poor
people actually suffering these things going to feel even more bitter
about it? To the point perhaps of resorting to acts of terrorism?
Europeans have resorted to violence and revolution with far less
justification.

But no of course not. They're just muslim fanatics who hate
freedom.....


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google