Wanna talk about "brainwashing" and manipulative billionaires?

[dust]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage

[Aetherous]

I was surprised to read this today and discover that the right is doing the same thing that we knew the left was doing.

[vonkrankenhaus]

Media has never been different in terms of use and purpose.

 

Do you think King James had his "Bible" written to "help people" as an exercise of some altruistic intention?

 

If so, to "help" them to do what?

 

 

 

 

 

- VonKrankenhaus

[dust]

I was surprised to read this today and discover that the right is doing the same thing that we knew the left was doing.

 

Why does it surprise you?

[Aetherous]

Why does it surprise you?

 

I was completely unaware of it happening.

[dust]

Well, yeah. Any of us might be surprised to learn suddenly of something of which we were unaware!

 

However... whenever I first became aware of such tactics being used it didn't 'surprise' me. As VKh says, it's the way things work, the way things have been for thousands of years.

 

On first read of your comment, it sounded to me like it surprised you to learn that 'the right' would be doing the same thing as 'the left' -- that 'the right' is less likely to use underhand tactics. And so I wondered if that would genuinely be a surprise... because it seems obvious to me that any of the many sides in a political war can and do have many wealthy and manipulative benefactors who believe themselves to be some kind of saviour, or who aim to control people in order to amass more wealth or power...

Edited February 26, 2017 by dust

[Aetherous]

it sounded to me like it surprised you to learn that 'the right' would be doing the same thing as 'the left' 

 

I was really under the impression that the left owned/controlled basically everything media-wise (like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc). Even Fox News.

[ralis]

I was really under the impression that the left owned/controlled basically everything media-wise (like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc). Even Fox News.

 

 

Really? Rupert Murdoch owns the majority of Fox News and is a right wing conservative. Also owns the WSJ which is very right wing neoliberal.

[Aetherous]

Really? Rupert Murdoch owns the majority of Fox News and is a right wing conservative. Also owns the WSJ which is very right wing neoliberal.

 

Yes, truly. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/08/23/surprised-news-corp-donates-more-to-democrats-than-republicans/

 

WSJ is absolutely not right wing these days.

[ralis]

Yes, truly. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/08/23/surprised-news-corp-donates-more-to-democrats-than-republicans/

 

WSJ is absolutely not right wing these days.

 

TheBlaze is a conservative web site founded by Glenn Beck. Further, just because there are donations to Obama means something nefarious is in play? Obama also was given money from Wall Street in large amounts and your post proves nothing and Obama was not a left wing liberal progressive.

Edited February 26, 2017 by ralis

[Aetherous]

TheBlaze is a conservative web site founded by Glenn Beck.

 

Yes...?

 

Further, just because there are donations to Obama means something nefarious is in play? Obama also was given money from Wall Street in large amounts and your post proves nothing and Obama was not a left wing liberal progressive.

 

You're really going to say he wasn't the candidate on the left? It's not weird that the majority owner of Fox News donated such amounts of money to him?

 

I'm sure we can find more evidence of Fox News (and WSJ) being not exactly what we think...

[thelerner]

Yes, truly. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/08/23/surprised-news-corp-donates-more-to-democrats-than-republicans/

 

WSJ is absolutely not right wing these days.

Not as much as it was, but for a while there it was very slanted right. 

 

Seems creating artificial 'likes', and comments are the new frontier in propaganda.   No side is innocent, but some players are massively abusive.  Maybe it'll lead to the use of more data asked for before you can leave an opinion or checks to see your not a bot and/or knocking out questionable outliers. 

[Aetherous]

Seems creating artificial 'likes', and comments are the new frontier in propaganda.

 

As a side note - it's been really interesting to watch this happen on Twitter. Unabashed control of public opinions by: deleting certain member's accounts, shadow banning accounts (they still exist but you can't see what they tweet), deleting 'likes' numbers, promoting only certain comments under a tweet, not showing what's truly "trending" in terms of hashtags, etc.

[ralis]

 

TheBlaze is a conservative web site founded by Glenn Beck.

 

Yes...?

 

Further, just because there are donations to Obama means something nefarious is in play? Obama also was given money from Wall Street in large amounts and your post proves nothing and Obama was not a left wing liberal progressive.

 

You're really going to say he wasn't the candidate on the left? It's not weird that the majority owner of Fox News donated such amounts of money to him?

 

I'm sure we can find more evidence of Fox News (and WSJ) being not exactly what we think...

 

 

 

We? Please speak for yourself as opposed to generalizing consent. In terms of strategy/game theory, strategic moves are not always as they appear. With that being said, I will say no more given that game theory is extremely complex and another subject altogether.

[Aetherous]

We? Please speak for yourself as opposed to generalizing consent.

 

You don't consent to finding evidence? Fair enough...

[Brian]

Really? Rupert Murdoch owns the majority of Fox News and is a right wing conservative. Also owns the WSJ which is very right wing neoliberal.

Neither Murdoch nor the WSJ are "right-wing."

[ralis]

Neither Murdoch nor the WSJ are "right-wing."

 

Whatever you say Brian. You are always right.

Edited February 27, 2017 by ralis

[Brian]

Whatever you say Brian. You are always right and you make be out to be absolutely wrong no matter what evidence I present.

It's a personality flaw of mine -- I tend to agree with people when they are factually correct and I tend to point it out when they state factual untruths.

[dust]

"Left" and "right" can be pretty subjective.

 

The economic left and right are easy enough to define (communism/capitalism); political wings (+/- economics) are less easy but still possible to differentiate; etc. These things cannot be summed up as one single "left and right". Rarely, if ever, has anyone fit neatly into a 100% "left wing" or "right wing" box. You (ralis and Brian) know this, yet call back and forth about it as if there could be a winner!

 

Murdoch is obviously a capitalist; he has closer ties to the Conservative party than any other (yes Tony Blair too but mostly Thatcher, Major, etc); he is against "liberal" bias in the media; he identifies himself as libertarian. He once tweeted, "Of course I want him [Romney] to win, save us from socialism, etc."

 

At the same time, he is in favour of open immigration policies and was a big supporter of Obama at the beginning: "He is a rock star. It's fantastic. I love what he is saying about education."

 

Then again, he supported Ben Carson towards the beginning of the latest election, and doesn't seem to think much of Obama any more.

 

Looking at his media holdings, what I've read about him, and what else I've heard of his actions/tweets etc, I'd judge him closer to the silly traditional notion of "right wing" than of left.

Edited February 28, 2017 by dust