Please look up the word 'grammer' in a good dictionary. Thanks, W At 09:36 AM 7/3/98 -0700, you wrote: >What's needed is education in all levels of academia on what propaganda >really is. On why and how it evolved. I just read an old book 1968, >"Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" by Jacques Ellul, it's an >excellent book going through the evolutionary process of propaganda. A >great reminder how most of the public depends on following media for >defining survival and lifestyles, instead using critical filtering and >thinking skills to understand what objective evidence is really presented >for determining judgements over opinions. > >In this information age, it's time to start integrating this type of >education into all levels of schooling (including grammer schools). We >could be loosing in a collective sense, when determining if our Nation is >using critical thinking skills. We might find that we have been all been >taken over and consumed in memetic-mush. This is just my OPINION. > >-Helen Stewart > >7Pillars Partners wrote: > >> I'm going to make an assertion, and comment on some things that >> might be worth a discussion about. >> >> Assertion: >> If CNN/TIME did in fact work on the TAILWIND story for at least >> 8 months as they claim, and interview hundreds of sources, it strains >> credibility beyond the breaking point that they now claim to be >> 'absent malice' in going on air and to press with their story. >> >> How is it that with all that data and effort, a more objective view >> of the same material can be made in -roughly a week- that requires a >> retraction and apology? Can professionals with this level of >> experience truly have convinced themselves so thoroughly of the >> inherent dishonesty of the US military that they would ignore the >> flaws in their own reporting? What does that say for the news >> organization and news process itself, as well as the news consuming >> public, that these are respected players? >> >> Comments: >> We're going to hear a lot of people beating up on the media; this >> is a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. What used to pass for >> journalism (reporting facts) has turned into something else (moving >> around opinion--and remember, when you have facts, you don't need >> an opinion; interpretations of facts are called 'judgment,' FYI). >> This is propaganda, by the most loose of definitions--the substitution >> of opinion for judgment. >> >> The press, in all its forms, have become our observational proxies. >> By definition, in fact--if you aren't a direct witness to an event, >> you're using a proxy. In this modern world of global communication, >> distance has eroded, -if- you rely upon the proxies to bridge all >> that distance for you. Part of being an open source professional is >> learning how to 'triangulate'--use multiple proxy sources to get >> some rough approximation of objective facts. I'm sad to say that >> I notice a considerable tendency on the part of professionals to >> spin and add bias, which only compounds the problem of the spin and >> bias from the proxies. The media consuming public, however, is in >> even worse shape than we professionals are. They're out there, and >> they keep taking it on the chin. >> >> Worse than the press/media turning into proxies, where we have to >> continually calculate trust assessments into dealing with what they >> report, is how they've turning in brokers for reputation capital. >> This is going to take a view words of explanation, so bear with me. >> >> Reputation capital is poorly understood, but we use it in all of our >> relationships: how much do you trust those around you, and in what >> problem domains? You want to trust a physician to do his/her work >> professionally, objectively, competently. The same with police. >> Judges. Teachers. Violations of that trust are met with great >> levels of intolerance, and justifiably so. So you want to trust a >> physician to do their job, but do you ask them how to manage your >> money? Physicians are -notoriously- bad at this sort of thing (get >> a few drinks into a stockbroker and ask them which accounts they can >> churn most often). Physicians themselves have a hard time >> understanding where their competence stops. "What's the difference >> between God and a doctor? God doesn't think He's a doctor." For the >> most blatant example of reputation capital gone wrong, look at the >> media portrayal and public worship (sorry, that's the only word that >> really fits) of celebrities. Who honestly should care what they have >> to say or think about on world affairs? Do they have a -judgment- or >> just an -opinion-? I can respect how a professional athlete performs >> in his/her sport, but I'm not about to ask them about foreign >> policy -unless they have domain expertise-; the same goes with rock >> stars, film stars, etc. When we start confusing opinion with >> judgment in the political arena, that's when my blood runs cold. >> And herein comes the role of media/proxies as reputation brokers: >> >> -- The anonymous source. We don't know who they are, they 'leak' to >> their journalist of choice for their own reasons, perhaps good or >> not. TAILWIND used a reported number of sources over two hundred, >> with on-going claims from the now-fired producer of the story that >> they have 'secret sources' who continue to push the story. Since we >> don't know who these sources are, or what materials they have or know, >> we can't judge them--in other words, we only have an opinion at best, >> we can't make a judgment. We're forced to rely on the media to do >> this for us; this is how they're reputation capital brokers--based on >> what they know of their sources, past interaction, current activities >> and relationships, -they- are supposed to exercise judgment. In the >> 'good old days' when I used to feel comfortable calling people >> reporters, this also included what we open source professionals still >> try to do--triangulation, or -have at least two/three (depends on the >> media outlet) independent, objective sources with concrete facts to >> back up the story-. You'll note that the burden has shifted--the >> media can no longer be trusted to perform this service, but -we- the >> consumer need to. This means the system is broken. Don't look to >> the Internet as the quick fix; after all, it's where Drudge came from. >> >> -- The feedback element. I know a few very professional working >> reporters who have made two critical observations to me in the past. >> One is that no matter how good their source, no matter how good the >> proof, they always triangulate--and something more. They do a contact >> trace on sources related to the story; in other words, they're trying >> to guarantee that their sources are truly independent. This is, on >> occasion, very difficult, particularly when dealing with this 'six >> degrees of separation' and instant communication world. But in their >> professional experience, it was too easy to start a whispering >> campaign--the words out of their source could be found going into the >> ears and coming out of the mouths of seemingly independent sources, >> thus the message wasn't independent. Memes are frighteningly hard to >> deal with--the message gets passed along for a lot of reasons, but >> generally because it's too good to be true -and- people want it to be >> true. TAILWIND is an example, but I could just as easily point to the >> many conspiracy theories, or the '200,000 attacks on DoD systems by >> hackers,' or a lot of the other incredible, ludicrous 'factoids' >> floating around. And that leads to the second part of the feedback >> problem--diffusion into the background. The blurring of opinion and >> judgment, combined with the polling process, has made the public >> (read: masses, plebes) the driving force for politicians (those people >> who make law). Progressively less informed about the myriad elements >> of the world (the world is impressively complex, and complexity >> forces specialization specifically to cope), the mass collection of >> opinion by media and political organizations and using it to tailor >> the content of what gets presented, or to make policy and legal >> decisions, is the logical conclusion of the feedback process, and >> potentially the ultimate ruin of the democratic process. What it >> means is that someone takes a poll, finds out that a great number of >> people are interested in something, which increases the coverage of >> that something--which adds positive feedback (in the cybernetic >> sense), causing more attention, and probably eventual political >> action. It cuts both ways: good, such as increased funding for >> various research; bad, such as increasing crime legislation and >> criminalization, at a time when real crime is dropping, but media >> attention to crime is increasing. Extreme cases make bad law--and >> with media coverage, extreme cases get -great- numbers of people >> interested; sizzle sells, but it's screwing up the media -and- the >> political process. >> >> Answers. Do I have any? Sure, but you aren't going to like them. >> Learn how to discriminate, but based on facts (which leads to >> judgment), and not without them (which leads to opinions). Don't >> make significant moves based on opinions--particularly laws. Learn >> about reputation capital, and stop buying into the cult of celebrity. >> Learn how to triangulate, which will teach you a lot about spin and >> bias. Most important of all, get a grip on responsibility; media >> and political processes are turning into a 'tragedy of the commons'-- >> we aren't 'owners' of the processes, so we don't feel any great need >> to do anything about them. On the surface, this comes off as a >> disenfranchisement--people claiming that they "don't have any say" >> in the media or political process; by not asserting ownership, you >> leave a vacancy that -someone- is certainly going to fill, and they're >> going to be the one making decisions. The best part of it, for >> whomever that is, is they get authority without responsibility--both >> the media and politics have evolved into realms of privilege where >> being accountable for your mistakes is so rare as to be non-existent. >> >> Incidents like TAILWIND and the CNN/TIME story and retraction, are a >> small example of this ownership. Enough people suddenly developed a >> spine where the media content was concerned that those involved in >> the operation even got an -apology- from CNN's CEO/President. That's >> great, but it isn't good enough--out of us. We need to have that >> level of ownership and feeling of responsibility consistently, because >> without it we're going to get the media and political processes we >> deserve. >> >> Copyright 1998 by Michael Wilson. (All rights reserved.) >> Managing Partner, 7Pillars Partners >> partnersat_private http://www.7pillars.com/ > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:11:00 PDT