smooth bruce Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Not surprising there is no thread on this... Chomsky and Herman still have the propaganda model on lock down 30 years after writing it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I just read a brief article about the guy. Iunno who he is though. Please tell. Noam Chomsky is cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim540 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 i seen a article in the paper about him today, the headline made me laugh a little... Brutal Dictator, US Ally Dies *shakes head why do they hate us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Damn, homie. He died yestarday we ain't the AP over here. :rolleyes: This guy was a brutal dictator who "supported" democracy so basically whatever he did was cool with us. Tis the way the world is, atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Feast Island Man Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 clearly this isn't sensationalist enough to stoke any real interest from anyone here. including me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qawee Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 chomsky is a herb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 dude if the propaganda model explains the politics of news coverage in the mainstream media, i think i am going to propose a chomskyist model of crossfire. its actually sort of an interesting thought process, considering that suharto genocided on behalf of america: ownership/funding/sourcing- if the news doesn't somehow go against the 'official line of thinking', then it probably isn't going to get covered here. therefore, infowars and youtube are more legitimate than wapo, nytimes etc. reporters become more legitimate sources than those actually involved in 'news'. greg palast's understanding/tale on a situation becomes fact, the crux of the matter. as far as funding goes, its a tough thing to think about funding here, because there are no financial risks involved in crossfire (except stupidity, the omnipresent financial risk). FLAK/COMMUNISM- flak- curiously, flak is celebrated in crossfire. by arguing with the REAL LOW or fuentes etc, somehow their faulty logic is validated by the objections of the 'powers that be.' MAR made a great point regarding this condition a couple days ago. Communism (anti-ideologies)- oh man crossfire, where do i begin. anything regarding "everything is not as they seem" gets a big plus in crossfire. i would say the anti-ideology generally in crossfire is 'global-capital centrism'. that term sucks i just made it up. but libertarians, conspiracy theorists and general anti-governmental apathists alike despise increased cooperation among the powers that be internationally (presumed to be at the expense of the small guy). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BEHOLD MY CONSPIRACY MODEL. suharto was not mentioned because there was no cause for disagreement. who would argue that suharto was a necessary bulwark against communism? who would argue today that a suhartist would solve the islamist situation in aceh? nobody, therefore no discussion. therefore, the significance of flak in crossfire. moreover, there's no possibility that suharto is a fake, a nazi, a skull and boner, a nwo'er etc, so what is there to talk about? him dying doesn't hurt american interests in any way, so there's no need to talk about it. --------------------------------------- ps- indonesia is actually relatively pro-american (minus the aceh situation, which is a domestic problem), so 'this is why they hate us' arguments are faulty in logic. but good luck trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Are you suggesting this is the kind of e-conversations to be had? Cause that would be gay. Noob1: hey guess what rupert murdoch just bought another media outlet. he says he won't corrupt the information to imply his own bias. i believe him. Noob2: yeah he's def not gonna be a dick. Noob3: okay cool. Noob1: i love you guys. Noob2: so guys my mom got taken away by the fbi the other day, she said the word choice. Noob1: aww man that sucks. but hey everyone else is safe so thats cool. anyways i think its cool that my bro cant get his hernia surgery cause he's fat. Noob3: lol your bro is fat. why is he alive? he should die. fat people are evil. Noob2: penis. ....Imperfection is such a perfect thing. Though to be perfectly imperfect is perfect. So we should all just continue to argue and ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 ^haha thinksmall you made me laugh. my point is that by going from woodward to palast, you're not going from 'horrible' journalism to 'great' journalism. instead, your merely matching the political inclinations of particular journalists with your own. people who are opposed to american interests will read (and regard as truth) articles about israeli apartheid. those who are not so opposed outright will read about palestinian extremism (or resistance). by disregarding the journalistic choices of those who you don't agree with politically, you're only short changing yourself, because your worldview (as determined by your news choices, a really old writer lippman is all about this) changes as a result. as an astute person politically, what sean hannity says is JUST AS important as what he doesn't, and by ignoring it you are effectively sidelining yourself. instead, if you had chosen to watch it, and be able to substantively explain QUALITATIVELY (beyond "fuck that noise, it came from rupert the devil), wouldn't you be better off than just scanning ron paul's website for press releases? is it a good idea to rely ONLY on infowars for your understanding of the world? and if it isn't what does that mean for the general quality of infowars? does it only exist to 'even out' mainstream media (this question is especially applicable if you think it is inadequate on its own). a good parallel to infowars is fnc. created 'to counteract the liberal media', most people who are astute politically would argue that its pointless to watch that on its own. im really only ranting my thoughts, but i do think that as far as discussion goes in here, the vast majority of disagreements that occur in here are irreconciliable, by the very fact that we rely upon different channels/websites for news. on that note, academic blogs are the shit. http://www.juancole.com = my main source of news for iraq. ps if the real low gets his own thread i get mine too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spectr Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 man this dude was fucking horrible... we supported him in power for so long to... Seriously glad he is fucking dead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 ^ yeah he was fucked up, way worse than pinochet imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 i read something earlier today i can't remember where, that suharto embezzled the equivalent of 4% of GDP (i think the monetary value was 35 billion U$D). thats ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 yeah its an absolute joke how much money his family has, i think your figure is spot on he killed about half a million 'communists' and other members of the political class in the 70's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted January 29, 2008 Author Share Posted January 29, 2008 I just read a brief article about the guy. Iunno who he is though. Please tell. Noam Chomsky is cool. The US backed Suharto in a 1965 coup where he killed 500,000 "communists" which is a cold war propaganda term for any popular struggle with a shred of democratic process in it (aka peasants). Ten years later in 1975 Suharto invaded East Timor and killed 250,000 people, again with US backing, US weapons and the green light from both the US and Australia. In fact I think Ford (maybe Kissinger too) were in the country about two days before giving their approval but told him to wait until they had left. So this resulted in what some historians have argued was the worst genocide of the 20th century, worse than the holocaust, given the 1975 population of East Timor (one half of a small island) to death ratio was staggering. Regardless of that argument it pretty much comes in second worst. The original event was given minimal coverage and met with praise and the East Timor invasion was never reported in the agenda setting media. 30 years later he dies of kidney failure or something and the western media report a neutral summary of it on all the non-US media sources I have seen about "some people say he had questionable human rights records.... but he brought economic growth!". The dude was a fucking mass murderer on par with Hitler and not a single news report I have seen has even come close to breaking the "questionable human rights record" phrase and just coming out and saying it. Just imagine changing Suharto to Hitler "some people question his human rights records... but man that was some good economic growth!" In fact we don't even have to switch the names, they are both on the same level of evil mass murdering mother fucker. chomsky is a herb. Thanks but I am going to take the world renowned scholar and important historical figure of the 20th century over the "herb" who subscribes a membership to a graffiti forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 I'm just curious, PM. Two things stand out to me- you're obviously intelligent, and in at least a quarter of your posts you mention Chomsky. Who else informs your opinions? I mean, Chomsky undoubtedly is brilliant, but you seem to see things from a very narrow social and political perspective, almost to the point of being dogmatic and quoting Chomsky as if it is some kind of radical scripture. This isn't a knock, I'm honestly curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 here are some reactions to an economist article from readers. they really show how people really emphasize the economic benefits of suharto, to the point of often sounding apologetic. again, anot my words, found here : "There is no doubt that Mr. Suharto committed some serious crimes and neglected his people civil rights. But, I suppose that the level of economic development that Indonesian enjoys today, which is exceptional in Muslim world and is counter example of "Natural Resource Curse" in oil rich states, is also a legacy of Mr. Suharto. In this regard, he was indeed a nation builder. I think it is very important to note that without strong economic structure and acceptable level of development that Suharto's dictatorship brings about, today's level of democracy and freedom in Indonesia was not possible. Ironically, dictatorship seems to be necessary (but not sufficient) precondition of democracy in oil rich states." "As someone who had to flee his house during the '98 riot I have no positive nostalgia about the Suharto era. I know the importance of forgiveness before the country can move on. However, in my opinion his biggest mistake was his failure to humbly and sincerely ask for forgiveness for the countless deaths and suffering he caused." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 one more, by one charles denney: "General Suharto's collaboration with the infamous "Berkeley Mafia" led to radical neo-liberal economic reform programs, creating the "facade" talked about in this article. As went with any formidible anti-communist force, the United States and its economic advisors supported the coup and the subsequent political and economic transformation that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and a very voltile political atmosphere. Consider this: Political turmoil, a violation of basic civil liberties, and economic instability does nothing but fuel radical fundamentalism and usually anti-west resentment -- in this case, rightfully so. It's a shame that many don't even know where Indonesia is located geographically." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted January 29, 2008 Author Share Posted January 29, 2008 I'm just curious, PM. Two things stand out to me- you're obviously intelligent, and in at least a quarter of your posts you mention Chomsky. Who else informs your opinions? I mean, Chomsky undoubtedly is brilliant, but you seem to see things from a very narrow social and political perspective, almost to the point of being dogmatic and quoting Chomsky as if it is some kind of radical scripture. This isn't a knock, I'm honestly curious. The usual suspects, Howard Zinn, Edward Said rip, arhundati, etc Where am I being dogmatic in this thread? The cunt died, there is NO mention of his Western backed slaughtered in the news (standard news reporting, not forbes or business press), there is a very brief glance over of his "questionable human rights record" and high praise for "his" economic achievements. That is a pretty strong reinforcement of the propaganda model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 I agree- Suharto was a scumbag, and this was the first place I heard of his death. Also, the US has NEVER looked at its allies with anything less than rose colored glasses. Except for Stalin, perhaps. That's propaganda for you. When I say "dogmatic", it's not me dismissing you politically or intellectually. I live in Berkeley, and I'm a lot closer to the center politically than most of the people I talk to. Where you seem to be coming from sounds very similar to what I hear when I have conversations about politics with my friends. You're in Australia, correct? What's the prevailing mood towards radical left politics there? I have heard that people are starting to resent the US more there, but what are some of the issues that Australians feel directly affected by with respect to US foreign policy? Let's overlook the war in Iraq as an issue since no one besides the military contractors seems to like the situation there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted January 29, 2008 Author Share Posted January 29, 2008 Sounds like you have switched on friends. Australia is like all prosperous western nations when it comes to the mood towards left wing politics, the same as everywhere else. Ignorant, through no fault of their own, people trying to pay mortgages and feed their kids rather than considering who is screwing them and how. Resentment towards the US seems the same as most places in the world, strong, but at the moment we are trying to save the whales so the frowning emoticon is aimed at the Japanese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 The cunt died, there is NO mention of his Western backed slaughtered in the news (standard news reporting, not forbes or business press), there is a very brief glance over of his "questionable human rights record" and high praise for "his" economic achievements. That is a pretty strong reinforcement of the propaganda model. Maybe its more touchy in australia and more aussies even know who he is, but every story I have read about his death in the US main stream media has focused on his atrocities, described him as a genocidal dictator, etc. nyt- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/world/asia/28suharto.html?ex=1359176400&en=52ae3199492135c7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss "Suharto of Indonesia, whose 32-year dictatorship was one of the most brutal and corrupt of the 20th century, died Sunday in Jakarta. He was 86. But these successes were ultimately overshadowed by pervasive and large-scale corruption; repressive, militarized rule; and a convulsion of mass bloodletting when he seized power in the late 1960s that took at least 500,000 lives. Mr. Suharto and his family became notorious for controlling state enterprises and taking kickbacks for government contracts, for siphoning money from state charities and for committing gross violations of human rights. " cnn- http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/27/suharto.obit/ "Responsible for shaping modern Indonesia, Haji Muhammad Suharto was known as the "smiling general," but his legacy as one of the great Cold War era strongmen was built on corruption and a reign of violence that left hundreds of thousands dead. It was during that period that Suharto embarked on a nationwide purge of alleged communists overseen by his powerful military. Human rights groups estimate anywhere between 500,000 to a million people were killed. In 1975, his troops invaded the territory of East Timor -- with the tacit support of Western allies keen to prop up an anti-communist leader. The ensuing occupation lasted more than two decades and killed more than 100,000 people, according to human rights groups. His aim was to keep the sprawling Indonesian archipelago together. Separatist rebellions were quickly crushed, while democratic elections were rigged to re-elect Suharto year after year. Political opponents were routinely kidnapped and tortured. As billions of dollars of foreign investment poured in to oil-rich Indonesia's transformed economy, huge sums were siphoned off by Suharto's cronies and family, who became lavish spenders in a poor country -- oblivious to growing resentment among its 210 million people." Every story ive read from the US press has been identical to these....also PM do you have the same feelings for dictators with almost identical hisotircal records(kicking out corrupt govt/colonial power then killing off opponents) like fidel, ho chi minh, etc? I know chomsky had his own "propaganda model" going on for the khmer rouge during and for a period after the killing fields, that might be too sensitive of an issue to discuss like adults though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Sounds like you have switched on friends. Australia is like all prosperous western nations when it comes to the mood towards left wing politics, the same as everywhere else. Ignorant, through no fault of their own, people trying to pay mortgages and feed their kids rather than considering who is screwing them and how. Resentment towards the US seems the same as most places in the world, strong, but at the moment we are trying to save the whales so the frowning emoticon is aimed at the Japanese Here it's mostly about the upcoming election. People here (in Berkeley) don't want to face the fact that everything is a tradeoff- get rid of consumer/disposable culture, and you eliminate the means to have a middle class, or that having a government that takes care of the people gives that government the means to legislate and take away liberties "in the interest of the common weal", and so on. And when you say I have "switched on friends", is that directed at me or my friends? I used to be MUCH further to the left and have simply started to see the world more in shades of gray. Granted, when I say that I'm more towards the center, I mean that I'm more towards the center compared to most of the people I know, but compared to the rest of the US I'm still quite liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 I just straight up hate everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 IT's true what PW is saying about the media in Australia, I've read around 5-10 articles about Suharto's death and the strongest language used is 'questionable human rights record'. I would say this is because our government has a history of collaboration with him at the highest levels. An ex Prime Minister attended his funeral, as did numerous other high level dignitaries. Australia signed its first ever military co-operation pact with a south east asian country with Suharto's regime. The Australian media won't say anything REALLY bad about him because it might start people with half a brain asking 'then why the fuck did we support him politically and economically for so long?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qawee Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 edit: fuck it, who cares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.