On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 23:01 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> Very simple - if you have control of how an issue is framed, then the
> mechanics of the discussion are relatively unimportant,
of course, in most democratic societies, there _is_ no such "control".
control-by-disdain ("you are unpatriotic / stupid / out-of-this-world /
a conspiracy theorist / slave of the corporate empire" if you don't
agree with my framing) is not an effective mechanism of total control.
that said, it does work as a method of control over large sections of
society, if it is in line with their existing beliefs or opinions. even
those are open to change, as the US support for the iraq war shows so
well. (i remember leaving FoRK in 2003 because it had degenerated into
pro-anti-war argument, with lots of intelligent folk buying the bush
propaganda - as even the Economist did about the WMD if not the
iraq=terrorism argument).
now, the bush administration hasn't really changed its approach, but the
facts have gradually got through to a majority of the same american
population that was "brainwashed" earlier.
the difference between an open and closed society is probably more that
an open society allows ways to counter propaganda such that propaganda
is not effective over the long term. but freedom does not equal widely
distributed critical thinking or immunity to prejudices or rhetoric.
that hasn't got much to do with propaganda, does it?
-rishab
