Get your prejudice here!
Ever wonder how people form opinions? So do I. I have no real idea, but I'm going to dribble about it for a little while anyway. There seems to be a technique used by everybody from TV commentators to bloggers to try and direct people's opinion which involves labelling. "Trendy small 'l' liberal" ABC, Mark "anti-American" Latham, "Jackboot Johnny" Howard and the list goes on. From my own perspective, this is more likely to either harden my opinion if it is the one that is being discouraged, or at least it will alienate me from the 'orthodoxy' being promulgated by the writer or speaker or whatever.
I just read that sentence back and it's not pretty. Fuck it, I've been getting a bit of throat oil into the system, so it'll have to do.
To continue: This because I don't like; a) being manipulated and these not-so-subtle attempts at directing my thoughts are a pretty crude attempt to do just that; b) the assumption that I share your bias (on whatever subject) or, if I don't, then I can just fuck off and; c) being treated like an idiot, which is a slight variation on option a. This is because the writer (or speaker, or mime-artist or whatever) is hoping to some extent, that, as he is cool, you will want to be cool, too. Naturally, this will involve the repetition of their 'cool' expressions and that the repeated use of these expressions will lead you to agree with them. John Howard and John Laws are extraordinarily good at this.
In fact, to some extent, all media outlets and politicians practice to a varying degree the doctrine of "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth".
Of course, our Mr. Howard would probably also hold the record for the number of times the "I wasn't advised" defense has been used in any given time period when the use of the doctrine has been suspected by his public. Makes you wonder what he pays his advisors for, sometimes.
While I'm ranting, how often do I need to be told about the left-wing bias in the ABC. I know there's a left-wing bias in the ABC, but how many of you are willing to admit why? Try a variation of this at applied to any major media outlet; Channel nine = Kerry Packer = big business = conservative party support. You don't get to be a major league business person (Kerry, Rupert etc.) by being an idiot and only an idiot would allow a company he owns to be used as a vehicle for opinions which are damaging to his current status or future earnings. Therefore, he ain't gunna hire no lefties, so all that's left is the ABC so that's where they go. (and plot the eventual overthrow of... oh, you know the rest). This does NOT make channel nine (or anybody else) evil. It just means that a filter needs to be applied to all information, wherever it comes from. It helps if you can compare a few sources as well.
While I'm disagreeing with everybody, can we please stop trying to polarise opinion on the US? Being the world's most powerful nation does not make them right, nor does it mean they are evil empire builders. The idea that they saved our arse in WW2 (correct, but with modifiers) so therefore we must support them now makes no sense at all in the age of Japanese domination of the electronic consumer market. Surely references to sixty year old alliances are irrelevant without the opposition being retained as well? As for the idea that the US is powerful, so we'd best get on side is, frankly, sickening - do we revere or revile the Quisling and Vichy regimes? And why?
Whether US foreign policy is right or wrong is the question, not how much will it cost us to disagree. That way treason lies. A word I chose carefully. No doubt some tool with too much time on their hands will come up with a dictionary definition, but I believe treason begins when you subjugate your own nation's interests or welfare in favour of that of another nation, whether that is the US, the UK or Hutt River Province. You will note that I have not said whether or not I believe we should support the US in the current (or any other) situation. That's because, for my purposes tonight, my opinion is irrelevant. So's yours, what matters is how and why you arrived at it.
Thank you and goodniiiiiiiiight!
I just read that sentence back and it's not pretty. Fuck it, I've been getting a bit of throat oil into the system, so it'll have to do.
To continue: This because I don't like; a) being manipulated and these not-so-subtle attempts at directing my thoughts are a pretty crude attempt to do just that; b) the assumption that I share your bias (on whatever subject) or, if I don't, then I can just fuck off and; c) being treated like an idiot, which is a slight variation on option a. This is because the writer (or speaker, or mime-artist or whatever) is hoping to some extent, that, as he is cool, you will want to be cool, too. Naturally, this will involve the repetition of their 'cool' expressions and that the repeated use of these expressions will lead you to agree with them. John Howard and John Laws are extraordinarily good at this.
In fact, to some extent, all media outlets and politicians practice to a varying degree the doctrine of "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth".
Of course, our Mr. Howard would probably also hold the record for the number of times the "I wasn't advised" defense has been used in any given time period when the use of the doctrine has been suspected by his public. Makes you wonder what he pays his advisors for, sometimes.
While I'm ranting, how often do I need to be told about the left-wing bias in the ABC. I know there's a left-wing bias in the ABC, but how many of you are willing to admit why? Try a variation of this at applied to any major media outlet; Channel nine = Kerry Packer = big business = conservative party support. You don't get to be a major league business person (Kerry, Rupert etc.) by being an idiot and only an idiot would allow a company he owns to be used as a vehicle for opinions which are damaging to his current status or future earnings. Therefore, he ain't gunna hire no lefties, so all that's left is the ABC so that's where they go. (and plot the eventual overthrow of... oh, you know the rest). This does NOT make channel nine (or anybody else) evil. It just means that a filter needs to be applied to all information, wherever it comes from. It helps if you can compare a few sources as well.
While I'm disagreeing with everybody, can we please stop trying to polarise opinion on the US? Being the world's most powerful nation does not make them right, nor does it mean they are evil empire builders. The idea that they saved our arse in WW2 (correct, but with modifiers) so therefore we must support them now makes no sense at all in the age of Japanese domination of the electronic consumer market. Surely references to sixty year old alliances are irrelevant without the opposition being retained as well? As for the idea that the US is powerful, so we'd best get on side is, frankly, sickening - do we revere or revile the Quisling and Vichy regimes? And why?
Whether US foreign policy is right or wrong is the question, not how much will it cost us to disagree. That way treason lies. A word I chose carefully. No doubt some tool with too much time on their hands will come up with a dictionary definition, but I believe treason begins when you subjugate your own nation's interests or welfare in favour of that of another nation, whether that is the US, the UK or Hutt River Province. You will note that I have not said whether or not I believe we should support the US in the current (or any other) situation. That's because, for my purposes tonight, my opinion is irrelevant. So's yours, what matters is how and why you arrived at it.
Thank you and goodniiiiiiiiight!
posted by Dirk at 7:54 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home