papers pervert people

[Pluto]

The three P's. Newspapers pervert people.

Your newspaper is there to pervert your thinking.

[Skip]

Only if you read it.

[Pluto]

You don't think many do?

[marjoram_blues]

The three P's. Newspapers pervert people.

Your newspaper is there to pervert your thinking.

You know I prefer 4 P's
Papers pervert people...perhaps.

But then you change it to a specific newspaper 'your'; that made me think that some people only ever read one newspaper, the kind that confirms all their beliefs e.g. about a particular political party. In that case, then probably...their thinking is not being challenged, and so...could 'pervert' in the sense of turning them away from another perspective. So, their view of the world is, or remains distorted, by an incorrect interpretation of events. Cherry-picking and generalizations being common, I think.

The original argument/statement could be applied to any 'paper' or text.
And the 'people' could mean the 'readers' and their minds, or the person/ality being considered. To misconstrue or provide an analysis that perverts the meaning of a person's words, or what actually happened.

However, perfectly pensive and ponderous philosophers would probably never be so fooled, right?

[tbieter]

The late Kenneth Minogue, a political philosopher whose books and articles I've read, wrote either a book or long essay in which he argued that journalism (chiefly, newspapers) distorts the reader's reality. If you are interested in the cite, send me a PM and I'll find it.

[Pluto]

The papers in the UK have close to everyone reading them. Different papers for different people. Newspapers are important for social control. I know a person who reads the daily mail every day, that is serious brainwashing right there. But of course he enjoys it. He thinks the government should put chips in everyone so as to know and catch more easily the perverts which fill the paper daily. The paper continues to pervert him. Reading religiously, your daily bread.

[Pluto]

But then you change it to a specific newspaper 'your'; that made me think that some people only ever read one newspaper, the kind that confirms all their beliefs e.g. about a particular political party. In that case, then probably...their thinking is not being challenged, and so...could 'pervert' in the sense of turning them away from another perspective. So, their view of the world is, or remains distorted, by an incorrect interpretation of events. Cherry-picking and generalizations being common, I think.

That's what I was thinking, that a paper is read almost every day, by a certain type of person. So in the UK, The Telegraph is read by a certain group, and then The Sun, by another. Some get their paper delivered, so its on the doorstep every morning. These seemingly different papers keep people locked into a particular kind of thinking about society, self, and the world. Behind each paper stands legions of like-minded followers.

However, perfectly pensive and ponderous philosophers would probably never be so fooled, right?

I don't think you are exempt because of what you do, or are. I read a good quote from a communication teacher talking about tv propaganda, "One part sees the propaganda is ongoing, the other part of the same mind, adheres blindly to it."

[marjoram_blues]

Pluto, your thread inspired me to go search for relevant material in PN's articles. I found this, not exactly about journalism but concerns how someone's ideas ( in this case Derrida's) can be misrepresented; the spread of malicious memes, if you like...
https://philosophynow.org/issues/72/Beware_of_Truth

[Pluto]

Today, all new forms of opposition become paralyzed before being formed; cynicism infects all politics; even imagining an alternative seems futile. But consider the wider context, our one-dimensional societies. There is no meaningful opposition in the political, social, and media worlds; all new forms of opposition become paralyzed before being formed; cynicism infects all politics; even imagining an alternative seems futile. The American political system is widely regarded as broken, but this is certainly by intent, so that the government is rendered unable to take effective action on anything that matters, including soaring inequality and corporate domination of the political and legislative process.

So how can opposition form? How to respond? As Marcuse asked toward the end of One-Dimensional Man, “How can the administered individuals—who have made their mutilation into their own liberties and satisfactions . . . liberate themselves from themselves as well as from their masters? How is it even thinkable that the vicious circle be broken?” His answer, framed in semi-apocalyptic terms, is a root-and-branch rejection of the existing order and the creation of a “new sensibility.”

This means that typical political strategies go nowhere. “The totalitarian tendencies of the one-dimensional society render the traditional ways and means of protest ineffective—perhaps even dangerous because they preserve the illusion of popular sovereignty,” Marcuse writes. Thus, from the point of view of One-Dimensional Man, most arguments over the strategy and structures of Occupy miss the point. Rather than be recognizably political, a new radical movement would have to—will still have to—be as much about creating a different sensibility and different values as about an effective alternative politics.

http://conversations.e-flux.com/t/marcu ... right/1494

I like the idea that you must create a 'new sensibility' but realise that within the current order, is close to impossible, especially when you read a newspaper every day.

[Pluto]

Pluto, your thread inspired me to go search for relevant material in PN's articles. I found this, not exactly about journalism but concerns how someone's ideas ( in this case Derrida's) can be misrepresented; the spread of malicious memes, if you like...
https://philosophynow.org/issues/72/Beware_of_Truth

Great! Thanks for posting that, I'll have a look.

[marjoram_blues]

Pluto wrote:

I don't think you are exempt because of what you do, or are. I read a good quote from a communication teacher talking about tv propaganda, "One part sees the propaganda is ongoing, the other part of the same mind, adheres blindly to it."

Isn't this a bit like 'love is blind' ? You might see the faults in your beloved one but ignore them. It is only when some other love comes along, or you fall out of love, that the scales are lifted from your eyes...
I agree, even the most rational, logical person is not immune.

[marjoram_blues]

Pluto wrote:

That's what I was thinking, that a paper is read almost every day, by a certain type of person. So in the UK, The Telegraph is read by a certain group, and then The Sun, by another. Some get their paper delivered, so its on the doorstep every morning. These seemingly different papers keep people locked into a particular kind of thinking about society, self, and the world. Behind each paper stands legions of like-minded followers.

Yes, but this type of daily doorstep delivery is becoming less and less. In my street of 12 houses, only 3 pay for this service. They, undoubtedly, get the same paper and are of a set mentality and of a 'certain age'.

Which paper(s) do you read, Pluto?
My first port-of-call is usually the Guardian on-line. I enjoy reading all the below the line comments; some of which point out the distortions and provide links to 'facts' and other perspectives.
What fascinates me, is when I can view e.g. a leader's debate, and then listen to the various perspectives offered by the BBc, STV and CH4.

[Pluto]

Pluto wrote:

I don't think you are exempt because of what you do, or are. I read a good quote from a communication teacher talking about tv propaganda, "One part sees the propaganda is ongoing, the other part of the same mind, adheres blindly to it."

Isn't this a bit like 'love is blind' ? You might see the faults in your beloved one but ignore them. It is only when some other love comes along, or you fall out of love, that the scales are lifted from your eyes...
I agree, even the most rational, logical person is not immune.

But the one you love, isn't an institution dishing-out propaganda. I thought of the quote as between consciousness and unconsciousness. There are no filters for the unconsciousness, everything just goes straight in, and possibly, so to speak, re-arranges the furniture. The subliminal.

[Pluto]

Pluto wrote:

That's what I was thinking, that a paper is read almost every day, by a certain type of person. So in the UK, The Telegraph is read by a certain group, and then The Sun, by another. Some get their paper delivered, so its on the doorstep every morning. These seemingly different papers keep people locked into a particular kind of thinking about society, self, and the world. Behind each paper stands legions of like-minded followers.

Yes, but this type of daily doorstep delivery is becoming less and less. In my street of 12 houses, only 3 pay for this service. They, undoubtedly, get the same paper and are of a set mentality and of a 'certain age'.

Which paper(s) do you read, Pluto?
My first port-of-call is usually the Guardian on-line. I enjoy reading all the below the line comments; some of which point out the distortions and provide links to 'facts' and other perspectives.
What fascinates me, is when I can view e.g. a leader's debate, and then listen to the various perspectives offered by the BBc, STV and CH4.

Yes, I agree, delivered papers are less now, I was just trying to emphasise, the every day, and the, can't do without idea. Need my fix, you go on holiday, and have the chance to detox yourself but you give-in to the 'drug' and buy it then read by the pool. Of course online newspaper reading is popular now.

I too sometimes visit the Guardian website, and also read the 'below' comments, and to be honest, it bores and depresses me a bit, I tell myself I must stop doing it. But of course, reading comments can produce some interesting insights and links, which the paid journalist could never say or put-up.

[marjoram_blues]

Pluto wrote:

But the one you love, isn't an institution dishing-out propaganda. I thought of the quote as between consciousness and unconsciousness. There are no filters for the unconsciousness, everything just goes straight in, and possibly, so to speak, re-arranges the furniture. The subliminal.

The one you love might not be an 'institution' but part of one. The one you love can dish out propaganda in a sense which is not necessarily political or negative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
We each have a view of life, based on our own narratives/background. This is open to change or manipulation; our attitudes can influence/be influenced both consciously and unconsciously, just as you suggest.

I don't think that dogmatic daily paper(s) are so very subliminally subtle, more straight in your face brutally aggressive, unlikely to re-arrange any mental rocking-chair.

I would be interested to read the quote within its context; do you have the reference?