Philosophy Now Forum

I haven't watched this but knowing how BBC is power structure it is natural that it would frame things in its favour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wzY0twa ... re=related

Every government stamps information "Confidential," "Secret," "Top Secret" or "For Your Eyes Only" to cover somebody's ass (or arse for you Europeans).

but knowing how BBC is power structure it is natural that it would frame things in its favour.

Choose your news.

http://www.collativelearning.com/choose ... 0news.html

I watched it. I don't care if it's propaganda, because I can choose to watch something else as well. As long as it's not lies and people stay careful about over-emphasizes and generalizations among the film-makers it's totally cool to watch. But the title of this thread did make me extra awake when I saw it.

Pluto wrote:I haven't watched this but knowing how BBC is power structure it is natural that it would frame things in its favour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wzY0twa ... re=related

I don't see what you mean by "BBC is power structure", nor how you traduce this as propaganda.
To characterise it as propaganda, you would have to be implying that the BBC was using this program to promote itself by misleading its audience.

stsoc, thanks for the link.

I see now how the media frame everything to suit its (power structure) aims. Before I thought it wasn't so controlled. Our thinking and ideas come unavoidably from mass media, simple. Mass media is now biosphere, part of everything, in everything. In us. The BBC is not an independent entity, it is part of the established power structure and so naturally frames everything to suit that power structure. I say it is propaganda because the mass media, which the BBC is part of, is ideologically motivated. What is broadcast, everything, including the bit at the top about Assange and Wikileaks, is politically motivated. It is designed to have a pre-thought-out effect on those watching.

Pluto wrote:stsoc, thanks for the link.

I see now how the media frame everything to suit its (power structure) aims. Before I thought it wasn't so controlled. Our thinking and ideas come unavoidably from mass media, simple. Mass media is now biosphere, part of everything, in everything. In us. The BBC is not an independent entity, it is part of the established power structure and so naturally frames everything to suit that power structure. I say it is propaganda because the mass media, which the BBC is part of, is ideologically motivated. What is broadcast, everything, including the bit at the top about Assange and Wikileaks, is politically motivated. It is designed to have a pre-thought-out effect on those watching.

I disagree. The BBC like any other media organisation, including Wikileaks, consists of people with opinions. These opinions reflect dissent, and assent.
Characterising the program as propaganda is simple minded.

I disagree. The BBC like any other media organisation, including Wikileaks, consists of people with opinions. These opinions reflect dissent, and assent.

This is what your supposed to believe, but it isn't so. It is the first hurdle. "Saying journalists have a say is like saying auto workers have a say in what car is to be built" - Chomsky

The system itself, how it is structered, overides individual opinions. People, who have been hired for their opinions by that system.

Characterising the program as propaganda is simple minded.

Then keep it simple...

Pluto wrote:"Saying journalists have a say is like saying auto workers have a say in what car is to be built" - Chomsky

Nice quote, liked that, goes to my FB-feed.

Pluto wrote:

I disagree. The BBC like any other media organisation, including Wikileaks, consists of people with opinions. These opinions reflect dissent, and assent.

This is what your supposed to believe, but it isn't so. It is the first hurdle. "Saying journalists have a say is like saying auto workers have a say in what car is to be built" - Chomsky

You can say exactly the same thing with linguists and philosophers, including Chomsky - but only if you have an unsophisticated and simple idea of what it would be to 'have a say.'
First point is that I did not say they 'had a say'.
And if you want to go down this road it is true that not a single person on earth 'has a say'.
When you understand this, then you will see more clearly how the world works.

The system itself, how it is structered, overides individual opinions. People, who have been hired for their opinions by that system.

By whom is it 'structured'?

Characterising the program as propaganda is simple minded.

Then keep it simple...

It is far from simple.
Billions of people are not simple.

By whom is it 'structured'?

I don't know. But I know that the way it is structured is designed to do something quite specific. This is important.
My idea is that the structure is a constant evolving thing towards an idea/reality of containment in the minds of the receivers.

Pluto wrote:

By whom is it 'structured'?

I don't know. But I know that the way it is structured is designed to do something quite specific. This is important.
My idea is that the structure is a constant evolving thing towards an idea/reality of containment in the minds of the receivers.

AH- so you don't know!!
This is why you have such a naive view.

I'll tell you. Yes, there exists a structure to society and culture. But you are forgetting agency. Structure and agency are different sides of the same coin.
Were there no people there would be no structure, because the structure is constituted by the collective action of intentional agents.
It is the intentional action of interdependent agents, all 'having their say', that makes the structure what it is.

Think about it!

chaz wyman wrote:

Pluto wrote:

By whom is it 'structured'?

I don't know. But I know that the way it is structured is designed to do something quite specific. This is important.
My idea is that the structure is a constant evolving thing towards an idea/reality of containment in the minds of the receivers.

AH- so you don't know!!
This is why you have such a naive view.

I'll tell you. Yes, there exists a structure to society and culture. But you are forgetting agency. Structure and agency are different sides of the same coin.
Were there no people there would be no structure, because the structure is constituted by the collective action of intentional agents.
It is the intentional action of interdependent agents, all 'having their say', that makes the structure what it is.

Think about it!

No, I don't think so. Though, this view enables you to sleep at night perhaps.

Pluto wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:]By whom is it 'structured'?

I don't know. But I know that the way it is structured is designed to do something quite specific. This is important.
My idea is that the structure is a constant evolving thing towards an idea/reality of containment in the minds of the receivers.

AH- so you don't know!!
This is why you have such a naive view.

I'll tell you. Yes, there exists a structure to society and culture. But you are forgetting agency. Structure and agency are different sides of the same coin.
Were there no people there would be no structure, because the structure is constituted by the collective action of intentional agents.
It is the intentional action of interdependent agents, all 'having their say', that makes the structure what it is.

Think about it![/quote]

No, I don't think so. Though, this view enables you to sleep at night perhaps.[/quote]

If structure is not constituted by people, please tell me what it does consist in?

Mybe you should read some Levi-Strauss, the structural theorist.
When you've done that then I suggest some Anthony Giddens' Structuration Theory.
Until you've done your homework you are basically blowing it out of your arse.