h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Insecure, yes. More fond of 'god'? Eh, no. I'd argue but I'd run into the censors full on.

Well, OK, atheists are immune to this particular effect. They have no source of comfort when times is 'ard! But most of the world's population profess belief in some sort of God....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

How many of them mean it?

Do they need to justify it, I wonder? I think this is something one accepts on face value. What point to question? I'm sure the depth and sincerity of belief varies widely, but so....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Doesn't really matter, just curious...

Of course, that's what killed the .

No, it was I who killed the cat.

*hides*

CATHOLIC DOGMA IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!

*runs away, waits for fire*

I go away for 5weeks and you lot suddenly start posting here again...
*too lazy to read b/log*

Art, good to see you! I see you're mellowing with age....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

*Relaxes with an to watch the food fight*

Oi! That nearly hit me you brut!

Hi everyone.

I can't go into any depth about this for obvious reasons, but I ran across an interesting historic note or two I thought I'd share with any of you interested in 20th century history.

1> Q: This leader of a nation is known for ruthlessly ordering the use of chemical weapons in the pacification of a Kurdish uprising. Who was he?

A: Winston Churchill.

2> Q: This leader of a nation received the key to the city of Detroit, which he still has, after he donated several hundred thousand dollars for the restoration of that city's churches while visiting that city during a business tour of the United States in 1983. Who was he?

A: Saddam Hussein

As amusing as the one with Hitler, Churchill and Beethoven.

Without referring to any specific global situation, there was a time when propaganda - lying to one's own people - worked well because no-one else had a channel of communication to them. In war-time, many (most?) felt that propaganda was a justifiable means of bolstering the resolve of the local population.

Now that global communication, and access to it, is widespread, would the panel agree that propaganda no longer benefits those who practice it?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Interesting question, PC.

Propaganda most certainly is not dead. Here are a couple of examples of how propaganda can be and (probably) is distributed.

Countries such as China have total control over their telecommunications networks and so can screen out or block access to web sites on a selective basis, while at the same time directly controlling all ISP's.

Service providers like AOL make it difficult to access services that they don't operate, including accessing the WWW and provide their own "News" channel, chat rooms, etc, all of which are monitored.

Now what constitutes propaganda? Does spin count?


Global communication may be "widespread" in the west, but there is a significant proportion of the world who only learn what is going on in the world or even their neighbourhood after the information is passed through the hands of their government.

Separately propaganda has changed. It is now branded and marketed by "spin" doctors in a similar fashion to the way trainers/sneakers are sold.

Since we consistently re-elect more often than we seem to replace, even with politicians like Thatcher, Bush, Clinton and Blair, I'd say that there is a convincing argument that propaganda is alive and well.

Propaganda is somewhat hampered by widespread access to global media. But there is still an opportunity when you can control someones 'trusted' sources. When reporting differs from channel to channel most of the audience will consider everyone, except their favourite, biased.

And (to spark another linguistic debacle) it doesn't have to be false to be propaganda.

"And (to spark another linguistic debacle) it doesn't have to be false to be propaganda." - Agreed. The US government is pretty good at playing this game... release it if it serves your ends, and cover it up if it doesn't.

Having additional channels of communication hampers propaganda, but does not eliminate it. One person's propaganda machine is another person's trusted source.