Friday, October 30, 2009

Professorial Analysis of Propaganda

Joseph Brean had a good article in the Oct.24, 2009 National Post (see here) titled "A serious debate on hate speech laws".

Though this post's topic is not about the Canadian Human Rights Act, I found Richard Moon's words in Brean's article fascinating, in that what Moon is saying applies quite well to the concepts of global-warming paranoia/hysteria, and to the idea of single-payer health-care monopolism.
Brean writes:

"Critics of Canada's hate speech laws can hope for nothing more than "a marginal win in a polarized debate," because of their ruthlessly successful "propaganda campaign," according to law professor Richard Moon.

"This is the most spin can accomplish," he writes in comments submitted to a House of Commons committee looking into the hate speech provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act, in advance of his testimony on Monday.

"Their claims are repeated, often uncontradicted, in radio and television interviews. They are parroted by politicians and in newspaper editorials and columns. And, although this is more difficult to gauge, they appear to be taken up by Canadians, who watch or read the mainstream media," he writes. "Why does it seem so difficult to have a serious and honest debate about hate speech regulation?"

His answer is that, faced with such a noisy campaign, news reporters repeat spin out of a desire to seem fair, columnists weigh in with no other goal than to provoke, and television producers tend "to avoid complex analysis and to sensationalize issues." "

Just plug "man-made global warming" into Moon's above observations! Why is it that there is no "honest debate" on Al Gore's bluster?!

Where is that "mainstream media's" so-called "complex analysis" of the Gore-bull warming industry?!

Why were (and still are) Gore's claims repeated, uncontradicted, by politicians and newspaper editors?!

When Moon talks of 'ruthless propaganda campaigns', let's ask who was checking Gore's or David Suzuki's sensationalist spin, and that of their echo chamber of fawning acolytes?!

Who was parroting Green Shifty policies?!

Who was marginalizing those who didn't subscribe to the newly-fashionable climate hysteria?!

Who was causing the "polarization"?

Who exactly are the 'polarized'?!!

Who was claiming that "the climate science is settled"?!

 (...for example, why - over some twenty years -  hadn't the St.Catharines Standard ever bothered to interview their own local Liberal MPP and climate-change fearmonger Jim Bradley about his GreenFear politics?!  Where was this fabled "complex analysis"; this illusory "honest debate" about the global warming/climate change hoax, and Jim Bradley's role within it??!!)

Another so-called given truth of the left is single payer monopolist health care.

Again, as above: change the subject of Moon's observations to single-payer healthcare: where's the "honest debate" about health care monopolism, where's the "complex analysis"? All we get is the "mainstream media" parroting the usual leftist slogans and the uncontradicted socialist spin!

Writes Brean:

""The propaganda campaign against the HRCs fits within the dominant model of contemporary political discourse, which is often referred to as ‘spin,' " Prof. Moon writes. "Political ‘spin' inverts the relationship between fact and opinion, with the former often following the latter. To the political spinner, facts are just supports or props for a position. Facts may be selected, massaged, and even invented to advance a larger ‘truth' or simply the self-interest of the speaker." "

But, isn't it the propaganda campaign of the left which is the "dominant model of contemporary political discourse"?!

Isn't that the default position?!

Or does Moon's hypothesis apply to only one side of the political spectrum?

When Moon talks of spin and politics and fact selection and sensationalism and parroted propaganda - well, he's also describing the left's everyday approach to the issues of single-payer health monopolism and man made global warming.

No comments: