Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Was violence a lot more acceptable in the past, or is it just me
-
06-07-2013 3:32am#1When Adolf Hitler was trying to get in power he was backed up by the Brown Shirts/SA and later the SS. When Mussolini was trying to get in power he was backed up by the Black Shirts/MVSN. and Ante Pavelić had the Ustaše a Croatian terrorist organisation. These were all fascist organisations that used terror and violence, yet the people who led them managed to come into power. Hitler and Mussolini became rulers of Germany and Italy of course, and Pavelic was ruler of the Independent State of Croatia in WWII which was a puppet state in the Kingdom of Yogaslavia. These are not the only examples of violent organisations i'm getting at. You could make a list of violent groups during that time frame a lone. But they all go hand in hand, they were all violent, and they seem to have made an impact in history.
So why was this so acceptable at the time? Did people actually support these groups knowing what they were doing? Were people more accepting of this type of thing in those days? I also realize that there are violent organisations today, and that they may have supporters of their own. But public opinion tends to be weary or even conflicted about these organisations. You have organisations like the Real IRA for instance, who do have their supporters but then they are also identified as terrorists as well. Not wanting to start a big debate about the RIRA or anything like that I'm just using them as an example. But I don't think the majority of the public approves of them, and wouldn't accept them in a power position, but I could be wrong.
The point i'm trying to make though. Looking back on history for this i'll go as far back as 60 - 100 years ago, it seems like violent acts were more acceptable back then then today even. Countries could use whatever force no matter how they wanted on their territories abroad like Belgium in the Congo, and public opinion didn't seem to mind. In today's world most atrocities and acts of barbarism are looked down upon and wouldn't be supported. At least I would like to think that, don't know how anyone could support it. But I would imagine a lot of people would take to the street and protest against it at least. Even in Ireland, violence was used in those times. In 1936 Vice-Admiral Henry Somerville was shot dead by four men including Tom Barry because he was recruiting for the royal navy it seems. I get that there was still some tension between Ireland and Britain, but I don't think it was right. It was a smaller incident compared to what I already mentioned above, but that was only one example.
Has the world really changed between then and now? Is violence acceptable today as it was back then? And if so, then why was it accepted?
My only theory is that, violence may have been more accepted back then because acts of violence were played down a lot in the past, and hidden behind false propaganda. Mussolini had a propaganda machine, Hitler had it too. I'm sure there were a lot of lies told about what was really going on. Today, you could argue the same thing is going on. There are a lot of people out there who might not get the full story and so don't know much about a particular subject. Maybe propaganda had a big effect on people back then, because it was easier to conceal. With the rise of the internet, it's harder to hide propaganda as there are many ways of finding information on the net, some good, some not so good. But that's my theory anyway. But then again, maybe i'm wrong and nothing has changed between now and then.
P.S I hope this is the right place to post this. It's not really a history topic, but more of a reflection on how people perceived violence back then, compared to now. Also apologies if the post may be a little distorted for people.1
Comments
-
I think it's called evolution - most of the population have moved on but those at the shallow edge of the gene pool continue to stir things up.0
-
60-100 years ago you'd hear what people told you, and what you'd hear on the radio. I have no doubt that what newspapers would print would depend on the politics of it's owner.60 - 100 years ago, it seems like violent acts were more acceptable back then then today even.
<snip>
public opinion didn't seem to mind
<snip>
In 1936 Vice-Admiral Henry Somerville was shot dead by four men including Tom Barry because he was recruiting for the royal navy it seems. I get that there was still some tension between Ireland and Britain, but I don't think it was right. It was a smaller incident compared to what I already mentioned above, but that was only one example.
<snip>
My only theory is that, violence may have been more accepted back then because acts of violence were played down a lot in the past, and hidden behind false propaganda. Mussolini had a propaganda machine, Hitler had it too.
Propaganda and lack of information would enable people to get away with awful things.
IMO, if it were not for Vietnam being so televised, it would have seemed like WW2; you would have seen a brutal enemy, and the romantic view of fighting for your country would have been kept.0 -
When Adolf Hitler was trying to get in power he was backed up by the Brown Shirts/SA and later the SS. When Mussolini was trying to get in power he was backed up by the Black Shirts/MVSN. and Ante Pavelić had the Ustaše a Croatian terrorist organisation. These were all fascist organisations that used terror and violence, yet the people who led them managed to come into power. Hitler and Mussolini became rulers of Germany and Italy of course, and Pavelic was ruler of the Independent State of Croatia in WWII which was a puppet state in the Kingdom of Yogaslavia. These are not the only examples of violent organisations i'm getting at. You could make a list of violent groups during that time frame a lone. But they all go hand in hand, they were all violent, and they seem to have made an impact in history.
So why was this so acceptable at the time? Did people actually support these groups knowing what they were doing? Were people more accepting of this type of thing in those days? I also realize that there are violent organisations today, and that they may have supporters of their own. But public opinion tends to be weary or even conflicted about these organisations. You have organisations like the Real IRA for instance, who do have their supporters but then they are also identified as terrorists as well. Not wanting to start a big debate about the RIRA or anything like that I'm just using them as an example. But I don't think the majority of the public approves of them, and wouldn't accept them in a power position, but I could be wrong.
The point i'm trying to make though. Looking back on history for this i'll go as far back as 60 - 100 years ago, it seems like violent acts were more acceptable back then then today even. Countries could use whatever force no matter how they wanted on their territories abroad like Belgium in the Congo, and public opinion didn't seem to mind. In today's world most atrocities and acts of barbarism are looked down upon and wouldn't be supported. At least I would like to think that, don't know how anyone could support it. But I would imagine a lot of people would take to the street and protest against it at least. Even in Ireland, violence was used in those times. In 1936 Vice-Admiral Henry Somerville was shot dead by four men including Tom Barry because he was recruiting for the royal navy it seems. I get that there was still some tension between Ireland and Britain, but I don't think it was right. It was a smaller incident compared to what I already mentioned above, but that was only one example.
Has the world really changed between then and now? Is violence acceptable today as it was back then? And if so, then why was it accepted?
My only theory is that, violence may have been more accepted back then because acts of violence were played down a lot in the past, and hidden behind false propaganda. Mussolini had a propaganda machine, Hitler had it too. I'm sure there were a lot of lies told about what was really going on. Today, you could argue the same thing is going on. There are a lot of people out there who might not get the full story and so don't know much about a particular subject. Maybe propaganda had a big effect on people back then, because it was easier to conceal. With the rise of the internet, it's harder to hide propaganda as there are many ways of finding information on the net, some good, some not so good. But that's my theory anyway. But then again, maybe i'm wrong and nothing has changed between now and then.
P.S I hope this is the right place to post this. It's not really a history topic, but more of a reflection on how people perceived violence back then, compared to now. Also apologies if the post may be a little distorted for people.
I think there are periods in the past when violence was more acceptable (eg faction fighting in pre-famine Ireland) but I also believe there are times when violence was less acceptable (1950s Ireland).0 -
-
Society has become more interconnected in first world societies. This means a more complex set of interactions is in place, with the State taking a larger & more supervisory rule. Hence violence would be more quickly subject to counteraction by the State and damped down before it ignites wider society: ie tracking and monitoring of decedents is more advanced than their 19thC equivalents on tracing say anarchists.
On the other hand, personal societal exceptions of material progress have been stalled, especially during the recent economic climate. As well, instead of a baseline set of cultural values, there are now a wider ranges of norms to choice from. So the future of violence, either in the normalised format or in the newer styles might yet make a re-occurance.0 -
Advertisement
-
Judgement Day wrote: »I think it's called evolution - most of the population have moved on but those at the shallow edge of the gene pool continue to stir things up.
I don't think so, pre WW1 in Germany I would imagine political violence would have raised concern and avoidence of a grouping much as today, a major European war, essentially civil war conditions on the streets for years in the aftermath and continuing economic hardship and the mood had changed, put the same conditions in place and I doubt people would react much differently here or anywhere else.0 -
This topic is addressed in Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and its Causes (London: Allen Lane, 2011).
Pinker argues that human-on-human violence has decreased considerably over both the long and short terms. He attributes this to (among other factors):- the state accruing to itself a monopoly on the use of violence;
- the Enlightenment - reason led to the abolition of cruel punishments and practices;
- trade - you can't engage in commerce if your killing potential partners
It's a good book: definitely worth a read.0 -
I don't know if you could really agree that violence was a lot more acceptable in the past even when talking about the pre & post WW2 era. When answering this question with regards to the likes of Hitler in particular Germany was handicapped by the reparations of the Versaille Treaty & the Wall street crash. Where there is a economic instability and general unrest people will look to extreme solutions to the problems if the party/s in power cannot provide a resolution. Many lessons were learned in the post WW2 years and polices were put in place that countries wouldn't be pushed to the brink and reach out for extreme movements. One only has to look at the potential rise in seats of the Greek Golden Dawn movement to see that even today when a country is on it's knees it will turn to violence and extreme political parties. Another example is Egypt at the moment. I don't believe that majority of people thought that violence was neceissarily acceptable as much as a nasty aspect of radical change, this is also apparent when you examine Soviet Russsia.
_________________
Marcus Antonius0 -
Historybluff wrote: »This topic is addressed in Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and its Causes (London: Allen Lane, 2011).
Pinker argues that human-on-human violence has decreased considerably over both the long and short terms. He attributes this to (among other factors):- the state accruing to itself a monopoly on the use of violence;
- the Enlightenment - reason led to the abolition of cruel punishments and practices;
- trade - you can't engage in commerce if your killing potential partners
It's a good book: definitely worth a read.
Not forgetting technology. In the medieval period punishments were often harsh because it was difficult to find the culprit. People had bad eyesight without contact lenses or glasses, there was bad street lightening, lack of colour in clothes to distinguish people, no cctv, and so much more.
Now, you have a myriad of technological devices to find a culprit. So punishments can be lighter as there are now other deterrents to crime.0 -
Judgement Day wrote: »I think it's called evolution - most of the population have moved on but those at the shallow edge of the gene pool continue to stir things up.
Spoken like somebody who is on the side of the current winners, who attained their position via violence lest anybody forget. The way some people go on here (usually British nationalist posters, it must be conceded), one would think the British Empire, and its state, was not based on a culture of violence so extraordinary in world history that they could create the largest empire in that same history. The idea that the British Empire was based on "peace" and the natives handed over everything to them when they demanded it is, well, embarrassing.
People in power tend to have a vested interest in suddenly having an interest in promoting peaceful means. It is not now, and never was, a sign that they are more "evolved", merely that they are protecting their own interests.0 -
Advertisement
-
Let's not overlook, whilst acknowledging the rights of the anti-Brits on this forum to have their say, that violence is not the prerogative of the British alone.
Let's remember Genghis Khan, who was probably not British, and his wholesale slaughter - amounting a probably at least a couple or three million in his expansion west and east - all done with fire and sword.
Another non-Brit, Cyrus the Great, was great because he took an entire day and night [so it is said] to ride his chariot over the slain. You don't get a reputation like that for being Mr Nice-Guy.
The Romans? Well, it goes without saying that the Romans were not as nice as they look in their statues - gladiatorial games often involved hundred of unarmed people eaten alive by wild animals, and the survivors crucified with a coating of pitch to light up the evening festivities of more killing. The well-documented final stages of the Slaves' Revolt [Spartacus and the lads] ended up with mile upon mile of crucifixes along the Appian Way - not a general back-slapping and 'well now, boys, I think we've made out point to youse all'.
Violence at close quarters, before the invention of the gun made it a comparatively long-distance affair, was the way of forcing your opinion/way of life/political point of view/sheer animosity on the actual physical person of one who was, for the time being, your enemy for whatever reason.
Mankind is naturally disposed to violence, some of it extreme and bloody, some of it psychological, but all of it nasty.
Now, we can not only see it as it happens, thanks to 'embedded' reporters, but it is the daily fare on liveleak and TV news the world over. We are 'in' the Predator as its remote pilot launches the Hellfire missile on the fleeing Taliban, and we are in the cockpit as the JDAM is dropped.
Before the advent of the electronic age, it took weeks or even months to see results - now it takes literally millionths of a second.
The blood and gore have always been there - somewhere else, far away, over there - now they are here on our iPhone.
tac0 -
I'm not sure why I'm doing this (the exercise being flawed to begin with) but equally I don't know what you're hoping to achieve by comparing 20th C British soldiers with the notoriously brutal Mongols, or indeed Rome or Persia of antiquity. None of these made any claim to being an enlightened democracy, the legitimacy of which was supposedly underpinned by humane values and consensus ruleLet's not overlook, whilst acknowledging the rights of the anti-Brits on this forum to have their say, that violence is not the prerogative of the British alone.
Let's remember Genghis Khan, who was probably not British, and his wholesale slaughter - amounting a probably at least a couple or three million in his expansion west and east - all done with fire and sword.
Another non-Brit, Cyrus the Great, was great because he took an entire day and night [so it is said] to ride his chariot over the slain. You don't get a reputation like that for being Mr Nice-Guy.
The Romans? Well, it goes without saying that the Romans were not as nice as they look in their statues - gladiatorial games often involved hundred of unarmed people eaten alive by wild animals, and the survivors crucified with a coating of pitch to light up the evening festivities of more killing. The well-documented final stages of the Slaves' Revolt [Spartacus and the lads] ended up with mile upon mile of crucifixes along the Appian Way - not a general back-slapping and 'well now, boys, I think we've made out point to youse all'
That's what tends to be glaring: not Romans dragging fresh slaves through the streets in a procession but a supposedly sophisticated modern democracy flouting the very values that it claims to uphold. There is no hypocrisy in Romans or Mongols razing villages and massacring populations - this being fully in keeping with both societies considered 'civilisation' - but there is in 20th C Britain or Germany doing the same0 -
I'm not sure why I'm doing this (the exercise being flawed to begin with) but equally I don't know what you're hoping to achieve by comparing 20th C British soldiers with the notoriously brutal Mongols, or indeed Rome or Persia of antiquity. None of these made any claim to being an enlightened democracy, the legitimacy of which was supposedly underpinned by humane values and consensus rule
That's what tends to be glaring: not Romans dragging fresh slaves through the streets in a procession but a supposedly sophisticated modern democracy flouting the very values that it claims to uphold. There is no hypocrisy in Romans or Mongols razing villages and massacring populations - this being fully in keeping with both societies considered 'civilisation' - but there is in 20th C Britain or Germany doing the same
If I may, I believe tac was just using extreme examples.
Maybe the Pope giving the Spanish and Portuguese carte Blanche permission to kill or enslave the locals of the Caribbean and south America on the basis they were godless heathens would be better, or Napoleon's plans to rape and pillage democracy in to Spain, Italy, Portugal and England whether they liked it or not would be another.
All empires, all armies believe they are the enlightened ones, even the Mongols and Romans believed that.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »If I may, I believe tac was just using extreme examples.
Ahah! Somebody noticed.
tac0 -
-
Which is fine but it's not the point. Rome was happy to sow its opponents fields with salt and was quite boastful of its razing of cities, etc. That's the ancient world and those were the militaristic values that ran through Rome. Ditto with the Mongols. Berate Genghis for razing a city and slaughtering its inhabitants and he wouldn't consider that something to be ashamed ofFratton Fred wrote:All empires, all armies believe they are the enlightened ones, even the Mongols and Romans believed that.
That's not true of those 20th C democracies that based their legitimacy not on the force of arms but on a very different set of values
In short, all empires employ violence (although I'm not sure why tac feels that this excuses the maintenance of empire) but only in the 20th and late 19th Cs does this reality of imperial control clash with the proclaimed values of the ruling caste. That is, the idealogical basis of 20th C 'civilised' Britain or France (individual rights, democracy, humanitarianism, etc) expressly clash with the reality of imperial administration (brutality, racism, mass violence, etc) in a way that the 'civilisation' of Rome did not clash with the imposition of a Roman empire.
I was actually thinking of the contemporary occupation of Belgium or the death of Weimar. Nazi Germany is comparable to Rome in that it openly rejected liberal and democratic norms and rejoiced in the use of violenceAnd there we have it. Your argument, likening 20th Century UK and its conduct to 20th century Nazi Germany, has fallen flat on its face0 -
Steven Pinker has recently come out with a book called "The better angels of our nature" in which he argues that we have definitely become less cruel and violent to each other in recent times.
This is from the Wikipedia article on his book:
Pinker presents a large amount of data (and statistical analysis thereof) that, he argues, demonstrate that violence has been in decline over millennia and that the present is probably the most peaceful time in the history of the human species. The decline in violence, he argues, is enormous in magnitude, visible on both long and short time scales, and found in many domains, including military conflict, homicide, genocide, torture, criminal justice, and the treatment of children, animals, racial and ethnic minorities, and gay people. He stresses that "The decline, to be sure, has not been smooth; it has not brought violence down to zero; and it is not guaranteed to continue".[3]
Pinker argues that the radical declines in violent behavior that he documents do not result from major changes in human biology or cognition. He specifically rejects the view that humans are necessarily violent, and thus have to undergo radical change in order to become more peaceable. However, Pinker also rejects what he regards as the simplistic nature versus nurture argument, which would imply that the radical change must therefore have come purely from external ("nurture") sources. Instead, he argues: "The way to explain the decline of violence is to identify the changes in our cultural and material milieu that have given our peaceable motives the upper hand".[4]0 -
Was violence a lot more acceptable in the past, or is it just me
To some yes, others find it acceptable when it's aimed at different coloured skin people in faraway countries.
One example...after Britain joined the US in their attacks and subsequent occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan over 10,000,000 voters backed Blair's Labour party who had led British forces into those violent wars.
I'm not even gonna look up how many backed Bush at the 2004 US election.0 -
My issue with Mr. Pinker's argument is that he fails to take into account the long term affects of the violent acts and its greater effects. The Roman were power-hungry, violent, imperialists. I like them. The two major cities that they saltified were Catherage and Corinth. These were exceptions, with latter thriving colonies being planted there. Normally the Romans operated an embrace and extend - ie win over the local elites and rule via them.
In contrast the 20th century has been the era of the Bloodlands, to use a term of a book of the same name. The key WWI/WWII wars have been ones of mass force and displacement, lebensraum. The weapons used have were of mass destruction - chemical and nuclear. These weapons are still in the arsenals of today's powers, and when these are used again, the Angels of our better nature will be in abeyance.0 -
Sorry, I failed to notice that an earlier poster had already cited the Pinker book.
My view would be that acts of violence are now far more publicised than they would have been in the past, which creates pressure to do less of it. That seems to be about it really!0 -
Advertisement
-
Boulevardier wrote: »Sorry, I failed to notice that an earlier poster had already cited the Pinker book.
My view would be that acts of violence are now far more publicised than they would have been in the past, which creates pressure to do less of it. That seems to be about it really!
Not only that, Sir, but there are more folks around today with instant access to world events of all kinds via the internet, TV, even old-fashioned radion, who, a hundred years ago, might have read about them in a newspaper, supposing that they could read at all.
Commit an atrocity in deepest rain forest South America today, and the civilised world with access to electronic news publicising devices of any kind will know about it the next day.
tac0 -
Boulevardier wrote: »Sorry, I failed to notice that an earlier poster had already cited the Pinker book.
My view would be that acts of violence are now far more publicised than they would have been in the past, which creates pressure to do less of it. That seems to be about it really!
.....and much more politicised.
The US Marines have developed the notion of the "strategic corporal" - the idea being that in today's 'connected' world, the guy on the ground (be it an NCO or junior officer) carries a much greater responsibility than in previous years, and that actions they undertake can have ramfications far beyond their immediate vicinity - this has signficant training and personnel implications.0 -
Not really. It’s a matter of changed perception and more skilful manipulation of media content rather than anything else. Armies, like businesses, have customers to satisfy. If they do not successfully communicate their results (i.e. usefulness), funding from their customers (government / taxpayer) is cut.Boulevardier wrote: »My view would be that acts of violence are now far more publicised than they would have been in the past, which creates pressure to do less of it. That seems to be about it really!
The first Gulf War campaign saw the military using public relations to effectively sell their message. In their terminology for that war, the unpleasant aspects were disguised or re- packaged. Targets were rarely destroyed, they were "taken out"; enemy personnel were not killed, they were "neutralised" and civilians were never killed or injured but suffered "collateral damage". The customers back home saw on television stage managed productions of the day's "smart bombings", never the gory results of mass destruction. Embedded ‘journalists’ became part of the military team due to/because of shared experiences and dared not report anything negative – after all, on the next mission their lives depended on their comrades.
Similar to a well presented corporate Annual Report, the news & images presented are manipulated to underline good and suppress the bad news. And the "shareholders" - the audience back home glued to their televisions - considered their taxes a good investment, happy that the ‘bad guys’ were being repaid in kind. Just look at any US conflict report on Fox News.:rolleyes:
'Stuff' written by West Point generals on 'strategic corporals' is PR justification BS when measured against the guys who shot civilians that remain unpunished (and the man who broke the story is in jail.)0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »Not really. It’s a matter of changed perception and more skilful manipulation of media content rather than anything else. Armies, like businesses, have customers to satisfy. If they do not successfully communicate their results (i.e. usefulness), funding from their customers (government / taxpayer) is cut.
The first Gulf War campaign saw the military using public relations to effectively sell their message. In their terminology for that war, the unpleasant aspects were disguised or re- packaged. Targets were rarely destroyed, they were "taken out"; enemy personnel were not killed, they were "neutralised" and civilians were never killed or injured but suffered "collateral damage". The customers back home saw on television stage managed productions of the day's "smart bombings", never the gory results of mass destruction. Embedded ‘journalists’ became part of the military team due to/because of shared experiences and dared not report anything negative – after all, on the next mission their lives depended on their comrades.
Similar to a well presented corporate Annual Report, the news & images presented are manipulated to underline good and suppress the bad news. And the "shareholders" - the audience back home glued to their televisions - considered their taxes a good investment, happy that the ‘bad guys’ were being repaid in kind. Just look at any US conflict report on Fox News.:rolleyes:
'Stuff' written by West Point generals on 'strategic corporals' is PR justification BS when measured against the guys who shot civilians that remain unpunished (and the man who broke the story is in jail.)
Fox is no different to any rival. This kind of culture of deceitful euphemisms is still very much alive outside of war, and indeed in Ireland as much as elsewhere.0 -
Fox is no different to any rival. This kind of culture of deceitful euphemisms is still very much alive outside of war, and indeed in Ireland as much as elsewhere.
That flies in the face of all the evidence. Even American media types e.g. Larry King agree that Fox has a 'slant'. Have a look at this study on the effect of Fox's bias. Or just have a look at this. What examples from Ireland can you suggest?0 -
While it's not quite true to say armies have 'customers' it's certainly true to say they have 'audiences.'
A lot of current thinking in counter-insurgency revolves around the idea of the audience and identifying your strategic audiences. For example, when an infantry patrol comes into a village, who are their audience and who are they trying to influence? All the village population? Just the elders? Actual insurgents who may be present? 'Part-time' insurgents? The soldiers' chain of command? The host government? All of the above or none of the above? etc.
What they do, or don't do can have far reaching consequences beyond even the region they're working in.
Force has always had political utility, but the 'amount' of force needed today to achieve a significant political effect is minuscule compared to previous years - an infantry soldier or small group of soldiers can cause all kinds of problems if their actions, however efficient, are ill conceived.
The other side of the problem is that, as Gen Graeme Lamb has pointed out, people are connected more than ever before, but they are not informed - and in that gap there is the potential for mischief, be it from Fox or even just anyone with access to and an understanding of social media.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »
Fox is partisan. Just like the MSNBC. A Left US match for Fox. One study showed MSNC was considerable more biased then Fox. Yet I wouldn't take the Salon for its word. It is gutter press, not quotable. Studies by independent groups have shown the BBC despite being officially neutral is consistently slanted to centre left.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/3204390 -
I do not agree fully Jawgap as much of your argument is not pertinent to the point I made: perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. I agree that there are audiences but in my view ‘audience’ and ‘customer’ are quite different. It is a bit more than semantics, although there also is some crossover.While it's not quite true to say armies have 'customers' it's certainly true to say they have 'audiences.'
In my view the ‘audience’ is those who are willingly/unwillingly involved in what is happening. They are informed, because as spectators they witness the events. The ‘customer’ is at least at one remove, and can be manipulated both by selection of images and choice of language. (e.g. ' a crowd gathered' versus 'a mob gathered'. Each side in a conflict has its customers – be they the taxpayers who fund a conflict or ‘the hearts & minds’ who have to be swayed to support a cause. Armies have both customers and audiences, the message is always massaged to suit an end.
We agree on that; this is the niche in which the extremists (and I include Fox) operate. International news is regarded as a bore by most US citizens and many'news' channels do not bother, unless it concerns Israel and even then they have a little count-down clock in the corner of the TV screen to entice people not to channel-hop........people are connected more than ever before, but they are not informed - and in that gap there is the potential for mischief, be it from Fox or even just anyone with access to and an understanding of social media.0 -
Fox is partisan. Just like the MSNBC. A Left US match for Fox. One study showed MSNC was considerable more biased then Fox. Yet I wouldn't take the Salon for its word. It is gutter press, not quotable. Studies by independent groups have shown the BBC despite being officially neutral is consistently slanted to centre left.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/320439
Really? Anybody outside the Looney Right would have difficulty agreeing with that. Salon.com has had a pop at everyone, Left, Right and Centre (including ‘dissing' Hilary Clinton, the bête noir of the loonies).Typically for an American site it has had to put up with heaped opprobrium and ill-informed criticism because it is writing the truth about what is happening in the Middle East and is the cause of American Jews thinking twice about giving Israel their wholehearted, unquestioning support for the crimes it is committing in the territories it illegally occupies.Fox is no different to any rival. This kind of culture of deceitful euphemisms is still very much alive outside of war, and indeed in Ireland as much as elsewhere.
So, to repeat my question more clearly, what Irish media is as biased as Fox?0 -
Advertisement
-
pedroeibar1 wrote: »Really? Anybody outside the Looney Right would have difficulty agreeing with that. Salon.com has had a pop at everyone, Left, Right and Centre (including ‘dissing' Hilary Clinton, the bête noir of the loonies).Typically for an American site it has had to put up with heaped opprobrium and ill-informed criticism because it is writing the truth about what is happening in the Middle East and is the cause of American Jews thinking twice about giving Israel their wholehearted, unquestioning support for the crimes it is committing in the territories it illegally occupies.
So, to repeat my question more clearly, what Irish media is as biased as Fox?
The Salon is horribly sensationalist. The recent article there attacking Dawkins for criticising Islam is a typical example of the loony left. I deeply resent Dawkins' fundamentalism but he was entitled to say what he said. Considerable levels of bias are present in the Indo, IT and RTE. Of course the Indo and the IT are entitled to be biased. European outlets are bias but in a different way then compared to MSNBC or Fox. I haven't quantified it but others have quantified Fox being equal to its American rivals.0
Advertisement