Book Burnin' and Hustlin'

I find Toxic Sludge's approach on propaganda to be a little angrier than unSpun's. However, both books are essentially set up in the "anti-textbook" format. The cover of Toxic Sludge makes it seem like a good coffee table book or something, but a lot of it's rhetoric is muddled in statistics. The first chapter is like an American salute to the First Amendment. It talks about the freedom of speech and the role of information in our society. Information should be free, but the book mentions how PR firms aim to suppress potentially harmful information from getting out to the public. I thought it was interesting how Ketchum public relations treats all of their memos and faxes and such as if they were top secret government files. The employees of Ketchum take information very seriously. 

Chapter 2 examines manipulation and fraud within the media. It makes an interesting note on the development and impact the press made on the early business giants like Standard Oil. When harsh working conditions in the workplace became exposed, an entirely new trend of muckraking journalism was born, and thus, the first PR firms were established to combat this threat on American business.  I found Bernay's statement that "we are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of" to the most interesting passage in the chapter. It was amazing to hear how open he was about the kinds of manipulation he himself was developing. We've certainly gone a long way from there . . .

Everybody Should Listen To Bruce Willis

      The last sentence of "The Great Crow Fallacy" pretty much sums it up, "always keep asking, 'what's the evidence?'" Personally, this chapter doesn't apply to much to me. The basis of the lesson is to always look at where particular evidence and statistics are coming from. They even provide a nice little checklist to consider:

• "Who stands behind the information?
  
• Does the source have an ax to grind?
  
• What method did the source use to obtain the information?
  
• How old are the data?
  
• What assumptions did those collecting the information make?
  
• How much guesswork was involved?"
  

The authors warn about following the advice of people who don't necessarily know what they're talking about. For example, Bruce Willis made his support of the Iraq War very clear, and Linus Paulding endorsed the use of Vitamin C, but neither (arguably) had any expertise in the field. I acknowledge the author's claim to a logical extent, but I disagree in that Bruce Willis is within my top five list of Coolest People Ever and anything the man says immediately, without question, becomes cool. 

It is good advice, however. I think it's particularly dangerous not to constantly question where the data from most statistics you hear is coming from. This is something I've constantly done my whole life. For example, when somebody tells me "Did you hear you eat 8 spiders in your lifetime?" I reply, "O RLY? Where did you hear that? A Snapple Cap?" And the number always changes, its either 8 spiders... or 6... or 12... or 3 every year... All I want is some truth.

"You could pour Smirnoff into a Grey Goose bottle and your friends would never know the difference."

While the first chapters told you how you're getting spun, Chapter Five tells you why it's important to know you're being spun. I guess this chapter changed my opinion on the book. Their motives became a lot more clear. They aren't just trying to "sell" their point of view, but are telling us these facts in order to help us. Even if the cases of Daniel Bullock, the Californian physician convicted of tax schemes, or Chuck Hysong, the desperate cancer patient, were extreme cases, still, the information in this book would have probably helped them out a great deal. The fact that being Unspun COULD potentially save your life makes this book worth reading. This chapter provides case after case where knowing the facts could have saved a person's life, but the most interesting example was how deception plays an integral part in war. I think that's a part that most Americans don't really put a lot of thought into. I think it's safe to say that most of us just put our faith and trust into the government and count on our leaders not to deceive us, but when you read about U.S.S. Maine and the Spanish-American War, and the U.S.S. Maddox and the U.S.S. Turner Joy and the Vietnam war, it brings a sense of awareness that makes you realize, the American people have certainly been lied to in the past. All in all, this chapter makes the book a lot less depressing as it actually goes out and tells you WHY knowing this is a lot better than not knowing it. 

Barking Moonbats

Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson probably hate the world. My only question after reading is, "Is anybody telling the truth?" "Humans tend to ignore evidence that undercuts [their existing] beliefs." That couldn't be any more true. Nobody likes to be wrong. I used to think people were sincere and genuine. This book is making me think otherwise. There is no justice in the political world. Almost everything is propaganda, and this book brings on the feeling that the world is lying to me. I don't like that. That means my beliefs are wrong. Being wrong sucks. So, I seek out the weak points of this book and ignore the strong ones. Being ignorant makes things a whole lot easier by not having to analyze and contemplate every word you hear. I mean, it's like saying, everything you ever loved has been for the wrong reasons. Being aware of this "truth" doesn't make my life any easier. Now, there's a sense of guilt and disappointment when I find out I just bought the new Colgate toothpaste, the one with Tartar control, because THEY deceived me, not because I needed toothpaste. I think Jackson and Jamieson are almost starting an unnecessary war with the status quo. I know that's a pretty ignorant thing to say, but I always thought staying in the Matrix and eating steak was a thousand times better than living in that crap shoot future where robots are always on your case. 

Small Coffees For The Win

One of the greatest points I have read so far is on the topic of the "implied falsehood." This is also why George Walker, texas ranger, Bush could be more clever than you would ever want to believe. I don't know how many people can attest to the belief that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 somehow had something to do with the United States' invasion of Iraq, but I know there are a lot. 67% of Americans apparently do, myself included. For those who are passively-interested in politics, only the most important and major headlines seem to make any kind of impression. "Terrorists attacked the United States on September 11th." "The United States invades Iraq." You draw the conclusion yourself. Not everybody reads in between the headlines. Now, either it's the public's fault for not being more politically aware, or it's G.W.Bush's fault for intentionally implying a falsehood in order to gain support for a war. There's a billion people still arguing over this right now. 

I consider UnSpun to be the most dangerous form of propaganda. The whole intent of the book is to make its audience think in a way that they want them to. "Don't believe everything you hear." Even if their intent is to teach a generation to find facts in a world of disinformation, there is still room for bias. They present their "facts" as "truths" and in order to believe them, one has to somewhat subscribe to the conspiracy belief that the advertising industry is "out to get you," that the makers of Paxil CR intentionally display pleasant images while describing very unpleasant side effects because they only care about selling their product. Sure, businesses care about selling their product, but does the entire corporate America only care about making a buck? So much that they'll intentionally deceive the public into buying something they don't need or that is potentially dangerous? Maybe. But I try not to think like that. Paxil CR obviously doesn't show images of people vomiting and sweating on their advertisements, because there isn't a need to. Nobody HONESTLY thinks that because the people on the advertisements look happy, that if you take the product, your entire view of the world start looking like that commercial. Actually, I can't say that. Some people probably do. But I drink Pepsi because it tastes delicious, not because Ray Charles did. I don't think that, because Ray Charles drank Pepsi, I'll become as suave as Mr. Charles if I drink Pepsi too. If anything, I like Ray Charles more because he endorsed a delicious soft drink. 

The book IS right. These are "facts." Companies do use weasel words. What they are pointing out is "true," but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I feel cheated. I feel negative toward Paxil CR because they used "eye candy" in their advertisements. UnSpun just told me the facts, but when you tell somebody how they are being deceived, they're going to feel a little bitter. People don't like being deceived. Maybe some people do. I don't know. But give this book to the people at Paxil CR, and they'd probably call it Propaganda.

Test Post

This may or may not be propaganda.