There are two sides to every story. The purpose of this blog is to show the other side.

Archive for the ‘Blog and Web/Tech News’ Category

The Age of Informational Warfare – Propaganda

In Americanophobia, Blog and Web/Tech News, Guest Posts, War and Politics on June 26, 2008 at 3:04 PM

National Propaganda

First I want to have a look at Wikipedia’s definition of propaganda, to clarify the object I am going to deal with in this text and my following posts…

“Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
—Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion”

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaghanda]

I rather dislike Wikipedia for some of it*s failures, but for now I will bow my head before them… this is a nice and short definition! If I should intend to accuse anybody of propaganda, I had to show, that he:

1) Changes information (means a direct lie) to encourage a certain reaction and opinion
2) Reduces information (means to focus information) to encourage a certain reaction and opinion

I will not try to deal with the big media stations of our time – I*ll leave it up to you, to decide yourself, if your media is fulfilling one or both of these two options.

Just a word of explanation, to clarify my own intention and opinion. Propaganda is not an action, that can only be used by dictatorships, or similar forms of government – this is the everyday option to lead the masses in the correct direction in every form of system and in every nation.

To add some more precise information: Every war is in need of an propagandist action, as war never is a popular step, you have to find ways, to MAKE it a popular action – you have to create an enemy. The easiest form of propaganda is to focus on all well known (by your people) negative information about the enemy – partially to recherche new negative information to add it and (as the most aggressive form of propaganda) to spread lies about the enemy and sell them as the one and only truth.

The standard way of dealing with information, that threatens the perspective you wish to create, is to censor them, to bring them down, to damage their reputation or to accuse them of being a collaborator of the enemy.

—> Information: I encourage you to do your own research and to compare the use of propaganda in the different forms of systems we know up to now – I would enjoy your opinion on this topic and would be pleased, if you could point out mistakes in my explanations.

Spoiler: You may for example compare the propaganda done by Nazi-Germany, communist Russia and the USA after, before and during WW2 – I found this piece of information to be very interesting. <—

Non-national Propaganda

What you read above is more or less my standard definition of propaganda, that never has been something special to me, as (I think) we all got – to a certain degree – used to it and knew, that this happens.

Especially during my experiences on the internet I found, that this definition is solely focusing on national propaganda and for this reason incomplete. If you simply watch big media sites like YouTube, you will find nearly all forms of propaganda, spread by nearly all forms of religious groups, all forms of political groups and sometimes – even by persons without any direct extraordinary orientation.

I found myself thinking, that the most common form of propaganda is non-national propaganda – used by common people.

You could say, that these persons are simple carriers of the information given to them and I encourage you too, that you point out that this is true – but I myself compared the official given information of the mainstream media (concerning this and that topic) with the thinking and actions of these individuals and found the following:

A lot of the information is indeed based on excerpts of the mainstream media – these excerpts/quotations/information are selected precisely to focus the message (for example of the video) on a clearly layed out conclusion… Every form of information, that does not lead to this conclusion (even if it is directly linked to the original message) will be ignored.

Many of the propagandists tend to use direct lies, where the truth is not leading to the wished target (compare for example the conspiracy theories on 9/11).

I also found the fact interesting, that individuals, that will add a comment to these videos, which is not providing the wished form of information, will be marked as spam – deleted or be accused of not knowing anything about the truth – being for example accused of supporting the true enemy.

You may agree, that this is more or less according to the definition above – but let me point out again, where this is propaganda:

1) Focus on “bad news” – bringing “bad news” which are not well known to attention.
The difficult thing to divide propagandist efforts from journalistic material, is the natural purpose of propaganda to look as if it was, well researched and entirely based on facts. But a clear sign for me is, that the information, that is given, is not just a journalistic effort, but leading to a certain conclusion, or trying to encourage strong emotions… The second and more obvious sign is, that the given information is not containing any contrary opinions – if a video is repeating the same information again and again and serving a certain purpose instead of providing knowledge, it*s time to examine it (for me).

To focus information on a certain target or opinion is the most common and basic operator of propaganda.

2) Direct lies – Spreading false information – taking original information out of context
is the most extreme, but even the most dangerous form of propaganda. One has to chose the lie carefully and has to think about the possibility, that people will try to examine the information, to show that it is not true.

The easiest way to deal with this is (already said this) to throw some dirt on them, but as this is also the most powerful tool to modify the thinking and feeling of other persons, one should be careful to not lie too obvious – there should not be any doubt, that he/she is speaking the truth…

You are used to that too, as all of us lied in our lifetime, but when acting as a propagandist you have to be even more careful.

3) Shocking audio and video content – modification of text, audio and video material – The use of media in another context – creating a threat through music and images
These is not new at all, but as the abilities of media have grown, the tools for this task have also. The basic target of propaganda is to invoke emotions… besides the intellectual information, you will find music, pictures and excerpts of speeches, which emotionally are creating a threat – this is serving a certain issue… it is to prepare you to believe the information. To make you believe, that you have to defend yourself through the new given knowledge and against the new enemy.

The message itself CAN be believed, but doesn*t have to be believed -

Whether you, for example, believe in the 9/11 conspiracy or not is not interesting – If you FEEL threatened after watching such a video – in fact threatened by the USA and believe them to be the enemy… the mission of the video is accomplished.

To be fair and to give an example for the American reader too… If you heard about the weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq… did you believe it? I say you don*t have to. The basic message is “Iraq is a threat!” if you believed that one – the task of the information is fulfilled.

And to calm down both groups… I don*t judge these, or you – one has to think about this him/herself – Whether you like it or not is your decision – what I want to say is, think about information very hard before you believe it.

My thoughts:

Some of the commentators will defend this information, as if they were defending their own life, they will get angry, thread or insult every opposition.

Indeed some of the videos I am referring to, even made it to encourage myself to feel in a certain way. I would recommend, that this is not underestimated, as some of these are true masterpieces of their art (if you can think the same way of these is up to you).

To give an interesting example (without providing too much material myself) – you may for example compare:


As this movie is taken down very often, I will add the name here, which you have to search for, to find it on Youtube.

[Zeitgeist - the movie]

A very good example, as it is using every operator I talked about. (You may have fun to watch it with this thought in mind – you may even have fun to examine my own text to find out if you can identify propagandist material – and I*m sure some of you will do that (if this text will get any comments anyway) ;) )

My Personal Disclaimer:

These are MY thoughts on certain topics, but I don*t claim, neither that I am the first one to realise it, nor that I am speaking THE TRUTH – as this term is abused in so many ways…

I strongly encourage you, to distrust information, until you’ve examined it yourself. This is including MY information. I welcome you to point out my mistakes and to share your opinion. But I hope, that you will be fair on me and will not insult me for my perspectives.

However – there is no doubt for me, that there exist more intelligent persons on this planet than me, who know more about these topics – If you are one of these persons… I would feel honoured, if you could share your point of view with me.

I allow you to use excerpts of my texts for your own projects, if you wish to, but I don*t allow you to change my message (means to ABUSE my texts.)

The Future:

As I am very interested in these topics, I am planning to add posts where I will try to examine Anti-American (AA) propaganda and my understanding of the “Age of informational warfare” more closely.

Thanks for reading Cern4m (My blog can be found here.)

94% Success Rate for Cyber Dating

In Armchair Anthropology, Blog and Web/Tech News on June 28, 2005 at 1:47 PM

94% Success Rate for Cyber Dating

I recently listened to a radio show and have spoken to some people about People on the Internet in terms of Internet Dating, people who lie in their blogs, and finally people who are not who they say they are.

My biggest most burning question is — Is there any proof that people on the internet are any more of a liar than those people that we meet face to face?

When we meet people face to face, can we really read into what kind of person they are? Really? Are you really sure?

Do Fox News, CNN, and other professional journalists always keep their story unbiased and straight?

What about our own spouses? When they respond to us saying that they’re “not cheating” (even though there’s evidence) can we trust that they’re telling the truth?

For an Eye Opener (which even surprised me!) read this article on Internet Dating.

THE image of internet dating as a “fickle world” full of liars and chancers is far from the truth, according to research released today.

Instead, relations formed in cyberspace enjoy a 94% success rate, an academic study has shown.

Men who go online for love are more committed to the relationship and more emotionally dependent on their “e-partners” than women.

The study shows that where couples build up a “significant” online relationship by emailing or chatting and then meet face-to-face, 94% went on to see each other again.

Relationships lasted on average seven months, with 18% lasting over a year, according to the University of Bath research.

Dr Jeff Gavin, who carried out the survey, said: “Given that the most successful relationships lasted at least seven months, and in some cases over a year, it seems that these relationships have a similar level of success as ones formed in more conventional ways.”

He said because men went deliberately online looking for love they tended to be more committed, whereas women tended to be more cautious and safety aware.

“Men open themselves up more when chat is anonymous,” he said. “Rather than lying to each other, this means couples can form deep relationships by being more honest than they would be face-to-face.”

Sexual

Women tend to be more sexual online than they would normally as they cannot be judged when anonymous, he added.

And although there may be still a stigma attached to online dating for older generations, for younger people meeting people online is just the same as meeting in a bar, he said.

Some couples who have met online even spend their anniversaries chatting with their partners in cyberspace as the place they met “is special to them”, he added.

Some 229 people, aged between 18 and 65, were interviewed online for the study.

More on People and the Internet

As far as good old fashioned dating is concerned, let’s say that us ladies meet (face to face) a very nicely dressed man who has a very good job, a good education, a perfect IQ, talks very intelligently, is very good looking and tall, comes from a wholesome and religious family, he is rich, and has a good sense of humor to boot.

Ladies? Does this mean that we’re safe?

Remember Allen Blackthorne, Scott Peterson, OJ Simpson, Mark Hacking, The Semen Squirting Dentist, The BTK Killer, The Defrocked Priest Sentenced for Raping a Little Boy among hundreds and hundreds of more Guilty Priests (whether it got to the news or not), John and Linda Dollar, Ted Bundy, and millions (if not billions) of other people that can successfully fool us with their looks, charm, money, sharp clothing, and by making us believe that he’s a good wholesome priest, president of a church, Boy Scout Leader, foster parents who trick adoption agencies into believing they are kind and caring and even people that are our own doctors and dentists?!

While there are whackjobs out in this world that are so obviously “criminal-looking” where we can spot them out in a heart beat, there are those who aren’t “criminal-looking” that fool even the most vigilant type of people.

You can do your part to a certain extent to be safe, but we only have so much control.

Screw the 30 Second Time Limit and Move On!

In Blog and Web/Tech News on May 26, 2005 at 5:06 AM

I’ve just recently heard a complaint made about “the majority of bloggers” that they “use links of others” rather than composing their own original work.

WTF?

Is there really a rule of thumb to follow regarding the content of your blog? Call me ignorant, but I’ve never heard of such a thing.

So, I wonder if this person’s saying that if you own a blog, it must be your own content? Is it considered “stealing” if you find a good, funny, or an interesting post and want to share it with your viewers? Do they know more about my small group of visitors than ‘I’ do?

What if you find a newsworthy topic on CNN and are interested in sharing the link with others along with your comments? Is that bad too? Or just plain boring?

What I’d really like to know is why this kind of “blogger behavior” disturbs people so. How is this “wrong”?

I suspect these Negative Nellies are coming from blog trafficing sites such as Blog Explosion and Blogazoo. They see one post that links to another site not knowing what YOUR blog is really about and running away so fast not realizing that you offer much more a variety than their false assumptions run wild about.

People like original content? While recommending my viewers to specific links can be “unoriginal”, I know my viewers. You don’t. While I may not be entertaining ALL my viewers, there were a couple of viewers I knew who would be interested in the adorable cat picture I found on Orge’s blog.

What are Trackbacks for? I’m guessing that those so readily and enthusiastically pointing the fingers at bad link-sharing blogs, don’t use the Trackback System. They’re completely useless to them because their content is “so original”.

1) The purpose of TrackBacks are to let a site know that you are referencing them on your on site.
2) The TrackBack URL is different than the regular permanent link URL.
3) TrackBacks are fun. You should use them.

Heavens to Murgatroid! What about Instapundit.com, the most popular blog out there that’s all about linkage and random one liner comments? Instapundit receives approximately 150,000 visitors a day. From time to time, the author of this site is mentioned on the news.

I’m also aware that people constantly bitch about those bloggers that write about their personal daily lives including unedited rants and raves about the cute guy who sits next to them in their high school Biology class and what they ate for breakfast. Many people peek at these blogs, and if they’re lucky enough to still be awake to report these blogs so boring and horribly written, they will without hesitation report them. However, we must give those boring blogs credit. They’re original.

I say screw the Negative Nellies. These are the type of people that will bitch no matter what. I get approximately anywhere between 50-100 hits a day, but I’m as happy as a bee in a tree if I get at least 10. I will admit that I’m a crazed attention whore and believe “the more the merrier”, but I will not go to the ends of the earth to satisfy the grumpy miserable hit and run loser types who subject themselves to a painful 30 second time limit just so they can gain more traffic to their site.

Trust me. There are blogs that annoy the hell out of me too – especially those blogs that play music automatically and damn near knock me out of my seat when I click on their site. In fact, I was planning on making a post on my blog to tell these auto-music playing bloggers to turn their blogging radio to manual instead of auto. But the difference between Grandma-Bitchy and me is that I will gracefully give up the potential 1/3 of a point that I can earn from Blog Explosion and screw the 30-second time limit – moving on to the next blog as noted below.

Surfing too fast? You betcha. Negative Nellies? You see that? You DO have other options. Just thought I’d let you know.

Google Has a Sense of Humor

In Blog and Web/Tech News, Humor on April 10, 2005 at 7:44 AM

Now that I’ve wiped the tears from my eyes from laughing so much, with my re-gained composure, let me share with you the latest Google searches from my visitors that have appeared on my Sitemeter.

I could not resist posting these. In fact, I will try to make a habit out of doing this. I need a good laugh every once in a while.

(The yellow highlights show where my site was targeted.)

Some dude in the UK was searching for "bum holes".


Then along came a passerby searching on how to masturbate with a silk scarf….


And then some innocent person searching for a website on how to impeach Judge Greer accidently ran into my entry on toilets.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.