Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Perhaps it is the success of distraction and deflection strategies, whereby the elite successfully persuade the oppressed that their downfall is all due to immigrants, welfare spongers, meddling bureaucrats, unfair trade deals, or foreigners. Take your pick.

Marketing works best at a subliminal emotional level appealing to deep seated needs to be secure, wanted, respected, valued, virile, sexy, high status, and more important/right than the other guy. So you take something people want, find someone to blame for them not having it, and hammer home the message again and again. This takes money and access to media.

Libruls talking down to people in complex jargon they don't understand just doesn't cut it. Most people in the UK don't have a clue what the EU actually does, but are sure the EU is to blame. Most people in the UK know Johnson is a Charleton, but they don't care - he is their Charleton and he speaks to them in their language.

Juncker? He speaks French doesn't he?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Sep 15th, 2019 at 05:57:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Sep 15th, 2019 at 06:00:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Help from auto-(in)correct?

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Sep 15th, 2019 at 06:31:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And that's why democracy can't work.

It's approximately stable if you have an educated population and a genuine plurality of debate in the media. But when you have industrial systems of persuasion applied to populations who are deliberately denied education and access to heterodox views, it simply implements the desires of those who own the means of persuasion.

Marx was wrong - it's not the powers of production that should be put into public hands, but the media.

And that isn't necessarily a good idea either, for obvious reasons.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Sep 15th, 2019 at 06:27:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
are media of production.

Perhaps you are interested to know exactly WHO owns the means/media of production--if it is not you? This information may be published but is not easily ascertained.

Likewise, the question seldom, satisfactorily answered by producer-consumers is WHICH product of their labors is more desirable than another?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sun Sep 15th, 2019 at 10:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Pretty clear for the UK. Murdoch owns the bulk of the media, both newsprint and TV, the Independent is owned by a former Russian oligarch and the Guardian by a Labor Lord. And the BBC cowers in fear of Murdoch.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Sep 16th, 2019 at 05:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The BBC actually cower in fear of the Daily Mail, the newspaper that supported the nazis right up till Sept 2nd 1939 and whose politics have barely changed since, owned by the tax exile Lord rothermere.

But aside from that, yes.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 17th, 2019 at 11:23:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Clear in the US as well.  The media are concentrated in the hands of very few.  And frankly the diversity was always a sham.  Over 60 years ago the CIA was referring to its media plants and front organizations as its "Mighty Wurlitzer" which it could play to control public opinion and demonize everyone from Gus Hall to unions to civil rights activists.
by rifek on Fri Sep 20th, 2019 at 06:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series