Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Another aspect of the problematic
Further, a third point against advertising: (02)
3. It distorts truth and the distortion of truth becomes a normal,
accepted part of everyday life and ingrained in our humor. (03)
I may quickly add that the ills of advertising are beginning to be
recognized, i.q. that of tobacco advertising. (04)
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 09:37, Henry K van Eyken wrote:
> Commercial media are paid for by advertisers and reporters need be
> granted interviews. So, both on the advertising side and on the
> reporting side there is pressure (overt, covert) for favors and, hence,
> the commercial press is not fully free, only relatively so in comparison
> with a press fully controlled by a regime.
> A first point of attack would be to free the press from the bondage of
> It should be noted here that the advertisers do not themselves pay for
> the adverts; the public does through the price they pay for products.
> Advertising is in there. In other words, like governments levies taxes
> for public services, so does business by including PR and advertising
> costs along with sales taxes in the price of goods and services.
> There are two other bad sides to advertising:
> 1. They waste a lot of viewers' time or of paper (i.e. trees).
> 2. They encourage consumption, i.e. more than a justified use of
> resources because all goods we buy end up as waste - 100%.
> I know, I know. Advertising is now seen as an indispensable part of the
> mechanisms for economic growth, etc., but it seems wise that we
> recognize that this is not an unassailable paradigm.
> So at this point, I am looking forward to an article in the commercial
> press about the ills of advertising.
> On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 08:29, Gary Richmond wrote:
> > Henry,
> > I think that the events of the past couple of years
> > have made me look at articles like "The Second
> > American Revolution" (which in the past I too might
> > have dismissed as mere "conspiracy theory") in a
> > new light, as hypotheses, shall we say, that now
> > ought be more seriously entertained and tested.
> > Contemplating your four points (that Bush was
> > not properly elected, that his intellectual level
> > appears to be low, that the assassination attempt
> > on George Sr. probably made an enduring mark
> > on the Bush family and political circle, and the wide-
> > spread misuse of "political pardon" resulting in too
> > many members of the "upper echelons" not being held
> > accountable) intensifies my discomfort with the
> > current Administration. Of course the "military-
> > industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned us
> > about dominates in a way that no doubt even he
> > couldn't imagine at the time.
> > Still, I must agree with your conclusion that only
> > an expansion of the idea of public education through the media
> > can hope to impact positively on the situation. Meanwhile,
> > articles and research on the FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in
> > Reporting) website makes me worry about the extent of
> > media mis-education of the citizenry and just how difficult
> > it will be to overome that. http://fair.org/
> > HvE: Ultimately, it is an ignorant and ineffective public that permits the
> > corruption of politics and business to exist. Which gets us right back
> > to education and media ...
> > Gary
> > Henry K van Eyken wrote:
> > >Gary.
> > >
> > >People of a sarcastic bent of mind would simply label "The Second
> > >American Revolution" article as a conspiracy theory and be done with it.
> > >
> > >But there are a few things that trouble me about George W. and the
> > >leadership establishment:
> > >
> > >1. The absence of properly exercised democracy that caused him to be
> > >elected. And of previous presidents as well.
> > >
> > >This is merely my opinion, of course, but what do members of the
> > >electorate really know about their choices? Impressions substitute for
> > >facts. This, of course, applies to electoral processes everywhere. The
> > >U.S. is no exception.
> > >
> > >2. Yesterday, I listened to G.W.'s speech on the car radio. It was a
> > >pathetic piece of drivel that would just about flunk a third-grader.
> > >How, I wondered, again, can this man make decisions of policy other than
> > >being simply talked into them by others? When a man of the stature and
> > >accomplishment such as Nelson Mandela calls G.W.'s intellectual quality
> > >in question, we need to worry. (And when the same man speaks of the U.S.
> > >as a terrorist state - or words to that effect - we need to worry even
> > >more.)
> > >
> > >The thesis is that George Sr. is the man behind all this. Maybe so, but
> > >I do have doubts about that; not if, as has been claimed, Jr likes to
> > >upstage Sr. I would first look at those who advise him. And whether the
> > >process of advising is one where G.W. really listens and digests a
> > >variety of conflicting opinions and then come to a decision or whether
> > >he is swayed by intellectual laziness and emotion.
> > >
> > >3. George Sr. was once targeted for an assassination attempt in Kuwait.
> > >Jr. for one during 9/11. And the 9/11 hit on the Pentagon cannot be one
> > >but a constant reminder to Washingtonians. That, I suspect, does affect
> > >thinking.
> > >
> > >4. The process of "presidential pardon" that exonerates corruption for
> > >those who have been well placed in U.S. society. I imagine that this
> > >pardon is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to avoiding to make
> > >members of the upper echelons in society accountable.
> > >
> > >Your correspondence makes reference to corrupt leadership in business
> > >(Enron, Anderson). My interest has been particularly focused on the
> > >Dutch conglomerate Ahold and how it neglected the interest of the
> > >shareholders.
> > >
> > >Ultimately, it is an ignorant and ineffective public that permits the
> > >corruption of politics and business to exist. Which gets us right back
> > >to education and media ...
> > >
> > >Henry