I'm your right wing friend and mail you this WaHo propaganda piece.

[EFerrari]

Show me all the ways that this "article" is a right wing manipulation of the left. I'll kick in a star for whoever makes the best case for this textbook example of media mendacity. Take as much time as you want.


Topic A: Is Obama Betraying the Left?

Saturday, May 16, 2009; 12:00 AM

Yesterday President Obama announced he would maintain Bush-era military tribunals to try prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, and earlier this week he decided not to release photos allegedly depicting U.S. soldiers abusing detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is Obama betraying the left? The Post asked Marc A. Thiessen, Kenneth Roth and Douglas E. Schoen

MARC A. THIESSEN

Visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution; chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush

This week, President Obama saw firsthand how his liberal ideas directly conflict with his responsibilities as commander in chief. Thankfully he chose those responsibilities over the demands the left.

If he had released the detainee photos, they would been posted on jihadist websites within minutes, used by al Qaeda to incite terrorist attacks. Presented with this information, the president made the right call.

And if he had failed to allow military commissions to proceed, he would have betrayed the 9/11 families by denying them the justice they deserve. It is clear his administration discovered that its campaign rhetoric did not match the reality of what the Bush administration had established. The military commissions created by his predecessor in fact provide elaborate protections for defendants. So he is allowing them to proceed with cosmetic changes. The difference is, in the case of the photos he at least acknowledges that he is reversing course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051503796.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[emulatorloo]

1. Divide and conquer, baby. Transparent. n/t

[EFerrari]

3. You bet! That's the operative principle!

[gratuitous]

2. I'd demand to know

Why my right wing friend is suddenly reading the "liberal" Washington Post, and doesn't he know that by doing that, he makes the baby Sean Hannity cry?

[EFerrari]

4. He's doing it for your own good to show you how betrayed you are!

How can you doubt his purpose? :)

[Solly Mack]

5. If I ran out of toilet paper and then printed that article out to wipe my ass with it

I'd end up with more shit on my ass than when I started.

[EFerrari]

6. Yep! Can you say why? It's quite a confection, isn't it?

:)

[Solly Mack]

7. It's white propaganda to be precise

it's a known source, some facts (albeit distorted and slanted to fit the bias) and it's standard textbook PR manipulation...a persuasive piece (not saying it is persuasive, just that that's the style of essay it is)

[EFerrari]

8. I've never read that term before.

[Solly Mack]

14. There are 3 types/categories of propaganda (white, black, grey)

Of Propaganda and the Truth

[EFerrari]

15. Thanks! In that case, I'd argue that this is black propaganda in

white drag. And, I won't say more right now in case someone else wants to cover that. :)

[Solly Mack]

18. You make a good point (white cover) as it just says "the Post asked"

with the only known source being the Post and not a specific person (and the question could have been suggested by a right-winger)

Still, while the 3 answers will appeal to and be rejected by a certain target audience, each individual answer seems directed at a certain (sympathetic) audience...even with the digs at other target groups (which is still just an appeal to a sympathetic audience at its root)

[EFerrari]

22. Bush's speech writer? Doug "Wingnut" Schoen? Ken Roth?

What is the director of a human rights organization doing weighing in on a political piece? :shrug:

[Solly Mack]

30. The Post will tell you they were trying to get a representative answer

from across the board - left/center/right...with Roth representing the left. Schoen representing the middle , and Thiessen the right.

It does make sense for a human rights activist to comment on the military commissions and the torture pictures - and that was the context in which the question was presented - as evidenced by the 3 answers and the lead-in to the story.

That said - his answer was used in a way to further the cause of the Post. Which was to promote a marginalized left (in my opinion). And I do wonder if he knew the question was asked of the other 2. Or maybe he used the Post as much as he was being used - to get his message out there. The same could be said of the other 2. still, that question, "Is Obama betraying the left?" would give me pause and I'd pretty much refuse to answer because of what a set-up the question is.

The question could be asked, why were the other two asked about human rights issues? Since torture and the military commissions do have a lot to do with human rights.

So that leaves us with the main question - the primary question...

The question, "Is Obama betraying the left", however, is pure manipulation...pure bullshit. A very leading question geared toward painting the left as marginalized. And it invites answers, from certain quarters, to promote that thinking.

The right claims the Post is liberal-biased and I wouldn't agree, and in that way, the piece is black propaganda - because it was meant to be a dig at a perceived enemy (the left)....and to promote a divide

And if it were not for the source being named, I'd call the entire piece black propaganda. But that boils down to whether or not a person accepts the source as the source. And like I said, that question could have come from anywhere....and that would make a difference.

But each individual answer was still white propaganda, in my opinion. And each individual answer will play to a certain audience - for both good and for ill.

[EFerrari]

31. I mostly agree with you with this caveat. HRW has become

increasingly politicized. They've been kicked out of some left leaning LatAm countries for meddling in internal affairs and Latin American scholars and students all around the world have called them out. So, while it seems very appropriate to ask Ken Roth this question, check out the language of his response. It's not the language of diplomacy. It's over the top if your goal is to promote human rights anywhere.

And that is my best example of white drag. On the surface, he seems like a fine candidate for this discussion. What he does with it is something else.

/oops

[Solly Mack]

32. Oh...he's out for blood

that's for certain...no diplomacy to his answer whatsoever. (but then all 3 answers went for some blood)

A human rights group has to decide if they want to aid victims in the same manner as the red cross...and that means keeping certain things to yourself, as the red cross has to do in order to get into certain places (even though leaks will happen)

or do they want to aid and advocate...emphasis on advocate...and that means being political a lot of the time.

And...as is always the possiblity...human rights groups can be subverted from within and turned into something else entirely...though they maintain their outward appearance

I'm leaning toward black propaganda now, btw. LMAO

Damn you! WHO do you work for???? :P

[EFerrari]

34. LOL! I'm actually looking for work. If you know anyone who needs help,

let me know. lmao

:hi:

[Mythsaje]

9. Did you cut and paste?

"Thankfully he chose those responsibilities over the demands (OF?) the left."

Fail.

And they think that NOT releasing them isn't going to be a recruitment tool? "See, they're so bad they're afraid to let us see them."

Morons.

[EFerrari]

10. Did I mess up the cut and paste?

:)

The relationship of this piece (and its characters) to the left is sort of fascinating.

[Mythsaje]

11. I'm not sure. I'm thinking you didn't and it was an editing fail.

I can't help but notice things like that.

[EFerrari]

12. They are becoming more and more common as our print media

lays off more and more personnel. I didn't see it at first but do now.

[Mythsaje]

13. It's partly an author thing and partly that I'm married to an editor. LOL

Can't help it.

[EFerrari]

24. When I got married, I was too dumb to marry an editor.

You lucky dog.

:)

[hfojvt]

16. start with the question

Is it a fair question? First, you might wonder about 'betray'. Doesn't that imply that he ran as a leftist and now is tacking right? I don't think all of the left was that gullible or fooled. I certainly was not. I saw Obama as the lesser of three evils, the three being Obama-Clinton-McCain.

Second, if you are gonna find out how the left feels about something, why would you ask a rightwinger? And a centrist? A Democrat so far to the right that he thinks Pelosi represents 'the left'. You have the opinions of two people who want to see the left betrayed and defeated and isolated.

The rightwinger plays the usual terror card and 9/11 card, and still trying to say "Bush was right all along". Schoen, on the other hand, sees the left as a group that needs to be marginalized in order to solve complex problems that those on the left just don't understand.

[EFerrari]

19. Yes, the framing of the piece and the individuals asked to contribute

who are presented as somehow on the left. I don't think anyone ever mistook Doug Schoen for a Democrat and Ken Roth is supposed to be in charge of a human rights organization, not a poltical pundit. Which shows you how compromised HRW has become.

lol

:applause:

[MADem]

25. Human Rights Watch has 'always' been profoundly political.

They don't hesitate to comment on political issues, particularly when the butt up against their agenda.

Examples: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2005/04/23/getting-away-torture-0

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/11/16/fighting-terrorism-fairly-and-effectively-0

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/03/28/no-direction-home

[suffragette]

17. Let me count the ways

The simplest option would be to do a word count on this piece since every word in it is propaganda from its false premise to its disingenuous conclusion.

[EFerrari]

20. With a 30 second search on the author and contributors

as icing.

[suffragette]

26. Author and his wife are quite the pair, aren't they?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/21/722786/-Who-is-Marc-A.-Thiessen-and-why-is-he-an-apologist-for-torture
Quite the history he has.

From his own promo site:
http://www.ovalofficewriters.com/team.htm
Marc lives in Alexandria, Virginia, with his wife, Pamela, who works in the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill as Staff Director of the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

[EFerrari]

27. And Doug Schoen, of Penn, Schoen, is a rightwing nut case.

He lately released a book that says Hugo Chavez is going to eat your kittens:

http://www.borev.net/2009/01/ok_this_ones_good_bc_doug_scho.html


And Ken Roth is director at Human Rights Watch -- an ngo that has lost a lot of credibilty under his leadership. What is he doing trashing Obama? His language is intemperate, not that of someone who is primarily interested in HUMAN RIGHTS. You won't ever see the ICRC, for example, participating in something like this. :shrug:

[suffragette]

39. Wow, Schoen is around the bend

[EFerrari]

44. He's not Democrat, that's for sure!

[onethatcares]

21. I'd ask the guy, cause I don't have any rightwing friends, why

would it take pictures produced 6 years after the invasion to inflame the Muslim world?

Of course, the supposed person would have to tell me they hate us for our cameras.

Peace.

[EFerrari]

23. Don Rumsfeld said the problem at Abu Ghraib was digital cameras.

And I bet he was serious.

How can pictures hurt after six years is a good point. People are still being killed every day.

[anigbrowl]

28. Not at all. It's an opinion piece.

It tells me right at the beginning that the guy was W's chief speechwriter. Given that context, I don't feel manipulated in the least; I'm not expecting objectivity or neutrality to begin with.

[EFerrari]

29. Your expectations are very low.

The title should be "The Extreme Right Weighs In on The Left". There is no one from the left cited in this piece.

[anigbrowl]

37. ?!

Of course they're low, it's a George Bush speechwriter. Why would he cite anyone from the left? Op-eds like this are meant as advocacy pieces, not as balanced reportage. If you're expecting anything other than polemic it's your own fault for not being able to keep things separated. I wouldn't expect an op-ed by Dennis Kucinich to offer a neutral assessment of the GOP either.

Reportage is supposed to offer a balanced point of view. That is not the function or the editorial page and if you think it is you're deluding yourself. I don't agree with the guy, but since it's an op-ed and his affiliations are clear I don't expect anything other than partisan spin from the guy.

[EFerrari]

38. My OP asked for responses that show how the propaganda is seeded..

Brow beating me is sort of beside the point. But thanks for the kick.

[anigbrowl]

45. I gave you an honest and polite answer, and your objection was silly.

Specifically your OP asked how many kinds of media manipulation there were in the piece, and I felt there were none because the piece does not pretend to be anything other than opinion, therefore I don't feel manipulated. Now if you were talking about a news report that just happened to only quote people on one side of the political question, then I'd agree that it's manipulative. But this - isn't.

[EFerrari]

46. An OpEd that appears in the WaHo is still media, anigbrowl.

Even one written by one right winger that polls three other ones about the left.

I apologize for snarkiness or rudeness to you.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[underpants]

35. 1. we are allowed to disagree with our "leaders" 2. Obama governing not dealing in "ideas"

3. the lot of these people trying to predict the future is most likely not going to be accurate

as much as we may not like it especially in the "perception is reality" world that live in (a GOP thing) Will Rogers was incredibly astute when he said

"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat. "

http://home.att.net/~howingtons/will.html

[EFerrari]

36. Agree on all those points. But isn't it a little strange

that all three participants in this piece come from the right, not the left? Two, arguably, from the extreme right?

I don't need the right wing telling me what to think about Obama. :shrug:

[underpants]

40. Not strange at all. That is pretty much all that is on TV

great thread

[EFerrari]

42. You have a point there! I'm a little out of touch because

I stopped watching all those shows a few months ago.

[Touchdown]

41. Fellow at The Hoover Institution. You need not read any further.

Right wing think tank and attractive to hacks and the easily led, but I repeat myself.

Whatever else he wrote was predictable after that.

[EFerrari]

43. Yes, the Hoover Institute. Aren't they currently Donald Rumsfeld's employers?