Establishment’s fight against “Fake News” a covert war on Free Speech

cinema2logo


PATRICE GREANVILLE
horiz grey line

Can the industrial manufacturers of lies and fake reality help us determine what is “fake news”?

That, apparently, is what the system’s shills are after in raising the alarm about the spread of “fake news” throughout the Internet. For starters this is transparently dishonest. Unrestricted opinion, including insane and very biased items, have long circulated on the Net. But in the free for all of mass communications which is the Internet, there’s also a rising trend: honest truth-tellers with a widening audience. An audience whose expansion is a threat to the guardians of the national brainwash, of benefit only to the plutocratic 0.00001% fronted by the Duopoly politicians and their associated presstitutes crawling all over the MSM.

The video below is a harbinger of probably more to come. A thinly-veiled attempt at demonising opinion the establishment finds dangerous to their own hold on the public mind. Paving the way for a more frontal attack on dissenters on the web. Choking free speech. This is something that everyone should realize and stand firm to oppose and resist. For whenever the system managers demonise something, worse attacks follow.

An analysis of this development is presented on a separate post introducing our new section, SPOTLIGHT, so there is no need to repeat it here. Meantime, just watch this video below and start learning how to read the truth between the lines, or under the top layer of sanctimonious posturing offered by the system’s front men, women, the official mouthpieces. It’s the kind of instruction that you have been missing all along but no longer can afford to neglect. If you think we exaggerate you are not paying attention. And if you keep reading the New York Times, watching mainstream TV, or listening to the faux left voices, you’ll simply be blindsided by events. It’s really up to you. For no one else can ultimately control what you believe.

This is the way CBS presents this toxic piece of pseudo news trash:


The battle to stop the spread of fake news online

CBS This Morning  | Nov. 18, 2016

Published on Nov 19, 2016

There’s growing concern about fake stories online to draw in readers and possibly mislead voters. Dan Ackerman, senior editor at CNET, and Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor at the City University of New York, join “CBS This Morning: Saturday” to discuss the motivation behind the fake headlines, and the role websites and social media platforms should play to inform users.


NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP INSTALLATION 
 PGPatrice Greanville is TGP’s founding editor. 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey
=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable • see our special red registration box at bottom of this page

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  


horiz-black-wide

Make sure many more people see this. It's literally a matter of life an death. Imperial lies kill! Share widely.
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

4 thoughts on “Establishment’s fight against “Fake News” a covert war on Free Speech

  1. We all have different motivations. Mine is different from Stone’s. It would be nice to win battles, and certainly that would be a consequence if we are successful, but for me the visceral motivation is not fighting but teaching. I give capitalism an “F.” I feel an urge to explain to people why and how capitalism and unkindness are mistakes. Those who consciously refuse to understand are few enough that they could be easily overcome if everyone else understood, and then we would win the battle. But for me the truth is a value in itself. I don’t know why.

    Instead of what motivates us, probably we should be thinking more about what motivates most of our readers, though they too all have different motivations. I don’t think most of them are idealists like Stone, nor will they ever be. But neither are they the greedy individualists that capitalists claim is human nature. Different sociologists have different views of human nature, and I can find a few sociologists whose views I like, but I don’t suppose that is helpful.

    We’re facing a circular problem: We want to change culture; to do that we have to appeal to people; we have to appeal to that which motivates them; their motivation is affected by their culture. That’s not any sort of answer; I’m just trying to get closer to understanding what is the problem.

    It’s funny that the establishment people are vouching for each other. For instance, in the video clip, Jeff Jarvis of CUNY says that a news item is okay if the New York Times went along with it.

    I used to give the liars the benefit of the doubt — I figured that most of them actually believed their own lies, and were blinded to the truth by their ideological prejudices. I still believe that that might occasionally be true. But Wikileaks has shown us that it’s not true terribly often. Wikileaks showed us, for instance, that when the Clinton campaign sabotaged the Sanders campaign, they were fully aware that they were doing something that they didn’t want the public to know about. They were consciously, intentionally lying.

    At this point, the closest I can come to giving the liars the benefit of the doubt is to figure that the liars believe that the end justifies the means. For instance, people in the Clinton campaign might actually believe the world or the USA would be a better place if Clinton were to win, and therefore lying to make it happen was justified. But that’s not much of a benefit of the doubt. After all, I might not agree with them about what would be a better world. They have no right to decide for me what would be a better world. And in any case, the end does =not= justify the means, because we rarely arrive at the ends we intended; all we can be sure of accomplishing is the means we use. If the means are lies, then all the would-be-heroes can be sure of accomplishing is that they are liars.

    I’m a retired mathematician, and the author of a textbook on mathematical logic. In pure mathematics we have fairly clear and highly reliable methods for classifying statements into “true,” “false,” and “not yet known.” Unfortunately, those methods do not work outside of pure mathematics; they don’t work in the real world. Science helps a little, but even science is not completely reliable, because all reasoning starts from assumptions, and often we are not aware of our own assumptions. For instance, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association reversed its view on homosexuality. The truth did not change, but people’s perception of it did. That change may have been affected greatly by efforts of activist groups. We all have different trusted sources for what we believe to be facts, and trust cannot be won through debate, but perhaps it can be won through earnest conversation.

    1. I fully agree. How do we know what battles to fight if we don’t understand the issues. Most people I know through my writing and media work have a keen understanding. We’re a tiny minority.

      When I mention serious issues with most people I meet under other circumstances, their eyes glaze over with ignorance and indifference. They care only about the personal lives and nothing else. It’s so easy to stay informed today with minimal effort, unlike when I was back in school and much later with no Internet.

      One of my doctors, an intelligent woman, admits knowing nothing about the big issues I address and doesn’t bother to read what I write. I’d offer to teach her but she’s unwilling to learn.

      I’m motivated by one of IF Stone’s great remarks, saying “(t)he only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins.”

  2. I am starting to think that all our essay-writing and article-writing can’t directly reach the people we really want to reach, but maybe it can reach some of them indirectly. I am starting to see why and how:

    When I try to explain to someone why we need to end capitalism, they will immediately tell me that ending capitalism is unnecessary, undesirable, and impossible. And they have two or three reasons in mind. Of course, all their reasons are wrong. And if I am having a one-on-one conversation with them, and if I can keep it going long enough, I might be able to explain to them why all two or three of their reasons are wrong. And I won’t convince them then, but I might plant a seed in their brains that will sprout later.

    But if I talk to someone else, they’ve got a different two or three reasons. And if you go around talking with lots of people, you’ll compile a list of maybe a dozen different reasons. Well, actually no two people have exactly the same reasons, but a lot of people have similar reasons, so I think it works out to around a dozen.

    So if you want to write an article about it, you have to list all dozen reasons, and refute them all. But now someone starts reading your article. If their three reasons are, just by coincidence, the first three reasons you’ve listed, then congratulations, you’ve won a convert. But if you don’t get that happy coincidence, then they’ll lose interest and stop reading before they ever get to the part that, for them, would have been the good part.

    Contrast that with the one-on-one conversation, where you start by listening to their delusions, to see what are the three reasons they have in mind, and then you only address those three reasons. More successful.

    So here is the indirect route that might be helpful: You put your article out there, listing all dozen reasons and their refutations. And maybe some people will read it who =already= agree with you, people who already agree that we need to end capitalism. Maybe they will read the whole article. But perhaps that will make them more skilled in the one-on-one conversations they have with the infidels.

    But then you, the author of the article, will never see the effect you are having on the world. You just have to have faith. From the experiences we =can= see, we extrapolate, and hope that something similar is happening in places we =can’t= see. But I don’t know. We can’t know. There are no guarantees in this struggle.

  3. DIANE GEE REPLIES TO JOHN V WALSH
    …..
    “The Deep State” or “Illuminati” are boogeymen words, meant to keep reasonable people from discussing what Capitalism is, and does. It is en extraction process that pulls all the water from the ground and up into a tower, then throw back a teaspoonful for the people to compete for every gallon we extract for it.

    Wealth begets wealth on the wealthy; in schooling, health care, opportunity and assets passed ever on to offspring.

    People cannot change the fabric of the system without recognizing it for what it is in the first place. What we have is essentially untitled nobility here, a class who prefers very much to stay politely quiet because history has taught them that people tend to overthrow overt rulers, sometimes violently.

    Language matters. Prior to Occupy, few people even understood there was a small fraction of humans in our country that hold almost all the assets. That was a step toward problem solving, or could have been – just entering the concept into the national dialogue in the first place.

    Changing “elected” leaders in this system changes neither the system or the process that created it: Capitalism, Patriarchy, Greed.

    It has been studied and well published that the poor have more empathy, are more prone towards socialist principles…. they tend to have community gardens, tend toward sticking up for one another – the Bay Area’s rash of homicides on unarmed blacks was the birthplace of BLM, because they have and still do weekly meals for the poor, clothes drives, crowd fund funerals, and protest the killings.

    These are the people under the greatest socio-economic stressors in our Nation.

    Unfortunately, as the class war reaches its pinnacle, more and more people will also suffer dire financial crises. Every study shows that the income disparity between the top echelons (whose ranks are becoming smaller) and the lower echelons is growing almost exponentially. Less money, fewer jobs, more debt, and far less Democracy. Look to Snyder’s Michigan to see the how “Emergency Managers” have been appointed, and in their wake have privatized what was left of the communal assets of the citizens – a full 22 of our largest industrial cities are now without elected governments.

    The crisis is coming, whether or not we like it. What type of change, the dialogue under which people understand it is the ONLY thing we can affect in any way. If using the terms “1% or “deep state” or even “illuminati” is helpful in making people think about class war is a valid question. I think the first two tends to help people understand, the latter smacks of secret handshakes and illicit meetings and seems to CT.

    As far as the uber-rich operating within the same culture, not so much. They don’t eat what we eat, where we eat, they don’t walk our streets, they walk private islands, yachts and enclaved areas, and their children’s idea of normalcy is having any given “poet or musician” show up at their 8th Birthday Party to give them their own little concert. Hardly “one of us,” but common among their tiny set of peers. Which in older times, would have been “royalty” – now is just generational moneyed.

    Buying, selling, trading is more of a genteel, well played chess match to them… I cannot believe they have the concept of what closing plants means to people, or they would not so blithely and carelessly ruin lives. I cannot believe they would think nothing of “destabilizing” a country to get to its oil or gas, knowing the devastation and price in blood it truly costs. So, either they ARE bad, immoral individuals, or they have a culture so different than ours, they truly don’t know the depths of their actions.

    I suppose my way of thinking is too radical for most people. There was talk about 6 years ago about moving the financial centers from the East Coast to Michigan. Now private investors are buying huge swaths of properties from the fleeing poor in privatized cities like Detroit and Flint. Cities where they shut off or poison the water. Cities that no longer provide street lights, garbage pick up, yet can afford to militarize the police.

    Climate change is real, and we have fresh water, no projected impact from rising seas, and will become a temperate zone.

    So, yes, I believe there is planning involved. I am cynical enough to believe they know that with the coming climate change, that a Police State is needed, that the energies and angers of the people competing for ever fewer resourced need to be channeled at one another (divide and conquer) and that they need to kill off many of us “useless eaters” in order to have enough resources for themselves in the wake of disaster.

    So, ultimately, we cannot (if wishes were horses….) change the fabric of the system without trying to over-ride the disinformation the elite class loves to push: “Your problems are all because of the Muslims, the Hispanics, the Blacks, the Gays” with a clear message that our problems are indeed caused by the greed of the 1% – from war abroad to class war at home.

    How else do we change the culture without giving the words to describe it to the masses? How do we “take action” against our rulers without common cause large enough to make a dent against them?

    Language matters.

    On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 11:26 PM, John Walsh wrote:

    You write:
    ” …the problem is not just about a bunch of bad individuals, but about the culture that goes with them. If you could somehow lock up the entire Illuminati, but you did not manage to change the culture that generated them, then it would quickly generate a new batch of Illuminati.

    And they do not have a culture separate from ours. They do not have their own poets, their own musicians, their own cinematographers. I’m talking about OUR culture. It’s part of our everyday way of life.”

    Absolutely. Where is the so-called “deep state”? To a certain degree it is in us. We defeat it by taking action against our rulers and in the course of that action – not by any introspection- we will change things and in the process change ourselves. That will begin the process.

Leave a Reply