Fisk Blogged

[rodin]

There was a thread on Fisk recently. Can't find it this am. I wanted to add

http://redpill8.blogspot.com/2007/07/criticism-of-robert-fisk.html

Pretty much my position on ther matter. One reply pulls not punches

[Dogsmilk]

Unless you actually post some actual evidence rather than what some guy said on some post, how can you expect anything but a glib answer?

[rodin]

[paul wright]

So Hitler was a good guy, whose name the winners in history have blackened, you are trying to say?

[Dogsmilk]

[rodin]

ROW rest of world

All this Hitler stuff? You imply quantity. His name comes up occasionally. I know far too little about him, actually. I do know that we have been fed a bunch of BS in many key areas so I would not take the official story @ face value.

[Dogsmilk]

[rodin]

Some idolise Hitler. Most believe the official line that he was mad, evil, racist etc. I do neither. My information comes from sources that probably have axes to grind and I have not had (nor ever will have) the time for meticulous research of original documents. Best I can hope for is that eventually the internet comes to a consensus view, because, once it has settled down it will probably be not far from the truth. Right now there is turmoil, as agendas are fought. Anyone who buys the official line on Hitler in this disinformation age is naive.

[Dogsmilk]

[Dogsmilk]

I rest my case.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=10698

[blackcat]

[rodin]

Dogsmilk - I agree with you about net disinfo - in terms of sheer volume - being overwhelming.

Nevertheless, as people become more netucated they will also become more discerning. And everything will be up for debate by everyone.

Those who eschew the net may be the metocracies loss, but nothing like ignoring the net is THEIR loss. All god people with means will log on IMO as it becomes more and more apparent that the net is the cutting edge of investigative research. Including posing and solving logic puzzles.

No leader will be our salvation, but interactive communication on the level the net affords could be. I guess that is the ultimate strength of the net - true interactivity. All other media is given from them to us. On the net we can as questions about the 'information' we are given.

PS your certainty about the diabolical-ness of Hitler rests partly on a belief system - that racism is bad. I am wary of any -ism. I wonder if that word ending is hypnotic? (See 'Bigger Picture'). I would agree that racism (and sectarianism) can be ugly and in many ways deserves its bad press. But agendas can piggy-back onto the mantra of 'racism' - as seems to be happening with the immigration agenda in the US.

[Dogsmilk]

Blackcat - the media is not composed of experts in their field. It is composed of journalists. Journalists are only expected to know how to be journalists (which often isn't the most noble trade in the world). When they want an 'expert', they contact one and shove a camera in their face. Given that they tend towards an internalised bias towards social and political norms in tandem with the population at large, they will filter how they frame a story generally in accordance with these. On many issues they will simply not know what they are talking about and rely on some basic research, 'expert' back-up and confident presentation. They may just want to get home and put their feet up. Mass media (even if it pretends it does) does not present 'expertise' - it presents news which may rely on 'dial an expert' to legitimise its output or present 'expert' claims or disputes that are deemed newsworthy.
It has a programme/newspaper/magazine to fill and that's its primary job.
The vast majority of journalists, I'd wager, don't have the slightest bit of interest in the campaigning journalism you get from some people. Sophie Raworth and John Pliger or even Bill O'Reilly (from a deranged tub-thumping perspective - I think he believes in what he says - because he's demented) are very different creatures.
Regarding bodies like NIST and the NTSB, the situation I would suggest becomes more complex. Government sanctioned investigations have inevitable constraints though, in the same way medical research paid for by big pharma has problems.
As I said, I think people shouldn't just 'trust the experts', but I fail to see how the internet is inevitably going to lead us to 'the truth'. That was my argument.

Rodin - it depends on how you see people getting 'netucated'. It depends what people see and what they choose to believe. Don't get me wrong - I think the net is infinitly valuable. I just don't see that it will inevitably act as an accurate filter for 'truth'.
I agree its acessibility is a strength - before the net you had to rely on underground zines a lot. But the net is not everything and not everything can be properly researched on it.
I also agree racism can be used and abused. Like any word with a negative connation. Having done a social work diploma, I've seen it used it extreme PC ways that make even me despair. I still remember arguing about the riduculous assertion that 'baa baa black sheep' is 'racist' (I believe it relates to medieval wool taxes which kind of negates any reference to race) with a lecturer.
Nevertheless, discriminating against others in terms of essentially arbitrary characteristics such as skin pigmentation or geographical birthplace is so absurd I find it extremely difficult to see anything that isn't negative about it. Indeed, finding reasons to present the 'other' as some kind of different species is a standard tactic of leaders to get us to be happier about e.g. killing foreigners so we can nick all their stuff.
Crying "that group of people over there are human beings just like us!" tends not to cut the mustard when it comes to rabble rousing.

[rodin]