Textbook Example of Spin and Dissimulation
What's wrong with this picture? No. 2318
Can you spot the fallacy and deceit in this USA Today article?
Since when do Facebook "likes" constitute support for anything?
The bottomline of the spin here is that there is support for the officer who murdered Michael Brown---because of Facebook "likes"! How utterly amateur.
Facebook likes cannot count as support or protest for anything.
#1. The number of likes cannot be independently verified.
#2. A virtual support or protest is as good as nothing compares to a real protest.
etc., etc.
The obvious takeaway from the article is that there is support for the officer who murdered young Mr. Brown. Who stands to benefit from this appraisal of the scenario? Who funded this story Mr. Rupert Murdoch? Instead of citing any real evidence of support USA Today claims that Facebooks "likes" count as 'support'---consider how much true existential courage is required to click a "like" button---what's the conversion to real flesh and blood supporters? Let me quess about 30, ooo "like" clicks equal one honest protester in the face of immoral and unethical acts of police brutality and state and national stormtrooping techniques to suppress the honest citizens democratic right to free assembly and critique of the sub-human practices of the police state.
That is beside the point since the headline news of USA Today is bought with money---so I ask again: who stands to gain from this textbook example of spin?
What's wrong with this picture? No. 2318
Can you spot the fallacy and deceit in this USA Today article?
Since when do Facebook "likes" constitute support for anything?
The bottomline of the spin here is that there is support for the officer who murdered Michael Brown---because of Facebook "likes"! How utterly amateur.
Facebook likes cannot count as support or protest for anything.
#1. The number of likes cannot be independently verified.
#2. A virtual support or protest is as good as nothing compares to a real protest.
etc., etc.
The obvious takeaway from the article is that there is support for the officer who murdered young Mr. Brown. Who stands to benefit from this appraisal of the scenario? Who funded this story Mr. Rupert Murdoch? Instead of citing any real evidence of support USA Today claims that Facebooks "likes" count as 'support'---consider how much true existential courage is required to click a "like" button---what's the conversion to real flesh and blood supporters? Let me quess about 30, ooo "like" clicks equal one honest protester in the face of immoral and unethical acts of police brutality and state and national stormtrooping techniques to suppress the honest citizens democratic right to free assembly and critique of the sub-human practices of the police state.
That is beside the point since the headline news of USA Today is bought with money---so I ask again: who stands to gain from this textbook example of spin?
2 comments:
The US News piece is amazing, but not surprising,especially after just getting my nightly news fix from DN!...I suppose people self-select their own media-reality based on deeper underlying factors/motives/interest...this morning NPR News had a story on a black faimily in Ferguson(upper middle class) whose routine was being disrupted by the uprising; no analysis of the situation just a "personalization" of the situation to subtlety re-direct the audience...much more could be said about the "manufacturing of consent" and what the buttressing of what Gramsci referred to as the "supra-structure"
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Jucapa---all the president had to do was take an honest stand and let Ferguson know that there is a voice of ethical leadership---I guess that is too much to ask from a politician in the contemporary milieu---who knows it might be illegal to take an honest stand and weigh in on ethical good or evil. Might upset the Babylonian Beast---meanwhile american citizens are submitted to humiliating corporate "best practices" by the millions as a matter of course---I mean the corporate phone machines---they can't afford to hire real people---they might not make their 600% profit quotas. But if a citizen says that they are despicable slime, the citizen may be guilty of libel against the "person" of the corporation---that soulless fabrication of mammon! Dylan has written: "Everything is a little upside down--- what's good is bad/what's bad is good. You'll find out when you reach the top, you're on the bottom."
Post a Comment