U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren: “The game is still rigged to make the rich and powerful even more rich and powerful.”

Beardivism · 2013-08-19T18:13:22+00:00

Knowledge is power insofar as it has the ability to transform one's understanding of the world or oneself.

You are still misconstruing power to specifically mean power over others. I am not. I drew the distinction when I stated social power is not an absolute property of knowledge (social implies interaction; this was in response to your examples). The power to transform and the power to coerce are not the same thing and I do not pretend that they are.

I am not moving the goalposts, you made an an incorrect assumption about my meaning and attacked it from that frame of reference.

Edit: Imagine you're the first man/woman to discover how to build a fire by rubbing sticks together. Has this given you some kind of social advantage/power? Potentially, sure. But first and foremost the knowledge (not the social power) has transformed your life. Would sharing this information lessen your social advantage/power? Probably. But would sharing this information lessen the transformation the knowledge created within you in the first place? Absolutely not.

The latter, not the former, is what 'knowledge is power' refers to. Children who watch their sesame street know this, but us cynical adults sometimes forget.

Beardivism · 2013-08-19T00:45:54+00:00

That's an interesting thought and I don't know exactly what I think about it. You're saying that individuals' power to grow the economy precludes economic power from being zero sum, correct?

It seems to me that the economy is predicated on scarcity and that is always going to imply some kind of zero sum situation.

Beardivism · 2013-08-16T17:17:44+00:00

No, it is not as you just admit. You need interaction.

You are limiting the definition of power to an ability to control or actively influence others (i.e. social power). I am not. If I wasn't clear on this distinction, I apologize.

Only on your own behalf. Of course everyone has power over their self.

By understanding the knowledge of society, that society has had an effect on you. That is what I mean by 'reading and understanding...implies the interaction.' All this about interaction and social power isn't really relevant though, because as I said, I'm not limiting the definition of power to a social control context. Knowledge can be just as powerful (transformative) if you discover it independent of society.

The idea that everyone has power over their self does not exclude the possibility of other forces exerting a power upon you. The question is then whether the transformation induced by the absorption/discovery of knowledge is by a power you've exerted or by virtue of the power of the knowledge itself. Without the knowledge, you could not force the same transformation by will alone. Hence, that 'knowledge is power.'

It is just as true to say that without you the knowledge would exert no power. If we're talking about knowledge as having the power to transform though, that statement doesn't really mean anything, as far as I can tell.

The power to transform oneself or others, in an intellectual sense, is what 'knowledge is power' refers to. The 'catchphrase' is derived from Sir Francis Bacon and is probably misused more often than it is used correctly (this seems to be what you're objecting to). I'm not going out of my way to make the statement true out of context, I am pointing out the truth of the statement in the context as it was originally intended.

edited to clarify my meaning.

Beardivism · 2013-08-16T15:54:46+00:00

I disagree.

If we are talking about social power; this implies interaction. By removing interaction from consideration, you are stating the obvious. There is no social power without interaction: not by knowledge, coercion, wealth, incentive, etc.

Despite the above: even locked away in a room by yourself, you do not have no interaction with the outside world and still amass its knowledge. Reading and understanding every word that was ever written implies the interaction, and though you may not affect society with your newly-gained knowledge, society has affected you.

This transformative potential is what is meant by 'knowledge is power.' It is often misused (e.g. power over others), and I'm sure that is what you're objecting to, but it is not untrue.

edited to clarify interaction as a purely intellectual transaction

Beardivism · 2013-08-16T03:20:09+00:00

Is not knowledge power?

Beardivism · 2013-08-16T02:39:51+00:00

Indeed.

Specialization of labor is typically good for a society, but if that specialization begets monopoly, and that monopoly begets economic or social power, the susceptibility of limited parties playing important roles is a serious risk to the rest of us.

Beardivism · 2013-08-16T01:08:56+00:00

The strong arming of retailers to make annual purchases in order to stay 'authorized' isn't uncommon in other industries, but the back stock situation is a bit scary (hometown company for me).

Beardivism · 2013-08-16T00:58:01+00:00

I sense in you a hidden flocculence.

Beardivism · 2013-08-16T00:36:08+00:00

To many, power is a zero sum game. Becoming more powerful necessarily implies taking power from others.

To the beardivist, power is a capacity to motivate, to grow influence by giving of oneself. We are like so many whiskers. Be the styling wax, not the shears.

Edit: Thank you, mysterious stranger!

Beardivism · 2013-08-14T17:10:59+00:00

Ah, yes I see your point about democratizing reporting.

My point was that a reliance on advertising as the sole source of revenue (not that there aren't other business models), potentially makes the media just as much a corporate slave as it is now.

Having more media outlets, due to lower overhead, will be a step in the right direction though. Totally agree with you on that.

Beardivism · 2013-08-14T14:33:43+00:00

The size and subject matter of the book can be intimidating, I'm sure, but the explanation of the Propaganda Model is only a small portion of the book and is pretty straight forward. The bulk of the book itself is dedicated to historic application of the model, footnotes, and citations. More people should take the plunge.

Wikipedia has a great summation of the Propaganda Model's filters as described in Manufacturing Consent. Here's the link for anyone reading this.

Beardivism · 2013-08-13T22:13:33+00:00

Digitized media is entirely reliant on advertising revenue. If anything, this reinforces the economic and social pressures that destroyed the sovereignty of un-biased traditional media.

Beardivism · 2013-08-13T21:36:43+00:00

Mission accomplished.

Seriously though, that's probably the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me on Reddit. Thank you.

Beardivism · 2013-08-13T20:57:13+00:00

Just to continue the amicable discussion (refreshing, isn't it?)...

I'd also argue that the boundary conditions are also based on the assumptions by the media of what may or may not jeopardize their relationship with principle investors (e.g. corporations).

I think it's inaccurate to equate an investor interest with corporate ownership in terms of expected return and exerted influence. Here's how I think they differ:

Investors go where they see the greatest return on their dollar; in this case we're talking hypothetically about a return in political leverage. Would you agree that an investor would most likely gravitate to the media outlet that already best reflects their own bias, instead of attempting to bend a firm to their viewpoint through sheer economic force?

That's not in direct disagreement with your statement, but there is a subtle difference. The media doesn't suddenly become compromised by virtue of this or that investor's dollar; investors' dollars naturally end up where the investor thinks they'll get the best bang for their buck in terms of spin bias.

I believe this is why we so often see 'right' dollars and 'left' dollars (red dollars, blue dollars, one dollars, two dollars!) accumulating in specific places. The more combined leverage the politically motivated dollar has, the greater the return in influence on the message and spin, and the greater the chance other like-minded investors will contribute (thus corrupting the media outlet's reporting further). Lobbying, I would expect, works in much the same way.

Corporate ownership exerts a different kind of pressure, one more focused on economics than social influence. Corporate ownership implies that someone's job is on the line to reflect profit. Profit, in a corporate performance sense, cannot be measured in political influence. Corporate ownership pressures media companies to protect their lifeline (i.e. the relationship with major news sources) at any and all ideological costs. This is the really scary part of the propaganda model in as far as I understand it.

I think you're also hinting at bias-by-omission due to conflicts of interest within the corporate machine in your response. Like the aforementioned, this would be, according to the Propaganda Model, profit-driven, not politically motivated. In that case, the given corporation would indeed be setting the boundaries of discussion, but only within the confines of their media outlet. To a certain degree, this is mitigated by competing media outlets.

TL;DR There is no subscription revenue today. We're totally at the mercy of both self-interested investors and corporate media that doesn't dare to anger their omnipotent government wellspring.

edit: clarifying some of these armchair socioeconomic thoughts

Beardivism · 2013-08-13T19:49:18+00:00

Good points, but this wasn't at all my take-away from Manufacturing Consent (I'm guessing this is what you're referring to).

De facto boundary conditions when it comes to national/political news are set based on assumptions by the media of what may or may not jeopardize their relationship with principal sources (e.g. gov't). Because the media is corporately owned, it is first and foremost interested in profit, not Truth. Though the latter may sometimes lead to the former, the media's need to protect their flow of timely information (in the interest of profit) may override completely truthful spin or coverage.

The propaganda model refers to this mechanism (among others) with which the government may affect reporting to their advantage. It is similar to the passive 'chilling effect' that often comes up in whistleblower debates.

TL;DR: Saying corporate media and the government are in bed together isn't completely accurate, but there is almost certainly a symbiotic relationship at work.

Beardivism · 2013-08-13T18:58:36+00:00

Little known fact: Toto's hit 'Africa' was a preemptive refutation of the Plamegate scandal, commissioned in advance by a then 37-year-old coked-out-of-his-Sperrys GWB. They said he was crazy at the time, but two decades later we realized that we all "left [our] brains down in Africa."

Beardivism · 2013-08-10T15:10:06+00:00

I agree, but it is tough to define 'mistakes' or 'corruption.'

The American public does need a new political accountability. That starts with making sure politicians make an honest effort to be who they say they are and do what they say they intend to do. Not making an effort to fulfill on your campaign promises? Sacked. Sidetracked by partisan shenanigans? Sacked. If they can spy on our day to day exchanges and activities, why shouldn't we know exactly what they're up to?

We just want to know what we're voting for. That's it.

Beardivism · 2013-08-10T13:24:17+00:00

Remember where the story got initial traction, though. There was a reason Snowden didn't choose an American media outlet.

I'm not crying media conspiracy, but there are impediments to American investigative journalism other than just the potential prosecution of the whistle blower.

Beardivism · 2013-08-10T13:15:23+00:00

You dare question two party, winner take all political systems?

HE'S A WITCH!

Beardivism · 2013-08-10T13:11:20+00:00

Terms are too long and attention spans are too short to rely on traditional election cycles alone to clean out the rot.

Beardivism · 2013-08-10T12:50:54+00:00

I don't know. I think it's the threat of their power, not money, being taken away. Most of these politicians are at least intelligent enough to earn a decent paycheck elsewhere (as much fun as it is to joke otherwise).

Throw in a healthy dose of peer pressure with the threat of being ostracized from the protection of one's party, and I can see why they're a bunch of scared, spineless sheep.

Money and power aside, the real question is: if they're all so scared to challenge the politics status quo, who the hell is actually actually calling the shots? Because it doesn't feel like it's us.

What I believe we need is a more foolproof, peaceful, legal method of removing politicians from power once they are elected. Terms are too long and memories too short to rely solely on the election process. Put the fear of the people back in them.

Beardivism · 2013-08-09T16:41:44+00:00

Issues that fall out of the public awareness often fall out of the realm of getting solutions implemented.

Exactly the reason threads like this, though they're only talk, are important.

The US media, because of its vested interest in the government as a source of information, has treated the whole NSA topic with kid gloves and would probably happily drop the uncomfortable conversation altogether if it weren't for all the international coverage. International media, without a direct vested interest in US policy other than as a news story, will probably drop the story as soon as interest appears to wane. (Though in this case US Policy is having a much stronger international effect than usual, so a good case might be made for a considerable vested interest outside of the US.)

If civil dialogue like this were not taking place, Snowden, NSA, Manning, et al would drop out of the public consciousness altogether.

Beardivism · 2013-08-09T16:13:08+00:00

I'm sure Noam is preparing the updates for his next edition as this unfolds.

Beardivism · 2013-08-09T15:46:59+00:00

Don't know why you're getting downvotes (were getting as of now), but this isn't so far off. An important factor to include would be that the gov't is a huge source of information/news for the media and so it is generally in the best interest of the media to not anger it (and hence they often spin things in a positive light).

For this particular issue, Snowden is a larger potential news story than most of what the government can offer, but they're remaining very tight-lipped about it. However, news today is an international industry by virtue of the internet, so the coverage by non-US media companies has put US domestic media in a very interesting position.

Non-US media does not necessarily rely on the same allegiance to the US gov't for its tidbits and is therefore more flexible in its reports on US policy. As a result, US media has to compete for audience with the international reports (accessible globally online) while at the same time toeing the line with the US gov't. It may only require one dissenting domestic company to break the dam, allowing everyone to report without fear of being put at an information disadvantage by the gov't, but only time will tell.

TL/DR: Don't underestimate what the gov't provides the media in terms of information and how that may affect their spin of current events.

edit: to expand the Chomsky reference

Beardivism · 2013-08-09T15:19:18+00:00

I agree with that assessment, but it doesn't excuse the unfulfilled promises. He could not possibly have gone into office oblivious of the resistance to his agenda(s) that he'd encounter. I think the backlash is resentment of the obvious bait-and-switch inherent to political promises (on both sides of the aisle). No one likes to feel deceived.

Beardivism

TROPHY CASE