[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Sports See other Sports Articles Title: Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression (The Bot Bible Exposed !!!) Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression Originally Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, author of America's Dreyfus Affair Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "how dare you?" gambit. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.") Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not). Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful. Dismiss the charges as "old news." Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report the leak. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. For example: If Vince Foster was murdered, who did it and why? Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions. Scantly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not. Earlier versions of this page: Many people who distrust the mainstream media have turned to alternate news sources, some of which are Internet based. Unfortunately, many of these alternate sources of news simply promote an alternate series of lies. These alternate lies are of course dressed up as "exposés." But you can easily tell the phonies from the real thing. The information in the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum is an acid test. Does your news source promote Mike McNulty's video, Waco: The Rules of Engagement or wring its hands because the Davidian law suit against the government failed? (See Waco Documentary Is A Hoax! and Waco Suits for Waco Suckers.) Does your alternate news source carry promotional pieces about rebuilding the Davidian church in Waco and mouth nice words about "healing"? (See The Cover-up Church.) Remember, since ancient times, inquiries into questionable deaths have started with the bodies of the victims. If your news source won't give you an honest and full account of the forensic information on Waco, or if it does not have a link to the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum ... your alternate news has failed a fundamental acid test. All original material is copyright 1996-2000 by Carol A. Valentine, on loan to Public Action, Inc. Postal Address: Carol A. Valentine, PO Box 10933, Burke, VA 22009 This page last updated February 28, 2001.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#3. To: crack monkey (#0)
Ohhh my.. You've hit the mother load with this one. I bet everyone here could run through and put a name to every paragraph in 45 seconds flat.. In fact a 4UM poll on the subject would be interesting. This one in particular stands out:
Let's number the paragraphs and compile a list of bots. We can then have a thread where people match the bot with the tactic. Do you have time to do that? I have to work. I'm not like badeye or Kyle in that I can't run a multinational corporation while spending 99% of my time playing on the internet.
#5. To: crack monkey (#4)
I can at least give it a start: Wax indignant. This is also known as the "how dare you?" gambit. This one goes with Trash21230. He stays indignant. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. For example: If Vince Foster was murdered, who did it and why? This one is the mother of them all: if anyone dares to raise the slightest question, the Bushistas require that they immediately give some alternate explanation which neatly covers every detail. How they expect any non-Bushist to give that (considering that the administration has literally bought the media), I don't know...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||