Disappointing turnout for DCTU anti-cuts demonstration

by T Mon Nov 28, 2011 22:44

Just came across this report on an Irish Examiner opinion poll the IMF/ECB austerity plan.

The report says:

An opinion poll in todays' Irish Examiner newspaper shows the depth of resignation and pessimism that has engulfed a large section of the population.  The Red C poll found "almost half the country believes Ireland should continue complying with the terms and conditions of the EU/IMF bailout, which is one year old today. A smaller but still sizeable number are against compliance, believing the bailout agreement represents a bad deal".  48% of those polled favoured continuing on the current path; 33% opposed, even though some 45% think the new government is doing a bad job of managing the economy.

And then goes on to ask why is this so, -i.e. why is the support so high. I think the answer can really be summed up in one sentence which is because the capitalist press has been doing a very good job at propaganda and convincing people what is good for capitalist and bad for them is actually good for them.

I believe the Nazi propaganda during WWW II was equally as good as convincing the Germans to fight in the war and go along with all the crap which ultimately they all paid a high price for. But then propaganda works especially when the ruling layer have all the resources at their disposal.

The report can be found at the link below

by hang the DJ... Mon Nov 28, 2011 23:16

Disappointed? I'd say the wsm guys were  all right. The funniest bit was when they had a stereo on their truck and thought it was a good idea to drive up to the main platform at the GPO only to be told off by the stewards. Back to dame st me thinks lads. gate crash another party.

DCTU were never going to be as big as the ICTU march, they have the quality of activists but not the money.

by joe mc Tue Nov 29, 2011 16:38

Thanks to WSM for writing this up . I’m really not surprised that ODS didn’t support the march given the type of "dirty crusty" insults being directed against them by supporters of groups like the ULA . Although written as “personal opinions” , Gearoid O’Lionsigh’s remarks on another thread must in the absence of any rebuttal , surely be taken as some indication of the attitude being taken to ODS by groups operating within the ULA - Gearoid’s Socialist Democracy colleagues in Dublin for instance . All the same ODS should have supported the march in my opinion .

Checking the WSM site for the full report , I was surprised to read that teaching union members accounted for almost half the turn-out for the 2,500-strong DCTU march . If the teachers can put on such a good show , why not the other unions? I don’t share this part of the WSM’s explanation :

“The DCTU on the other hand doesn't have much in the way of resources beyond the credibility that activists attach to it based on its record .”
Perhaps its record does go some way towards accounting for the disappointing turn-out , but maybe people are just less credulous when it comes to union organizations -not just the DCTU - these days and are simply fed up with all the marching .

A good point about the role of the media was made by Terence in the comment above .

“But then propaganda works especially when the ruling layer have all the resources at their disposal.”

In my experience, the right-wing propoganda is always accompanied by censorship of opposing viewpoints , Terence. It’s not always direct censorship of course - nowadays some sort of democratic - even libertarian - veneer is needed to sell the whole thing. But the democracy is baloney if the media ruling layer always gets to chose what is featured and when - as well as what gets hidden and how.

News is a commodity for these corrupt strata . Their proprietorship makes them unaccountable and beyond the reproach of passive readers who are treated as non-complaining consumers , customers who are preferably happy , but at least content enough not to question either the workings of the higher-ups or the rottenness of the product itself . When the unscrupulous supermarket owner gets to chose the shelves , the most unsavoury or most unnecessary products are invariably situated up front and in your face while you have to hunt around forever trying to find anything of any use

by Contrarian Tue Nov 29, 2011 19:18

In my experience, the right-wing propoganda is always accompanied by censorship of opposing viewpoints , Terence. It’s not always direct censorship of course - nowadays some sort of democratic - even libertarian - veneer is needed to sell the whole thing. But the democracy is baloney if the media ruling layer always gets to chose what is featured and when - as well as what gets hidden and how.

Quite true, of course. And a very valid point about the role of media.   Sad thing is, it's equally true in the other direction.  With some very minor changes, the above paragraph could easily, and equally validly, be re-written as:

In my experience, the left-wing propoganda is always accompanied by censorship of opposing viewpoints , Terence. It’s not always direct censorship of course - nowadays some sort of democratic - even libertarian or anarchic - veneer is needed to sell the whole thing. But the democracy is baloney if the indymedia ruling layer always gets to chose what is featured and when - as well as what gets hidden and how.

Sauce for the goose and all that.

[Note to moderators:  I know technically this could (if you were picky) be seen as a breach of editorial guidelines as being a comment on edittorial policy.  However, these guidelines were briefly relaxed recently for the "indymedia spring", otherwise known as the moderation thread.  While many opinions were aired, there appeared to be a general consensus that changes were required and were coming soon.   It is now some months since the moderation thread was closed and there's no sign of any changes emerging.  Any update on developments?] 

by pity the fool....shaft! Tue Nov 29, 2011 22:17

but how much more disappointing would it have been if the DCTU hadn't called it? I feel the author would never have been happy and I am certain that the wsm  or any other wannabe anti-authoritarian organisation will never be able to organise such a rally in comparison. But we'll see if the ods continue to thrive...

by T Wed Nov 30, 2011 00:41

Perhaps my comment about propaganda should be rephrased to that the mainstream media entirely consists of pro-capitalist proganda and the alternative/independent media which makes up a tiny portion of the total media has various types of differing propaganda some of which is nominally Left, some outright anti-Capitalist and others of varying flavours.

It is probably reasonably correct to say that it is impossible to write or produce something without having some sort of opinion and therefore bias and taken at this level all forms of media output are propaganda of one sort of or another.

To address the point about the filtering and censorship side, then the best solution is to make that process transparent and crucially to have a diverse range of media producing outlets offering some level of participation and all of which are as autonomous as possible from each other.

I think the reason people are so heavily and successfully influenced and duped by the capitalist media is because they are probably 98% of the media most people consume and even though there appears to be a diverse range of source and opinions, we know from analysis (such as Chomsky + Herman in 'Manufacturing Consent') that they all sing from the same hymn sheet effectively. In this scenario, the alternative media is then like a lone voice saying something different.

I would imagine there is some kind of link to the last 100k years of development of humans, whereby for most of that time people probably lived in smallish groups and you depended on everyone around you for survival and given the tough environment each person would probably have required the qualities of intelligence and co-operation and individual toughness to get by. The concept of surviving without others in the group probably would have been unthinkable.

I therefore reckon that this is somehow hardwired in the brain and today the equivalent of the group is the voice of the different newspapers, magazines, radio shows and TV channels. Our brain thinks they are independent which they seem at first glance but as per above, they are all saying the same thing which is largely the capitalist system is good and is the only system and there are no alternatives.

So for any hope of mass change within the masses to occur, the media monopoly by the capitalist system needs to be broken up and at the same time the presence of the alternatives needs to be vastly increased.

But then if that did happen and there was some positive change, we have to ask ourselves, how come the people couldn't do it themselves and needed to be 'duped' by alternative media propaganda. Surely if society can't come to the right conclusions itself then can any postive change be lasting/sustainable if all it takes is for someone or group to concentrate the power of the media again at some later point

by Contrarian Wed Nov 30, 2011 01:43

Some good points there, I think.  The idea of media assuming the role of the collective group voice makes sense. A predisposition to believe the group (groupthink?) would indeed appear to be hardwired into our brains.  You also raise some interesting points about how and why people believe what they believe and the role of media in shaping this. 

I would not agree that the mass media is as homogenous as you think.  Particularly now that the barriers to entry are getting lower all the time.  While they exist within a capilatist system, there is a world of difference between, say, the Guardian and the Sun.  You could argue that that's just successful market segmentation but there's more to it than that.  The media sytem today is probably more pluralist that at any time in the history of the world. 

Personally, I think the only answer is to increase the extent and profile of media studies in the education system.  I would also introduce a default value of skepticism into the education system.  The tendency to take things at face value must be challenged.  Delivered opinions should be met with the demand "prove it" rather than absorbed for regurgitation.  Students should be educated to distrust instinctively anyone or anything which claims to have all the answers.

Those who wish to use the media (mainstream or indy) to bring about (what they see as) positive change should largely be free to do so.  Even encouraged to do so.  Those who disagree should be largely free to do so also.   If the ideas are good and sound they will survive the rough and tumble of open debate.  If they are not they won't.  Those who seek to stifle debate, even for obtensibly good cause, are generally not to be trusted, even if they are well meaning.  Actually, particularly if they are well meaning.  Sincere believers (in a variety of religious and political dogmas) have a pretty bad record of oppression thoughout the ages right up to the present day. 

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:46

'Delivered opinions should be met with the demand 'prove it'...'


Soooo...' The media system today is probably more pluralist than at any time in the history of the world.'

Evidence?

by Contrarian Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:59

Evidence:

1.  Diverse modes of media. 

From newspapers in the 19th century, through radio in the early 20th century, TV coming into its own mid-century, followed by the explosion of satellite outlets in recent decades and of course the internet, the variety of media platforms available has never been greater. 

2. Ease and cost of entry.

From the Beaverbrook era, when it took a small fortune (or even a large fortune) to establish a wide reaching media outlet in a single nation, almost anybody can now establish a worldwide media presence.  Build it and they will come (if you're good enough) 

3. Removal of government barriers.

Western democracies have few restrictions on establishing and running media.  (Save perhaps some by and large reasonable restrictions relating to defamation, privacy and hate speech.)  Many countries have legal or constitutional protections for journalists and freedom of speech generally, eg EU/ECHR, US Constitution 1st Amendment, the Mahon Tribunal judgment in Ireland.  (Sadly, the situation is not so promising in various dictatorships where rigid state control of media is the norm - Cuba, Iran, most of the Arab world, North Korea, Russia, China, Burma etc spring to mind.)

4. Diverse opinions in media.

Guardian vs Murdoch group; Haaretz vs Jerusalem Post; An Phoblacht vs Independent News and Media;  Fintan O'Toole vs Kevin Myers; Fox News vs PBS, New York Times vs New York Post.

etc.

Enough?

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Dec 04, 2011 13:41

But not convincing.

That 'variety of media platforms' are controlled by a small set of corporate PR and newsagency feeds motivated by free market small government(i.e. just enough so we dont have to spend too much on 'lobbying').

Investigative journalism has shrunk as productivity demands maybe a dozen downloaded ready-to-print infotainment 'stories' per shift; while that same 'competition' cuts funding for serious expose attempts. Result, lotsa volume of homogenised consumer pap laced with corporate sport promoting an ethic of competition uber alles and no-such-thing-as-society, greed is good, ideology.
Little room to challenge the recieved wisdom drummed home since Reagan/Thatcher rolled back all constraints on corporate dictation of the agendas suitable to the already powerful and established who monopolise the planets resources after centuries of pillage. Result, Mudoch/O'Reilly/O'Brien/IT Trust/RTE millionaire spinners vs me and the dole-queue here in the outback. But then your argument is probably that me and my ilk 'are just not good enough'. because Rupert/Tony/Denis/PatJoe/Marion 'are worth it..'.
Goebbels had thousands of radio stations across Europe. Quantity do not = quality or variety.


Guardian vs Murdoch, An P vs INM, Finto vs Quaggy Myres....give us a break...you'll be telling us the beeb is a paragon of objectivity next. I will concede it was less unionist over the last half century than RTE, but its still an(overt)mouthpiece of state messageboard.

An example of the sophistication?The It can happily lead front page with NY occupy, or Tahrir Square as can WS journal...but the focus is kept offshore...democracy is strictly an export product. And any coverage that does come by will be quickly stamped if required.

Nope, not convinced. No coconut.

by Contrarian Sun Dec 04, 2011 14:59

Keep your coconuts.  I didn't really expect you to be convinced.  

I will acknowledge your point that quantity does not equal quality.  I will also acknowledge your point that  "Investigative journalism has shrunk as productivity demands maybe a dozen downloaded ready-to-print infotainment 'stories' per shift; while that same 'competition' cuts funding for serious expose attempts."  That is bang on and is much to be regretted.  IN&M is the prime Irish example IMO.  Since its corporate downsizing, most journalists are no longer on "staff" and are freelances who only get paid when they're printed.  Not a recipe for quality journalism.  But advertising dictates we get the media we have the grestest propensity to consume.  And we seem to like a lot of the "homogenised consumer pap" that the commercial media system delivers.  The alternative, left or indy media movement is not much better at encouraging diversity.  It also IMO promotes a narrow rigid worldview where every issue is viewed through a prism of rampant anti-western democratic ideology (particularly anti-US, anti Israel ideaology) and dissent from the general leftie party line(s) is ruthlessly suppressed.  . 

So whats to be done?

1. Education, education, education.  Critical teaching of media studies at all levels of the education system.

2. Encouragement of the not-for-profit (trust based or otherwise) media sector.  Le Monde, The Irish Times trust and yes, the BBC model all have proved their worth over time.  Yes the BBC is constantly struggling to assert its independence against governments of various hues who think it should be an arm of the state, but it has nevertheless consistently produced a high quality output. 

3.  Strengthened Press Council (media council) type organisations with statutory powers to order apologies, corrections and enforce codes of standards. 

4. Tough enforcement of restrictions on concentration of media ownership

For starters

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Dec 04, 2011 16:04

..of '..rampant anti-western democratic ideology..' is maybe a rebalance of the delusion that the west is any more democratic under its coporate aristocracy than it was under the ancien regime.

It may have been intermittently, but I reckon since 9/11 we're into equivelant post '33 reichstag fire solidification of imperial militarist expansion, which was suspended for the euphemistically called 'cold' war(napalm aint cold).

Dont get me wrong, I dont want Chineses corporate statism, but i sometimes think if the Chinese have rediscovered the wisdom of Confucius they might prove the better bet.

As for general 'lefty party lines'..maybe thats a necessary rebalance to the ubiquitous barrage of rightist noise. Left is a b ig word, like west. If you go far enough left or west you end up right and east. Nature of our relativist sphere, context defines content. I think if 'right' means individualism, exclusivism and competition, left means co-operation and inclusive holistics.
We are out of balance on the right side. And if democracy is majoritarian dictatorship that is rightist lowest common denominator instinctive egoism. Again, given our global collective problems, time for rebalance.

Think about it, every ad you absorb is right-wing reinforcement. Every sports competition says co-operation is out, its all about opposition and darwinian winnings.

As for Israel, if every criticism of the Zionist agenda was not met with a storm of antisemitic accusations and anti-Israeli defensiveness, couched in double-think evasions and denial of Palestinian rights, we might then get a little balance. Till then it IS war.

But it was not the Palestinians who started the war, or who continue to pursue it aggressively.