Back to Messageboard | Home | Site Map  
 

Question  
Posted by Ged on December 6 2007, 11:55 » Uploaded 06/12/07 20:01  

Its a great site but I don't know why you spend so much time writing on crime. What about foreign policy, the important topics people like Chomsky try to draw public attention to? Care to elucidate?

 
COMMENTS Post comment

 

Comment 01 – Brian D December 6 2007, 20:42

Chomsky (among others) points out that governments of "democratic" societies use "induced fear" to control the public. When it comes to over-stimulating our fears, "ever-spiralling crime" seems to be one of the main myths. (Note the recent child abduction hysteria, for example. One crime stays on the front pages for weeks).

There are countless dissident websites focusing on foreign policy (invasion of Iraq, etc), but very few attempting to dissect the crime myths. So we think it's a worthwhile area to look at (the results have been promising - the BBC keep having to change their reports as a result of our complaints).

One thing I've noticed since I started writing about "crime wave" myths in 1995:- many people who are deeply sceptical about media coverage on foreign policy (eg those on the "left") aren't sceptical at all when it comes to "spiralling crime". I don't know why that is, but I'd like to see it change.

Comment 02 – Ged December 6 2007, 22:56

Fair enough. I just thought the scale of the war crime in Iraq outweighed the crime in Britain. Its trrue as you say that countless sites already concentrate on Iraq.

Comment 03 – ALP December 7 2007, 09:27

The problem with the approach of sites that constantly "remind" us of the mass murder in Iraq is that the people who read those sites don't actually need reminding.

How can you best use your time, assuming you're altruistically inclined and find unnecessary suffering intolerable? Not, I suggest, by issuing increasingly hysterical reminders to people who don't need reminding about the scale of suffering.

It's generally a better approach to inform people on what they don't already know about. And to not take a compartmentalised approach.

Comment 04 – gwinnie December 7 2007, 19:56

ALP: You said " The problem with the approach of sites that constantly "remind" us of the mass murder in Iraq is that the people who read those sites don't actually need reminding."

As someone who doesn't need reminding and who posts on sites used by folk of all political stripes, and none, I often find myself in heated debate with people who don't know about these figures. Sites like IBC are a very useful resource for those shouting for linkies. Those my opponents likely won't change their minds. But there are many lurkers who are new to this holocaust. The points I make are like stones dropped in a pond. They sink with barely a ripple as soon as a thread turns a page or is abandoned for a new thread. And so, I find myself saying the same thing over and over, being flamed over and over, dragging out the evidence over and over.

IBC may not be perfect. What is? But it's what we do with it that's important. We need our gathering places and our pools of information, if we are to be effective progressives, rather than arguing amongst ourselves while the neocons get on with their raping and pillaging.

Comment 05 – ALP December 8 2007, 13:38

gwinnie wrote:
"IBC may not be perfect. What is? But it's what we do with it that's important. We need our gathering places and our pools of information"

I agree. To my mind, most of the studies on Iraqi deaths are both useful (depending on how they are used) and non-perfect. The IBC website is an excellent resource for those wish to use it (rather than attack it).

gwinnie wrote:
"there are many lurkers who are new to this holocaust".

A US poll showed there are indeed many who aren't aware of the scale of the killing. I make a distinction between those who haven't come across the information (for whatever reason) and those whose political framing causes them to reject it out of hand.

By definition, it's the former group that these discussion forums aren't addressing. And it's probably futile addressing the latter group (which includes some establishment journalists) - at least in terms of numbers alone. A more sophisticated framing approach is needed in communicating with the latter. (Communicating doesn't necessarily mean convincing or converting).

Ironically, I think IBC's conservative approach (which necessarily produces an undercount, and for which IBC is attacked and smeared by the like of Medialens) is the most difficult for the latter group to reject - and yet it shows an unimaginable scale of mass slaughter (85,000 documented civilian deaths from violence). Those, like Medialens, who think 78,000-85,000 corroborated violent civilian deaths somehow provides a basis for pro-war propaganda - have let their (anti-IBC) rhetoric overcome reason.

 

Post comment

   
Name:
Email:  
Display email
address?
  Don't display    Display
Lifespan of comment   Delete after 3 weeks    Keep permanent if post is permanent  

Comment:

 
Optional link URL:
eg "http://mediahell.org"
 
Optional link text:
eg "Media Hell"
 
 

 

  Messageboard Back to top