-Caveat Lector-
Robert Tatman wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> "Howard R. Davis III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Caveat Lector-
> <snip>
> >
> > This does not make sense to me. Why wouldn't it be easier for the
> > "oligarchy" to manipulate the media by having just one spokesman? Would
> > this not keep opinions and facts which the "oligarchy" did not wish
> > exposed from coming to light? It seems to me that the more sources of
> > information, the better.
> >
> > Howard Davis
> >
>
> More sources of information means more confusion and less certainty for the
> observer. Information equals the negative reciprocal of probability, I=-(1/P).
> It's in the interest of the Oligarchy to induce the citizenry (thee and me) to
> blank out, to overload, to change the channel... Oh look, there's a really
> good fight going on in the Flyers-Leafs hockey game on ESPN...besides, who
> wants to watch CNN all the time anyway? If you have one spokesman, even if
> he's lying to you, you can focus on what he's saying and ask yourself, "Now
> wait a minute--did that actually make *sense?" The Oligarchy wants us to be
> confused. As John Brunner has one of his characters in *The Shockwave Runner*
> exclaim, "Don't give me any more information! I've got more information now
> than I can cope with, so shut up! Do you hear me? Shut up!"
>
The ESPN example does not seem to me to be one which bears on the
question. Of course sports and entertainment do distract from attaining
a clear understanding of a given situation since they would distract
from concentration on the subject. However, the discussion pertained to
multiple spokesmen. Your later argument that if you have one spokesman
who is lying you can focus on him and perhaps learn the truth in that
manner has some merit. However, it seems to me that most people tend to
believe what they are told and do not question it unless they are told
several things by several different sources. In that case they must then
think about these disagreements and thus may come to discern the truth.
Isn't getting everyone to agree on the same story the first thing that
people do when they are trying to fool someone? Getting the story
straight is a lot easier if you have only one spokesman. If you have
several, one might mention something differently than another and cause
people to wonder why. Or, each additional person disseminating
information increases the chances of one slipping and letting something
out.
Howard Davis
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
