The NY Times’ assault on language
Yeah, I know, why bother with the Times?
I continue to find the cleverness of propaganda to be an interesting phenomenon, and the Times is still the respected paper of record for most New Yorkers (and other liberals) I know, and I know plenty of them. What the Times writes still influences and shapes a world of opinion.
And so we have today’s Times editorial—the opinion of the editors as a group rather than the thoughts of a single columnist, and every word carefully chosen—entitled “A Judge’s Assault on Immigration.”
Great title. Yesterday’s injunction on Obama’s executive order issued by Judge Hanen? Just a single lone judge, assaulting (with the word’s penumbra of a violent physical attack) immigration itself (something the ruling does not touch in any way; the ruling concerns a large group of people who entered this country illegally rather than through what used to be known as the immigration process).
That’s a lot of messages packed into one short 5-word phrase. But the editors are good with words, and most readers probably won’t even notice their manipulative skill. That’s what the best propaganda accomplishes.
The rest of the op-ed is really just commentary on the headline. In the first sentence, the editors call those given amnesty by the approved phrase, “undocumented immigrants,” as though they were just people who came here through the immigration process and mislaid their papers, poor things. And much of the rest of the piece is an assault (hey, I can use words, too) on Judge Hanen and his politics, a brief summary of the judgment which leaves out many salient points, and a blast at those mean old Republicans.
Excerpts [emphasis mine]:
As expected, the judge on Monday night temporarily blocked the first of several programs Mr. Obama announced in November to offer work permits and a three-year reprieve from deportation to more than four million immigrants who are parents of American citizens and who have no criminal record.
That move ”” which Mr. Obama took only after years of failed efforts by Congress to pass any immigration reform ”” triggered the fury of congressional Republicans, who responded with threats of, among other things, impeachment proceedings.
I could go on, but suffice to say that almost every sentence is filled with that sort of thing (kindly Obama, driven to do this by Congressional intransigence, aggressive Republicans) designed to drive the reader in a certain direction. The piece closes with a wonderful example of the genre [emphasis mine]:
However the appellate courts come down on the case, Mr. Obama is finding himself once again dealing with a familiar sort of Republican intransigence. With his humane and realistic immigration policy, he is trying to tackle a huge and long-running national problem…
On immigration, the Republicans seem to want only to savage the president’s efforts to address a pressing nationwide crisis, just as they have on health care reform. They are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own.
Raging Republicans, benevolent Obama, and not even an attempt to explain what the real problem is: that this executive order went beyond his powers, even in the opinion of quite a few liberals. As the Times presents it, Republicans are motivated solely by animus rather than any legitimate concerns—and that notion is considered a basic truth by nearly all the liberals I know.
Actually, Republicans do have some meaningful solutions. I’m talking mostly about conservative Republicans. But even some moderate ones who espouse solutions that are not all that different from those the Democrats advocate happen to also have the quaint notion that Congress should be making the laws about this, and that the president’s discretion about the degree to which he will enforce those laws does not include making new law to thwart the ones Congress has passed. The Times, Obama, the left, and liberals don’t happen to like the conservative solutions, though, because they start with actual border security and they involve some deportations, so it’s best to ignore them.
Republicans: just plain mean.
Yes, the NYT has engaged in such an assault.
As for me?
I always thought the one that Chomsky waged was far worse.
His ability to touch so many malleable students.
And in doing so, achieving a sort of “hero status” among Leftists, Progressives, Liberals across the country (not everyone reads the NYT). However, considering the vast number of young people who attend college and “hear” about the professor at MIT? Legion are those numbers.
So wrong; so vicious.
May people stop paying for their arrogant, lying, hateful trash.
And speaking of the “cleverness of propaganda”?
WHOA!!!…..Noam Chomsky has at his disposal resources that would make Apple Computer Co. envious.
A close friend of mine attended a speech Noam Chomsky gave in October, 2001. It was in Cambridge, MA.
He had in attendance in excess of 2,000 academic elites and the like; a very powerful and influential audience.
During this very speech, Noam Chomsky focused his attentions on the U.S. military and claimed ( you might want to sit down for this) that our military was already in Afghanistan and we had already killed, “millions” of their citizenry; women and children and, well, you know the narrative.
When my friend shared this information with me I recall responding with, “C’mon, even I could not swallow that line of bullshit. Millions? Women and children? Are you on drugs or something?”
Noam Chomsky NEVER apologized for this bit of “CREATIVE PROPAGANDA”. Sometime later (years), I heard that he waved off a question by someone (unnamed) in the audience of one of his presentations. The question was about this incredible claim he made in October, 2001. His response was a very cavalier one. He said that he had heard about someone mentioning something like that and heard that it was based on relayed information from a social worker in the Middle East. Someone working for W.H.O. or the likes. He never accepted responsibility for making such a claim. And he spoke of it in the third person.
Next question?…
_______________________________________
Bottom line? It gave fodder for the Leftist professors in that audience that night. And the stories coming out of it can only be imagined…
I could easily write a book on this subject…
there are things that are almost like, here is the manual, follow its rules… then there are the kinds of things that neo is pointing out, and often, you cant even show someone what your pointing out, as they wont get it.
then your just a tin hatter…
one of the MOST common is to use Rep. when describing the negative behavior of a (D). why? because a percentage of the not so bright equal people out there, will think its an abbreviation for republican and not representative… as dem is short for democrat…
another is to play loose and fast with “alleged” when you want someone to be guilty, you state the sentence in a way that says they are, ommitting alleged.
what neo points out at first is bombastic phraseology that is not valid… but you try to show someone its not valid… because when you do you have to get over telling them that they are stupid… (or rather they feel stupid and so defend their status over being thankful for pointing out the mistake)
as i said.. the point of equality is to create the idea that we all operate at the same level forgetting the differences we remember from school. then if you know something others dont, and try to show it, your arrogant, a hater (for implying they are dumb), etc.
there is so much.
but its chinese new year, and i have a celebratio to go to Gong Xi Fa Cai
despite all i know, i am not even a nothing…
its all useless…
🙁
Republicans: just plain mean.
Churchill expressed the idea that young people who are not liberals have no heart; and older people who are not conservatives have no brains.
Charles Krauthammer expressed the corollary of that idea — that liberals tend to think conservatives are evil (i.e. heartless), while conservatives tend to think liberals are stupid (i.e. brainless).
These statements are not axiomatic. Unfortunately, in the opinions of a great many people today, they might as well be — as our Gentle Hostess knows all too well, I’m sure. Try to express to a modern liberal that conservatives are NOT necessarily evil, and they simply won’t understand you; it’ll be as if you tried to explain that water is not necessarily wet.
I understand your argument, but I can’t help but feel that if half of the country would ignore the NYT their influence might begin to wane at least a little.
Really pathetic writing by the NYT.
If GWB would have gone the same route and not enforced the tax laws on long term capital gains for over a million, the NYT would rightly be screaming.
What the libs don’t get is that the rule of law especially applies when you don’t like the law. Obama should have changed it when he had the chance.
Here in Omaha two summers ago an old woman was raped and beaten by an illegal alien. And another illegal murdered some people. These two illegals had no business being here. If the NYT writer’s family would have been the victim of such crimes, he wouldn’t have such views.
I want to puke when someone says America was built by immigrants. Yes, of course it was. But they were all legal.
That is just a typical NYT editorial, it’s almost like they use a template and insert a few topical words and phrases to tailor the meaning for the issue du jour. I remember very similar constructions sniffing their disdain and repugnance at Republicans during the Reagan administration. So leading edge, the old grey lady.
Dan D:
Yes, very typical (and very effective). They could write it in their sleep.
And perhaps they do.
First off, it’s nice to see Miss Neo getting a little fire in her eye 😉
Second, I must add my applause to her for her efforts in bringing her news analysis to us each day. It is excellent work and if the NYT was not a progressive rag, Miss Neo should have a top job on their editorial staff. But then we’d lose her 🙁
On to the undocumented issue in general, my 2 cents, FWIW.
What we forget to our own peril is that there are plenty of illegal aliens who are adding to the well being of our country by performing jobs that Americans will not do because the welfare state has provided an alternative to working. 48% of the country receiving food stamps has to be a clue. Funny thing is, it is probably sustainable. There is a great deal of wealth to be wrung out of the citizenry before we devolve into essentially a slave state. I feel there are many on our side who think we are heading towards an economic catastrophe and that will be almost welcomed because then things will have to change. Not something to hope for but, more importantly, not something that will come, ever, despite all the people writing that it will, IMHO.
Or if it does, it will not be televised and few will know. This is what the left understands and what we better learn, quickly.
Daniel in Brookline, 5:05 pm — “Charles Krauthammer expressed the corollary of that idea – that liberals tend to think conservatives are evil (i.e. heartless), while conservatives tend to think liberals are stupid (i.e. brainless).”
I’ve seen/heard it expressed a little differently, by (I do believe) George Will:
——
Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas,
but
liberals think conservatives are bad people.
——
I personally prefer the second (George Will) formulation; your mileage may vary.
Harry Stein employs this formulation in his book, “I Can’t Believe I’m Sitting Next to a Republican: A Survival Guide for Conservatives Marooned Among the Angry, Smug, and Terminally Self-Righteous”
http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Believe-Sitting-Next-Republican-ebook/dp/B004ASOQSU/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1424322091&sr=8-5&keywords=harry+stein
I haven’t yet found it used by George Will, but I’m almost sure I heard him use it once.
The people back in Revolution times would have done something more permanent about the NYTimes by now.
But, since the dictator’s pen has spoken, the rest falls in lie as we see.
Yes, the NYT is disgusting, gross propaganda, all that stuff. But let us remember the press has an exceedingly long tradition in this vein. It is not new. It was not new with Kronkite and Rather in the ’70s. It was not new when Duranty lied about the Soviets in the ’30s. It was not new in 1898 when the Spanish-American war was started with papers pouring gas on the flames, “Remember the Maine.” And so it goes.
Journalists have always been shitheels who glorify themselves in their own medium, full of bile and bias, journalists to the core.
And as for Chomsky and the crowds who heard him: Listen, that was in Boston. He drew crowds of believers. He was not an evangelist preaching to sinners. The audience brains were poisoned previously.
As of 1/20/2015 Carlos Slim owns 16.8% of the NYT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim
He might have some slight influence in their editorial positions.
It’s a maddening rag.
I saw a link to this extraordinary column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/oliver-sacks-on-learning-he-has-terminal-cancer.html?smid=tw-share
From which, after curiosity got the better of me, I waded through this piece of utter filth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/opinion/roger-cohen-the-great-jewish-exodus.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article
Alas, the contemptible Roger Cohen.
My fault. I should have known better.
I did some work with Oliver… and another doc, joseph arrezio… thats sad… i lost contact years ago..
Obamacare which is big in the times discussion where they are calling for the totalitarian dear leader to make arbitrary adjustments as if he was stalin… requires a fine be paid if your not enrolled…
this means that the government will collect a minimum of approx 100 dollars per person in the US, or get more if they work.
see that homeless guy on the street? he owes 100 dollars
before this, he didnt have to pay any taxes or penalty as he did not earn money… now he has to come up with 100.
before feminism, the labor of women was not really taxable, but now that women work and pay other women to do the work they did before communally, their labor is taxable (as marx wanted and what its all about – the idiots now pay taxes and labor things for babysittin, which they used to trade with each other for… they now pay to clean the home, and so, their labor is taxable… with the state pushing out men, and favoring women, they will get hibh paying jobs with high taxes they fight for, and have to give the state more of their labor… we call this genius
you can thank the times for carrying water for these things and more.. they even have a womens section, they have no mens section, cause its synonymous with gullible and vain…
What do you expect? The NYT long ago became Pravda for the democrats.
Cleverness is their business. And, as we all know by now, when the concept of objective truth is jettisoned, all that remains is sovereign appetite; with its two social instruments of rhetoric and coercion. Lying is for the editors of the New York Times just part of working to effect an end they crave. The legitimacy of that craving, is subject to no higher authority than the existence of that craving within themselves.
Sometimes they are forced to temporize with those who do not wish to be subjects in their pan-sexual termite kingdom; and sometimes they figure they do not.
MJR quoted the saying, that : “Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, but liberals think conservatives are bad people.”
And of course they do. They do believe that they are an evolutionary vanguard, and not just neurotics and egotistic hedonists inhabiting a scaffold they do not by right deserve.
The conservative is per definition a “bad person” because the conservative does not fit in their psychic world, and cannot be adapted to accept the rule of experts, which Garry Wills so enthusiastically endorsed.
It’s about world shaping: bringing to fruition a sociopolitical world that would suit the sensibilities of feminized borderline personality males, and seriously neurotic females. That is the world they work to bring about by any means necessary or convenient.
And equality in the sense of distributive reciprocity is not really part of it, because these progressives need and want from a service class, what conservatives neither need nor want from them.
I am pretty sure that most of the writers of the NY Times are more or less conscious disciples of Rorty, and strategically, of Marx.
It’s no mystery that they are unabashed liars … they are merely trying to inaugurate “the world they dream”.
The present reality has nothing controlling to say about that.
Actually propaganda works best in an atomosphere of honesty and truthfulness that is verifiable. that is, when you go check things out, most of the time they are valid, and so you learn not to check things out.
we are actually at the saturation point for propaganda and advertising… when everyone lies, your lies mean nothing, and no one believes even the truth.
so propaganda is very limited in its effectiveness… like putting way too much salt on something, people just dont eat it any more.
i suspect that even the times subscribers dont read all that much of the paper and buy it for the stuff that is informative, like stock values, and so on…
i know i buy the daily news mostly for city info, and comics… if it werent for that, it would not be worth the reduced price of a subscription… oh. and the coupons my wife likes to use. which save us more than the cost of the rag…
but why would i want to read mike lupica, rodgriguez who would be happy with a totalitarian state that favors spanish people, and whats his face who writes but does not let people know he lives in france, and the bramhall cartoons suck in their bombastic untruthfulness…
We expect our enemies to lie. We should not expect our government to do so in such a routine and obscene fashion “He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.”–THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 19, 1785
[the above bespeaks of the idea of saturation as well]
“As the Times presents it, Republicans are motivated solely by animus rather than any legitimate concerns–and that notion is considered a basic truth by nearly all the liberals I know.”
Leftist ARE emotivists. They believe what they believe and want what they want because they FEEL it’s right. Like the “terminator,” there is no reasoning with them.
Aren’t they bankrupt yet? Or were they sold for $1 US? Pftftft!