17 steps to discredit a story...or, how the MSM and the World Gov'ts work....

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

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.")

From DCDAVE...the 17 steps to discrediting a story....


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Sadist says...

Yeah, old hat to some. New to others. Thought provoking none the less.

This is an excellent representation of the ways to suppress truth and discredit a story.

My personal favorite drinking game, is to take a shot for every word said until the term "Conspiracy Theorist" or "Conspiracy Theory" is uttered. Give it a shot sometime

reply to post by SadistNocturne

My mom knows all these and she never studied propaganda, conditioning or brainwashing a day in her life. Thats what I can't figure out. If people go to school to learn these techniques how come some people seem to have a natural knack for it. They are always at the ready for the perfect deceptive response, like its in their blood.

SadistNocturne

My personal favorite drinking game, is to take a shot for every word said until the term "Conspiracy Theorist" or "Conspiracy Theory" is uttered. Give it a shot sometime

Psh. Just as well join Alcoholics Anonymous.

One of the latest trends is to reserve certain labels for use as condemnation. For instance, anyone that doesn't believe an official story is a "denier." Any government they don't like is a "regime." You never hear about "2nd Amendment Deniers" or "The Israeli Regime" on the news.

reply to post by SadistNocturne


Another intesting gambit and one that slips past quite a few is the " To get a genuine story co-opted by a known Hoax Artist/ Site" give them the details , let them leak the information, then when people seach information they find it's from a known hoax site or person."

Say for example you were going to move some nukes on the sly, and you knew you couldn't do this with out getting some attention.
You leak information to a known classified or rumoured hoax site.

They of course broadcast the information to the alternative media.

The information is searched and quoted.

When it is discovered by the rest of the alternative media to come from a marked site, it is immediately discredited.

You have effectively turned people in the alternative media from investigating the information.

Now you are able to move those nukes with impunity as you already have MSM in your pocket and they certainly won't report it and neither will the alternative media.

Bingo!!! you have won the game.

VictorVonDoom

SadistNocturne

My personal favorite drinking game, is to take a shot for every word said until the term "Conspiracy Theorist" or "Conspiracy Theory" is uttered. Give it a shot sometime

Psh. Just as well join Alcoholics Anonymous.

One of the latest trends is to reserve certain labels for use as condemnation. For instance, anyone that doesn't believe an official story is a "denier." Any government they don't like is a "regime." You never hear about "2nd Amendment Deniers" or "The Israeli Regime" on the news.

I dunno what I'm going to tell my wife, but.....but.....

I think I love you man !!!!!!!

reply to post by Pinkorchid

Another intesting gambit and one that slips past quite a few is the " To get a genuine story co-opted by a known Hoax Artist/ Site" give them the details , let them leak the information, then when people seach information they find it's from a known hoax site or person."

Reminds me of the movie "Men in Black" where Kay says the only real news can be found in the trashy tabloids...

ETA - Pinkorchid, I just quoted/linked your post in another thread as I think your addition to this list is brilliant. In case you're interested, thread/post is www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Pinkorchid

Bingo!!! you have won the game.

What are you going to do with those nukes son?

reply to post by SadistNocturne


The is another technique. Have a 'Scientist' or a university do a STUDY that refute the truth.

One example is The Rockerfeller Blair poll by the University of Arkansas that declare Tea party member as "Racist" in 2010. just after the election. The questions on racism started with Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that minorities... SInce the Tea Part are about SMALL government you can bet how they well answer.

Another example is the Studies done by Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky (Australia) on 'Climate Change Deniers' The study called skeptics crazy and 'Consipracy Nuts' Completely ignoring that many 'Deniers are scientists with Phds.
See Spiked on line: The pathologising of climate scepticism

Diagnosing Difference: Psychologists, Psychiatrists and the Medicalization of Political Dissent

Abstract:

This paper seeks to analyze the history of postwar American psychological/psychiatric understandings of political dissent. The year of 1954 marked the beginning of the legal battles against racial segregation, but it also marked the development of Thorazine, a major tranquilizer that allowed psychiatrists to release mentally ill patients from asylums and treat them through community-based health care centers. In the 1950s and early 1960s, authorities within political and psychiatric establishments in the U.S. believed that mental illness was as much a political and social problem as it was a biological one. Whether using drugs, psychoanalysis, or political activism, they believed that rehabilitation/healing was possible for the mentally ill. Black urban poverty was also understood as a political problem that had psychological underpinnings—racialized minorities would not successfully subvert the racial order until they would shed their psychological sense of inferiority and demand their rights as first-class citizens. The U.S. government greatly supported the rise of psychiatry/psychology as a scientific field and as a political battleground through the growth of the War on Poverty apparatus and its collaboration with the National Institute of Mental Health.

The late 1960s brought a new era of both psychiatric and political resignation, however, as the therapeutic state’s great hopes toward rehabilitation gave way to the carceral state’s intent to simply manage and incarcerate individuals state officials simply could not understand. Rising crime rates, drug addiction, urban revolts, and financial crises of the 1970s all collided to produce an extremely reduced vision of what was humanly possible for society’s marginalized groups. Psychiatrists diagnosed urban violence as a physiological problem, and promised to “fix” political dissent through brain surgeries. A mixed politics of surveillance and neglect followed, as mentally ill patients became homeless, political activists became incarcerated, and both groups’ “abnormal” social behavior were managed with psychotropic drugs. Authorities in political and psychiatric establishments in the 1970s and 80s may be dismissed as Machiavellian or inflated as omniscient, but I seek to understand just how they came to believe that the “efficiency” and “predictability” of management and containment offered better solutions than any real path toward liberation and healing.

By bringing together the fields of psychiatry, psychology, Black freedom struggles, and mass incarceration, I hope to explain how psychologists and psychiatrists—as the scientists who claimed to understand the human mind—shaped American notions of human health, dissent, and transformation.

crimvelvet
reply to post by SadistNocturne

 

The is another technique. Have a 'Scientist' or a university do a STUDY that refute the truth.

One example is The Rockerfeller Blair poll by the University of Arkansas that declare Tea party member as "Racist" in 2010. just after the election. The questions on racism started with Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that minorities... SInce the Tea Part are about SMALL government you can bet how they well answer.

Another example is the Studies done by Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky (Australia) on 'Climate Change Deniers' The study called skeptics crazy and 'Consipracy Nuts' Completely ignoring that many 'Deniers are scientists with Phds.
See Spiked on line: The pathologising of climate scepticism

Diagnosing Difference: Psychologists, Psychiatrists and the Medicalization of Political Dissent

Abstract:

This paper seeks to analyze the history of postwar American psychological/psychiatric understandings of political dissent. The year of 1954 marked the beginning of the legal battles against racial segregation, but it also marked the development of Thorazine, a major tranquilizer that allowed psychiatrists to release mentally ill patients from asylums and treat them through community-based health care centers. In the 1950s and early 1960s, authorities within political and psychiatric establishments in the U.S. believed that mental illness was as much a political and social problem as it was a biological one. Whether using drugs, psychoanalysis, or political activism, they believed that rehabilitation/healing was possible for the mentally ill. Black urban poverty was also understood as a political problem that had psychological underpinnings—racialized minorities would not successfully subvert the racial order until they would shed their psychological sense of inferiority and demand their rights as first-class citizens. The U.S. government greatly supported the rise of psychiatry/psychology as a scientific field and as a political battleground through the growth of the War on Poverty apparatus and its collaboration with the National Institute of Mental Health.

The late 1960s brought a new era of both psychiatric and political resignation, however, as the therapeutic state’s great hopes toward rehabilitation gave way to the carceral state’s intent to simply manage and incarcerate individuals state officials simply could not understand. Rising crime rates, drug addiction, urban revolts, and financial crises of the 1970s all collided to produce an extremely reduced vision of what was humanly possible for society’s marginalized groups. Psychiatrists diagnosed urban violence as a physiological problem, and promised to “fix” political dissent through brain surgeries. A mixed politics of surveillance and neglect followed, as mentally ill patients became homeless, political activists became incarcerated, and both groups’ “abnormal” social behavior were managed with psychotropic drugs. Authorities in political and psychiatric establishments in the 1970s and 80s may be dismissed as Machiavellian or inflated as omniscient, but I seek to understand just how they came to believe that the “efficiency” and “predictability” of management and containment offered better solutions than any real path toward liberation and healing.

By bringing together the fields of psychiatry, psychology, Black freedom struggles, and mass incarceration, I hope to explain how psychologists and psychiatrists—as the scientists who claimed to understand the human mind—shaped American notions of human health, dissent, and transformation.

edit on 26-10-2013 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)

But hey, we all wear tinfoil hats and sleep with our butts to the sky so the satellites cannot track us. Right?

Or is that just me. Hmmmm.


It is pretty funny how you can do a rather accurate countdown to when the terms "conspiracy theorist" or "mentally ill" come up with certain stories.

reply to post by intrptr


Taking part of someone's statement focusing on something to blow it out of context and diverting it from the post , is also a minor form of distraction.

reply to post by Pinkorchid

Taking part of someone's statement focusing on something to blow it out of context and diverting it from the post , is also a minor form of distraction.

Get real. I was honestly asking for an answer to that. It had nothing in my mind to do with distracting the thread.

But thanks for painting me in a negative light for it.

You forgot character assassination, one of the more favored tools of the elite.

Got into a fight in high school? that's 'a criminal past'. Suffering from stress? not anymore, now you have 'deeply rooted mental problems.' Have a friend with tattoos? Better watch out because those tattoos are violent street gang insignias.

TPTB have whole departments full of private eyes ready to investigate, dissect, and exaggerate the private lives of anyone who dares question them. If I were to become an investigative reporter the first thing I'd do is close my facebook account, in fact i would encourage any author willing to take on the govt to do the same if they want their reputation to remain intact, and if they govt has nothing their attacks on the free press folk would be based on outright lies, which can be proven in court.