Slavoj Zizek on Trump & Fake News

[teamsaint]

If you think that a report which is in the realms of fantasy, which it is, should be reported as News, then you and I understand news in very different ways.

What I suggested was that if the BBC is to use that kind of material, it should not be in a "News " context.

The ONS report, unchallenged by the BBC report( unless I missed something) gives that 26% figure.

It needs seriously challenging,in any BBC context, by people with the skills to do it effectively.

[vinteuil]

.

do you think that ONS have an 'agenda' here and are not carrying out an objective analysis? Why would you think so?

[Lat-Literal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ9vf9mRyq8

Fake News

One Message But Mixed Motives

I'm reluctant to give this much thought because it is almost designed to send ordinary people round the twist. Certain individuals in regimes thrive on it. That should be a warning in itself. There are also many who are what might politely be termed intrigued about members of the public floundering. However "fake news" is a soundbite. As such, it has the power to seep into international culture, as it has done, with the vast majority not subjecting it to analysis. When it comes to the analyists who may be with or without agendas themselves, they are often very much in the moment and inclined to miss key historical points. It was either Evan Davis or Krishnan Guru-Murthy who, when faced with one of the new breed who have long held stances but previously had little limelight, tried unsuccessfully to discuss the difference between something obviously fake and another thing that is arguably biased. These two more-than-just-concepts are being conflated by the powers-that-be. And what I see is a strategy in which an alienated mainstream media will ultimately increasingly conform with a liberal, centrist or left of centre stereotype. In parallel, the internet and devices like Twitter will increasingly become "alt right" or new right. In other words, any slight trends that exist now will when nudged or pushed become significant trends the more the accusations fly. It will become a battle not just of political philosophy but of types of media - historically mainstream and newly social - by which "facts" will principally be relayed. Further, this is a world in which types of technology are to be effectively independent countries within countries and the globe as a whole. I suppose the alt right consider that computers are the future and believe that the tide of time is on their side.

However, there are subtle strands below the surface of all the Politburo style folks who suddenly have a voice. The ones who have a "well, what do you believe?" tone that is slightly manic and sends shivers down the spine. "You didn't think folks like us still existed, did ya'all?" Well, yes we did, because you are the weird one who has sat for forty years in the corner of The Dog and Duck. I don't believe for one moment that anyone who currently has serious power actually believes that the BBC doesn't strive for a reasonable version of neutrality even if admittedly it can often fail or that CNN is a left wing vehicle. Nor do I believe that they really consider that the Daily Mail is the polar opposite of a Conservative Government or that most of the fake news that emanates from Ukrainian teenagers' bedrooms and similar is anything other than opportunistic, adolescent gaming.

What is believed is this. In its extensive coverage of pop music video style IS beheadings, protests by "Black Lives Matter" and similar groups in which the genuine and reasoned often stand unknowingly alongside lifelong armed revolutionaries and very much more, the mainstream media can almost unwittingly become the biggest patsy for truly dangerous opposition. While it attempts to seek out the truth not least because there is the biggest money in sensationalism, it also creates and then drives a snowball effect in terms of certain truths. They would not be truths or significant truths in the absence of the oxygen of publicity. I think this goes further too. When it comes to a conundrum like North Korea, it may just be that what is said by an American President should be interpreted by us as mainly hot air. But if it is seen by the North Koreans that there is an especial toughness being meted out by Americans even towards US institutions - an accompanying component is perceived unpredictability - it is a useful additional mechanism to convey that the consequences of improper action elsewhere could have really serious consequences. This would to a lesser degree apply to any issues arising in China, Russia and even the EU.

The Changing Nature of News

This is not to say that I am at all comfortable with what is taking place. But what it does imply is that the mainstream media forget what it actually says on their tin. That is, rather than being boxer one or boxer two, they are middle men - or mediums - who by their very character are usable and often used. I feel we need to think more about the original 1950s/1960s television newscast - in Britain, Robert Dougall et al. We know that it often lacked sensational visual imagery. We also know that it felt very much like an arm of the establishment and we accepted it, we didn't see anything sinister in it and nor did we think of it as overly grey. That was partially because of WW2 and the need for information to be controlled so as to reassure the populace. It was also connected to the paternalism demanded in the post war welfare state and technological limitations in early broadcasting. What we don't know is the extent to which those newscasts were a mere parroting of the government's line or informed by hard headed, questioning, journalists "in the field".

There are several points here. The visual imagery first. From an international perspective, I tend to think that the two most memorable visual images in the news when such things became more possible were the murder of John F Kennedy and the moon landings, that is, beyond the cohesive ceremonial of the Queen's coronation in one house in ten. The first was a significant challenge to orthodoxy that was broadcast with much embarrassment to Americans all the way round the world. The second was a glorification of individual possibility inside a powerful state. The powerful state that it is the US because in no way could it be the Soviet Union. So, I would argue that the tensions inherent in television news have a very long history indeed, such that they were there when filming arrived. Although in the background for many years, the issues for those in power could be seen as symbolized around that pivotal point in the 1960s. Then there has been the massive escalation of both investigative journalism and the press release by news-savvy organisations. So-called news management in Britain from Ingham and Campbell onwards was a reaction to the manufacturing of widespread opinion that was different from governments' truths.

It has exposed governments' frailties and governments' lies where they need not and should not have occurred. This has been especially true since 2001 when individuals in the processes in the main became less substantial and the processes themselves mushroomed. What it has also done is left a sense that in the event of a major international security disaster that there is no way on earth that the public could be protected by a WW2 approach. Supposedly factual statements have been poured out from on high but that is a mere spiralling when the public has so much evidence that those who they elect often revel in playing Canute. Turning to radio, while the BBC Radio 4 news bulletins still have some of the essence of wartime and post-war broadcasting, one just knows that in the editorial rooms there is a number of government statements that is one hundred times as high as it ever was under Churchill, Attlee, Eden or Macmillan. There is an equal number of statements from big business, pressure groups and charities. All are now, alas, big business.

Not Only Rights But Responsibilities

At root, those statements are all mainly about money or more accurately greed. Large numbers of them - and this very much includes those issued by governments - inevitably incorporate elements of anxiety which would simply not be there if there was more acceptance of a greater need for parity. Even the suggestions mentioned in earlier posts on future longevity are couched in bleak warnings designed to separate the sheep from the goats. People think that they don't want the post-war paternalism and for many that is true but others are simply confused that the paternal state became so self-serving and drove up neuroticism. In other words, the criticism is not focussed on the true problem because culturally that problem has been thoroughly obscured. Liberalism was never meant to constantly speak about the survival of the fittest but that is precisely what it does often with some reasonable intention because it is a medium in itself. Worse, it has chosen to speak from the mouth of money whatever the nature of it, the angle on it or even bias. That undermines the relationship between the people and the state. The entire business has become a circus. The answer is not to prefer dictatorship. It is certainly not to throw around genuinely fake news or accusations about it, nor is it to say that only true socialism is the answer or just to hope that it all goes away. It is to restore the notion of liberalism as something that needs an element of self-constraint. One that is more than as it is currently just geared to not being sued. That, though, requires putting a brake on optimum profit.

[teamsaint]

.

do you think that ONS have an 'agenda' here and are not carrying out an objective analysis? Why would you think so?

What I think matters to me, but nobody else much.

I don't believe the conclusions. I don't believe, unless something utterly radical happens in healthcare, that 33% of girls born in 2011 will live to 100.In any case it IS highly speculative, it has to be. A small variance in the data applied to those born say 80 years ago, and extrapolated, would have a huge effect on the outcomes suggested.

I don't know why the ONS published that report, why the BBC reported it apparently unchallenged.

Yes, I think there is an agenda, around working age and pensions, since it was published under the auspices of the DWP. It may well be that the ( flawed ) ONS report was seized on by the DWP. Or maybe the DWP commissioned it with an agenda in mind. who knows?But whatever I think, that report needed challenging , not reporting verbatim .

[jean]

I'm getting pie-eyed trying to work that out - does the BBC report say that?

The Guardian article gives that figure. But it's an extrapolation on the basis of present trends, and as such is neither true nor false.

Yes, I think there is an agenda, around working age and pensions, since it was published under the auspices of the DWP. But whatever I think, that report needed challenging , not reporting verbatim .

You mean they're going to make us (well, I suppose I mean you, as I got out when the retirement age was 60) work for longer because you'll live longer? And make you individually, or society at large, make more provision for pensions? And how do we challenge it except by insisting we're ging to die earlier?

What's unreasonable about that? When a pension age of 65 was first establised for men, most of them lived for less than ten years after retirement. We're all living a lot longer than that already.

[french frank]

If you think that a report which is in the realms of fantasy

I think you need to be clearer about what is fanciful about in the report. I would have thought that, in a general way, it is unsusrprising. We have an ageing population. A friend of mine who I meet every fortnight to chat in French with, will be 100 in a couple of months time. She recently visited her elder sister in Bournemouth. Are you seriously suggesting that any report which provides the supporting data should be suppressed, or excluded from the public domain?

then you and I understand news in very different ways.

That could be so.

What I suggested was that if the BBC is to use that kind of material, it should not be in a "News " context.

I'm not quite clear about what you include as 'that kind of material'.

The ONS report, unchallenged by the BBC report( unless I missed something) gives that 26% figure.

Is it incorrect, though?

It needs seriously challenging,in any BBC context, by people with the skills to do it effectively.

It's certainly true that someone like me who has no particular skills in the field would tend to accept it at face value. But you have yet to demonstrate, with evidence, that I would be unwise to do so.

[teamsaint]

The Guardian article gives that figure. But it's an extrapolation on the basis of present trends, and as such is neither true nor false.

You mean they're going to make us (well, I suppose I mean you, as I got out when the retirement age was 60) work for longe because you'll live longer? And make you individually, or society at largem make more pension provision?

What's unreasonable about that? When a pension age of 65 was first establised for men, most of them lived for less than ten years after retirement.

If the government wants to achieve a goal of getting people to be economically active for longer, they should try to do it honestly, and with some creative economic and social thinking. ( Citizen's wage/basic income springs to mind). It is happening anyway.

I don't think people of my age,( 55 and 1/8 !) or 20 somethings, have any ( realistic) expectation of living longer than today's 60 or 70 somethings.

Edit: and if the government is really serious about this issue, really thinks 1/3 of girls will live to 100, then they need to put in place systems that allow people to cope with a 50/60 year working life.
Not much sign of that, though I guess your party may at least be discussing these matters.

[teamsaint]

I think you need to be clearer about what is fanciful about in the report. I would have thought that, in a general way, it is unsusrprising. We have an ageing population. A friend of mine who I meet every fortnight to chat in French with, will be 100 in a couple of months time. She recently visited her elder sister in Bournemouth. Are you seriously suggesting that any report which provides the supporting data should be suppressed, or excluded from the public domain?



It's certainly true that someone like me who has no particular skills in the field would tend to accept it at face value. But you have yet to demonstrate, with evidence, that I would be unwise to do so.

You would need a very special skill set and excellent data, which I don't have, as you know.

What even I know though, is that that kind of data can be manipulated, and that introducing a variable on the high side early on can cause huge differences in outcome.

do you really believe the 26%/33% figure?

The outcomes need questioning, because they are important. And especially so, because of the DWP involvement.

[vinteuil]

I don't think people of my age,( 55 and 1/8 !) or 20 somethings, have any ( realistic) expectation of living longer than today's 60 or 70 somethings.

... I think it very likely that 20 somethings have a realistic expectation of living (considerably) longer than today's 60 or 70 somethings.

But I am not a statistician : I prefer to rely on the statisticians at the ONS rather than on my personal hunch.

What is your hunch based on?

[teamsaint]

... I think it very likely that 20 somethings have a realistic expectation of living (considerably) longer than today's 60 or 70 somethings.

But I am not a statistician : I prefer to rely on the statisticians at the ONS rather than on my personal hunch.

What is your hunch based on?

There are two things at play:

One is my /your hunch...actually very few people reach 100. I've never met or known one but apparently we are moving to a situation where a quarter to a third will live to 100. I hope it happens, in a good way.

Second, statistics can be manipulated. Small differences in variables extrapolated over many years will produce vastly different outcomes.


I'm sure the statisticians at the ONS are good people, but data is there to be used, and no doubt the politicians/DWP will use it all they can.

[french frank]

do you really believe the 26%/33% figure?

It isn't a question of 'believing' it. On balance, it seems a reasonable assumption, and likewise a reasonable assumption that people will indeed have to go on working longer. That is something which would lessen the responsibility of younger generations to support the pensioners.

I feel that you're generally incredulous of all this and suspect some sort of government plot. But basic facts (ignoring detailed statistics) are facts. People are, progressively, living longer and one conclusion is that they should, progressively, work for longer rather than lumbering younger generations with the unsustainable costs of supporting the elderly retired for almost half their lives.

As long as people remain fit well into 'early old age' that doesn't seem unfair.

NB Life expectancy for the 'cohort' in 1950 was for men just under 78 and for women 83, compared with 89 and 92 in 2001. I don't think the ONS projections seem surprising.

[french frank]

And fake news is born in 1917:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38995205

Can't trust anyone …

[teamsaint]

It isn't a question of 'believing' it. On balance, it seems a reasonable assumption, and likewise a reasonable assumption that people will indeed have to go on working longer. That is something which would lessen the responsibility of younger generations to support the pensioners.

I feel that you're generally incredulous of all this and suspect some sort of government plot. But basic facts (ignoring detailed statistics) are facts. People are, progressively, living longer and one conclusion is that they should, progressively, work for longer rather than lumbering younger generations with the unsustainable costs of supporting the elderly retired for almost half their lives.

As long as people remain fit well into 'early old age' that doesn't seem unfair.

NB Life expectancy for the 'cohort' in 1950 was for men just under 78 and for women 83, compared with 89 and 92 in 2001. I don't think the ONS projections seem surprising.

you say " suspect a government plot"

I say, " a report that needs challenging and peer review".

It is too important just to be waved through.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

And fake news is born in 1917:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38995205

Can't trust anyone …

Even earlier than that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

[french frank]

Even earlier than that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pr...Elders_of_Zion

I did not know about that.