Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CF] The propaganda model and overview

Expand Messages
  • De Clarke
    commercial influence cuts into media independence another way: some analysts estimate that up to 40 pct of the content of mainstream print dailies in the US is
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      commercial influence cuts into media independence another way:
      some analysts estimate that up to 40 pct of the content of
      mainstream print dailies in the US is not "real journalism" but
      instead pre-packaged articles (or press releases disguised
      as articles) written by public relations firms. the PR firms
      are paid (handsomely) by corporate and private clients (the
      private clients being movie stars and other media figures) to
      write "news articles" which show the client in a positive
      light, show the client's competitors or enemies in a negative
      light, showcase a new product offering from the client, or tell
      a scare/smear story about some legislation or politician who
      might threaten the client's interest..

      these "canned" articles are then sent "free" to major newspaper
      chains, which can use them as filler -- creating the look and
      feel of a newspaper while employing far fewer journalists and
      editors than would be needed to sustain a newspaper that was
      100 percent real content. the newspaper management saves
      money, the PR agencies make money, the PR agency clients get
      the spin control or "perception management" they pay for...
      everyone wins -- except the reader who is unwittingly fed a lot
      of stealth advertising.

      unlike fillers and adulterants in food, the 'journomercial'
      content is not clearly labelled, nor is there any legal
      requirement to label it as such. it is usually difficult for
      the average reader to detect which elements of the daily paper
      are "real" and which are "artificial additives". sometimes a
      clue can be had by reading several national dailies and seeing
      the same (verbatim) story appear in all of them w/in the space
      of a few days, usually under the inoffensive byline "Staff".
      the absence of a reputable newswire source such as Reuters, AP,
      or InterPresse is sometimes a clue.

      there's nothing new about newspapers being partisan -- the
      "objective" press is a recent myth concocted by, ironically
      enough, the same press barons whose papers are used to purvey
      the advertisers' point of view. newspapers in the 1800s used
      to be rabidly, virulently partisan -- but they were open about
      it, not stealthy. instead of camouflaging narrow agitprop in
      the soothing language of objectivity, and concealing the real
      authorship of the partisan material, they blazoned insulting
      and confrontative headlines all over Page 1, naming (and
      calling) names. because papers were often locally based,
      readers often knew the paper's owner as an individual, and the
      paper was expected to reflect the opinions of the owner and the
      like-minded writers and editors he (it was pretty much always
      "he") had gathered around him. so people read it with a
      grain of salt, knowing that self-interest and personal opinion
      were being expressed.

      by contrast today our major media are faceless, owned by mega
      corporations which stand discreetly behind the curtain while
      their massive public media interventions masquerade as
      "neutral", "objective," etc. my bet is that many Americans
      actually believe that the media are objective and "just report
      the facts"... perhaps the greatest triumph of Bernays and his
      heirs is the perfect illusion that we are not being
      propagandized :-) at a time when centralised (and moneyed)
      control of our mainstream media rivals anything the Soviets
      achieved in their heyday.

      at any rate, when the 60 percent or so of the newspaper's
      content that is "real" is heavily censored for fear of
      offending advertisers, and the rest of it is not even genuine
      reporting, but artificial content crafted by public relations
      spinmeisters, the value of the paper as an "information source"
      is so compromised that... well... I haven't subscribed to a
      major print daily for years. it's depressingly like living in
      Moscow in 1959 and paying good money for the latest
      _Pravda_ :-) it's one thing to be lied to, it's quite another
      to pay for the privilege.

      de

      resources for those who like depressing themselves:

      Stauber and Rampton's books on the PR industry,
      Toxic Sludge is Good for You and Trust Us, We're Experts
      (both are well written)

      Robert McChesney's interview "Free Press for Sale"
      http://home.earthlink.net/~dbjensen1/mcches.html

      and many, many watchdog groups including

      www.democraticmedia.org
      www.mediaaccess.org
      www.fair.org

      and (if you have a good uplink)

      http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/

      media ownership charts (*big* graphics) plus debates on the
      impact of concentrated ownership


      .............................................................................
      :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
      :Mail: de@... | :
      :Web: www.ucolick.org | Don't Fear the Penguins :
      :1024D/B9C9E76E F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
    • John Snyder
      ...perhaps the greatest triumph of Bernays and his heirs is the perfect illusion that we are not being propagandized, wrote De. This was a topical reference
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 8, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        "...perhaps the greatest triumph of Bernays and his
        heirs is the perfect illusion that we are not being
        propagandized," wrote De.

        This was a topical reference as I had just run across
        my first introduction to Edward Bernays, the Father
        of Spin, a softened word for propaganda. Bernays
        is a rather chilling character. He is frightening; in
        the amount of socail power that adherents to Bernays'
        methods are able to wield using principles of
        psychology. In the context of the CarFree list,
        Americans and others are dependent on automobiles
        because they/we are repeatedly instructed to be so.

        Bernays:
        http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm

        Bernays:
        http://www.limerick-leader.ie/issues/20020323/box.html

        The Politics of Prosperity: The 1920s:
        http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture15.html

        An Orwellian side to the arrogant philosophy was that
        propaganda is good and necessary, because of the [false]
        assumption that most people are too stupid to think for
        themselves.

        John Snyder
      • De Clarke
        http://www.markfiore.com/animation/hybrids.html Fiore s typically inyoface take on the future of Hybrids :-) de --
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 9, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          http://www.markfiore.com/animation/hybrids.html

          Fiore's typically inyoface take on the future of "Hybrids" :-)

          de

          --
          .............................................................................
          :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
          :Mail: de@... | :
          :Web: www.ucolick.org | Don't Fear the Penguins :
          :1024D/B9C9E76E F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
        • De Clarke
          speaking of true-cost accounting and the cost of SUVs... IF THE CONSERVATIVES insist in leading us into war, they should at least follow their own principles
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 9, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            speaking of true-cost accounting and the cost of SUVs...

            IF THE CONSERVATIVES insist in leading us into war, they should
            at least follow their own principles as they do so. This would
            mean putting the whole thing on a pay-as-you-go basis - which is
            to say paying for conflict at the gas pump. During the earlier
            iteration of the Gulf War I figured, as I recall, that about
            $15 a gallon would do the trick.

            Now it's true that the Bush administration is a little confused on
            this matter - for example it wants to privatize Social Security
            but use the Treasury to subsidize religion - but surely the oil
            industry is pure capitalism at its best and ought to act that
            way by paying a user fee to the Pentagon for its war, which it
            can then retrieve from its customers. And if the latter are not
            quite as patriotic as they were when the true cost of war was
            better hidden, it will merely prove again the omnipotent magic
            of market forces.

            Sam Smith, "The Progressive Review"

            de


            --
            .............................................................................
            :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
            :Mail: de@... | :
            :Web: www.ucolick.org | Don't Fear the Penguins :
            :1024D/B9C9E76E F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
          • Raymond and Anne Keckler
            ... Interesting thoughts, De. I agree that I d like to have objective news, but what are your suggestions for achieving that? ~Anne
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 12, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In CarFree@y..., De Clarke <de@u...> wrote:
              > at a time when centralised (and moneyed)
              > control of our mainstream media rivals anything the Soviets
              > achieved in their heyday.

              Interesting thoughts, De. I agree that I'd like to have objective
              news, but what are your suggestions for achieving that?

              ~Anne
            • De Clarke
              ... always a good question :-) and it s a big topic (also one of the most passionate interest to me) so I hope y all will forgive a little verbosity.
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 12, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                >> --- In CarFree@y..., De Clarke <de@u...> wrote:
                >> > at a time when centralised (and moneyed)
                >> > control of our mainstream media rivals anything the Soviets
                >> > achieved in their heyday.
                >>

                >> Interesting thoughts, De. I agree that I'd like to have
                >> objective news, but what are your suggestions for achieving
                >> that?

                always a good question :-)

                and it's a big topic (also one of the most passionate interest
                to me) so I hope y'all will forgive a little verbosity.

                personally I don't believe there is such an animal as
                objective news :-) just publishing "the news" in the first place
                involves selecting, very narrowly, from the things that happen
                to 7 billion people every day, to produce a wodge of text
                or video that fits in a limited format. the real "news" is
                nearly infinite in size and complexity. so just choosing
                which stories to print and which not to print is an important
                filter.

                our news media compound the "filtering" problem by devoting an
                enormous chunk of their space to running the same story (the
                Story du Jour, whatever it may be) over and over and over so
                that no other story gets any time or space -- thus narrowing
                the news stream down to a fine point of myopia.

                it's a real tragedy that more and more local papers (which used
                to print local news of the greatest interest to regional
                populations, particularly rural ones) have been bought up
                by large media corps and transformed into cookie-cutter
                dailies running the same uniform newswires and journomercials.
                America's local dailies used to be one of the glories of this
                country and I mourn their passing.

                anyway: most papers print what they think their advertisers and
                owners will approve, and what they think their readership is
                interested in (in that order); so it can be important to read,
                for example, the journals of the public relations industry to
                find out what PR professionals say to each other that they
                would never say in more public fora. the WSJ may not be the
                most reliable source on grassroots social justice movements,
                but it's a very good indicator of what the finance/investor
                elite classes are thinking and feeling. sometimes a paper
                could tell you more about its publisher, its readership, and
                its advertisers than it does about the world -- but that's
                still useful information.

                newspapers inside a country (especially the US, where the press
                has become very timid and forelock-pulling in its relationship
                to Washington DC) tend to be more free in their criticisms of
                other people's governments than their own. it was several
                months before Americans could read the investigative journalism
                published by two French policy analysts exposing connections
                between Unocal, the Taliban, and the US administration prior to
                9/11 and the bombing of Afghanistan. information that was
                freely (and hotly) debated all over Europe was simply not
                available here. so reading the foreign press can be useful.
                (this is why people living under very controlling regimes have
                traditionally valued shortwave radios, and why the Chinese
                government does a lot of internet content filtering to control
                its own people's access to information).

                aside from the foreign press, I think most people in search of
                less biased reporting look hopefully to journals and magazines
                (and online zines) that are not funded by advertisers -- just
                as you might look in Consumer Reports to get a more balanced
                report on a new refrigerator than you might get at the local
                superstore (where they may be under pressure to ditch an
                inventory of last year's refrigerators). you look for someone
                who (a) has no financial incentive to convince you one way or
                another, and (b) whose biases are frankly acknowledged, overt,
                and honestly labelled. the newsletter of the American Friends
                Society, the Christian Science Monitor, etc., are very open
                about their religious identity and mission, and thus their
                reporting can be read "transparently" -- it is unlikely to be a
                cloaked PR campaign for something else entirely. CSM is highly
                valued by a lot of geopolitics-watchers.

                amateur / first hand accounts, as in indymedia sites, are
                sometimes useful. in general if you read several first-hand
                eyewitness accounts of an event you start to get a feel for the
                simple factual points on which people agree, and the points of
                interpretation or opinion on which they differ. the journals
                and letters from people who have gone to Baghdad with Voices
                in the Wilderness make a suitable counterbalance to, e.g.
                Voice of America or the Bush Administration's latest official
                Department of Public Disinformation. the hawks in DC tell
                us that an invading American army will be met by joyous
                Iraqis throwing flowers, but interviews with ordinary Iraqi
                civilians suggest they are more likely to throw rocks.

                sadly, the best information about a situation (a war for
                example) is usually not available until after it's "over" -- at
                least the shooting part. it was not until after the Gulf War
                that the "tipping babies out of incubators" story was revealed
                as a professionally-crafted PR legend from Hill and Knowlton,
                one of America's leading PR firms. it was not until decades
                after WWI that divers confirmed the Lusitania really was
                carrying war materiel, despite the vehement (and false)
                protestations of both the UK and US governments at the time.
                reading serious, reputable books about past wars and comparing
                them to the press coverage at the time gives us a yardstick by
                which to measure the amount of trust we should put in press
                coverage during current or impending wars in our own time.
                "the first casualty of war" and all that.

                one of the big questions is always "where's the money coming
                from." freedom of the press belongs to those who own a press,
                as they say, and so it pays to know who owns the news outlets
                you're reading or listening to, or which funding sources feed
                the foundations whose pundits are yakking away on the TV or
                radio. if you find out that a paper (the Washington Times
                let's say) is owned by Rev Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church,
                and you go look up a few transcripts of Rev Moon's speeches,
                and you find him extreme or untrustworthy -- then you might
                want to take what you read in the Wash Times with a grain of
                salt :-) 'cos you should always figure that no one owns a paper
                without exerting some control over its edtorial policy.

                W Lippmann said a lot of things that I strongly disagree with,
                but he also articulated an eternal verity: truth isn't to be
                found by reading one perfect, objective, complete, unassailable
                account of some event -- it comes by reading a lot of different
                accounts of it and turning them over in your mind (Rashomon
                style?) until you can -- by a process of subtraction as it were --
                detect the oversimplification in Account A and the "just
                happened not to mention a rather important fact" in account B.
                rather like being a judge (or a jury) listening to testimony
                from a whole series of different witnesses.

                if you read, for example, a story in the Guardian (a UK paper)
                about a demonstration in Italy that drew half a million people
                into the streets to protest Mr Bush's proposed war on Iraq...
                and this event is also reported by the BBC, the Frankfurter
                Allgemeine Zeitung, and CBC... but you can't find any mention
                of it in the international news section of a major US daily --
                then you might scrutinise the content of that major daily
                a bit more narrowly in future :-) you might wonder what else
                its editors have decided is not important enough for you to
                read about.

                the bottom line I guess is that being a news omnivore is
                usually safer than getting all your news from just one source,
                and knowing who owns the sources is a good idea. the downside
                is that you have to do a lot more reading and thinking than
                the person who reads exactly one newspaper and gives its
                owners and editors their unquestioning trust.

                caveat lector is my motto -- also "follow the money",
                "check the references", and "count the bodies." also,
                and this is frustrating, "a lot of the truth will not
                be revealed or admitted until 20 years later."

                OK, enough sermonising about a balanced media diet :-) gotta go
                to a city council meeting and once again make the case for
                lanes wide enough for cyclists to travel comfortably, on a road
                for which this design was prescribed in the city master plan
                "only" 25 years ago :-) but gee, you know, to actually
                *implement* the original plan would reduce the number of cars
                per hour that we can squeeze down that road, and as we all
                know, the whole purpose of city streets is as conveyor belts
                for cars. sigh. maybe, if we're lucky, in year 26 of this
                neverending "debate" we will finally take a few measly square
                feet back from the autos. wish us luck eh?

                de


                .............................................................................
                :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
                :Mail: de@... | :
                :Web: www.ucolick.org | Don't Fear the Penguins :
                :1024D/B9C9E76E F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
              • Karen Sandness
                ... I can t dispute anything you say there. When I see TV news coverage of events that I participated in or observed I m almost always left angry. Five major
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 13, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Message: 8
                  > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:05:13 -0800
                  > From: De Clarke <de@...>
                  > Subject: Re: The propaganda model and overview
                  >
                  >>> --- In CarFree@y..., De Clarke <de@u...> wrote:
                  >>>> at a time when centralised (and moneyed)
                  >>>> control of our mainstream media rivals anything the Soviets
                  >>>> achieved in their heyday.
                  >>>
                  I can't dispute anything you say there. When I see TV news coverage of
                  events that I participated in or observed I'm almost always left angry.

                  Five major corporations own almost all the news outlets, and if something
                  happens that they don't approve of, they will find a way to hide it or
                  distort it.

                  For the past twenty years, I have seen the news media, from Fox on the right
                  to PBS on the center-left distort events and ideas that I have direct
                  knowledge of. There are many ways to do this:

                  1) Having a "debate" in which one person states the official
                  government/corporate policy and the "opposite" person, instead of saying,
                  "That policy is wrong because..." says "Well, you're wrong on the following
                  minor points." The intended implication is that no one *really* disagrees
                  with the official policy.

                  A variation on this is having the "opposition" opinion presented in full--by
                  a person who is obviously stupid or mentally unbalanced.

                  Another variation on this is the "softball" interview of a potentially
                  controversial figure. The interviewer simply nods and smiles as the
                  interviewee spouts off, without ever challenging any of the lies or
                  distortions.

                  2) Ignoring aspects of events that were perfectly obvious to people who were
                  actually there. You cover a political figure's visit to your city and don't
                  mention that this person was greeted by the largest protest demonstration in
                  thirty years.

                  3) Singling out one tiny, atypical part of an event and treating it as if it
                  were the whole story. I saw this in the coverage of the WTO protests in
                  Seattle a couple of years ago and of the memorial gathering for Senator
                  Wellstone last week.

                  4) Dispatching spokespersons to all the major networks and news shows to
                  repeat the same phrases and buzzwords over and over. It's scary to hear
                  ordinary people mouth "opinions" that you just know they absorbed from some
                  TV program instead of developing their own opinions on the basis of reliable
                  evidence.

                  5) Sending a completely ignorant reporter to a foreign country and
                  presenting his/her raw impressions as fact. Having lived in Japan and
                  visited many times afterward, I'm appalled at the quality of coverage of
                  that country.

                  6) Covering urban news only if there's a murder or a fire. This teaches
                  suburban viewers that cities, and especially dark-skinned people living in
                  cities, are dangerous, and should be navigated--if at all--only in a car.

                  7) Killing stories that are potentially embarrassing to political or
                  business interests. I once heard a former reporter for NPR say that she had
                  had stories killed due to pressure from corporate underwriters.

                  8) Presenting bogus or carelessly collected opinion polls as fact. Internet
                  and phone opinion polls are worthless, because they can be overwhelmed by
                  members of a pressure group telling one another to be sure to register. A
                  clever pollster can word a poll to elicit the response that the client
                  wants.

                  9) Leaving out "the rest of the story." You show an event, but you don't
                  explain why it is happening. Without the context, it seems to support
                  Interpretation A. With the context, it seems to support Interpretation B.
                  You frequently see this when comparing U.S. and Canadian coverage of the
                  same event.

                  10) Claiming falsely that no information is available. A check of other news
                  sources reveals that this is a lie--or that indeed no information is
                  available, and the lack of information is very convenient for certain
                  individuals.

                  11) Having five minutes of weather, eight minutes of sports, two minutes of
                  the anchors kidding around, five minutes of puff pieces (=free advertising)
                  for local businesses, three minutes of local news, one minute of national
                  news, and six minutes of paid ads on the local evening news broadcast. Don't
                  expose the average viewer to any story of substance

                  12) Powerful political or business figures threatening to boycott any news
                  outlet that doesn't play "softball" with them.

                  13) Using gossipy stories as "weapons of mass distraction." There's always a
                  lot of important stuff going on in the world, but a future historian looking
                  at old videotapes of news broadcasts could be forgiven for concluding that
                  O.J. Simpson and Jon Benet Ramsay were the pivotal figures of our era. When
                  the news media are dominated by a single sensational story, ask
                  yourself,"What else is going on in the world that they don't want us to
                  notice?"

                  14) Making a gross misstatement (or lying) on the front page and printing a
                  retraction in small print on page 24 after the damage has been done.

                  I've been able to list these off the top of my head, and I'm sure that I
                  could think of more if it weren't already so late at night.

                  The upshot of it is that I've gradually phased out mainstream TV news,
                  because the propaganda and commercial aspects of it are so blatant (granted,
                  propaganda techniques have been an interest of mine since I was in high
                  school) that I get unproductively angry. Instead, I read a couple of
                  newspapers (less filtered than broadcast media) and watch CBC or BBC, which
                  are available on our local cable system.

                  Oops, I'm off topic, except for item #6, but I'd recommend that everyone
                  find a book on propaganda at a local bookstore or library and study it well.

                  In transit,
                  Karen Sandness
                • David Hansen
                  ... The best example is perhaps big media coverage of events in Genoa a few years ago. ... The BBC have been caught distorting the news. On one occasion they
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 13, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 13 Nov 2002 at 2:27, Karen Sandness wrote:

                    > 3) Singling out one tiny, atypical part of an event and treating it as
                    > if it were the whole story. I saw this in the coverage of the WTO
                    > protests in Seattle a couple of years ago

                    The best example is perhaps big media coverage of events in Genoa a
                    few years ago.

                    > I read a
                    > couple of newspapers (less filtered than broadcast media) and watch
                    > CBC or BBC, which are available on our local cable system.

                    The BBC have been caught distorting the news. On one occasion they
                    had to apologise on-air because they had portrayed a police attack on
                    striking miners as if the striking miners had attacked the police.
                    This was unusual as it was possible to prove the distortion had taken
                    place.

                    The BBC are also reluctant to correct factual inaccuracies,
                    especially on their web site.

                    For a large media organisation they are relatively truthful and
                    balanced, but they are not perfect.


                    --
                    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
                    I will *always* explain why I revoke a key, unless the UK
                    government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
                  • Ken Kifer
                    After pointing out the various ways in which the news is distorted, Karen Sandness said, Oops, I m off topic. Well, you might have been off topic, but you
                    Message 9 of 13 , Nov 15, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      After pointing out the various ways in which the news is distorted, Karen
                      Sandness said, "Oops, I'm off topic."

                      Well, you might have been off topic, but you were 100% on target.

                      I can think of only one to add to it, but it perhaps is the biggest and most
                      invisible of all: cultural assumptions. Could also be called ethnocentrism.

                      We carfree folk should see this more easily than most because the common
                      assumption is that the automobile is the only practical form of transportation.
                      That being the case, it's perfectly natural to ignore alternatives. For
                      instance, I was listening to some environmental show on the radio talking about
                      how to deal with pollution, and the point was made that it would be helpful to
                      improve the fuel efficiency of automobiles. But no discussion of how to reduce
                      automobile use ensued. It's a matter of record that the gains in fuel
                      efficiency of the US auto fleet were swallowed up by increases in the number of
                      miles driven. And there are many kinds of problems caused by automobile use
                      which are independent of the number of gallons used. So reducing use would be
                      useful per se.

                      I was actually flabbergasted when it was finally realized that bicycle use could
                      contribute to reducing pollution. In the beginning, there seemed to be more
                      saying that the idea was ridiculous than there were those supporting it. I
                      think now that they have recognized that we are a genuine alternative, but they
                      don't like it.

                      In the last days of the Clinton administration, the Secretary of Agriculture
                      appeared on NPR. In the discussion which followed, he and the people
                      interviewing him agreed that we didn't know why we were having such problems
                      with obesity. I wrote a letter about that, which was ignored. Sometimes later,
                      another interview appeared on NPR, this one arguing against the food pyramid,
                      with the interviewer completely uncritical. I wrote a letter against that,
                      which was also ignored, so then I wrote a web page:
                      http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/highfat.htm
                      I have been listening for some NPR article explaining about the need for
                      exercise and/or a healthy diet, but it hasn't appeared. NPR evidently doesn't
                      consider such topics to be newsworthy.

                      Well-educated people have a fair chance of discovering health information on
                      their own, but the poor are most likely to encounter false advertising.
                      --
                      Ken Kifer's Bike Pages: 150 web pages -- touring, commuting,
                      lifestyle, health, advocacy, skills, humor, surveys, and links:
                      http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/

                      Bicycling Advocacy:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bicyclingadvocacy
                      bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com
                      To join, visit the above page or send a blank email to
                      bicyclingadvocacy-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    • Ken Kifer
                      Ken Kifer wrote: Well-educated people have a fair chance of discovering health information on their own, but the poor are most likely to encounter false
                      Message 10 of 13 , Nov 16, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ken Kifer wrote:
                        Well-educated people have a fair chance of discovering health information on
                        their own, but the poor are most likely to encounter false advertising.

                        Steven Schoeffler replied:
                        This seems to be a false dichotomy. Is poor the opposite of well-educated?
                        Correlation exists, granted.

                        Ken Kifer replies:
                        As a matter of fact, I am both poor and well-educated.

                        I was not thinking about a correlation, just the reports that I hear about
                        obesity, which establishes that the poorest people have the worst problem.
                        Someone who is poor would be less likely to discover accurate information, as
                        there are so many people making money by selling false information.

                        Perhaps the word I shouldn't have used was "well-educated," as I have met a lot
                        of people with sound judgment who never went to college and lots of fools with
                        PhD's.

                        Still, my point was that those who need the information the most have the least
                        chance of getting it. Obesity is something that occurs over a long period of
                        time and is much easier to prevent than it is to treat. Health education among
                        those most likely to become obese ought to be cost-effective.

                        We ought to teach everyone to get daily exercise and to eat a good diet. We can
                        put most of the needed information into a single sentence: walk at least a mile
                        and a half at a brisk pace every day and eat a variety of fruits and
                        vegetables. Explaining the rest, especially about the need to eat fatty foods
                        only in small quantities, would be more difficult.

                        --
                        Ken Kifer's Bike Pages: 150 web pages -- touring, commuting,
                        lifestyle, health, advocacy, skills, humor, surveys, and links:
                        http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/

                        Bicycling Advocacy:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bicyclingadvocacy
                        bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com
                        To join, visit the above page or send a blank email to
                        bicyclingadvocacy-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      • De Clarke
                        hmmm. seems to me America used to be the land of Do It Yourself and Yankee Ingenuity... now it s the impoverished Russians who are getting really creative...
                        Message 11 of 13 , Nov 17, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          hmmm. seems to me America used to be the land of Do It Yourself
                          and Yankee Ingenuity... now it's the impoverished Russians who
                          are getting really creative...

                          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2454303.stm

                          build-your-own trains!

                          de

                          --
                          .............................................................................
                          :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
                          :Mail: de@... | :
                          :Web: www.ucolick.org | Don't Fear the Penguins :
                          :1024D/B9C9E76E F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
                        • Raymond and Anne Keckler
                          ... Ahh.. Now you are confusing schooled with educated . ... But you cannot teach what people do not want to know. :-) ~Anne
                          Message 12 of 13 , Nov 17, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In CarFree@y..., Ken Kifer <kenkifer@k...> wrote:
                            > Perhaps the word I shouldn't have used was "well-educated," as I
                            > have met a lot of people with sound judgment who never went to
                            > college and lots of fools with PhD's.

                            Ahh.. Now you are confusing "schooled" with "educated".

                            > We ought to teach everyone to get daily exercise and to eat a good
                            > diet.

                            But you cannot teach what people do not want to know. :-)

                            ~Anne
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.