Posted on 07/18/2006 4:58:28 AM PDT by Paul Coletti
Title Can the internet ever produce a purity of consent? A case study of Rathergate.
Introduction On September 8th 2004, memos by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian purporting to show that a subordinate of his, one George W. Bush, had a less than perfect war record during the Vietnam conflict, were aired by CBS show 60 Minutes II.
I believe no academic study on this topic exists. A search of the Proquest dissertations database reveals no existing work. There are several books extant which subjectively cover the episode from various points of view. I will utilise these as secondary data sources in my research.
Research Objectives This study will analyse a specific event in recent US journalistic history within the context of four of the five propaganda filters first identified by Herman . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at futuremediastars.com ...
I've just registered for Free Republic. I've done so for a very specific reason.
I'm a masters degree student of journalism at the London College of Communication (http://www.lcc.arts.ac.uk/) and I'm writing a dissertation on internet consent and I'm using Rathergate as a case study . . . yes Rathergate. So I've come to the place where it all began (the above is a n excerpt from my project)
I'm hoping for people to to visit my masters project URL
http://www.futuremediastars.com/rathergate
And I plan to FreepMail those involved in the Blogswarm in late '04.
Note, I twice emailed FR to ask permission for this post and received no reply so I'm assuming this kind of solicitation is ok. I sincerely hope I haven't busted any FR netiquette.
Folks, if you look at my profile on freerepublic.com you'll see I've included a full set of details about myself and my home page is below.
I hope all Freepers can give the above link a tiny bit of attention and thank you for your time,
Paul Coletti
ping
FYI
This phrase accepts the premise that me memos were genuine. If you are going to "study" this sordid event in attempted lynching by media, you'll have to be much, much more careful in how you phrase your questions. Unless, of course, there is a different agenda.
To put it bluntly, Rather et al decided to violate the heck out of "chain of custody", to accept blatant forgeries as genuine (contradicting their own experts), and to attempt to steal a presidential election. The only investigative study warrated here would be the exposure of everyone involved (beyond the Mapes/Rather figureheads), or for criminal prosection.
JMO.
It looks like an interesting project. I wish you well.
Paul Coletti
Since Jul 8, 2006
Welcome Paul and God save the Queen.
pur·port (pr-pôrt, -prt)
tr.v. pur·port·ed, pur·port·ing, pur·ports
1. To have or present the often false appearance of being or intending; profess:
selfish behavior that purports to be altruistic.
2. To have the intention of doing; purpose.
Remember FR Rule 30 "Don't look stupid in front of furriners"
And if Rule 30 doesn't exist it should.
My issue is the statement of their origin, not their content. A little critical reading practice may help you understand such intricasies, FRiend.
Good luck. By the way, in what sense are you using the word 'consent'?
Memose? We don't need no stinking memose!
Stupid fingers - They can't spell! ;-P
Good Morning and welcome Paul.
backhoe, do you have an archive of Memogate etc... related threads?
Speak for yourself. I find the mixture of champagne and orange juice to be quite refreshing. :p
Well Sloth,
without getting into the dull theory, consent as defined by Chomsky (I'm sure I don't have to tell Freepers who he is) is 'bad' when it it manufactured, i.e. if consent is generated via a press that is affected by coporate ownership or the power of advertising (and a couple of other things) then it is manufactured.
I'm trying to find out whether consent on web is affected in these same ways or is it, to coin a phrase, 'pure' and 'unfiltered' and free from these influences.
In other words: did those who contributed to the Blogswarm in 04 have MSM/advertiser backing?
Paul
The story here is the media acting as a campaign mechanism for one of the political parties in the US. Go back to when John Kery won the nomination. He held a meeting with several media big wigs in New York.
The story really boils down to media operatives generating fake documents against Bush, while John Kerry skated through the election without releasing his Service Record. MORE BLATANT PROOF OF BIAS CANNOT BE FOUND.
Not if you are talking about the people at FR. We do this stuff for the pure enjoyment of it :) It will be interesting to see what you uncover. Good luck.
Anyone else having trouble with the link?
No problems here...
Looking forward to your input on this thread.
Howlin's thread was the anchor of the rebuttal of the CBS slanders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.