RE: Everything You Need To Know About 'Black Gold Stranglehold'
Personally, if I'm going to take the time to read a book, I usually like to know both the author's knowledge of the subject and whether he or she has another agenda hidden within the text.
Once you have that information, what do you do with it? How do you determine, up front, what the author's knowledge of a subject might be? Do you rely on credentials? Do you rely on others' opinion? Aren't those pretty subjective and not very trustworthy? Also, if you read agit-prop, it is a foregone conclusion that the author has an agenda. By "another hidden agenda," do you mean a different agenda than the apparent aim of the propaganda? Why would someone write double-blind propaganda? Do you find that authors of propaganda do that often?
...the book "is the worst type of 'agit-prop' that exists.
What does that mean? Is it referring to the quality of the agit-prop, or is it an implication that all agit-prop is bad and that this is the worst of it? What criteria did "the reader" use for his/her evaluation? How did "the reader" arrive at a decision that the writing even qualifies as agit-prop?
It gives (some people) ammo to rationalize their... beliefs about energy and oil.
And what beliefs might those be? This statement implies that "the reader" has superior knowledge on the subject of oil and that anyone who disagrees requires a healthy bit of the "worst type" of agit-prop to prop up their invalid knowledge.
The problem is that people want to believe the 'information' in it, so they take no time to investigate the authors.
The fact that the word information is offered in quotes indicates that either you or "the reader" believe some parts of the book to be false. Are there any specific examples of this? What purpose does "investigating the authors" serve? If they offer evidence with attribution, what reason would you (or "the reader") have to doubt the veracity of the reference? Wouldn't your time be better served investigating the information instead of the authors? Does having an "agenda" preclude the ability to present factual information?
These two dudes have a serious and ultra-scary agenda  Invade Iran!!!
So you (or "the reader") would be opposed to invading Iran should they develop nuclear weapons? Would you (or "the reader") be opposed to any military action against Iran in that case, or is it just opposition to invasion?
The mediamatters hit-piece on Corsi was a textbook example of agit-prop in its own right.
Once you have that information, what do you do with it? How do you determine, up front, what the author's knowledge of a subject might be? Do you rely on credentials? Do you rely on others' opinion? Aren't those pretty subjective and not very trustworthy? Also, if you read agit-prop, it is a foregone conclusion that the author has an agenda. By "another hidden agenda," do you mean a different agenda than the apparent aim of the propaganda? Why would someone write double-blind propaganda? Do you find that authors of propaganda do that often?
...the book "is the worst type of 'agit-prop' that exists.
What does that mean? Is it referring to the quality of the agit-prop, or is it an implication that all agit-prop is bad and that this is the worst of it? What criteria did "the reader" use for his/her evaluation? How did "the reader" arrive at a decision that the writing even qualifies as agit-prop?
It gives (some people) ammo to rationalize their... beliefs about energy and oil.
And what beliefs might those be? This statement implies that "the reader" has superior knowledge on the subject of oil and that anyone who disagrees requires a healthy bit of the "worst type" of agit-prop to prop up their invalid knowledge.
The problem is that people want to believe the 'information' in it, so they take no time to investigate the authors.
The fact that the word information is offered in quotes indicates that either you or "the reader" believe some parts of the book to be false. Are there any specific examples of this? What purpose does "investigating the authors" serve? If they offer evidence with attribution, what reason would you (or "the reader") have to doubt the veracity of the reference? Wouldn't your time be better served investigating the information instead of the authors? Does having an "agenda" preclude the ability to present factual information?
These two dudes have a serious and ultra-scary agenda  Invade Iran!!!
So you (or "the reader") would be opposed to invading Iran should they develop nuclear weapons? Would you (or "the reader") be opposed to any military action against Iran in that case, or is it just opposition to invasion?
The mediamatters hit-piece on Corsi was a textbook example of agit-prop in its own right.
posted by Anonymous | 5:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home