Thread: This is what today's news does to a story...

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

So what was the point of posting this story?

It referenced these 'paramilitaries' as if they were the same freedom fighters that started the Revolutionary War. Is this story really trying to make that comparison?

The point was as I described earlier. It attempts to answer the question "If the mainstream media of today covered the story of the first shot fired in the Revolutionary War, what would that look like?" I find that interesting to say the least, and I thought I'd share it with others to see where the discussion leads.

It's interesting because it helps put some of the news we are spoon fed by the mainstream media today on subjects like Syria or Edward Snowden for example in perspective.

Originally Posted by SapiensErus

Oh life happens sometimes. You will see me around more, life is brighter these days. I also left my job as a chef to stay in academia entirely... my ego is too large to work with so many other big egos; the money sucks too. Plus I feel I can contribute by eventually helping to educate people on say ... media literacy and understanding science. It's a pleasure to see all of you again.

Likewise. Hey admit it, you're the guy from the Golden Corral video posted here and you got fired, right? ;-P

No, when soy cooks tripe, it's actually tripe and not shit.

Sent from my SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

If this were in Modern news The Name Suk Mi Siad Weys would replace Samuel Adams. hehehe.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Likewise. Hey admit it, you're the guy from the Golden Corral video posted here and you got fired, right? ;-P

lol....I think there is a pic floating around here of Soy with a shit-ton of knives.....I wouldn't play with him, Laz.

Actually, Soy is one of the most respectful people I have ever had the pleasure to disagree with. It's nice to see you around again, and great to hear that you are working your mind again. Now I just need to hear the deep voice again......get ArmA 3 and come play with us.

My problem with the article is that it does not just put it in modern terms, it uses specific language to factions, objects and political-concepts that did not exist then. And it follows with a very specific message that has nothing to do with the history it pretends to describe. You could replace a lot of the words and strike the message at the end to achieve the desired result they claim to be stating.

Replace "National Guard" with "British Soldiers" or maybe "British Troops" or even "Red-Coats". Comparing occupying british soldiers to our National Guard is just rubbish.

Replace "Right-wing" with "colonial" or "rebel". The tax protest was largely colonial citizens who were rebelling against the occupying oppressors from the old-world. Right-wing is something very different in today's vernacular.

Replace extremists with "colonial rebels".

Replace "assault weapons" with "small arms" or "guns". Remember, there were not "Assault Weapons" in those days, guns varied mostly on their age and expense, but not even remotely to the extremes that hunting vs. assault rifles do.

We could edit other language as well, but those words I listed as well as the conclusion by the editors clearly show that this rewrite is propaganda for a very specific political mindset. It is not a demonstration of how modern media versus past-contemporary media would be, it is stating an opinion in a very opaque effort to be persuasive. And what it tries to suggest is appalling.

Originally Posted by SapiensErus

My problem with the article is that it does not just put it in modern terms, it uses specific language to factions, objects and political-concepts that did not exist then. And it follows with a very specific message that has nothing to do with the history it pretends to describe. You could replace a lot of the words and strike the message at the end to achieve the desired result they claim to be stating.

Replace "National Guard" with "British Soldiers" or maybe "British Troops" or even "Red-Coats". Comparing occupying british soldiers to our National Guard is just rubbish.

Replace "Right-wing" with "colonial" or "rebel". The tax protest was largely colonial citizens who were rebelling against the occupying oppressors from the old-world. Right-wing is something very different in today's vernacular.

Replace extremists with "colonial rebels".

Replace "assault weapons" with "small arms" or "guns". Remember, there were not "Assault Weapons" in those days, guns varied mostly on their age and expense, but not even remotely to the extremes that hunting vs. assault rifles do.

We could edit other language as well, but those words I listed as well as the conclusion by the editors clearly show that this rewrite is propaganda for a very specific political mindset. It is not a demonstration of how modern media versus past-contemporary media would be, it is stating an opinion in a very opaque effort to be persuasive. And what it tries to suggest is appalling.

Wow..... just wow. You sir are one of the most intelligent people i know yet you cannot see it. Im really surprised. Now i wouldn't expect you to believe that current conditions closely resemble the times depicted in this faux article. This is the kind of "twisting" of language that we see everyday in politics, and from the MSM. The point here is that the media will use words that are related but not identical in meaning to ad emphasis and drama to a story to press an agenda. Most of the time i think its just to push the agenda of making money, but sometimes i do believe its more sinister. Unfortunately, there are a ton of people that will not consider this article an exercise in language and how it can paint several different pictures of the same landscape, but use it as a rally cry because the Gub'ment is commin to take ur guns.


On a side note, and an illustration of how language is used for an agenda, the term assault weapon most certainly is appropriate in this instance. The "assualt weapon" is currently a contemporary firearm that is very efficient for killing on todays modern battlefield, regardless of rate of fire or number of bullets in the magazine. (Whether its an effective citizen defense weapon is another story, so i wont get into that) But, if we were to apply the same argument (logic?) to the weapons of the day in 1775, the Pennsylvania rifle and the Kentucky long rife would be on the top of the list of guns to confiscate, yet by todays standards they are not even on the radar of the anti gun crowd. By the end days of the war, The Kentucky long rifle in particular struck fear in the hearts of those that were aware they would be facing soldiers wielding it.

On taxes..... i think one could argue that there is indeed a fair amount of "taxation without representation". Obviously not to the extent experienced by the people of the revolutionary era, but it exists and its getting worse. Perhaps its more a case of "very poorly administered tax money" today.

I have read this a few times on Facebook. I find it somewhat amusing, but nothing more. To those saying the media wouldn't "spin" stories this way then explain to me why George Zimmerman is still called a white man by many media outlets.

Thanks guys. I was starting to think I was the only one that "gets it" with regard to the intent of this faux story.

Originally Posted by SpecOpsScott

Wow..... just wow. You sir are one of the most intelligent people i know yet you cannot see it. Im really surprised. Now i wouldn't expect you to believe that current conditions closely resemble the times depicted in this faux article. This is the kind of "twisting" of language that we see everyday in politics, and from the MSM. The point here is that the media will use words that are related but not identical in meaning to ad emphasis and drama to a story to press an agenda. Most of the time i think its just to push the agenda of making money, but sometimes i do believe its more sinister. Unfortunately, there are a ton of people that will not consider this article an exercise in language and how it can paint several different pictures of the same landscape, but use it as a rally cry because the Gub'ment is commin to take ur guns.


On a side note, and an illustration of how language is used for an agenda, the term assault weapon most certainly is appropriate in this instance. The "assualt weapon" is currently a contemporary firearm that is very efficient for killing on todays modern battlefield, regardless of rate of fire or number of bullets in the magazine. (Whether its an effective citizen defense weapon is another story, so i wont get into that) But, if we were to apply the same argument (logic?) to the weapons of the day in 1775, the Pennsylvania rifle and the Kentucky long rife would be on the top of the list of guns to confiscate, yet by todays standards they are not even on the radar of the anti gun crowd. By the end days of the war, The Kentucky long rifle in particular struck fear in the hearts of those that were aware they would be facing soldiers wielding it.

On taxes..... i think one could argue that there is indeed a fair amount of "taxation without representation". Obviously not to the extent experienced by the people of the revolutionary era, but it exists and its getting worse. Perhaps its more a case of "very poorly administered tax money" today.

I agree. Further we have gotten much better at spinning in modern times. I am sure most terrorists think they are rebels or freedom-fighters while most conventional military units do not consider themselves enemy-occupiers, sympathizers or loyalists for example. Government vs. regime is another.

On the issue of the guns, the British banned all guns and gunpowder. The article says "banned assault weapons". This is to compare it to current legislature attempts to ban certain categories of weapons. No specific types of guns were banned, hey banned everything from the arquebus to more modern weapons with rifled barrels and prepackaged charges. A ban on guns and gunpowder broadly.

As far as taxation... they specifically said "right-wing". I think most people who would be considered liberal or left-wing have issues with taxes also. The differences are just to the degree and to which groups as well as to where those taxes go. I hate paying taxes! But I feel an obligation to contribute to the pot, and hope to see benefits from it. Some people want to see stronger military and law-enforcement, while others want to see free healthcare and education (yay for my home-state on the education note).

In any case I know you know these things, and that you see the obvious slant on the way they presented an example of modern retelling. I just had to point at the differences in more detail to make myself feel better. I just think a more modern retelling would do more justice to spin in terms of British vs. colonials rather than right-wing American citizens vs. the left-wing federal government in a military clash.