The Architecture of Right Wing Propaganda

I really like David Packman and I listen to his show regularly.

In this excerpt, he brilliantly deconstructs Tucker Carlson's argument about the FBI's alleged involvement in the Capitol Riot.

He also explains how right-wing propagandists create a false story, which then gains momentum among listeners and interest from some elected Republicans.

Fox and other conservative networks use a communication model that purposely entertains the craziest conspiracy theories in order to retain the more receptive Republican audience.



Enjoy.

 

Can you define "far right"?

I ask this every time a liberal posts this phrase, and there's never a definition. The right hasn't moved to the far right. The left has moved to the far left. I get it. When you're way out there in left field, and moving further left, the right gets farther away.

But it's the left that's moved. Not us.

 

This was the GOP platform of 1956. Now you can see what Democrats are talking about.

 

Good question.

It's reasonable to say that those who still support Trump today are on the more right wing of the political spectrum.

However, 'far right' does not mean extreme right, which refers to neo-Nazis.

 

This is certainly a great illustration of how the right wingnut echo chamber works. It is a very good deconstruction.

I'll summarize because it's well worth it.

Tucker Carlson talks about two guys who were not mentioned in an indictment. And with that basis, and that basis only he says "maybe X" (i.e. maybe they are FBI agents, in this case), "X is possible", even though there is no evidence... or even so much as an indication. . Then he elaborates assuming that X is fact, about how "others" might be involved in X . The next day he brings in a guy who also says that everything may suggest X, but also not providing any evidence of X. Soon after, a Party of Trump extremist (like Lois Gomert) brings X to the floor of Congress. After which Tucker brings "experts" who talk about how an investigation of X could be carried out. And then he makes up a narrative about how some unnamed "left winger" is "scandalized" because Tucker dared "reveal" X.... and finally he demands that we prove him wrong.

All this because two guys who stormed the capital were not mentioned by name in the indictment of a third insurrectionists!

It's mindboggling. But exactly the type of nonsense that the most loyalist Trump follower would fall for.

 

I have to disagree. This is limited to the Right. I have never seen anything like this on the left. And it's not the only case. It's how just about every conspiracy theory, especially those fabricated by Tucker Carlson, develop.

 

Carlson asked questions. The FBI has a well known history of these things. My memory dates back to the early 70s and the Wounded Knee massacre. There is too much history and court case background to ignore the implications Tucker brings up. Only those with an agenda ignore the obvious.

 

History and facts = fabrication. Liberal logic 101.

Funny how the neo-liberals are nothing like their predecessors. Neo-liberals are all about central control and government authority.

 

Carlson repeated an article in Revolver. Lawyers on both sides of the issue disagree. What is incontraefutable fact is that according to history and case law the FBI has done this many times before.

 

Snopes rates that meme as a mix of truth and not.

 

Not so! There was plenty of evidence against Kavanaugh. And the fact that he lied under oath, even though the lie was not substantive (falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus), made him particularly suspicious. Even if we assumed that Kavanaugh was innocent (which I would never do), that's miles away from how conspiracy theories manufactured by people like Tucker Carlson. I mean... a whole "scandal" against the FBI that takes up days and days of airtime, and an "investigation" being demanded on the floor of Congress.... all based on the one and only fact that the name of two insurrectionists was not provided in the indictment of a third one. And absolutely nothing more than that! There is no witness, no indication whatsoever that these were FBI agents. Nothing! He just made it up from beginning to end.

There is absolutely nothing even remotely comparable to this anywhere other than the right. But this is not new on the right. They have been doing it for decades. Just that now they have had so much practice that they do it without much effort.

 

Those that ignore history will insure it is repeated. Why were warnings ignored?

 

Is it true that you choke kittens in your spare time?

I find it odd that you don't take the time to demonstrate that you don't.

I'm not saying that you choke kittens, I'm just asking the question.

 

Not surprised you resort to nonsense when you have been bested by facts.

 

What facts are you talking about?

Is there any evidence that the FBI had anything to do with organizing the Capitol Riot?

No.

Like Carlson, you only have doubts that are heavily tainted by your political views.

 

The OP is a great example of projection.

 

Well, doesn't that take FOIA requests and court cases? Questions need to be answered. Sticking your head in the sand only keeps you ignorant.

 

So how about showing the 1956 Democratic platform so we can compare?

 

And never a real investigation.....so there is that!