Propaganda Files: Accidental Propaganda?

The question, "Is there such a thing as accidental propaganda?" In other words, if there is no intent to propagandize, is the effect of a piece of writing or film sufficient to justify calling it "propaganda?" I bring this up because the Christian Datoc Washington Examiner piece I discussed yesterday has some interesting quirks of language. These quirks may have had effects on readers that were unintended by both Datoc and The Examiner. Without mind reading skills, I have no way of knowing the intentionality. Regardless, I think these quirks of writing are worth a brief look.

I think that I'm correct in saying that The Examiner is considered conservative. Therefore one might, in today's bipolar political environment, expect Examiner pieces to possibly be Kennedy-friendly as a way to undermine President Biden. Yet some of the language choices in yesterday's Datoc piece did Kennedy no favors.

For example, Datoc uses the line, "Kennedy claimed in a recently unearthed video that COVID-19 was genetically engineered to protect Chinese and Jewish people." This is a very curious translation or interpretation of what Kennedy actually said. Kennedy did not "claim" anything. He said that some people claimed it but did not himself take any ownership of it. Then the phrase "genetically engineered" comes into play. The problem is that one could torturously interpret "genetically engineered" multiple ways. Most readers would likely read it as implying human intervention or direction. Technically, however, one could say "genetically engineered" to simply refer to the virus engineering itself via natural selection or other processes.

Another line from Datoc's piece was "During Monday's briefing, however, Jean-Pierre directly refuted Kennedy's claims." First of all, she did not. The word "refute" has meaning. "Trying to refute" is not synonymous with "refute." Second, Datoc is gauging the nature and effectiveness of Jean-Pierre's presentation for the reader by baldly claiming that Jean-Pierre "refuted" Kennedy. Datoc is offering himself in a judge role, which isn't really his job. Worse for him, he got it wrong. Jean-Pierre did not refute Kennedy.

Conclusion

I can hypothesize that Datoc misstepped journalistically because he was reporting under deadline immediately after the press conference event, and he presumed that he was conveying the gist of the story. I think that he took too much interpretative responsibility onto himself and botched the piece with a couple of bad word choices. I suspect neither he nor The Examiner are very happy about it.

Bob Dietz

July 18, 2023

Propaganda Files: Straw Men, Lying, and Implying

As reported Monday by The Washington Examiner, the White House attacked some RFK Jr. statements. Undoubtedly because they preferred to not use actual quotes of what the man said, they manipulated and paraphrased in an effort to score points among those who don't grasp the finer points of evidence-based debate or the English language. As to whether Kennedy was trying to appear anti-Jewish without actually saying anything explicitly anti-Jewish, I have no idea.

It is, however, instructive to examine exactly what was said by the White House press secretary, even though she avoided directly quoting her target. The Examiner article by Christian Datoc made some curious language choices of its own, but let's save that for another day and tackle press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre's attempt to nail Kennedy. Here's a direct quote, courtesy of Datoc:

"I think if you look at the last two, three years since 2020, since this pandemic hit, there are countless Americans, American families who are seeing an empty seat at the Thanksgiving table. So the claims made on that tape are false. It is vile, and they put our fellow Americans in danger."

I feel it necessary to point out that this is all paraphrasing and NOT stating what Kennedy actually said, and it's basically a verbal gobbledygook that has no direct application to what Kennedy stated. This mishmash debunks nothing. Here's another Jean-Pierre word salad salvo:

"If you think about the racist and antisemitic conspiracy theories that come out of saying those types of things, it's an attack on our fellow citizens, our fellow Americans, and so it is important that we speak out when we hear those claims."

Note that Jean-Pierre still doesn't quote Kennedy directly, doesn't mention the points he was making, doesn't even try to refute what he said with data or logical argument. This would be a big fat fail in any debate class or civics class or technical writing class. She continues:

"the assertion that COVID was genetically engineered to spare Jewish and Chinese people is offensive, and incredibly dangerous."

Jean-Pierre, who I'm sure is very implication-savvy, throws the word "assertion" at the audience. I think most people have a very loose idea of what "assertion" really means, so of course I looked it up.

Assertion: a confident or forceful statement of fact or belief.

Well, since Kennedy did NOT assert this, I'd have to label Jean-Pierre a pure propagandist here. Kennedy mentions that the argument has been made that COVID was designed to do this, but then immediately states that he does not know whether it was deliberately targeted or not. He uses a weasel technique, passive voice, to bring the idea to mind, but then states that he has no evidence to back up the idea. If you mention something but then undercut it a sentence later, that is NOT making "a confident or forceful statement of fact or belief." In other words, Jean-Pierre is not being truthful in her characterization of what Kennedy said.

Kennedy

Here's what Kennedy actually said:

"COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese."

Followed by:

"We don't know whether it was deliberately targeted or not, but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact."

Now Kennedy isn't blameless here. The phrase "is targeted" can be read as implying agency. But the fact is that Kennedy makes his salient point, namely that certain people are more resistant to COVID-19 than others, which (if false) is what Jean-Pierre should have made clear to the millions listening to her.

But she didn't do that. And you haven't exactly heard the topic explored on CNN or MSNBC, so guess what? I'd bet that Mr. Kennedy has these particular facts pretty much correct. Based on the White House content and style, I've gotta believe Jean-Pierre not refuting these differential COVID-19 effects means she cannot.

Back and Forth

Kennedy tweeted on Saturday that he "never, ever said that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews." He then stated that the US and other countries were indeed developing ethnically targeted bioweapons. Outside of recent James Bond movies, I know nothing about this, but perhaps he does. 

Meanwhile, the White House press secretary wrapped up her propaganda spree with:

"Every aspect of these comments reflect some of the most abhorrent antisemitic conspiracy theories throughout history and contributes to today's dangerous rise of antisemitism, and so this is something that, you know, this president and this whole administration is going to stand against."

At no point does she try to refute Kennedy's core argument, namely that some people are provably more immune to COVID-19 than others. Instead we get some flag waving and rhetoric that has not much to do with Kennedy's comments.

Going Forward

I never thought anything could be worse than President Trump's press secretaries. But here we are. Jean-Pierre doesn't even bother to address, argue, or refute the core statements being made by Kennedy. Instead she's off on some oblique God Save the Queen (or maybe the Jews) attack rant. The days of someone saying something factual, and then being refuted, appear to be finished. The factual-ness of what's being said gets drowned out by verbal camouflage and appeals to wokeness. 

If the White House designs and promotes this kind of trash propaganda against political rivals, where do we go from here? This kind of thing, I think, is actually worse than hearing blustery "Low Energy Jeb" and "Pocahontas" when Trump was holding forth. At least he helmed his own hatchet speeches.

Bob Dietz

July 17, 2023

Cocaine, Kardashians, and Alien Abductions

I suppose some of you are wondering about the title. Well, I am going to do something rare, namely plug an offshore sports book. BetOnline.ag had odds on everything in the title. I love it. The props were listed under "Entertainment" futures. 

Until a few days ago, BetOnline had odds for, "Who is the owner of the White House cocaine?" The first number I had seen from them was Hunter Biden as the favorite at +170. People must know something about Travis Kelce, the KC tight end, because he was originally listed as the fourth choice at a miserly +800. In an odds move reminiscent of Score's Lock of the Year, Hunter Biden took all kinds of money quickly. His odds blew up to -500. Kelce tumbled into Snoop Dogg territory (+1200). Of course, now that the Secret Service has put a lid on the cocaine investigation (they "don't know and have no suspects" -- LOL), BetOnline pulled the cocaine odds. Damned shame.

Meanwhile, "Kim Kardashian's Next Lover" has also been yanked as a prop. If anyone is wondering about an ethnicity angle, Tom Brady was the first white dude listed, a fifth choice at +800. I suppose that suggests that Brady is a real man about town, which has been rumored for some time.

Fortunately, we can all still bet on aliens. We can wager on their skin color, where they will first land (Russia and the U.S. co-faves at +1200), and who will be abducted first. Trump is the fave at +2000.

I realize that people will bemoan no longer being able to bet on cocaine and Kim K's next lover, but BetOnline offers plenty of alternative action. Kevin Spacey's next lover, for example. Plus an entire array of props regarding the Zuckerberg/Musk cage fight. Most of the latter involve penis length, but action is action.

Are These Real Bets?

Evidently they are. I just tried to put a few bucks on Musk's penis length being longer than Zuckerberg's. Musk is -200. The wager panels worked. I did not confirm my bet, but everything seems to be live and working. 

While it is indeed sad that I failed to have the courage of my Musk convictions, at some point I will hit the confirm button. What am I waiting for? Well, I'm notoriously tight, like Musk, and the size of the wager must be rigorously debated.

Bob Dietz

July 16, 2023

Cubs' Relief Pitching: A Rant

Well, I'm no baseball expert, but somebody please fire the Cubs' manager, David Ross. I have no understanding of how managing hires are made, but I can't find any reason for this guy to be heading one of the classic, historic, iconic MLB squads. His pitcher choices have become almost legendary -- akin to Seinfeld's George Costanza before he realized that he should just do the opposite of whatever he was planning to do. Ross has become a reverse manager -- someone who somehow has a gift for losing games. Last week, Cubs' management made the comment that the Cubs have a real knack for losing games that aren't pretty. The handwriting appears to be on the wall, so somebody please underline it in Day-Glo chalk and read it aloud.

Whereas the Reds blindly stagger through all manner of emotionally draining, extra-inning twister games and manage to win, the Cubs flail like windmills with broken arms.

I tried to come up with an appropriate analogy for Cubs' middle relief. Please pick one of the following:

(1) The Cubs' middle relief is like a pinata. It gets hit until the fans' guts fall out.

(2) The Cubs' middle relief is like watching Joe Frazier versus George Foreman. You close your eyes until someone tells you it's over. And you never really need to ask what happened.

(3) Cubs' middle relief is like tattoos on Tub Girl. They're a minor respite and distraction until, inevitably, you throw up.

Please choose (1), (2) or (3) and email your preference to IntegritySports@aol.com.

Thanks.

Bob Dietz

July 6, 2023

Affirmative Action Ruling

Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down the judgement that affirmative action should not be a guiding principle in college admissions. MSNBC immediately did a harbinger-of-doom piece suggesting that the world will now go to hell in a handbasket. Me? I'm ambivalent, but I have my own recommended solution.

My Background

I'm white, German/Polish, male, and from a small town and a relatively poor school district. By "relatively poor," I mean that when I was 15, some 23 schools in Pennsylvania were labeled as unsuitable and unsafe. Seven of those schools were in the collection of small mining towns comprising my school district. By "unsafe," I don't mean that people were selling drugs (much) or taking guns to school. It meant that the schools themselves were dilapidated and falling down around students' ears. 

I spent the first 10 years of my life in half a double my father was able to rent for $50 a month from the elderly women next door because my grandfather, the milkman, was considered an honorable and respectable man. My father did various chores for the two women to augment the $50 rent payment. Winter nights were somewhat cold in the Dietz household at that time. Heat was at a premium even though my grandfather also wildcatted coal at night from mines all over the county.

Being white, German, and male did not aid me in my attempts to go to college. What paid the bill was a National Merit Scholarship because I managed 1450 on the SAT and graduated first in my high school class. At Penn State, I still had "Popcorn Tuesdays" where all I ate was popcorn because my scholarship sort of covered my expenses, but not by much. And yes, I had a roommate in my studio apartment. And yes, my friend on the track team sneaked me into the athletic cafeteria for an occasional free meal. 

This is no "Coal Miner Elegy" riff. It was all banal stuff to be overcome. 

Ambiguity as a Plus

I have a friend who is half Caucasian and half Japanese. When applying for college and grad school, this prospective student had the option of labeling as White or Asian and opted for White because whites are held to a lower standard. I saluted the strategic thinking.

On Thursday, CNN's Abby Phillip interviewed Kenny Xu, one of the members of the organization that won the affirmative action case. When Xu rightly pointed out that admittance standards are lowered for Black students, Phillip (who is Black) abruptly ended the interview. Xu had stated that an Asian student must score 270 points higher to be on an equal admittance footing with a Black student. Evidently, one cannot have that on CNN. Would it have killed Phillip to end the interview with "Thanks for the facts," as opposed to "Thank you for your perspective." Recently, CNN seems to have a tough time understanding that "facts" and "perspective" are not synonyms.

I'm not going to weep because race has been downgraded as a college admittance factor. Of course, as  populations, Black and Hispanic students are at a disadvantage educationally in the United States. That isn't the fault of the current crop of White students and certainly not the fault of the current crop of Asian students. 

My Solution

I haven't mentioned recently that I'm left of Marx when it comes to most mega-societal issues like education, health care, and support of unions. I say that if people want en masse affirmative action, scale college admissions to socioeconomic status. My perspective is radical. Scale admissions to the proportion of candidates in distinct economic categories. Are you the child of a one-percenter? One percent of college admissions are reserved for you. And so on down to poverty levels. That would be interesting.

Okay, so nobody is going to buy that. To those of us who are left of Marx, it's still better than admitting on a curve based on race.

Bob Dietz

June 30, 2023

Submersibles, Race Cars, and a P-40: Halo Effects

Skydiving was never on my bucket list. In fact, I've never been a big fan of high-risk physical endeavors. As someone who's a consultant to high stakes sports gamblers, one might think I wouldn't be risk averse. But I am. Basically, my job for 45 years has been to cull 99.9% of all gambling opportunities and continually tell people, "No, that's a bad idea."

I never, as I said, had any interest in skydiving. As a student at Penn State's Pattee Library, I'd read quite a few skydiving magazines. The back pages were filled with listings of accidents, almost all of which had the tagline, "Death by impact."

My youngest brother drove an explosives truck for years, then helped manage a warehouse filled with blasting supplies. I never wanted either job. 

Halo Effects

One thing about gambling is that if you're wearing a halo because you did something great, it can quickly become an albatross, and eventually a noose, if you're not committed to an unrelenting process of self-evaluation. This brings us to the heavy burden of being a billionaire or thereabouts. And I'm not kidding. It cannot be an easy thing to be a billionaire or flagship business commander and to grasp, as Harry Callahan famously says at the conclusion of Magnum Force, that "A man's got to know his limitations."

In one week, a collection of older gentlemen all died doing things I cannot understand. The Titan submersible implodes 12,000 feet down, filled with a crew of fearless, intelligent men who really should have known better. Meanwhile, billionaire James Crown, 70, died at a Woody Creek racetrack near Aspen, Colorado on Sunday, June 25. Driving solo, he crashed into an impact barrier. Yesterday, Paul Ehlen, founder of Precision Lens back in the '90s, died shortly after takeoff while solo piloting a vintage P-40E.

Why did these accomplished men make such high-risk behavioral decisions? As athletes and human beings, they are well past their physical and reaction-time primes. Why put at risk your responsibilities to the vast resources you've accrued? So you could play John Wayne?

Maybe nobody told them that these were really stupid, irresponsible things to do. Maybe that's the burden of being uber successful and in charge. People around you tend to not proclaim when you're doing dumb things.

Halo effects perceived by others have those dangers. The real and ultimate issue, however, may be when supermen fail to understand that being superhuman in the past or being superhuman at one task doesn't carry over into new decades or different endeavors. We degrade. And being great at one thing is no guarantee of being competent at something else. The uber accomplished often shoulder the additional problem of being insulated from frank criticism or call-outs. In a way, their accomplishments have earned them added danger.

In the world of gambling, halo effects have done the best of the best no favors. For Stu Ungar, poker savant, it was sports betting. For T.J. Cloutier, another great poker player, he liked the dice. For some famous successful sports handicappers like Tony Salinas and Mike Lee, the ponies kept calling. Why does everyone want to conquer the world?

What kind of a culture drives the best and brightest to try to exceed their limitations? Why is sound judgement not as valued as swashbuckling? The irony of the Titan, of course, is that the arrogant use of non-standard design, materials, and protocols was used to seek out the Titanic, itself a metaphor for technological arrogance. The irony of it all should have served as a blazing red alert.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, all of the accomplishments of these men likely carried the seeds of their own destruction.

Bob Dietz

June 28, 2023

More Thoughts on the LIV/PGA Merger

I suppose my cynical outlook contributed to my getting so many aspects of LIV versus PGA correct. As I noted in my May 23 (2023) "LIV and Super Bowl III," Koepka stood in for Joe Namath, and the 2023 PGA Championship stood in admirably for Super Bowl III. Of course, just as with the NFL/AFL scenario in 1969, negotiations were clearly long in progress before the events' results sanctified the negotiations.

What right did anyone have to question, based on alleged competition level, Joe Namath's 400K bonus for signing with the AFL Jets? What right did anyone have to denigrate DeChambeau or Koepka or Dustin Johnson or Mickelson, based on competition level, for signing with LIV? 

On June 5, the day BEFORE the LIV/PGA merger was made public, I wrote "LIV vs. PGA: More Eamon Lynch." The closing paragraph implied that the LIV and PGA goals and priorities were virtually synonymous. The primary difference was simply the acronym used.

Did PGA Golfers Really Not See the Handwriting on the Wall?

I guess I'm surprised that many of the PGA golfers said that they were surprised by the merger announcement. Or perhaps most of it was feigned surprise. Surely, the PGA golfers had to have some sense of the scale involved. Back on July 5 (2022) in my "The Saudi Golf Tour (Part Two)," I wrote:

"Watching an attempted monopoly (the PGA) twist in the wind because it lacks the funding to compete on equal terms with what amounts to a proprietorship is...quite funny. All that American wealth overmatched by non-American wealth. It doesn't happen that often. We should appreciate the show."

Is the show now finished with the merger announcement? Well, not quite. American political factions will try to pick up some morality points by challenging the merger. Not as entertaining as watching the Saudi sharks gobble up the PGA guppies (to employ one of Eamon Lynch's metaphors), but hand-wringing and loud speeches on "sportswashing" will, at some point, make their way onto CNN. 

Until then, let's just enjoy the golf. The merger, in my mind, seemed likely from the beginning of all this. The PGA players' financial managers must have spelled it out for them. And yet none of the PGA stalwarts, buttressed by their unflinching morality, publicly anticipated the merger and jumped ship for the Japanese Tour. 

To quote the great philosopher, Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Bob Dietz

June 16, 2023