Alice Klein's nonpartisan appeal

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

[img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]



Originally posted by remind:
[b]Such a quote, could be used a propaganda tool to sooth (decrease the stress) of those who wasted their vote by voting strategically, or for the lesser of 2 evils, as opposed to their choice. The unpleasant memory of their failure has to be turned into a positive perception in order for the same propaganda to work again.[/b]

So all those who faithfully voted NDP, even those in ridings where their actions handed the seat to the Harper candidate, must take pride and comfort in their great success? They should never question their tactics?

Again: all this is founded on the supposition that Liberals under Dion would be no less destructive than Conservatives under Harper, and also, that minority governments are not better than majority governments.

This is ideology and itself it is a product of propaganda.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Some continue to be confused about the topic here. The subject is not strategic voting [i]per se[/i], but rather Alice Klein and her peculiar spin on strategic voting.



Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b] [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]




Originally posted by remind:
[b]False dichotomy and an inherently flawed compare, sprinkled with shifting sands of positions made, now disguarded when they were illuminated as being false and flawed.

Klein herself has been exposed as being a regressive thinker/doer, she aligned herself with a partisan person, to advocate people vote strategically according to their dictates. Basically it was an attempt to "whip" the left vote.

As such, the way it was used by Klein et al is decidedly regressive in its propaganda intent and privileged belief that they knew better than the other unwashed masses did.

Like nuclear bombs there is nothing inherently destructive in them, until they are used upon others.[/b]

Klein actually was the creator/maker of the site and her corporation's 20 grand of "investment" that created the "internet template." In order for it to have "national relevance", she needed to partner with "others with a like-minded vision" to gain broad-based support from "sea to sea" for "their vision of their Canada."

This look at the rise of NOW from its lowly beginnings to a "corporation" also provides some insight. I found this comment by Klein about herself in the past "blissful ignorance" that they could actually change the world, and perhaps how she may perceive a lot of her "readers" now: blissfully ignorant, like she once was.
[url=]That was then, and this is Now[/url]


"We had a huge sense of our whole generation and our culture being underrepresented, and we were outrageous enough to think that we were the ones who were going to do it," says Klein nostalgically. "We had that sort of blissful ignorance."

Although the dateline is 2003, this nugget may provide the expanse of readership since this time:


A private company, Now isn't required to disclose its revenues, but it's possible to estimate its size. Richard Karpel is executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN), whose 118 publications across North America generate approximately U.S. $500 million annually. Karpel says Now sits between the 12th and 20th of the association's top earners. Klein's view is less modest: "I think Now is, in terms of size and revenue and readership, definitely well up in the top 10? maybe in the top five."

[b]That sounds like a lot of "bissfully ignorant" target for the regressive propaganda speil.[/b]


Closing for length. Please open a new thread.


Topic locked