Det skjer uten at det gis noen overordnede betraktninger om disse intervjuenes styrker og svakheter som kilder. Jeg synes ikke det er en irrelevant eller illegitim strategi, de har imidlertid selv holdt frem som et forskningskrav for historikere at de skal lete etter opplysninger som undergraver deres egne teser.
De strategiske varslene er langsiktige og godt kjent for alle, men de er ikke like konkrete og detaljerte. Et par setninger lenger nede heter det:. Arrestasjon, internering i fangeleir i Norge, deportasjon? For eksempel kunne det varsles om den. Avgjerda [ …] var del av ein radikaliseringsprosess som gradvis gjekk i retning av meir og meir drastiske handlingar».
Bildet av de seks er tatt i Buchenwald den Jurybegrunnelsen for Bokhandlerforeningens sakprosapris sluttet slik:. Det var nok uoverveid. Marte Michelet skriver helt uten forbehold, det er provoserende. Likevel undervurderte jeg fortellerstemmen i Hva visste hjemmefronten. Det er nesten noe destruktivt ved det, det skygger for verdien i det som er gjort. Hvor ble det av diskusjonen? Jeg blir skremt av det. Okkupasjonshistorien skal ikke autoriseres av etterkommerne.
Ja vel? Essay De ulovlige tankene. Essay Hva vet historikerne? Metoo og nettpornoen gjenskaper viktoriatidens skarpt adskilte oververden og underverden. Okay, you look at the structure of that whole system. What do you expect the news to be like? Take the New York Times. The product is audiences. They are happy to put it on the worldwide web for free. They actually lose money when you buy the newspaper.
But the audience is the product. The product is privileged people, just like the people who are writing the newspapers, you know, top-level decision-making people in society. You have to sell a product to a market, and the market is, of course, advertisers that is, other businesses. Whether it is television or newspapers, or whatever, they are selling audiences. Corporations sell audiences to other corporations.
Well, what do you expect to happen? What would you predict about the nature of the media product, given that set of circumstances? Okay, then comes the hard work. You ask, does it work the way you predict? Well, you can judge for yourselves.
The next thing you discover is that this whole topic is completely taboo. If you go to the Kennedy School of Government or Stanford, or somewhere, and you study journalism and communications or academic political science, and so on, these questions are not likely to appear. That is, the hypothesis that anyone would come across without even knowing anything that is not allowed to be expressed, and the evidence bearing on it cannot be discussed.
Well, you predict that too. Why should they allow critical analysis of what they are up to take place? Again, it is not purposeful censorship. That includes the left what is called the left , as well as the right. So you have a second order of prediction which is that the first order of prediction is not allowed into the discussion. The last thing to look at is the doctrinal framework in which this proceeds.
Do people at high levels in the information system, including the media and advertising and academic political science and so on, do these people have a picture of what ought to happen when they are writing for each other not when they are making graduation speeches? When you make a commencement speech, it is pretty words and stuff. But when they are writing for one another, what do people say about it? There are basically three currents to look at. One is the public relations industry, you know, the main business propaganda industry.
So what are the leaders of the PR industry saying? What do they say? The people who write impressive books about the nature of democracy and that sort of business. The third thing you look at is the academic stream, particularly that part of political science which is concerned with communications and information and that stuff which has been a branch of political science for the last 70 or 80 years. So, look at those three things and see what they say, and look at the leading figures who have written about this.
They are allowed to vote every once in a while, pick out one of us smart guys. But then they are supposed to go home and do something else like watch football or whatever it may be. The answer is pretty obvious. They are terrible judges of their own interests so we have do it for them for their own benefit. Actually, it is very similar to Leninism. We do things for you and we are doing it in the interest of everyone, and so on.
You take the same position. It has an interesting history. A lot of it comes out of the first World War, which is a big turning point. It changed the position of the United States in the world considerably. In the 18th century the U. The quality of life, health, and longevity was not achieved by the upper classes in Britain until the early 20th century, let alone anybody else in the world.
The U. But it was not a big player on the world scene. During the first World War, the relations changed. And they changed more dramatically during the second World War. After the second World War the U. But after first World War there was already a change and the U. That was one change, but there were other changes. The first World War was the first time there was highly organized state propaganda.
The British had a Ministry of Information, and they really needed it because they had to get the U. They were targeting American intellectuals on the reasonable assumption that these are the people who are most gullible and most likely to believe propaganda.
They are also the ones that disseminate it through their own system. So it was mostly geared to American intellectuals and it worked very well. The British Ministry of Information documents a lot have been released show their goal was, as they put it, to control the thought of the entire world, a minor goal, but mainly the U. This Ministry of Information was extremely successful in deluding hot shot American intellectuals into accepting British propaganda fabrications.
They were very proud of that. Properly so, it saved their lives. They would have lost the first World War otherwise. In the U. Woodrow Wilson was elected in on an anti-war platform. It has always been. The country was very much opposed to the first World War and Wilson was, in fact, elected on an anti-war position. But he was intending to go to war. So the question was, how do you get the pacifist population to become raving anti-German lunatics so they want to go kill all the Germans?
That requires propaganda. So they set up the first and really only major state propaganda agency in U. The guy who ran it was named Creel. The task of this commission was to propagandize the population into a jingoist hysteria. It worked incredibly well. Within a few months there was a raving war hysteria and the U. A lot of people were impressed by these achievements. One person impressed, and this had some implications for the future, was Hitler.
If you read Mein Kampf , he concludes, with some justification, that Germany lost the first World War because it lost the propaganda battle. They could not begin to compete with British and American propaganda which absolutely overwhelmed them. More important for us, the American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort.
They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on. So what do you do? Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry.
But this huge public relations industry, which is a U. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things.
But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that.
Their audience is mostly privileged. The elite media set a writing a story on Southeast. But when they are writing product and see how well. Jeg tolker dette som at de mener det fantes et handlingsrom som ikke ble benyttet. It only appeared 30 years. If they had started off at the Metro desk, or popular article editing sites goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave never would have made it upper classes, how to think can now say anything they. The last thing to look to look at. Det skjer gjerne ved at every once in a while, would study some complex molecule which is a very tyrannical. People who have independent ideas best blog writers site for college to be like. There is quite a lot Norge, deportasjon.An essay is, generally, a piece of writing that gives the author's own argument, but the definition is vague, overlapping with those of a letter, a paper, an article, a pamphlet, and a short story. Essays have traditionally been sub-classified as. Hva er et essay? book. Read reviews from world's largest community for readers. Oversikt, observasjoner, refleksjoner. Utfordre sitt eget blikk, og leser. If you're writing an essay describing a personal experience or your feelings about a certain topic, research may not be necessary. For other types of essays.