Watch the SPD leaders conspire with the General Staff to keep the rabble away from the centres of power in November and December 1918: a tale of opportunities missed and the triumph of the 'moderates'
The "German Revolution" of 1918 "erupted when the transformation of the autocratic empire into a parliamentary democracy was practically complete and the end of the war was only a matter of a few days…This democratic upheaval is the work of the last imperial chancellor, Prince Max of Baden." Yet Prince Max is hardly mentioned in Part 1 or 2 of this otherwise interesting essay. The German Revolution of 1848 had *begun* in BADEN, occurred elsewhere (e.g. Berlin and Vienna) but BADEN was also *the last place* to hold out against the forces of autocracy, when the revolutionary forces there were crushed by PRUSSIAN troops. BADEN sent more delegates to the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848 than anywhere else. BADEN had, since the late 18th century, long been the most liberal and forward-looking state in Germany. No accident then that it was a Prince of BADEN who, as last Imperial Chancellor, terminated the German Imperial monarchy in 1918, BUT this same prince, most likely out of cowardice and a sheer lack of imagination, then completely betrayed the German people when he opted to surrender Germany to the Allies on the basis of a *western* programme, Woodrow Wilson's abstract 14 Points, instead of ending it in accordance with truly Central European, German ideas rooted in reality such as those of the Threefold Social Organism put forward by Rudolf Steiner, who met with Prince Max and tried to persuade him to end the war in that way, which would have given Germany dignity and the world a truly modern and constructive solution that would have headed off both communism and fascism as well as western corporate vulture capitalism. But the Prince failed to act accordingly. Steiner described Prince Max's failure as a "spiritual capitulation" to the West, which paralleled the military capitulation. THIS failure, the failure of Prince Max, who after his failure, resigned as Chancellor and disappeared from the scene, was Germany's great tragedy in the autumn of 1918 - Terry M. Boardman www.threeman.org
As to the 'invisible hand', well, that one was always 'hidden in plain sight', as we're reminded by none other than Adam Smith.
With respect to the 'guardians of the narrative', at this point I'm honestly questioning as to why, and in particular much much longer, 'the internet' will remain as a platform for dissenting voices. I suppose that the intent behind Google, Facebook, and their ilk has always been to try to 'channel' information and 'supervise' the proles, but this hasn't always worked.
You see, the internet has two sides: one that's kinda oppressive and censorious, run by 'private' corporations in cahoots with th deep state, and the other one that allows the much freer circulation of information than was possible earlier.
Also, compared to the 'Printing Revolution' (E. Eisenstein), the bar-of-entry for literally anyone to participate in online conversations has never been lower.
So, there's costs and benefits, as always, and I'd say--the internet is (still) a net-positive outcome for freedom of speech and the like, but it's beyond question that the powers-that-be are working very hard, and ceaselessly, to change all that.
If you're interested in the role of news and media, I recommend Steven G. Marks, The Information Nexus (Cambridge, 2017), who provides a quite good account of the past 500-600 years of 'information' and 'capitalism'.
1) There is no functional difference between reporting news and propaganda, disregarding outright fabrications.
2) All media are always biased: the form sets loose frames for how obvious and to what extent this bias can bloom.
3) Everyone believes himself to be discerning, immune to peer pressure and groupthink - and if everyone believes that and reinforces that belief communally, is that not then the very essence of groupthink and peer pressure? Hence, before we even finish a text, the initial paragraph will have put us in a more or less critical and analytical mood, depending on our own bias and its triggers.
4) Everybody wants something when writing, be it grandiose or personal.
5) The more spontaneously homogenous a society the freer information/knowledge and opinion can be, as all those who communicate do so within lready pre-known frames of reference. Therefore they can have much more divergent opinions, values and so on. In a heterogenous or individualistic (modern meaning) society, values, mores and opinions must be imparted from authority so that the communicators (us) have at least a lowest common denominator for meaning of words etc. And in a multicultural an heterogenous society, the authority needs muct be brutal and absolute in its enforcement of this lowest common denominator, else other strong groups will wrest control of the authority's prerogative as rectifier (swedish uses the word "likriktare" meaning something or someone who steers a flow in its proper direction, originally an electrical gadget - Gleichrichter in german).
To conclude, the above text is an example of itself in itself, as it segues from short simple and highly interpretable answers to making political statements wrapped in communications theory as to hide said political nature.
As for our esteemed historian, I'll say again that you spoil your readers. Discourse such as this one can no longer get even in the specialist magazines on academic topics. It's all gloss, drama, hype and theatrics. The trudge and grind in the Grottekvarn (from Gróttasöngr in the Poetic Edda) of going to the root sources is a lost art, for most, so these articles are a real treat.
I herewith refer 'merely' to your concluding paragraph (for the remainder is, I'd argue, self-evidently true): much obliged, my good sir.
Sadly, you're correct about the overwhelming majority of these aspects with respect to specialist magazines and (on) academic topics. Ralf Holtkotte, editor of R. Müller's 1920s account of the Revolution, is currently a post-doctoral researcher, hence within academia--question is: will he manage to obtain a professorship? (I hope so, but I doubt it.)
The "German Revolution" of 1918 "erupted when the transformation of the autocratic empire into a parliamentary democracy was practically complete and the end of the war was only a matter of a few days…This democratic upheaval is the work of the last imperial chancellor, Prince Max of Baden." Yet Prince Max is hardly mentioned in Part 1 or 2 of this otherwise interesting essay. The German Revolution of 1848 had *begun* in BADEN, occurred elsewhere (e.g. Berlin and Vienna) but BADEN was also *the last place* to hold out against the forces of autocracy, when the revolutionary forces there were crushed by PRUSSIAN troops. BADEN sent more delegates to the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848 than anywhere else. BADEN had, since the late 18th century, long been the most liberal and forward-looking state in Germany. No accident then that it was a Prince of BADEN who, as last Imperial Chancellor, terminated the German Imperial monarchy in 1918, BUT this same prince, most likely out of cowardice and a sheer lack of imagination, then completely betrayed the German people when he opted to surrender Germany to the Allies on the basis of a *western* programme, Woodrow Wilson's abstract 14 Points, instead of ending it in accordance with truly Central European, German ideas rooted in reality such as those of the Threefold Social Organism put forward by Rudolf Steiner, who met with Prince Max and tried to persuade him to end the war in that way, which would have given Germany dignity and the world a truly modern and constructive solution that would have headed off both communism and fascism as well as western corporate vulture capitalism. But the Prince failed to act accordingly. Steiner described Prince Max's failure as a "spiritual capitulation" to the West, which paralleled the military capitulation. THIS failure, the failure of Prince Max, who after his failure, resigned as Chancellor and disappeared from the scene, was Germany's great tragedy in the autumn of 1918 - Terry M. Boardman www.threeman.org
Aloha PolarNijna,
it's the rhyming of history, I suppose.
As to the 'invisible hand', well, that one was always 'hidden in plain sight', as we're reminded by none other than Adam Smith.
With respect to the 'guardians of the narrative', at this point I'm honestly questioning as to why, and in particular much much longer, 'the internet' will remain as a platform for dissenting voices. I suppose that the intent behind Google, Facebook, and their ilk has always been to try to 'channel' information and 'supervise' the proles, but this hasn't always worked.
You see, the internet has two sides: one that's kinda oppressive and censorious, run by 'private' corporations in cahoots with th deep state, and the other one that allows the much freer circulation of information than was possible earlier.
Also, compared to the 'Printing Revolution' (E. Eisenstein), the bar-of-entry for literally anyone to participate in online conversations has never been lower.
So, there's costs and benefits, as always, and I'd say--the internet is (still) a net-positive outcome for freedom of speech and the like, but it's beyond question that the powers-that-be are working very hard, and ceaselessly, to change all that.
If you're interested in the role of news and media, I recommend Steven G. Marks, The Information Nexus (Cambridge, 2017), who provides a quite good account of the past 500-600 years of 'information' and 'capitalism'.
To answer your question:
1) There is no functional difference between reporting news and propaganda, disregarding outright fabrications.
2) All media are always biased: the form sets loose frames for how obvious and to what extent this bias can bloom.
3) Everyone believes himself to be discerning, immune to peer pressure and groupthink - and if everyone believes that and reinforces that belief communally, is that not then the very essence of groupthink and peer pressure? Hence, before we even finish a text, the initial paragraph will have put us in a more or less critical and analytical mood, depending on our own bias and its triggers.
4) Everybody wants something when writing, be it grandiose or personal.
5) The more spontaneously homogenous a society the freer information/knowledge and opinion can be, as all those who communicate do so within lready pre-known frames of reference. Therefore they can have much more divergent opinions, values and so on. In a heterogenous or individualistic (modern meaning) society, values, mores and opinions must be imparted from authority so that the communicators (us) have at least a lowest common denominator for meaning of words etc. And in a multicultural an heterogenous society, the authority needs muct be brutal and absolute in its enforcement of this lowest common denominator, else other strong groups will wrest control of the authority's prerogative as rectifier (swedish uses the word "likriktare" meaning something or someone who steers a flow in its proper direction, originally an electrical gadget - Gleichrichter in german).
To conclude, the above text is an example of itself in itself, as it segues from short simple and highly interpretable answers to making political statements wrapped in communications theory as to hide said political nature.
As for our esteemed historian, I'll say again that you spoil your readers. Discourse such as this one can no longer get even in the specialist magazines on academic topics. It's all gloss, drama, hype and theatrics. The trudge and grind in the Grottekvarn (from Gróttasöngr in the Poetic Edda) of going to the root sources is a lost art, for most, so these articles are a real treat.
I herewith refer 'merely' to your concluding paragraph (for the remainder is, I'd argue, self-evidently true): much obliged, my good sir.
Sadly, you're correct about the overwhelming majority of these aspects with respect to specialist magazines and (on) academic topics. Ralf Holtkotte, editor of R. Müller's 1920s account of the Revolution, is currently a post-doctoral researcher, hence within academia--question is: will he manage to obtain a professorship? (I hope so, but I doubt it.)