First let me apologize for the length of this response. I would like to first defend Scott's piece, because it was not a deliberate deception or manipulation meant to trick readers into believing in political ponerology. I interpreted your assembly of JFK's quotes as a collage of sorts, as a written piece of artwork meant to encourage people to think, as you say. I think that it unfortunate that Unit e interpreted it as a propaganda piece and in that vein I would like to open with a quote from JFK in defense of your approach:
"If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth... In free society art is not a weapon and it does not belong to the spheres of polemic and ideology. Artists are not engineers of the soul. It may be different elsewhere. But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may." - Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963
I felt inspired by and learned a great deal from this Scott's article (I followed the link to the Evidence of Revision documentary) and even more from the excellent JFK series authored and referenced by Laura in her comment to the original piece. I think that the piece that Scott put together is pertinant, thoughtful, and captures the essence of JFK's continued relevance to the present global political situation. I immediately recognized that "creative license" was being taken with JFK's words and appreciated that artistic approach to the piece, but it was not until the second reading of the article that I noticed your disclaimer (after reading this thread I assume you inserted it later). Your alterations, their purpose, and their value should be clear to regular readers of Signs of the Times however, I think that Unit e's point is very important. I hope to ad to the honest dialog that ark mentions in his last post.
I think that PepperFritz brings up a very important point:
"I have a background as an editor, and that kind of manipulation of material is just a big no-no as far as journalistic practices go. You are correct that it was not made clear that Kennedy was not being directly and accurately quoted, and that it leads to confusion on the part of the reader."
I would like to speak to Scott's response:
"I have one problem with what you wrote: manipulation of material is nowhere near "a big no-no as far as journalistic practices go". It's SUPPOSED TO BE a big no-no, but anyone who reads SOTT regularly can clearly see that this is, in fact, not the case. Sometimes journalists lie intentionally, sometimes editors censor what the author writes, and sometimes people are just so asleep that important facts tend to "slip by" due to a sort of waking coma that emphasizes things like sales and drama instead of the truth. Manipulation of the facts - conscious or otherwise - is the norm, not the exception.
So, you might say that I was doing the same thing, albeit for a much different purpose: to get people to think, to move them even a little using another's words as well as my own."
We are used to hearing sound bites from our leaders pieced together in all sorts of ways to support the status quo, and we are taught to either accept them without question, or to shake our heads at the obvious lies, misrepresentations and distortions of the original comments. This sort of thing happens constantly on television, in newspapers, magazines and in books. The Evidence of Revision documentary is an excellent and frightening example of this process. We are taught to believe the status quo all through school, from the time we are born, so I think that when we are presented with truths that challenge the status quo we feel surprised and are more likely to question and disbelieve them. My feeling is that this was the response that Unit e experienced, because this was often my initial response when I first started frequenting SOTT. ie: "No way! That CAN'T be the truth, I'm going to have to check on that one" Let me quote Charles Darwin here to try to make my point:
"It is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason."
—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871
If one takes the time to explore Signs of the Times and the related QFG sites the point of view and objectives of the writers quickly become clear, which is more than I can say for most "news" sources. Indeed this process of questioning and self verification is strongly encouraged at SOTT, which is something I appreciate and agree with and it is something that I understand to be a central tenet of the fourth way teachings. Ideally every visitor to SOTT would comb the forums, the related QFG sites and cassiopaea materials, the web and any books they can get their hands and they would soon be aware of the knowledge that you now hold dear, but new readers are most likely unaware of many facts that are held as core knowledge on this forum and at SOTT. It takes a great deal of work to break down this conditioning, and I believe that transparency and clarity of purpose on your part must be maintained if you wish to reach out to new readers and readers who may agree with you in essence, even though they have not been challenged and encouraged to question their beliefs as a long time reader has. I agree with you Scott, manipulation of information is the norm. While I think your purpose in writing this article: "to get people to think," is laudable and I think that there was nothing wrong with your approach, your initial response to PepperFritz's comments bothers me because it adopts the stance that the ends justifies the means. Is it is wrong to manipulate facts to deceive, but right to manipulate facts to lead people towards your perception of the truth? While it is true that the mainstream approach is a "fair and balanced" manipulation of virtually all information, Signs of the Times is better than that. Stick to the facts and make sure you are crystal clear when you take creative license so that there is no chance that readers feel deceived. If anything I would think that SoTT must be as vigilant as possible in this regard. As you quoted JFK as saying in your article:
"The prudent heir takes careful inventory of his legacies and gives a faithful accounting to those whom he owes an obligation of trust." - State of the Union Address, January 30, 1961
I take this to mean that I can trust SOTT to present me with news stories and truths that are suppressed by the mainstream media. I know that deception is not your intention, and I think that the single sentence you added to your piece is sufficient to make your intention clear. I don't want to discourage the kind of piece that you wrote Scott, only to encourage Signs of the Times to stick with the core values of transparency, honesty and an unbending commitment to the presentation of truth. Taken as a piece of artwork your article is another form of truth, as valid as any other, but it must be presented as such to avoid an interpretation of deception.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post.
