 |
Login |
 |
|
Don't have an account yet? As a registered user you can: - Receive our newsletter - Post comments - Participate in forums - Submit news - Make a difference! Join now. |
|
|
 |
 |
Quote of the Moment |
 |
|
"Don't mess with me Condoleezza. Don't mess with me, girl!"
-- Hugo Chavez
|
|
|
 |
| |
 Opinions:
Exposing Citgo Propaganda and Expelling the Myths
Posted byadmin on Tuesday, October 03 @ 17:33:29 CDT
Contributed by admin
The boycott on Citgo is really picking up steam now. With 7-11's dropping of the Citgo brand along with the lawmakers in Florida and Boston urging to push Citgo out, we are surely on course to achieving victory. But the news out there isn't all positive – or even truthful for that matter.
Some articles are appearing in newspapers and online attempting to downplay or de-validate the Boycott, oftentimes taking unsubstantiated stabs at the legitimacy of the cause. Although such authors have a right to their opinions, every article of such subject this author has seen lacks evidence and subjectivity in their content. I therefore find it difficult to view such writings as anything other than snippets of propaganda originating from some special interest party-line sources.
Tactics from propaganda 101:
- Red herring: Presenting data that is irrelevant, and then claiming that it validates your argument.
- Unstated assumption: This technique is used when the propaganda concept that the propagandist intends to transmit would seem less credible if explicitly stated. The concept is instead repeatedly assumed or implied.
Presenting data that is irrelevant and then claiming that it validates your argument. This technique is used when the propaganda concept that the propagandist intends to transmit would seem less credible if explicitly stated. The concept is instead repeatedly assumed or implied.
For example, in the sun-sentinel.com column "Boycott idea doesn't hold water" - By Jorge Piñon October 2 2006, the author starts off by stating, "State Rep. Adam Hasner's (R-Delray Beach) idea of removing the Citgo brand from Florida's Turnpike will not work." Well, I have a question for you Jorge: How is it that it will not work? If they decide to remove the brand from their Turnpike system, then it worked. 7-11 decided to go with somebody else, are you saying that too "did not work"? Certainly it did and the Boycott initiated by the American people will too. Jorge's article goes on spouting un-documented figures that actually offer no weight to his claim. Then he finishes off by claiming that, "the United States will continue to depend on Venezuelan petroleum imports, regardless of its brand name, as long as our appetite for oil continues." My response to that is "so what?" The United States has a lot of vested interest in Venezuelan petroleum, as well as that of many other nations. The Citgo Boycott is not a boycott on Venezuela or it's petroleum, but rather of the brand Citgo, mainly due to it's strong presence in the USA and being 100% owned by the government of Venezuela. "Jorge Piñon is a senior research associate at the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies and former president of Amoco (BP) Oil Latin America." Need I say more? Stamped and approved 100% propaganda in my opinion.
More propaganda 101:
- Common man: The "plain folks" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the target audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person. - Argumentum ad nauseam: Uses tireless repetition. An idea once repeated enough times, is taken as the truth. Works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator.
Consider as well this real piece of work from the Miami Herald, "Nix Citgo? Not so fast" Mon, Oct. 02, 2006 where the nameless "Editorial" plants the seed that, "the people who would be hurt most from a boycott of stations with the Citgo name would be the thousands of small businessmen and women who own the franchises and run the stations. Likewise, the people who run the Houston refinery are hardworking American men and women with families to feed and mortgages to pay." Does anyone else feel a little lighter in the head after reading this stuff? This is so sickening I almost cannot continue writing. The two articles cited above are just one of the many campaigns attempting to sway the American public AWAY from her prerogative. Not all, but a LOT of the disinformation appears to be originating from Miami, the US location with the closest ties to Communist Cuba of whom which is propped by the regime of Hugo Chavez. Side Note: By the way, the last piece came from the Maimi Herald who announced today the resignation of Jesus Diaz Jr., the papers' publisher since July 2005. Diaz earlier this year fired three journalists of the paper who happened to appear in a commercial that promoted democracy in Cuba. "I realize and regret that the events of the past three weeks have created an environment that no longer allows me to lead our newspapers in a manner most beneficial for our newspapers, our readers and our community," Diaz wrote in a letter to readers announcing his resignation. Diaz said the company offered to rehire the three and that the company would not discipline six others it recently discovered to be involved.
So with so much blatant misinformation being spread around concerning our cause, I have decided to take two of the myths and dispel them for you here: · Myth #1. This is just for symbolic purposes since boycotts never have any effect. FALSE: Boycotts do work if they are well organized and enough people are aware of them. That is because of the simplicity of them. They are nothing more that the organization of consumer knowledge and personal choice on a large scale. There are endless examples of personal choice of consumers shaping the economic market in America and elsewhere. · Myth #2. Since Citgo stations are on the corner at out town and Citgo has an office in the US, a boycott would threaten American jobs? FALSE: You may have read on sites such as Snopes.com statements such as, "Neither a buycott nor a boycott is likely to accomplish much beyond the symbolic." but in the very next paragraph they state, "Americans with no substantive connection to Venezuela who would be economically harmed by such an action." Although sites like Snopes can be useful tools for personal research of subjects, their findings should not be relied upon solely. Look at ALL the facts and judge for yourself. Think about it for a second, if the first statement is true, then how could the second statement be true? If both are true then they counter each other out. The truth is that a boycott CAN have more than a symbolic effect, that's why they even brought to attention the second statement -- but what about that second statement? Is it true? Let's take into account different parties vested into Citgo and the possible affects. Local employees of stations will have more free time. Someone who gets paid $10/hour will still receive their hourly wage. There probably would be no need for overtime, but that would depend on the management prerogative of the individual station. The, as a result of the boycott and the resulting decrease in business, the station decides not to hire as many part-time employees (who may be needed at the busier stations next door) then the full-time employee at the Citgo station may indeed get more overtime hours. Station owners and management will feel a pinch from the decreasing income from gasoline sales. They would probably get pressure from upper management to do more to increase sales, all-the-while they may be aware of the boycott and communicate this in return to the higher-ups. This may result in desperation on the authority of upper management and board members of franchises to re-negotiate contracts with Citgo possibly resulting in the lowering of prices in order to attract business (of course we as boycotters would not be lured by this since we are strong and know that it may trend over to other station brands in turn). It may as well result in franchises (7-11 and others who carry the Citgo brand) to find a brand that is more popular with the market demand in their area (i.e. anything other than Citgo). Typically when these types of re-negotiations happen it benefits all parties involved which is a very good thing. Local employees would not be fired or even relocate. Finally, the Citgo corporate office in Huston, TX may be forced to close shop. The employees there would most likely have seen such a move coming a mile away and be prepared or if not have already found a good comparable, if not better, opportunity for themselves. If they do not close shop they will try to change the brand name and/or image in attempt to fool people into turning back to their product. Of course, if that happens, CitgoBoycott.org will be here to inform you of such moves so you can remain empowered as a free consumer and citizen. This editorial by Admin, Chairman of CitgoBoycott.org
|
|
| |
|
|
Article Rating |
|
|
Average Score: 4
Votes: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Login" | Login/Create an Account | 1234 comments |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
|
