Great Lies of the American free press

[Guest guest]

A

Sat, 04 Jun 2005 11:22:52 -0700

Great Lies of the American free press

 

 

What is the world coming to when we have to get the truth from Pravda

and none to be found in US media.

 

Winning the Media Wars - " great lie theory " : —Russ Baker, Sat Jun 4 14:48

I have a three-word response to the media frenzy —Geov Parrish, Sat

Jun 4 14:21

Where's Deep Throat when we really need him? —Tribune Media Services,

Sat Jun 4

 

Great Lies of the American free press

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6204

12 comment(s).

 

 

by David R. Hoffman

 

Is freedom of the American press a myth?In several previous PRAVDA

articles, I discussed the Bush dictatorship's prominent use of Adolph

Hitler's " great lie theory " - the political tactic where a leader

fabricates " great lies, " then " eternally " repeats them until a

significant portion of the population comes to accept them as truth.

The Bush dictatorship also discovered a residual benefit of the " great

lie theory " : People are often so myopic or so embarrassed by their

gullibility that, even after the " great lies " are exposed, they would

rather reward the liar than acknowledge the lie.

 

This benefit, however, has also revealed the disquieting reality

that far too many people in the United States, arguably the most

powerful nation on earth, do not require legitimate reasons before

they will acquiesce to the wasting of billions of tax dollars, and the

sacrificing of thousands of lives, in wars based upon nothing but lies.

 

There, of course, are those who claim the " great lie theory "

cannot work in democratic countries like America, because, unlike

nations with government-controlled media, there is " freedom of the

press. " But this criticism is easily muted by the events that occurred

a little over fifty years ago, during the height of the " Cold War " era.

 

In 1950, a politically ambitious senator named Joseph McCarthy,

during a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, held up a piece of paper

that allegedly contained the names of communists who were employed by

America's State Department. This bold announcement helped to usher in

an era of hysteria, fear, censorship and blacklisting that only began

to wane four years later when an attorney named Joseph Welch asked

McCarthy during the televised " Army-McCarthy " hearings, " Have you no

sense of decency sir, at long last? "

 

Both McCarthy's biographers and friends have stated that Hitler's

book MEIN KAMPF, which discussed the application of the " great lie

theory, " played an important role in the development of McCarthy's

political strategies. And even though the relatively new medium of

television helped to diminish McCarthy's power, the

corporate-controlled news media also shared the blame for McCarthy's

ability to disseminate " great lies. " During the Wheeling speech, no

reporter asked to examine the list McCarthy held, and it is said that

McCarthy himself later joked to members of his inner circle that

nothing was on the paper but a reminder to pick up his laundry.

 

Meanwhile those in the television industry, now so eager to take

credit for the demise of McCarthyism, were also fervent practitioners

of blacklisting during McCarthy's heyday. Mark Goodson, a renowned

game show producer during the 1950s, wrote in an article for the New

York Times entitled IF I'D STOOD UP EARLIER . . . (1991) that he had

even been pressured into blacklisting celebrities simply because they

shared the same name as suspected communists.

 

The legacy of McCarthyism demonstrates that, despite popular myth,

America does not truly have a " free press. " While the Bill of Rights

guarantees that " Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of

the press, " it is usually nongovernmental factors - fear of losing

readers, viewers and/or advertising dollars - that actually control

the decisions made by corporate-controlled news media. These

influences can also be labeled the three " P's " : Popularity, Prejudice

and Profit. And, to accommodate the three " P's, " corporate-controlled

news media have persistently ignored two others: the People and the

Public Interest.

 

To achieve popularity, America's corporate-controlled media censor

legitimate and detailed news stories in favor of sensationalistic and

superficial tripe. Although a celebrity in America cannot have

flatulence without an army of reporters analyzing the smell,

corporate-controlled news media, to avoid being " controversial, "

incessantly ignore topics that could actually educate or enlighten.

 

The most recent example of this was revealed by the British

newspaper The Guardian in its article THE FILM U.S. TV NETWORKS DARE

NOT SHOW (May 12, 2005). This article discusses the resistance

filmmaker Adam Curtis encountered during his attempts to locate a

major American media outlet willing to show his documentary film, THE

POWER OF NIGHTMARES.

 

Although this documentary examines the historical events that

ultimately led to one of the most catastrophic events in American

history - the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center

and Pentagon - the cowardice of the American media apparently resides

not in the film's analysis of these events, but in its depiction of

the " neo-conservative's " exploitation of September 11th for political

and personal gain.

 

According to The Guardian, the " neo-conservative " ideology

originated in 1949 when " political philosopher " Leo Strauss argued

that " conservative " politicians had to " invent national myths to hold

society together and stop America . . . from collapsing into degraded

individualism. " Of course in today's America " national myths " really

mean " great lies, " and the efforts to terminate " degraded

individualism " really mean the death of the Bill of Rights-the very

document designed by America's founders to preserve individual rights

and freedoms.

 

To advance these goals in recent years, " neo-conservatives " have

propagated the myth (i.e. " great lie " ) that America's news media are

" liberal. " Yet, from their disdain for the anti-war movement to their

jingoistic hyperbole and treatment of war as a " video game, "

corporate-controlled news media's coverage of the conflict in Iraq

easily dispels this myth. Like the Spanish-American war a little more

than a century ago, the Iraqi war will undoubtedly be remembered by

history as an unnecessary invasion fueled by corporate-controlled news

media's lust to boost profits.

 

As I discussed in previous PRAVDA articles, the

corporate-controlled news media's self-serving promotion of the Iraqi

war was accentuated when several radio stations owned by Clear

Channel, one of the largest media empires in the United States,

boycotted songs by the Dixie Chicks because of statements the trio

made in opposition to the Bush dictatorship; when Sinclair

Broadcasting refused to televise a segment of ABC's NIGHTLINE, where

the names of those killed in Iraq were read; when Ed Gernon,

co-producer of the television mini-series HITLER: THE RISE OF EVIL,

was fired from his job after comparing the demise of civil liberties

in Hitler's Germany to the demise of civil liberties in America; and

when CNN Chief News Executive Eason Jordan resigned amidst allegations

that he had claimed American troops were deliberately targeting

journalists in Iraq.

 

By contrast, the corporate-controlled news media have ardently

embraced the plethora of cowards who exploited the Iraqi war to

advance their own careers while conspicuously avoiding combat duty

themselves. Cable television's CNBC rewarded comedian Dennis Miller

with a talk show after he hawked the Iraqi war. And, unlike the fate

of Ed Gernon, these media have permitted two " neo-conservative "

cowards, Rush Limbaugh (who avoided serving in Vietnam because of an

alleged " boil " on his posterior) and Ann Coulter, to utilize Nazi

analogies with impunity when attacking those they oppose. Bill

O'Reilly, who, despite his claims to be willing to " sacrifice " himself

for Fallujah, remains safely ensconced in the studios of the Fox

" News " (i.e. Propaganda) Network, frequently uses his talk show to

demand economic retaliation against university professors and

African-American hip-hop artists who express " unpopular " opinions, yet

whined about unjust treatment after allegations that he sexually

harassed a female coworker made him the subject of ridicule on

late-night television. Even the so-called " liberal " Cable " News "

Network (CNN) has made a media icon out of Nancy Grace, a

narrow-minded former prosecutor who rarely allows her fanatical

preconceptions to be diminished by factual realities.

 

The censorship practiced by corporate-controlled media has helped

them build entire " news " networks upon great lies-that coverage is

" fair and balanced, " that it should be " trusted, " or, perhaps the

greatest lie of all, that the drivel disseminated deserves to qualify

as " news. "

 

The inevitable result of such censorship is that important news

stories are frequently ignored until it is " safe " to report on them.

Once this safe-haven arises, however, corporate-controlled news media

consistently endeavor to conceal their previous censorship with an

arrogant " we were concerned all the time " approach.

 

Today, for example, it would be a challenge to find anybody in the

corporate-controlled news media openly praising the excesses of the

McCarthy era. Yet during McCarthy's heyday it was a challenge to find

anybody in media openly opposing him.

 

This " belated concern " approach also was evident in media coverage

of former Black Panther Elmer " Geronimo " Pratt, who served over

twenty-five years in prison after being framed by the Federal Bureau

of Investigation (FBI). Although the CBS Evening News did an excellent

piece on Pratt while he was still incarcerated, much of the other

corporate-controlled news media waited until after Pratt was released

before denouncing the illegal tactics used to imprison him.

 

Where were these media when Pratt's release was still uncertain?

Ask Eddie Marshall Conway, a Baltimore Black Panther leader who

remains in prison despite similar concerns about the tactics used to

convict him.

 

While some may argue that localized injustices against

African-American militants do not a national news story make, it was

the illegalities and abuses of the FBI's COINTELPRO operation that

played a significant role in many of these injustices. Today, thanks

to the so-called " Patriot Act, " this very same agency is enjoying

almost the same powers it abused in the past. If corporate-controlled

news media refuse to remind Americans of these past abuses, history

may be destined to repeat itself.

 

The second " P " spurring the corporate-controlled news media is

prejudice. This not only explains their lack of interest in the Pratt

and Conway cases, but also the abundance of right-wing " hate " radio

dominating the airwaves.

 

This exploitation of prejudice, however, is not confined to radio:

It is practiced by some of America's premier pseudo-journalists. A few

months ago one such journalist, Barbara Walters, sanctimoniously

announced, to the applause of her predominantly white audience, that

she would not interview former football star turned actor O.J.

Simpson, who had been acquitted of murdering his wife and a family

friend. Yet, subsequent to this announcement, Walters sycophantically

interviewed Robert Blake, an actor who also had been acquitted of

murdering his wife.

 

The key difference, of course, was that O.J. Simpson happened to

be African-American, and his alleged victims were white, young, and

attractive; thus his acquittal inspired outrage across white America.

On the other hand, Blake and his alleged victim were both white, and

she was older and not as attractive; thus his acquittal scarcely

caused a whimper across white America.

 

Besides pandering to race, corporate-controlled news media convey

their biases through " split-screen " interviews. During these

interviews the questioner's image occupies half of the television

screen, while the image of the respondent occupies the other half. In

most cases the respondent has no visual contact with the questioner,

relying instead on an earpiece that simply transmits sound. As a

result, the questioner can smirk, frown, scowl, or employ numerous

other forms of non-verbal communication to indicate approval or

derision, all without the respondent's knowledge.

 

Media censorship can also be based on the personal biases of

editors or telephone " screeners, " who have the power to decide whether

or not a news segment, comment, article or letter should be aired or

published.

 

I experienced such censorship first-hand when I became interested

in the plight of a local African-American man, who was serving a

seventy-year sentence after being convicted by an all-white jury of

crimes I believed he did not commit. I began writing letters and

articles about his case, and my local newspaper initially published

them almost verbatim. It was later discovered that I was indeed

correct about this man's innocence, and he was ultimately released

from prison.

 

Not surprisingly, after his release, a police officer who had been

involved in his case decided to adopt the media's " I had concerns all

the time " strategy in interviews and articles, even though she had

remained publicly silent about these alleged doubts throughout this

man's years of incarceration. Although he eventually filed a lawsuit

against local officials, including this police officer, seeking

compensation for his years of wrongful imprisonment, a federal

magistrate dismissed the case, claiming the man had not established

that his arrest and conviction were made in " bad faith. "

 

As an attorney, I always had misgivings about the " bad faith "

standard, and many states have bypassed it by passing laws to

compensate those wrongfully convicted. The state where this man

resided, however, had no such laws; consequently I thought his case

would provide a good opportunity to expose the egregious nature of the

" bad faith " standard. So I wrote an article explaining that, aside

from an admission of wrongdoing by police or prosecutors, the " bad

faith " standard was practically impossible for a wrongfully convicted

person to meet.

 

After submitting this article to my local newspaper, an editor

informed me that my critique of the " bad faith " standard would not be

published as written, allegedly because it could be construed as an

attack on the professionalism of the local police department.

 

Subsequently I discovered that the editor who had reviewed my

article and the police officer who had belatedly espoused her " doubts "

were friends, and this was the real motive behind the censorship.

Tragically, an opportunity to raise legitimate concerns about the " bad

faith " standard and the injustices it engendered was obliterated by

the personal bias of a lone editor.

 

The final, and most powerful, " P " driving corporate-controlled

news media is profit. In their pure form, however, these media are

incompatible with standard theories of capitalism.

 

Capitalism contends that companies manufacturing and marketing

similar products will endeavor to improve those products to gain an

advantage over their competitors, which, in turn, benefits consumers.

 

But news is not a product, simply a reporting of events.

Nevertheless, to increase profits, corporate-controlled media have

decided to " manufacture " and " market " news. Many radio stations owned

by Clear Channel sponsored pro-war rallies, while Sinclair

Broadcasting, shortly before the 2004 presidential election, sought to

air a documentary hostile to candidate John Kerry.

 

The manufacturing and marketing of news is even accomplished by

deceiving people into believing they will be given a fair opportunity

to articulate or defend their positions. Most television or radio

interviews, unless they are aired live, are usually subjected to

" editing. " So even though an individual may provide several minutes of

intelligent and well-reasoned analysis, the words are often condensed

into a few seconds of " sound bites " that can be manipulated to give a

deceptive, and even dishonest, impression of what was actually said.

 

During my brief legal career, rumors had been circulating in our

local community that people were being unjustly purged from voter

registration rolls. Since I specialized in constitutional and civil

rights law, I was asked to contact the proper investigative agency

about these alleged practices. Although I did so, I stressed to the

investigator that nobody had presented any actual evidence to

substantiate these rumors, so I would leave it to her discretion about

whether or not an investigation was warranted.

 

I forgot about this matter until a few days later, when a reporter

for a local television station requested an interview. During the

course of this interview, I was persistently asked if I believed the

alleged purging was the result of one political party trying to dilute

the voting strength of the other.

 

Since I repeatedly replied that this was not the case, very little

of the actual interview was aired. What noticeably appeared instead

was this same reporter opining that the interview had left her with

the impression one political party was attempting to dilute the voting

strength of the other!

 

This experience alone indicates that the corporate-controlled

media's impetus to manufacture news rarely results in an honest

product. Instead it compels these media to sink to their lowest common

denominator, sacrificing truth, impartiality and ethics for the sake

of ratings and profit.

 

This proclivity to sink to the lowest common denominator has even

made members of the corporate-controlled news media susceptible to

bribery. Armstrong Williams, a " conservative " African-American

pseudo-journalist, was recently paid two hundred and forty thousand

dollars ($240,000) by the Bush dictatorship to promote an education

reform law on his syndicated television show. Another

pseudo-journalist, Maggie Gallagher, was paid twenty-one thousand,

five hundred dollars ($21,500) by the federal government's department

of Health and Human Services to encourage marriage. This same

department also paid columnist Mike McManus ten thousand ($10,000)

dollars to " train marriage counselors. " Yet, according to the

Associated Press (1/29/05), " all three columnists failed to disclose

to their readers their relationship with the [bush] administration. "

 

But such bribery does not have to be strictly on a cash basis.

During the build-up to the Iraqi war, one of the primary disseminators

of the Bush dictatorship's " great lies " was then-Secretary of State

Colin Powell. And during this time, in one of those remarkable

" coincidences " that nepotism spawns, Powell's son Michael was head of

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-the very agency that

possessed the power to change FCC rules so monopolistic media empires

could acquire even a greater share of the marketplace. In return all

these empires had to do was endorse, or at least not dispute, the

warmongering lies of the Bush dictatorship, and accept, or at least

not question, the fraudulent results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential

" elections. "

 

Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the corporate-controlled news

media is that, while they expend a substantial amount of effort

questioning or criticizing the actions of others, they are

extraordinarily intolerant of criticism themselves. Whenever ordinary

people attempt to criticize American media they are guaranteed at

least one of three responses.

 

The first response, already discussed in this article, is

censorship. My local newspaper, for example, has flatly refused to

publish any of my letters criticizing its use of personal bias to

censor legitimate stories. Since this newspaper is the only one with

significant readership that reports on local issues, my voice

regarding these issues is effectively silenced.

 

The second response is the " What came first, the chicken or the

egg? " This response was ridiculed in a recent episode of the

adult-themed cartoon SOUTH PARK. The main characters, all elementary

school children, were told that their news program, which they

broadcast across the school's closed-circuit television system, was in

danger of being canceled due to low ratings. To improve these ratings,

the children simply began focusing their program on salacious gossip.

When one character expressed concern about " dumbing " down his fellow

students, his colleagues replied, " People are already dumb. We're just

giving them what they want. "

 

The third response is, " Don't blame the messenger. " Even though,

as explained above, the corporate-controlled media make ubiquitous

efforts to manufacture and market news, they consistently seek to

present themselves as mere " innocents " reporting upon events they

cannot control.

 

Ironically, in today's America, people who want real news or

honest criticism are better served by not watching " news " programs at

all. Comedy Central's satirical program THE DAILY SHOW, for example,

often covers current events with more insight than the so-called cable

" news " networks, where " discussion " routinely consists of " experts " of

dubious qualifications shouting and interrupting each other.

 

Following the South Park trend, a character on a recent episode of

the animated comedy THE SIMPSONS rhetorically asked where America's

" koo-koo, bananas commander " intended to start the next " military

quagmire. " A character on the medical drama " ER " derisively mocked the

Chicago Tribune newspaper for endorsing Bush in the 2004 presidential

race, while the series itself devoted several episodes to the war in

the Congo, where, as one character said, the suffering is largely

ignored because " there is no oil. "

 

Finally, on May 15, 2005, the Associated Press reported that many

critics were comparing the decline of civil liberties and democracy in

the new " Star Wars " movie REVENGE OF THE SITH to the decline of civil

liberties and democracy in the United States. George Lucas, the

creator of the Star Wars franchise, acknowledged that much of the film

was inspired by " historical transformations from freedom to fascism. "

Ironically, in a nation that boasts about " freedom of the press, " it

appears that only the fictitious adventures of characters in a " galaxy

far, far away " might awaken Americans to the factual realities here on

earth.

 

For the reasons mentioned above, the hands of America's

corporate-controlled news media are now dripping with the blood of

those sacrificed in a war promoted and exploited for ratings and

profit. May this blood that has been shed for their greed never wash

clean, lest we forget how easily corruption, avarice and deceit can

usurp democracy, blacken the hearts of humanity, and destroy the soul

of a nation.

 

David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of PRAVDA

 

http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/399/15516_greatlietheory.html

 

by : David R. Hoffman

Saturday 28th May 2005

 

================================================