Is it News, or is it Propaganda?
Guy T. Sturino
February 06, 2006
An article in the New York Times on February 6, 2006, Calling Clinton ‘Angry,’ G.O.P. Chairman Goes on the Attack, is a story in itself. It reports an event, an interview of Ken Mehlman by George Stephanopoulos. It is news because the speaker is a prominent political figure. There is nothing in the article to cause anyone to question the truthfulness of the report itself. That's the beauty of it.
The following three paragraphs from that article tell another story which, based on a lack of reporting from other sources, goes virtually undetected.
"I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates," Mr.Mehlman told George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program "This Week."
Referring to Mrs. Clinton's assertion that Republicans were running Congress like a plantation, he said, "Whether it's the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger."
"There's a lot of talk about a new Hillary Clinton, but if you look at the record, it's a very left-wing record," Mr. Mehlman said, adding that her record did not reflect the values of most Americans.”
Nothing wrong there, right? Look at the exchange again. The country has just been given a lesson in the application of the Neocon debating formula. Take note that these are Neocon, not Republican, debating rules. They are not the kind of tactics used by my Republican friends, but the ideas are often repeated as fact. Which, of course, is the intent of the debating formula in the first place.
Note: This writing is not a pitch for Senator Clinton. I don’t live in New York, and 2008 is still a long way away.
Here are the rules:
1. Create a false foundation.
2. Place the subject firmly on the foundation.
3. Vilify the subject with a carefully crafted distortion.
4. Reinforce the first lie with another lie.
For the record, I consider anything which is not totally factual, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to be a lie. Looking back at the interview, here is how it worked.
False foundation – the American people don’t elect angry candidates. Consider the anger of the Republican Party about corruption in government, how that anger was expressed, and who won control of the Congress in 1994. So much for the false premise.
Associate the subject – “seems to have a lot of anger." I don’t think even Mrs. Clinton would argue about that, but - it’s the association with the initial false and misleading premise that is important.
Vilify the subject with a distortion – Hillary Clinton has a very left wing record. The question here is the word “very.” Obviously, as a Democrat, Senator Clinton is left of the Neocon position on just about everything, but not that far left of moderate Republicans. She stands to the right of the extreme liberals on abortion and solutions for Iraq, and in working with Republicans on several issues.
The closing lie – Senator Clinton’s record does not reflect the values of most Americans. This is a double score in the debate. It introduces the catch word “values” and helps make a lie seem like the truth. In fact, according to several polls, Senator Clinton’s record is consistent with the views, sensibilities and values of a majority of Americans. For confirmation, I refer you to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/ to review her voting record for yourself, and to any of the nationally recognized polling sites to see what Americans really think.
The effect of the process is to alter the publics' perception of reality. Unfortunately, it works. It works well. But, it is only part of this story. The other part is the news media. What facts did the reporter uncover? What information did the article present that anyone really needs to know? How does this article help anyone make the kind of informed decision required of a voter? Why was the article printed in the first place?
If this were a single article presented in a single U.S. news outlet, these questions would be no more than good discussion points for a journalism class. However, articles like this have become increasingly more evident in the past several years and have significantly shaped the political landscape. Attacks in this format have been the undoing of the likes of Max Cleland, John Kerry and John McCain. In all cases, the attacks were presented as ‘news’ by the media, and given much more time and space than the efforts made to correct the misconceptions.
There is only one plausible conclusion to be drawn from this. The major news outlets which are complicit in this kind of pseudo-journalism are no longer the unbiased protectors of truth that they once were. Honor and intellectual integrity are values which have been discarded by corporate owned media in favor of politically motivated propaganda.
That’s the story behind the story –
Now the Epilogue.
America is in dire need of a national political news outlet which will present the truth substantiated by fact, and refuse to participate in the convoluted pseudo-journalism which has decimated our faith in the industry. A very costly endeavor to be sure. Who among the wealthy will take up the cause of restoring honor and intellectual honesty to the Fourth Estate? Who will lead the effort to ensure that our government of the people, by the people, and for the people, does not, as Lincoln said, perish from the earth? Is there anyone?
The following three paragraphs from that article tell another story which, based on a lack of reporting from other sources, goes virtually undetected.
"I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates," Mr.Mehlman told George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program "This Week."
Referring to Mrs. Clinton's assertion that Republicans were running Congress like a plantation, he said, "Whether it's the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger."
"There's a lot of talk about a new Hillary Clinton, but if you look at the record, it's a very left-wing record," Mr. Mehlman said, adding that her record did not reflect the values of most Americans.”
Nothing wrong there, right? Look at the exchange again. The country has just been given a lesson in the application of the Neocon debating formula. Take note that these are Neocon, not Republican, debating rules. They are not the kind of tactics used by my Republican friends, but the ideas are often repeated as fact. Which, of course, is the intent of the debating formula in the first place.
Note: This writing is not a pitch for Senator Clinton. I don’t live in New York, and 2008 is still a long way away.
Here are the rules:
1. Create a false foundation.
2. Place the subject firmly on the foundation.
3. Vilify the subject with a carefully crafted distortion.
4. Reinforce the first lie with another lie.
For the record, I consider anything which is not totally factual, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to be a lie. Looking back at the interview, here is how it worked.
False foundation – the American people don’t elect angry candidates. Consider the anger of the Republican Party about corruption in government, how that anger was expressed, and who won control of the Congress in 1994. So much for the false premise.
Associate the subject – “seems to have a lot of anger." I don’t think even Mrs. Clinton would argue about that, but - it’s the association with the initial false and misleading premise that is important.
Vilify the subject with a distortion – Hillary Clinton has a very left wing record. The question here is the word “very.” Obviously, as a Democrat, Senator Clinton is left of the Neocon position on just about everything, but not that far left of moderate Republicans. She stands to the right of the extreme liberals on abortion and solutions for Iraq, and in working with Republicans on several issues.
The closing lie – Senator Clinton’s record does not reflect the values of most Americans. This is a double score in the debate. It introduces the catch word “values” and helps make a lie seem like the truth. In fact, according to several polls, Senator Clinton’s record is consistent with the views, sensibilities and values of a majority of Americans. For confirmation, I refer you to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/ to review her voting record for yourself, and to any of the nationally recognized polling sites to see what Americans really think.
The effect of the process is to alter the publics' perception of reality. Unfortunately, it works. It works well. But, it is only part of this story. The other part is the news media. What facts did the reporter uncover? What information did the article present that anyone really needs to know? How does this article help anyone make the kind of informed decision required of a voter? Why was the article printed in the first place?
If this were a single article presented in a single U.S. news outlet, these questions would be no more than good discussion points for a journalism class. However, articles like this have become increasingly more evident in the past several years and have significantly shaped the political landscape. Attacks in this format have been the undoing of the likes of Max Cleland, John Kerry and John McCain. In all cases, the attacks were presented as ‘news’ by the media, and given much more time and space than the efforts made to correct the misconceptions.
There is only one plausible conclusion to be drawn from this. The major news outlets which are complicit in this kind of pseudo-journalism are no longer the unbiased protectors of truth that they once were. Honor and intellectual integrity are values which have been discarded by corporate owned media in favor of politically motivated propaganda.
That’s the story behind the story –
Now the Epilogue.
America is in dire need of a national political news outlet which will present the truth substantiated by fact, and refuse to participate in the convoluted pseudo-journalism which has decimated our faith in the industry. A very costly endeavor to be sure. Who among the wealthy will take up the cause of restoring honor and intellectual honesty to the Fourth Estate? Who will lead the effort to ensure that our government of the people, by the people, and for the people, does not, as Lincoln said, perish from the earth? Is there anyone?
Print
Email
