pollack@uicsl.UUCP (09/23/84)
(new slogan for anti-aparthiedists -- Slavery is Forever)
I remember when Tom Craver RAN this notesfile a few years ago. He has
a particularly insidious way of stifling debate by making opponents
feel that they have not done enough homework to answer.
I will not respond with a complete compiled list of propaganda; I have
other homework.
Here is one example: Newsweek last fall had an issue called:
"Nicaragua: The Revolution Betrayed" in which a reporter purportedly
interviewed 4 or 5 people before and after the overthrow of Somoza.
Uniformly they said that "Things under Somoza were bad, you know,
but the Sandinistas ain't better."
This story was clearly propaganda. The writer
interviewed many people, with both positive
and negative things to say, but they were not the same people which she had
interviewed before the revolution. Some Anonymous Editor rewrote her story as
the ideologically useful tale it was. The NYT had a small article about how
the reporter resigned in disgust.
Tom mentioned the Big Lie technique - to say,
again and again, that the CIA overthrew Allende in Chile.
Its true! They overthrew Chile in 73, Guatemala in 54 and Iran in 54.
You prove they didnt (Have some time for more homework? )
They are trying to do it to Nicaragua ("Oh, we're only trying to
stop the flow of arms to Communist Rebels...") and we won't know
for at least 10 years how they did it to Maurice Bishop.
Thats not the Big Lie, because it is documented.
The Big Lie has been practiced extremely well
our President in calling Nicaragua a Soviet Base, A Prison State,
a Marxist-Leninist Totalitarian Regime again and again until it
is echoed by the Media ("The Marxist Sandinistas...") as if it were fact.
And you and I both know that Electricity in El Salvador does not aid
sick babies in hospitals.
The way that propaganda is practiced in our country is by omission.
No, our newspapers are not controlled as they are in Guatemala or the
Soviet Union, but editors have a tendency to downplay news which is
harmful to the image of "America the Good" and upplay news which promotes
"Russia the Bad." While Solidarity was striking and getting arrested in
Poland, tens of thousands were getting massacred in El Salvador and Guatemala.
Has anyone ever heard of East Timor? Do you know what percentage of
Puerto Rican and Native American Women have been "voluntarily" sterilized?
Do you know why the Genocide Pact has never been ratified?
For an In-depth analysis of how our propaganda system works, Read the Intro to
Chomsky - "The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism".
Highlights include:
1.2 The Semantics of "Terror"
Only used to describe violence by students and other radicals.
Official state violence is called "retaliatory police action."
1.5 How the Media Cope with Client Fascist Terror: Suppression plus an
Emphasis on the Positive
When news of violence by our client states must be reported, it
is always "a response to Left-wing agitation" and accompanied
by "preponderant attention to the rationales, explanations,
claims of regret and imminent reform" by the dictators.
1.6 The Pretense that the U.S is an Innocent Bystander
"It is convenient to pretend that Guatemala, S. Korea and
the Phillipines are "independent" in contrast to Rumania,
Poland and Hungary, which are Soviet puppets..."
1.9 Media Self-Censorship: Or Why Two Soviet Dissidents are worth more
Than 20,000 Tormented Latins.
Why there is good press coverage of Scharansky.
Of course, some would say that Chomsky is a Marxist-Leninist-Anarchist-
Bolshevik-Communist-self-hating-Jewish propagandist. If you are firm in
your conviction that the NYT includes "all the news thats fit to print"
this book won't bother you at all! But if you want to know how propaganda
is practiced by a "Free Press" (as well as by a master of the trade),
it is a worthwhile book.
Jordanrenner@uiucdcs.UUCP (09/27/84)
> The way that propaganda is practiced in our country is by omission. > No, our newspapers are not controlled as they are in Guatemala or the > Soviet Union, but editors have a tendency to downplay news which is > harmful to the image of "America the Good" and upplay news which promotes > "Russia the Bad."... - Jordan Pollack (pollack@uicsl) Not all of this "propaganda" has a conservative aim. I see much more evidence of liberal bias in the news media. As an example, consider the great attention given by the news media to the "ketchup is a vegatable" controversy of 1981. At the time I figured it was blown out of proportion. Now it appears to have been fabricated. For details, read Paul Dolber's article, "Ketchup for Lunch," excerpted below: > From the National Review: > "The Washington Post's news writers and columnists had been waging > an uproarious food fight with the Reagan Administration over the > lunches served in the nation's school cafeterias... Then some > killjoy Post editorial writer decided to look into the actual facts > about the Administration's school-lunch proposals, and found that > the critics were telling some whoppers... " > - Paul Dolber (paul@phs) Sure looks like the Big Lie to me. Say it loud and often, and it will be believed. Perhaps this incident was motivated by a desire to sell newspapers and TV commercials at the expense of reporting the truth. And perhaps it was politically motivated. One might suppose that Jordan and I see different forms of media bias because we have different political beliefs. I believe that there is some truth in this. However, it is instructive to examine the professed political beliefs of reporters and editors as a group, including their voting record. The large majority with "liberal" beliefs thus revealed renders implausible any theory of a "conservative conspiricy" within the news media. Scott Renner ...ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/27/84)
> > From the National Review: > > "The Washington Post's news writers and columnists had been waging > > an uproarious food fight with the Reagan Administration over the > > lunches served in the nation's school cafeterias... Then some > > killjoy Post editorial writer decided to look into the actual facts > > about the Administration's school-lunch proposals, and found that > > the critics were telling some whoppers... " > > - Paul Dolber (paul@phs) So that liberal bastion , the Washington Post, is the one who reported that the "ketchup is a vegetable" charge was exaggerated? That seems to show some concern for truth on their part, doesn't it? > . However, it is instructive to examine the professed > political beliefs of reporters and editors as a group, including their > voting record. The large majority with "liberal" beliefs thus revealed > renders implausible any theory of a "conservative conspiricy" within > the news media. > > Scott Renner I suggest people wishing information on this issue read the book, "The Powers That Be" by David Halberstam. Halberstams point is that what editors or reporters actually get printed or broadcast depends heavily on what publishers and media owners wish to see printed or broadcast. I know about the study showing that most reporters tend to be moderately liberal. I also know that 75% of the newspapers in this country almost always endorse Republicans. The example of the Newsweek reporter who found her report on Nicaragua rewritten by the editors to suit their preconceptions is nothing new. In "The Powers That Be" Halberstam points out that Henry Luce at Time magazine consistently did the same thing- closing his eyes to the many bad reports about Chiang Kai Shek coming from his reporters. In fact, it got so bad that one interview Theodore White had with Chiang was totally rewritten to make him appear more moderate. After months of seeing his dispatches totally changed in tone White finally resigned in disgust after this incident. Reporters do not decide what actually gets printed, editors and publishers do and publishers are overwhelmingly conservative. (after all they own a newspaper which implies some degree of wealth) Tim Sevener
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (09/27/84)
In regard to the discussion on whether the news media have a liberal or conservative bias, there was an interesting survey done some years back: As part of this survey, newspaper editors and reporters were asked who they voted for in any previous presidential elections held since they becoame reporters. I don't recall all of the results, but the surveyed group of reporters and editors overwhelmingly supported the Democratic party. As an example, in 1968, something like 80% of the reporters and editors that were surveyed said they had voted for McGovern. This is pretty amazing, considering that the general public overwhelmingly supported Nixon that year (McGovern won only 2 or 3 states, I think). (Oops, I meant to say the 1972 election, not 1968). It's also worth pointing out that Watergate hadn't yet been exposed, so this wouldn't account for the reporters voting for McGovern. The results were basically similar for other recent elections, although none were as dramatic as the 1972 results. I should also mention that reporters and editors were all lumped together in this survey. However, a trend toward at least somewhat more con- servatism was noted amongst the editors (due to greater age?). Thus, it was theorized that the editorial stance of many newspapers would be more conservative than the survey resultsa would indicate. However, the actual reporting and article writing would tend to reflect the trends seen in the survey. I can't remember what percentages of those surveyed identified themselves as being currently Democrats or Republicans, although again the Democrats had a higher representation. Also, many reporters claimed that they had no preference, and also abstained from voting, since they felt they should remain as neutral as possible. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (09/28/84)
Whoa again, Sevener. One more blast from the hip, huh? You say wealth = conservative. Where the hell have you been hiding all these years. Wealth has nothing to do with political persuasion. If it did, Kennedy would have been a Republican Conservative. How about Rockefeller? About as liberal as they come. How about his brothers? Liberal to the core. Keep repeating the BIG LIE Sevener. Your learning well from the liberal establishment. T. C. Wheeler
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/02/84)
TC Wheeler bashes another straw man!
As he correctly points out, some wealthy people are liberal. He even
refrains from telling us that some poor people are conservative.
Yet he calls it the BIG LIE (capitals are his) to make the empirically
correct statement that wealthy people, as a group, are more
conservative than poor people, as a group (check any poll which gives
results broken down into income strata). He does this by twisting such
statements into the obviously false one that all wealthy people are
conservative, etc. A damn fine propaganda technique, if I ever saw one.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidorb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/02/84)
> Whoa again, Sevener. One more blast from the hip, huh? You > say wealth = conservative. Where the hell have you been hiding > all these years. Wealth has nothing to do with political persuasion. > If it did, Kennedy would have been a Republican Conservative. How > about Rockefeller? About as liberal as they come. How about his > brothers? Liberal to the core. Keep repeating the BIG LIE > Sevener. Your learning well from the liberal establishment. > T. C. Wheeler I do not have the actual statistics at hand--however it is a wellknown finding of every social survey I have ever seen that the wealthy (top 10% of wealthholders) are overwhelmingly conservative. The correlation between wealth and political leanings is not necessarily linear and monotonic--i.e. as you go from the poor who have minus wealth (namely debts) to the middle class, to the rich, slight increases in wealth between the poor and the middle class for example, do not necessarily lead to concommitant increases in conservatism. There are also two distinct dimensions (probably more, but these have had the most study) to liberal-conservative distinctions-economic and social. Thus blue-collar working class people are likely to be economically liberal (they support progressive income taxes, social programs like medicare) but socially conservative (they are more likely to be prejudiced against blacks, favor traditional marriage arrangements,etc). Upper-middle class professionals, on the other hand, are more likely to be socially liberal (favoring women's liberation, integration,etc) and economically conservative. The wealthy may be socially liberal (like the Rockefellers) but are very very much more likely to be economically conservative--obviously they overwhelmingly applauded Reagan's tax cuts which cut thousands of dollars from their tax bills and increased the number of millionaires paying no taxes from 5 to 169 last year. That there are some wealthy people who are both socially and economically liberal does not prove that the overwhelming majority are not. If you can present statistics to prove the wealthy are liberal or more liberal than other groups I would be very interested. As would political and social scientists who have been studying these issues for decades and found again and again that the wealthy are more conservative!! Tim Sevener whuxl!orb