VIEW 1 - Rhetoric press/media
societal purpose of First Amendment (freedom of press) enabling public to assert political control over political process
- information
- opinion
- access
- opportunity to act
VIEW 2 - Historic & Present
contrary view = dominant view
re modern democracy
traced to 17th Century English Revolution
civil war / king supporter v. parliament supporters
plus: big popular movement - populist radical democratic movement
defeated 1660
lost: question whose slaves the poor shall be, king or parliament
John Locke
lower classes must be told what to believe
Clement Walker
deep concern of liberal elements (agitators)
were revealing mysteries of govt - that lower classes will be too arrogant to submit to civil rule
Reinhold Niebuhr
moralist, political thinker
rationality belongs to the cool observers
stupidity of average man he follows not reason but faith
and the naive faith of the proletarian requires necessary illusion
and emotionally potent oversimplifications which have to be provided
by myth-makers to keep the ordinary person on the right course
Walter Lippman
'dean of American journalists'
wrote about what he called the 'manufacture of consent'
- has become a self-conscious art
- and a regular organ of popular govt in a revolution of the practice of democracy
- thought it appropriate b/c common interests allude public opinion entirely
- and can be managed only by a specialised class
- whose personal interests reach beyond the locality
- post WWI
- like Niebuhr's 'cool observers'
WWI timing important
During WWI John Dewey's circle of intellectuals were extremely impressed
with having imposed their will on a reluctant and indifferent majority
with the aid of propaganda fabrications about 'Hun atrocities' and jingoistic over-simplifications
/ as usual, the population was pacifistic and did not want to go to war
Woodrow Wilson, in fact, won the 1916 election
on the slogan peace without victory
- a mandate which he predictably interpreted as meaning victory without peace very quickly
- with the aid of the intellectuals, they felt that they had whipped the population into a war fever
- historians also joined enthusiastically in the cause
- formed the National Board for Historical Service
- founder of it said what was needed was what he called 'historical engineering'
- method to serve the state by 'explaining' the issues of the war to that the Americans might better win it
- Wilson administration established the first government official propaganda agency in the US
- called the Creel Commission (Committee on Public Information, CPI - aka Creel Committee)
- a straight propaganda agency to try to turn reluctant and indifferent majority
- into a willingness to fight the war and succumb to jingoistic fanaticism
- a predecessor of a much more ambitious program developed during Reagan Administration
- Reagan's Office of Latin American Public Diplomacy - theoretically under State Dept.
- but actually under National Security Council
- Congressional General Accounting Office later concluded this was an illegal operation
- an illegal operation which had intent of intimidating critics
- & controlling debate and discussion re Central America
- goal: demonize Sandanistas & build up support for the US client state / US terrorist states in region
- exposed during Iran-Contra hearings
- officials described propaganda efforts to Miami Herald journalist as spectacular success
- "the kind of operation that you would carry out in enemy territory"
- expresses attitude of Reaganite political leaders and fact of state leaders generally towards their own populations
- ie. that own population is the 'enemy' - the domestic 'enemy' that you must control & marginalise
- and you want to ensure that they do not become so arrogant as not to find humility enough to submit to civil rule
- Out of Creel Commission, but going back to WWI, a number of consequences
- one of members of Creel Commission went on to become leading figure & patron saint of modern PR industry
- Edward Bernays, who later went on to write about the 'engineering of consent'
- 'engineering of consent', the essence of democracy, in Bernay's view
- PR industry devoted to controlling the 'public mind'
- educating the American ppl about the economic facts of life, to ensure favourable climate for business and
- a proper understanding of the common interests
- the public mind is the only serious danger facing the company (ATT exec) - it's got to be controlled
- Edward Bernays went on to demonizing the democratic govt of Guatemala
- working for the United Fruit Company when the US was planning to overthrow Guatemala govt
- as it did in 1954, turning country into a [???] which it has remained since
- a major theme in academic social sciences for decades
- Harold Lasswell, US political scientist & communications theorist, academic
- wrote article on propaganda in International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences (1933)
- says we should not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests
- they are not. According to him, the best judges are the elites. The smart guys. The cool observers.
- He says we must be ensured the means to impose our will, for the common good
- said this would require a whole technique of control, largely by propaganda, b/c ignorance & superstition of masses
- same theme all the way through, comments Chomsky
- basic problem: if you have a society in which the voice of the ppl is heard
- YOU HAVE GOT TO ENSURE THAT VOICE SAYS THE RIGHT THING
- in totalitarian societies - threat of physical force
- so in that society it does not matter so much what they think
- what matters is what they do, and that you control by force
- AS CAPACITY OF THE STATE TO CONTROL BY FORCE ERODES
- it is necessary to control what ppl think
- as society becomes more free, there is more sophisticated concern for thought control
- eg. public relations, academia, journalism
- state has limited resources to control the public by force
- US undoubtedly most sophisticated in the reliance on techniques of indoctrination and control (public relations)
- PR industry an American creation
- close similarity to Leninist ideology - to Bolshevism
- which also assumes that the radical intellectuals are the specialised class, the vanguard, and they've got to lead the
- stupid and ignorant masses to a better society
- Chomsky says the two conceptions are very much alike
- one of the reasons why there has been such an easy transition from to another
- move from being Leninist enthusiast to a passionate supporter of state capitalism
- and working for American [capitalist] aims; Chomsky remarks "that takes place overnight"
- it's been going on for years: it's called 'the god that failed transition' (?)
- in early stages had some authenticity - examples Ignazio Silone
- Ignazio Silone - long-term informer for Mussolini’s regime—the Italian Orwell as a fascist spy
- in recent years just a farce; a technique of opportunism
- transition is easy b/c not much of a difference in ideological change; just a matter of where you think power lies
- eg. if you think there's going to be popular revolution
- & you can ride revolution to state power & hold whip over masses
- equals: Leninist enthusiast
- if, on the other hand, you don't see that happening
- but see power lying in state institutions which you must serve as an ideological manager,
- you do that
- in last century or so since there has been an identifiable secular intelligentsia
- intelligentsia fall typically into one or other of these two categories
- associate themselves with one or other system of power & hierarchy & subordination
- it is only if you submit to those systems that you are counted as a 'respectable' intellectual
- for obvious reasons
- post WWII
- deep concern again over need to control & deceive the public / to control the public mind
- presidential historian Thomas Bailey, wrote 1948, when setting off on 'Cold War'
- wrote:
"because the masses are notoriously short-sighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats, our statesmen are forced to deceive them into an awareness of their own long-run interests. Deception of the people may in fact become increasingly necessary, unless we are willing to give our leaders in Washington a freer hand."
- 1981, as US was launching a new crusade for 'freedom'
- Professor Samuel Huntington, Harvard, said in private (but published) discussion:
"you may have to sell [intervention or other military action] in such a way as to create the misimpression that it is the Soviet Union that you are fighting. That is what the United States has done ever since the Truman Doctrine"
- giving insight into nature of the 'Cold War' and the nature of the war against Nicaragua
- concerns re controlling the public mind
- rise to surface esp. after wars and turmoil - eg. 17th Century Revolution, England
- eg. like WWI when Woodrow Wilson launched the 'Red Scare'
- major example in all of American history of state repression
- large-scale and effective in destroying unions and
- destroying independent politics and eliminating independent thought
- same thing after WWII - phenomenon mislabled 'McCarthyism'
- actually initiated by the Liberal Democrats in late 1940s / McCarthy just at tail end & vulgarised it
- reason: periods of war & turmoil tend to arouse ppl from apathy
- making them think, organise / so you have repression - eg. Red Scare etc.
- same thing happened after Vietnam War
- elites concerned re what they called 'crisis of democracy'
- book: The Crisis of Democracy, published by Trilateral Commission, put together by David Rockefeller 1973
- representing the liberal internationalists from three major centres of modern capitalism
- USA, Western Europe and Japan (hence 'trilateral')
- this is the liberals - eg. Jimmy Carter
- 'Crisis of Democracy' - during 1960s large groups of ppl normally passive & apathetic
- began to try to enter political arena to press demands / that is 'crisis' to be overcome
- naive might call that 'democracy'
- but the sophisticated / the elites / understand that as a 'crisis of democracy'
- American spox, Samuel Huntington, wrote in his report Harry Truman had been able to govern country
- with cooperation of relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers & bankers
- but in 1960s, turmoil - youth, women, labour etc - began to get involved
- same crisis that arose in 1700s and same crisis that repeatedly arises when ppl begin to take advantage of
- formal opportunities that exist
- problems: VALUE ORIENTED INTELLECTUALS - concerned with 'truth', 'justice' nonsense
- delegitimising the institutions that are responsible for the indoctrination of the young
- eg. schools, universities
- opposed to the 'good guys', the technocratic and policy oriented intellectuals / the commissars
- their proposal: more 'moderation' in democracy to mitigate the 'excess' of democracy to over come the 'crisis'
- plain terms: public has to be reduced to their proper state of apathy & obedience
- & public must be driven from the public arena, if democracy is to survive
- with the specialised class, the cool observers, smart guys, technocratic and policy oriented intellectuals
- doing job in interests of the ppl
- that's the liberal side
- not going into what reactionary side says
STANDARD VIEW OF DEMOCRACY - View 1. Rhetorical View
- view of Justice Powell - the view he expressed:
- view that the public ought to assert meaningful control over the political process
CONTRARY VIEW - View 2. View Actually Held
- the public is a dangerous enemy and has to be controlled, for own good, like you control children
- Evident that View 2 is the actual held view, can be seen when a 'crisis of democracy' arises
- and unwashed masses begin to enter into political arena & have to be somehow REPRESSED
- said force and mentioned Red Scare (but isn't that propaganda ?) or other means
- media play a big role in this
- STANDARD VIEW OF DEMOCRACY - same Justice Powell discussion
- claims it is the crucial role of the media to effect the societal purpose of First Amendment
- ie allow the public to assert control over the political process
- STANDARD VIEW OF DEMOCRACY - also expressed by Judge Gurfein
- permitting the New York Times to publish The Pentagon Papers
said:
"We have a cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press, and it must be suffered by those in authority, in order to preserve the even greater values of the freedom of expression and the right of the people to know"
That's the standard view.
THE DEBATE
- given that standard view, we have debate: whether the media has gone too far in defiance of authority
- right wing claims they've gone too far & they are overcome by liberal bias; must do something
- the liberals - as in the Trilateral Commission [capitalist] - AGREE
- THEY SAY THAT THE MEDIA THREATENS GOVT AUTHORITY
- by their adversarial stance and they've got to be curbed
- if they can't curb themselves; the govt is going to have to move in to curb them
- Executive Director of 'Freedom House' Leonard Sussman
- asked: must free institutions be overthrown by the very freedom they sustain
- rhetorical: meaning we need to do something re excess freedom that press is using to attack govt
- Sussman was writing re Freedom House study of the Vietnam War's 1968 Tet Offensive
- (two-volume study accusing the press of virtually losing the war)
- a classic showing that the press allegedly lost the war by unfair criticism of USG during Tet Offensive
- study a total fraud; falsified data & when analysed PRESS WAS SUPPORTIVE OF USG POLICY
- and PRESS WAS WORKING WITHIN FRAMEWORK OF GOVT PROPAGANDA
- nevertheless they claimed press was too 'pessimistic'
- by which standard?
- obvious standard is internal US intelligence assessments
- which we have, thanks to the Pentagon Papers
- TURNS OUT THE PRESS WAS MORE OPTIMISTIC THAN USG INTEL
- b/c press believed public statements and did not know re private USG intel statements
- so FREEDOM HOUSE complaint reduces to the fact that the press
- though totally supportive of the USG propaganda, DID NOT DO IT IN UPBEAT ENOUGH FASHION
- it would not have surprised George Orwell that that should be criticism of the press
- by an organisation called 'Freedom House'
- but that has become the benchmark since, that 'proves' that the press was too 'adversarial'
- THAT'S THE DEBATE
- then the DEFENDERS OF THE PRESS say maybe we're too adversarial but you have to tolerate us
- even though we're cantankerous etc
- OUTSIDE OF THAT DEBATE - which debate constitutes virtually the entire mainstream discussion
- outside debate, there is another position: it challenges the factual assumption that's taken for granted
- according to this alternative view, the MEDIA do indeed fulfil a societal purpose
- ie. TO INCULCATE AND DEFEND THE ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL & POLITICAL AGENDA
- OF THE PRIVILEGED GROUPS THAT DOMINATE THE DOMESTIC SOCIETY
- by selection of topics; by distribution of concern; by frame of issues; by filtering of info; by emphasis & tone;
- by simple fabrication, sometimes; CRUCIALLY, BY THE BOUNDING OF DEBATE
- to ensure that debate does not go outside of certain limits
- binding in both news columns and in opinion columns
- because news columns embody all sorts of assumptions and ideological presuppositions
- to the extent that there is, a liberal bias,
- it serves primarily to bound thinkable thought (according to this outside view)
- ie. to INSTIL THE UNCHALLENGEABLE ASSUMPTIONS which reflect narrow elite consensus
- LIBERAL BIAS PERFORMS A REAL FUNCTION: SAYS 'THUS FAR' AND NO MORE
- but as far as the liberal bias goes, it is still accepting the presuppositions as unchallengeable
- within those bounds, there's ample controversy
- it reflects the tactical divisions among elites how to achieve generally shared aims
- BUT THESE LIMITS ARE VERY RARELY TRANSCENDED
- so Western media functions in accordance with the: PROPAGANDA MODEL
PROPAGANDA MODEL
- propaganda model has a prediction about how the press is going to behave
- Propaganda Model has a further prediction
- ie. no matter how well confirmed the Propaganda Model, it cannot be taken seriously
- and therefore must be effectively excluded from mainstream discussion
- that follows from the model itself
- THE MODEL REJECTS CERTAIN PRINCIPLES THAT ARE SERVICEABLE TO POWER
- Propaganda Model of press falls out of the spectrum that is defined by the presupposition
- that the media are adversarial and cantankerous, perhaps excessively so
- THAT PRESUPPOSITION IS A SERVICEABLE ONE, to the established institutions
- to believe that what you are reading is actually criticism if it's in fact support
- it's a SOPHISTICATED TECHNIQUE OF INDOCTRINATION
- of course, the presupposition / technique of indoctrination is serviceable to media themselves
- nice to pride yourself on being a 'courageous' and 'independent' adversary of power
- since those assumptions are serviceable, they're going to be upheld according to the propaganda model
- NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE WILL BE PERMITTED
- that prediction is very readily confirmed
- the Propaganda Model is never taken seriously: it cannot be considered
- Propaganda Model has disconcerting feature to it:
- as a matter of logic, it is either VALID or INVALID
- if it's invalid, you can dismiss it
- if it's valid, you MUST dismiss it (because it is saying the wrong thing)
- ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, PROPAGANDA MODEL MUST BE DISMISSED
- truth is no defence
- very much like traditional of the doctrine of seditions libel
- ie it is a crime to criticise state authorities because that undermines power
- doctrine runs up to modern times
- truth was never a defence against seditious libel
- truth heightened the enormity of the crime of calling authority into disrepute
- same is true here (re Propaganda Model)
FACTUAL QUESTION
- are the standard presumptions correct?
- ie - is it true that the press is independent, cantankerous, adversarial & maybe excessively so?
- OR are the assumptions of the Propaganda Model correct?
- Propaganda Model has certain prior plausibility to it
PRIOR PLAUSIBILITY - NO. 1
- ie. if you simply accept controversial free market assumptions
- about how society works
- you are led almost automatically to the propaganda model
- you can see that pretty simply
- Ask yourself what the media are.
- ie. THE AGENDA SETTING MEDIA - media that sets the frame that others adapt to
- ie. NYT, WaPo, and 3 TV channels, + couple others - not much else
- those set framework that everyone else pretty well adapts to
- agenda setting media: what are they?
- AGENDA SETTING MEDIA = VERY LARGE CORPORATIONS that are INTEGRATED WITH or often OWNED by EVEN LARGER CONGLOMERATES
- like other businesses, they have product that they sell to market
- MARKET = advertisers / other businesses
- PRODUCT = audiences
- MEDIA do not finance themselves on audiences - audience is usually a loss
- AGENDA SETTING MEDIA makes money from ADVERTISERS
- advertising rates go up if you have the right kind of audience
- only a relatively privileged audience raises advertising rates
- SO WHAT MEDIA ARE AS AN INSTITUTION is major corporations selling relatively privileged audiences to other businesses
- what would you expect to come out of such a system
- you expect to come out something that reflects interests of the:
- sellers
- buyers
- product
- it would be amazing if it were not true
- many other things apart from that press in the same direction
- centres of power in society (state, corporate sector, & others)
- can impose punishments when things go wrong (or rewards)
- therefore GAIN when adapting to CENTRES OF POWER
- gains: less costly
- top managerial positions - editors, columnists etc
- if you make it into those positions you are PART of the privileged elite
- at the very top / that's where your associations are / perceptions / friends
- it would not be surprising if PERSONNEL reflected the SAME INTERESTS
- many other pressures, leading immediately to the assumption that Propaganda Model is highly plausible
- even without any evidence / it has prior plausibility & would be surprising if it were not true
PRIOR PLAUSIBILITY - NO. 2
- Media has a lot of elite advocacy
- represents position intellectual elites thought the media OUGHT to serve
- and the whole system of education and so on ought to serve
- that is the position since the 17th Century / the dominant position
- it is the position necessary to manufacture consent for the general good because of the stupidity of the average man
- and we have to put aside these democratic dogmatisms
THUS we have a position of (1) PRIOR PLAUSIBILITY & (2) ELITE ADVOCACY and (3) PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
- it is very striking that the debate over the media is determined by the intellectuals
- AND THEY'RE THE MOST INDOCTRINATED SECTOR OF SOCIETY
- for them the ONLY debate is whether the media are too adversarial or not
- public, on the other hand, generally think the media are too conformist & too subordinate to power
- they automatically accept something like the propaganda model
- these 3 factors do not prove that Propaganda Model is valid, but do suggest that Propaganda Model
- ought to be part of the 'debate' / discussion
- IT IS NOT A PART OF THE DISCUSSION, EXACTLY AS THE MODEL PREDICTS
- thousands of pages of detailed, close documentation on the Propaganda Model
- tested in just about every conceivable way
- Propaganda Model is by now one of the best confirmed thesis of the social sciences
- if there is any serious challenge to it, Chomsky has not seen it: it is generally just ignored
- or caricatured
- what you have is very well confirmed thesis (not proven) & no serious challenge to it
- it has (1) prior plausibility (2) is advocated by elites (3) is generally supported by the public
- but it's not part of the discussion, exactly in accord with its predictions
NEXT TASK IS TO LOOK AT ACTUAL DETAILS
- any set of examples will be misleading because its predictions are essentially universally confirmed
- with only statistical error, so giving examples is misleading because you might argue that the examples are not properly selected
- that's why you have to look at a range of tests to make sure that they are properly selected
- let ppl who think the media are adversarial pick their own grounds
- that's the harshest test that the model can face, so let them pick the grounds
- well they have picked their grounds: things like Tet Offensive
- it turns out everything you go to, Tet Offensive, Watergate, Iran-Contra hearings
- you take them and they show precisely the subservience of the press to established power
- compare coverage of historical atrocities committed by clients and enemies
- compare good deeds, like elections, carried out by clients and enemies
- look at comparative coverage
- tests conclude, PROPAGANDA MODEL is VALID as a first approximation to way media functions
- eg 'freedom of press'
more NYT coverage re Nicaragua than in rest of world combined re freedom of press Nicaragua
June 1986 - World Court condemned USA re unlawful use of force & US violation of treaties
World Court: called to desist
Congress responded to this by: voting $100-million in aide to increase/accelerate the unlawful use of force
Reagan Admin announced that this is for real and that this is a 'real war'
there was enthusiastic media coverage of that
the World Court decision was simply dismissed as an annoying bit of nonsense; either ignored or falsified
media presented the World Court as criminal, not the United States
in response to this virtual declaration of war, as the Reagan Admin described it, the Nicaragua govt
suspended La Prensa and that led to virtual hysteria in the US:
the Neimann Fellows, the journalism fellows at Harvard
immediately gave the owner of La Prensa, Violeta Chamorro, an award;
WaPo immediately wrote an editorial that she deserves ten awards;
New York Review 'Newspaper Headline' liberal left columnist, issued plea for funds for La Prensa to keep its equipment going (that those funds could be added to the rather substantial CIA subvention to La Prensa, ever since 1979); and on and on.
WHAT IS: La Prensa
La Prensa is probably unique in history - it is often believed that La Prensa opposed the Somoza dictatorship
- if you read the press that's what you'd believe
In 1980, right after the Sandinista revolution, the owners of La Prensa fired the editor and 80% of the staff left with him
because the edtor and the staff refused to support their pro Contra policy
/ the editor and staff formed another newspaper - and if a newspaper is constituted of its editor and its staff, that's the old La Prensa
/ if a newspaper is constituted of the money that's behind it, is it the new La Prensa
WHAT IS A NEWSPAPER
- is it the staff and the editor
- is it the owners & equipment
NEW LA PRENSA supports the overthrow of the government by a foreign power and it does it quite openly, and it's funded by the foreign power that is trying to overthrow the government
Chomsky cannot think of a parallel in the history of Western democracies
eg. during WWII, England did not permit Nazi Germany to fund and run a major newspaper in London and the United States did not permit Japan to invest in and run a major newspaper coming out of New York
in fact, England and United States imposed harsh censorship and they wouldn't even let tiny little dissident newspapers go through the mail or appear and so on
There's no remote parallel in Western history.
This is never mentioned in media commentary.
Nevertheless, a true civil libertarian will defend La Prensa from harassment, even though this is unique in human history, because if you're a real civil libertarian you think that US should have allowed Japan and Germany to dominate the American media during WWII.
WE NOW ASK WHETHER THE AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL HYSTERIA OVER LA PRENSA REFLECTS THEIR LIBERTARIAN PASSIONS or because they're serving power as the Propaganda Model predicts.
/ obvious test. test we apply all the time when we look at our enemies.
look at WORLD PEACE COUNCIL
Communist Front Organisation
read their publicity and you will see that they have a lot of criticisms of USA
often very valid criticisms
in fact, their critical discussion of the repression in USA and US dependencies
not only is often valid but it's OFTEN THE KIND OF THING THAT IS NOT REPORTED IN USA
/ do we honour them for that?
/ we regard them with contempt
[UNCLEAR TO ME]
/ and the reasons is we apply a very simple and obvious test
= we ask what they say for the repression and atrocities for which they are responsible
- El Salvadore there were 2 small independent papers
- / independent
- / not particularly left-wing
- / run by businessmen
- / challenged distribution of power (eg. land reform or something like that)
- not around any more
- govt that US arms, funds, trains and supports sent its security forces to destroy them
- One newspaper eliminated:
- editor and photo-journalist taken outside of restaurant and hacked with machetes by security forces & left in ditch
- / owner fled
- Other newspaper eliminated:
- took several bombings
- three assassination attempts on editor
- machine gun attack that killed newsboy / editor fled
- finally army surrounded premises with tanks and then smashed place and destroyed it
THIS HAS NEVER RECEIVED ONE WORD OF MENTION IN THE NEW YORK TIMES NEWS COLUMNS, IT HAS NEVER RECEIVED ONE EDITORIAL MENTION IN ALL OF THESE YEARS
THE SAME IS TRUE OF OTHER MEDIA
IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER: THESE ARE ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY OUR CLIENTS, THE GUYS WE PAY AND TRAIN TO DO THAT SORT OF THING, SO SUDDENLY OUR CONCERN ABOUT THE 'FREEDOM OF THE PRESS' DISAPPEARS
Let's take another major US client, ISRAEL, which receives by far the major US aid and is again not a small country under attack by a superpower.
At exactly the same time that Nicaragua suspended La Prensa after the virtual declaration of war, in violation of the World Court proceedings, ISRAEL CLOSED DOWN PERMANENTLY TWO JERUSALEM ARAB NEWSPAPERS, on the charge that security claimed that they were supported by a terrorist/hostile group.
Supported by Supreme Court of Israel on basis that no state, no matter how legitimate the business, will permit a business that is supported by hostile elements and that freedom of speech does not extend to activities that may threaten the security of the state.
How much coverage did that get? One mention in US press: ie in letter by Noam Chomsky in Boston Globe, commenting on the hypocrisy of the Nieman Fellows - they did not give a prize to these editors and, in fact, it was never reported.
After the Central American Peace Accords, La Prensa was opened, and right at that time, Israel closed a Nazareth newspaper on grounds, again, that it was supported by hostile elements.
Editor pleaded that everything that appeared in newspaper passed through censorship; but that was disregarded by Israel Supreme Court, on the grounds that if the state says it's supported by hostile elements, that's all that's required.
YOU NEVER NEED ANY EVIDENCE WHEN THE STATE COMES ALONG AND SAYS 'SECURITY REASONS', THE COURTS JUST ACCEPT IT.
Israel also closed a news office in Nablis - editor was already in prison without charge on the claim that he had contact with hostile elements.
How much coverage did that get in the US press? Answer, as far as Chomsky could find: zero.
Guatamala early 1980s, US enthusiastically supported outbreak of terror and violence
- Reaganites positively passionate enthusiasm for this
- maybe 100,000 ppl slaughtered
- after sufficient massacre had been carried out
- had 'democratic election
- and there's supposed to be a 'democracy' in Guatamala; that's what they tell us
- during period of US-backed slaughter, they did not have any censorship
- the problems of the press were taken care of simply by murdering journalists
- 50 journalists were murdered, including TV journalists right in the middle of broadcasts
- "for some reason, you didn't need any censorship when that was going on"
- Chomsky: that was never discussed; you will find bare mention of it in the press
After the return of 'democracy' on which we pride ourselves
- one of the editors who had fled and was living in Mexico
- decided to return and he opened a small newspaper, called 'La Epoca'
- it wasn't calling for overthrow of govt; it wasn't supported by a foreign power
- it was just kind of a small left-liberal journal
- immediately death threats from death squads, adjuncts of the security forces
- warning him that you're going to be killed or flee
- he nonetheless went ahead and published a couple of issues
- 15 armed men broke into the offices
- fire-bombed office
- kidnapped night-watchman
- destroyed the premises
- editor held press conference next day - no attendees, except European press
- said that there is no freedom of expression
- received another death threat warning him to get out of country
- taken to airport by European ambassador to ensure he could get out alive
- fled to Mexico
How much coverage did that get in America? Answer: zero.
Nothing in The New York Times and nothing in Washington Post in the last year.
It's not that they didn't know about it. It was on international wires.
But we also know that they themselves referred to it obliquely 1 month later.
-------------------------
Office of Public Diplomacy
officially known as the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean
part of a White House ordered propaganda plan in the 1980s
to provide cover for the secret CIA war in Nicaragua
CIA director William J. Casey initiated the propaganda campaign
on advice of private sector PR men:
Walter Raymond, Jr., a CIA propaganda expert, transferred to National Security Council to get program running
Raymond picked Otto Reich to run the new OPD
housed in the State Department
a covert, illegal, inter-agency propaganda campaign aimed at US citizens and Congress
never received full public scrutiny
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Office_of_Public_Diplomacy
Thomas A. Bailey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Bailey
https://zcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/zbooks/www/chomsky/ni/ni-c01-s06.html
The Powell Memo (also known as the Powell Manifesto)
The Powell Memo was first published August 23, 1971
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
Murray Irwin Gurfein, federal judge
The Pentagon Papers
During his first week as a judge, Gurfein was assigned the Pentagon Papers case and gained national prominence when he refused the government's initial prior restraint motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Gurfein
-----------------------------------------
Walter Lippman
'dean of American journalists'
coined term 'Cold War' in book of same name
{responsible for coining other terms also}
Lippmann was an early and influential commentator on mass culture, notable not for criticizing or rejecting mass culture entirely but discussing how it could be worked with by a government licensed "propaganda machine" to keep democracy functioning. [wikipedia]
Walter Lippman: associated with The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London, social engineering of the masses, funded by US-Anglo capitalists.
Edward Bernays
Also associated with The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London.
|
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 
