Propaganda cont'd

[Guest guest]

From

bet in less than 10 minutes everyone here could come up with examples of each

of these

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Military.asp

Political Scientist and author, Parenti, in an article on media

monopoly, also describes a pattern of reporting in the mainstream in the

U.S. that

leads to partial information. He points out that while the mainstream claim

to

be free, open and objective, the various techniques, intentional or

unintentional result in systemmatic contradictions to those claims. Such

techniques --

applicable to other nations' media, as well as the U.S. -- include:

Suppression By Ommission: «

He describes that worse than sensationalistic hype is the " artful avoidance "

of stories that might be truly sensational stories (as opposed to

sensationalistic stories).

Such stories he says are often " downplayed or avoided outright " and that

sometimes, " the suppression includes not just vital details but the entire

story

itself " even important ones.

Attack and Destroy the Target: «

Parenti says, " When omission proves to be an insufficient mode of censorship

and a story somehow begins to reach larger publics, the press moves from

artful avoidance to frontal assault in order to discredit the story " .

In this technique, the media will resort to discrediting the journalist,

saying things like this is " bad journalism " , etc., thus attempting to

silence the

story or distract away from the main issue.

Labeling: «

Parenti says that the media will seek to prefigure perceptions of a subject

using positive or negative labels and that the " label defines the subject

without having to deal with actual particulars that might lead us to a

different

conclusion " . (Emphasis added)

Examples of labels (positive and negative) that he points to include things

like, " stability " , " strong leadership " , " strong defence " , " healthy economy " ,

" leftist guerrillas " , " Islamic terrorists " , " conspiracy theories " ,

" inner-city

gangs " and " civil disturbances " . Others with double meanings include " reform "

and " hardline " .

Labels are useful, he suggests, because the " efficacy of a label is that it

not have a specific content which can be held up to a test of evidence.

Better

that it be self-referential, propagating an undefined but evocative image. "

Preemptive Assumption: «

As Parenti says of this, " Frequently the media accept as given the very

policy position that needs to be critically examined "

This is that classic narrow " range of discourse " or " parameters of debate "

whereby unacknowlegded assumptions frame the debate.

As an example he gives, often when the White House proposes increasing

military spending, the debates and analysis will be on how much, or on what

the

money should be spent etc, not whether such as large budget that it already

is, is

actually needed or not, or if there are other options etc. (See this site's

section on the geopoltiics for more on this aspect of arms trade, spending,

etc.)

Face-Value Transmission: «

Here, what officials say is taken as is, without critique or analysis.

As he charges, " Face-value transmission has characterized the press's

performance in almost every area of domestic and foreign policy "

Of course, for journalists and news organizations, the claim can be that they

are reporting only what is said, or that they must not inject personal views

into the report etc. Yet, to analyze and challenge the face-value

transmission

" is not to [have to] editorialize about the news but to question the

assertions made by officialdom, to consider critical data that might give

credence to

an alternative view. " Doing such things would not, as Parenti further points

out, become " an editorial or ideological pursuit but an empirical and

investigative one " .

Slighting of Content: «

Here, Parenti talks about the lack of context or detail to a story, so

readers would find it hard to understand the wider ramifications and/or

causes and

effects, etc.

The media can be very good and " can give so much emphasis to surface

happenings, to style and process " but " so little to the substantive issues

at stake. "

While the media might claim to give the bigger picture, " they regularly give

us the smaller picture, this being a way of slighting content and remaining

within politically safe boundaries " . An example of this he gives is how if

any

protests against the current forms of free trade are at all portrayed, then

it

is with reference to the confrontation between some protestors and the

police,

seldom the issues that protestors are making about democratic sovereignty and

corporate accountablity, etc. (See this sites, section on free trade protests

around the world for a more detailed discussion of that aspect.)

False Balancing: «

This is where the notion of objectivity is tested!

On the one hand, only two sides of the story are shown (because it isn't just

" both sides " that represent the full picture.

On the other hand, " balance " can be hard to define because it doesn't

automatically mean 50-50. In the sense that, as Parenti gives an example

of, " the

wars in Guatemala and El Salvador during the 1980s were often treated with

that

same kind of false balancing. Both those who burned villages and those who

were

having their villages burned were depicted as equally involved in a

contentious bloodletting. While giving the appearance of being objective

and neutral,

one actually neutralizes the subject matter and thereby drastically warps

it. "

(This aspect of objectivity is seldom discussed in the mainstream. However,

for some additional detail on this perspective, see for example,

Knightley in his award-winning book, The First Casualty (Prion Books, 1975,

2000

revised edition).)

Follow-up Avoidance: «

Parenti gives some examples of how when " confronted with an unexpectedly

dissident response, media hosts quickly change the subject, or break for a

commercial, or inject an identifying announcement: " We are talking with

[whomever]. "

The purpose is to avoid going any further into a politically forbidden topic

no matter how much the unexpected response might seem to need a follow-up

query.

This can be knowingly done, or without realizing the significance of a

certain aspect of the response.

Framing: «

" The most effective propaganda " Parenti says, " relies on framing rather than

on falsehood. By bending the truth rather than breaking it, using emphasis

and

other auxiliary embellishments, communicators can create a desired impression

without resorting to explicit advocacy and without departing too far from the

appearance of objectivity. Framing is achieved in the way the news is

packaged, the amount of exposure, the placement (front page or buried

within, lead

story or last), the tone of presentation (sympathetic or slighting), the

headlines and photographs, and, in the case of broadcast media, the

accompanying

visual and auditory effects. "

Furthermore, he points out that " Many things are reported in the news but few

are explained. " Ideologically and politically the deeper aspects are often n

ot articulated: " Little is said about how the social order is organized and

for

what purposes. Instead we are left to see the world as do mainstream pundits,

as a scatter of events and personalities propelled by happenstance,

circumstance, confused intentions, bungled operations, and individual

ambition --

rarely by powerful class interests. "

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

vaccineinfo@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL

OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE

DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

******

" Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down.

Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy

knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information

and religions destroy spirituality " .... Ellner