PROPAGANDA VERSUS NEWS

Finally, someone in the mainstream media has evaluated in a public forum the truth about Fox News Network. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102523.html

Journalism has as its basis the verification of facts; otherwise, it is propaganda. I could list a page of untruths that Fox has allowed to suffuse its evening "opinion" shows (when most Americans are watching) which it knew to be false. In some cases, it later claimed it never said they were true. Many times it allows its "contributors" to tell the lies without correction. Other times Fox says it was covering a "rumor" as important "news" (with the news "value" of many people believing the rumor, partly due to Fox stirring up the rumor), later asserting that it never claimed the rumor's veracity. (Sure keeps it in the public awareness, though.)

As far as knowing the difference between straight news and opinion shows, I'd say many Americans do not distinguish between the two (although they might "know" the difference), especially if the opinion shows--Fox's entire evening format--conforms to viewers' ideology and preconceived biases. Also, the bottom-of-the-screen news runner sometimes does the trick of editorializing.

In sum, Fox's overall modus operandi is not journalism--requiring verification--but at best editorialization and at worst propagandizing. Fox is what it is--a political campaign. That's okay, but journalism it is not.

SPECIOUS HISTORICAL COMPARISON IS PROPAGANDA

A letter dated 7 July 2008 to the Richmond Times-Dispatch Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change' requires some comment.

It is obvious that the letter compares dictator Fidel Castro to Sen. Obama. Do you think this is valid historical comparison?

The change that Castro unleashed upon Cuba beginning in 1959 came after a violent revolution in which the ancien regime was truly overthrown. How would that situation compare to the election of a democrat such as Sen. Obama within an established democracy? Obviously there is no comparison that could be valid. A newly elected American president could not achieve such radical change as Castro could. Castro was instrumental in the destruction of the ancien regime; not so an American president who must work within the system.

Observe the wording of the letter: "election-year rhetoric," "young leader," "spoke eloquently and passionately," "denounced the old regime," "press fell in love with him," and "who his friends were or what he really believed"--these are code words and phrases making a specious comparison of a known evil (Castro) to a present political personage (Sen. Obama) involved in a political campaign.

The letter reads as if it were composed by the Republican National Committee (it cannot be ruled out that it WAS composed by people associated with the Republican campaign). In fact it has the hallmarks of a (Karl) Rovian strategy: attack the strength of the opposition. If Sen. Obama's strength is his ability to inspire (even if it is with generalities about change), then Rovian strategy attacks his ability to inspire and his message of "change." This strategy has certainly worked in the past; it is obviously working now.

Look again at the "letter" and its wording: "executioner's gun" is associated with Castro, but the appearance of this scare-phrase is no accident in a "letter" actually about Sen. Obama. The strategy by the Republican National Committee and Fox News is to sow seeds of doubt and discomfort about Sen. Obama's character ("who his friends were"), to plant fear of Obama's very strengths ("spoke eloquently and passionately"), and to frighten Americans about his intentions ("executioner").

One way to plant doubt and fear is to make invalid historical comparisons. Please think twice before you fall for what should be an obvious piece of political propaganda. If you do fall for the tactics of propagandists, you will have been used.

PROPAGANDISTIC WORD-IMAGES

MediaMatters was being much too generous when it labeled as "obtuse" E. D. Hill's recent use of the word "terrorist" on Fox Network in relation to the Obamas. Obtuse means dull, insensitive, stupid, difficult to understand. Hill's words, however, are manifestly understandable. It seems to me they must be seen as calculated effort to sow frightful word-images in the minds of Americans. Think of it: a professional TV commentator does not make a slip of the tongue on the order of saying "terrorist" when speaking of a presidential candidate.

This was no less intentional than Sean Hannity--another Fox Network entertainer-propagandist--keeping alive through a couple of news cycles the false story about the supposed use of the word "Whitey" by Michelle Obama. Fox and Hannity unconscionably claim it was just covering the story about a "rumor," a rumor they were reasonably sure was false--there was never ANY evidence--because the rumor machine about the Obamas has been working overtime for some time now. Yet, they kept alive a lie. Thus, Fox Network must be understood as a prime cog in the anti-Obama rumor machine.

Prepare yourselves America: What we have seen so far is just the warm-up to the juggernaut Swiftboating of the Obamas. Those of us who understand this must keep struggling for truth to find its way into the civic forum. Otherwise, Fox, Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh will rumor us and slip-of-the-tongue us into another administration of barbarity and--I can use this word with verity now--obtuseness.