Can an allusion of free press exist in a climate of extreme political propaganda? Apparently so. And successfully, if the propaganda is controlled by market interests and not political ones. Most of the information in this ramble is gleaned from here but the feelings and emotions are all personal.
I think the term Big Brother is often misunderstood as those in power ‘spying’ on and following the activities of their people, i.e. keeping a close watch for misconduct and potentially dangerous activities. This (almost communist) approach was tried and its shortcomings are obvious. But having Big Brother in charge can also mean keeping a populace under control through feats of disinformation that do not (and will not) result in revolts, that are either physical or intellectual in nature. And a key player in this is the dominant media. This propaganda service by the mainstream media takes place because the dominant media is owned by elite interests who are closely linked to corporate-funded political establishment. And local media outlets, most often look to the larger media/news conglomerates as their primary source of national and international news. How many residents of Hicktown, VA actually read anything but the DailyHick? And how many editors of the papers like the DailyHick could afford to send a reporter to Iraq to cover the War on Terrorism in an unbiased manner?
So the USA is at war with an enemy – terror. It doesn’t have a face. It has currently taken the form of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The claim is that Iraq posed a serious national threat to the USA. They had weapons of mass-destruction, including chemical and biological grade weapons. Let’s even give ol’ Georgie the benefit of the doubt. Press reports are handed out to all the media giants, along with aerial images of possible locations of the threats. Within minutes, the television stations have run with it. It has spread like wild-fire on the internet. And every publication has it on their front page the next morning.
Where are the counter-reports, that would only be fair to mention that the United States, and its allies in the area, namely Israel, posses’ weapons of much greater destructive strength. Use of weapons that Iraq was supposed to have possessed would be nothing short of suicidal. A liberal and freethinking journalist occasionally mentions that that Saddam was gifted these weapons in the early 1980’s by a Republican government, to use against Iran. Never is it considered that during the Gulf War I, Saddam did not use his stock-piled WMD’s because he knew what the end effect would be. What about the alternate theories behind the war? To gain more control over the worlds oil and energy supply. To gain poll points for the next elections after the disaster of September 11, 2001. To eliminate a hostile power in the area so that further attacks on Palestinians by Israel could be effectively covered up. And of course, to avenge the man who tried to kill his father.
No, none of these are mentioned, because a journalist would be risking everything: further promotions, ire of his boss and the general public, and maybe even his career and safety if he dared to report the other point of view. He would be called unpatriotic. So he stays quiet, and happy to keep his job, the media giants are happy, and so is the government.
Is this any less than a totalitarian system of governance? It may not be, in the typical, communist sense, but it is. And it works better than it ever did for the former Soviet Union, because this time around, it is controlled by the market. In the Soviet Union, it was obviously government-controlled, heavy-handed, and iron-fisted and did not convince. The U.S. system is not government-controlled (merely government aided), provides the illusion of diversity even as it follows a set propaganda and disinforms a populations while having a much greater impact in mobilizing public support for actions that actually do not serve that public.
Let’s examine now, some key terms in use by Big Brother government and the media:
1) Defense Department/Defense Budget: It is not possible to blame just the USA for this, since no country would truly call their allocation of money on weapons the offense budget, or call the controlling department the war department. But for America, the defense is really offense. Being the undisputed military heavyweight, is defense or protection really that much of a key to its survival? The word defense is really just a useful and soothing word that makes citizens feel that money is being spent on their protection, while it is actually being siphoned away to meet the interests of the select few who control the market and government.
2) National Security: It seems like American national security is threatened very easily, which is strange for a country that has a stock-pile of over twenty-five hundred nuclear warheads. The bearded, turbaned fellow in the caves of Afghanistan; the despotic dictator of an Arab country whose GDP is less than three-thousandths the United States; or by a bunch of rice growing, essentially peaceful people, who were supposed to have been subjects of internal aggression by one of their own. In reality though, National Security is just a cover up for commercial and corporate interests. With the help of the mainstream media, this creates a favorable climate for American investments.
3) Missile gap: Going as far back as the cold war, the term missile-gap or window-of-vulnerability was created. This was done to push the arms race with the Soviet to its peak, by claiming that if more money was not pumped into research and development, the US military would fall behind and be threatened by the Soviet Union. This was not acceptable. These so called gaps and windows were later said to be mythical, according to Herbert York, military advisor to Dwight Eisenhower. But once the media caught a whiff of these terms, they never let them go. After all, they made for such sensationalism in the news.
4) Rogue State: This is another excellent term, said to have been coined under Bush, Sr. It creates an allusions of a country of thugs, brandishing AK-47’s and spending all their free time manufacturing weapons grade plutonium. In actuality though, countries are moved in and out of the United States list of rogue states, depending on their serviceability to American interests. Iraq was very much in favor, during its 8-year war with Iran because Reagan was pleased have Saddam attack a country that was their enemy of the moment. But no mention is made of other thoroughly undemocratic countries (Pakistan, China, and Saudi Arabia) or states that ritually practice(d) ethnic cleansing (Israel, South Africa).
5) Axis of Evil: This is another term that, just like rogue state, conjures up images of secret underground meetings between the leaders of countries, where briefcases full of money are exchanged for briefcase nuclear devices. In reality though, no connection has ever been proven between North Korea, Iran and Iraq. And of course, terms such as axis of evil and rogue state are too good to be passed up by the media giants. They are like cattle fodder, being fed to a constantly hungry public.
6) War-on-Terror: Not a day goes by that I don’t see or hear this term being uttered on the radio, television, newspapers or internet. It has become a part of the daily vocabulary. Anyone care to wager on how soon before Merriam-Webster includes it in their dictionary?
7) Crusade against Terror: It was a big booboo on the part of George W. Bush when he uttered these words, post September 11, 2001, while promising his nation that he would hunt down those responsible for the atrocities committed. The crusades, are generally considered to be a series of wars that lasted two centuries, between Christian Europe and the Islamic Middle-East. Notwithstanding, the press has run away with this term, using it often enough to describe the current war with Iraq.
8) Weapons of Mass Destruction: Another useful and sensationalized term that is used to only describe weapons that are owned by Iraq and North Korea. The press and media conglomerates conveniently forget the vast collection of such weapons by the Americans themselves. Also is forgotten that the only nation to ever use a WMD is America, against Japan.
9) Terrorism: These two terms are probably thrown around the most, without caution for how they are used. A standard dictionary definition of the term would go somewhat like this: violence committed by one group against another in order to intimidate them into granting their demands. Somehow, the United States and its allies never engage in terrorism themselves, but are always warring against it. But Libya, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Cuba have all, at one time or another, been terrorist nations and were heavily condemned for their acts. Still, Israeli bombings of Palestine are never questioned.
10) Preemptive Attack and Humanitarian Intervention: In order to morally justify despicable acts of violence these two terms and brandied about carelessly too. Some threat that is foreseen to be a problem needs to be completely wiped out, without sufficient or demonstrable reason. Or to preserve human rights, a village needs to be destroyed in order to be saved.
George Orwell, arguably the greatest writer and critic of a totalitarian government and the inventor of “newspeakâ€, the truth-denying language, would himself have been awed at the level of double talk and misinformation created by past and the most recent American governments.
Krishna Srinivasan 
“bunch of rice growing, essentially peaceful people, who were supposed to have been subjects of internal aggression by one of their own”
That’s me!!!!
If we take a look at history, the policy of nonintervention is pretty much what got Europe invaded and 6 to 12 million people baked in ovens.
I just bought Black Hawk Down, and I would also like to point out that the entire operation was a responce to 300,000 deaths at the hands of local warlords. That would fit most people’s definition of “Rogue State”. Would you turn a blind eye to the suffering of these people? How much would America have been condemned if we didn’t send in forces in the name of peace? Yes, we lost 19 soldiers and killed over 1000 of their people in the course of two days fighting, but this cleared the way for the UN to deliver the food and medical supplies that these people desperately needed. How do you weigh the cost of human life versus peace? Would it be OK to trade 1019+ lives for possibly saving another 300,000 people? Or should another 300,000 die because it’s wrong to get involved in other people’s affairs?
Defence Budget also includes Army units like Delta and Naval units like SEAL which provide security, domestic and foreign. A brief history of operations can be found on: http://www.specialoperations.com/Army/Delta_Force/operations.htm
Mike, just one thing: Try to attack the points and not the people posting the points. One of the key military philosophies is that people fight conflicts over ideals, but very few of them are born truely and inescapibly evil (serial killers, et al, being the obvious exception). Branding someone an idiot is very different from banding someone misguided according to your ideals. I would put the average iraqi citizen who doesn’t understand the occupation as misguided. The guy who doesn’t put down his rifle in the face of a military who has a pretty good track record of human rights (we’re dealing with the Abu Garib problem) and get shot is an idiot. The sad part about it, I think, is like the end of blackhawk down, where the woman picks up a rifle and gets wasted. There’s a lot of people who COULD be alive if they didn’t lose their minds in a fit of passion against the military. The reason why Iraqis fighting back are branded as idiots in my books is because they are up against the most well trained military in the world and even a soldier with an ounce of braincells working knows we pretty much kill anyone who acts in a hostile fashion. As Alto said, “killing is negioation in [africa & the middle east]”. It is an unfortunate commentary on how these people see what the government was, but we’re trying to motivate them to govern themselves in a much better way that doesn’t involve violence against their own people. As such, I would count India on the list of civilized nations. Curiously: There seems to be a fair amount of anti-Muslim sentiment in India and it’s suprising they arn’t first on the loud-seat in the gulf. Ghandi was pro-gun.
It would be the difference between assuming that all Iraqi people are foolish and should be treated like cattle and the ideal that we’re there to help make life a little easier for them.
Mike, Wow! You totally ripped apart my post…I feel like an idiot…NOT! Except most of what you said has no back-up whatsoever. My post was based solely on my sentiments and feelings. Very little was based on fact. I made that disclaimer up-top. You on the other hand, have confused sentiment with fact.
But I see that living with you and Josh is going to be constant entertainment! I’m looking forward to it.
Another angry rant by a thoughtlessly misguided American. Anyways, Mike I forgive you for that.
Both you and Krishna need to check your facts. Both of you are wrong in enough places to sound foolish.
Anyways, dilaogue should always be welcomed.
Some of the issues discussed here are intractable, however the rationales should not degenerate into political affiliation.
Mike should know that K isnt American and hence political affiliations have virtually no bearing on his reasons.
Look forward to hashing more of this in the courts; it should be FUN!!
*) We’re having lawsuits about blog posts, sameer?
*) I’m an American, but I vote independant (I had a brief republican stint but then they brought up that whole christianity thing and then I didn’t regret being all lazy with my political affiliation according to the government).
Sameer! Throw stones! Make a long insightful post! Clearly there are none here!
some fisking action here..
“The claim is that Iraq posed a serious national threat to the USA. They had weapons of mass-destruction, including chemical and biological grade weapons. Let’s even give ol’ Georgie the benefit of the doubt. ”
A. This one line in a paragraph of reasons, it was not the main reason for going into iraq
B. The Russians warned us about Saddam’s willingness to use his WMD
C. The Europeans thought he had the weapons
D. Clinton Though he had the weapons.
E. The whole god damn world thought he had the weapon.
(quick quiz: Why did the whole god damn world think saddam has/had wmd ?
give up?
BECAUSE HE USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE.
the real question concerned WMD is where are they now?
The whole wmd thing is a tired and beaten line, your continuing usage of it is ironic given your subject matter since you are employing the propaganda tactic known as “The Big Lie”, first made popular by the democrat’s good buddy Stalin (Democrats are known for saying “If stalin is good enough for russia then he is good enough for me!”, never mind the mass slaughters.)
but anyway. moving on.
“Where are the counter-reports, that would only be fair to mention that the United States, and its allies in the area, namely Israel, posses’ weapons of much greater destructive strength. Use of weapons that Iraq was supposed to have possessed would be nothing short of suicidal.”
wrong again.
Though you are Indian and are forgiven for this one (I don’t expect you to understand American thinking)
Americans like stuff like history. see we can look at saddam’s history and understand that saddam is a crazy ass bastard who cares nothing about his people and thus is highly likely to use those previously mentioned weapons.
meh let’s pull out a little more history, post liberation, iraqi war generals admitted that the order to use WMD went out, each thought the others had these weapons and were using them.
“A liberal and freethinking journalist occasionally mentions that that Saddam was gifted these weapons in the early 1980’s by a Republican government, to use against Iran.”
this journalist is also wrong. I noticed you did not NAME the journalist, so it must be one that is wrong often enough to gain a reputation for it.
we gave very limited support to saddam’s iraq ( IIRC american support was less than 10% than the total support
received, that’s why most of iraq’s military equipment is russian), the support given is open to the public and easily view by anyone who cares to know the truth, I’ll give you a hint WMD are not on the list. ( another funny thing about us American we have a transparent government! Not only do our politicians take bribes but we know which ones and who gave the bribe! Er, assuming you take the time to look ( quick example: Enron handed out 20 k to everyone in congress when it was in trouble, SOME of them gave it back, check it out )
Biological and chemical weapons are relatively easy to make, saddam did get some outside experts to assist, but his stuff was locally developed
..
“Never is it considered that during the Gulf War I, Saddam did not use his stock-piled WMD’s because he knew what the end effect would be. ”
actually this is\was considered, One of the reason we did not get rid of saddam then was because it was feared he would use his weapons if threatened with the loss of power (please note I used the word ‘One’, that means that there were in fact others, also note I did not say ‘The Main’, that means that it was supportive of the final decision, but it was not, in itself, decisive)
“What about the alternate theories behind the war? To gain more control over the worlds oil and energy supply. To gain poll points for the next elections after the disaster of September 11, 2001. To eliminate a hostile power in the area so that further attacks on Palestinians by Israel could be effectively covered up. And of course, to avenge the man who tried to kill his father. ”
all these theories are bunk. If you looked at bush’s political patterns Pre 9-11 you would note he was entirely against military conflicts for any reason. When he came to believe that we are at war with an ideology he changed tracks, even now he is being too soft on our enemies.
as a politician, bush is undoubtly corrupt, goes with the territory of being a politician, can’t get anything done without scratching the right backs, but do you really expect me to believe he suddenly transform into some kind of sick fucker who would do those sort of things?
Sorry but no.
this is not russia
this is not china
this is not india.
“No, none of these are mentioned, because a journalist would be risking everything: further promotions, ire of his boss and the general public, and maybe even his career and safety if he dared to report the other point of view. He would be called unpatriotic. So he stays quiet, and happy to keep his job, the media giants are happy, and so is the government.”
wait wait. I think I get it. you are trying to claim that the media that is constantly attacking bush is really hiding the bad stuff and propping up bush’s presidency..
Are you on crack?
(You do know that no journalist has ever lost his/her job for being unpatriotic right? You are just pulling this out of your ass here..)
“Is this any less than a totalitarian system of governance? It may not be, in the typical, communist sense, but it is. And it works better than it ever did for the former Soviet Union, because this time around, it is controlled by the market.”
shit. you can’t even get this right
there IS a serious problem with the media, glad that you can see that, you are not entirely blind.
however you ignore two key things
Key 1. people trust the news media as much as a politician(less than 20% of the public consider the news to be trust worthy) (Well at least americans, I can’t speak for others, the statistical research was limited to US citizens)
it’s kind of hard to run some kind of monopoly based on trust when no one trusts you
Key 2. This is a known problem that blogs actively fight, an easy example is the swiftvets story, media tried to buried their story for over 12 months before blogs decided to take up the fight and make their words public, media had no choice but to start talking about it as well
(granted in an anti-bush pro-kerry spin ( after all 200+ swift vets is less than 5 swift vets (er make that 4 since 1 only served a week)
there is no secret media powered control on society.
(notice I am not denying that the media is TRYing to gain this control)
it’s all in your moonbat head.
I’m not going to waste my time with the rest of that paragraph
“Defense Department/Defense Budget: It is not possible to blame just the USA for this, since no country would truly call their allocation of money on weapons the offense budget, or call the controlling department the war department. But for America, the defense is really offense. Being the undisputed military heavyweight, is defense or protection really that much of a key to its survival? The word defense is really just a useful and soothing word that makes citizens feel that money is being spent on their protection, while it is actually being siphoned away to meet the interests of the select few who control the market and government. ”
the reason Europe is not at war with itself right now?
Oh yeah.
American Occupation for 50+ FUCKING YEARS
(not that we get any thanks for that stability)
Need to turn a Rampaging warlike society into the most peaceful people in the world?
(that’s japan in case you are clueless)
oh yeah
America fixed that problem!
USSR threatening the world?
oh wait. Americans took care of that one.
Any meaningful action by the un
Oh yeah,
Done by americans!
Any stupid ass action by the un?
oh yeah non-americans!
All of it done with that defense budget you mocked.
You would be a slave in a japanese work camp if not for America
Time and Time again American have gotten up and saved some other fucker’s country/people. All we ever ask in return is enough land to bury our dead.
fyi, our % expenditure on the military is less than most of the nations in our humble world, we just work harder and smarter.
… anyway NEXT!
” National Security: It seems like American national security is threatened very easily, which is strange for a country that has a stock-pile of over twenty-five hundred nuclear warheads. The bearded, turbaned fellow in the caves of Afghanistan; the despotic dictator of an Arab country whose GDP is less than three-thousandths the United States; or by a bunch of rice growing, essentially peaceful people, who were supposed to have been subjects of internal aggression by one of their own. In reality though, National Security is just a cover up for commercial and corporate interests. With the help of the mainstream media, this creates a favorable climate for American investments. ”
hey look everyone! it’s a straw man!
check out the logical power on this guy!
(yeah I’m not even bothering this one is too pathetic.)
next!
er. whoa
I’m stunned.
you got this next one mostly right! Good for you!
“3) Missile gap: Going as far back as the cold war, the term missile-gap or window-of-vulnerability was created. This was done to push the arms race with the Soviet to its peak, by claiming that if more money was not pumped into research and development, the US military would fall behind and be threatened by the Soviet Union. This was not acceptable. These so called gaps and windows were later said to be mythical, according to Herbert York, military advisor to Dwight Eisenhower. But once the media caught a whiff of these terms, they never let them go. After all, they made for such sensationalism in the news. ”
I do however, disagree with where you point the blame.
there is a constant battle between the military and congress, congress wants to cut budget and the military wants a bigger budget so it can get better at defending the nation
the military sees congress as being short sighted and endangering the lives of america’s people (soldiers or otherwise) (the military takes it’s duty to defend the nation VERY seriously) so the military creates some buz words in an effort to get what it needs.
each time the buzz words work for a while until congress catches on, at which point the military gets busy coming up with new ones. ‘s politics not propaganda
“4) Rogue State: This is another excellent term, said to have been coined under Bush, Sr. It creates an allusions of a country of thugs, brandishing AK-47’s and spending all their free time manufacturing weapons grade plutonium. In actuality though, countries are moved in and out of the United States list of rogue states, depending on their serviceability to American interests. Iraq was very much in favor, during its 8-year war with Iran because Reagan was pleased have Saddam attack a country that was their enemy of the moment. But no mention is made of other thoroughly undemocratic countries (Pakistan, China, and Saudi Arabia) or states that ritually practice(d) ethnic cleansing (Israel, South Africa).”
you confuse the definitions in your own damn points. being undemocratic has nothing to do with being a rouge state
*gives an example*
actively developing nuclear technology while declaring to the world that you intend to use the nukes to destroy another nation IS rouge activity
(and for god sakes, no the usa never did this. don’t even try it buster)
This is a REAL nation too! I’ll give you two hints
1. It’s in the middle east
2. It’s not iraq
I’ll help you move in if you figure it out :-p
“5) Axis of Evil: This is another term that, just like rogue state, conjures up images of secret underground meetings between the leaders of countries, where briefcases full of money are exchanged for briefcase nuclear devices. In reality though, no connection has ever been proven between North Korea, Iran and Iraq. And of course, terms such as axis of evil and rogue state are too good to be passed up by the media giants. They are like cattle fodder, being fed to a constantly hungry public. ”
you miss the main point. the point was to let those nations know we have our eyes on them and it would be a good idea to settle down and play nice with the other children.
cattle fodder part:
The media feeds off itself they create stupid bullshit ‘crisis’s’ all the time, people are not fooled. I’ve never heard anyone treat the axis of evil as anything other than a coined phrase
“6) War-on-Terror: Not a day goes by that I don’t see or hear this term being uttered on the radio, television, newspapers or internet. It has become a part of the daily vocabulary. Anyone care to wager on how soon before Merriam-Webster includes it in their dictionary? ”
Did you just deny that we are at war?
I would like confirmation on that.
(given that the coalition fight this war is composed of over 80 nations and growing, I find this interesting)
“7) Crusade against Terror: It was a big booboo on the part of George W. Bush when he uttered these words, post September 11, 2001, while promising his nation that he would hunt down those responsible for the atrocities committed. The crusades, are generally considered to be a series of wars that lasted two centuries, between Christian Europe and the Islamic Middle-East. Notwithstanding, the press has run away with this term, using it often enough to describe the current war with Iraq. ”
I have no comment on this one, I don’t see how it supports your argument of the media controlling the public, perhaps you could elaborate?
“8) Weapons of Mass Destruction: Another useful and sensationalized term that is used to only describe weapons that are owned by Iraq and North Korea. The press and media conglomerates conveniently forget the vast collection of such weapons by the Americans themselves. Also is forgotten that the only nation to ever use a WMD is America, against Japan. ”
Actually I think you are just deaf or blind or something because I HAVE seen/heard it used in this manor with respect to American nuclear reserves
as for the japan thing..
what exactly are you trying to say?
more people died from firebombing the cities than they did from nukes…
the nukes got the japanese to agree to end the war where fire bombing couldn’t, it saved lives.
elaborate please, right now it just looks ignorant and a tad idiotic.
“9) Terrorism: These two terms are probably thrown around the most, without caution for how they are used. A standard dictionary definition of the term would go somewhat like this: violence committed by one group against another in order to intimidate them into granting their demands. Somehow, the United States and its allies never engage in terrorism themselves, but are always warring against it. But Libya, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Cuba have all, at one time or another, been terrorist nations and were heavily condemned for their acts. Still, Israeli bombings of Palestine are never questioned. ”
wow. you have just expressed you complete lack of knowledge on these subjects. why are you talking about something you know NOTHING ?
No wonder you are coming off as an idiot.
Israelis actively go after militants and do their best to keep innocent bystander deaths to a minimum, Palestinians on the other hand actively target Israeli citizens because they are easier to kill.
Terrorism is actually a methodology for fighting you a war, The idea is you do something horrible to your opponent and get the him to crack down in a major way, this increases discontent and increases support. You do this until you can upgrade to a guerilla war which you do until you can upgrade to a full scale military conflict.
It’s been around for a while…. (longer than your parents)
“10) Preemptive Attack and Humanitarian Intervention: In order to morally justify despicable acts of violence these two terms and brandied about carelessly too. Some threat that is foreseen to be a problem needs to be completely wiped out, without sufficient or demonstrable reason. Or to preserve human rights, a village needs to be destroyed in order to be saved. ”
mm another logic fallacy!
This one is called “Begging the question”
though I’m curious to see if you even know what the question being begged is.
there is a case of soda waiting for you if you know it!
Mike
Hey Mike, what I’m trying again and again to stress is that a lot of my points can not be cited because they are personal feelings, and not based on any hard evidence. The entire piece was more of a commentry rather than a well-researched piece.
The reason I did not respond to any of your initial attacks is because I felt that this may very quickly turn into a flame-war. I’d much rather have a face-to-face discussion/debate on something of this nature, rather than start nitpicking on each others points. I’m sure the opportunities for open debate will be plenty when I move in.
But if you still are interested in the singular source of my commentry, look up the very first link.
krishna,
feel free to site any point you want proof for.
keep in mind, for every point you raise, I will do the same to you.
I CAN re-research my points.
can you ? :-p