Twenty years ago, a professor of finance at the Wharton School in Philadelphia and a far better known professor of linguistics at MIT set out to come with a way to explain how our media really works.Rather than offer a case study of coverage of one issue, or an analysis of this or that flaw or media "mistake," they set out to try to make sense of the way the media functions as a "system" what rules govern the behavior of media institutions in reporting on crisis abroad. They didn't call it a theory because they believed they were not being speculative but factual.
They came up with what they called a "model," not of journalism, but of propaganda.
The ambitious book, since revised, explained their "Propaganda Model." It's called, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. It became a best seller among a public angry with the news we are getting and popular with media students worldwide who saw that there was now a systematic way to analyze media performance in a structural way. It's still in print and still provoking controversy.
The author's names are Edward Herman, and Noam Chomsky, both considered intellectual heroes and heavyweights among generations of rebels and critics worldwide.
At the same time, despite the many scholars who have validated it. even with some nit picks, their "model" is ignored in most journalism schools and newsrooms because its real focus is on the powers behind the media and how they shape it to serve their own interest.
Many of the mainstream journalists who even know about it dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory," even though Chomsky is a well-known critic of conspiracy theorizing. (This is like that old joke in which someone says they are an "anti-communist" only to be told, "I don't care what kind of communist you are.")
This past week, I spoke at a conference in Canada, not the US of course, where its impact is widely appreciated, still debated and updated. Still, there was only one mainstream corporate journalist there, Antonia Zerbisias, the always insightful media columnist of the Toronto Star who explained the "model's focus on the "filters" that much news has to pass through.
"Stripped down for purposes of, as Chomsky would say, typical media "concision," they are: ownership interests, advertiser concerns, the nature of journalists' sources, flak (or negative feedback) and ideology."
In a talk to a conference plenary, Zerbisias smiled before pronouncing that the model is "true." There it is- a media veteran said it!
True-but not necessarily up to date in this new ever changing media era of diverse technologies, major outlets losing audience and credibility, increasing top-down control by conglomerized monopolies, vast information available on the internet, increasing media production by citizens and media makers, and growing disenchantment with a media that does more selling than telling.
Of course, media outlets have an ideological orientation that usually conforms with the interests of their governments. Journalists who challenge it are often marginalized, ignored or fired. I have documented that in my books and film WMD about the deplorable media coverage of the Iraq war. I am not the only one to argue that there was complicity and collaboration between a servile press corps and the Bush Administration that we both cheerleading for war.
There are two other aspects to this that needs to be examined including top-down coercion as when politically motivated moguls like Rupert Murdoch or Silvio Berlusconi or Conrad Black buy a media outlet and discharge journalists with whom they disagree.
There has just been a worrisome recent development at the one media outlet in the world known for its independence, AlJazeera where a new board has been named with a gutsy independent journalist replaced as managing director by a former Ambassador to Washington. You just know what that will result in-Foxeera, was the formulation coined by one reader.
In some countries, media dissenters are jailed or even killed. That's why it was suggested at the conference that the title Manufacturing Consent today should be modified for "Manufacturing Compliance." Increasingly governments don't care what people think at all-- or if they consent-just that they go along with the program by hook, crook or club. Most prefer that we don't vote at all. That's why elections are treated as sports events. The non-voters increasingly outnumber whose who cast ballots.
Even more distressing is the tend towards the depoliticalization of politics through the merger of showbiz and newsbiz to assure that much of the media agenda is noisy and negative, stripped of all meaning: superficial, often celebrity-dominated with little in-depth explanatory or investigative journalism. They would rather market American Idol as the American Ideology. To them, the only "hegemony" in Canada is its beer and hockey.
The people who run our media are, after all, in the end, promoting a culture of consumption, not of engaged citizenship. They want eyeballs for advertisers, not activists to promote change. The sound-bytes presented as substance are there for entertainment, not illumination. It's heat, not light, all the way
So truth be told, the real propaganda in an era where with more pundits than journalists, is less real coverage. It is pervasive and invisible at the same time-omission more than commission. They want to dumb us down, not smarten us up. They foster passivity, skepticism and resignation. Forget beliefs of any kind-just buy, buy, buy. Why even use deception when distraction works just as well?
Yes, the lack of coverage of East Timor that Noam Chomsky railed against was atrocious, as is today's war coverage. but so is the absence of reporting on the devolution of democracy and much of the suffering in our own country.
Perhaps the more appropriate title in what Detroit calls a "new model year," is "Manufacturing Indifference."
News Dissector Danny Schechter is "blogger-in-chief" Mediachannel.org. His new film is IN DEBT WE TRUST (indebtwetrust.com). Comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
32 Comments so far
Show AllAll very valid -- but I find it a touch ironic that this should be posted to a site which for the past few years has seen fit to heap ridicule on those who would question the official 9/11 narrative. (For examples see "The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View" "I, Left Gatekeeper" and "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already") If that isn't a form of "manufacturing indifference" I'm not sure what to call it.
The whole concept of the manufacturing of indifference is really quite ingenious. First Chomsky showed us the manufacturing of consent: scientifically engineering public opinion to support the interests of the elite. Then others pointed out the manufacturing of dissent as revealed in the 70s Church report and CONINTELPRO. That was a domestic operation aimed at infiltrating the counter-culture and steering it into the ditch. And now we have what could be the most insidious of all: manufactured indifference. "I don't give a damm, as long as I can get to Best Buy this saturday and grab up that new 57" flat panel!"
In traditional America principles mattered. Truth mattererd. Ultimate Reality mattered: we would all one day face Judgment Day and be rewarded or punished according to our secret motives as well as our works out in the open. Hence people really cared.
But in today's socially engineered group consciousness -- or should we say socially ravaged? -- we are now consumption robots. We have function, but we no longer have purpose. Check out Theodore Roszak's "Where the Wasteland Ends," a terrific expose from the seventies but even more relevant today.
And our only puropse is survivablilty, sustainability. We have completely lost sight of eternal values, truth, and purpose. Truth is fallen in the streets with the JFK assassination and the 9/11 hoax. We don't care about Truth because in today's public mind there is no Truth: all truth is relative. So why care about this or that? I just want what I want. And as long as I can keep getting what I want I'm not going to risk my career or my free time doing what Americans did in the past when they faced a tyrant: they took up arms.
Take up arms in today's fight? Fight for what! Fight for principle, for truth, for ultimate reality? For control of the media? For "global warming?" Nah. Fighting is for people with guts, with backbone, with beliefs worth dying for. And as for arms, ban them. Disarm the people, even if it means the tyrants at the top will dominate us just as they have dominated the third world. Even if it means crashing the dollar and putting us on the amero. Even if it means the North American Union is really gonna happen. Even if world government will supplant our constitutional democracy in the name of peach and order. Even if it means chipping all of us so we can control illegal immigrants.
Who cares? Who gives a damm? I like indifference. I don't know if it's manufactured or "natural." I don't care. Apathy is so safe, so peaceful, so deadly to the soul. But I don't have one of those, being a consumption robot, so I don't care about that either.
Edward Bernays was intoxicated with delusions of his own power, as is George Bush & Co. As was Josef Goebbels. The German people liked the idea of being special, a chosen Aryan people. War is not a new brand of soft drink. A taste for soft drinks was not created. It was there, as is the taste for war, and simply pandered to. The Americans Indians did not have liquor, yet they had a pre-existing proclivity to drink. Bernays created nothing but sophisticated pandering techniques. Propaganda does not alter the nature of the herd. It is seduction. That is all it is. The media provides a mirror in which the herd can find whatever aspect of itself seems congenial at the time. The smart people who hold the mirror can manipulate, but they can't create. There are far too many cattle for the enlightened few to hope to control. They are currently trying to sell restraint. Ultimately, their efforts at running the world are producing chaos. Disorder is building in every aspect of life. The manipulators will not impose fascism, the people will begin to yearn for it through a profound fear of imminent disorder. Progressives tend to be paranoid. They simply cannot accept the notion that the beloved people, the cattle, will chose servitude, so they imagine that people like Edward Bernays are demonic creator gods controlling the world. They aren't. They're pimps who do not understand the nature of their power to manipulate. That is why they misuse it. The masses of people are controlling the world. There are no leaders, only pompous, intoxicated manipulators. Therefore, the world is running amuck. The reasons for this are only partially political. The political process cannot cope with the imminent disorder. Edward Bernays is as clueless as anyone else, including Chomsky & Herman. They have no answers, only critiques.
To repeat:
Edward, Bernays, regarded as the father of modern advertizing and PR, wrote this in 1928:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.â€
Is this pandering or manufacturing?
"Like Hollywood, the information media do not create tastes, they pander to them."
Actually, this is NOT what the propaganda model says. Read the Bernay's quote I posted earlier here.
Tastes are _manufactured_ to a large degree. Simply consider that one can't have a desire for a product until one knows the product exists - and the information on the availability of the product is tightly controlled. Some current tastes are so unnatural or illogical, but very conviently serve a specific need of industry, that the fact that they are manufactured tasts is obvious.
The rise of the SUV among people who will never drive off a paved road is a classic example of this. Fuel economy aside, no one in their right mind would normally want to drive such big unmauverable tanks; since the automobile entered our culture, young people especially have always expressed their machismo with manuverable, fast sports cars. Yet, starting in the early 1990's the popularity of the SUV has become immense. Well, this "taste" by odd coincidence, is also a huge industry-favored loophole around fuel-economy and safety regulations. Getting around these regualtions means big profit. So, starting in the early 1990's the mauufactrers set to saturating the TV advertizing space with SUV ads. Even in the face of rapidly rising fuel costs, the SUV ads continue unabated - to the near-complete exclusion of alternatives. The demand follows.
Now, go back to the late 1970 through the early 1980's - in those days the prime industry objective was ending the economic power of OPEC and the then-socialist-leaning nonaligned Arab nations in particular. What appeared in the TV ads? Cars much smaller (and more fuel economical) than anything available today - the Ford Pinto, the Chevy Vega, the Toyota Tercel, the (much smaller than today) Honda Civic - their EPA fuel economy numbers filling the entire TV screen.
One of the reasons that a news service such as Common Dreams is so powerful is that it takes editorials, essays, and lesser-known news articles and places them together, where they form a composite picture. I fear a time will come when the corporate press will try to remove even this away from us. The ability to connect dots and see a trend is much easier with a website such as this.
www.raycarlson.com
The information media mirror public opinion. You cannot feed the cattle something they do not like in a so-called democracy. You can supplement with melamine and make them sick as hell, maybe kill them, but they won't eat that fare unless it corresponds to their pre-existing tastes. From the perspective of this forum, there is a top-down control of public opinion, but this is a wrong perception. Common Dreams is a micro-climate of opinion which is being shut out of the larger discussion by the presence of corporate monopoly media. This media mechine caters to the lowest common denominator, reinforcing a tyranny of the majority opinion. It does not create this majority opinion, it merely reinforces it. The various micro-climates are ignored in the homogenized message. To counter the power of the media cartel, the market must be regulated as one previous poster recommends to create an independent media presence and prevent the tyranny of the majority, ie, the lowest common denominator. The public broadcasting system was originally set up for this purpose, but because it is so closely tied to Washington, Jim Lehr is the result. The tyrannical majority in DC is the problem. The two party system is a misdirection. Our political system is not designed to foster independent climates of opinion, irrespective of the Founder's intent. Even so, resources like Pacifica Radio, LinkTV, and FSTV develop in spite of monopoly control. Minorities are energized. They need legislative help and support. They have their non-profit status, but they do not have unimpeded access to "public" bandwidth which monoppolists struggle tirelessly to control. A regulatory scheme to allocate bandwidth needs to be developed that can be made free of the tyranny of Washington. Easier said than done.
It is pandering and manufacturing passivity, consent and compliance.
We have not had one revolutionary action at the voting booth and we wonder why the media wont pay us any mind.
The first revolutionary act that will start the change is to spread the word to vote for yourself for President (write yourself in).
The massive under-vote and write in votes that do not go to any registered candidates will show up as the first real protest of the big money system by voters!
Trust yourself and vote for yourself for president and you will see the change in the Big Money Game.
Jim
For Al Gore's take on the mass media, see
his excellent new article:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1622015,00.html
"Our Founders' faith in the viability of representative
democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a
well-informed citizenry... The "well-informed citizenry" is in
danger of becoming the "well-amused audience." Moreover,
the high capital investment required for the ownership and
operation of a television station and the centralized nature
of broadcast, cable and satellite networks have led to the
increasing concentration of ownership by an ever smaller
number of larger corporations that now effectively control
the majority of television programming in America."
frank1569 wrote:
"Studies show that we “watch†an average of
4.5 hours a day - but the truth is, a TV is
on 4.5 hours a day, but we actually aren’t
watching it most of the time. Background noise."
Actually the average TV is on over 8 hrs a day,
and actual TV viewership is 4.5 hours a day.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=9871
That probably seems very high to you because
you and your friends don't watch that much.
But the 4.5 hours is a average that includes
retirees, the unemployed, stay-at-home parents,
extreme TV addicts, the home-bound, children, etc...
People who work full-time probably only watch
a couple of hours a day during the week, and
perhaps 4 to 5 hours per day on the weekends.
frank1569 wrote:
"And TV advertising works so poorly, a
1-2 percent return is considered excellent."
Yes, but what is the result of watching
millions of adverts over a lifetime?
Could all this advertising (from childhood
to adulthood) explain the huge increase
in consumerism and materialism over the
past 50 years?
ChristIsntComingBack wrote:
"Recognize the futility? No, they simply
aren’t aware of the tools and solutions
that solve the issue: Turn off their TV.
Shop local only. In fact if everyone would
commit to buying locally grown organic
foods only, they would put the Corporate
business interests out of business in just
a few months."
Right On!! There wouldn't be a huge and
growing organic food movement, if it
wasn't for large numbers of people using
their power to choose, to choose a healthier
and much more environmentally friendly way
to grow our food.
To save our democracy, that's what we need
to do with the mass media. Avoid mass media
that is controlled by huge corporations
(especially TV because of it's ability to
bypass rational parts of the brain),and
instead get your news and entertainment
from alternative media.
Like Hollywood, the information media do not create tastes, they pander to them. They are clever and devious whores. It's not a matter of manufacturing consent for a war, it's a matter of pandering to a pre-existing inclination for war rather than a pre-existing inclination for peace. War sells. War always sells. If you're the Central Committee in the USSR, you cannot pander to a pre-existing desire for a new five-year plan. Truly, that must be manufactured by threat of punishment. Americans like war, except for those who create this site and its views. There is a difference between manipulation and coercion. Bush got his Iraq war because the American people are ignorant. The media mavens do not see themselves as educators. They are business people out to make a buck and the bigger they get, the more they are inclined to form cartels and eliminate any free market for news & entertainment. You can't get real news under these conditions any more than you can get a fuel efficient car, or cheap gas. It's all monopoly interest catering to the lowest common denominator. There may be a conspiracy among the media players to pander to a certain theme, but they can only sell what sells. Most people don't want to know the truth. It is far too frightening. These Bush gangsters may believe they create reality, but they are merely pandering to a vast an potentially unruly herd of consumers. The media mavens live in fear and loathiing of this herd. They think of themselves as masters and geniuses, but they are not in control. They are struggling like demons to stay in control. Consent is not manufactured. It is solicited.
It looks like the consensus of comments here, those that more or less kept OT, is that it is necessary to reclaim the natural resource of the airwaves which belong to us all and maintain the freedom of information exchange the internet.
How to do that? The first step is to keep yourself informed and network with others who do the same.
The great danger of the tendency to dumbing down and political passivity is that we will pass a point of no-return and turn into a parody of the movie "Idiocracy"
It's worthwhile realising that the central business of the media is not distribution of news, or sports, or even entertainment. The central business of the media is supplying audiences to advertisers - for a fee.
The "content" is like a fisherman's net. Important, of course, but by no means anywhere near the whole story.
Note also that not all audiences are of equal value to advertisers. Advertisers like audiences that are gullible and easily sold to. These are the people the media is trying to "net".
MEDIA-CONTROL AND DEMOCRACY
There is a need for better control of the media and their content by “we the peopleâ€. That is not a need for censorship, any more than the separation of powers is censorship (which, still, in a stretched sense it is). It's not detailed verification or controlling which is advocated here.
There's a need for improved general checks, balances and transparency of selection-processes in what becomes “the newsâ€. These controls should relate to not closely define what is, but to set a framework for when media-content is definitely NOT of sufficient quality – e.g true, proportionally correct, representative, valid etc. Libel-laws doesn’t even begin to cover this. (How could e.g. the climate sue Fox news for denying climate change? Or Saddam sue New York Times for the US invading Iraq on false premises and him being executed under the invader’s control? Or the thousands of people starving to death every day suing for not being mentioned?). The controls are needed earlier, much nearer the consensus-level and before the damage is done. Only self-control according to establishes principles of fair equality can accomplish this. This amounts to human society controlling ourselves. The need is clear. Only answering how to curb the need in practice remains.
What we have is a need for limitations of outright lies on important general issues, limited in a way that still doesn't interfere with the intention of freedom of speech. That’s a hard balancing to wrestle with some times, but also necessary.
Bush lied to go to war (among many other things he and other politicians and power-people blatantly lie about). He used the media to spin the lies into an emotional storm of perceived reasonableness, and nothing was in place to limit that. So something needs improvement. Question is what, and how.
The current collected strength of media-influence is vastly grown and changed since the conditions and speed of information-spread in the late 1780’ies, when the principle of separation of powers was first incorporated into constitutions. The media now needs a closer, more accurate balancing-system of power, in order to remain in line with the intentions of the Western constitutions and the ideas of Enlightenment in general. The slogan of the humanist tradition: “Freedom, Equality, Solidarity†still works as reminder of this ideal.
This new “bubble†on human activity and consciousness which the media have grown into, is badly and insufficiently incorporated into society’s whole.
To describe the contemporary media-influence as “the fourth power†of state is too weak. The media is now rather an overarching “first powerâ€, dominating and often controlling the three formal branches of state power: the executive (government and police), legislative (parliament) and judicial (court) branches.
A Montesquieuesque tri-partite system might somehow be extended into covering this new and growing phenomenon of media. That/those media are now so obviously being misused for creating emotional unbalancing in the public. These electric-electronic and visual media-forms have been used for that since at least Stalin and Hitler's systematic propaganda-use. And it's still happening. But of course, we seldom see as exaggerated that which we take for granted. That's exactly the nature of propaganda, by any other name.
A tri-partite regulation of the media might formalize the division of the responsibilities of Owners (legislative), Editors (judicial) and Journalists (executive), all bound by law to answer to "the people". The people should participate in electing representatives to these functions, if only as supervisors working closely to maintain reasonable equality in representation, e.g. between rich and poor. The media do not work well enough left to themselves, and that is now abundantly clear.
If only for the sake of elegance and simplicity, it would be preferable for the function of regulation of the media to happen and be taken care of within the original constitutional checks and balances. But that doesn't happen, and it's not taken care of. That's the reality. It needs improvement, in order to satisfy the intentions of the original constitutional theory.
The risks for attempts to improve the dysfunction in the media being misused towards totalitarianism are all too clear. “We the people†taking control can lead to too much control, in the hands of only another elite. It’s been known to happen. But the risk of totalitarianism winning out because of refraining from attempting improvements are also real. That's the dilemma. In a volatile situation the need for something to be done can easily be hijacked by a narrow cause or group, with cries that "something must be done". That’s been known to happen, too.
Clearer discernment is needed. That discernment can be found by holding on to facts and correct proportions between matters, all based on sound principles of equal standards for all.
There’s no mystery in this. Only a lot of power in groups self-interested in maintaining power-structures as they are. They like to befuddle the issue, making it look more complicated than it is. But as the mostly privately owned media controls our global common attention - being the only direct avenues for collective exchanges about needs and insights - the need for change is real and obvious.
There are a few publicly – i.e. state – owned media seeking to enlighten more than make money, like the honorably striving BBC. But even they have the interests of state at core, not the general public. Plus they are pressured by the forms and contents of the dominant, corporate media to follow the lead, pulled towards “the dramaticâ€. Which in this context happens to mean the worst and most murderous presented daily and nightly as representative of human activities, maintaining the impression that peace is hard to find and reacting to improve unreasonable conditions in everyday life is futile. Thereby attention is constantly diverted from the peaceful achievements and possibilities in the world.
All each of us can do is point to the need for better, more factual “newsâ€, present thoughts about it and speak up. Hopefully, my thoughts here are symptoms of many others thinking similarly. Then when I get to the point of formulating thoughts on the issue, many others are about to break through to their daily attention with this kind of thinking, too.
At some point some really good suggestions for improvement - not necessarily mine, I can only hope they contribute – will coalesce into a consensus which crystallizes further into formalized, well-functioning prescriptions and law.
It’s up to all of us to make this happen sooner rather than later, because – plainly speaking – a lot of shit happens in the meantime. Like at least 30 000 people dying of easily avoidable starvation every, every, every day.
I do think it takes the thoughts of everyone, in a sense. That's meant as a reference to the “Noosphereâ€, our collective consciousness growing to self-awareness, as theorized by Teilhard de Chardin, et al.
Exactly the media, who controls them and how, are crucial issues to this growth of human self-awareness.
Ole Ullern
Frank Zappa offered his own version of the propaganda model (specifically about TV) 34 years ago:
I am gross and perverted, I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years but very little has changed
I'm the tool of the Government and industry too
For I am destined to rule and regulate you
I may be vile and pernicious but you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious with the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get. Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozin' out from your TV set
You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don't need you
Don't go for help... no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold
That's right, folks... Don't touch that dial
Yup. Lippman, and Bernays, were the founders of the modern propaganda system.
And, I hope most readers here have in fact read Herman and Chomsky's book "Manufacturing Consent".
In 1928, Bernays wrote:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
So, please understand that this is what the politicians and the elites mean when they talk about "Democracy"
Some Democracy.
NMBill wrote...It does not matter if you don’t watch TV, if its on 4.5 hours a day your subconscious is more open to it than if you are sitting there scrutinizing it.
Thanks for surfacing that little known fact. Propagandists are well aware of it; unfortunately, the average person still thinks they are consciously in control and that living in a "free society" grants them special immunity from propaganda. That mind set makes the propaganda more potent.
If you still believe you are consciously in control of your brain, check out Daneil Wegner's book, "The Illusion of Conscious Will". There are many books written on that subject, his is not the easiest to read; however, it is one of the more scholarly on the topic.
We won't have great success combating propaganda until masses of people get a better understanding of how their brains really work. Our subconscious mind accounts for most of our cognitive functioning and decision making, not just not the walking and chewing gum stuff. None of these books paint a very flattering picture of our ego centric illusions; however, if we are going to survive we need to recognize how susceptible we all are to propaganda.
Re: ChristIsntComingBack's comment....Shop local only. In fact if everyone would commit to buying locally grown organic foods only, they would put the Corporate business interests out of business in just a few months.
As much as I like organic food and buying locally, if everyone did that most people living in the US would starve to death in a few months. The supply couldn't meet the demand. Prices would sky rocket. Tell two million people living in the middle of the Arizona desert they should only buy locally grown organic food. Tell that to people living in the northern US where the growing season is relatively short.
Even if people didn't starve during the transition, big business would begin organic farming and push the "little guy" out with economies of scale.
Corporate domination isn't simply in agriculture, it permeates every aspect of business. Our problem is systemic and deep seated. Addressing symptoms won't solve the bigger problems, 1)our economic system requires continual growth to survive and 2)we allow business to externalize costs to the environment, third world countries, to the less fortunate at home and to future generations.
Refusing to play a rigged game isn't negative, its smart. Don't fight battles where your enemy has rewritten the rules. You will loose and have no right to complain. Remember the election outcomes in Florida and Ohio in 2000 and 2004? Both elections were rigged for a Bush win, it has been well documented. Election fraud is rampant in State elections as well and the corporate media refuses to cover it!
Take effective action, undermine their legitimacy to govern. If we reach the point where the government can only get a minority of the electorate to show up at the polls, that constitutes a vote of no confidence. Then the sham is exposed for the world to see. You must understand, corporations need and want you to vote, that confers legitimacy on the elected officials they have purchased with their campaign contributions.
Republican and Democrat alike receive huge contributions from big business, they hedge their bets to insure both parties are indebted to them for reelection. You and I are not constituents to our elected officials, the big corporate campaign contributors are the ones they answer to.
If anything, we should all refuse to vote until ALL private campaign contributions are outlawed. After that, we need a mandatory paper trail on all voting machines. Only then will the process have any integrity. For now the process of voting only only serves to perpetuate our manipulation and subjugation by corporate business interests and the wealthy.
This is why MEDIA REFORM must be addressed by our next president!
Our PUBLIC AIRWAVES have been hijacked for profit and deceit.
It does not matter if you don’t watch TV, if its on 4.5 hours a day your subconscious is more open to it than if you are sitting there scrutinizing it.
The real kicker is that people pay money so they watch it to justify their investment. I see them switching channels “nothing good on TV no more!†and settle for the least offensive program.
If you have DISH NETWORK please watch Free Speech TV; It is truly what we need more of! (#9415) In fact it’s the only channel I want to watch on satellite stations; I don’t even want to pay for the rest.
The article above is saying that the emerging propaganda model is to infiltrate the board of directors. So its up to the viewer to judge whether they are hearing the WHOLE STORY from any news source from here on out.
Are you media savvy yet?
Progressives should work on developing organizations that can withstand the coming social storm at the collapse of the current US economic system. It will most likely happen within a decade or so, and that the outcome is unpredictable does not mean that progressives cannot try to form an approach for action when it does come.
As Gregory the Great noted above, the comfortable lifestyle for most will cease and it will not be an enjoyable period, but it could turn into an absolute nightmare if the fascists are able to use such social chaos to consolidate their control.
Gregory the Not So Great wrote:
"There is “indifference†because people recognize the futility of trying to change a political and economic system that has been hijacked and redesigned by Corporate business interests so as to make meaningful change impossible."
Recognize the futility? No, they simply aren't aware of the tools and solutions that solve the issue: Turn off their TV. Shop local only. In fact if everyone would commit to buying locally grown organic foods only, they would put the Corporate business interests out of business in just a few months. Buying only locally grown organic food is the ULTIMATE practice of democracy. It works everywhere. It drains the beasts of money, cleans the air, cleans the water and cleans the land. Ironically one could rightly call it Corporate Pesticide.
I said "not so great" because you're merely repeating the magic spell of hopelessness with your very first sentence. You're practicing nuero-linguistic programming in a negative way.
A suggestion for anyone that as not. Read Walter Lippman's "Public Opinion" first published in 1922. It is in this book that Lippman coins the phase "Manufacturing Consent". And where he also talks about the necessity of controlling the "ignorant masses."
Here is a link to it online: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/Lippman/cover.html
"It can't happen here"...but something else could!
We don't own anything really. The oligarchs own everything and everyone. They make the rules. Fight the power. Vote for Gravel and the Green Party to let the people decide.
The primary disseminator of propaganda in this country and, for that matter, most of the world, is television. The broadcast industry is owned by a handful of individuals who control its content. However - guess what? - you OWN the airwaves and it is your responsibility to stop whining and take them back from the Murdochs, Blacks, Disneys, etc.
There is "indifference" because people recognize the futility of trying to change a political and economic system that has been hijacked and redesigned by Corporate business interests so as to make meaningful change impossible.
Some percentage of US citizens have finally figured out the extent to which the entire apparatus of government, including the electoral process, has been corrupted and rendered useless for anything other than maintaining appearance of democracy and institutionalizing the status quo. They understand that voting merely confers legitimacy on a sham.
They also have become aware, from the writings of Chomsky and others, that the media are nothing more than propagandists for government and Corporations. Those in control of the media are part of that group, they won't willingly relinquish their control over the universe of discourse.
The school systems are effectively under control of the state legislatures and are run by those who have no desire to see the status quo challenged. They have a vested interest in keeping the populace as ignorant and compliant as possible. They will give students job training and indoctrinate them with Corporate values, no more.
As long as the typical US citizen is doing well economically they will go along with the manipulation. Some just aren't smart enough to know what's happening. Those that are make the decision to live with the powerlessness and loss of freedoms as long as they are doing well financially.
Until the standard of living in the US deteriorates significantly, or the government simply goes broke and can no longer maintain control we will see no change. Willy nilly, that day may not be far off.
As much as I hate the current state of affairs, I don't look forward to that day with much optimism, it won't be an orderly change and no one will be able to control it. We may regain our freedoms; however, we will not retain our current comfortable lifestyle. Be careful what you ask for.
We are witnessing the evolution or devolution of mankind, when mankind is represented by men. Face it: men own the world and they run the world. Left to themselves, that is half-assed, this is what men make of things. This is what things come to when women are shut out of the equation, when men shut out the feminine side of themselves. Total disaster.
One interesting thing to notice is how we internalize the media propaganda by adopting its vocabulary and catch phrases. One place where this shows up is around the candidacy of Dennis Kucinich.
The media has from the get-go, for 3 1/2 years now, studiously ignored Kucinich. I heard a comment recently on NPR from someone who was in the press box during a candidate debate, about how the room was abuzz with activity, with everyne taking notes, until Kucinich started to speak, but then suddenly went dead quiet as all the reporters pushed back and took a break. Was this their personal judgment on the man who had the most to say and the best record of being right of any of the candidates? Not likely! The word was out: their editors weren't interested.
Even people on the left freely talk about "none of the candidates ... " and "all of the candidates ... ", as though Kucinich weren't there, and talk longingly about the need for a candidate who would take the positions that Kucinich does. As though that candidate would be taken any more seriously than Dennis is by the media!
One possibility for breaking out of this trap is for someone who already has a national reputation and following to suddenly become a true anti-imperialist and advocate for the peoples' needs with no more kow-towing to monied interests. That is placing our bets on something which may not happen; and then the media would go to work picking him or her apart.
Or we could all to break out of our stupor, recognize that we have a champion offering us leadership, find ways to give him a voice where the media won't, and convince people to take him seriously by taking him seriously ourselves.
I have thought long and hard about this. Kucinich is not an ideal leader, and could have made much better use to the two years between campaigns. But these are grave times and we are facing grave issues, and we have first of all to ask: whom can we trust? For example, who will speak for us and lead us when Bush stages an Iranian atrocity and leads America into a wider war? If we wait for the media to anoint such a person we will wait a long time.
Mr. Schechter is right on. An instructive example of how the media, advertisers, and government converge to suppress the educational value of national/community events or "news" towards the ends of keeping citizens de-activated and productive consumers, for me, is a radio ad I heard the day before President Bush's second inauguration.
I was listening to the oldies station in Los Angeles and the ad said, and I paraphrase, 'We invite you to join us tomorrow for the inauguration of George W. Bush for a second term in office on station KKKK (can't remember the station).. it is going to be a grand affair. Come watch as THE GREATEST SECURITY OPERATION EVER will be in effect at the inauguration" And was I ever titillated at the sound of that; I was truly being seduced by it on a sub-conscious level for the moment, until I started to analyze the fallacious reasoning in the ad. And then I realized how amazingly sophisticated this manipulation is and how tragic it can be. I realized that I had been fed this junk for a majority of my life without ever critically analyzing it. And finally, I had the epiphany that what the ad should really say is this:
"We invite you tomorrow to join us in the witnessing of the second inauguration because the President is going to be placing his hand on the bible and solemnly swearing to you that he is going to uphold the constitution for the next four years, and so if he fails to hold true to his word you can, as a citizen of a democratic nation, hold him accountable for his actions and impeach him."
I can't think of more explicit example of how the media tries to dupe us into being afraid instead of educated and critical in our efforts to move our country in a more positive direction.
Conservatives are killing each other off. Manufacturing consent or indifference affects their feeble minds most of all.
frank1569, please be consistent. Few minutes ago in response to Sean Gonsalves, you have admitted that "This fascist regime is prepared to “unleash the hounds†the moment the streets start to fill [jails]."
Now you ask CommonDreams for advise how to take "post offices, railroad stations and telegraphs", to follow some prominent revolutionary of 1917.
I am afraid our chosen people won't enter Holy Land of Freedom: people were converted to sheeple at least 2 generations ago.
Relax and let them die out. Accept that usual suspects succeeded all too well to changing people, while people committed dereliction of their duties to change, or better, to exterminate those suspects.
War for world conquest is now an open secret and that is the main achievement of Busheviks, war be upon them. So, mother of all ends is coming.
The "Common Dreams" demographic is more than well aware of all this. Why not a word about possible solutions? Actions We The People might take to reverse the course?
Meanwhile, as true as the above is, the implication is that Americans are still so damn stupid that they simply don't get it. Because if they did, they wouldn't watch, say, FOX "News" and, hence, it would cease to be. (Like "The Apprentice" - people stopped watching, bye bye Trump.) Studies show that we "watch" an average of 4.5 hours a day - but the truth is, a TV is on 4.5 hours a day, but we actually aren't watching it most of the time. Background noise. And TV advertising works so poorly, a 1-2 percent return is considered excellent.
Maybe, just maybe, "people" are voting for what they want with their choices, be they influenced by GreenPeace or GE or PETA or Exxon or Common Dreams and the media manipulation component, though there, is overblown.