Connecting Dots

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, we have previously discussed evidence that public sentiment is being engineered (see here and here); but, do you suspect any actual propaganda taking place?

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Yes, and there is a clear indication of psychological operations (or psyops) as well.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s address propaganda first.  We’ll discuss psyops another day.  What is propaganda?

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Dictionary.com defines propaganda as: “1. Information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.  2.  The deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.  3. The particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.” 

Old Gadfly:  The definitions seem clear enough.  Do you have examples?

AM:  How about the President this week claiming Republicans are fabricating “phony scandals”?  How about Eric Holder accusing Republicans of being racist?

Old Gadfly:  By scandals are you referring to Benghazi and the IRS, among others?

AM:  Yes.

Old Gadfly:  But only Fox News is reporting on them.  And, my good progressive acquaintances keep reminding me, don’t watch Fox News—they lie.

IM:  So, you don’t watch Fox News?

Old Gadfly:  Of course I do, because I triangulate what I read and hear.  And I will tell you that based on my “triangulation” from multiple sources, the lack of coverage by other networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) and print media (The New York Times and Washington Post) is a clear case of propaganda—because the black out or censorship is deliberate and designed to propagate particular doctrines or principles of the progressive movement.

AM:  Do you think this black out is being orchestrated by the White House?

Old Gadfly:  Not necessarily, but I am certain that President Obama and his inner circle are advancing similar methods that occurred during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Administration.  If Time magazine editors accurately reflect left-wing sentiment, then there is a lot of support for advancing similar methods (see the cover for the November 24, 2008 issue here).  In 2007, Michael Socolow authored a compelling article about propaganda in America.  While merely acknowledging the blatant propaganda practices in the Woodrow Wilson Administration, Socolow specifically analyzed propaganda practices during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, 1939-1944.[1]  Socolow discovered that FDR actually pushed for a domestic radio propaganda program but did not need one because commercial broadcast journalism effectively performed that function.  Socolow’s research also discovered the regulatory activism role played by the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  Sound familiar?  There was a recent attempt to place “observers” in news rooms across the nation.

IM:  Hmmm . . . 1939-1944 . . . didn’t Orson Welles demonstrate the power of radio broadcasting with his “War of the Worlds” stunt in 1938?

Old Gadfly:  Yes, it generated panic among the listening public, forcing CBS and Welles to apologize; but, it also demonstrated to CBS and other political advocates the power of the radio to mobilize the public.  Orson Welles dramatized the War of the Worlds science fiction novel by H. G. Wells.  Many people only know Wells for his science fiction.  Yet, he was a frequent guest of FDR’s White House[2] and vocal advocate for liberal fascism.  Jonah Goldberg observed that Wells had spent 30 years, since the beginning of the Progressive Era, working on the idea of “liberal fascism.”[3]  Wells’ progressive ideology in the form of liberal fascism is heavily documented.[4]

AM:  I noticed Orson Welles’ association with CBS (see the logo in the picture above).  There are some interesting dots to connect here.

·         The Socolow article includes a photograph with the following caption:  “CBS News commentator Elmer Davis (L) confers with CBS News Director Paul White, December 1941.  In 1942 Davis would be named to head the Office of War Information, America’s propaganda agency.”

 

·         On November 22, 1963, when President Kennedy was assassinated, a CBS reporter by the name of Dan Rather heard a rumor that Dallas school children cheered the news.  While the local CBS news affiliate refused to run the story, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TRUE, Rather found another CBS venue to report the story anyway.[5]  Sound familiar?  Remember Rather’s report on George W. Bush based on fabricated documents?  Rather’s stubbornness to this day reflects Lakoff’s “frame” arguments—it is the frame that matters; if facts fit, great; if not, then the facts are irrelevant.

·         More recently Sharyl Attkison (see also here, here, and here) and Lara Logan (see also here) were exiled from CBS, ostensibly for their aggressive reporting about issue under the Obama Administration.  While Logan acknowledges she did not sufficiently vet an individual interviewed for a 15-minute segment about Benghazi on 60 Minutes, this portion of the report was less than 3 minutes long.  There was nothing inaccurate or dubious about the remaining 12-minute exposé on Benghazi.  I watched the original broadcast and was somewhat amazed, at the time, that CBS allowed it to be published.  Ironically, just today I tried to locate the original Benghazi exposé by Logan and, while there are thousands of “botched” and “apology” pieces, I could not find a single file of the original broadcast.  CBS, like the IRS, seems to be very competent at destroying evidence.  I had saved a link to the broadcast on YouTube.  Click on the link and see what has happened to the "evidence."  Too bad. The majority of the factual reporting was a casualty of political pressure (political correctness or propaganda).  Yet, here is another link that had no apparent "copyright" issue.  I suppose the best way to put a bag over Logan, and her interest in “watchdog journalism, was to bring her back.

·         More recently, there seems to be little interest among the commercial propaganda arm to look at potentially negative issues with the Obama Administration.  For example, there is little interest in the IRS’s Lois Lerner pleading the Fifth and the deliberate destruction of emails (evidence).  And regarding Benghazi, there is little interest in the recent revelation that Ben Rhodes, a member of Obama’s national security team, sent an email to Susan Rice directing her to blame the video on the Benghazi attack.  Ben Rhodes is the brother of David Rhodes, President of CBS.

IM:  There definitely appears to be a pattern among the dots.

AM:  After the demise of Hitler and National Socialism, Germans claimed they did not know what was happening.  Spencer Tracey, in the movie “The Nuremburg Judgment,” was shocked to hear Germans say, “I did not know.”  In one scene, a household servant claimed to know nothing of atrocities taking place under National Socialism and felt compelled to defend Hitler when she said he did do some good things for Germans—“he got the autobahn.”  Thus, there may be some redeeming rationale for Obama’s interest in “infrastructure investment.”

Old Gadfly:  If the media continues its blackout tactic as a shield for Obama’s transformation of America, time will tell whether Americans will remorsefully claim, “I did not know.”  In our next conversation, let’s talk about political psyops.

---

[1] Michael J. Socolow, “‘News Is a Weapon’:  Domestic Radio Propaganda and Broadcast Journalism in America, 1939-1944, American Journalism, Volume 24, Number 3 (Summer 2007), pp. 109-131.

[2] Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, (New York, NY:  Broadway Books, 2007), p. 135.

[3] Ibid, p. 134.

[4] Philip Coupland, “H. G. Wells’s ‘Liberal Fascism,’” Journal of Contemporary History, Volume 35, Number 4 (2000), pp. 541-558.

[5] Goldberg, op cit., p. 202.