Politics and Media Control: The New American Century Plan for World Domination

By CTMEXPERIMENT

We are living in very volatile world. In this post industrial, corporate-globalized world, people have become afraid. There is a confusion as to where one may receive trustworthy information. In a heated political environment such as ours, history has shown that the media becomes a very strong source of information - but who determines what information we receive? If history does teach us anything, it teaches us that when governments have a strong centralized presence, the dissemination of information becomes clouded. The use of media becomes a tool to spread political propaganda and specific agendas. I argue that we have entered a period in history where the line drawn between media and politics has been blurred. Never in the history of the human race have we had the ability to manipulate and alter truth with the speed and swiftness as we do now. I argue that the media is not only ‘self-censoring’ what information is delivered, but that the corporate media has merely become a platform for politicians to spread their propaganda and rhetoric. Combine this with the alarming rate at which media is consolidating, I argue that the media is used by the right wing neo-conservation faction of our government to control public policy and opinion, creating an Orwellian political state.

…Stolen elections. …Restricted rights. …Strong centralized government. …Self censored media. It sounds like a great tag line for a thrilling novel and yet more and more it seems like our country is being shaped into the fantasy of the most creative political writers. According to Noam Chomsky, a well known linguist and political pundit, we live in a “democracy” and yet any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the US media. What once seemed like an outlet to challenge the policies and ethics of an administration now seems to be merely an extension of the executive branch. Journalism has been harnessed and reduced “to the ‘spokesman’s spokesman’, a branch of corporate and government public relations” (Pilger, 2003). It becomes very easy to point fingers and lay blame on the media and yet most political pundits point to the one instance where politicians and the media merged and decided to have a lovechild.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 laid the framework for what we know today as hyper-media conglomeration. According to Nichols, before 1996, the Sinclair Broadcasting Group (for example), who’s [now] 62 company-owned stations which reach 25 percent of all American households, would have been fairly harmless. “Corporations were allowed to own only a handful [of] television stations nationally.” Legislation passed by the Federal Communications Commission (which coincidentally is run by Colin Powell’s son… again, coincidentally), with the help of Congress deregulated television so that now, companies like Sinclair, Murdoch’s News Corporation, General Electric, Comcast, and a handful of others (literally a handful) control 90 percent of the terrestrial and cable audience (Pilger, 2003).

Besides making a pact with Satan, the media has been a main contributor to the recent success of the political right. Though its true that George W. Bush is really the spawn of many demons and miscreants, we cannot blame him, for the ball has been rolling for quite some time…

One idea that is often misunderstood is the freedom of our American press. Our American press is, constitutionally, the freest press in the world (Pilger, 2003). Most would assume that this gives our press the freedom to discuss and openly question the policies and decisions of our administrations. It is in fact the exact opposite that occurs in our press. The global model for censorship by omission in free societies is in fact set by our own country (Pilger, 2003). In Washington, Charles Lewis, the former CBS 60 Minutes producer who runs the Centre for Public Integrity, once stated, “Under Bush, the silence among journalists is worse than in the 1950’s. Murdoch (a.k.a. News Corp. which owns and operates FOX News) is the most influential media mogul in America; he sets the standard, and there is no public discussion about it. Why do 70 percent of the American public believe Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9/11? Because the media’s constant echoing of the government guarantees it. Without the complicity of journalists, Bush would never have attacked Iraq.” In a study conducted by the Program on International Policy and Attitudes/Knowledge Networks, they were researching support for war and misconceptions of evidence of Iraqi links to Al Qaeda. In their study, they found that of people who supported the war, 67% thought that the US had found evidence linking Al Qaeda and Iraq (Kull, 2003-04) . This is where the problem arises. When the media merely acts as a beckon, rather as a bullhorn for our administration, the ability to filter fact from propaganda becomes very difficult. Realistically, why would the average American not believe what our administration and media outlets tell us. After all, it’s television - and we all know that they never lie.

The problem further increases because our media merely serves as a call to arms for war. In an interview with Mother Jones, Harry Shearer, political commentator, anti-war activist, and voice of The Simpsons, stated, “what is more disturbing to me because it’s new, is the phenomenon of all these broadcasting consultants, radio consultants in particular, saying, ‘Hey, what your public wants to hear is support for the war and patriotism, so soft-petal that anti-war stuff.’ That’s a form of self-censorship that’s infinitely more disturbing. That’s just part of the larger picture of media being shaped by this obsessive testing, the science of which is questionable and the cultural effect of which is execrable.” Obviously we will not know the full global effect that this has until we are no longer favored by time. Not only does our media not release all information available, they heavily favor the war-hawks in our administration that want all Americans to believe that war is ultimately the only answer towards... freedom? How does the American public determine what our final goal is with war, if we are told the ends without any means? Our generation has been raised to believe generations past talk about the Great War and how the US fought for freedom. That same message is spun in a way that confuses Americans where one would be led to believe that we still are fighting “great wars.” So when does the “great war” end and when does the “great peace” begin?

We can clearly see that regardless of whatever ‘best intentions’ the FCC and Congress had for passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, this has created a larger problem in spreading and even finding real truth in our politicians and in our media. Again, let’s not blame George W. Bush, a republican. The Telecommunications Act was passed and signed by America’s golden boy - former President Bill Clinton… a democrat.

It is obvious that US politicians are using the media to skew and persuade public opinion in the US. They hope to shape how Americans think. This becomes problematic because not only does media spin of policy dictate how America deals with other nations (with regards to war and foreign policy), but a side effect is that the media and politicians also redefine American traditions and ideals.

One great example of this would be the definition of nationalism and patriotism. To go against government means you are Anti-American, or Anti-Semitic when referring to the Israeli administration. Our troops are not killers, they are patriots. Blackwater mercenaries are called freedom fighters or private contractors. Let me tell ya, they aren’t going to Iraq to fix the plumbing, that’s for sure. The president of a sovereign nation is called a Thug and a Terrorist. The media is spinning policy out of proportion to the point where any criticism at all of our government is considered treasonous. This idea in itself is another form of censorship. Not only is information being withheld, but the information we do receive is fuzzy at best.

Obviously when one extrapolates this idea to other prideful countries, we see that this idea is ludicrous. As Chomsky once said, If one were to call an Italian who criticizes their administration anti-Italian, laughter would erupt in the streets. The fact that this does not occur in the US is a frightening thing. When criticism of one’s administration is considered a treasonous act, one no longer lives in a democracy… they live in a totalitarian dictatorship. So how is it that our administration can say with a straight face that we are fighting in Iraq (2nd invasion) to support the Iraqi people if our administration themselves did not support their administration and would then therefore be anti-Iraqi. Maybe that’s why GW always has that smug smirk across his face. It’s all too confusing.

The deeper effect of US media censorship would obviously be these very redefinitions of our thoughts and ideas. Noam Chomsky summarized this idea the best. “Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever.” But let’s get this idea straight. Censorship is not just omitting certain ideas, but it is also giving false perceptions of these ideas, as Chomsky believed.

Here’s a basic example of how censorship works in the US. I want to tell everyone how apples are both green and red, but a spokesperson from a media conglomerate who has close ties to our administration hires a production crew to make a movie about how I hate vegetables, and the president, in a news conference says that there is no such thing as apples. It’s a two prong attack to keep Americans confused and misled. One of the most influential uses of this example was demonstrated during G.W. Bush’s national address, given on September 20th 2001 before a joint session of the US Congress (Coe, 2004). The president decreed, “Every nation, in every region, no has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (Bush, 2001). This statement had clear rhetorical power at the time and has subsequently become something even more important - the foundational policy of the Bush administration’s “War on Terror” (Coe, 2004). This creates a government led western front while the media handles the east. As Coe continues to discuss, “such binary constructions are ideally suited for a US political culture dominated by mass media,” which is synonymous with two minute sound bites. You’re either with us or against us. After 9/11, the US has been completely hampered by government sponsored censorship (Hanley, 2004).

Another great example of media censorship occurred between CBS and a group called MoveOn.Org. CBS did not air a super bowl ad that was produced by MoveOn.Org. “CBS said it didn’t want to trouble its viewers with ‘controversial issues of public importance.’ Yet during the same game, the broadcaster screened White House-funded images of teenagers slumped unconscious after ‘drinking and smoking pot’. MoveOn.com accused CBS of ‘political favoritism’, pointing out that its parent company, Viacom, had been among the biggest beneficiaries of the Republicans’ loosening of restrictions on media consolidation (Hooper, 2004). The dreaded Telecommunications Act of 1996 pokes its brown little head out again.

The idea is that news is constructed in the same way that our administration constructs their policies so it is easy to translate between the two. The incentive for administrations is that somehow, whether it be indirectly or perhaps inadvertently, news-gathering techniques structured by today’s media favor the growth of government (Sutter, 2004). Sutter further believes that general economic incentives of for-profit media lead news organizations to promote the expansion (or maintenance) of government. Couple this with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and we see how this love child is now spawning into a sex-angst teenager. More media coverage of war means that more funding will be spent on our military which means more war which will then provide more coverage. It then becomes easy to see why media broadcasts and publications describe “Bush and Blair as ‘heroes’ of the Iraq invasion,” while dismissing the blood they’ve spilt (Pilger, 2003).

Its slightly maddening when one realized that Bush’s call to arms was merely a cleverly devised media campaign set on stopping Saddam and those dreaded… Weapons Of Mass Destruction (Kull, 2003-04). But I thought this war was about 9/11. Really, it’s government and media control of the world. Do you want world domination? All you need to do is follow these few simple rules. Create a frenzied new cabinet position who’s sole purpose is to pay homage to Orwell with everything from its name (Department of Homeland Security) to those color-coded terrorism warnings (Nichols, 2004). Blacklist any outspoken artist that strays from our agenda, like the Dixie Chicks (Coulter, 2003), or Tim Robbins or Bill Hicks, and if we can’t blacklist them, we’ll make them seem crazy, like Michael Moore. Do not discuss the Telecommunications Act of 1996. If any politician strays, we’ll send over Mark Hyman, the corporate vice president for corporate relations for Sinclair, to prepare a scorched-earth attack on anyone who sees through the distortions of the Bush administration (Nichols, 2004). Anyone member of Congress who criticizes the war is obviously an unpatriotic politician who hates our military.

The number one rule above all else is that we do not discuss the real numbers and casualties of the war. You will not hear about the Iraqi civilian death toll. The media is not going to cover it, not the military, not even the Red Cross (Dority, 2004). You will not know that, to this date, roughly 10,000-12,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by US weapons and US soldiers (Iraq Body Count). You will not hear about collateral damage. You will not know that in Fallujah, American troops killed so many people in May, that the municipal soccer field was converted into a cemetery where roughly 300 people, many of them women and children, were buried. But according to Tommy Franks of the US Central Command, “We don’t do body counts” (Dority, 2004). So why would you know this?

If George Orwell were around, he would tell us that the relationship shared between government and media is leading us down the road to 1984. “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world,” he would warn, adding that, if we do not act, “lies will pass into history” (Nichols, 2004). Some background would help explain the comparison better. George Orwell, political pundit and author, wrote a magnificent novel entitled “1984,” where a propagandistic media produced and controlled information and disseminated it in the form of lies to impose the will of the ruling class on its citizens. In 1984, it was said that this would be the end of democracy. The reference to this novel is frightening because of how real it is unfolding in our everyday lives. To quote Michael Copps, the lone FCC commissioner that has time and time again defended public interest over corporation, “This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology - whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves.” He refers to Sinclair specifically. “This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. It is the same corporation that short shrifts local communities and local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road.” In compiling research, one staggering thing became quite clear to me. The marriage between media and government is a very dangerous union that will only lead or at least encourage our own self destruction. Censorship has nothing to do with what we find ethical or moral. We have many media outlets that publicly distribute smut, profanity, and violence. Censorship is about one thing and one thing only - world domination. It sounds like a wild fantasy story when presented in this light. Unfortunately, based on the actions and evidence presented, what other reason would there be for such strong censorship? I argued and presented evidence that suggests that our government is leading us towards an Orwellian state. While media corporations consolidate, the message we receive from them also consolidates. When questions are suppressed and dismissed, the message we receive consolidates. When the message we receive consolidates, we enter a censored society. There was a point where we as a society had a chance to turn things around. Before 1996, people still had some optimism. I know that we have passed the event horizon. I cannot tell what the future holds, but as long as our government tells me what it will hold, I cannot imagine that censorship is the correct decision for mankind.

Works Cited

Bush, G. W. “Address before a joint session of the Congress on the United States response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.” Retrieved December 1, 2004, from http://www.access.gpo.gov

Cass, Dennis. “Harry Shearer.” Mother Jones. Vol. 28, No. 4. Jul/Aug 2003. p86.

Coe, Kevin; “No Shades of Gray: The Binary Discourse of George W. Bush and an Echoing Press”. Journal of Communication. June 2004, pg 234-252.

Coulter, Ann. “We’ll Let You Know When You’re Being Censored”. Human Events. Vol. 59, No. 23. July 2003. p. 6.

Dority, Barbara; Fred Edwords. “Humanism Versus Militarization of America”. Humanist. Vol. 64, No. 4. Jul. 2004. p. 12.

Hanley, Delinda C. “Al Jazeera World Forum Takes a Hard Look at Freedom of the Press”. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Vol. 23, No. 8. Oct. 2004. p. 14.

Hooper, Simon. “MoveOn told to move out”. New Statesman. Vol. 133, No. 4681. March 2004. pg 21.

Iraq Body Count. Retrieved December 1, 2004, from http://www.iraqbodycount.net

Kull, Steven; Clay Ramsay; Evan Lewis. “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War”. Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 118. No. 4. 2003-04. pg 569-598

Nichols, John. “Orwellian Twist on the Campaign”. The Nation. 10/18/2004 11:42am

Pilger, John. “Reducing Journalism to a Branch of Corporate and Government Public Relations is the Hidden Agenda of the Media Deregulators, In Britain and America”. New Statesman. Vol. 132, No. 4657. Sep 2003. p13.

Sutter, Daniel. “News Media Incentives, Coverage of Government, and the Growth of Government”. The Independent Review. Vol. 3, No. 4, Spring 2004, pg 549-567.

[2004.12.13]