How The Government And The Media Protect Their Political Narrative
I have been on this topic for a couple of days now, and I will likely stay on it for as long as I blog. Propaganda is essential to the control of a free people. So long as the people can communicate the Truth about what is happening, the government narrative cannot succeed. This is why Walter Lippmann said these words:
Without some form of censorship, propaganda in the strict sense of the word is impossible. In order to conduct propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event.
Now, remember who Walter Lippmann was. He is one of the most famous, most revered figures in all of American journalism – and he believed:
The public must be put in its place, so that it may exercise its own powers, but no less and perhaps even more, so that each of us may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.
Now ask yourself, what do you suppose a newspaper man would think was the best way to ‘put the public in its place?’
But there still remains a problem: no matter how good Lippmann and Bernays may have been at forming, controlling and directing public opinion, their efforts would be in vain if the people they were trying to control had access to the Truth about what was being done to them, why it was being done and how it was being done. So they have to make sure they can at least control the sources of information that ‘appear’ to be in competition with the State-controlled media. This way, the people have just enough reason to believe the media they consume is still a ‘free’ media and that it is reporting the Truth. So, what signs do we have that might suggest there is an ongoing effort to squash the voices of true opposition to the narrative?
Well, let’s start with the fact that propaganda was so discredited in the early 20th Century that Congress outlawed it. Unfortunately, they made it legal again just a little while ago:
It is now legal for the Federal Government to ‘manufacture’ news – including the providing of misleading and even false information. Now that you know this, let me ask you this” Do you still trust anything the government tells you? Let me ask you another question: Do you remember the stories in the ‘alternative’ media (i.e. the free media) detailing how Obama favored NBC News and declared that FOX News is not a ‘news’ organization? Do you think any of this might be signs of government control designed to protect its narrative?
Next, what would you call it if the government declared that it was the sole authority for declaring what and who constitutes ‘the press?’
President Barack Obama has declared war on the press, say writers at Slate, the Daily Beast, Reason, the Washington Post (Jennifer Rubin, Dana Milbank and Leonard Downie Jr.), Commentary, National Journal (Ron Fournier), the New York Times editorial page, CBS News, Fox News (Roger Ailes) and even Techdirt. Scores of other scribes and commentators have filed similar dispatches about this or that federal prosecution “chilling” the press and pulping the First Amendment. Downie, who could open an aquatics center with the leaks his reporters collected during his 17 years as executive editor of the Washington Post, calls the “war on leaks … the most militant I have seen since the Nixon administration.”
What if the Federal Government started spying on reporters?
There’s evidence that the Justice Department’s seizure of Associated Press phone records is far from unprecedented.
And what would you call it if the Federal Government had declared it has the authority to take over the Internet?
A new executive order addresses how the country deals with the Internet during natural disasters and security emergencies, but it also puts a lot of power in the government’s hands.
Don’t be too quick to dismiss this last one. It doesn’t really define what an emergency is. ‘Lose definitions’ are how a manipulative and deceptive government works. Once it has laws like this in place, all it has to do is change the definition of what an ‘emergency’ is and it can take control. Do you remember the story I just posted about the government claiming it can define who is and isn’t a journalist? Well, who is going to stop them from redefining an emergency?
Then there’s this story:
This story represents a Representative of the Federal Government declaring that his political opponents produce nothing but propaganda. The irony is that his opponents are not the government and, therefore, have no power to enforce their ideas, but he is and has both. This means Rep Clyburn has more in common with the NAZI’s than ‘conservative media.’ In fact, he has so much more in common with NAZI Germany that you will probably see this story again – in a blog specifically dedicated to those similarities. But for now, I hope this is enough to show you that it is not irrational to believe the government is trying to prevent anyone from hearing an opposing voice to the media narrative they control. It isn’t irrational because the signs are everywhere – if you just know how to spot them. Oh, and one more thing: I only used a few of the stories I could have used to support my argument in this post. Do some looking on your own. You just might be shocked at what I know about but didn’t tell you.