Freedom of the press consists primarily in its not being a trade.
-- Karl Marx, Herr Vogt

READING BETWEEN THE LI(N)ES

This is something I've been meaning to write for a long time, and it's going to be an ongoing, growing thing, because this is a big topic. The American media is a masterful propaganda machine of enormous sophistication. It has elevated the craft of thought control to levels that would have made the Nazis drool. But this system is not infallible -- you merely need to approach it with appropriate caution. Once you begin thinking critically about what you're reading, listening to, or viewing, you will be better able to inform yourself, despite the efforts of the media.

Remember one cardinal rule, though: Never, ever assume you're immune to propaganda. If you believe this, it's already too late! The most propagandized people are the ones who think it doesn't work on them. The only real defense against it isn't believing you're immune, but rather thinking critically about what you read or see.

OBSERVE THE LANGUAGE

The press really prostitutes language in the service of the power elite. It makes it do all sorts of tricks to make the foul seem fair, and the fair seem foul.

I've found that a pro-industry or government stance is portrayed as fact, whereas contrary information is couched in terms like "this group asserts" or "so-and-so claims".

Let's take an example from the December 2, 1999 New York Times front page article, "Black Masks Lead to Pointed Fingers in Seattle", written by Timothy Egan. Feel free to read along, if you have the article handy...

The above is magnificent propaganda poetry, and merits dissection. Things I note in the above...

  1. "Some blamed the police": This is that couching technique I referred to above. It insulates the police from responsibility for their actions by saying that some (who?) blamed the cops. If it had said "the police mounted a show of force..." the blame would be pretty clear.

  2. "a show of force": This is interesting because three paragraphs up refers to the protesters engaging in a "surge of violence", which is far more inflammatory than the antiseptic "show of force". This again is meant to insulate the reader from thinking. Imagine if it said "the police engaged in a surge of violence..." -- in fact, whereas the police shooting at people is considered merely a show of force, the people overturning trash cans is portrayed as a surge of violence.

  3. "rubber pellets": I love this one. These are more commonly known as "rubber bullets", but everyday people know that bullets are bad -- you shoot people with bullets, and bad things happen. But by substituting "pellets" for "bullets", that visceral reaction is then lost. What's a pellet, besides what you feed your pet hamster, right? Much safer.

    In fact, the writer does a little verbal cartwheel by not even saying the word "shoot" in the sentence. If he'd said "the police engaged in a surge of violence, shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at largely nonviolent protesters..." he'd have been far closer to the facts of the matter. Instead, he says they "mounted a show of force with rubber pellets" -- this divorces the action from the consequence. Those "pellets" weren't shot; they were "mounted" "against", whatever that means.

Later on in the article is the following gem...

Here are things I note in the above:

  1. "attacked", "assaulted", and "suffered": These are inflammatory words used to put the protesters in the worst possible light. Note that no further details are given, since the reporter no doubt felt the loaded words carried enough weight and were self-explanatory.

  2. "They said there were no major injuries to demonstrators...": Who are they? The authorities, of course. The lazy reporter, instead of interviewing demonstrators firsthand, relies instead on the police! Further, the reporter fudges things by saying "no major injuries" without explaining what that means. Again, the passive language -- whereas the security officer and the police were either attacked, assaulted, or suffered, the protesters merely complained.

    Now, if you saw any of the footage of the protests, I think the police perspective on "no major injuries" is very questionable. I think the woman on page 35 of Newsweek (sorry, but I don't have access to a scanner right now!) would dispute this account. Those "rubber pellets" must pack a whallop, because that woman's face is a mess, and she looks like she's hurting.

Finally, the reporter ends on this interesting note...

This last sentence of the article is particularly choice, because it puts a human face on the broken windows of Seattle's retail district, while omitting any reference to injuries suffered to real human beings (aside from the police). The reporter wants you to feel sorry for those poor storefronts, police and burning trashcans, and not for those complaining, violent vandal demonstrators. He used a technique called "substitution" to humanize those corporate storefronts and to dehumanize the actual human beings -- the protesters!

There is only one point of view in the story, and that's in lock-step with law enforcement. So, this "objective" reporter is really just shilling for the police, instead of exploring what really went on during the WTO demonstrations and perhaps uncovering larger issues.

Return to a4a