Media is Propaganda!

Even “liberal” newspapers start with the premise that the State should exist, especially in its current late-capitalist form, and that all arguments should be concerned with how to make the economy “grow.” --- Even before the spike in popularity of online news sites, blogs, Facebook, and other social networking tools, print media in this country was already in a state of crisis, despite the fact that the prevalence of major newspapers and magazines might have indicated otherwise. While print media (newspapers in particular) seem to be slightly more substantive than television, even before the “crisis” the media was overwhelmingly narrow, limited in scope, monolithic in perspective, hollow, and dangerously propagandistic. In other words, it doesn’t much matter to most Americans (or independent journalists, for that matter) that corporate-funded print media is declining since it was mostly propaganda anyway.1 “Propaganda for whom?” you might ask. It should come as no surprise that corporate-funded media acts as propaganda for the continued existence and dominance of corporations, in the form of pro-State and pro-industrial-economy premises. No matter how varied the articles are, nor how many of them “expose” City Hall, the aggregate message of every major newspaper and magazine is that whatever helps the industrial economy is good and whatever doesn’t is bad. Even “liberal” newspapers start with the premise that the State should exist, especially in its current late-capitalist form, and that all arguments should be concerned with how to make the economy “grow.” All arguments about whether or not the economy should grow, or whether it should even exist at all, are either omitted or roundly rejected. Furthermore, this slant holds true not just for editorial sections of newspapers and magazines but for their entire content. In fact, the propaganda is even heavier in the “news” sections because in these sections the premises are more covert. The primary goal of truly effective propaganda, it must be pointed out, is not to hit people over the head with messages, but rather to slip them by in the form of hidden premises that people come to take for granted as true. Think about every article about the police that you've ever read in a major newspaper. The article may include views that question the actions of the police department in a certain community, or the tactics of a particular officer in one situation or another, but the underlying premise is always that the police department should exist, and should enforce certain laws, and should be involved in every community, everywhere. Thus, even a question such as “What kind of policing is working best to lower Baltimore’s homicide rate?” contains the following hidden premises: one, the police department should exist; two, the police department is the only entity that can lower the homicide rate; three, the police department has been responsible for lowering the homicide rate in the past; and four, people in power want the homicide rate to decrease.2 By hiding these premises as givens, the editors of major papers and magazines are allowed to shape the framework so that even when allowing for so-called “dissent,” the same pro-State, pro-economy message resounds. The more variance the opinions have while still remaining in this box, the more effective the propaganda becomes. The goal of the propagandist is to have the receiver perceive choice—to have her perceive that a wide range of topics is being covered—while she eventually comes to adopt the major premises, hidden in all of the “varied” topics as givens. Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for the Third Reich, understood completely the use of subtlety to indoctrinate a mass of people with ideological messages. He disliked the portrayal of Hitler in movies, for example, because he thought the glorification of the führer was too obvious and blunt. His preferred tactic was to bury premises in lighter, more entertaining, more seemingly “moderate” scenes and situations. He justified this technique to other members of the Nazi high command by insisting that “even entertainment can be politically of special value, because the moment a person is conscious of propaganda, propaganda becomes ineffective. However, as soon as propaganda as a tendency, as an attitude, remains in the background … then propaganda becomes effective in every respect.”3 Goebbels also believed that propaganda should, when possible, reinforce what people already think so that the messages seem natural or self-evident to the viewer. To provide some examples of how this technique is used all the time in our own media, I skimmed through the headlines of some newspapers and magazines (both “liberal” and “conservative” ones) at random and made a list of all the premises that they imply (although I’m sure you can come up with others I missed). I’ve listed them here, first the headline and then the corresponding premises: Treasury Weighs Hard Choices To Save Banks: Any Path Carries Risk of Failure (The Washington Post) - The banks deserve to be saved - Saving the banks would be a “success” - The decision over whether or not to save the banks did not need any heavy consideration How to Make Terrorists Talk: With the U.S. scrapping harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding, interviews with former interrogators reveal why a soft touch can work better than torture (Time) - There are people who are rightly classified as “terrorists” who must be made to talk - Making the terrorists “talk” is beneficial to us - The government has the right to detain people without cause or trial - Torture is working (note how it reads: a soft touch can work better than torture) Are Stocks Still Good for the Long Run? (Time) Stocks were good for the “long run” at some point - The economy is sustainable enough to have a “long run” - The economy (and specifically Wall Street) should exist Environmental Politics: Tree-huggers v. nerds4 (The Economist) - Environmentalism is a ridiculous notion - Environmentalists should not be taken seriously - Using derisive epithets for people who don’t share the mainstream dominant culture’s values (i.e. industrial capitalism, consumerism, the legitimacy of the federal government) is acceptable - There are little or no nuances between the views of environmentalists—they’re easily compartmentalized into two main (derogatory) categories Why We Must Ration Health Care (The New York Times) - There exists a “we” that is comprised of a group of people, including the reader, which has the power to influence the decision on how health care services are distributed - There is currently not enough “health care” to go around - The previous premise restated: it is inevitable and thus acceptable that there will always be people who are not insured or under-insured in our society FDA gets new powers to improve drug safety (The Baltimore Sun) - The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), by extension of the US government, should exist - The FDA has kept drugs safe in the past - The FDA’s approval is a good indicator of the safety of a certain food or drug - It is logical and acceptable that certain drugs are deemed legal and “safe” by the government while others are not While these observations may seem trite or over-sensitive, remember that the point of good propaganda, as defined by Goebbels (and who would be more qualified to do so?) is to hide ideological messages in seemingly mundane, everyday, non-confrontational scenes and situations. It’s worth noting that I only used the headlines; the bodies of articles contain even more messages that subtly reinforce conventional, pro-economy “wisdom.” The list above is only a random sampling. I could make a whole book if I spent time collecting all the ones I found, even over such a short period—and I didn’t even include ads (over half the content of most publications these days is reserved for advertising) in my search.5 In the future, when you’re reading a newspaper or magazine, try to employ this same practice with the headlines and articles you read. Ask yourself: “What are the hidden premises that I must accept before buying the article’s content?” If you’re having trouble determining the hidden premises, don’t worry; that’s the whole point of hiding premises. Some of the headlines I found above took me a while to analyze because at first they seem downright mundane, or, in the case of the third one listed above, they even seem to be “hard-hitting” investigative journalism—that is, they seem to be asking tough questions and challenging commonly-held beliefs. When someone reads “Are Stocks Still Good for the Long Run?” she may guess that the author of said article is courageously attacking the culture of Wall Street, but in fact the hidden premises of the headline are secretly working to instill in the reader the mainstream view that Wall Street must be preserved. It must be pointed out that the article in question does not contain a discussion about whether Wall Street should be abolished, but rather a comparison between the yields of stocks and other kinds of investment products, such as bonds and mutual funds. So what is the conclusion of the article? “Stocks are still the best investment for the long run.” How revolutionary.6 My point is not that no one should read any newspapers or magazines, ever. However, looking for unstated premises and questioning them would be a good tool to employ when reading mainstream—or any—news. Remember that all journalism is propaganda of some kind. I also want to make it clear that I’m not claiming that every writer for every major newspaper or magazine is a pro-corporate propagandist with dubious character or intent. While there were (and are) great writers out there, it’s the overall combined message of each publication that produces the propagandistic effect (and indeed, in the eyes of the editorial board, letting a few unconventional or critical articles “sneak by” serves as a convenient and effective smoke screen, allowing them to claim that a wide array of views are being presented). Therefore, despite the gloomy reports coming from this same corporate-funded media about its own demise, the current trend is not something to bemoan, since most print media was in large part not only already inadequate but dangerously deceptive. Hopefully the future of media will see a prevalence of small, independent, locally-produced websites, papers, magazines, and discussion groups that allow good writers, especially those who have been fired by major corporate media outlets, to continue their work and attempt to teach people how to think critically and, above all, strip themselves of the indoctrination with which they’re constantly bombarded on a daily basis. I ask you to heed the words of Robert Combs, a professor at the University of South Carolina, in his work Vision of the Voyage: “Unquestioned beliefs are the real authorities of a culture.” Endnotes 1 I say “mostly” because there are always those journalists who are the exception and do really great investigative and substantive work, and I don’t mean to offend them or belittle their incredible efforts. 2 For a fully elaborated argument on why the government really doesn’t want to reduce crime, read The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison by Jeffrey Reiman. 3 Propaganda and the German Cinema, 1933-1945 by David Welch. 4 I assure you I’m not making this headline up. 5 Newsweek was among the better publications I researched in terms of journalistic integrity—but of course, if you count the ads, it’s just as bad as the rest. The same goes for local reporting in The Sun. 6 “Are Stocks Still Good for the Long Run?” by Justin Fox, in the June 15, 2009 issue of Time.