alternative hippopotamus

I was just about to outline a larger thesis on the use of disinformation and propaganda by the Republican Party in the 2008 election, when I got this from Paul Waldman. It’s basically the themes as Waldman sees them that Republicans are using in their multi-pronged attack. It’s certainly interesting, but it appears to omit the current attack on the DNC and Obama campaigns for sexism. While it may obliquely fall into the “Liberal Elitist” attack that Waldman outlines, better to put it into its own category.

What I find disturbing about this election season is that too much energy has gone into the intra-blogosphere spat between former Hillary supporters and the Obama supporters, or as the former prefer to call the latter: “Obots.” I do think that some of this has been sustained by Republicans posing as liberals on the blogs, commenting to stir up negative feelings left over after the primary campaign. The effect has been that less attention has been paid to the traditional manufacturers of right-wing progaganda: folks like NRO, the Malkinites, and the RedState.commers.

As it turns out the latter has been busy generating the false rumor that Queen for a Day, Sarah Palin, stunningly ad-libbed her speech last night after the teleprompter broke. That was debunked here.

Not surprisingly an attempt at reviving the rumor by the Meowists here:

They look fairly ridiculous harping on the “she did an Ok job of reading the teleprompter” meme, since it came out that the teleprompter broke.

It does make you wonder how all these loyal Meowist Democrats, who never voted for a Republican before, spend all their time reading right-wing blogs.

Freedom’s Watch, a group championing “a powerful fight against terror, especially in Iraq,” has created a series of ads supporting US continued presence in Iraq. Powerline, Time magazine’s 2004 blog of the year, describes the ads as: “well done, and convey the simple message that the Iraq war is important and winnable, and that we should allow our troops to see the mission through.”

Certainly, if the mission is to confuse 9.11 and Iraq, then these ads are well done, and they may help to win the mission. Propaganda, like that catapulted by the MSM and Time’s 2004 blog of the year, is one of the most effective agents for change. Or, in the case of the occupation of Iraq, agents for not-change. Agents for staying the course. Agent’s for manipulating people to support things they ordinarily wouldn’t support if the issues of 9.11 and Iraq hadn’t been confounded.

Example from the ads: “In another one of the spots, a mother of a soldier killed in the war says, ‘We’ve already had one 9-11, we don’t need another.’”

Fortunately, the media corporations that make up our radio and television landscape are reluctant to air pro-administration propaganda. Just kidding. They roll over quicker than a stone without any gathered moss. (Sorry, I’m fresh out of similes today. Maybe if I made it Sharon Stone and Kate Moss…. No, it just doesn’t work.)

That’s why it surprised me that MSNBC and CNBC are refusing to air the ads. Brad Blakeman of Freedom’s Watch writes:

John Kelly Senior Vice-President of NBC News Network Sales 30 Rockefeller Plaza 12th Floor New York, NY 10112

Dear Mr. Kelly,

We understand that MSNBC and CNBC (the “Networks”) are refusing to sell advertising time to Freedom’s Watch (“FW”) to air a series of educational advertisements. It is our understanding that the purported basis for the denial is a Network policy denying access to groups that wish to sponsor advertising on controversial issues of public importance.

Given your recent history of airing such ads (see below), we must wonder if your denial to FW is a subjective decision because the network officials disagree with the FW ads’ message? If you continue to refuse to air FW’s advertisement we request an explanation of your basis in writing or station policy within two (2) days from the date above as time is of the essence.

FW has requested time on your networks to air advertisements discussing the War Against Terrorism. Your reporters and commentators discuss this issue on your programs at every hour of the day so you clearly agree this is an issue of great public importance. FW’s advertisements, to be sure, present a view of this debate that rounds out your coverage. These ads feature Iraq War Veterans and their families discussing their sacrifices in personal terms and their belief that we must allow the military time to complete its mission in Iraq and seek victory. This is a side of this issue that should not be silenced by national cable networks. We believe that rather than censor these American heroes, you should let the American public hear their story.

It’s always exciting for me to hear Republican groups discover the value of hearing different views. I would have preferred they would have made the discovery when Bush was having dissenters chucked out of all his public appearances, but at least they’ve finally showed up at the party. And since, Mr. Blakeman took the time to write, it would be discourteous not to write back.

Dear Brad,

Blah, blah, blah,
AltHippo

One of the reasons for starting this blog (or really a predecessor blog) was the level of propaganda and disinformation during the build up to the Iraq invasion. I genuinely felt like I was living inside of George Orwell’s brain, and he was writing the episode of September 2002 to March 2003 as a lesson to never let something like this happen.

I was living in Cambridge at the time, and tended to hang out with mostly full-throated lefty types. Not all, I had one friend who was a staunch Republican. Virtually everyone I knew believed that the war with Iraq was justified, either because of a potentially nuclear-armed Hussein or as a way of punishing the evil-doers responsible for 9.11. This is a lizard brain. This is a lizard brain post-9.11.

There’s an illusion created by PR (which I’ll use as a nicer way of saying disinformation and propaganda) campaign that a bunch of people saying the same thing at the same means that many people think the same thing, and you should, too. It’s a bandwagon, jump on it. A PR campaign is similar to a military campaign. These things are planned out, battle lines are drawn, timing is decided on, the movement of troupes is detailed.

In this case the purpose of the PR campaign is to convince Joe and Jill Sixpack that the surge is working, stay the course, keep spreading democracy and Christianity to the Muslimites (think of them as illegal immigrants with a fatwa), or the evil-doers will follow us here. I mention this because “Diamond Jim” VandeHei does a good job (You’re a good boy. Here’s a cookie.) of mapping out how this works:

The clearest sign of Bush’s September plan is that the White House has launched a new preemptive campaign to convince lawmakers the surge plan is working.

Significantly, GOP leaders are helping. This started with Bush pulling in GOP lawmakers and then leading conservative columnists last month to argue the war is going better than perceived — and to spread the word he has no plans to retreat.

It worked: Conservative outlets from the National Review to the Weekly Standard have stepped up their defense of administration policy in Iraq.

Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), a top House GOP leader, said much more significant was an op-ed in Monday’s New York Times by two Brookings Institution scholars, Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack. The two Iraq experts contended that the surge is starting to work.

The White House blasted the op-ed to its allies within minutes of its publication — and the National Review directed its readers to the piece shortly after.

For those of you who are interested in understanding the government’s use of propaganda, I’d recommend this essay on Orwell’s 1984. This excerpt particularly struck me:

Although the regime appeared repressive to Smith, it was not this feature which bothered him as much as the
lying, rewriting history, misrepresentation of current events and facts, and endless sloganizing designed to entrap the subject masses. Smith was an employee of the Ministry of Truth and was often responsible for editing and rewriting information. , He was painfully aware of the manipulation of the truth. Big Brother’s henchmen had not yet perfected their psychological techniques to the point that they could resolve effectively the dissonance between knowledge and belief. Smith knew the propaganda was false and the slogans meaningless, yet even he was expected to believe and trust.

Repression and prevarication are devices commonly used by the powerful to assert legitimacy since the exercise of power never benefits the powerless as much as the powerful. Those who hold power customarily must rationalize a privileged position which is never fully deserved.

Propaganda is a common tool of the powerful. It’s used to rationalize the continued existence of the powerful. And, it’s the enemy of understanding.

One of the reasons I bring this up is because of two blog posts I read this morning. The first from the Archcrone:

The Pentagon has a new operation, “Communications Outreach,” formerly known as “Surrogates Operation.” This is an attempt to work with talk radio hosts and bloggers to spread the “good” word about the debacle otherwise known as the War in Iraq.

The second is from Open Left:

However, a quick review of Google news results for Edwards haircut shows immediately that it is a right-wing smear job that the corporate press is happily reporting. Who is talking about the Edwards haircut? Why, Forbes, Powerline, the Daily Telegraph, Fox, Real Clear Politics, New Busters, the Politico, Town Hall, the New York Sun, Rush Limbaugh, American Spectator, Hot Air and Human Events. Al Gore must be watching this with a real sense of deja vu.

Are the entities that Chris Bowers lists acting either as an extension of the White House, the RNC, or other right-wing entities? I think it’s likely. Others likely identify more with the clan (I said “clan” not “Klan”) nature of politics, and smearing someone, or twisting the facts in order to “win”- whatever “winning” might mean in this sense- justifies their actions to themselves. To the list I’ll add NRO, Michelle Malkin, the Druge Report and Instapundit.

Here, I’ll just add that my objection to these blogs and media sites isn’t that I disagree with their opinions. It’s that I find what they do reprehensible. Distorting the truth for money or for sport. Which in the end serves to keep those who are undeservedly powerful in power.

As the debate on Iraq begins to shift towards when troops will be brought home, instead of a vague notion of “winning”, how are the loyal Bushies holding up? These, after all, were the ones calling Murtha a coward, and everyone favoring withdrawal a cut-and-runner.

Lying is always one option. If the iron’s hot, then singe reality with it, I guess. Take instapundit:

When even the BBC is saying that Washington looks to be wimping out just as the surge may be working, it’s not a good time to panic.

Here, insty is using the old trick of mischaracterizing a blogger’s post, who in turn has mischaracterized the original at the BBC. Kind of like the game “telephone”, but with propaganda.

Here’s the original:

According to BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, the debate is moving so fast in Washington that Gen Petraeus’s efforts, which might have saved the day for the Bush administration if they had been introduced three, or even two, years ago, may well have come too late.

The BBC story is saying that the surge is too late. Insty is saying don’t pull out, the surge is working. One of these things is not like the other thing.

I’ve been digging through some history of radio and television sites in an effort to paint the picture of the extent to which Old Media owns rights to every conceivable passage to our five senses. As an example, I decided to look at CBS. CBS started out in the radio broadcast and record businesses, but over time expanded to own: tv stations, tv production facilities ( CBS Paramount Television), cable television stations (Showtime), satellite radio (Infinity Broadcasting), CD’s and DVD’s (Columbia Records), and book publishing (Simon & Schuster). They even own a share in what might otherwise be thought of as a contender in the New Media category: the Sundance Channel.

But what I found fascinating was two passages from CBS’s home page on their history. Here’s the first: (CBS)

” 1935. Frank Stanton, a 27-year-old instructor of psychology at Ohio State, receives a telegram urging him to join CBS. He moves to New York and joins CBS as number three in a three-person research department. His early work focuses on audience measurement – program ratings, geographical studies of CBS station coverage and effectiveness studies on radio’s ability to sell goods.”

After seven years in business, CBS chief Paley employs someone who has a background in psychological techniques and their role in advertising. This goes beyond the notion of creating CBS radio to sell CBS phonographic records. They start to see themselves as selling the ability to sell.

Here’s the second passage that caught my attention: (emphasis mine)

“1943. Paley takes a leave of absence from CBS to serve as a colonel in the U.S. Army. Attached to General Eisenhower’s staff in London, Col. Paley heads the Office of Psychological Warfare. Paul Kesten, whose genius for promotion was critical in making CBS competitive, is named Executive Vice President and heads CBS during Paley’s absence.”

The head of CBS ran PsyOps for Eisenhower. That says something to me about the interrelationship of Old Media and the political infrastructure.

I have a problem. I’d like to be able to boycott the networks that refuse to air the ad for “Shut Up and Sing”, but I don’t see how I can watch the networks less than I already do. Now that I think about it, the audience demographic for an anti-administration documentary probably doesn’t spend much time on NBC, CBS, or ABC to begin with.

To badly paraphrase a line from the 1960’s: what if they gave a boycott, but nobody was planning to be there in the first place?

Anyway, I found the ad entertaining, and I for one plan to run their ad on my humble soap box.

There’s a serious aspect to this, which is what Glenn Greenwald is getting into here. As he puts it:

The very idea that it is in the “public interest” to prohibit ads that criticize the Leader is ludicrous on its face. The President is constantly given free airtime to argue his views and propagandize on virtually every issue, and the networks endlessly offer forums for his followers and surrogates to defend him.

Part of our democratic machinery are common spaces such as the public airwaves. At the point where they cease to serve the public, but instead serve the Republican party, they begin to erode our society. They should not be allowed to profit from that action.

From Media Matters:

CROWLEY: Every since the tumultuous early ’70s when the Democrats got tagged as the party of acid, amnesty, and abortion, they have been on the losing side of the values debate, the defense debate, and, oh yes, the guns debate. Al Gore and John Kerry lost every Southern state and most of the mid- and interior West.

If you don’t recognize the “acid, amnesty, and abortion” bit that’s a line Scoop Jackson used to tar McGovern in 1972. It’s not my favorite negative slogan by any means. I spent a little time with “the google” and came up with these slogans describing Republicans. I think you’ll find they’re a bit more clever than Crowley’s example.

• “Bozo and the Pineapple” (Ford/Dole 1976)
• “In Your Guts, You Know He’s Nuts” (Goldwater 1964)
• “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer” (Bush 2004)

Also, the bit about being on the losing side of the values, defense, and guns debate is just a hack job.

This is what they call “journalism”? I really believe I could randomly pick a person off the street, and they could do a better job than CNN’s senior political analysist.

Update: I see that Glenn Greenwald is pursuing the same topic. Not Candy and her Catapult per se, but the more general issue of how so-called political analysts continue to “report” on how Democrats are outside of the mainstream, often with the thinnest anecdotal “evidence.”

He also mentions a very amusing poll conducted by Instapundit. Reynolds asks his readers who “should” win the House and the Senate. Unsurprisingly, his readers say that Republicans “should” maintain control of both houses:

Republicans keep both houses - 78%
Republicans lose one house - 14%
Democrats take both houses - 8 %

That margin indicates an audience well outside of the mainstream.

Which makes me wonder: when is Candy Crowley going to do a segment on how Instapundit, one of the most popular political blogs, attracts the fringes of the rightwing?

NYT:

It was the kind of shadowy, secret Washington meeting that Bob Woodward is fond of describing in detail. In his new book, “State of Denial,” he writes that on Nov. 29, 2001, a dozen policy makers, Middle East experts and members of influential policy research organizations gathered in Virginia at the request of Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense. Their objective was to produce a report for President Bush and his cabinet outlining a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11.

What was more unusual, Mr. Woodward reveals, was the presence of journalists at the meeting. Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International and a Newsweek columnist, and Robert D. Kaplan, now a national correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, attended the meeting and, according to Mr. Kaplan, signed confidentiality agreements not to discuss what happened.

This is a great moment for the 4th estate. No longer confined to reporting on the events of the day. They become part of the process that creates the events of the day. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to just make the cabinet secrataries defacto heads of network broadcast, and major daily print media organizations?

I certainly learned some things from this Washington Post article on the new media. For instance, Dick Cheney listens to Don Imus in the morning. Which makes sense in that Imus, like Cheney, is “barking dog mad” (MoDo’s words). Lynne Cheney likes to read Matt Drudge. Of course she also likes to write soft-porn novels. Pornography in, pornography out.

By coincidence I was discussing this very same topic with Elizabeth Edwards last night. One of the perks of living in DC is that when folks come into town you sometimes get a meet and greet. So, I mentioned that the Washington Post has been friendly to the right-wing blogs, not-so-friendly to the leftie blogs. She already knew this, and acknowledged that the right has a message machine that the left has not put together.

Back to the Post. This is the first time that I’ve read this clear a description of how the RNC’s media strategy works:

At the Republican National Committee, leaking items to the Drudge Report is an official part of communications strategy.

During the 2004 campaign, current and former RNC staff members said, opposition research nuggets on Kerry were almost always leaked first to the Web site. Sometimes they were trivial — such as the fact that Kerry got expensive haircuts at the Christophe salon — other times they were controversial quotes from his days as a Vietnam War protester. All together, these and other items contributed to Kerry losing control of his public image.

Ken Mehlman, the RNC chairman and head of Bush’s reelection campaign, said his operatives leaked to Drudge because it inevitably drove wider coverage, including to old media organizations: “He puts something up and they have to follow it.”

From Mehlman to Drudge to Instapundit, NRO, Powerline, and Malkin. It’s disgusting, but it gets the job done.