Propaganda Spin

belated propaganda/spin = distinction w/o a diff?

MERRI OK

see disinformation vlad

see scam ploy tactic

see tobacco playbook

see myths AGW

see rhetoric

see PR SHOPS

see doubt

see public relations

cf uber1: https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6950F840-FB80-FCB0-D505-8AB1FA685F08#-2062

but cf Katy tur booktv trump spicer (hope hicks specifically seems to have crossed line, not worth going to press confs 12/17.

see radicalization red pill qanon pedo

---

see educ 2 gw bs (schools)

recall in 80's? merge of corp PR in-house shops and RNC?

---

an 1 26

Multiple agencies within President Donald Trump's administration have a habit of copying rhetoric from far-right extremist hate groups in posts to official social media accounts, according to CNN host Jake Tapper.

, Tapper observed how the U.S. Department of Labor recently posted a video depicting President George Washington over various images from history with the text: "One Homeland. One People. One Heritage. Remember who you are, American." Tapper pointed out that this was "disturbingly similar to the Nazi slogan: 'Ein volk. Ein reich. Ein führer,' which means: 'One people. One realm. One leader.'"

"Of course, it's not the same phrase, but there are critics out there, including some conservatives, who suggest that there are echoes that are disturbing," Tapper said. "The Labor Department did not respond to repeated requests for comment on this."

Tapper also called attention to a post from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), showing a B-2 stealth bomber flying over a man on horseback. The post includes the text "we'll have our home again." The CNN host noted that this is the same name of a song with strong anti-immigrant themes that "has a lot of appeal to white nationalist groups."

"The song lyrics feature lines that evoke sentiments often expressed by conservatives about immigration, such as, 'in our own towns we're foreigners now,'" Tapper said. "And perhaps it was chosen simply for that reason. Or maybe it's just a coincidence."

While the Department of Labor didn't respond to CNN's request for comment, DHS told the network the phrase was a reference to the "20-plus million illegal aliens invading the country." Tapper also quoted the DHS as saying "this is why people don't take the media seriously" when asked about criticism from conservatives.

Finally, Tapper displayed a post from the official White House X account showing two Greenlandic dog sled teams facing a crossroads, with one leading toward the White House and the other leading toward the Great Wall of China and Moscow's Red Square with the text: "Which way, Greenland man?" Tapper acknowledged that while "which way, blank man" is a common meme, it originated from "avowed white supremacist" author William Gaylord Simpson, who wrote a book entitled: "Which Way, Western Man?"

"Now, we're sure that lots of folks familiar with online meme culture are completely unaware of the hateful origins of that meme. And that could, of course, be true for the Trump administration as well," Tapper said. "It's entirely possible that President Trump's rather meme-happy group is using some of these images with no idea that they might have repugnant origins or echoes. But these are just a few examples of many. And after a certain number of them, one wonders if this is all accidental, if it's all a coincidence, why isn't there an effort to be a little bit more sensitive about it?"

---

mma no grx

By the numbers: As Trump snubs legacy media, data shows his press briefings elevate right-wing outlets | Media Matters for America

By the numbers: As Trump snubs legacy media, data shows his press briefings elevate right-wing outlets

4 out of 5 reporters called on most in White House press briefings are from right-wing outlets

Written by Pete Tsipis & Reed McMaster

Research contributions from Harrison Ray, Rob Savillo, Chloe Simon & Casey Wexler

:{:{Published 04/25/25}:

A Media Matters review of White House press briefings held so far in President Donald Trump’s second administration found that White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called on right-wing media outlets 41% of the time, and 4 of the 5 reporters called on most were from right-wing outlets.

The press briefings now include a “new media” seat which the White House has used to amplify more right-wing voices. While the White House attacks traditional press freedoms, the press briefings are now littered with biased questions from the administration's most staunch supporters.

Data: Trump's White House elevated conservative media, while snubbing legacy outlets like The New York Times, AP, and public media

Media Matters found that during the 16 press briefings held from January 20 to April 22, the White House called on right-wing outlets 41% of the time (110 out of 267). Leavitt gave the remaining opportunities to ask questions to non-ideological (52%, or 139 times) and foreign (7%, or 18 times) outlets.

Reporters at right-wing outlets also made up 4 out of 5 of the reporters called on most. While CBS News' Jennifer Jacobs was called on the most, with 10 occasions, all the other reporters in the top 5 were from conservative outlets. The Daily Caller's Reagan Reese was called on 9 times, while Fox News’ Peter Doocy, The Daily Wire’s Mary Margaret Olohan, and the New York Post’s Diana Glebova were each given 8 chances to ask questions.

top 5 reporters called on most

Top 5 reporters called on at White House press briefings

The conservative media outlets White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called on most were Fox News (15), the New York Post (12), The Daily Caller (10), The Daily Wire (8), and Newsmax (7). Among nonideological media, Leavitt called on CBS News (19), CNN (14) , ABC News (13) , NBC News (11), and Bloomberg (9) most.

Top 15 called upon right-wing outlets

Top 15 right-wing outlets called on at White House press briefings

The White House elevated smaller, far-right media over many established outlets, calling on One America News (5 times) and The Gateway Pundit (5) more than The Washington Post (4) and The Associated Press (3).

As the Trump administration works to cut federal funding from public broadcasters PBS and NPR, Leavitt has boxed them out, having called on a journalist from each network only 1 time.

Right-wing outlets’ questions frequently included praise for Trump or his administration or right-wing bias

LindellTV’s Cara Castronuova (called on 4 times) claimed Trump looked “healthier than ever before” and asked if he “is eating less McDonald’s.” She asked: “Will you guys also consider releasing the president’s fitness plan? He actually looks healthier than ever before, healthier than he did eight years ago, and I’m sure everyone in this room could agree. Is he working out with Bobby Kennedy and is he eating less McDonald's?” [Fox News, America Reports, 4/11/25]

Castronuova thanked the administration for its “election integrity executive order” and asked why Democrats are so opposed to election integrity. She stated, “Thank you for taking my question. I wanted to first and foremost thank the administration for the election integrity executive order because so many journalists for four years were banned from talking about this very subject. So thank you to the administration for that. My question is, yesterday, President Trump when signing the order said that there is more to come when it comes to election integrity. Would that include same-day voting and hand-counted paper ballots? And why are Democrats so against election integrity measures like, obviously, proof of citizenship when it comes to voting in a United States election?” [YouTube, 3/26/25]

Real America’s Voice correspondent Brian Glenn (who has been called on 3 times) complimented Leavitt’s appearance and performance before asking if Trump’s recent “incident” with the president of Colombia showed “powerful respect” for him. He said: “You look great. You're doing a great job. You talked about transparency and some of us in this room know how just transparent President Trump has been the last five or six years. I think you’ll do the same.” Glenn then asked: “My question is, do you think this latest incident with the president of Colombia is indicative of the global, powerful respect they have for President Trump moving forward, not only to engage in economic diplomacy with these countries but also world peace?” [YouTube, 1/28/25]

The Daily Caller’s Reagan Reese (who has been called on 9 times) asked Leavitt, “Does the president intend to permanently cut off funding to NGOs that are bringing illegal foreign nationals to the country, such as Catholic Charities?” Catholic Charities and other nongovernmental organizations that have long assisted the federal government in welcoming refugees to the United States have recently been the target of right-wing media attacks. [Media Matters, 2/29/24; Fox News, America Reports, 1/28/25]

The Gateway Pundit’s Jordan Conradson (who has been called on 5 times) asked Leavitt if the administration would comment on “leftist state and local officials defying ICE and Trump's deportation efforts.” Conradson stated: “Thank you so much for having me here answering a question. So, I want to talk more about the success that ICE is having in finding these violent criminal aliens, some of them being sexual predators. But, my friend Ben Bergquam reports that the Chicago mayor and the Illinois governor are preventing ICE agents from going into jails and prisons to enforce detainers against illegal aliens. In Maryland, the attorney general has also put out a memo hindering local police cooperation with ICE. Does the administration have any comment on leftist state and local officials defying ICE and Trump's deportation efforts?” [Fox News, 1/31/25]

One America News’ Daniel Baldwin (who has been called on 5 times) claimed Trump “turned the water back on in California” and asked about “the importance of Trump’s actions to help people in California.” Trump ordered the release of billions of gallons of water from two California dams, suggesting that water could have prevented the deadly wildfires in the state. Experts say not only does the move not help the suppression of wildfires, but that it also could hurt local farmers during the summer months. [Fox News, America Reports, 2/5/25; Media Matters, 2/7/25]

The Trump administration has elevated right-wing voices while cutting traditional press freedoms

The administration has moved to limit the press access of outlets Trump disagrees with while amplifying right-wing outlets. It barred entry to The Associated Press when the news wire refused to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America,” relenting only after a court order — and only partially. It established a “new media” seat in the press briefing room, whose occupant gets to ask the first question at briefings; it has been populated by both new media ventures and established right-wing media, including Breitbart and The Daily Wire.

The White House has also wrested control of the press pool — the reporters assigned to follow Trump and share information with other outlets — away from the White House Correspondents' Association and used that control to cut out newswires, another blow to the AP. This eliminates direct access for hundreds of outlets, including local news, that rely on newswires.

And now the Trump administration is threatening to change the seating chart in the briefing room, which currently gives the front two rows to major broadcast networks and papers, including CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal.

All of this builds on the trend set by the first Trump administration and then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer in 2017. Over 48 press briefings in a similar time period that year — January 23, 2017, through May 15, 2017 — Media Matters found that the reporters Spicer called on most were likewise from conservative-leaning outlets. And like Leavitt, Spicer elevated conservative-leaning outlets: 5 of his top 10 called upon — Fox News Channel, Fox News Radio, Newsmax TV, Fox Business Network, and One America News Network — were conservative-leaning. The current team led by Leavitt is continuing to emphasize traditional right-wing media while also turning to newer outlets like The Daily Wire and The Daily Caller.

By elevating more fringe right-wing outlets, Leavitt gives fewer opportunities for questions that hold the administration to account and more chances for sycophantic commentary. As Real America’s Voice’s Brian Glenn told CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, “I’m pro-Trump. The questions I ask, in my opinion, are going to help highlight the good things that he’s doing for America.”

Methodology...

---

“The real fascist”

That’s when we witnessed the “memeification” of Biden – endless Hitler comparisons that got #PedoHitler trending on Twitter.

Tucker Carlson said Biden stood in front of a “blood-red Nazi background.” Marjorie Taylor Greene layered a Hitler video over the speech to create a “deep fake” of Biden looking like Hitler.

Texas state representative Briscoe Cain gave a subtler Hitler reference by saying he couldn’t understand Biden’s speech, because it was in German. Others just called Biden satanic or lunatic.

Robert Paxton described five stages of fascism in an article published in 1998 (he wrote an op-ed calling Trump a fascist in 2021).

These include:

Group primacy over individual rights.
Group purity.
Group victimhood justifying attacks on enemies.
Fear of “cosmopolitan liberalism.”
Faith in authority of “natural male leaders.”

Jason Stanley writes of three essential features of fascism. They include “conjuring a mythic past” that the enemy has somehow destroyed, sowing division and attacking the truth withpropaganda. This propaganda is usually particularly anti-intellectual.

===

omg aha: polarization disinformation Fox, oann, facebook

1021

The far right wing cable network One America News (OAN) is funded almost entirely by telecom and tech giant AT&T.

OAN, which is even more far right than Fox News or Newsmax, served as a mouthpiece for the Trump administration and is being sued in a $1.6 billion defamation case by Dominion Voting Systems. The extremist network regularly promotes far right wing conspiracy theories as it attacks Democrats and the left.

OAN, according to aReuters special report, is "at the center of a bitter national divide over politics and truth."

But it's how OAN got there that is disturbing for the AT&T brand.

"AT&T has been a crucial source of funds flowing into OAN," Reuters notes, adding: "Ninety percent of OAN's revenue came from a contract with AT&T-owned television platforms, including satellite broadcaster DirecTV, according to 2020 sworn testimony by an OAN accountant."

AT&T, the world's largest telecom company and majority owner of DirecTV, has funneled "about $57 million" into OAN. The "news" network's founder and CEO, Robert Herring Sr., "has testified he was offered $250 million for OAN in 2019. Without the DirecTV deal, the accountant said under oath, the network's value 'would be zero.'"

"If Herring Networks, for instance, was to lose or not be renewed on DirecTV, the company would go out of business tomorrow," OAN lawyer Patrick Nellies told the court, a transcript shows.

How did a far right wing "propaganda machine," as The Daily Beast called OAN in 2019, come into being, seemingly overnight?

"They told us they wanted a conservative network," Herring said during a 2019 deposition seen by Reuters. "They only had one, which was Fox News, and they had seven others on the other [leftwing] side. When they said that, I jumped to it and built one."

Numerous reports have documented OAN's lies, propaganda, and mistruths, yet despite – or because of – that, Reuters notes, over a two-year period "Trump touted the network, known as @OANN online, to his 88 million Twitter followers at least 120 times."

Read the entire Reuters report here.

---

an 621

the second-most revered figure in the QAnon conspiracy firmament called for a military coup in the United States. Again. Retired three-star general and former Trump campaign national security advisor Mike Flynn called for the end of democracy during a question-and-answer session last weekend at a QAnon conference in Dallas.

"I'm a simple Marine," a grizzled audience member said, "I wanna know why what happened in Minamar (sic) can't happen here." The room erupted. Flynn waited for the cheering to subside and said, "No reason. I mean, it should happen here."

Flynn reportedly called the conference organizers to backtrack. He's now denying that he said what we all saw him say, but let's get one thing straight: Mike Flynn is a liar.

Trump fired him for lying to Mike Pence about Russia. He pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, but he lied in his plea deal, so Trump had to pardon him. Now he's lying about how he called for a military coup in the United States. On video. This is nothing new for Flynn. After the 2020 election, Flynn privately urged then-president Donald Trump to send troops to "re-run" the election, an idea he'd previously floated in the media.

It's nothing new for QAnon either. QAnon supporters have been cheering on the coup in Myanmar since the military overthrew the democratically elected government in February. The junta has killed over 800 people, including more than 40 children, but QAnon supporters don't know anything about Myanmar's internal politics. They just like coups. After Trump's failed coup attempt on January 6, many of them found it comforting to know a military still could overthrow a democracy somewhere.

And why wouldn't they? The beating heart of QAnon's dark theology is The Storm, the military coup that is always right around the corner. The Storm is the day when Donald Trump and the armed forces liquidates QAnon's political enemies: Democrats, Hollywood celebrities, the media, and anyone who stands against them. The former president will retake his rightful place in the White House, democracy be damned.

According to a new poll, nearly a quarter of white evangelicals believe The Storm is coming to restore "rightful leaders." This mythology fits naturally with the Big Lie that Trump won the election. QAnon believers heard Donald Trump's call to come to Washington on January 6 as the coming of the storm. Many of them believed they were being summoned to take part in the long-awaited battle between good and evil.

Most normal people think of QAnon as the "pedo cabal" people. Indeed, QAnon talks a good game about saving the children from pedophiles. As disturbing as they sound, these child-abuse fantasies are good for recruiting unsuspecting converts. After all, everyone wants to prevent child abuse. QAnon has deep roots in evangelical Christianity and its most fervent proponents have thought long and hard—and written with uncharacteristic coherence—about how to best recruit. Attitude change begins with finding common ground. You can get almost anyone to agree that child abuse is a problem. That provides the common ground needed to begin a conversation in which the believer can plant seeds in the prospective convert's mind about other aspects of QAnon. This process is called "red-pilling," a reference to The Matrix, a movie during which the hero swallows the red pill to dissolve illusion and reveal ultimate reality.

The news media's focus on pedophilia obscures the core of QAnon's ideology, which is a longing for glorious, purifying and revelational violence. The pedophiles of QAnon mythology are the alter-egos of powerful Democratic politicians, Hollywood celebrities, journalists and Jewish financiers George Soros and the Rothschilds. These are the villains who will be purged by the military when The Storm is finally upon us.

Unfortunately for QAnon, normal people love democracy as much as they hate pedophilia. So recruiters don't open with talk of a coup. The faithful avoid talking about it to journalists. That's why Flynn is taking pains to walk back his comment. While The Storm is normal in QAnon circles, it's still taboo in the outside world.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

===

at least they recycle grift, a big hit, used mult times? pull out from Reader's Digest?

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/newt-gingrich-trump/

In 1994, when President Bill Clinton was serving his first term, then-House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich unveiled his Contract With America — a hard-right Republican legislative agenda that Gingrich's critics slammed as the Contract On America. Republicans recaptured the House in the 1994 midterms, and Gingrich became House speaker in January 1995.Now, in the Biden era, Gingrich is a major ally of former President Donald Trump — and according to Politico reporter Meridith McGraw, Gingrich and Trump are joining forces for a new version of the Contract With America for the 2022 midterms. But the 2022 version, McGraw reports, will have a much more Trumpian focus.

"With an eye toward winning back the House and Senate in the 2022 midterm elections, former President Donald Trump has begun crafting a policy agenda outlining a MAGA doctrine for the party," McGraw reports. "His template is the 1994 'Contract With America,' a legislative agenda released ahead of the midterm elections in the middle of President Bill Clinton's first term. And as a cherry on top, he's teaming up with its main architect — Gingrich — to do it."

McGraw adds that according to a Politico source, Trump recently met with Gingrich, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in South Florida to "begin crafting the document." twt]

"The group is still just beginning to hammer out the details of what a Trumpified Contract might look like," McGraw explains. "But it is likely to take an 'America first' policy approach on everything from trade to immigration. The source described it as 'a policy priority for 2022 and beyond.' Its construction has been teased and talked about for weeks, but the fact that the principals are beginning to put it together underscores Trump's continued interest in trying to shape the Republican Party."

The 77-year-old Gingrich, however, told Politico that he doesn't expect the 2022 plan to be finalized "anytime soon." When Politico asked him to outline some policy priorities that it may include, the former House speaker responded, "It should be positive. School choice, teaching American history for real, abolishing the '1619 Project,' eliminating critical race theory and what the Texas legislature is doing. We should say, 'Bring it on.'"

Like Barack Obama, Clinton went down in history as a president who was decisively reelected but suffered a major setback at the midterms. 1996 was a great year for Clinton, who was reelected with 379 electoral votes compared to only 159 for Republican nominee Bob Dole. But Democrats suffered a major pounding in the 1994 midterms.

"The original 'Contract with America' was credited with helping Republicans gain their first majority in four decades after the party picked up 52 seats in 1994 in the House and nine seats in the Senate," McGraw recalls. "Republicans have used it as a template in elections since."

The Politico reporter continues, "In 2010, the so-called Republican 'Young Guns,' led by Reps. Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, introduced a much longer version of Gingrich's contract with a 224-page publication outlining policy goals ahead of the midterm elections. And Graham, who was one of the Contract's signatories when he first ran for a House seat in 1994, has frequently advocated for Republicans to adopt Contract-style declarations to unify the party during election years."

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/11/voice-of-america

no twt

President Donald Trump's appointed head of the U.S. Agency for Global Media is barred from making any further editorial or personnel decisions following a series of injunctions issued by a federal courtlate Friday, in what journalists called a major rebuke of the Trump administration's attempt to reshape government-funded news broadcasters.

In Washington, D.C., Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howellruled in favor of five USAGM executives who were fired or suspended in August at the direction of CEO Michael Pack, who took the helm of the agency in June and promptly dismissed several career officials in what was called a "Wednesday night massacre."

Current and former USAGM employees applauded the ruling, with chief strategy officer Shawn Powers tweeting that Pack "has repeatedly and intentionally violated the First Amendment rights" of journalists at the agency.

twt]

the five former employees sued to stopPack, a close associate of former White House adviser and Breitbart News executive Steve Bannon, from interfering in the editorial affairs of Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Asia, and other broadcasters which operate under the USAGM.

The lawsuit was filed after Pack opened an investigation into VOA's chief White House reporter, Steve Herman, over unspecified concerns that he displayed an anti-Trump bias. The plaintiffs and many other critics inside and outside of the agency saidPack violated the "firewall" between political appointees and the broadcasters' newsrooms which is meant to keep the organizations from becoming mouthpieces for the White House.

Progressive critics have long considered VOA a vehicle for U.S. government propaganda overseas, promoting American-friendly coverage of world events. However, the overt takeover by a Trump loyalist has raised alarm since June.

A month after being confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a party-line vote to run the agency, the USAGM announced it would not renew visas for foreign journalists, potentially sending dozens of reporters who have worked for VOA and other broadcasters for years, back to countries where they could be persecuted. The decision was attributed by many critics to the Trump administration's "xenophobia."

Under Howell's order, Pack will no longer be able to make personnel decisions for the remainder of his tenure, which is set to end in January when President-elect Joe Biden takes office. He also will not be permitted to communicate directly with editorial teams or investigate editors or their news stories.

Howell said Pack's investigation of Herman imposed "an unconstitutional prior restraint not just on Herman's speech, but on the speech of [Herman's editors] and journalists at VOA."

NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik called Howell's ruling a "tremendous rebuke" of Pack's actions during his five months at USAGM.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

---

aha: neglected b/c concept too narrow?! soc med allows end-run around mainstream filter fact-based press. Putin disruptor/authoritarian bannon dic discards/degrades experts who can tell us what facts are and what they mean. policy replaced by story/ convenient lie of the moment cf TRMS 6/15/20

in post- truth world, only PR matters [ "reality-based" jrnlism , rove?]

an 620 wa mon? // trms prod The Imposter bk (pence fired all policy and replaced w/ PR [thus wants to be prez?!]

i've already written twice about Donald Trump’s decision to kind of/mostly move the 2020 Republican National Convention from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Jacksonville, Florida. In my last installment, I noted that it would be difficult to meet the president’s goal of having a full house for the television cameras, in part, because people cannot be in two places at the same time.

The Republican Party is contractually obligated to hold its national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, but Democratic Governor Roy Cooper would not guarantee that state health restrictions could be lifted for the Aug. 24-27 event. The solution, then, was to keep the convention in Charlotte in a strictly legal sense by holding all the regular business meetings there, but to find an alternative location for the speeches and pageantry…

… People can’t simultaneously be in Charlotte holding a meeting on the Republican platform and in Jacksonville listening to Mike Pence or Melania Trump give a speech. Trump might have to hire “extras” to fill the gaps.

I suppose I was a bit naïve. There was an obvious solution but I didn’t see it because I don’t have enough of a criminal mind.

Now, mind you, I didunderstand that the only reason the Republicans were keeping part of the convention in Charlotte was to provide a legal defense against reneging on their contracts. As the Charlotte Observer reports, there will be wrangling over the decision:

Ed Driggs, one of two Republicans on the Charlotte City Council, had once hoped for an exciting week-long convention that would show off his city and his party.

On Thursday, as news dribbled out about just how scaled-backed Charlotte’s piece of the convention will be, Driggs said, “I guess I’m disappointed it’s so little.”

Now that the Republican National Committee has officially voted to move most of the convention out of Charlotte, Driggs said, “the big question is: How do we (the city) deal with the contracts in place? Who is responsible for those? (The parties to the contracts) are still trying to work it out.”

The Charlotte host committee, for example, has “an interest in not being saddled with liabilities and expenses,” Driggs said.

On Wednesday the committee, charged with raising almost $70 million for the event, said the move to another city violates contracts with the city and other local groups.

“This decision is in clear violation of the agreements made with the City of Charlotte, the County of Mecklenburg, Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority, and the Charlotte Host Committee,” the committee said in a statement Wednesday.

To maintain the fiction that these contracts are being honored, the proceedings in Jacksonville are being called a “celebration” rather than a “convention.” Whether this will be convincing in court is for lawyers, judges, and perhaps a jury to decide, but it still doesn’t solve the problem of people having to be in two places at the same time. The elegant solution was sitting right in front of my face and I couldn’t see it.

On Wednesday, the RNC’s executive panel voted to leave the 2016 party platform in place, with absolutely no edits. This will have the absurd result of leaving in place language about the president that clearly refers, in a critical manner, to Barack Obama. It will leave harsh language about deficit spending that applies with more force to the Trump administration than its predecessor. It will keep descriptions of the Middle East that no longer have any application, and in some cases it will pledge Trump to promises he has already kept. It also means that there will be no adjustments made to reflect an evolution of the party or national culture over the last four years.

The decision by the Wednesday means the GOP will maintain positions in the 4-year-old policy blueprint — including opposition to same-sex marriage and a nod to gay conversion therapy — and decline to stake out new positions on topics such as police reform, gender identity and third-trimester abortions.

Of course, both moderates and social conservatives are furious. They’ve both been gearing up to battle over the party platform, and now there will be no debate at all. Yet, by eliminating the most important piece of party business, the RNC no longer has to worry that people will be in Charlotte hashing out party principles when they should be in Jacksonville adoring the president.

The Republican National Convention is officially on the move to Jacksonville, Fla., after it will spend just a single day in Charlotte this August, the RNC committee announced Thursday night.

It will host what the Republicans are calling a “celebration” of President Donald Trump’s re-nomination…

…The convention was once expected to span four days in Charlotte — bringing in 50,000 people and pumping more than $150 million into the local economy.

Instead, around 336 delegates will conduct the convention’s official business Monday, Aug. 24. Then they’ll head to Jacksonville — and join more than 2,000 other delegates for three days of speeches and celebrations, a top GOP official said Thursday.

So, in order to manage the limitations of the time/space continuum, there will be no changes to the Republican platform in 2020, and anyone who cares about the platform will just have to suck it.

This is a final confirmation that the Republican Party has become a cult that stands for nothing and exists only to fluff Donald Trump’s ego. It was completely predictable but I failed to foresee it because I was still operating in the world where contracts are honored and political parties are made of up people who care about policy.

320 heated

...Exxon’s Universe of Energy Center was at Epcot from 1982 through 1996. That’s fascinating, because that’s the exact time span that Exxon went from researching climate change to explicitly denying it. (Exxon’s denial started in the late 80s and picked up steam throughout the 90s).

:{:{}:

And this exhibit touting fossil fuels—which again, was to KIDS ATDISNEYWORLD—opened in the same year that Exxon’s manager of environmental affairs, M.B. Glaser, sent a memo out to company executives about the greenhouse effect. This memo noted that fossil fuel combustion, along with clearing of virgin forests, were the primary contributions to the warming trend.

The memo added: “Our best estimate is that doubling of the current concentration could increase average global temperature by about 1.3 degrees celsius to 3.1 degrees celsius.”

Despite that knowledge, the comics and Epcot center explicitly promote fossil fuels as a method of environmental conservation, noted Carroll Muffet, the president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law.

“[Exxon] put out these in conjunction with Disney to teach kids about renewable energy and energy conservation and environmental concerns,” she said. “And it's perhaps unsurprising that what children learn from Mickey and Goofy about energy conservation and environmental concerns was we really need gas, we really need fracking, we win. Nuclear energy is fine. There are a lot of problems with wind and solar. It may work out eventually, but thank goodness for this bountiful resource of oil, gas and tar sands.”

Exxon wasn’t the only one using comic books to reach the youths. In the 1970s, Amoco put out a wildly racist comic book about “The Mochans,” a “primitive” people who wanted to do unseemly things like use renewable energy. The comic was released as part of a study guide for 7th to 12th graders studying economics—which Amoco graciously provided 40,000 copies of to Indiana public schools.

“The industry was teaching kids to be skeptical of regulation, skeptical of the agendas of environmentalists or people who were socially concerned, from their very earliest ages,”Muffett said, “and [they were] constantly emphasizing that anyone who talks about the environment, who talks about human health, should immediately be weighing that and defending it against the economic costs.”

Sound familiar? It should. These are the same refrains the industry uses today in its various attempts to shape the minds of young people, both in schools and in the media. And it’s reflected in the way most political pundits seem to think about what’s possible for climate action. You want to preserve a livable world? Well, how much will it cost?

Here’s one more example of the oil industry getting into teaching economics: Phillips’ Petroleum’s American Enterpriseeducational film series—hosted by none other than William Shatner. (I got my hands on the VHS but it hasn’t arrived yet—it’s taking forever!)

The subtitle is: How Did this America, in its 200 Years on Independence, Become a Nation of Supermarkets, Stock Markets, Skyscrapers and Split Levels; A Country With the Greatest Economic Output in the World? ...

https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/how-pro-trump-memes-mirror-the-frightening-ways-nazi-propagandists-got-their-message-to-the-people/

no lnx

How pro-Trump memes mirror the frightening ways Nazi propagandists got their message to the people

Written by Christopher Brauchli / Common Dreams October 27, 2019

150

[A]fter the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace. . . which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.

—Atlantic Charter issued August 14, 1941

It was all in good fun It took place for Trump supporters the weekend of October 14, 2019, at the Trump National Doral Miami. That was the Trump-owned resort that was to be the site of the G-7 meeting in 2020, until it wasn’t. It had been selected by Trump for the meeting of the G7 because, as Mick Mulvaney, Acting Chief of Staff explained: “Trump still considers himself to be in the hospitality business.”

The event was organized by American Priority, a group that pretends to promote free speech. It was attended by, among others, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and Donald Trump Jr. In a room adjacent to the main ballroom at the hotel, a video that was produced by an anonymous person operating under the name of: “The GeekzTeam” was shown on a revolving loop. The video includes the logo for the trump 2020 campaign. According to the New York Times‘s description of the video, Mr. Trump’s head is superimposed on the body of a man entering the “Church of Fake News. ” As he walks down the aisle he stops, pulls out a gun, and opens fire on parishioners who have the faces of his critics, or the logos of media organizations superimposed on their bodies. Among his victims are “Black Lives Matter”, and “Vice News.” He continues walking down the aisle and as he approaches the alter, he is shown striking John McCain in the back of the neck, hitting Rosie O’Donnell in the face, and then stabbing her in the head. He sets fire to Bernie Sanders’ hair. The video ends with Trump standing on the church altar and admiring the victims of his violent behavior.

Reports suggest that there are many similar memes, as they are known, available on the internet, all depicting violent acts against critics of trump. The Trump himself tweeted a video in which he participates in a wrestling match and body slams and beats up the CNN logo. That tweet went viral among his supporters.

Although lacking internet, the Nazis knew the value of film in order to get their message to the people. In 1930 the party established a film department. In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote that: “The picture, in all its forms, including the film, has better prospects. In a much shorter time, at one stroke I might say, people will understand a pictorial presentation of something which it would take them a long and laborious effort of reading to understand.”

In 1932, Hans Traub, a Nazi propagandist, said that film is a “formidable means of propaganda.” Explaining its importance he said that: “Achieving propagandistic influence has always demanded a ‘language’ which forms a memorable and passionate plot with a simple narrative. . . . the most effective is the moving picture. . . . it has an unimaginable richness of rhythm for intensifying or dispelling emotions.”

Discussing films made in Nazi Germany, “Facing History and Ourselves” observes that although many films were made to glorify the Nazis, others were made to “dehumanize, criminalize, and demonize vulnerable minorities-particularly Jews.” The Trump and his supporters know how that works.

Noel King of NPR conducted an interview of Taika Waititi, the director of the movie, “Jojo Rabbit” on October 18, 2019, the date the movie was released. The movie is a satire of Nazi Germany, and is about a 10-year old boy named Jojo Rabbit. Jojo is in the Hitler Youth Movement and he wants to be the best Nazi he can be. In the film Jojo says “I swear to devote all my energies and my strength to the savior of our country, Adolf Hitler.”

The NPR interview concludes with a lengthy commentary from Mr. Waititi, that is especially timely in today’s world. “So we think we live in the safety of 2019? Yes, we don’t have to worry about Hitler and his retribution on us for making jokes about him. [But} I mean, this film shouldn’t really need to be made. In 2019 do I really need to make a film with the heart of the message being, you shouldn’t be a Nazi. At the end of World War II, there was a very clear and simple law. If you’re a Nazi, you go to jail because there’s no room in this world for you and those ideas. Now, sadly, in America and other places, the law now is, if you’re a Nazi feel free to go down to the town square and have a little rally because we’ve got this thing called freedom of speech. And you can sort of say what you want, and you’re protected by that. It’s become very twisted. And if anyone says [about this movie] “oh, well, another World War II film-we get it. That was 80 years ago.” Well, we obviously don’t get it-because we’re getting dangerously close to this sort of thing happening again. And we’re living in a world where there are world leaders who are very happy to promote hate and intolerance and ideas that were prevalent in the ’30s.'”

Mr. Waititi got that right. Think Orban, Assad, Duterte, Putin, Xi, el Sisi, Erdogan, and, Trump, the spoiled, petulant, mendacious occupant of the White House, to name just a few. It’s frightening.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/what-george-carlin-taught-us-about-media-propaganda-by-omission/

no lnx

What George Carlin taught us about media propaganda by omission

Written by Jeff Cohen / Common Dreams September 16, 2019

In the old George Carlin joke, the TV sportscaster announces: “Here’s a partial score from the West Coast – Los Angeles 6.”

For a brilliant comedian like Carlin—who skewered corporate power, class structure and political/media propaganda—that’s one of his more innocuous jokes. But it’s sharply relevant today as corporate TV news outlets serve up a series of partial scores. Call it “propaganda by omission.”

Take the coverage that followed Thursday’s Democratic debate. Bernie Sanders didn’t object in the debate when Joe Biden hung a price tag on Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan of $30 trillion (over 10 years). Sanders responded by offering the other score: “That’s right, Joe. Status quo over 10 years will be $50 trillion. Every study done shows that Medicare for All is the most cost-effective approach to providing health care to every man, woman, and child in this country.”

The $50 trillion figure for continuing the status quo (actually $47 trillion) comes from the “National Health Expenditure Fact Sheet” of the federal government’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

I checked the post-debate news coverage. As in the Carlin joke, I found many references to the partial score: the $30-32 trillion estimated cost of Sanders’ legislation. But not the other score: the more costly estimate of sticking with a system in which health insurance is provided by for-profit corporations.

I watched, for example, the next day’s in-depth report on CBS Evening News lasting a full two minutes. (That’s “in-depth” nowadays on nightly newscasts.) The $32 trillion estimate was prominent, but the other score was omitted—no estimate for staying with the status quo. When the report ended, anchor Nora O’Donnell accentuated the bias by saying: “That’s an expensive plan, Ed. Thank you.”

CBS opened its report speaking of “government-run healthcare plans being touted by liberal Democrats.” It’s well-known that “government-run healthcare“ is a GOP/Fox News/insurance industry talking point. As is “government takeover” of healthcare. Just ask GOP propagandist Frank Luntz.

Of course, when Medicare simply provides the coverage—whether to older people today or everyone tomorrow—that’s NOT “government-run healthcare.”

As I recently wrote to the Los Angeles Times in response to a biased poll question: “Doctors and hospitals are private today within Medicare in the U.S. (I know because I’m old enough to be on Medicare)—and they would remain so under a Medicare for All system, just as doctors and hospitals are private today under Canada’s Medicare for All system. Insurance is government-provided; not the healthcare itself.”

It’s easy to explain why Medicare for All is more cost-effective than the corporate-insurance system. Less bureaucracy and wasteful paperwork. No sales commissions. No exorbitant CEO compensation—averaging $18 million per healthcare CEO last year. No insurance company profits; the “big 8 health insurers” raked in $7 billion in one quarter last year.

But confusion, not clarity, is the job of TV news—which is so heavily sponsored by drug and healthcare companies. (Night after night, big pharma is the main sponsor of network newscasts.) And confusion is the job of industry ads and corporate politicians like Biden, who receives more healthcare industry donations than any other Democratic candidate.

That’s why we keep getting partial scores.

Besides the reduction in financial cost, imagine the reduction in human cost—hardship and anxiety—if our country joined every other wealthy country in achieving truly universal health coverage.

Which bring us to a partial score on another crisis causing hardship and anxiety today: climate change. The Green New Deal proposal in Congress to address the problem, while creating millions of high-paying jobs, has been savaged as “too expensive”—with Mitch McConnell and Republicans incessantly invoking a concocted and ridiculous figure of $93 trillion.

As with Medicare for All, moneyed elites want to omit the other score—the price tag of sticking with the status quo into a future that Bill McKibben describes as “a modern Dark Ages.” From science-denying Republicans to solution-denying corporate Democrats who seek a go-slow “middle-ground,” there’s an attempt to downplay the more expensive cost of deny and delay, including: rising seas and rivers, more damaging hurricanes and floods, worsening droughts and wildfires, buckling bridges and roads, increased air pollution and hospitalizations, premature deaths, crop failures, extinct species, spread of new diseases, intensified migration and more brutal civil wars.

McKibben argues that the Green New Deal “costs pennies on the dollar” compared to the bleak and costly future predicted by scientists. McKibben, of course, doesn’t sponsor TV news. The fossil fuel industry does.

In a country as wealthy as ours—when progressive proposals to address the crises of climate, healthcare and social inequality are routinely shot down by corporate politicians and media as “too expensive”—George Carlin’s quip reminds us to demand the other score: the horrific cost of our unequal and unsustainable status quo.

Jeff Cohen was associate professor of journalism and the director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, founder of the media watch group FAIR, and former board member of Progressive Democrats of America. In 2002, he was a producer and pundit at MSNBC (overseen by NBC News). He is the author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media – and a cofounder of the online action group, www.RootsAction.org. His website is here: //jeffcohen.org.

---

late in 2nd hr

https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-july-15-2019/

david droit (sp) zurich

pastoral v farmer

10% of death attrib to radio (played pop music vs classical)

https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/137646/

Yanagizawa-Drott, David (2014). Propaganda and conflict: evidence from the Rwandan genocide. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4):1947-1994.

Abstract

This article investigates the role of mass media in times of conflict and state-sponsored mass violence against civilians. We use a unique village-level data set from the Rwandan genocide to estimate the impact of a popular radio station that encouraged violence against the Tutsi minority population. The results show that the broadcasts had a significant effect on participation in killings by both militia groups and ordinary civilians. An estimated 51,000 perpetrators, or approximately 10% of the overall violence, can be attributed to the station. The broadcasts increased militia violence not only directly by influencing behavior in villages with radio reception but also indirectly by increasing participation in neighboring villages. In fact, spillovers are estimated to have caused more militia violence than the direct effects. Thus, the article provides evidence that mass media can affect participation in violence directly due to exposure and indirectly due to social interactions

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/were-dying-how-russian-government-spread-vicious-propaganda-against-rescue-workers

Amid a flood of reports of Russian interference in US democracy and around the world, the investigative site Bellingcat issued a report Tuesday detailing the Kremlin’s disinformation campaign about the White Helmets, a rescue group operating in Syria.

The White Helmets risked their lives throughout the Syrian conflict to rescue civilians from regime and Russian bombardment. They’ve also recorded conflict in opposition-held areas, beaming out regime atrocities to the world.

According to a Bellingcat report titled “Chemical Weapons and Absurdity: The Disinformation Campaign Against the White Helmets,” Russian and Syrian government sources repeatedly tried to link the Syrian Civil Defence (SCD), as the White Helmets are officially called, to chemical attacks.

“During mid-2018 this disinformation campaign appears to have focused on attempting to associate the SCD with chemical attacks in Idlib,” the report's authors note.

“From August to November of this year, the Russian and Syrian governments and state-controlled media continually repeated narratives involving the SCD and movement, or use of, chemical weapons around rebel-held areas of north-western Syria, primarily Idlib.”

The site finds the claims to be false, or at least that there’s no compelling evidence the White Helmets aided in chemical gas attacks.

Meanwhile, multiple international bodies have found the Assad regime to have used chemical weapons, in a breach of international law.

“Despite continual claims that chemical attacks were imminent or had already taken place, no chemical attacks were accurately predicted. Considering the Syrian government’s continual use of chemical weapons throughout the conflict, as well as the obfuscation of this issue by the Syrian and Russian governments, this is unsurprising,” Bellingcat continued.

Eight of the 22 accusations came from Russian Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in Syria (RCROSS). The remaining accusations came from “Russian government-controlled sources, such as Sputnik, the Russian Ministry of Defense, or representatives of the Russian government.”

In conclusion Bellingcat found that, “The extraordinarily low level of evidence supporting these accusations, the absurdity of some of the claims and the continual failure to predict a chemical attack exposes these accusations for what they are: a continuation of a deliberate and planned disinformation campaign against a humanitarian organization operating in the most difficult of circumstances.”

As the Washington Post reports, the propaganda campaign has a real impact on the ground.

“This isn’t just buzz on the Internet,” a former White Helmet, who was arrested and tortured by Syrian forces earlier this year, told the Washington Post. “It has real-life consequences. We’re dying for this.”

---

Orwell warns us in his dystopian novel 1984 that authoritarianism begins with language. In the novel, “newspeak” is language twisted to deceive, seduce and undermine the ability of people to think critically and freely.

Donald Trump’s unapologetic bigoted language made headlines again Thursday when it was reported he told lawmakers working on a new immigration policy that the United States shouldn’t accept people from “shithole countries” like Haiti. Given his support for white nationalism and his coded call to “Make America Great (White) Again,” Trump’s overt racist remarks reinforce echoes of white supremacy reminiscent of fascist dictators in the 1930s.

His remarks about accepting people from Norway smack of an appeal to the sordid discourse of racial purity. There is much more at work here than a politics of incivility. Behind Trump’s use of vulgarity and his disparagement of countries that are poor and non-white lies the terrifying discourse of white supremacy, ethnic cleansing and the politics of disposability. This is a vocabulary that considers some individuals and groups not only faceless and voiceless, but excess, redundant and subject to expulsion. The endpoint of the language of disposability is a form of social death, or even worse.

As authoritarianism gains strength, the formative cultures that give rise to dissent become more embattled, along with the public spaces and institutions that make conscious critical thought possible.

Words that speak to the truth to reveal injustices and provide informed critical analysis begin to disappear, making it all the more difficult, if not dangerous, to judge, think critically and hold dominant power accountable. Notions of virtue, honour, respect and compassion are policed, and those who advocate them are punished.

I think it’s fair to argue that Orwell’s nightmare vision of the future is no longer fiction in the United States. Under Trump, language is undergoing a shift: It now treats dissent, critical media coverage and scientific evidence as a species of “fake news.”

The Trump administration, in fact, views the critical media as the “enemy of the American people.” Trump has repeated this view of the media so often that almost a third of Americans now believe it and support government-imposed restrictions on the media, according to a Poynter survey.

Thought crimes and fake news

Trump’s cries of “fake news” work incessantly to set limits on what is thinkable. Reason, standards of evidence, consistency and logic no longer serve the truth, according to Trump, because the latter are crooked ideological devices used by enemies of the state. Orwell’s “thought crimes” are Trump’s “fake news.” Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” is Trump’s “Ministry of Fake News.”

[twit]

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

I’ve had to put up with the Fake News from the first day I announced that I would be running for President. Now I have to put up with a Fake Book, written by a totally discredited author. Ronald Reagan had the same problem and handled it well. So will I!

145K

6:40 AM - Jan 7, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

77.7K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

T--

The notion of truth is viewed by this president as a corrupt tool used by the critical media to question his dismissal of legal checks on his power, particularly his attacks on judges, courts and any other governing institutions that will not promise him complete and unchecked loyalty.

For Trump, intimidation takes the place of unquestioned loyalty when he does not get his way, revealing a view of the presidency that is more about winning than about governing.

One consequence is the myriad practices by which Trump gleefully humiliates and punishes his critics, wilfully engages in shameful acts of self-promotion and unapologetically enriches his financial coffers.

Under Trump, the language of civic literacy and democracy has become unmoored from critical reason, informed debate and the weight of scientific evidence, and is now being reconfigured and tied to pageantry, political theatre and a deep-seated anti-intellectualism.

One consequence, as language begins to function as a tool of state repression, is that matters of moral and political responsibility disappear and injustices proliferate.

Fascism starts with words

What is crucial to remember here, as authoritarianism expert Ruth Ben-Ghiat notes, is that fascism starts with words. Trump’s use of language and his manipulative use of the media as political spectacle are disturbingly similar to earlier periods of propaganda, censorship and repression.

Under fascist regimes, the language of brutality and culture of cruelty was normalized through the proliferation of strident metaphors of war, battle, expulsion, racial purity and demonization.

As German historians such as Richard J. Evans andVictor Klempererhave made clear, dictators like Adolf Hitler did more than simply corrupt the language of a civilized society, they also banned words.

Soon afterwards, the Nazis banned books and the critical intellectuals who wrote them. They then imprisoned those individuals who challenged Nazi ideology and the state’s systemic violations of civil rights.

The end point was an all-embracing discourse of disposability — the emergence of concentration camps and genocide fuelled by a politics of racial purity and social cleansing.

Echoes of the formative stages of such actions are upon us now. An American-style neo-fascism appears to be engulfing the United States after simmering in the dark for years.

https://www.alternet.org/youve-been-hacked-psychology-disinformation-and-how-protect-yourself

You’ve been hacked: The psychology of disinformation and how to protect yourself

Once seeded, viral misinformation exploits weaknesses in how the human mind determines what’s real.

Most people genuinely care about truth. I don’t mean that we tell the truth all of the time—though most of us mostly do—but that we very much want to know what is real. Reality can knock you flat if you don’t see it coming.

Misreading the natural world or social cues was often lethal for our hunter-gatherer would-be ancestors, and we ourselves are descended from the ones who got it right. Truth-seeking, in other words, was written into our genetic code long before it was written into our moral and legal codes. Why, then, is it so easy for social media flurries, conspiracy theories, religions, viral ideologies, or political disinformation campaigns to get us believing utter bullshit? :

A volunteer at a “Crisis Pregnancy Center” tells a young pregnant woman that abortion causes cancer.

A cat lover insists that neutered cat colonies work to eliminate feral cats.

A Youth for Christ leader tells teens that atheists are unhappy.

A conservative Facebook friend says that migrants at the border are mostly gang members and criminals.

A liberal Facebook friend says they’re mostly fleeing near-certain violence or death.

Each of these claims is both falsifiable and false, and when we see other people embrace and spread ideas or “facts” that seem obviously false to us, we often assume they either don’t care about truth or are flat-out liars. But that is lazy thinking, and more than a little arrogant. Yes, people on the other side are less than fully truthful. So are you. And yes, some people are habitual liars or even sociopaths. And yes, people who aren’t sociopathic sometimes decide for one reason or another that the end justifies the means. But when people spread falsehoods—even stuff that seems like transparent hooey from the outside, they mostly believe what they say. A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes,said Mark Twain. But lies travel only when people believe them. That is why most propaganda uses partial or decontextualized truths to create misconceptions or distorted priorities.

Truth-Seeking Opens Vulnerabilities.

Those who professionally traffic in partial truths and disinformation—like some ideologues, political strategists, marketing experts or corporate- and state-level information warfare specialists analyze and exploit our desire to know what is real. One common and highly effective way they play us is by convincing us that only we and a small group of enlightened folks like us have the inside scoop.

Human beings are social information specialists, and we gain standing with each other by sharing insider knowledge. Gossip is a great example, and provides the basis for social marketing. OMG, have you heard??!But so are conspiracy theories, whose believers wind their way through rabbit warrens of logic to find secret knowledge that has been deliberately buried—which they then publish in a-mazing detail. Religious ideologies teach that they alone hold the answer to life’s mysteries. Some spawn secret societies or hidden rituals, while external symbols like a silver cross necklace, a yarmulke, or a hijab signal the embrace of exclusive Truths, and thus raise status in the eyes of fellow believers.

Social media provide fertile ground in which insider knowledge takes root, and—as we all know—falsehoods (especially partial truths masquerading as whole truths) spread like invasive weeds. Some of these falsehoods are deliberately seeded by ideologues, propagandists, disinformation specialists; others spring up naturally from the constant shift and flow and recombination of information in the human ideosphere. Once seeded, all viral bullshit exploits weaknesses in how the human mind determines what’s real. These include:

Tribal Boundaries—Social networks largely determine what information flows past us.

Identity Filters—Who we are, meaning our genetics and lived experience, our interests and values, our cognitive strengths and weakness, and our emotional makeup all play roles in determining what gets our attention.

Delightful Surprises—We are drawn like proverbial moths to the unexpected and counter-intuitive, which trigger the thrill of discovery and secret knowledge.

Thinking Fast—In the face of competing priorities and overwhelming quantities of information coming at us, we fall back on intuition, gut feel, and other cognitive shortcuts, only rarely applying higher order reasoning to carefully scrutinize a set of propositions or evidence.

Groupthink—Whenever possible, again for the sake of efficiency in information processing, we let other members of our tribe do the analysis for us and consider the task done.

Authority Hierarchies—We bypass thinking altogether by looking to trusted authorities which can be individuals, institutions, or sacred texts—not necessarily relevant experts—and accept as fact what they say.

The Consensus Shortcut—We treat the preponderance of opinion as if it were a preponderance of evidence.

Saturation Seduction—We succumb to messages that are repeated, ubiquitous and consistent whether they are backed by evidence or not.

Motivated Reasoning—Even when we do take the time to construct an analysis of our own, we often start with what we want to be true, what fits our worldview or what benefits us directly, and then reason backwards from there.

Confirmation Bias—Once true believers or disinformers get us to believe something, then we ourselves often take over their work, ignoring or rejecting information that might show us wrong.

Pleasures of Superiority—Certain emotions including the feelings of righteousness, moral disgust, or jeering laughter close us off to people and ideas who might challenge us.

Panic—When flooded with emotion—especially fear—higher-order reasoning vanishes and we simply stampede.

Bolster Your Defenses

It is impossible to get away from these dynamics, but there are things we can do to minimize their power. What, you ask? As odd as it sounds, religion may offer some ideas.

Viral religions that make dubious truth claims often include a set of rules, scripts, advisories, structures and dogmas aimed at preventing defection. In other words, they outline the exact opposite of what one should do if one is actually interested in figuring out what is real.

Here are some of the advisories from Bible-believing Christianity, the religion of my youth: Have faith that what the Bible says is true and you will find evidence that fits. Believe and be saved. One Way. Lean not unto your own understanding. Be wary of secular and scientific expertise. Recite statements of faith. The fool has said in is heart there is no God. Trust and obey, for there’s no other way. Outsiders are conduits for evil, and they will try to tempt you. Avoid spiritual pornography (writings that take a skeptical point of view). Don’t be “unequally yoked” with unbelievers. Be in the world, not of it. Preach the gospel to every creature. Doubt is weakness; pray it away. Feelthe love of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Surround yourself with fellow Christians. Come to church every Sunday morning (and Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening, and maybe Tuesday night Bible Study).

Worship services are structured to elicit emotion and a sense of unity that causes people to suspend disbelief, and repetition cements the deal. In past generations, physical architecture evolved to help with this; the vast spaces inside of cathedrals disoriented the cerebellum, triggering feelings of transcendence. But now most denominations simply rely on the cadence of familiar mutually-reinforcing stories and precepts delivered by familiar authorities in the company of like-minded people who envelop the believer in a warm, supportive and morally-superior community of people who have got it right.

To the degree that this fits your Facebook friend list or Twitter feed or news and entertainment choices or activist network, my former religion, as a highly successful mind virus, points inadvertently toward a cure:

Get yourself out of the sanctuary so that you can shake off the sweet, soothing lull of the choir and escape saturation seduction. Find silence.

Trust doubt. Identify real experts and expertise, but question orthodoxies—especially those with strong emotional appeal. Be wary of salvific Truths preached by admired authorities. Deploy your capacity for critical thinking—not just when you want to denigrate evil outsiders and their obvious falsehoods, but rather in those times and places where you congregate with people who share your values and views. Voice misgivings. Tolerate uncertainty.

Lastly, reject the oh-so-satisfying idea that all heretics must be evil. Seek the company of people who don’t think like you. Listen for kernels of truth and wisdom spoken by enemies of your tribe. They may not be able to break out of their disinformation silos, but you, at least, can break out of yours.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author ofTrusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including The Huffington Post, Salon, The Independent, Free Inquiry, The Humanist, AlterNet, Raw Story, Grist, Jezebel, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Subscribe at ValerieTarico.com.

https://yyy.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping

no lnx

As thhey sifted through resumes, the team recruiting for the new London hub of China’s state-run broadcaster had an enviable problem: far, far too many candidates. Almost 6,000 people were applying for just 90 jobs “reporting the news from a Chinese perspective”. Even the simple task of reading through the heap of applications would take almost two months.

:{:{}:

For western journalists, demoralised by endless budget cuts, China Global Television Network presents an enticing prospect, offering competitive salaries to work in state-of-the-art purpose-built studios in Chiswick, west London. CGTN – as the international arm of China Central Television (CCTV) was rebranded in 2016 – is the most high-profile component of China’s rapid media expansion across the world, whose goal, in the words of President Xi Jinping, is to “tell China’s story well”. In practice, telling China’s story well looks a lot like serving the ideological aims of the state.

:{:{}:

Lose yourself in a great story: Sign up for the long read email

For decades, Beijing’s approach to shaping its image has been defensive, reactive and largely aimed at a domestic audience. The most visible manifestation of these efforts was the literal disappearance of content inside China: foreign magazines with pages ripped out, or the BBC news flickering to black when it aired stories on sensitive issues such as Tibet, Taiwan or the Tiananmen killings of 1989. Beijing’s crude tools were domestic censorship, official complaints to news organisations’ headquarters and expelling correspondents from China.

:{:{}:

But over the past decade or so, China has rolled out a more sophisticated and assertive strategy, which is increasingly aimed at international audiences. China is trying to reshape the global information environment with massive infusions of money – funding paid-for advertorials, sponsored journalistic coverage and heavily massaged positive messages from boosters. While within China the press is increasingly tightly controlled, abroad Beijing has sought to exploit the vulnerabilities of the free press to its advantage.

:{:{}:

In its simplest form, this involves paying for Chinese propaganda supplements to appear in dozens of respected international publications such as the Washington Post. The strategy can also take more insidious forms, such as planting content from the state-run radio station, China Radio International (CRI), on to the airwaves of ostensibly independent broadcasters across the world, from Australia to Turkey.

...

[lobbyists US]

---

classic on sports

https://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-heres-why-americans-know-so-much-about-sports-so-little-about-world-affairs

QUESTION: You've written about the way that professional ideologists and the mandarins obfuscate reality. And you have spoken -- in some places you call it a "Cartesian common sense" -- of the commonsense capacities of people. Indeed, you place a significant emphasis on this common sense when you reveal the ideological aspects of arguments, especially in contemporary social science. What do you mean by common sense? What does it mean in a society like ours? For example, you've written that within a highly competitive, fragmented society, it's very difficult for people to become aware of what their interests are. If you are not able to participate in the political system in meaningful ways, if you are reduced to the role of a passive spectator, then what kind of knowledge do you have? How can common sense emerge in this context?

The following is a short excerpt from a classic, The Chomsky Reader, which offers a unique insight on a question worth asking -- how is it that we as a people can be so knowledgable about the intricacies of various sports teams, yet be colossally ignorant about our various undertakings abroad?

CHOMSKY: Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief.

In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but I think it's quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration on such topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that's far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that's in fact what they do. I'm sure they are using their common sense and intellectual skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives because it has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which one cannot influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere.

Now it seems to me that the same intellectual skill and capacity for understanding and for accumulating evidence and gaining information and thinking through problems could be used -- would be used -- under different systems of governance which involve popular participation in important decision-making, in areas that really matter to human life.

There are questions that are hard. There are areas where you need specialized knowledge. I'm not suggesting a kind of anti-intellectualism. But the point is that many things can be understood quite well without a very far-reaching, specialized knowledge. And in fact even a specialized knowledge in these areas is not beyond the reach of people who happen to be interested.

...

QUESTION: Do you think people are inhibited byexpertise?

CHOMSKY: There are also experts about football, but these people don't defer to them. The people who call in talk with complete confidence. They don't care if they disagree with the coach or whoever the local expert is. They have their own opinion and they conduct intelligent discussions. I think it's an interesting phenomenon. Now I don't think that international or domestic affairs are much more complicated. And what passes for serious intellectual discourse on these matters does not reflect any deeper level of understanding or knowledge.

One finds something similar in the case of so-called primitive cultures

...

[punditry?]

QUESTION: I asked a while ago whether people are inhibited by the aura of expertise. Can one turn this around -- are experts and intellectuals afraid of people who could apply the intelligence of sport to their own areas of competency in foreign affairs, social sciences, and so on?

CHOMSKY: I suspect that this is rather common. Those areas of inquiry that have to do with problems of immediate human concern do not happen to be particularly profound or inaccessible to the ordinary person lacking any special training who takes the trouble to learn something about them. Commentary on public affairs in the mainstream literature is often shallow and uninformed. Everyone who writes and speaks about these matters knows how much you can get away with as long as you keep close to received doctrine. I'm sure just about everyone exploits these privileges. I know I do. When I refer to Nazi crimes or Soviet atrocities, for example, I know that I will not be called upon to back up what I say, but a detailed scholarly apparatus is necessary if I say anything critical about the practice of one of the Holy States: the United States itself, or Israel, since it was enshrined by the intelligentsia after its 1967 victory. This freedom from the requirements of evidence or even rationality is quite a convenience, as any informed reader of the journals of public opinion, or even much of the scholarly literature, will quickly discover. It makes life easy, and permits expression of a good deal of nonsense or ignorant bias with impunity, also sheer slander. Evidence is unnecessary, argument beside the point. Thus a standard charge against American dissidents or even American liberals -- I've cited quite a few cases in print and have collected many others -- is that they claim that the United States is the sole source of evil in the world or other similar idiocies; the convention is that such charges are entirely legitimate when the target is someone who does not march in the appropriate parades, and they are therefore produced without even a pretense of evidence. Adherence to the party line confers the right to act in ways that would properly be regarded as scandalous on the part of any critic of received orthodoxies. Too much public awareness might lead to a demand that standards of integrity should be met, which would certainly save a lot of forests from destruction, and would send many a reputation tumbling.

The right to lie in the service of power is guarded with considerable vigor and passion. This becomes evident whenever anyone takes the trouble to demonstrate that charges against some official enemy are inaccurate or, sometimes, pure invention. The immediate reaction among the commissars is that the person is an apologist for the real crimes of official enemies. The case of Cambodia is a striking example. That the Khmer Rouge were guilty of gruesome atrocities was doubted by no one, apart from a few marginal Maoist sects. It is also true, and easily documented, that Western propaganda seized upon these crimes with great relish, exploiting them to provide a retrospective justification for Western atrocities, and since standards are nonexistent in such a noble cause, they also produced a record of fabrication and deceit that is quite remarkable. Demonstration of this fact, and fact it is, elicited enormous outrage, along with a stream of new and quite spectacular lies, as Edward Herman and I, among others, have documented.

...

---

Giants Peter P;

David Altheide and Jennifer Grimes trace the history of how the

Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think

tank, helped plan the propaganda campaign for the second Iraq

War.257

---