Propaganda: The deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate thought and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. (See Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell).
The press in a vibrant and functioning democracy serves to inform the electorate. It is one of the three legs of the democratic national "stool". Perhaps these "legs” may be listed as:free elections, a responsive elected body and judiciary, and a free press. Our nation has fought several horrific wars for those ideals. Democracy cannot function without a free, inquiring press to help keep the electorate, for which the government works, informed. To be a journalist in a democracy or a nation which aspires to democracy is a high calling and even an heroic act in some circumstances.
Unfortunately, in some parts of America, these concepts are as alien as they might be in a few modern third-world countries, parts of the Middle East or in China. What has happened to our ideals? Besides some of our living greats (and some retired) such as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, Seymour Hersh, and others, who courageously speak out and inform..where are the other true journalists, such as: the Herseys, Murrows, Tarbells, Reeds, the Stones, Menckens, Shirers, etc. of the past?
Today we have too many who call themselves "journalists" but are simply propagandists. An exasperatingly common example of this trend is found in the Murdoch empire of media and newspapers.
Rupert Murdoch an Australian supermarket tabloid publisher (the Star) who emigrated to America where in 1976 he purchased the old New York Post (at that point it had been a daily for 175 years, being established in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton and others). Murdoch converted that venerable broad sheet into a right-wing tabloid which today unabashedly parrots Murdoch's personal political and social-conservative line. Today it specializes in fine examples of---propaganda.
I am not a reader of the modern Post, though as a boy, living in Brooklyn, NY, when the Post was owned by Dorothy Schiff (and under the editorship of James Wechsler) it was a fine tabloid which served the City well. It was widely available in my neighborhood and I read it often.
Recently, on a flight from New York to Miami, with my wifi turned off and nothing much to read, I happened upon a copy of the Post, on an empty adjoining seat. I recalled the paper from my boyhood, so with a bit of nostalgia, for the old header which stayed the same, I began to turn the pages. The style was different, from those editions of my youth, too much crime and gore, and all presented in a sensational manner, and with too little substance. I found not much of significance in the ”news” section. So I turned to the editorial pages.
There on May 16,2012, I encountered the following story which would not have appeared as written today, in the old Post.
In an Op-Ed piece, written by Peter Brookes (who is a Heritage Foundation Fellow and former deputy assistant secretary of defense under George Bush) and entitled: "Disarming US, As Wolves Lie in Wait”, Brookes, a staunch lobbyist for the defense industry and fear monger extraordinaire writes with the all too obvious intention of stoking up the support for additional military spending in a bloated Pentagon budget. There are few facts in Brookes’ piece, most of his fearful pronouncements are simply that--personal statements of ’man-on-the street’ opinion. Brooke's sees the world rife with trouble for the USA from Korea, the Middle East, North Africa, to Afghanistan, and even in cyberspace. He concludes by urging his readership: ”This is no time to give short shrift to American security." Each of the author's statements is maximized to shape the reader's perceptions and manipulate thought toward fear that any cuts in the Pentagon's budget would weaken the US and subject our citizenry to frightful consequences. To this end, Brookes minimizes or eliminates any factual statements, uses omission to avoid any facts that are not consistent with his message, and adds half-truths where necessary to bolster his propaganda.
No where does Brookes mention the size of the ($700 billion dollar 2012) military budget, or the fact that the figure does NOT include expenses for the Iraq and Afghan wars, or that our actual total defense-related spending is more like 1.4 trillion dollars or about two times the current budget. Nor does he mention that the modest "cuts" to the budget ( he uses the figure of about $500 billion--the only number he puts in this piece) would take place over a decade. Thus next year instead of the largess of the $700 billion the military is getting this year, it would have to be sated with a mere $650 billion.
It is noteworthy that the most powerful army in the world spends $181billion a year on personnel, $107 billion for salaries and allowances, $50 billion for health care, and $24 billion for retirement pay. I suspect that there must be someplace in that bloated series of numbers where the Pentagon could find a mere $50 billion to cut. (See NYT "Defense Budget Cuts" Bumiller and Shanker, 1-26-12)
Brookes makes no mention that the present level of defense spending is at an all time high. Our present defense budget at @ $700 billion represents nearly 5% of our current GDP. Except for several Gulf oil monarchies (like Saudi Arabia) our defense budget is the greatest bite out of GDP than almost every other nation. The world average is only 2% of GDP for most modern western nations and much less for some such as Japan (1%).
Current figures from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that per capita costs for military spending (in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars) reveals that each man woman and child in the US, in 2012, pays out approximately $4,000.00 each for their government’s military expenditures around the world. From 1962 (when per capita expenses = $2,700 during the Vietnam War) to 1990 (when per capita expense = @ $3,500) to the present time ($4,000) such spending has risen steadily, but at an accelerated pace since 2001.
No where does Brookes mention the level of our military expenditures relative to those of our potential enemies. For example, China who some consider as our most formidable potential enemy, spends a mere two-tenths of our direct military expenses on defense, or about $140 billion dollars annually--versus our $700 billion. Russia, spends less than one-tenth of our costs on defense (@$60 billion). Iran budgets just about one-one hundredth of what we spend, or $7 billion) a tiny fraction, as is that of North Korea. In fact, up until just recently, it is well known that the USA spent more for defense than all the combined expenditures of all other nations in the world! At present, our total stated defense budget is equal to about 50% of what all other nations combined spend. But our ”total defense spending” including homeland security, veterans affairs, care of wounded, interest on debt from previous wars, etc. etc. of about $1.4 trillion is very close to total world combined expenditures of 1.5 trillion.
Thus by leaving out these facts about our military budget, by failing to mention that the reductions would be phased in over ten years, by failing to inform his readership that the present military expenditures are at the highest they have ever been, by ignoring the massive overwhelming military power we have versus the rest of the world, Brookes descends from simply biased reporting to jingoistic propaganda.
We're he to have added another favorite ploy used by the ”defense expansion lobby”, that is that old saw: ”defense spending provides jobs” he would have had to have added the following interesting facts to be other than a propagandist.
Indeed our defense industry does provide jobs--many good, high paying jobs. But that is not the whole story. Studies by the War Costs Project indicate that one billion US dollars in military spending nets about 12,000 US jobs, while a similar expenditure in the green economy would provide 17,000 jobs, in health care it produces 20,000 jobs, and in education it generates about 29,000 jobs. (See War Costs Project, Univ. Mass., Prof Greenwald and Crowe, 2011)
So by shifting our spending away from military spending into either one of these alternatives we would actually improve employment prospects, while increasing military spending would tend to decrease those prospects. A similar study by Globabl Insight arrived at much the same conculsions.
Thus though it is true that defense spending supports jobs, we're we to expend the same amount of money on non-defense programs (support for education for example or health care) we would be creating even more jobs. In fact our emphasis on defense spending in lieu of support for the green economy, education or healthcare actually costs us jobs.
That is the difference between propaganda and informative journalism.
Get the picture?
rjk
No comments:
Post a Comment