Propaganda: information of a biased or misleading nature used to promote a particular political point of view or cause.
I often recall a statement made by German PM, Angela Merkel, concerning her early life behind the Iron Curtain in Communist East Germany. Ms Merkel recalled that one of the most distressing aspects of life under Communism was the lack of “news”. At that time, the official Communist propaganda sheet “Neues Deutschland” (ND) served East Germany. And being the official organ of the communist party, published what the party decided people should think and say. As an example of its “news” in 1953 on the death of USSR dictator Josep Stalin, ND ran the headline—“The Death of the Greatest Human Being of Our Era, J W. Stalin.” Ms Merkel recalled that at that time \ she read ND “between the lines”, knowing that the actual words did not relate to reality. She added, if you were aware of that, you could learn something by teasing out bits of real news from what the paper printed, by making presumptions of what probably prompted the editors to write what they did.
At the time—1950s—we in the west were not so burdened. Our news papers employed real journalists who took seriously the essential role of journalists in a democracy to inform the citizenry. These professionals by and large attempted to record what was really happening, rather than attempting to promote some particular point of view or support some cause or political party. .
Well sadly that was then...things change. In the Era of Hysterical Trump Hatred (EHTH) we find our news outlets act less as sources of information and more as purveyors of propaganda. These modern main stream media entities are in the business of molding thought—presenting “fake news” , cherry-picking facts to model information to control and influence the way people think and vote. They no longer see their role as simply informing a free people in a free society. Rather descending to the level of propagandists generating screeds which have no respect for their readers, believing that they (the journalists and editors) know better, they mislead with the object of promoting a particular political point of view or cause. Today in the USA we seem burdened with our own propaganda sheets like Communist Neues Deutschland of the 1950s.
Anyone reading the NYT these days begins to suspect that thought control has become a prime motive of the editors. Recently, that suspicion has been verified. In August 2019, Dean Baquet the Times’ executive editor, called a meeting with the entire staff. A transcript of that event (look it up) was leaked to the public. The document revealed the depths to which the NYT has descended away from professional journalism into political conspiracy, collusion with a political party and propaganda generation under this executive editor.
Just two months before the August staff meeting, in July 2019, Robert Mueller presented his long awaited report to Congress on “his” Russian-collusion investigation. Mueller’s revelation of “no collusion”was a huge disappointment for the Times and other MSM news outlets. Baquet explained to his staff that the Times had been “heavily focused” (a more valid description would have been “obsessed”) on the Russia-Trump-collusion story. He noted that they won two Pulitzer Prizes on that story alone and sales, subscriptions and advertisement profits were soaring. But in light of the final Mueller report of “no collusion” these profits and prize-winning stories, which were based on unfounded allegations (and now disproved allegations) would have to end. (Perhaps the NYT should have printed retractions and an apology to the President. But that was no to be.)
Baquet actually stated: “We built our newsroom to cover this one story.” (That Mr. Trump was colluding with Russia and was a traitor). But in April 2019 when Robert Mueller gave his long awaited report to Congress, he did not come up with the goods. At the moment Mueller left the witness stand Baquet states: “we realized that Mueller was not going to make Trump go away”. Baquet asks his staff in effect “what do we do now?” How do we continue to attack Trump for the next two years?
In subsequent remarks Baquet proposes that the Times has to “regroup” and take on a new story. He asks, “How (do we)... take on a guy who makes these kinds of remarks?” The transcript reveals that Baquet directs the staff to “refocus” on what he refers to as the 1619 Project.
The 1619 Project began as a series in the Times magazine. It was an historic retrospective about the first African slaves who landed in 1619 (the qutrocentential “anniversary ) in the colony of Virginia. Baquet proposes that the Times writers turn to the history of racism in the USA as an alternative to the now defunct Mueller Russian-collusion story. Baquet proposes that all staff writers link their stories —those that refer to culture, science, politics and other matters—in such a way as to somehow frame them so as to relate back to the underlying goal of teaching their readership how “racism and white supremacy (are) .... the foundation of this country.”
Thus at this meeting Baquet and the Times staff revealed how for two years they built their subscription and copy-sales on what turned out to be a false story, a political smear job, which had no factual basis. They misled the nation and won two Pulitzer Prizes for fake news. Now that that story was dead in the water they had to construct another fake news story. (Did they ever think of printing a retraction for all the lies that they foisted on the public? No.) What they did instead was to conspire to generate a new fake news story about race in America, with the intention—not that it was true—but that it would be a new means of attacking the President —now with a new charge— racism.
So readership—when President Trump calls out our main-stream media with misleading or “fake news” realize, in his blunt, unsophisticated way he is presenting the truth. Just as the young Miss Angela Merkel living in dreary, news-starved East Berlin in the 1950s during the Cold War was forced to read “between the lines” to glean some facts about what was really happening in the world, it seems we, like her, must learn to read between the lines to get at the truth.
As for the 1619 Project, this replacement for the Russian Collusion story is of similar status as other fake news. This is abject historical revisionism as practiced in the USSR and Communist China in the Cold War Era. In the style of the ND in East Germany calling Stalin “the greatest human being in our era”, the 1619 project attempts to portray our nation’s glorious history as if it was somehow initiated and driven solely on the concept of white supremacy, and economic exploitation of African slaves— not what all our historic documents clearly reveal regarding 18th century economics, unfair taxation without representation, and the mis-rule and blunders of the British Monarchy.
Now the New York Times—after misleading you for two years regarding Russian Collusion and President Trump as an agent of Russia—wants you to forget their lies and misinformation and focus on the evils of white supremacism, racism and exploitation of other human beings. You must forget your history of the Revolutionary War, the courage and genius of George Washington, and the Founding Fathers. All the sacrifices, heroism and loss of life made for the birth of a nation are to be ignored. Now the Times —who think they know better than you—want you to think only of the African slaves who landed in 1619 in the colony of Virginia as the initiation of our nation and the basis of our history.
Reading-between-the-lines-conclusion: This is propaganda designed to mislead or promote some particular point of view or cause. In this case it would be an attack on Mr. Trump who is often falsely claimed to have white supremacist views. It is also an attempt to activate and engage the Afro American voting block to support a Democrat candidate. The Times knows that without an almost clean sweep of the black vote...as President Obama was able to do in 20018— Democrats may win the popular vote but can not take a majority of the Electoral College.
So do you get the picture? Keep reading between the lines. Don’t bother with the words—- they lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment