"Truman Syndrome"

[H2O Man]

"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."
--Malcolm X

I would hope that the vast majority of DUers would agree that the corporate media is as powerful today, as it was on the day that Malcolm X delivered the above quote. Malcolm used to warn people that the media would manipulate them to the point that they could find themselves suspicious of their friends, and trusting their enemies. He often said that if one trusts the media, they are likely to carry umbrellas on sunny days, and to get soaked when it rains.

One of the classic studies of recent media manipulation is Michael Moore’s movie "Fahrenheit 9/11." I consider it to be among the most valuable resources for understanding how the media mixes small amounts of truth with outright lies, in order to appeal to the public’s emotions, rather than to encourage rational thought.

On Tuesday, November 18, the IFC began a six-part mini-series on how the corporate media exploits the public by controlling the "news." Last night, they featured a segment on issues involving those who challenge their lies; it included a powerful interview with Valerie Plame,

In his books "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" and "In the Absence of the Sacred," author Jerry Mander documents how the mixing of truth and lies on the corporate news has damaged our society. One example he provides is how the forces that created the Reagan presidency used his former role as a commercial spokesperson to create a fictional character who was twice elected to the highest political office in this country.

Mander also warned that while home computers offered a valuable tool for common folk, that corporate interests would manipulate the internet in much the same way that they do television.

Yesterday, Jennifer Peltz of the Associated Press had an article about an increasingly common phenomenon found among psychiatric patients, which was referred to as the "Truman syndrome." She described people who experienced difficulty in "sort(ing) out reality and illusion" in terms of separating television from the reality of their lives. As a retired psychiatric social worker, I found this interesting. I believe that frequently, people experiencing psychotic symptoms express, on some level, a kernel of truth.

During the 2008 presidential election cycle, the corporate media injected large portions of lies in their reporting. In part, this was to encourage the mass consumption of their products. Yet that mass consumption involves more than selling newspapers: it is a manipulative effort to inject illusion into the public perception of every issue involved in the democratic process.

In many ways, we are witnessing a coordinated effort to create an atmosphere of confusion today in regard to the choices that President-elect Barack Obama is making. Perhaps the most "controversial" of his choices is that of Senator Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. While there are similar attempts to mix reality, illusion, misinformation and outright lies on a variety of things related to the Obama-Biden administration, the corporate media recognized a potential fracture line within the democratic party during the primaries, between the supporters of Obama and Clinton. Thus, this remains their primary focus.

This is not to imply that all concerns about the appointment of Hillary Clinton are unwarrented, or part of a larger "plot" involving every person voicing an opinion that asks any questions. But it does mean that we should examine each question on its merits, and that we should be questioning anything and everything the corporate media serves up. And we should be equally focused on questioning the validity of any rumor and/or report on internet sites, including those that are generally considered liberal or progressive.

An example of this is one of the current reports, that claims that Senator Clinton "forced" her way into the Obama administration. This serves only to discredit both: it attempts to reinforce a view of Senator Clinton as "pushy," and of President-elect Obama as "weak." It also paints a picture of Obama going back on his word, and instead of attempting to make changes in Washington, instead being an agent of The Clintons.

In order to believe this, it requires one to suspend belief in what they saw with their own eyes, and heard with their own ears. Now, I wouldn’t say that if I could not easily prove that it is true. How many people remember what was generally considered to be one of the single most important events in either primary or general election debates: it took place in mid-December, 2007, in the final debate in Iowa, before the upcoming caucuses. The democratic primary was becoming a more intense contest between Senators Clinton and Obama. Then, Obama was asked what new foreign policies people might expect from him, considering that most of his foreign policy advisers had previously served President Clinton?

Hillary Clinton laughed out loud, and then said, "I’m looking forward to hearing that!" Obama waited for the audience to quiet down, before looking at her, and saying, "Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me as well."

Now, if you didn’t see that debate, you weren’t paying enough attention. If you did see it, then you have no reason to be "surprised" that President-elect Obama has selected advisers who have connections to the Clinton administration. And you really shouldn’t be surprised that Barack Obama has been planning on having Hillary Clinton involved in his foreign policy team, either.

Trust your own eyes and ears, more than you trust the corporate media. Trust your own ability to make a rational evaluation of current situations. This isn’t a sit-com, or a made-for-tv movie. It’s real life.

[northamericancitizen]

1. Excellent (as usual...) K & R

[H2O Man]

13. Thanks! n/t

[Sparkly]

2. I agree with you, except that last part...

I think his quip in the debate was just one of those lines they use to say humorously, "No, I'll be the one who wins here, thank you very much." Who knows what he really thinks about her as an adviser, SoS, or anything else.

But I wish I could recommend a hundred times what you wrote about the media, stories driven by propaganda and by sensationalism, and the public zeal for rumors.

[H2O Man]

16. I'm happy that

you agree about the part on the media, which is the most important part.

I think that (then) Senator Obama had read "Team of Rivals," and had a general idea of where he was heading. Almost everything he said during the campaign, including the debates, seemed to fit the concept of a plan for a "unity" administration. It appears to be a progression of the ideas he subscribed to since he was a community organizer.

[iamahaingttta]

3. Fascinating!

I have a little game that I play with people on occasion.
I call it "Who is the Customer and What is the Product?"
Everybody always gets it wrong, yet it's key to understanding the media.

It goes like this:

Below is a copy of today's New York Times.







This is something that you can go and buy at a newsstand, or read online.
This works for just about any media, though there are a few exceptions.
Don't worry about the exceptions, use the NYTimes as a good example.

OK... Who is the customer and what is the product?

[Uzybone]

15. no idea...whats the answer?

:)

[annabanana]

17. You are the product...

the advertisers are the customers.

Never ever forget that.

[iamahaingttta]

29. Exactly!

I'm glad somebody got that one.
It's the key to our entire consumer-based system.

[H2O Man]

18. Well, I am confident

that there is an answer that I won't guess until after you post it. But, in the general spirit of the OP, I'll refer to the 1975 movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." In it, there is a scene where Randall Patrick McMurphy is talking to "Chief" Bromden, who tells about his father's drinking. He notes that his father started drinking the bottle, but then the bottle drank him. That in mind, I would guess that it is the corporate media that consumes the public.

Looking forward to the correct answer!

[Patsy Stone]

4. Also, for those who were paying attention

it shouldn't come as any surprise that everyone has their own version of the leader he should be.

As he wrote in "The Audacity of Hope," people tend to "project their own views" on him. Being a smart guy, he recognized what could happen as a result: "As such I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them."

I must be one of the only people who heard this, as well as looked at his votes and his positions, and realized he was mostly a centrist, and only a tad to the left of Hillary. I never expected a quick and forceful shift to the left, I just wanted someone who would work to fix the mistakes and move us forward with pragmatic, sensible ideas. So far, I've not been disappointed.

Happy Thanksgiving, H2O Man!

[H2O Man]

19. My younger son

often says that one thing that he likes about Obama, is that he seems like someone you could know, rather than a distant figure projected on a screen. I think that is related to people's seeing much of what they identify as their own best potential as being qualities Obama already has.

(He also likes to joke that he is never sure when he will meet Obama in public, so he always wears Obama-Biden shirts when he goes out.)

[myrna minx]

5. K&R. Thanks for your thoughtful prescience. n/t

[alsame]

6. When Reagan was elected, I was in grad school and was taking

a philosophy class taught by a visiting professor from France. We discussed the election and I'll never forget one of his comments -"It's just so perfect that America elected an actor...Americans always want a good story more than anything else."

Excellent post - thank you.

[emulatorloo]

7. excellent analysis -- K&R n/t

[Guaranteed]

8. Great read.

Good job, H20.

[leftstreet]

9. Hillary as SOS is NOT a controversial pick

The SOS doesn't craft foreign policy.

The controversial picks are the Econ ones.
:scared:

But everyone's busy smokescreening on Hillary.

Whatever.

[Jim Sagle]

22. She's QUITE controversial here. In the real world, not so much.

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. In the UK, we're so daft, actors who play villains in soaps have been

physically assaulted!

[Lochloosa]

11. Nice title. One of the my favorite movies. Watch it again with a new perspective.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Obama Defends Cabinet: The Change Will Come From Me

Speaking to reporters for the third time in three days, Barack Obama was asked directly whether the staff choices he had made for his cabinet and advisory positions conflicted with his campaign message that the next president simply couldn't tap the same people for different posts.
Obama, who announced earlier that he was appointing former Fed Chairman Paul Volker to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board, took a bit of umbrage at the implication that staff assignments undermined the meme that defined his run for office.
"Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost," he said. "It comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure then that my team is implementing ."

The question of whether Obama's Cabinet undermines his message is, in many ways, a media creation (though there are some legitimate understandable gripes from the labor community). As the president-elect rightfully noted, the issue is a lose-lose proposition. Either he appoints some experienced hands to deal with the economic crisis (and gets labeled as more of the same) or he taps new people to handle the situation and is accused of leaving the country at risk.

"The last Democratic administration we had was the Clinton administration," said Obama. "So it would be surprising if I selected a Treasury Secretary who had had no connection with the last Democratic administration, because that would mean that the person had no experience in Washington whatsoever. And I suspect that you would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I selected a Treasury Secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council, at one of the most critical economic times in our history, who had no experience in government whatsoever. What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking."

"I think when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom and in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of ways," he went on. "And that's the kind of discussion we want. We want ideas from everybody. What I don't want to do is to somehow suggest that somehow suggest that since you served in the last Democratic administration, that you're somehow barred from serving again. Because we need people who are going to be able to hit the ground running."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/26/obama-defends-cabinet-the_n_146648.html

[Uzybone]

14. Great post

"Then, Obama was asked what new foreign policies people might expect from him, considering that most of his foreign policy advisers had previously served President Clinton?

Hillary Clinton laughed out loud, and then said, "I’m looking forward to hearing that!" Obama waited for the audience to quiet down, before looking at her, and saying, "Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me as well."

Now, if you didn’t see that debate, you weren’t paying enough attention. If you did see it, then you have no reason to be "surprised" that President-elect Obama has selected advisers who have connections to the Clinton administration. And you really shouldn’t be surprised that Barack Obama has been planning on having Hillary Clinton involved in his foreign policy team, either."


Funny how all the handwringers totally forget that exchange. Barack was not joking when he said that.

[annabanana]

20. Media manipulation is one of my primary concerns.

It is the water we swim in that, like fish, we don't discover until it's too late. It's very pervasiveness is it what makes it so terribly dangerous.

We have to watch it like hawks and continue to sound the alarms, we on the 'net, when "conventional wisdom" goes so far off the rails as to be a threat.

Thank you for this excellent essay.

[bbgrunt]

21. The magnitude of the manipulation is truly astonishing.

And it doesn't end with the media. Everything seems to be geared to making us crazy, doubting our own reality and fracturing our minds. Just try to figure out your phone charges. Try to get an answer over the phone by going through infinite loops of programmed choices. Try to get information about cheap hotels on the internet......the list is endless. Everything is an unending frustration. It's as if the corporatist agenda is one grand effort to apply "operation monarch" with the whole population.......... a grand death wish being played out on us all.

[RepublicanElephant]

23. fairness doctrine, anyone?

Where things stand

What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all (Federal Com-munications Law Journal, 5/03).

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else. Disney-owned KSFO in liberal San Francisco is one such station (Extra!, 3–4/95). Some towns have two.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

Bringing back fairness?

For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.”

According to TV Week(11/30/04), a coalition of broadcast giants is currently pondering a legal assault on the Supreme Court’s Red Lion decision. “Media General and a coalition of major TV network owners—NBC Universal, News Corp. and Viacom—made clear that they are seriously considering an attack on Red Lion as part of an industry challenge to an appellate court decision scrapping FCC media ownership deregulation earlier this year.”

Considering the many looming problems facing media democracy advocates, Extra! asked MAP’s Schwartzman why activists should still be concerned about the Fairness Doctrine.

What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053

[Joe the Liberal]

24. Interesting im kicking this......

:kick:

I don't trust media at all so this is nothing new to me but interesting read nonetheless.

[mmonk]

25. I, for one, can't believe something as proposterous as

Clinton "forcing her way" into the administration. Having said this, I'm not enamoured with the "team of rivals" thing due to it being completely a team of rivals. As someone who's suspicions are not easily allayed due to the last 7 years, I'm waiting for a signal for a new direction within my party that ideas other than those from the DLC or PPI will be aired and or possibly given weight.

[trumad]

26. It took sites like the old Media Whores Online and the Daily Howler to wake my ass up...

to the dangers of the media... I admit, I was a sheep back in the day before the internets, but no more.

It is of my opinion that the 24x7 cable news/opinion media is the most dangerous of all the threats facing our democracy. The print news is right there as well---just refer to Whitewater and the run-up to the Iraq war for proof of that.

The knuckleheads in the media who go after the blogs and sites like DU know their days of lazy journalism is over, because we'll nail their ass if they pull the kind of shit they did in the past.

Great piece as usual my Friend and highly recommended.

tru

[me b zola]

27. K&R!

:thumbsup:

[votetastic]

28. The media already has its narrative written for the SOS appointment

If Obama picks Clinton, it's because he was "pressured", and she was "manipulative".

If Obama doesn't pick Clinton, then he spurned his rival, who campaigned her heart out for him.

[robcon]

30. The Op is wrong.

"I would hope that the vast majority of DUers would agree that the corporate media is as powerful today, as it was on the day that Malcolm X delivered the above quote." is wrong.

The MSM is MUCH, MUCH WEAKER than it was in the 60's and 70's, when the three TV networks' news programs attracted 60% of the audience.

There is MUCH, MUCH more diversity in media today.

[H2O Man]

31. And how would

that diversity make the corporate media "MUCH,MUCH WEAKER"?

[robcon]

33. Each station has less pull.

In his day Walter Cronkite (and his editorialist Eric Severeid) had more power than any other media outlet.

Now, with the diversity of views and media outlets, each one has MUCH, MUCH less power, and there are more views being heard.

[H2O Man]

35. I assumed that

was probably what you meant. While it is true, it does not mean the corporate media has less power, In fact, it indicates quite the opposite. A growing market simply shows a growing market. Today, just as in the past, a person can find accurate and valuable sources of information, but that does not mean that most people take advantage of that opportunity.

The corporate media serves the "news" in the same manner that fast food joints serve what are supposed to be burgers and fries. In the 1960s, there were the "big three" network stations, and hence they each had a substantial slice of the pie. Today, the pie is far larger, with more consumers, and because there are so many more fast food joints to select from on the information highway, people do not have to pull into one of the big three's parking lot. They can go to the Fox News' drive-thru, or stop at CNN, MSNBC, etc. But the majority of citizens still get their "news" from corporate media sources.

It's interesting to compare the corporate media coverage of the Vietnam War with the current coverage of the war of occupation in Iraq, in order to evaluate the corporate media's ability to influence the public's perception of a most important US foreign policy. Many of the corporate medias's primary resources for reporting on Iraq, and "explaining" events in such a manner that allows the public to "understand" what is happening in a context favorable to the corporate media's interests, is the retired military analysts. The IFC series, much like a recent NY Times article, documents the investment interests of those analysts.

The lack of a trusted journalist such as "Uncle Walter" does not make the corporate media weaker in any sense. It merely transfers its power to sources that the viewing audience is largely unaware of.

[robcon]

38. Then I'm confused by what you mean.

When did "corporate power" have less sway upon opinions than now? (My answer... not in 100 years or so.) Citizen bloggers, diverse media sources and decreasing power of any one source has led to the best situation for the 'consumer' of information than in recent history.

[lunatica]

32. Even more subtly dangerous are the ads. They are disconnected from all reality

Since I have cable and rarely watch tv news or programming anymore I get a real jolt of surreality when I turn on regular tv stations. My God! The fantasy world that the advertising industry weaves is dangerously seductive! And now that the economy is crashing and we're all feeling it in some way the surreality is even more obvious. They're still advertising luxury cars as if they'll transport you into a charmed life of endless luxury and gratification. And even as retail stores are probably closing their doors the toy industry advertises as if it were just another financially bloated Christmas season. We really are seen as American Consumers, not American Citizens.

But cropping up like weeds are also the new ads. The Consumer as potentially broke and homeless ads.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. Excellent Post!

It makes me feel much better (and more sane) being assured that the corporate media has, for a LONG time, basically been manipulating all of us and literally making us crazy. Back when I first started getting involved in and learning about politics I took in a ton of CNN, MSNBC, etc. and found myself after a few years feeling like I was literally going out of my mind because I simply didn't know what to believe anymore because with the way things are now the corporate media seems to take the "conventional wisdom" or just about everything that everybody has been been brought up to know and understand as THE TRUTH and "muddy the waters" or somehow suggest that because some whacko out there has a different (albeit wacky) opinion about something then most people then suddenly what we never had reason to question is now put back on the table for debate and discussion. The best example of this is, by far, the debate over evolution/creationism but the same can also be said about things like global warming as well.

[cooolandrew]

36. Somevery good points there. K&R.

[Me.]

37. You Did Know Didn't You

That auto workers earn $70.00 an hour

&t
That right up to the last hour, in both the primary and the general. the race was neck and neck, 50/50?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

39. Great post, but I don't even think the rumor of which you speak came from "the media".

Not the corporate media anyway. Just some unsourced HuffPo stuff unless there are other sources I've not heard of yet.

Doesn't mean lots of good information doesn't come from blog type sites, but they are a vehicle without peer for disseminating unfounded and anonymous rumors.