Bias in the Press - Dissemination That Destroys Nations - Part II

Toxic Media - Dissemination that destroys nations - Toxic Waste! Part II
by Edward Biamonte - Fujah Magazine - http://www.fujah.com

If the tactics worked for one political group, the same tactics of getting the word out might work for another, despite the differences of policy. Tactics are tactics and can be used for positive, truthful dissemination. One can only ponder how many political groups used the tactics created by Hitler’s media machine that involved deception to a nation and the world?

The real issue - is the dissemination misleading the public? If the dissemination is not completely factual or truthful, the results from such information produces toxic outcomes - toxic problems! My perception, if the popular and liberal press are now a political party they have lost objectivity becoming subjective, opinion-biased, therefore propagating their agenda. While researching propaganda I found a very candid definition at Wikipedia / propaganda which utilizes direct quotes from Hitler's "Mien Kampf", "In World War II Nazi propaganda was institutionalized to create a perception of the Nazi regime– a perception just as the Nazis wanted and planned… Mein Kampf” contains the blueprint of later Nazi propaganda efforts..."

"Assessing his audience, Hitler writes in chapter IV: "Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people.” The following six paragraphs from the article describe the tyrannical intent to deceive the world and exterminate the Jews.


“All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed.”

“The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another.”

“The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood."

As to the methods, the tactics employed, he explains:
"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side.”

“The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”

“Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."

"Before World War II, Nazi propaganda strategy stressed several themes. Their goals were to create external enemies (countries that allegedly inflicted the Treaty of Versailles on Germany) and internal enemies (Jews). Hitler and Nazi propagandists played on the anti-Semitism and resentment present in Germany. Reaching out to ethnic Germans in other countries such as Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, the Soviet Union and the Baltic states was another aim of Nazi party propaganda. In Mein Kampf, Hitler makes a direct remark to those outside of Germany. He states that pain and misery is forced upon ethnic Germans outside of Germany, and that they dream of common fatherland…. Throughout Mein Kampf, he pushed Germans worldwide to make the struggle for political power and independence their main focus. Nazi propaganda efforts then focused on creating external enemies. Propagandists strengthened the negative attitude of Germany... Hitler, knowing his nation's disgust with the Treaty, used it as leverage to influence his audience. He would repeatedly refer back to the terms of the Treaty as a direct attack on Germany and its people. In one speech delivered in Berlin on January 30, 1937 he directly stated, “the Treaty makes Germany out to be inferior and “less” of a country than others only because blame for the war is placed on it…”

Wounded and angry from the 2000 and 2004 losses to G.W. Bush, and approximately three years prior to the 2008 election - media elites and liberal ideologues used every opportunity to hide, reject, abase, spin and degrade any positive stories or information concerning any conservative politic. The Democrats hired advertising firms to help them create a campaign that would appeal to the masses. Not that this is wrong - on the contrary it’s was very smart. However, the matter at hand is politic propaganda in the media. Was the coverage by the press of the political parties equal? The editorial process is supposed to be objective - non-biased so the public can get a factual understanding of current issues. Therefore, was the amount of coverage given to the Democratic party the same as that given to all other parties? The facts are egregious and problematic.

Eighteen months prior to the 2006 election I noticed a shift by the Democrats, they went negative about everything starting with the war in Iraq. Just as Hitler used “pain and misery is forced upon Germans,” it was evident Conservatives were responsible for the pain and misery suffered by the American people. This became normal political rhetoric as we moved closer to an election. The problem is how the rhetoric is assimilated and then propagated the by popular media. Did the popular media vet or investigate the rhetoric that was disseminated by the Democrats? It appears the opposite - popular media actually reinforced the information, propagated and disseminated the rhetoric. Research shows the average coverage by the popular media at large was largely in favor of one political party - the Democrats.

NCI Report stated, “Recent data from the 2008 election coverage Dominates PEJ’s First Quarterly… The 2008 Elections May 25, 2007 2008 Presidential Campaign Coverage Percent of Campaign Coverage (Time/Space) Devoted to Each Party Dec. 31, ‘06 – Mar. 31, ’07.”

Sectors: Mostly Democrats Mostly Republicans Both Parties
All Media 61% 24% 13%
Newspapers 52% 29% 16%
Online 67% 24% 8%
Network TV 63% 19% 16%
Cable TV 61% 24% 13%
Radio 72% 18% 8%”

Lexis Nexus database reveals the “Numbers of stories with Candidates names in the headline or lead paragraphs Dec. 31, '06 - Mar. 31, '07:

Giuliani Romney McCain Top 3 Republicans
Newspapers 177 205 196 578
Network TV 89 36 88 213

Clinton J. Edwards Obama Top 3 Dems
Newspapers 477 174 452 1103
Network TV 265 75 220 560”

The facts are in the stats. The first goal of the propagandist - as Hitler stated, “was to create internal and external enemies.” Hitlers internal enemy was the Jews. His media machine blamed the sons of Abraham for everything that was wrong, went wrong or could go wrong in Germany - sound familiar? The obvious pick for the Democrats and liberals should be Bush and the Conservative party. But the media taking sides is abhorrent!

Even though there were many successes by Conservatives and many negatives concerning the Democrats the press buried the negatives concerning the Democrats on the bottom of page 16 or 18 in newspapers. At the same time they were giving more coverage to the Democratic candidates. It appears that the tactic of media blitz was largess - very relevant for at least one political party!

The similarity per tactic to a tyrant over 60 years ago is shocking. Just as Hitler created a media blitz of Press, posters, films, cartoons and flyers that were seen throughout Germany, in 2006 The Left went to work on releasing anti-Bush policy and Iraq War films. Fundraisers began quietly by liberal elitist and non-American businessmen like George Sorros. The Left created liberal online media outlets that allowed donations to be registered by the likes of Mickey Mouse who used non-specific identity debit cards to donate multiple times. Non-profit groups like ACORN campaigned for the Left candidates. However, most noticeable was the free editorial coverage given to the Left by the press; seventy-nine percent of what the popular press covered in total for the month of June went to the Democrats.

Hitler went on a European media blitz starting Berlin “he pushed Germans worldwide to make the struggle for political power and independence their main focus.” He then focused on the world issues and how the world was for him or against the policies that the German people wanted and needed. Is it fair to say that Obama’s tactical planners did the same thing?

What was Obama’s agenda and message? A European tour starting in Berlin? His rhetoric began with "Hope and Change", then came the apologetics for America’s many sins and indiscretions. Then with a strong finish he brought the promise to change global perceptions. Conservatives outlets slammed Obama for posturing the laundry of the US for political gain and blatant political correctness, while the left wallowed in its mire. What was the media’s coverage of the Obama campaign during this period of the election cycle, great coverage without refutation. The pandering made non-ideologues vomit!

The “Total Percent of Campaign Newshole” - or the percentage of media time - coverage given to Obama versus other current issues:
Obama's Trip to Europe 51.2%,
Iraq War as an Issue 7.4
Press Treatment of Obama 6.9
McCain Vice President Search 3.6
McCain v. Obama Polls/Strategy 3.2
Other Foreign Policy Issues 3.0
Total Number of Campaign Stories = 402

“PEJ Campaign Coverage Index: July 21 - 27, 2008 Amid Charges of Bias, the Media Swarm on Obama Overseas…” Barack Obama’s July 24, 2008 speech to a crowd of about 200,000 in Berlin provided a startling campaign visual to punctuate a week of remarkable media attention. A story about the event on CNN.com, complete with video, quoted the network’s European political editor saying Obama “is one of those politicians who reaches parts other politicians don’t reach… Coverage of the trip consumed 51 percent of the campaign newshole for the week of July 21-27, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s Campaign Coverage Index… The trip also helped Obama, for the seventh consecutive week, dominate John McCain in the contest for media exposure. The Democrat was a significant or dominant factor in 81 percent of the campaign stories studied compared with 53 percent for McCain. Interestingly, even with all the attention to Obama’s trip, those numbers dovetail closely with the weekly coverage averages since the general election campaign began in June. In that period, Obama has factored in 79 percent of the coverage with McCain at 52 percent.”

Conversely - information concerning coverage of Conservatives back in 2004 revealed coverage of the protagonist - the good guy - in the popular media was almost non-existent.

The 2004 Annual Report - Magazine Content Analysis Story Protagonists and Sourcing March 15, 2004- said,” President Bush was not the main protagonist much of the time in the news magazines. Indeed, “Time” and “Newsweek” were both more than twice as likely to be focused on an entertainment celebrity as on the president as a main protagonist. This was not the case at “U.S. News and World Report”, where one was about as likely as the other. Bush did not even dominate political coverage at any of the news magazines. The three publications were twice as likely to build their political stories around some other federal official or politician as they were around the president.”

The Facts are in the stats! As of June 2009 Newsweek has used Obama on the cover 19 times. NBC has done two White House Specials, ABC just did a two hour special to promote national healthcare and banned any balance by the conservative party to rebut or do advertising against the Obama plan. The NY Times- 73% positive coverage since the election; while other outlets revealed 42% positive coverage for Obama. Conversely, G.W.Bush only received 22% and President Clinton 27% during the same 100 day time frame says Fox News. The media is not being adversarial and they cover personality over policy. While some state the reason for this coverage as greed to boost ratings because Obama is liked by 60% of the public, it is the perception of many that there is ideology, exploitation and greed involved. The exploitation of the American public to blatant propaganda is only compounded by the greed factor making the press contemptuous to its public! The public needs to respond!

While there is nothing wrong with Hollywood or liberal elites supporting a candidate, which is their right as Americans, when the press becomes the machine that mitigates rhetoric they become propagandists which pervade the public with editorial perversion- ultimately eliminating editorial balance. When the press looks the other way concerning facts, the candidate they are protecting proliferates and every element that is wrong or false is propagated; the result? Everyone suffers! When only a few conservative news outlets or talk shows properly proffer information and report the falsehoods or problematic rhetoric to the public - the public is deceived. Seventy percent of the media turned their heads and did nothing to correct their actions.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in June 2005 found that more than 70 percent believed that the press tended to favor one side of a political debate over another. Secular elites, propagandists, tactical planners, their abased workers prostituted by their unethical elitist handlers are polluting the editorial process in America, the greatest free-voice nation in history. To reiterate one of my earlier statements- I am disgusted by the popular medias lack of integrity and quest to promote Ideology. They are surrogates, puppets, elitist and power hungry Machiavellians networking their politic and creating Toxic Media.

The media spin for many is so evident one wonders how so many of the public can accept such toxic rhetoric - propaganda, toxic waste! The public must respond to this propaganda. The public can start by tuning the propagandist out - simply turning off any station that propagates bias. But how will they know? )Authors: Bernard Goldberg, Dick Morris, Mark Levin and Bill Oreilly are great sources for facts. They don’t mess around.) Also - The Pew Research offers quantitative stats on coverage. If it’s greed that directs the commentary the outlets will have to change to get ratings or find themselves at death's door as the once great NY Times currently finds themselves. Is it time to Boycott, to Tea Party the Democratic advocated media or Government networks? Toxic media propagates one sided direction that leads the public to make Toxic Decisions.

We have viewed histories most blatant abhorrence for the public and the techniques of how it happens; how can we allow complacency and denial control a rational and direct response? We the People - Can Not! Egregious reporting directed by deceptive Machiavellians in the 2008 election cycle compelled voters in the US to make toxic decisions. Coming soon - Part Three - Toxic Media creates Toxic Decisions! Transparency My …! The Outrages Deception by the US House of Representatives Majority (Democrats and Moderate Republicans) HR2454 - The Obama Energy Bill. You will be Shocked! By the way did anyone report it?