"When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon." - Tom Paine

INTRODUCTION: As the Bush Reich and its corporate supporters gear up for 2004, scooping in millions and ratcheting up their propaganda campaigns and media alliances to overdrive, the last trickles of truth may indeed be plugged up. In their place, we will be drowned by a flood of disinformation, ever more cleverly disquised as "news reports," "press releases," "grass roots movements," "think tank findings," "public opinion polls," etc. ad nauseum.

In the coming weeks, I will be rerunning a series of articles on rightwing/corporate propaganda that was first published on the Net back in 2001. Although the details may now 2 years old, the general content has never been more relevant - or more frightening.

Part I: Blasting the Myth of the Liberal Media

Everyone knows in their gut that the mainstream media is not doing its job - that something is terribly wrong. Those of us who are old enough to remember the pre-Reagan news era recall a time when if serious wrong doing were discovered in government, if a questionable war was being prosecuted, if civil rights were attacked, if there was evidence of a major scam against the public (the FDA falsely pushing high-priced Cipro as the only drug for anthrax, for example), then we could trust a least a handful of journalists to charge onto the scene and kick butt. They were our cavalry, our marine landing battalion, our white knights. They kept us informed - really informed - and they kept politicians from getting too far with their excesses. Even during the McCarthy blackball/news blackout period, there were journalists who hung tough and eventually helped the public come to its senses.

Now instead of news people, we have marketing specialists and PR people. Instead of hard-hitting seasoned journalists, we have a glut of mealy-mouthed wimps who are more preoccupied with their next SUV payment than they are the future of American Democracy - or truth itself, for that matter.

Here's just a glimpse at the sordid underbelly of the bloated, beached monster we call the mainstream news.

First published in February, 2001

I was lucky. When I started my career as a journalist in 1987, I was taken under the wing of veteran editor Kent Ward of the Bangor Daily News --a crusty 60-something elder statesman of the newsroom affectionately known as "the Old Dawg." Kent, who was a staunch Republican and conservative, did not believe that news should have any slant -- political or otherwise. He took me on as a stringer (regular freelancer) because he liked my ideas -- purely and simply. He told everyone who ever wrote for him, regardless of their political passions, that he would defend their right to say anything, as long as they said it well and supported their facts.

During our nearly eight-year association, I did a lot of writing and Kent did a lot of defending. But even in the 1980s in rural Maine, the growing power of the corporate dollar was being felt. I remember the time I did a piece on horses in Maine -- innocuous enough, right? But an embarrassed Kent was forced to tell me that an unflattering reference to the John Deere Tractor Company had to go. I had simply mentioned the historical fact that in the 1930s, the company had lured farmers to "trade in" their work horses for new tractors by promising a pastured retirement for the horses when in fact the horses were actually taken promptly to the "glue factory." However, John Deere was one of the BDN's long-time advertisers.

Later, when I wrote a three-part investigative report on the health care crisis in Maine, which included a tough look at the sweatshop labor practices of the state's biggest hospitals, Kent had to sneak the series onto page one during Christmas week (1987) when all the paper's "higher ups" were away on vacation. We both felt the repercussions from "above" for weeks -- even though the series helped foment some needed changes in the state's health care sector. A few months later, Kent was ordered to turn down another investigative report I did on the state's solid waste issues because the topic was considered too much of a "political hot potato." Naïve me -- I had always thought the main purpose of a free press was to serve up and dissect such hot potatoes! The series was published instead by a smaller paper ("Kennebec Journal"), and helped derail a multi-million dollar expansion of the state's largest solid waste facility -- an expansion designed to accommodate toxic sludge trucked in from out of state. It was one of the biggest blows to my faith in the media that the BDN would have suppressed coverage and let that happen to preserve corporate peace.

When I decided to focus most of my efforts on environmental issues, I ran into the densest brick wall of all. I soon had to leave the BDN and instead wrote regularly for "The Maine Progressive," a tiny independent monthly. That was when I discovered just how desperate dedicated activists are for news stories that present reliable, usable facts. Many of my stories -- which, thanks to the exhortations of the "Old Dawg" in my formative years, were carefully researched and full of supported facts -- were disseminated to legislators and town officials when related issues came up for votes because they could not be dismissed as "emotional diatribes."

Because of the methodical blackout by the mainstream media of investigative pieces on "political hot potatoes" such as the environment, industrial practices, or the dubious background of corporate-sponsored political candidates such as G.W. Bush (not to mention corporate crime by anyone not a Democrat), information on these topics are relegated to "opinion piece" status or must be published in "fringe" publications (I have been inspired, in fact, to try to turn the "fringe opinion piece" into a new genre/art form in its own right!). As a result, the general public does not see serious, in-depth treatments of these topics. Instead, what they are allowed to see, at best, are emotional rants in the letters to the editor. This is by design, make no mistake. Through this strategy, the media's corporate/political puppeteers can perpetuate their favorite myth: that environmentalists and liberals of any type are the "hysterical fringe element."

Meanwhile, the media (referring, of course, largely to the corporate, memo-generating, shadowy figures in the realms above most editors) remains free (not to mention well-remunerated) to present whatever "serious news story" on a topic that suits their immediate purpose or that of their political pals. A classic example of this strategy is the Bush inauguration coverage. While no mainstream media outlet showed the extent of anti-Bush protesting or just how empty some of the bleachers reserved for pro-Bushers were, stories and images of protesters and police run-ins abounded in independent publications such as Indymedia. While it is great we have these independent outlets, they unfortunately play into the hands of the corporate media, who can then push the myth that such outlets are all run by troublemaking radicals who exaggerate. After all, who saw any of that stuff on the six o'clock news? In fact, Indymedia, AOL forums, and other "instant news/instant feedback" sites are now haunted by rightwing provocateurs and corporate saboteurs eager to manipulate the public opinion and derail any efforts at true free speech (see my story "Field Guide to Rightwing Posers" at http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=9451).

At the same time, to attract consumers, the corporate media pads out its content with an overabundance of nonpolitical sensationalism (sex, violence, and "real life" free-for-alls ala Jenny Jones and now, of course, "reality TV"). This allows the politicos on the right to tout these programming decisions as proof of the wantonness of the liberal media. As a result, the public is given the following message: A): The media is full of sex, violence, fluff, and irresponsible content, which means B): The liberal media is full of sex, violence, fluff, and irresponsible content, which means, C): Liberals represent sex, violence, fluff, and irresponsibility.

If challenging stories do appear in the mainstream media, they are decried as examples of the liberal media. The bottom line is this: There is no such beast as the Liberal Media. It was created and perpetuated by the right-wingers, born of post-World War II paranoia and gaining great steam during the McCarthy era. But, lest I be accused of making a "hysterical diatribe," consider the following facts:

Today (statistics from late 2000), of the 25 most prominent political columnists (a list that includes George Will, Ellen Goodman, etc.), only six can be described as liberal, while 15 are classed as conservative and the rest moderates). While the conservative columnists share over 3,000 regular clients between them (newspapers, radio stations, etc.), liberals share only 850, and moderates a little less than that. Of the dozen or so most popular radio talk show hosts, all but two (Howard Stern and Tom Stephan) are conservatives, the majority of them on the extreme right. (As of 2003, this has improved very little, with Stern becoming a pathetic joke who leans increasingly to the right and only two or three new liberal pundits, including James Carville, getting any real, regular air time). In any case, no matter how you tweak and tug it, this hardly adds up to a "liberal media."

In the past 16 elections (1940-2000), the overwhelming majority of newspaper endorsements went to Republican candidates in all but three elections, and in most cases by an overwhelming number (on average about two to three times more endorsements for the Republican candidate than the Democratic candidate). In 1992, Clinton was the first Democratic candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 to receive more endorsements from national newspapers than a Republican candidate. When this happened, the Republicans went after their roaming lapdog the media with a vengeance. Bob Dole made "liberal media" bashing a primary feature of his 1996 campaign. When that tactic failed, the Republicans used the full spectrum of manipulation open to them via the corporate media. They created a salacious scandal, then pushed it for months like a tacky version of "Survivor," while blocking most positive coverage of the President, or any serious investigation of Starr's witch hunt.

What ran in abundance, of course, were easily dismissed op-ed pieces. And if any of this fails to convince you, try this: For a week or so, try routinely comparing the coverage of major stories in the U.S. with coverage of the same stories by the BBC and other non-U.S. news sources, or the live coverage of political events on C-SPAN with what actually gets reported on the news that same night. (Alas, C-SPAN is being pushed further and further to the right, with events sponsored by rightwing front groups like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute dominating an irrational portion of coverage).

As of early 2001, an estimated 80% of all news outlets in the United States were corporate-owned. This to me represents a cartel -- the Media Mafia. (Little did I suspect when I wrote this article that by June of 2003 the FCC would decree that corporations need MORE media power).

This "shady syndicate" decides what news we see and why and it decides to an alarming extent what movies, books, and television programs will be pushed at the public, and which will never see the light of day. Even scarier, this Media Mafia can also "fix" the stock market reports (by calling in favors to a few very well placed gazillionaires), manipulate elections and drive any opposition into the ground with their financial clout. By controlling the media outlets, they maintain a grip on the mind of the average American, who only knows "I saw it on the news."

What is worse, these conglomerates are immune from any antitrust controls. In 1969, when bigger newspapers first started buying up smaller newspapers, the Supreme Court opposed these activities, saying that although freedom to publish is a Constitutional right, freedom to buy up other publishers to silence them is NOT a right. However, publishers and the moneyed interests that ran them pressured the Senate into overturning the court decision. How did they do it? By threatening to use the power of the press to derail the senators next election bids.

Now, 30 years after, this attitude permeates all media and a frightening arrogance has replaced any responsibility to the public.

Here are some facts from spring of 2001 - little has changed other than to go from bad to worse:

CNN: Owned by Time Warner/AOL, which now controls a major share of the on-line market, including the increasingly well-read AOL news and owns Turner Network, numerous theme parks, sports teams, retail stores and publishing companies, Book-of-the Month Club, Time Magazine, Fortune magazine, People, CompuServe, and Netscape and holds major interests in Wal-Mart and Bell Atlantic, along with significant interests in Gateway, Hughes Electronics and SBC Communications.

ABC: Owned by Disney, which also owns 10 television stations, 44 radio stations, and 219 affiliated TV stations, various publishing and recording companies, and movie studios.

CBS: Owned by Viacom, which owns at least three dozen television stations, 200 affiliated stations, 160 radio stations, the Blockbuster movie rental chain, Simon & Schuster publishing, and King World Features.

FOX: Owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns 22 television stations in the U.S. and 159 affiliated stations, along with The New York Post and The Weekly Standard, various satellites systems, book publishing concerns, and at least 130 newspapers overseas.

NBC:Our very own "state-run network" is owned by General Electric, which also owns CNBC jointly with Dow Jones and MSNBC jointly with Microsoft. GE also owns several financial services, insurance companies, and of course, is one of the world's techno companies, producing everything from light bulbs to nuclear equipment. Traditionally, GE has been one of the biggest defense contractors ever, and has its finger in many pies, including Enron. Enron's senior advisor to the chairman and member of the corporation's finance committee is John LA. Urquhart, who also happens to be the Senior Vice-President of Industrial and Power Systems for GE. NBC has consistently had one of the most slanted nightly news programs you could tune in to this side (in space-time) of the Iron Curtain. It has lately pumped up the "urgency" of the California crisis, in which its owner has a major stake. Worse yet, it is now methodically covering up its tracks: On February 6 of last year, Tom Brokaw did a story on the millions being made off the crisis by energy providers. However, the story nowhere mentions Enron or its roll in driving PG&E, one of California's three largest public utilities, out of business. Enron then grabbed the company and has been making money off selling the power back to the people of California for its own profit. Nor did the story mention Enron's own projections of what it stands to make on the California crisis in the long run (up to $30 billion). The NBC story is intentionally trying to turn the light of scrutiny away from Enron and assign blame elsewhere -- and totally falsely.

UPI: One of the world's largest newswire services was recently bought by the Rev. Moon -- yep, it's now Moonie news, Inc. Moon, one of the Bush family's most dedicated supporters, also owns The "Washington Times," a rightwing rag which serves as Moon's and Bush's personal mouthpieces, with a few "real news" bits thrown in each day to throw the unsuspecting off the scent. It is kept afloat by regular infusions of cash from Moon's religious empire coffers.

Update note: In fall 2002- winter 2003, the propaganda machine heavily contaminated the silver screen. Does anyone really think it is a coincidence that during Bush's biggest push toward war and Washington's return to a 1950s-style, testosterone-dripping, violent foreign policy, that Hollywood's release of a half dozen movies with jingoistic war themes (the Navy Seals as compassionate heroes, for example, as they slash and hack their way to success) was a COINCIDENCE? During the same period, the Carlyle Group (one of Earth's most successful weapons peddlers, founded by George Bush, Senior and his buddies) put up a big chunk of the cash for oil baron Marvin Davis to buy Universal Studios from Vivendi.

The fact is, until the freedom of the press is wrested away from the clutches of corporate interests, the true majority -- liberals and moderates -- will face a disproportionately uphill battle. I believe a push should be made by SOMEONE in Congress to create legislation that will insure the separation of press and corporate interests as surely as the Constitution has insured separation of church and state. As it stands now, thanks to the lack of separation between the former, there may soon be a lack of separation between the latter.

NEXT: Part II: News Chains: Literal and Euphemistic