Let's get one thing straight, from the start: When it comes to the mainstream media's politics, THERE IS NO "LIBERAL MEDIA" and there never has been:

In the past sixteen presidential elections (1940-2000), in ALL BUT THREE of these elections, the overwhelming majority of newspaper endorsements went to Republican candidates. And the margin wasn't even close! In most cases, the GOP candidate garnered two to three times more endorsements 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. (1) It should be pointed out that even this was no big shift for the media: Johnson was a hawk who threw plenty of work to the defense contractors through his escalation of the war in Vietnam and Clinton was one of the most GOP-friendly (at least in the early days) and pro-corporate of all Democratic presidents in modern times.

Now, in 2003, with the mainstream media mutated into a depressing combination of State News and corporate infomercial, the "deck of cards" for the coming presidential election has already been stacked and is now being dealt. Every play is carefully orchestrated - there is no such thing as spontaneous coverage of ANYTHING, especially if it in anyway aids the Democrats. Even the coverage that at first appears to aid the Democrats is soon discovered to be but a slick propaganda operation.

For example, the Democrats could hardly believe their eyes when Howard Dean landed both on the cover of "Time"and "Newsweek" the same week (Aug, 3). But take a closer look. "Time" is owned by the mega-corporate-conglomerate: AOL-Time-Warner/CNN., while "Newsweek" is owned by the "Washington Post," which has a long history of colluding with rightwing administrations to manipulate news coverage. Long-time publisher Katharine Graham was an enthusiastic participant in the infamous CIA "Mockingbird" program. All three sources ("Time," "Newsweek" and the "Post") have a history of working together to "prioritize" news (i.e., feed the public whatever spin they see fit).

So it is not surprising that just two weeks after Dean appeared, Arnold Schwartzenegger was plastered across the cover of "Time," featured prominently on AOL and CNN (including bering the subject of polls that seem more directed at helping to shape Arnie's campaign than to solicit meaningful public input), and splashed on the cover of "People" (which, of course, is also owned by AOL-Time Warner/CNN).

In effect, Dean was dropped from prominent coverage and replaced across the board by Schwartzenegger in a classic propaganda ploy that can be described as "bait and switch". In other words, put Dean's face out there, then "erase" it early in the game by supplanting it with a more sensational GOP spectacle - namely, Arnold "I Just Released a New Terminator Movie so My Face is Everywhere" Schwartzenegger. So if the Democrats complain now when Dean is snubbed, the media can claim they gave him great coverage -back in early August.

But, in the run up to the Democratic primary, the three-way collusion between newspapers, magazines and television networks is becoming shamelessly blatant, and is destined to get worse. Here's a sample of a media scheme perpetrated on Labor Day weekend (August 30-Sept. 1).

Scheme Summary:

The Bush Cartel - that wasps' nest of corporate wheeler-dealers, defense contractors, energy barons and developers - plans to protect and perpetuate itself with or without G. W. Bush. As they watch G. W. begin to crash and burn, they are looking around for the "least offensive" Democrat they can pull onto the stage and shove into power. If they are destined to have a Democrat in office, they want someone hawkish who will not stand in the way of their drive for global corporate conquest, and someone weak, who can be duped into selling out their fellow Democrats on a regular basis under the banner of "bipartisanship," "compromise" and "moderation" - three terms which are merely euphemisms for Democrats giving the GOP whatever it wants, from Patriot Acts to bloody, illegal wars).

The candidates favored most by the GOP are thus Gephardt (who betrayed the trust of his fellow Democrats on the eve of the war in Iraq), Lieberman, who has no business calling himself a Democrat as he is a moderate-to-conservative Republican in everything but name, and John Kerry, who appears to be the ideal mixture of hawk and waffler.

Kerry, at present, seems to be the GOP's best bet, as Gephardt and Lieberman have lost so much favor with their fellow Democrats (despite trumped up mainstream polls trying to portray the opposite) that they have extremely little chance of winning the nomination. So, over the Labor Day Weekend, the mainstream media colluded in a heavy-duty salespitch for Kerry. Here's how the play went:

Washington Post: Made Kerry the top story on Labor Day morning online (at 9:00 am - top "read time") and top of the page on Page One in the print edition. The story seemed to have been written by the "Republicans for Kerry Campaign." It was filled with helpful hints on how he might improve his campaign, a thinly veiled fund-raising plea, a litany of excuses and spin for why he is doing so badly.

Washington Times The Times, of course, is owned by Rev. Sun Myong Moon, a staunch Bush family friend and supporter. The Labor Day morning print edition headline - top of the page, Page One and main page, online edition, read: ENTHUSIASM FOR DEMOCRATS LOW, POLL SHOWS. Next to this headline is a photo of Hilary Clinton - who isn't even running (at least last time she was asked)! The poll referred to, of course, is the one originating from CBS, which is also in on this scheme (see below). The image of Hilary is meant to confuse readers as to just who is and who is not running, and to imply that even Hilary Clinton is failing to draw any attention. This, of course, is total fantasy, , given the fact that Clinton's book is number one on the bestseller lists across the nation, and her booksigning tour has drawn crowds in the thousands in every state she has appeared.


The Washington Post and Washington Times are featured side by side on newstands throughout the Mid-Atlantic. By juxtaposing the Kerry headline and the "Low Enthusiasm Poll" headline, the propagandists hope to draw the alarmed Democrats' attention - and enthusiasm- to KERRY. The collusion between the Post and Times in this Labor Day scheme is clear evidence that the corporate media interests - even rivals - are putting their wagons in a circle as the fall of Bush grows more inevitable.

CBS Poll: Over Labor Day, CBS News, which has sunk so deep into Bush's pocket that it is indistinquishable from the lint there, aired results of a poll of registered Democrats (uh-huh - just.like all those "registered Democrats" who call into C-SPAN on the Democratic line to spout rightwing party lines ), According to this poll, two thirds of Dems could not name a single candidate. This response is just a WEE bit suspicious, since Howard Dean has been on the covers of both "Time" and "Newsweek," (and recently enough to at least recall the name if not the face) and Lieberman was in the public eye for months during the last election - including the highly publicized presidential election dispute.

So, what Dems, exactly, did they poll to achieve this result? The residents of the Emma Finster Nursing home?(Maybe two-thirds of pollees could not name anyone in the current race, but could list every candidate running in the 1936 primary!). Or perhaps they used a "respondant screening" technique, in which everyone who sounded sober and/or had an IQ exceeding 60 was dropped from the pool.

The other thing that was suspicious about the CBS poll is that it claims that Gephardt and Lieberman - the two Dems who sold out to Bush over the Iraq war - are leading the field, while Dean is trailing them. Any Democrat following the race closely will tell you that this is totally untrue. Gephardt and Lieberman are trailing so far behind Dean right now they are choking on his dust.

NBC: Meet the Press: Kerry appeared as Tim Russert's featured guest on the Sunday (Aug. 31) program - a spot considered a major plum by politicians.

So here's how it works: First the CBS poll warns that enthusiasm for Democrats is low and only hawkish Democrats are being recognized by anyone. Second, Kerry appears on NBC, a prime exposure opportunity, especially on Labor Day Weekend- thereby offering the public a "recognizable Democrat." Next morning, the "Washington Post" follows up with a page one story on Kerry - even more recognition. But we are all supposed to believe that this three-pronged push of a Pentagon-friendly (and thus defense-contractor-friendly) hawk by three major news outlets within 48 hours is a COINCIDENCE? Meanwhile, Dean, while continuing to rocket toward the top of the Democratic pack, became the media's "invisible man."

At the same time that this is going on, the mainstream media and White House are pulling out the stops on their annual "9/11" publicity spectacle. This week, right before Kerry is pushed into the limelight, we heard the heart-rending emergency tapes rerun and are now being treated to regular doses of footage of the tragedy. In short, we are being forced to hear, read, and see the event all over again. The propagandists hope that by pairing images of 9/11 and high-profile publicity of Kerry's pro-war stance, Americans will recall how terrified they are supposed to be all the time and rush out to support yet another hawk willing to go bomb the hell out of poverty stricken nations in the name of "national security."

In addition to this type of ploy, the mainstream media is also now using a technique which is already, I am delighted to say, backfiring on them badly. Whenever the news shows must highlight unpopular and/or unsuccessful Bush policies, they ALWAYS attribute criticism of said policies to "some Congressional Democrats," "Democratic critics," or "Democratic presidential hopefuls." The message the media hopes to convey, of course, is that only "disgruntled liberals" disagree with the glorious Bush plan. But the media moguls are missing the point: It is the American public that is disgruntled, and they are disgruntled with BUSH'S POLICIES. Thus the constant referral to Democrats as dissenters works out to a free, regular boost to the Democratic position. Instead of the public being disgusted with the Dems' criticism, they are watching the news and saying "Right on!".

The worst thing the Democrats could possibly do right now is to be sucked into trap the Bush-media machine is setting for them in the form of bogus polls, slanted news stories, and media snubbing. Alas, the Democrats stepped into that trap once already back in 2002, when they were snuckered into believing that an antiwar stance was "unpopular." The result: just what the GOP hoped it would be: the Democrats backed away from the very platform that would have kept them from losing the Senate.

Note: This is the first of a series of articles on the Democrats in Election 2004.

For my open letter to Dick Gephardt on the eve of the Iraq war, see
democrats.com/view.cfm

For some insights into the sad and sleazy history of the GOP's collusion with the media to create propaganda, see:

Eulogies for Washington Post's Publisher Ignore Sordid Past, Intelligence Connections
www.americanfreepress.net/08_22_01/Eulogies_for_Washington_Post_s/eulogies_for_washington_post_s.html

CHILLING DEJA VU: Hitler and Bush; Stalin and Bush’s Conservative Reform Movement; The GOP of 1936 and Today’s Dirty Politics

baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/3446


INSIGHTS INTO MEDIA PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES

(1) Data on presidential elections from:
Drive-by Journalism: the Assault on Your Need to Know
by veteran journalist Arthur Rowse, Common Courage Press, 2000

Decoding Media Propaganda:
www.newsinsider.org/seal/decoding_media_propaganda.html

A MUST READ:
War, Media, and Propaganda

Presents detailed insights into the modus operandi used by the media to perpetuate the corporate war agenda
www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Military.asp