Military Review

Let's hit the truth of propaganda!

29
The famous journalist Pepe Escobar, who works in the Asia Times, recently spoke on the topic of American propaganda. Moreover, he even suggested that the Secretary of State, John Kerry, discuss the issue of propaganda on the main international TV channels. Following Escobar, Lawrence Davidson (consortiumnews.com) spoke about how the American government was hiding the truth from its citizens.


I. This is a war.

In late April, responding to US allegations against the television channel "RT", international journalist P. Escobar suggested that John Kerry discuss propaganda with him on major international TV channels. According to him, notes "RT", just the American media and suffer one-sided coverage of events. Moreover, the alternative point of view scares them. As a result, other views, expounded on the air of "RT", are considered by politicians like Kerry to be propaganda.

Comrade Escobar said: “This is actually an information war. The United States is frightened, because now the events in the world cover not only CNN, as it was during the war in Bosnia or during the first war in Iraq. Now there are "RT", "Al Jazeera", "France24", "Deutsche Welle", "CCTV". One day, a Brazilian TV channel will appear, broadcasting for the whole world, and not just Portuguese. Americans are afraid of Iranian Press TV, which also broadcasts in English - so it was banned everywhere. If you, like RT, have an alternative opinion, you will be banned. They won't even talk to you because they are afraid. ”

The main international TV channels, as noted by Escobar, operate according to a previously prepared scenario: “When you work around the world, you see how the media work all over the world. I see how BBC, CNN and Fox News work, for example, in theaters of war or during interviews with prime ministers. Everything is prepared in advance, everything goes according to their own scenario. And if you work on an alternative scenario, as does "RT", then you are immediately bad. They won't even talk to you. Why? They are scared! ”

According to the journalist, today the American propaganda media do not listen to the opinion of neither the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, nor those who oppose the Kiev regime. Russian public opinion on the Crimean issue also does not bother them. The position of American propagandists is always one-sided, just like it was in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan ...

The topic of one-sidedness, because of which freedom of speech is seriously curtailed in the United States, was developed by the publicist Lawrence Davidson.

Ii. Accomplices

In a long article published on the portal consortiumnews.com 9 May (symbolic date), Lawrence Davidson, Professor stories at the University of West Chester in Pennsylvania, called American propaganda a systemic production. The general message of the article is as follows: propaganda is aimed at manipulating the minds of citizens through the use of prior censorship of objectionable materials.

Many Americans suggest, the author notes, that their government is telling the "truth" to its citizens and defending the constitutional right to "freedom of speech." On the other hand, alleged enemies of the United States are always located, who use the tools of propaganda and censor “truth”.

In practice, this is not entirely true, comrade Davidson notes. Washington and state governments can censor, as they say, to the fullest. Here is an example: a boycott of Israeli academic institutions (government research institutions that promote illegal settlement expansion and the use of Palestinian water resources) is censored. But what about freedom of speech? It is mostly ignored. Instead, we get a "knee jerk," writes the journalist. Almost every American politician insists on the need to close such a discussion, and it comes to the fact that state legislatures threaten their state colleges and universities with a halt to funding. The latter will happen if schools start talking about these boycotts.

American censorship has long been rampant against Iran. Scientists from this country, which is considered unfriendly to the United States, were also at one time rationalized. Introducing sanctions against Iran in the 1980 year, the United States included in the list of strict restrictions on the exchange of academic scientific data. Later, some congressmen made efforts to adopt an amendment allowing for “free trade in ideas,” but the US Treasury Department, which is responsible for controlling foreign assets, wiped out these efforts.

This administration violated the very spirit of the congressional amendments. Restrictions were lifted, but formerly the editors of magazines who risked publishing Iranian manuscripts could be fined and even deprived of their freedom. Several organizations, including the American Publishers Association, filed a lawsuit against the US government on this matter in 2003. In 2004, this issue was settled out of court, the rights to use standard procedures for using hand-written materials received from Iran were returned to the publishers.

It is curious, however, that for some reason the US Department of the Treasury Department was not able to “officially publicize this change in the rules.” As a result, many journal editors are not even aware that the regulation has been revised. Many still "do not take risks" and simply return Iranian materials with the note "refused because of sanctions."

And it already came to this: today, the Internet service provider Yahoo, used by 63% of Iranians for correspondence, decided that from now on he would not allow the Iranians to create email accounts.

As a result, the termination of access to Yahoo will force many Iranians to register addresses on mail servers provided by the Iranian government - which, of course, will immediately include censorship of connections. Thus, the journalist notes, Yahoo becomes an accomplice in global censorship.

Iii. Propaganda as part of the system

But the crudest censorship that has already become a part of general culture is probably the formation of a narrow range of opinions covered in the overwhelming majority of American media. Differences in storylines and differences of opinion in "the news"Popular channels" ABC "," CBS "," NBC "and" CNN "or major newspapers and magazines are simply paltry. The author generally calls the news and opinions on Fox TV bordering on lies. The narrow range of opinions offered by the official media creates a "uniform background noise" behind which alternative broadcasting cannot be heard.

In other words, Davidson sums up, such a practice adopted in the media creates de facto censorship.

Moreover, the production of propaganda is debugged to the point that the editors of the news departments and reporters themselves, and after them and most of the society, do not realize that all together infringe the constitutional right to freedom of speech in the press.

However, Davidson found one exception to the rule. It turns out that Americans can watch a popular show with John Stewart on Comedy Central. This national show is entirely devoted to criticism of the US government and its policies. True, all this is done only in the form of funny satire.

In the US government, the prevailing view is that the media should guarantee a special approach to business, thanks to which the public will receive news in an “acceptable form”.

Further, Davidson talks about “revelations” that appeared in a recent report by the human rights organization Amnesty International. This is a trial of the so-called “Cuban Five” (five Cuban Florida residents were arrested as Cuban spies).

According to the official report of Amnesty, during the hearings, it turned out that the United States government paid journalists hostile to Cuba to cover the process in the local media, providing a negative attitude towards the accused and confirming their guilt.

With such an approach, the author continues, the “free press” has become a machine for government propaganda, which, in turn, “generally devalued the right to freedom of speech”.

Davidson recalls that at the end of last year, the Committee to Protect Journalists published a report in which President Barack Obama, who had a reputation as a liberal in the US political spectrum, was accused of putting pressure on journalists.

How did Obama put pressure on representatives of the free American press? It turns out that he "attacked the publications, arranged observation, created an atmosphere of fear and perpetrated criminal prosecution." According to the report, the B. H. Obama government filed twice as many lawsuits for allegedly leaking sensitive information ... twice as many as who? Than all previous administrations combined!

As a result of such a stormy censorship activity, the global index of media freedom, which the conservative organization Freedom House annually forms, has dropped in the United States. Freedom House claims that in the US 2014, both press freedom and citizens' rights are suppressed. Activists believe that the government is trying to suppress freedoms, guided by "national security issues."

However, at the same time, notes the journalist, Mr. Obama criticizes in his speeches those foreign governments that restrict press freedom and freedom of speech.

But here is one important detail: the overwhelming majority of Americans listen to their president, who whips foreign governments, without a sense of dissonance. This majority, after all, does not know that it is a victim of propaganda and manipulation of consciousness.

How so? It turns out that a cultural stereotype has already formed: the belief that the United States is the basis of freedom and truth. And American citizens are not trying to test what propagandists, acting through the media, offer them.

According to Comrade Davidson, there is nothing unique in this “self-censorship” of Americans. All states and all cultures to one degree or another practice this kind of manipulation of consciousness in the information environment. As a result, we have a distortion of reality.

But the question is: can we say that the United States is “a great defender of our own constitutional freedoms”? Davidson answers the question. Yes, we can, but only when such protection "complies with the objectives of the policy." When this does not happen, "hypocrisy prevails."

The system in which propaganda thrives, works quite successfully, since almost all people, with a few exceptions, have long been accustomed to ignoring one-sidedness in the press. Mass manipulation of consciousness helps to keep society united and at the same time creates conditions where hatred is easily cultivated and a huge number of people are ready to imagine enemy machine guns ...

Iv. Fighters for ideals

14 May on resource "Echo of the Caucasus" (the creative unit of Radio Liberty, which broadcasts in Russian on the Internet), a note appeared entitled “Russian propaganda does not fit with the truth - the US Under-Secretary of State”.

The text cites the words of US Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Richard Shtengel, who gave an interview to the Ukrainian editorial board of Radio Liberty. This man said that "in matters of life and death, in matters of freedom and in matters of people choosing their future, it is difficult to be diplomatic."

According to Richard Shtengel, the American leaders - from the president to the state secretary - feel a commitment to these ideals, therefore, they “abandoned the diplomatic language with the support of the people of Ukraine, who choose their future.”

Mr. Shtengel believes that Russian propaganda in many cases is not burdened with the truth. But the United States is true: “It is always difficult for us to resist this, because we believe that we must adhere to the truth, we must remain true to truth and reality. In the end, I think that loyalty to the truth will prevail, but so far things are going hard. ”

Here one of two things, add from myself. Either Richard Shtengel comes from the cultural layer of Americans, which is successfully influenced by experienced propagandists from the above-mentioned sources of the “free press”, or is (by service) just the censor who intelligibly explains to the media what and what kind of “truth” must "triumph".

* * *


In conclusion, I must say a few words about the site consortiumnews.com, whose materials, of course, deserve attention.

That's what пишет about the site’s activities, its editor Robert Perry: "Consortiumnews.com continues its important work - it challenges the propaganda that is often in the news in the US media."

The materials published on the pages of this electronic edition often run counter to the official position of the White House and are distinguished by objectivity.

Observed and translated by Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. comprochikos
    comprochikos 15 May 2014 08: 48
    +3
    And they try to teach us freedom of speech and democracy
    1. smile
      smile 15 May 2014 09: 00
      +8
      comprochikos
      Yeah, "and these people forbid me to pick my nose ...." Little Johnny.
      1. ZU-23
        ZU-23 15 May 2014 10: 10
        +1
        Well, they impose their trolling on everyone, and impose censorship on those who say the truth. Anyway, in such publications as snn, bold and truthful authors are already slowly appearing. Justice will triumph.
        1. comprochikos
          comprochikos 15 May 2014 11: 56
          +4
          I think people are educated and sane, on whom business, production, etc. rests. these public media are not taken seriously. This is for stupid housewives sitting constantly at the series with the zombie man and teenage loafers who do not bother to study at the school of history, literature and geography.
        2. EvgenSuslov
          EvgenSuslov 15 May 2014 15: 53
          0
          Brave and truthful authors are not needed by the leadership of the channels. They need views, PR, box office. They sold the truth a long time ago for 30 pieces of silver.
      2. voldmis
        voldmis 15 May 2014 12: 00
        +1
        Urgently increase funding for RT, comrades!
    2. mamont5
      mamont5 15 May 2014 10: 35
      +5
      Quote: comprochikos
      And they try to teach us freedom of speech and democracy


      As V. Mayakovsky said:
      "To whom is a donut, to whom is a donut hole - this is a democratic republic."
    3. CALL.
      CALL. 15 May 2014 13: 23
      +10
      ... A small picture from American reality. A kind of schizophrenic mixture of love for laws with political correctness. At the bar sits a company of several Russians and one American. Russian girl, despite her 26, looks very young. Alcohol under American law can be consumed only from the age of 21. The bartender does not even have the right to sell beer to a person under the age of 21, otherwise - fines, license withdrawal, and in some states a prison. Therefore, to clarify the age of the girl, he asks her for some document that could confirm her "alcoholic age." Normal situation. So far, everything has been logical. And further on, the American theater of the absurd is developing.
      In order not to embarrass the girl with attention to her person, the bartender asks for documents about the age of everyone in the company. Even the gray-haired American, who turned 21 clearly before the Second World War. And this is a common practice - bartenders check the xivas of the entire company, if there is at least one person in it, in whose majority you can doubt. In order not to embarrass him. To show type: not one you look so young. Further more. Russians show passports, which, according to the Moscow-cop habit, are with everyone. The gray-haired American did not have any documents with him. As a result, they bring beer to all Russians, but they don’t give beer to an old American who would even be allowed into the Moscow metro without a pension certificate. Because if you give it, it will immediately become clear that the bartender was asking for passports from the entire company only for pro forma. This is already clear to everyone, but this should not be shown. Therefore, the absurdity triumphs - the old American is left without beer. At the same time, all present pretend that everything is fine ...
      1. atalef
        atalef 16 May 2014 07: 40
        0
        Therefore, the absurdity triumphs - the old American is left without beer. At the same time, all present pretend that everything is fine ...

        laughed, told beautifully, but
        the truth is zero, if you were in America and you were lucky enough to go to a bar, then you immediately realized the absurdity of your post.
        Identities are only asked from persons suspecting that they are under 21, period. So, by the way, it was in our company, not all in a crowd, namely young animals - do not get carried away with fairy tales "from Zadornov" the truth is much more pleasant
        So do not worry - the old man drank beer
    4. Kisel
      Kisel 15 May 2014 21: 12
      +2
      what will you add here ?!
      1. atalef
        atalef 16 May 2014 07: 45
        0
        that's for sure, North Korea is the freest country laughing
        1. Nonik
          Nonik 16 May 2014 10: 40
          +1
          So North Korea does not speak about freedom, did not hear something. At least 1 Korean word is 100 American. Like that.
        2. Kisel
          Kisel 16 May 2014 18: 33
          +1
          atalef hi
          worked with builders from North Korea ... more decent than many newcomers to work in Russia
  2. Cormorants
    Cormorants 15 May 2014 08: 56
    +3
    It was not for nothing that Lavrov said that a new era had begun (something like that, I don’t remember exactly, but the thought was like that). Now in the West they are aware of the falsehood of their system.
  3. dmitriygorshkov
    dmitriygorshkov 15 May 2014 09: 00
    +4
    How is everything rotten in this world! Will there ever be a purification? And if so, then on the basis of what morality will the new world be built?
    I do not want to believe in it, but most likely we will destroy ourselves and this ball because of our own greed and stupidity!
  4. Egoza
    Egoza 15 May 2014 09: 04
    +5
    Something they are there very intelligently reasoning! Here in Ukraine - everything is clear and clear! So they call directly! "Do not watch Russian channels! There are all lies and falsifications!" Moreover, they are trying to bring "evidence"! For example, a video when, during the confrontation, fire was opened at the "pro-Russian" protesters, and a guy was crawling with his legs shot. "It can't be like that! Staging! Provocation of Russian saboteurs!" And no doubts and thoughts about "freedom of speech" for you!
  5. Gray 43
    Gray 43 15 May 2014 09: 09
    +4
    America has already turned into a huge concentration camp, the so-called example of democracy, in fact, turns out to be a real dictatorship of military corporations, I hope that when we find out the truth about the tragedy "9/11", it is possible that it was an act of terror by financial tycoons and special services against their own people
  6. Prapor Afonya
    Prapor Afonya 15 May 2014 09: 09
    +1
    Now the main thing for us is to bring a grain of doubt into the souls of Western residents, and when it sprouts and sprouts, then the whole false system of Western rulers begins to collapse!
    1. bif
      bif 15 May 2014 11: 20
      +17
      Quote: Prapor Afonya
      Now the main thing for us is to bring a grain of doubt into the souls of Western residents, and when it sprouts and sprouts, then the whole false system of Western rulers begins to collapse!

      History itself put everything in its place
      1. iConst
        iConst 15 May 2014 13: 55
        0
        Quote: bif
        Quote: Prapor Afonya
        Now the main thing for us is to bring a grain of doubt into the souls of Western residents, and when it sprouts and sprouts, then the whole false system of Western rulers begins to collapse!

        History itself put everything in its place

        Yeah, and if the pendos can still be fastened somehow, then the French - this is finally a complete pornography ...
      2. Consul-t
        Consul-t 15 May 2014 15: 44
        +2
        Yes, the irony in historical fact.

        France declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, but did not engage in active hostilities (the so-called Strange War). The only attempt to influence the course of the war was the Saarland offensive operation.

        By May 10, 1940, 93 French divisions [source not specified 836 days], 10 English divisions and 1 Polish division were deployed in northeast France.

        By May 10, 1940, French troops consisted of 86 divisions and totaled more than 2 million people and 3609 tanks, about 1700 guns and 1400 aircraft. [1]

        Germany held 89 divisions on the border with the Netherlands, Belgium and France [specify].
        1940 French campaign
        Main article: French campaign

        On May 10, 1940, German troops crossed the border of the Netherlands and Belgium. On the same day, French troops entered Belgium. Directly on the German-French border, no hostilities were fought. The first clash of German and French troops occurred on May 13 in Belgium. On the same day, German troops crossed the Belgian-French border.

        On May 25, Commander-in-Chief of the French Armed Forces, General Weygand announced at a government meeting that the Germans should be asked to accept surrender.

        On June 8, German troops reached the Seine River. On June 10, the French government moved from Paris to the Orleans area. Paris was officially declared an open city. On the morning of June 14, German troops entered Paris. The French government fled to Bordeaux.

        On June 17, the French government turned to Germany for a ceasefire. On June 22, 1940, France surrendered to Germany, and the Second Compiegne Armistice was concluded in the Compiegne Forest. The armistice resulted in the division of France into the occupation zone of German troops and a puppet state ruled by the Vichy regime.

        Officially, hostilities ended on June 25. The French army as a result of the war lost 84 people killed and more than a million prisoners. German troops lost 000 people killed, 45 wounded and 074 missing.


        So the French are still warriors)))
  7. Lesorub
    Lesorub 15 May 2014 09: 14
    +2
    The correct decision is to strengthen the strategy of our media, and support those Western media that do not dance to the tune of the Pentagon (being in a passive state, it is not possible to resist the information "democratic" wave of the United States).
  8. lexxxus
    lexxxus 15 May 2014 09: 22
    +3
    Who saw this Truth! ?? That the local media, that ours - everyone has one task:
    propaganda is aimed at manipulating the consciousness of citizens ...

    And as it will be presented to you, so you will think and speak and spread its "Truth" to others.
    Everything that we push into the head must be filtered, otherwise the brain will explode !!!
  9. KAPITANUS
    KAPITANUS 15 May 2014 09: 34
    +1
    But what is there to discuss, MARASM reached unthinkable proportions when the USA did not agree with the score of a hockey match, this is the limit of stupidity.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. Ols76
    Ols76 15 May 2014 09: 42
    +11
    propaganda)))
    1. comprochikos
      comprochikos 15 May 2014 12: 04
      +1
      It’s necessary to hang such posters throughout Europe. We, by the way, will also not hurt. laughing
  12. Alf
    Alf 15 May 2014 09: 49
    +1
    Does anyone else think there is an "independent" media in mattress? In this case, there is a wonderful saying that perfectly reflects the essence of things - "He who pays, calls the tune."
  13. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 15 May 2014 10: 03
    +1
    Information war mother of the State Department!
  14. X Y Z
    X Y Z 15 May 2014 10: 49
    +2
    Who cares what they are called - BBC, CNN, Fox News, etc. The material comes all the same from the same feeder and differs in editions from each other as much as necessary to look at least a little decent in the eyes of readers. This is now the "freedom" of the press - you can take only half a step to one side.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 15 May 2014 10: 59
      +4
      "Mister Stengel believes loyalty to the truth will triumph, but while things are going hard." Folk wisdom: If you don’t climb, you need to slobber. laughing
      1. Egevich
        Egevich 15 May 2014 13: 02
        0
        - Dad, not climbing ...
        - so in klink with sour cream poppy ...
        - not klinka klinka ...
      2. ar-ren
        ar-ren 15 May 2014 23: 42
        0
        Ukrainian Bastions - Strength!
        1. podpolkovnik
          podpolkovnik 16 May 2014 14: 07
          0
          In the amount of 1 (one) piece ...... lol
          1. Nonik
            Nonik 16 May 2014 23: 10
            0
            Quote: podpolkovnik
            In the amount of 1 (one) piece ......

            86 pieces in the Ukrainian army, so exactly 86 times more.
            1. podpolkovnik
              podpolkovnik 19 May 2014 00: 25
              0
              Quote: NoNick
              Quote: podpolkovnik
              In the amount of 1 (one) piece ......

              86 pieces in the Ukrainian army, so exactly 86 times more.

              Did you find this in Wikipedia?
              "If the cage of the buffalo says" Elephant "- do not believe your eyes ..."
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. podpolkovnik
        podpolkovnik 16 May 2014 14: 23
        +1
        Guys, do you even think with your head when you post it as demotivators ..... this is "Oplot" ...
  15. parus2nik
    parus2nik 15 May 2014 11: 08
    +1
    And when and where was the freedom of speech ..? Anything belongs to anyone .. As they say, whoever dines with the girl dances with her ...
  16. chinararem
    chinararem 15 May 2014 11: 30
    +3
    Snowdon's advice for Svidomo:
  17. Vladimir1960
    Vladimir1960 15 May 2014 13: 51
    +5
    Annoying sometimes the flow of information by our media, I'm not talking about Ukransky, its one-sidedness. All information is black and white. These are good guys, and these are bad guys. If they’re good, then right up to cloying good, if bad, up to nausea. And people see the world in diversity and color, so they stop believing the media in principle. It seems that the infa is designed for a stupid and near-sighted person. And can a little humor, a little sarcasm, show a person and events from different angles? The opinion of a miner from Donetsk is understandable, but 7 million people live there. And what do people with different incomes, different strata of the population, teenagers and old people think? And then all the images are chopped with an ax. There are few professionals on this front, and therefore there are no victories in the information war. The truth is a good product, but you still need to be able to submit it.
  18. DanSabaka
    DanSabaka 15 May 2014 14: 47
    +1
    Defending the truth in a dispute is always harder than lying. The truth-teller is very limited, and you can carry any nonsense anytime ....
  19. kocclissi
    kocclissi 15 May 2014 15: 26
    +4
    It's simple: The greatest threat to US national security, Gates replied, is the two square miles that the Capitol and the White House stand on.
  20. Mechanismoid
    Mechanismoid 15 May 2014 20: 28
    0
    http://lenta.ru/news/2014/05/15/nato/ лучше любой "пропаганды" хотели в нато? - получите и убедитесь - как на самом деле относятся к вам ваши хозяева!
  21. Mih
    Mih 16 May 2014 00: 06
    0
    Many Americans suggest, the author notes, that their government is telling the “truth” to its citizens and defending the constitutional right to “freedom of speech.”
    I am just sure that this is what I am afraid to think about.
    I became aware that I did not know anything.
    In this world, an entity that is perishable ... wink
  22. Const
    Const 17 May 2014 16: 33
    0
    Such a wonderful site in such a wonderful country. And what difference does it make to me if "ordinary" Americans think that what is reported (indirectly and in a single person) by the US media is true. I do not like the US foreign policy, I only care about the question - why are diplomats and politicians still talking to them, and not psychiatrists?