|
Home
|
Dan Chavez When the media desires to weaken an opponent one not-so-obvious technique it uses is by its choice of what to cover as news. When an institution, group or individual is selected for an attack (read: investigative report), how many of us realize that this selection is done often not on the basis of an ostensible "story" as it is on the animus the media feels toward the target, as well as on how much political capital the media thinks it will garner. Thus, the media can keep its opponents off balance and inculcate suspicion between groups, organizations and individuals that might otherwise be capable of uniting against them. Since we are engaged in a struggle against the "mainstream" media and because effective action against them will require unity among otherwise disparate groups then it makes sense to ensure we are aware how they operate in order that their efforts be forestalled. Just the same way a skilled chess player is able to defeat his opponent by anticipating then thwarting his moves.
After Nixon's victory in the 1972 election "there were many (among the media) who were not merely humiliated by Nixon's triumph but genuinely frightened. As one powerful editor put it, 'There's got to be a bloodletting. We've got to make sure nobody even thinks of doing anything like this again.' The aim was to reverse the electoral verdict of 1972..." Well, just who elected the media to make these kinds of decisions? "The Watergate affair was run by liberals in the media. In their eyes Nixon's real offense was popularity". If the media was powerful enough to successfully nullify the will of the American people when it came to their choice of who occupied the Presidency then who can doubt their willingness to divide and demonize those who are willing to bring them down? Recently much attention has been given by the media to allegations of sexual abuse of minors by clergy of a certain Christian denomination. As disturbing and odious as such behavior is, it is well to realize that members of this denomination have been engaged in boycotts and other public actions against ABC and Disney, which owns ABC. Might it be possible to ask if the two might in some way be related? Or that actions taken against a large media venue might be to some degree a motivating factor behind negative publicity being generated by this venue to those who have publicly been opponents? If the media was capable of reversing in a de facto way the results of a Presidential election out of political antipathy then why doubt their ability to smear the reputations of other institutions for the same reason? By moving against Nixon the media was able to weaken the right by turning conservatives against one another. Who realized or pointed out at the time the media cover-ups of scandals involving the previous Johnson or Kennedy administrations? Who was publicizing the bugging of the Republican Party headquarters by NBC in 1968? Rather than question the motives of the media, Nixon's fellow conservatives turned against him, when more properly they should have turned against the media. Comparing Nixon's level of mendacity to that of the "mainstream" media is like comparing a bottle rocket to a Saturn missile. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out, a characteristic of dictators is that they beat up their enemies one at a time. An observant person might note that the media utilizes this very same tactic. The questions journalists use when covering a story-who, what, when, where, why and how-are the same ones which we need to ask of the media. By asking these same questions media bias can be seen in high relief. Who does the media attack (investigate)? (Is it politically motivated?) When are these reports being conducted? (Is there an upcoming election?) What are the social or political views of the person or institution under investigation? Where is the individual or institution that is being targeted located? How are they being attacked? (In what venues and with what charges?) And lastly, why? Whose political purposes are served? These all really boil down to one question, namely, who benefits? Read Dan's most recent column:  |
The Watergate affair serves as a textbook example of how the media operates against an opponent. Leaving aside Nixon's shortcomings for the purposes of this discussion, let's take a look at Watergate using the historical text "Modern Times" by Paul Johnson as a source.