Manipulation Nation

Recognizing manipulation
. . . one situation at a time

A progressive perspective

Abuse of Power

You will find many stories on this website of people and organizations taking advantage of their power. Each of the stories is intended to identify issues or perspectives on manipulation.

"Manipulation"--- The influencing of a person's emotions, thoughts, words, or actions using authority or deceit.

Who's Manipulating Whom in the News?

Global Peace Index Ranks US 96th Out of 121 Nations (posted on 6-1-07)
A major study was released yesterday, ranking all nations on their degree of "peacefulness." The Global Peace Index ranked Norway #1 out of 121 countries, with the US 96th, just ahead of Iran. Iraq is ranked last.

The following factors were amongst the major reasons why the US was ranked so low:

--- Number of people jailed per 100,000 population
--- Ease of access to weapons of minor destruction
--- Respect for human rights
--- Potential for terrorist acts
--- Military deployments oversees as a percentage of total forces
--- Military capability and sophistication
--- Number of conflicts fought (2000-to-2005)
--- Number of deaths from organized conflict (2000-to-2005)
VisionOfHumanity.com

Two Drug Companies Pay Big Bucks to Doctors For Using Their Medicines on Patients (posted on 5-29-07)
Amgen and Jonnson & Johnson, two of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, are paying doctors hundreds of millions of dollars annually to give their patients anemia medicines. One medical practice in the Pacific Northwest, which has six cancer doctors, received $2.7 million from Amgen in rebates last year for prescribing about $9 million worth of its drugs.

Federal laws prohibit doctors from receiving payments for pills they prescribe that patients get from pharmacies; however, through a loophole in the law, drug companies can pay doctors rebates on medicines that they purchase and dispense themselves. Rebate sizes are based on the quantity of drugs that doctors purchase, and doctors who agree to use one company's products exclusively often receive higher rebates.

Anemia medications are purchased by doctors and either injected or given intravenously. Doctors who treat cancers and kidney dialysis centers are the largest users of the drugs. In addition to rebates from the drug companies, doctors also receive reimbursements from Medicare and private insurers that include markups over cost.

Authorities such as cancer and kidney doctors say that these rebates provide physicians an incentive to prescribe the drugs at higher levels than they otherwise would prescribe. Far more anemia medication is prescribed in our nation than in Europe for both cancer and kidney patients. Cancer patients in the US are about three times as likely as their counterparts in Europe to receive anemia medication, while dialysis patients typically receive doses about twice the size as patients do in Europe.

Safety is a concern with these medications. In a trial study sponsored by Amgen that was stopped in 1996, doctors who had goals of hemoglobin levels of 14 for their patients had more deaths and heart attacks than those whose patients had a hemoglobin goal of 10. In 2003, clinical trials appeared to show that the drugs worsened cancers.
New York Times article by Alex Berenson and Andrew Pollack (5-9-07)

Federal Government Fires Whistleblower (posted on 5-28-07)
Bobby Maxwell had been a successful government auditor for more than twenty years at the Department of Interior. His job was to audit oil company leases for fraud. Oil companies agree to pay royalties for leases they sign to drill on federal land.

While doing an audit in 2002, Maxwell found that Kerr-McGee, an oil exploration company with total revenues of over $20 billion since 2000, was selling the oil it was pumping from federal leases for about $6 per barrel below the market price. This translated to much lower revenues than it should have been generating and a payment to the federal government of $10 million less than it actually owed. Upon further investigation, Maxwell found the "smoking gun," an internal memorandum stating that Kerr-McGee had made a bartering deal with a customer where it received marketing services in return for a price of $6 per barrel below market.

Most employers would be thrilled to be able to send a bill for $10 million for payment, but not the Department of Interior under George W. Bush. (In fact, due to less aggressive auditing and a cut in the number of auditors, annual auditing revenue is down from about $172 million per year under Clinton to $48 million per year under Bush.) Maxwell's bosses in the Washington D.C. office of the Department of the Interior told him to drop the matter. He did, and was later promoted to oversee a group of 120 auditors. However, Maxwell never forgot the $10 million owed to the taxpayers, and decided to file a whistleblowers lawsuit against Kerr-McGee. Within two weeks of the time the lawsuit became public, Maxwell was fired.

He pursued the case on his own and won a $7.5 million judgment for the government against Kerr-McGee. However, soon afterwards, the judge reversed himself, saying that Maxwell was not legally entitled to sue Kerr-McGee while a private citizen due to the fact that he had assembled most of his evidence while on the job!
pbs.org (5-11-07)
rpcmnlaw.com
New York Times article by Edmund L. Andrews (4-3-07)

Monica Goodling Reveals Major Justice Department Deceptions (posted on 5-24-07)
Monica Goodling, former Justice Department White House Liaison, gave her long awaited testimony before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. She stated that:

(a) While at the Justice Department, she determined whether to hire people for assistant prosecutor and immigration judge positions partially based on whether they were Republicans.

(b) She had a meeting with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in March, 2007, in which he provided her with his take on the evolution of the US Attorney firings. It appears as if he was trying to shape her future testimony. His testimony before the committee was that he had not spoken to his senior aids about the dismissals since they took place "to protect the integrity of the investigation."

In addition, Goodling testified that Gonzalez had been briefed and had also been shown a list of US Attorneys recommended to be terminated prior to receiving Kyle Sampson's final recommendation. The Attorney General testified that he had neither been briefed nor seen a previous list.

(c) Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty was not fully honest in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in at least four areas. In particular, he did not express his knowledge that the White House had an interest in selecting Karl Rove's former assistant, Tim Griffin, as the replacement for the fired US Attorney, Bud Cummins. McNulty testified that he did not know the reason that Griffin was selected. In addition, Goodling said that McNulty had failed to acknowledge that he knew that Griffin had been involved in "vote-caging" during his work on President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.

Vote-caging is a method of disenfranchising voters who are otherwise eligible to vote by making their home address appear invalid. According to BBC journalist Greg Palast, letters were sent to at least 70,000 voters, including African American soldiers, students, and homeless people. Their envelopes had "Do Not Forward" written on them. If those envelopes were returned to sender, the Republican party was able to challenge their right to vote.
New York Times article by David Johnston and Eric Lipton (5-24-07)
Washington Post article by Dan Eggen and Paul Kane (5-24-07)
Washington Post transcript by CQ Transcripts Wire (5-23-07)
GregPalast.com press release (5-23-07)
RawStory.com article by Michael Roston (5-23-07)

Photo from WashingtonPost.com

Military Personnel in Iraq No Longer Allowed to Use YouTube or MySpace (posted on 5-22-07)
On April 19th, the US Department of Defense (DOD) told military personnel to cut back on their use of the Internet. On May 14th, the DOD blocked usage of sites like YouTube and MySpace because of what they called bandwidth limitations and security reasons.

Defense Department officials say that recreational activities take up too much space on the military's computer networks and that the information posted helps the enemy. What they don't say, however, is that soldiers are increasingly posting material that makes the US government look bad. This includes documentation and information that shows that:

--- the war is much uglier than what the American public sees on television and is described by the Bush administration
--- some soldiers don't have proper body or vehicle armor
--- some purchases made my top Army brass reflect different priorities than what the public is led to believe exists in the military
--- contractors working side-by-side with enlisted personnel can be earning a salary that is ten times greater
--- many more Iraqi women and children are getting killed than the American public is aware of
--- soldiers live and work in conditions that the DOD would rather recruits and the American public don't see
--- soldiers sometimes talk in a style that does not best promote the military

This kind of information can be used by people fighting us as a propaganda tool but it can also be used to inform the American public that we are not getting an accurate picture of what the Iraq War is really like.
Huffington Post column by Dina Rasor (5-15-07)
MySpace article by Naomi Spencer of wsws.org (5-21-07)

White House Opposes 3.5% Pay Raise for Troops (posted on 5-18-07)
President Bush, who constantly urges the nation to "Support the troops," is willing to provide military members a 3% pay raise, but no greater. Salaries currently start at $1200 per month.

On letterhead of the "Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget," the Bush Administration declares that "The additional 0.5 percent increase above the President's proposed 3.0 percent across-the-board increase is unnecessary. When combined with the overall military benefit package, the President's proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families. While we agree military pay must be kept competitive, the three percent raise, equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index, will do that. The cost of increasing the FY 2008 military pay raise by an additional 0.5 percent is $265 million in FY 2008 and $7.3 billion from FY 2008 to FY 2013."

In addition, "The Administration strongly opposes Section 1105, which would amend the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) to provide an additional $100,000 death benefit for surviving family members of civilian employees who died supporting US forces in a contingency operation."

Though the Administration is opposed to a $265 million pay increase for military personnel, it is against cuts to its proposed missile defense spending. "The Administration strongly opposes the significant reductions (totaling $764 million) for the Missile Defense Agency, particularly the reductions of $160 million for construction of a third European Missile Defense Site and $250 million for the Transformational Airborne Laser Program."
whitehouse.gov (5-16-07)
militarytimes.com

Politics Played a Role in US Attorney Firings (posted on 5-16-07)
Four of the eight US Attorneys forced to resign over the past two years were targeted by Republicans with complaints that they had not prosecuted voter fraud complaints vigorously enough. US Attorneys are supposed to be isolated from political pressure, but the GOP believes that those most likely to vote when they aren't eligible are Democrats.

Even more importantly, while voter fraud prosecutions and convictions are rare, the GOP believes that news of potential prosecutions intimidates minority and low-income voters into thinking there is a chance they will be confronted by the police if they vote. Republicans hope that these tactics will discourage people who would normally vote Democratic from voting.

Karl Rove, President Bush's most trusted political advisor, is one of those Republicans involved in "encouraging" the attorney firings. According to the Washington Post, "It has been clear for months that the administration's eagerness to launch voter-fraud prosecutions played a role in some of the firings, but recent testimony, documents, and interviews show the issue was more central than previously known."
WashingtonPost.com article by Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein (5-14-07)

Photo of Karl Rove from cbc.ca

OxyContin Maker Admits to Marketing Deception (posted on 5-11-07)
Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, an addictive painkiller, has admitted to deceptive marketing practices and will pay fines of $600 million. US Attorney John L. Brownlee said that "even in the face of warnings from health-care professionals, the media and members of its own sales force . . . Purdue continued to push a fraudulent marketing campaign."

Oxycontin is responsible for well over $1 billion in annual revenues for Purdue and is a significant portion of its total revenues.

Brownlee stated that Purdue's aggressive marketing resulted in drug addiction, rising crime, and many overdose deaths. The drug has also been responsible for tens of thousands of emergency room visits. However, Purdue gave its sales representatives misleading charts to provide to doctors. In addition, the company trained its representatives on how to rebuff doctors' apprehensions that OxyContin could be easily abused.
New York Times article by Barry Meier (5-11-07)
Washington Post article by Carrie Johnson (5-11-07)

LA Police Department Roughs Up Crowd at Pro-Immigration Rally (posted on 5-6-07)
The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) improperly confronted protesters and reporters at a pro-immigration May Day rally, hitting them with batons and shooting "non-lethal" bullets indiscriminately into the crowd.

New police protocols were established after unwarranted police conduct during the 2000 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, which resulted in the city paying $4.1 million to settle legal claims. As a result of the conflict, during future demonstrations, the LAPD was required to:

(a) provide protesters a reasonable opportunity to leave before clearing an area
(b) not use weapons (including non-lethal weapons) against a crowd that is retreating unless it is fighting back
(c) not shoot indiscriminately at protesters
(d) establish zones where reporters can cover the event without police interference.

All four rules were apparently violated.

Police power in the United States is restricted so that people in our democracy can demonstrate without fear of retribution. Freedom of assembly is granted by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
LA Times article by Patrick McGreevy and Duke Helfand (5-5-07)

---We are all vulnerable to manipulation.
Who's Pulling Your Strings? How to Break the Cycle of Manipulation and Regain Control of Your Life, by Harriet B. Braiker, Ph.D. (2004)

Manipulation Information

US Government Is Privatizing Intelligence (posted on 6-4-07)
From 1995 through 2005, the dollar value of US intelligence purchased from outside contractors increased from about $18 billion to $42 billion. However, for political and security reasons, there is little oversight over these purchases. Congress does not have access to many intelligence budgets. In many cases, they don't know how contractors are awarded contracts, what the money is spent on, or how effectively it's being used. Outside contractors, however, often are given access to the data they need so they can lobby Congress for more money.

Private corporations now provide services such as analyzing data collected from spy satellites, writing reports for the government, tracking terrorist suspects, and determining high value military targets around the world.

Current intelligence employees can now get higher paying jobs doing the same work by working for outside corporations. These corporations now routinely recruit government intelligence employees who have already gone through the security clearance process and contract them back to the government at about twice the price. The average intelligence officer is paid about $125,000 annually, while the government pays a company an average of $250,000 for each employee. The intelligence officer receives a hefty raise and the outside company also receives a nice chunk of the increase. The big loser in the transaction is the US taxpayer.

The market for intelligence employees has also meant big dollars for people like former employees, including CIA director George Tenet. Tenet has been able to use his government connections to earn millions as an advisor to companies that want to do business with US intelligence agencies.
salon.com article by Tim Shorrock (6-1-07)

Low-Income People Pay Exorbitant Interest Rates (posted on 5-30-07)
The difference between the interest rates paid on car loans by low and high-income people is exploding. Data from the Federal Reserve System shows that in 1989, households earning less than $30,000 per year paid an average of 16.8% greater than households earning more than $90,000 annually. By 2004, the difference had skyrocketed to 56.1% per year.

J.D. Byrider franchises used car dealerships that provide financing to lower income people. Byrider dealerships do not post prices on car windows like traditional dealers. Instead, after talking to a customer, the salesperson consults his computer database, the Automated Risk Evaluator, to assess the customer's creditworthiness. Then the salesperson determines the down payment, monthly payments, and term of the loan.

The Byrider formula produces results for its dealerships. In 2006, the company earned an average of $828 per car, as compared to $223 per car for used car dealers nationwide.

Many low-income people are not sophisticated financially and will make a purchase based on a payment over a term without learning the price of the car and the interest rate that they're being asked to pay. It's a lot like a high income person making a decision to lease a car while only knowing that he'll be paying $1800 down and $275 per month over 36 months. However, high-income people can afford to make these kinds of mistakes.

Companies may sell cars, personal computers, or plasma tvs, but when they are targeting low-income customers, they are making a lot of their money by hiding the real price and interest rates charged to their customers until making the payments seem affordable. When customers insist on learning the price early in the sales process, they frequently choose not to buy.

BlueHippo advertises that they sell products from companies like Apple and Sony without a credit check. This company also attempts to sell without providing prices or interest rates. The goal is to get customers to agree to have payments debited from their checking accounts on a regular basis. In this way, customers don't have to think about the total price and whether to make a payment. In almost all cases, the total price of the products they sell is significantly greater than what customers would pay if they went to a local store and made an off-the-shelf purchase. Shipments of products are frequently delayed until as much money as possible has been collected in order to minimize company risk. Requests for refunds are stalled for as long as possible and customers many times give up trying.
Business Week article by Brian Grow and Keith Epstein (5-21-07)
Baltimore Sun article by June Arney (5-11-07)

New York Times Announces Plans to Spy on Its Own Website Readers (posted on 5-27-07)
At last month's stockholders' meeting, the New York Times announced a new money-making venture to its surprised audience. The media company that published news that the US government had been spying on its citizens was now announcing that it was doing its own data mining. This, though, is data mining in the name of profit.

The Times, of course, is in the business of making money and one of the major ways it does this is through advertising. The more products and services readers buy on the Times site, the more money it will make. In doing their data mining, the Times will keep track of the links on which readers click on their site. The more a person clicks, the more information the Times gains on the person. Over time, the Times is better able to determine what a reader's interests are, and tailor advertising directly to him.
freerepublic.com article by Keach Hagey at villagevoice.com (5-1-07)

Realtors Try to Stop Online Discount Brokers From Gaining Ground (posted on 5-25-07)
Just as the stock brokerage and travel agency businesses have changed dramatically with the advent of the Internet, discount real estate brokerages are trying to exact similar industry changes. In a typical real estate transaction, the seller of a house pays a 6% commission when the sale closes. Half goes to the selling agent and half goes to the buying agent. On a $400,000 house, that's $12,000 each to the seller's agent and the buyer's agent. From a discount online broker, sellers and buyers can both save a significant amount of money.

A great example of an online discount broker is Redfin, recently profiled on "60 Minutes." Redfin charges sellers a flat fee of $3000. For this, Redfin lists the property in the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), the same service used by realtors across the nation to show virtually all houses available for sale. In addition, Redfin provides a yard sign, lockbox, and handles all negotiations and paperwork.

If a person buys a house using Redfin as his broker, Redfin collects the 3% fee and rebates 2% to the buyer after the sale closes. On a $400,000 purchase, Redfin would keep $4000 and refund $8000 of the $12,000 buyer's commission to its client. For its 1%, Redfin negotiates the price on behalf of the buyer, manages all paperwork for the loan, and closes the deal. Clients can consult with a Redfin agent, locate available listings on its website or find properties on their own.

To some people, this sounds like a great opportunity to save money on real estate transactions. However, the National Association of Realtors, the industry's governing body, has threatened to block access to the MLS for online discount brokers. It says that the MLS is created by its agents and its listings. This threat has scared off potential investors for other online discount brokers in the past.

In addition, the National Association of Realtors is a powerful lobbyist with deep pockets. As a result, eight states (ID, UT, TX, IA, MO, IL, IN, and AL) have passed laws that require a minimum level of service by realtors that some online discount brokers can't provide. In addition, eleven states (AK, OR, ND, KS, OK, IA, MO, LA MS, AL, and NJ) have now passed laws that prohibit rebate programs similar to Redfin's.
"60 Minutes" (5-13-07)
redfin.com

Gonzales Tried to Manipulate Ashcroft into Signing Off on Domestic Spy Program (posted on 5-22-07)
In March, 2004, the NSA domestic surveillance program was about to expire. This led the White House to pressure the acting-Attorney General to sign off on its legality. The Department of Justice had just completed an analysis of the program and determined that it was not legal; and so James Comey, the acting-Attorney General, refused to approve its renewal.

However, the White House very badly wanted to continue its (illegal) program. As a result, then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief-of-Staff Andy Card rushed to former Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside to circumvent Comey. Ashcroft was so ill that he had temporarily (and in an official manner) turned his duties over to his second-in-command. Gonzales and Card proceeded to try to convince Ashcroft to sign off on the program anyway.

Ashcroft, even in his condition, refused to sign. In fact, Ashcroft (after he regained his health), Comey, and FBI Director Robert Mueller, all threatened to resign if pressured further.
salon.com column by Glenn Greenwald (5-15-07)
Washington Post editorial (5-17-07)

Government Still Not Paying for Many Ground Zero Workers' Health Care (posted on 5-19-07)
Many workers who responded to the 9/11 attacks in New York City did so without regard for their own health. Urged on by Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who wanted the city up and running again as soon as possible, and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christie Whitman, who declared that "We have not seen any readings that would indicate a health hazard," they breathed in pulverized glass, asbestos, lead, building dust, jet fuel, calcium sulphate, and benzene in order to uncover missing people and haul the rubble away. About 60% of the workers who responded to the 9/11 attacks in New York City now suffer from lung problems. However, the full extent of people's health problems may not be known for twenty or more years, when cancer and other diseases may take hold.

A thorough review of the handling of the crisis shows that Mayor Giuliani took control of operations and limited the authority of federal agencies, which were there almost immediately after the attacks. New York City authorities were apprised of the hazards of the air at ground zero on the night of 9/11 by its health department, and the City had a plan in place for the safety of its workers, but it was not enforced. Officials said that enforcing rules would have delayed cleanup.

Workers are covered by the health care insurance of the organizations that they worked for on 9/11. They are not covered for deductibles and must either be working at the same jobs they were at when the tragedy occurred or be paying for COBRA after leaving their jobs in order receive benefits. Some of those not able to work any longer are being paid by workers' compensation, at a maximum of $400 per week. Those workers who were not covered by insurance at work on 9/11 can choose to be part of a class action lawsuit that is ongoing. Volunteer workers' claims come from a $50 million grant from Congress that is administered by the workers' compensation board.
New York Times (5-14-07)
CBS News (5-9-06)
Fox News (8-15-06)
Daily Kos (3-22-07)
Downtown Express (2-2-07)

Ever Wonder Why So Many Beltway Pundits Support the Bush Agenda? (posted on 5-14-07)
A symbiotic relationship between the Bush administration and Washington D.C. opinionmakers provides these pundits with the following:

(a) enhanced prestige from their access to members of the executive branch and their supporters
(b) enhanced prestige from the information they get from confidential sources to get scoops
(c) enhanced fame, credibility, and job security by making appearances on tv and radio news talk shows
(d) fewer complaints to their bosses from an administration that would do most anything to get favorable press
(e) bigger raises

These increases in prestige, fame, credibility, and income mean that Washington D.C. pundits with political access have much to gain by maintaining positive relationships with administration sources. As a result, they file more stories that present administration viewpoints and fewer stories that might paint the president in a negative light.
salon.com column by Glenn Greenwald (5-10-07)

Food Stamps Provide About $1.05 Per Meal to Needy Americans (posted on 5-13-07)
About 35 million Americans do not get enough food to eat and the federal food stamp program does little to help them.

Foods stamps provide an average of about $1.05 per meal. That amount of food that $1.05 will buy has been decreasing each year since 1996 because the formula upon which the food stamp program is based is not adjusted annually for inflation.

Funding for food stamps is provided through what is expected to be a $20 billion farm bill in 2007, the current incarnation of which will expire in September. The farm bill is designed primarily to provide subsidies to large farmers.
New York Times editorial (5-13-07)
politico.com article by Jeff Patch (5-8-07)

The United States Battles for Oil in Iraq (posted on 5-10-07)
John D. Rockefeller founded Standard Oil Company in 1870 and later became the world's richest man and its first billionaire. So the people of the United States have known the importance of oil in providing fuel for the economy for well over 100 years.

When Vice-President Dick Cheney headed the inscrutable Energy Task Force in 2001, he went to the Supreme Court in order to maintain its secrecy. However, we do know that it did not recommend either conservation or the development of alternative energy sources as the means by which the US should secure the future energy that it needs. We also know that it recommended making the Middle East "a primary focus of US international energy policy." The goal was to open up oil fields to US oil company control.

Iraq currently posseses the world's third largest total of known oil reserves, after Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, only about 10% of the country has been explored, and there is a strong probability that more oil abounds. Existing oil is of high quality, and can be produced for about $1.50 per barrel. Oil currently sells for over $60 per barrel.

About 75% of the people of Iraq believe that the real reason that the US invaded was to take control of their oil. Many insurgents believe that to be true, also, and have damaged pipelines to sabotage the US effort.

The American government is working hard to persuade the Iraqi government that Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) must be instituted in order for the people of Iraq to benefit from their oil. PSAs provide American oil companies with control over the oil fields without actually owning them.

The current PSA before the Iraqi parliament offers oil companies about 70% of profits until their investment is recouped, and 20% after that. In addition, (a) profits would not necessarily be re-invested into the Iraqi economy, (b) no contracts would be public, and (c) oil companies would not be required to hire Iraqi workers.

In several African countries with considerable mineral resources, where similar PSAs have been set up, the local population has actually become poorer, and the country loses its potential for future prosperity.
tomdispatch.com (5-6-07)
wikipedia.org

Universities Becoming More Corporatized (posted on 5-7-07)
Here are some trends that have gained traction at universities:

--- University governing boards are including more corporate executives.
--- These boards are selecting university presidents from large corporations.
--- Schools are adding more highly paid administrators with corporate backgrounds who develop more direct relationships with businesses.
--- Decisions are being made more in top-down fashion by administrators with less faculty involvement.
--- Governing boards think of a college education as a way of how to best add people to the corporate workforce.
--- Businesses are providing more money to universities and expecting more in return.
---  Universities are providing more resources for businesses, utilizing scarce faculty, staff, students, facilities, and instruments for research purposes.
--- Schools are emphasizing more fields of study specifically for businesses.
---  Faculty are serving more as researchers and less as teachers.
--- Universities are acting like businesses by trying to maximize their bottom lines.
--- Fields of study with relatively low enrollments, such as anthropology, sociology, and philosophy, are being downsized or eliminated.
--- Classes are getting larger.
--- Teaching loads are getting larger.
---  Universities are raising prices for students. Tuition increases are generally running at about twice the rate of inflation.
aaup.org article by James G. Andrews (5-06)
virtualschool.edu article by Ali Shehzad Zaidi (4-96)

Bush Has Multi-Million Dollar Budget for Image-Making (posted on 5-3-07)
Monday was the fourth anniversary of President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" landing and subsequent speech on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. The event was choreographed by Scott Storza, a former producer at ABC. The president's speech was timed so that the sun's lighting would cast the most positive glow possible on the president, and so that the "Mission Accomplished" banner would be seen along with him in the same television shot. In addition, Storza made sure that the clothes that the ship's crew was wearing were color-coordinated.

However, the "Mission Accomplished" speech is only one example of how the Bush administration has used theatric techniques to polish the president's image. For a speech he gave at Mount Rushmore, the platform for television crews was positioned so that Bush's profile was aligned at the same angle as the four presidents etched in stone.

At a speech to promote Bush's tax cut plan, planners had men in the crowd take off their ties so they would look more like the average people the president wanted the public to believe would benefit from the tax cut.

According to Dan Bartlett, former White House Director of Communications, the president's image-making department had a budget of $3.7 million in the Fiscal Year Ending 2003.
New York Times article by Elisabeth Bumiller (5-16-03)

US Military Contractors in Iraq "Fly Under the Radar" (posted on 5-1-07)
The media tells us that our nation has about 145,000 troops stationed in Iraq; however, what they don't tell us is that there are another 126,000 private military contractors there. These people serve in combat support positions as well as cook the food, do the laundry, and deliver the mail, many earning over $100,000 annually. New enlistees earn about $15,500 in their first year in the Army.

Private contractor deaths are not included in official news reports. At present, media reports tell us that about 3350 US military personnel have been killed in Iraq. In addition, about 770 contractors have been killed there.

There is no system of oversight or accountability for contractors in Iraq. There are no court martials, no US civilian trials, or no trials in Iraqi courts. If a contractor is accused of an unjust killing, he is quietly taken out of the country in order to protect him.
AlterNet article by Jeremy Scahill (5-1-07)
armytimes.com

Monitor page
for changes

by ChangeDetection

Techniques Manipulators Use

O'Reilly Declares That Immigration Bill Proponents Hate White Christian Males (posted on 6-7-07)
The Situation: O'Reilly starts out his segment by telling his audience that one group of people in the United States just doesn't like Mexicans coming here.

O'REILLY: On the other side, you have people who hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men.¹ Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men, and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure.² So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion -- pardon the pun -- of America.³ Now, that's hatred, too. It's a different kind of hatred, but it's hatred and best exemplified by The New York Times, which today says in its editorial, quote: "Those who want [the immigration] bill to be better are horribly conflicted by it. Their emotions still seem vastly over-matched by the ferocity of the opposition from the restrictionist right, with talk radio lighting up over 'amnesty,' callers spitting out the words with all the hate they can pour into it," unquote.⁴

Now, this is a theme of The New York Times, that if you oppose the immigration bill that you hate Latinos.⁵ Now, there's a segment that does, but most oppose it on policy.⁶ They just think it's bad policy, rewarding bad behavior. Bad policy.⁷ But The New York Times, which is an open border, OK, let-everybody-in concern -- that's what they want, because they want a totally different power structure in America.⁸

Number one, they realize that 40 million new citizens -- and that's, you know, probably the estimate that if you let all the illegal immigrants and all their extended families come here, which is what The New York Times wants, would wipe out the two-party system.⁹ You'd only have a Democratic party, because new immigrants are probably gonna break 3-to-1 Democrat, and that's what The New York Times wants.¹⁰ But more than that, they want to change the white, Christian male power structure.¹¹ That's what they want.¹²

Now, these are hidden agendas. The New York Times would never cop to that, ever, but if you read consistently their editorials, they have no solution to border security.¹³ They don't want any sanctions on illegal aliens who come here and even commit crimes.¹⁴ They want criminal aliens to stay, and they don't want any sanctions on businesses who continue to hire illegal aliens even after the Z visa is issued.¹⁵It's an open border, "Let them all in, anybody who wants to come here."¹⁶

That's insane.¹⁷ We don't have America then. America disappears.¹⁸ That's where Pat Buchanan is right. You let that happen, there's no more United States of America. It's gone.¹⁹ You have United States of the World, because everybody comes here with no restrictions.²⁰ So you've got racism on the anti-Latino front, and you have racism on the anti-Christian, white male front.²¹ Aha! Isn't that interesting?

The Manipulations:
1. O'Reilly is overstating and being dramatic. The number of citizens who hate America is likely very small and those who hate America because white Christian men are the ones who are primarily in leadership positions is likely infinitesimal. O'Reilly, however, uses the phrase, "hate America" a lot in his broadcasts. It is a statement that provides people a false choice between those who agree with him and those who hate their country.
2. He says he is going to repeat what he just said, but instead he says something more plausible--- that there is a segment of America that hates the fact that it is run by white Christian men. O'Reilly has just made his first statement easier to believe by making his second statement easier to believe than his first.
3. O'Reilly's own hidden agendas evidently lead him to believe that people who have compassion for the plight of illegal immigrants have a hidden agenda, too.
4. Here he labels a quote from the New York Times as "hatred." "Labeling" like this is a propaganda technique as defined by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. They call it "Name Calling."
5. Where does he get these things? The New York Times doesn't say anything like this nor would they.
6. O'Reilly has no information that tells him that the correct qualifier here is "most," rather than "some," or "many." This statement is made up.
7. His repetition of "bad policy" makes the statement more believable.
8. This again is totally made up. The New York Times does not imply or state that it wants an open border or a different power structure in America.
9. This is a fear-mongering technique. The United States is nowhere near making 40 million illegal immigrants new citizens. And the two-party system is still alive and thriving.
10. Again, O'Reilly is fear-mongering.
11. He repeats that the New York Times wants to change the white Christian power structure, a conclusion that is a figment of his imagination.
12. He again repeats his previous statement for authority and credibility.
13. It is not up to the New York Times to present a solution for border security. Its job is to provide a perspective on other people's solutions.
14. O'Reilly completely misrepresents what the New York Times has said. It doesn't want marginal or vague actions that apply to a huge number of illegal immigrants to allow for deportation. The Times feels this would be tantamount to allowing mass deportation and defeat the purpose of the immigration bill.
15. O'Reilly is trying to make his distorted point sound reasonable. The New York Times doesn't want criminal immigrants to stay; it is making a trade-off to take a stand against mass deportation.
16. He is repeating this point to try to increase his credibility.
17. O'Reilly labels the situation with an assertion for more impact.
18. This is both a huge over-statement and fear-mongering.
19. He repeats his fear-mongering for effect.
20. Here Bill tries to be clever to create a memorable sound-bite.
21. The anti-white Christian male racism is a conclusion drawn from O'Reilly's imagination. He pretends to be proving something here, but it's all emotion and assertion and no logic.
mediamatters.org (5-31-07)

Photo of Bill O'Reilly from Overspun.com

Bay Buchanan Bashes Hillary Clinton (posted on 5-31-07)
The Situation:
National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez recently interviewed Bay Buchanan, whose new book is called The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton. Buchanan's manipulations are identified beneath the excerpts of the interview shown below:

LOPEZ: You ask: “Who is Hillary Clinton, and for what does she stand?” After writing a whole book answering the question, what's your bottom-line verdict?
BUCHANAN: Hillary is a smart, hard-working, focused, power-hungry woman who will do anything and be anything to succeed in her quest for the White House.¹ She suffers from severe insecurity which is masked by a heightened sense of arrogance, entitlement, and superiority.² She does not believe the rules apply to her, takes no responsibility for her own actions, and has alarmingly casual relationship with the truth.³

A shrewd political opportunist, Hillary has undergone an extreme makeover to disguise her radical feminist beliefs and a left-wing agenda that would remold society for the common good using the full power of the government.⁴

LOPEZ: How feminist is Hillary, wife of Bill?
BUCHANAN: Hillary is a radical feminist, embracing the sisterhood’s agenda in its entirety, from abortion on demand without restrictions to government sponsored schooling for two-year-old kids.⁵ However, she does not let this or any of her other beliefs stand in the way of her own ambitions. Case in point, she allowed Bill to prey on women for years, never holding him responsible for his wanton ways and aggressively protecting him when an innocent female victim presented a threat.⁶ In short, she enabled Bill to abuse her, her family, and other women — and few feminists called her on it.

LOPEZ: You call her insecure. What’s the point of psychoanalyzing her?
BUCHANAN: As I read Hillary’s autobiography, Living History, I was astounded to find her painfully insecure.⁷ At first I dismissed the possibility — I had never heard or read that this might be the case. But as I read on, it became apparent that this was a dominant trait in her personality and explains so much about the woman. Hillary has used arrogance and an air of superiority among other things to hide and disguise her lack of confidence, but it has played a significant role in determining who she is today.⁸ Hillary’s personality being a central theme of my book; I was compelled to include her insecurity.⁹ What’s more, I found this aspect of her immensely interesting and believed the reader would do so as well.

LOPEZ: Will she ever fully apologize for voting for the Iraq war?
BUCHANAN: Hillary never takes responsibility for anything she says or does.¹⁰ She can not bring herself to admit error. Consider her war vote. On the one hand she says she takes responsibility but then immediately explains that she was misled — didn’t know it was a vote for war; President Bush lied to her.¹¹ This is not responsibility. No, she will never apologize because in her mind, it is President Bush’s fault she voted for war, not hers.¹²

The Manipulations:
1. Buchanan compliments Clinton, thereby giving herself credibility to lambast her for much of the rest of the interview. Buchanan then labels Clinton as "power-hungry." "Labeling," or "name-calling," as it is sometimes termed, is one of the techniques described by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis that is most effective in swaying others to a position. The technique is used to arouse negative emotions towards others.
2. Here Buchanan speaks as an authority in describing Clinton's emotional state and personality. This is merely an opinon stated in an authoritative way to increase its power.
3. This is all spin; it is based on her perspective. However, she states it as if it is "the truth."
4. "Extreme makeover," "radical feminist beliefs," and "left-wing agenda" are all labels designed to create a negative emotional reaction in people.  Buchanan uses "remold society" to scare people into thinking that Clinton wants to change the way things are now in this country.
5. Buchanan again does a lot of labeling designed to evoke negative images and associate them with Clinton.
6. Buchanan asserts that Clinton doesn't let her beliefs stand in the way of her ambition, but doesn't support the statement.  Instead, she tells us that Hillary "allowed Bill to prey on women for years," which makes him sound like a molester, and then says that it was Hillary's fault.   This spin is quite a stretch!
7.  Buchanan is being disingenuous.  She is trying to pretend that when she started reading Clinton's autobiography, she wasn't looking for material from which to attack her. In fact, she was "astounded" to find that Clinton is "painfully insecure."  When Buchanan uses the latter phrase, she is trying to evoke the feeling in readers that Clinton is not fit for the presidency. Ironically, she likely would have had a lot more credibility and agreement from readers if she would have just said that she found Clinton to be be "on the insecure side" and listed ten plausible instances.
8. This is spin presented as if it were a fact.
9. Buchanan didn't want to write this, but she was "compelled" to do it!
10. She is creating a "good-or-evil" quality out of one that could best be described on a continuum. This is another technique identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis.
11. Buchanan is mis-characterizing the vote on Iraq. The vote was about whether to allow the president to go to war as a last resort; the vote was not a declaration of war.
12. Buchanan frames this in a way that makes us react to it by saying that it's not anyone's fault but the person who made the decision. That's how most of us were raised to think. However, the evidence was, at best, unclear as to whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Yet, the president sold us on the necessity of going to war. He certainly did not say to Congress, "Here is what we know; here is what we don't know; tell me what you think."
NationalReview.com interview (5-24-07)

Photo of Bay Buchanan from nndb.com

A Spiteful Donald Trump Degrades Rosie O'Donnell (posted on 5-28-07)
The Situation: The lead story on the "O'Reilly Factor" on Friday was what guest host John Kasich called "Breaking news about Rosie O'Donnell for you."¹ The breaking news was that Rosie O'Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck had a loud argument on "The View" the day before, and as a result, O'Donnell left the program three weeks ahead of schedule. Kasich showed a clip of their disagreement, and then asked Donald Trump to provide his opinion:

I've said for a long time that Rosie is very, very self-destructive. I know Rosie well.² Sadly, she came to my wedding and had lots of wedding cake.³ And I understand her very, very well.⁴ I was a little bit surprised that Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who's not exactly the brightest light on the planet, was able to so easily beat Rosie in somewhat of a debate.⁵ And I was surprised by it. But Rosie is a very self-destructive person.⁶ She's not a very bright person.⁷ And you know, it's sort of funny, it's a great disgrace to the Emmys, because they give her Emmys, I don’t know, they're almost like afraid not to, and she doesn't deserve Emmys.⁸ She's not a very talented person, but really the biggest problem is she's not a stable person.⁹ And I agree with Bill (O'Reilly), when Bill says what corporation is going to want to hire her, but somebody will hire her. I think what's going to happen is that somebody will hire her and she'll do well for the first couple of months and then she wears thin.¹⁰ She's not a Bill O'Reilly that has a show that for many years has been a top-rated show. She really wears thin.¹¹ People get tired of her and get tired of her crap.¹²

. . . They did the right thing (He's saying that Disney fired Rosie), and she's trouble, and she's really trouble.¹³ And perhaps more importantly, she's also troubled.¹⁴ She's a very, very, I would say a very, very sick person.¹⁵ She's got a lot of problems and people are just finding out.¹⁶ It's a very interesting thing fellas, if she would have just sat back, another two weeks, she could have finished out her show. She looks terrible for what she did.¹⁷ But she's essentially a loser and that's what happens to losers.¹⁸

The Manipulations:
1. Rosie O'Donnell has become Fox's caricature of the essence of a liberal. The talking heads on their news channel debase her constantly. They like to use her because they know that her voice, appearance, and assertiveness, when combined with her sexual orientation and political views, offend many viewers.
2. Trump is saying that since he knows her well, and he is such an authority, she must be self-destructive. He is framing O'Donnell as being self-destructive because her style makes it sound plausible.
3.  He is saying that since O'Donnell attended his wedding, that is evidence that he knows her well. When he says that she ate a lot of wedding cake, he is furthering his argument that she is self-destructive.
4. O'Donnell must be self-destructive because Trump understands her so well and he is such an (self-described) authority.
5. Trump disparages Hasselbeck and then decrees that she "so easily beat Rosie" in their "debate," implying that O'Donnell is not very bright, either.
6. He again assets that O'Donnell is self-destructive. Repetition makes a suspect statement sound more true the more often we hear it.
7.  Trump debases O'Donnell again without presenting any evidence. He says it so it must be true!
8.  He makes himself out to be the great arbiter of taste by saying that even though she has won Emmys, she didn't really deserve them.
9.  He asserts that O'Donnell is not very talented, apparently as a reason why she didn't deserve her Emmys. Then he goes on, in a non-sequitur, to assert that she is not stable. This reinforces his theme of everything about her being bad news.
10. Trump grudgingly acknowledges that she'll get hired again because he has to in order to maintain any credibility he might have with his audience. O'Donnell is clearly going to get hired because her appearance on "The View" increased ratings significantly and made the show relevant to programs like the "O'Reilly Factor." Trump then adds that she "wears thin," oblivious to the fact that her ratings signify the opposite.
11. He repeats his opinion that she "wears thin" as fact.
12. Trump is reinforcing and repeating his opinion as if it were fact. But it's a frame that works because the way O'Donnell comes across make his statement plausible and therefore believable.
13. Trump is doing a masterful job of repeating his theme that everything about O'Donnell is bad news.
14. He repeats his assertion that she has emotional problems.
15. He repeats it again, in a different way.
16. Again, he repeats it. Trump is a master of propaganda and debasement.
17. Trump just keeps beating her up.
18. This is the coup de gras. He sums her up in a way that is easy to remember in yet another opinion presented as fact.
"O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel (5-25-07)

Photo of Donald Trump from foxnews.com

Bush Tells Why We're Fighting in Iraq (posted on 5-26-07)
The Situation: At a press conference on Thursday, President Bush responded to a question on why he decided to invade Iraq.

QUESTION: Mr. President, a new senate report this morning contends that your administration was warned before the war that by invading Iraq you'd actually be giving Iran and Al-Qaeda a golden opportunity to expand their influence. Why did you ignore those warnings, sir?

MR. BUSH: Ed, going into Iraq we were warned about a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen. And obviously, as I made a decision as consequential as that, I weighed the risks and rewards of any decision (sic).

I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I know the Iraquis are better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I think America is safer without Saddam Hussein in power.¹

As to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Qaeda's going to fight us wherever we are.² That's their strategy. Their strategy is to drive us out of the Middle East.³ They have made it abundantly clear what they want.⁴ They want to establish a Caliphate. They want to spread their ideology. They want a safe haven from which to launch attacks.⁵ They're willing to kill the innocent to achieve their objectives.⁶ And they will fight us, and the fundamental question is will we fight them?⁷ I made the decision to do so.

I believe that the best way to protect us in this war on terrror is to fight 'em. And so we're fighting them in Iraq; we're fighting them in Afghanistan; we helped the Philippine government fight 'em. We're fightin' em. And this notion that this isn't a war on terror,⁸ in my view, is naive. That doesn't reflect the true nature of the world in which we live.⁹ The lessons of September the 11th are these: We've got to stay on the offense; we've got to bring these people to justice before they hurt again; and at the same time, defeat their ideolology with ideology based upon liberty. And that's what you're seeing.¹⁰ And they're resisting it. I think it ought to be illustrative to the American people that Al-Qaeda's trying to stop new democracies from evolving.¹¹ What should that tell you? That ought to tell you that we're dealing with people that have an ideology that's opposite of liberty,¹² and will take whatever measures are necessary to prevent this young democracy from succeeding.¹³

The danger in this particular theatre in the War on Terror is that if we were to fail, they'd come and get us.¹⁴ And I look at these reports right here in the Oval Office. For people to say that we are not under threat, they simply do not know the world.¹⁵ We are under threat and it's in our interest to pursue this enemy.¹⁶

The Manipulations:
1. Here the president says three times that people are better of without Saddam Hussein in power. This has been a mantra for him and his administration over the years. His use of repetition makes it more likely for the belief to sink in. His second statement, however, is an assertion that certainly would not be universally accepted as the truth. It is very unlikely that Saddam Hussein would have been responsible for as much death, injury, destruction, upheaval, and despair as the Iraqi people have suffered since our invasion.
2. This is an assertion that is inaccurate. The US has over 650 military installations around the world and Al-Qaeda is not fight us most of those places.
3.   Since the president isn’t in on high-level Al-Qaeda meetings, he doesn’t know this for a fact, yet he is stating it as a fact. We may have collected intelligence data that indicates this may be true in some nations, such as Saudi Arabia, but there’s little indication that they’re trying to drive us out of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In fact, the UAE is offering our corporations big incentives to get our corporations to re-locate their headquarters there.
4.   This is another assertion that is open to interpretation.
5. What the president is not acknowledging is that the people who attacked us on 9/11 are not the same people who we attacked in Iraq. These factions want different things.
6. Our nation also has been willing throughout its history to kill innocent people in order to achieve our objectives, so the president’s implication that this makes them bad people may, unfortunately, apply just as much to us.
7. This is a false argument intended to challenge our pride and make us feel weak if we don’t choose to fight them. We created a power vacuum by invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein. By being there, we have made a target out of ourselves.
8. President Bush created this term, the “War on Terror,” and it has become the justification for any military action we take, especially in Iraq.
9. We can all agree that there are a lot of dangerous people in the world but to use this as a major reason to justify staying in Iraq doesn’t make much sense.
10. These are not accurate statements but the president is asserting that they are all true. (a) “We’ve got to stay on offense” is very debatable. How long do we have to stay on offense? Forever? (b) “We’ve got to bring these people to justice before they hurt us again.” This is a euphemism for “We need to go out and kill them outside our country before they attack us inside our country again.” The unfortunate truth is that we have little idea who we’re killing in Iraq. We’re mostly killing people in Iraq who shoot at us. We’re not necessarily killing people who would cross into the United States and blow up our buildings. (c) “And at the same time, defeat their ideology with ideology based on liberty.” This is an example of what the Institute for Propaganda analysis called a “glittering generality” in 1938. Using it invokes feelings of patriotism but has little genuine meaning.
11. This is another glittering generality. The president’s use of “trying to stop new democracies from evolving” is meant to evoke feelings of patriotism in us.
12. Yet another glittering generality.
13. Once the president gets on the “glittering generality” train, it’s tough to stop him!
14. This is an assertion the president has repeated over and over throughout the years. It’s also a “big lie.” Hitler defined a “big lie” as a statement that people think is so outlandish that it must be true because a leader would never otherwise make it. Repeating it as often as he does makes our brains accept it more easily as the truth.
15. Most of us can agree that we’re “under threat” from terrorists, but that doesn’t mean that the threat we’re under becomes less and less the longer we’re in Iraq.
16. Again, being under threat doesn’t mean that we are reducing the threat by fighting in Iraq.
whitehouse.gov (5-24-07)

Hannity Asks Melanie Morgan Why She Has Been Banned From the "Newshour With Jim Lehrer" (posted on 5-23-07)
The Situation: On his May 21st program, Fox News' Sean Hannity gave conservative radio talk show host Melanie Morgan an opportunity to tell Fox viewers why she was banned from future broadcasts of PBS' "Newshour With Jim Lehrer."

HANNITY: In an action that reeks of censorship, PBS' signature broadcast, the "Newshour with Jim Lehrer," has effectively banned conservative radio host Melanie Morgan from any future appearances.¹ Now citing Morgan's on-screen demeanor, the executive producer of the left-leaning²news forum released the following statement. It said, "The Newshour style is to ask pointed questions politely: we expect our guests to subscribe to the same rules. Since the program is produced live, we can't do much to eliminate rude guests from your television screen once the segment has begun; what we can do is guarantee you will never see that person on our program again."

Joining us now is radio talk show host, KSFO San Francisco, Melanie Morgan. First of all Melanie, I would say this is a badge of honor for you on the one hand.³ But on the other hand, they're only silencing you,⁴ and there was an interruptive liberal guest on the program.⁵ Why were you separated in that way?⁶
MORGAN: . . . When I went to the blogosphere, and oh my goodness, there was such a riot. . . Let me tell you this: Linda Winslow, who's the executive producer of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, is either badly misinformed or outright lying⁷because these are the facts: I was accused of being rude and interruptive. The guest who was on opposite me, who was with votevets.org, one of the far-left-funded organizations by George Soros,⁸ actually interrupted me for the very first time. I did a word count on this, we were interrupted four times, equal on each side.⁹ And he was given 56% of the airtime to my 44%.¹⁰HANNITY: Melanie, listen. You have been a guest on this program frequently. You are passionate in your views; you are always polite;¹¹ you always allow the other person to get their point of view across;¹² I have never known you to say anything outrageous. I read the transcript. There's nothing outrageous here.¹³ I guess the question I have is, when we're talking about PBS, we're also talking about tax dollars; that is, we are funding PBS.¹⁴
MORGAN: That's the thing that was outrageous.¹⁵HANNITY: So if they didn't like the segment, it should apply to both guests here, but it's only applying to you.¹⁶ What do you plan to do about it?¹⁷MORGAN: That's absolutely true. Well right now, on your airwaves, I am demanding an apology from Linda Winslow because this is a woman who is clearly lying about the situation.¹⁸ The producer contacted me six times before my appearance and we discussed the fact that there might be interruptions.¹⁹ They asked to put my boxing gloves on.²⁰ They said they have no problem with a free-for-all discussion because both activists are very passionate.²¹The Manipulations:
1. Hannity is framing the issue as one of censorship rather than Morgan's anger and interruptions.
2. This is part of the censorship frame; Hannity labels PBS as being "left-leaning," which makes his censorship frame seem more accurate.
3. Now Hannity frames her banning as being a good thing. But if he and Morgan really believed that, they wouldn't be doing this segment of the show.
4. He again repeats the censorship frame. Repetition generally makes statements more believable.
5. Hannity is implying, but not stating, that Morgan's counterpart interrupted her as much as she interrupted him, which is not accurate.
6. He is implying that she is not being treated fairly.
7. Morgan is using a stock phrase--- "either she is badly misinformed or outright lying," to describe the information possessed by an executive producer who watched the show and probably then saw a tape of the segment many times before banning Morgan, which is a highly unusual punishment to impose upon a guest.
8. She not only describes her counterpart's organization as "far-left," outside the mainstream, but also says that it's funded by George Soros, who Fox News has been trying to portray as being dangerous.
9. She is trying to make it sound like each person interrupted the other equally, but if you listen to the segment, you'll find that she would have to be using a highly unusual definition of "interruption" to score what happened in that way.
10. This is a red herring. She is not being banned for taking 44% of the debate time; she is being banned for her rudeness.
11. Hannity is implying that since she is always polite (by his definition) on his show, that she has always been polite on other shows, including the one in question.
12. He is implying that how he thinks she has acted on his show is how she acted on PBS.
13. This is another red herring. She is not being banned for having outrageous views, but rather, outrageous behavior.
14. This is yet another red herring. Hannity is trying to make it sound like Morgan's opinion is being suppressed when it is her rude behavior.
15. She wants us to think that what the executive producer did was outrageous.
16. Again, Hannity uses the "It's not fair" frame.
17. This is a softball question that allows Morgan to say whatever she wants.
18. She calls the decision-maker on PBS a liar and demands an apology.
19. Morgan is saying that it should have been okay that she interrupted her counterpart because the possibility of interruptions occurring was discussed prior to her going on the program. This is a non-sequiter.
20. She is saying that PBS told her to be tough on the show, but they probably didn't tell her to be rude.
21. Here, Morgan is implying that they told her before she went on the show that it would be okay to be rude.
PBS NewsHour With Jim Lehrer video (5-8-07)
Hannity and Colmes video (5-21-07)

Photo of Melanie Morgan from ThinkProgress.org

Examples of Manipulators Using Guilt (posted on 5-21-07)
The Situations: The following statements are manipulative challenges. They tell us if we don't do what the other person wants, he will feel disappointed, and we ought to feel guilty about it:
1. If you really care about me, you'll show me how to do this.
2. If you were really thoughtful, you'd buy this watch for me.
3. If you really want to win the title, you'll practice at least five hours a day.
4. If you really love me, you'll prove it to me right now.

The Explanations:
Manipulators often try to get us to to things by getting us to feel bad if we don't do what they want. When we do what they want, the guilt fades away, but we feel weaker. If we don't do what they want, many times the guilt lingers.
1. The implication is that we don't really care about the other person if we don't show him how to do what he wants. In reality, there may be many reasons why we don't want to teach something to the person, including the time it would take and when he needs it taught by. Only one of the many reasons is that we don't care about him.
2. There are many ways for a person to show thoughtfulness; only one is by buying a watch for him.
3. We might really want to win the title, but it might not be worth the sacrifice.
4. This one is classic!

Conservative Talk Show Host Michael Savage Displays Anger in Support of Alberto Gonzales (posted on 5-17-07)
The Situation: Conservative talk show host Michael Savage angrily denounced Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) for his questioning of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during the House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on May 10th on the firing of nine US Attorneys. Here is how a conversation with a caller to his talk show went:

SAVAGE: You know why we're being outwitted by the Islamists? Because we have nitwits running the country.¹
CALLER: But don't you feel --
SAVAGE: We have nitwits who have no wits.² All they have is power, no wits.
CALLER: So, you feel --
SAVAGE: What can we do about it? I don't know. Maybe you can write your congressman. Ha ha ha ha!³ Who are you going to write? Who's that idiot down in Florida, that moron who attacked our poor attorney general yesterday?⁴That schmuck, Wexler. Did you see Wexler go at him?
CALLER: Yeah.
SAVAGE: That low-life skunk, that schnorrer, Wexler, ripping into poor old Attorney General Gonzales on a non-case?⁵That Wexler's the biggest schmuck. What was he, an ambulance chaser in Brooklyn before he went to Florida there and got the old-age vote?⁶
CALLER: I would just like to encourage you, Michael. I seem like you seem a little down --
SAVAGE: No, no. Call Wexler up. He's a brave man. He's very brave to attack Gonzales.⁷See if he'll go and investigate [unintelligible]. Big old Wexler, that lousy phony. Another liberal fraud from Brooklyn.⁸
Wexler. See him ripping into Gonzales. A fake case if I ever saw one.⁹ Screaming at him. The last time I saw a politician scream at someone like that was in Nazi Germany in the kangaroo court trial against people who conspired to kill Hitler.¹⁰Wexler really went crazy: "Oh, the tough guy."¹¹He has more hatred for Gonzales than he does for Osama bin Laden and the Islamists.¹²

The Manipulations:
1. Name-calling is a standard tool that people use to manipulate others into believing that their political propaganda is accurate.
2. Savage is trying to be clever here. Being clever can be endearing.
3. Sarcasm is another tool of manipulation. It is especially effective because it is memorable.
4. First, Savage uses the name-calling technique against the Congressman. Then, he describes Gonzales as "poor" to paint a picture of him as a victim who deserves our sympathy.
5. More name-calling, followed by repeating that Gonzales is a victim deserving of our sympathy.
6. Here, Savage demeans the Congressman again by calling him an "ambulance-chaser" and implying that he tricked voters in order to get elected.
7. Savage follows up by decrying Congressman Wexler for being a bully.
8. More sarcasm and more name-calling. Repetition is often used by manipulators because it helps to get their messages to sink into our heads.
9. Here, Savage calls the firing of the nine US Attorneys a "fake case." This "fake case" is about as obvious a case as one will ever find.
10. Savage now compares what Wexler did to a trial that took place in Nazi Germany. Manipulators often use outlandish comparisons to make their points.
11. Another sarcastic comment.
12. Savage makes an assertion here that that is actually his opinion. He does it with an outlandish comparison to try to make his point that Wexler was out-of-line (whereas Gonzales' lies and deceptions were not).

Savage primarily uses the tools of name-calling, sarcasm, false comparisons, and repetition to manipulate us into thinking that his point is valid.
mediamatters.org transcript (5-15-07)

Photo of Michael Savage from nndb.com

Ann Coulter Wrote That Liberals Argue by Name-Calling in her 2002 Book (posted on 5-15-07)
The Situation: Conservative pundit Ann Coulter authored a bestselling book in 2002, entitled Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. In the seventh chapter, "The Joy of Arguing with Liberals: You're Stupid!", she says that "Like clockwork, every consequential Republican to come down the pike is instantly, invariably, always, without exception called 'dumb.'¹ This is how six-year-olds argue: They call everything 'stupid' . . . That's the beauty of controlling all major sources of news dissemination in America.² It ensures that liberals will never have to learn how to argue beyond the level of a six-year-old."³
"Indeed, almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small children.⁴ Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times: Arms for hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just about sex, just about sex, dumb, dumb, dumb, money in politics, money in politics, money in politics, Enron, Enron, Enron.⁵ Nothing repeated with mind-numbing frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members of the populace.⁶ It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it^.7"

The Manipulations:
1. Overstatements are designed to create a clear picture. Very few people considered George H. W. Bush to be "dumb."
2. This is also clearly an overstatement. It would be difficult for an informed person to consider Fox to be controlled by liberals. In addition, it has been clearly documented how the big media outlets rarely questioned the Bush administration's arguments in the leadup to war in Iraq. It could be much more easily argued that conservatives control "all major sources of news dissemination in America."
3. To claim that liberals don't present their arguments at a level greater than one a six-year-old can understand is so clearly inaccurate that it's almost not worth responding to. Statements like this are so ridiculous that they are easy to picture and easy to remember. By listening to the name-calling and labeling on much of AM talk radio, it could be much more easily argued that conservatives call names like six-year-olds.
4. Here Coulter uses a metaphor in which she says that liberals scream without meaning, like "the impotent rage of small children." This metaphor is another overstatement used to paint a clear picture without regard for accuracy, and is yet another example of a statement that could be better applied to conservatives than liberals.
5. Examples of "repeating some stupid, meaningless phrases a billion times" from the current administration are: Stay the course, Win the peace, Finish the job, Accomplish the mission, All options are on the table, Cut and run, Support the troops, We can fight them there or we can fight them here, and the War on Terror.
6. Coulter's double negatives obscure the the rest of the sentence and highlight the metaphor, "mind-numbing frequency," a clear picture that readers get from her statement.
7. Coulter has created a vivid phrase, "the permanence of evil," to describe the repetition of phrases that create clear images of negative meaning of the Republican Party.

Coulter repeatedly uses overstatements and metaphors to create clear mental pictures in people's minds. In addition, several times she slanders Democrats with statements that are much more true for Republicans.
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, by Ann Coulter, Pages 121-122 (2002)

Photo of Ann Coulter from students.yaf.org

Authoritarian Talk Show Host Melanie Morgan Spouts Off About the Troops (posted on 5-12-07)
The Situation: Melanie Morgan, chairman of Move Forward America and conservative radio host in San Francisco, declared the following to Judy Woodruff on the May 8th edition of the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer":

"We have over a million people who belong to our organization, which is the largest pro-American¹, pro-troop² organization in the United States. And we are a group that speaks loudly for the military families³, Gold Star family members who still support the war, who still support the president, and our efforts to stabilize Iraq, and the global war on terror, which is even more important in the long term."

"I want to see victory⁴, and apparently the Democrats don't, because otherwise why would you possibly conceive⁵of funding a war in six-month increments? I would like to see Congressman Rahm Emanuel [D-IL] explain that plan or whatever it is that he seems to be proposing⁶, along with Commander-in-Chief Nancy Pelosi⁷, to our troops directly to their face."⁸

"Tell them that they are failing; that they have a failed⁹, miserable performance; that they are losing¹⁰. I'd like to see Mr. Soltz say that to the troops in the field, as well. I don't think that you would get that exact same opinion from them, nor from the millions of other Americans who wish for us to find a strategy that will work, to give it time to work¹¹, to be patient, and to win¹². I want the troops to stay until the job is done. And that will be determined by our generals who are running and prosecuting this war."

The Manipulations:
1. "Pro-American" is a wonderful sounding term for people who support George W. Bush policies.
2. "Pro-troop" is a clever way of describing supporters of the war. The Bush administration and its followers have urged the public to "Support Our Troops" so many times that now the phrase (and others like it) is shorthand for staying in Iraq.
3. Morgan says that she speaks for military families, but she certainly doesn't speak for those who don't want their family members to be in the middle of a war, which is likely the great majority of them.
4. "Victory" is a "glittering generality" described by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis to mean something that is almost impossible to oppose during wartime.
5. Morgan's use of "why would you possibly conceive" is another way of asking how anyone could ever be against what she wants.
6. She is implying that Rahm Emanuel's proposal doesn't make sense.
7. "Commander-in-Chief Nancy Pelosi" is a sarcastic way of saying that the Speaker of the House should acquiesce to the President and let him make the decisions without her interference.
8. Morgan is daring Emanuel and Pelosi to say the negative things Morgan is implying that they are thinking "directly to their face." The problem with that is that Emanuel and Pelosi likely think that the problem is the situation rather than the troops; whereas Morgan likely thinks that the problem is the troops.
9. Morgan is again daring the Democrats to tell the troops that they've failed, though there's no reason to believe that they think that way.
10. "Losing" is another term that nobody wants to use in relation to the troops, but Morgan is associating it with the Democrats.
11. Morgan is demanding patience and no accountability, something she likely would not tolerate if the Democrats were in charge of the exact same situation.
12. "Win" is a glittering generality that we all want to be associated with. Propagandists regularly use terms like this.
mediamatters.org (5-9-07)