Who's
Manipulating Whom in the News?
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)
 |
|
 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
|
|
Techniques Manipulators Use
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 show 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-leaning2 news 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 lying7 because 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%.10
HANNITY: 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.15
HANNITY: 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?17
MORGAN: 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.21
The 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?4 That 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?5
That 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.7
See 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.10 Wexler really went crazy: "Oh, the tough guy."11 He
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 conceive5 of 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)
|
| Photo of Melanie Morgan from calnews.com |
Bill O'Reilly Does Hit Piece on George Soros (posted
on 5-9-07) The Situation: Fox News' opinionated Bill O'Reilly started his show on
Monday evening with a condemnation of financier George Soros:
"Hurricane
Soros getting stronger. That's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." As we have been reporting
for months, far-left1 billionaire George Soros is buying political influence in America in an unprecedented way.2
Soros is pouring tens of millions of dollars into far-left3 Internet sites and organizations designed to
intimidate4 Democratic politicians and advance his far-left5 agenda. . . It doesn't take a James
Carville (Democratic consultant) to figure out that Soros now has direct access to the most powerful Democrats in the nation
and they had better listen up."6
"John Edwards pulled out of
a debate sponsored by the Nevada Democratic party and Fox News to curry favor with the Soros group. New Mexico governor
Bill Richardson did the same.7 Both men have been treated very well by FNC (Fox News Corp.).8
But neither can survive in the Democratic race without the direct help of Soros.9 By the way, you didn't
see any Republicans pulling out of the MSNBC debate even though that network has moved sharply to the left.10 Most
Americans don't know who George Soros is but he is one of the most feared men in the world. If Mike Meyers didn't
invent Dr. Evil, some might give Soros the moniker11. . . Soros is so powerful that he can ruin most countries
financially if he decides to attack their currency by selling it short.12 Now Soros has set his sites on
the political landscape here in America. He has his character assassins lined up.13 He has MoveOn (a liberal
organization) ready to move out.14 And he has direct access to the highest levels of our government. Ladies and
gentlemen, this is an urgent situation."15
The Manipulations:
1. O'Reilly labels Soros as "far-left" for the first of
three times in this and the next sentence. Labeling is a method used by propagandists where they use language that arouses
prejudice in the audience they are talking to. ("Labeling" is often referred to as "name-calling" by people who study propaganda.)
2. This assertion Soros' donations
are "unprecedented" needs facts to support it.
3. For the second time, he uses the term "far-left."
Repetition makes statements more memorable.
4. "Intimidate" is a word that O'Reilly makes up
to describe what he is trying to make us believe that Soros is trying to do to Democratic politicians. Again, O'Reilly
provides no support for why this is true.
5. This is the third time O'Reilly uses "far-left." When
using this technique, people try to get us to associate one term (George Soros) with another (far-left).
6.
When O'Reilly says, "and they had better listen up," he is giving credence to his idea
that Soros is intimidating Democratic politicians. But these are O'Reilly's words, not Soros'.
7. John Edwards and Bill Richardson chose not to participate in debates sponsored by Fox News due to Fox's
strong bias against Democrats. It's not accurate that they "pulled out" because they never agreed to participate.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also decided not to participate.
8. It may be O'Reilly's opinion that
both Edwards and Richardson have been "treated very well" by Fox News, but O'Reilly is making that statement as
if it's a fact and is implying that both are being ungrateful.
9. O'Reilly is making another assertion
that may or may not be accurate.
10. MSNBC has one anti-Bush anchor in Keith Olbermann and one anti-war commentator
in Chris Matthews. However, Matthews is not considered to be liberal. Their other two main anchors are Tucker
Carlson and Joe Scarborough, both of who are considered to be conservative. Fox has no solo anchors who could be accurately
considered to be on the left of the political spectrum.
11. O'Reilly is making an attempt to associate
the "Dr. Evil" term with George Soros.
12. If Soros could harm the economies of other countries,
it is likely that many other people could, too.
13. Another assertion.
14. This is a lighter statement
intended to make O'Reilly look clever and folksy.
15. O'Reilly is making a "call to action" here, implying
to the people who listen to him need to be fearful that George Soros could steal the election for the Democrats. He'd
like for his listeners to take action.
YouTube.com presentation on the "O'Reilly Factor" (5-7-07)
|
| Photo of Bill O'Reilly from current.org |
Popular Website Promotes "Get Rich Quick" Scheme Using Sympathy
and Hypocrisy (posted on 5-8-07) The Situation: An e-mail that
is sent out through its affiliate marketers says:
"Are you as sick and tired of all the
money-making phony baloney found on the Internet as I am? You know what I'm talking about.
Schemes that claim to be cheap and easy, but require you to spend 20 or 30 hours a week - on top of your already exhausting
work schedule - and to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars that you simply don't have."
After we click on the link in the e-mail and arrive at the website, it says:
"$184,296
in 24 Hours! Will You Spare Me 7 Minutes To Show You How To Copy My Exact Plan?
We've confirmed this is the easiest, fastest and cheapest way for the "little guy" to get rich. Be one of the select few to find out what we've uncovered with the only resource designed to help YOU Start an
Internet business with less than $1000." The Manipulations: When a sales
pitch starts out by asking, "Are you as sick and tired of all the money-making phony baloney found on the Internet as
I am," the questioner is trying to get us to feel like he commiserates with us. He wants us to think that he's
on our side; he knows how difficult it is to find a great business opportunity. The idea is to gain our trust.
At the same time, he wants to arouse our curiosity enough to want to find out more about what he is offering.
He does this by implying that his opportunity is "cheap," "easy," will not take up much time, and will
not even cost hundreds of dollars.
If he gains our trust and arouses our curiosity, we may then click on the
link to go to the website, which starts out with the implication that we can earn $184,296 in one day. The number is
precise in order to connote accuracy.
Next, he asks what sounds like a reasonable question and offers
us something big in return: In only 7 minutes, we can learn how to copy his exact plan. (This is a very unlikely
outcome! Chances are, it will take a lot more than 7 minutes and will not give nearly all of the detail we want.)
He follows that by saying that he's "confirmed," implying that he's done exhaustive research, that
this is the "easiest, fastest, and cheapest way to get rich." This is a clear over-statement, because no company
could do that kind of exhaustive research. In addition, different companies will have products and personnel which
some people will do better with than others.
By using the term "little guy," he is trying to show us
that he is looking out for us.
Then he says that we can be one of a "select few," which is intended to
convey that if we do this, we're unique and special. The implication is that not everybody will be able be able
to take advantage of this opportunity.
Finally, he states that we can do this for less than $1000. What happened
to not spending "hundreds or thousands of dollars"? This is a common technique that people use: They
suck us in with a terrific-sounding offer and then change the offer.
EarlyToRise.comSean Hannity Says Democratic Party Is Being Taken Over by Left-Wing Fanatics!
(posted on 5-5-07) The Situation: On the April 29th edition of "Hannity's
America," Fox News television host Sean Hannity tried to paint a picture of a Democratic Party controlled by left-wing
bloggers. He told a story of Hillary Clinton posting a statement on FireDogLake.com, which Hannity told his audience
was an inappropriate website because it had published a photo of Senator Joe Lieberman, with his face painted
black, standing next to Bill Clinton. Hannity said, "It's telling that this whole thing happened just days after
the Senator thanked the Rutgers University basketball team for standing up to Don Imus.1 And it's proof
of just how far the Democrats will go to appease the bloggers and the radical left-wing interests that are now running the
Democratic party."2 "The bending over backwards3 to appease4
these left-wing interests is nothing new for the Democrats. In fact, it is a phenomenon that is getting worse, and as
you will see tonight,5 it is no longer the party leaders who are in charge." "For
the first time in history, real life voters pulling a lever may not determine6 who the nominee of the party is. And
that's because the Democratic party is under siege by a group of left-wing fanatics7 who are holding their
candidates hostage8. . . Will the soul of the party9 continue to drift10 into the left-wing
wilderness11 or will it appeal to a broader spectrum of Americans?"12
The Manipulations:
1. "It is telling" is a term used to give the speaker authority.
2.
He uses makes an assertion by saying "It is proof" when it does not make sense for the situation.
If it did make sense, one situation involving Hillary Clinton would not does not mean that "radical left-wing interests
are now running the Democratic Party."
3. "Bending over backwards" is a metaphor intended
to create a picture and accentuate the negative.
4. "Appease" is a term that is used in
a derogatory manner to invoke a memory of what Neville Chamberlain did by giving Hitler a piece of Czechoslovakia in
order to try to assure peace before he invaded Poland to start World War II.
5. "As you will see tonight"
is a term used to create drama and expectation. When a person anticipates seeing something, he is more likely to see
it, even if it isn't really there.
6. The term "may not determine" qualifies his statement, which
is important because it creates some credibility.
7. Hannity's assertion that the people he's
talking about are "left-wing fanatics" is an attempt to label people to support his point. "Labeling"
is a common method used by propagandists.
8. When he says "holding their candidates hostage," he is creating
a metaphor that tells his listeners how to picture what he is telling them. He is again over-stating for effect.
9. "Continue" implies that the "drifting" has already begun. "Drift" is another
metaphor designed to create a picture in our minds of a negative state for the Democratic Party.
10. Yet another
metaphor accentuating the negative
11. Labeling and a metaphor of "Nowheres-ville"
12. Asking an "either-or"
question tells us we should consider whether the first part or the second part of his question is true. Since "continue
to drift into a left-wing wilderness" is a much clearer picture for our minds to see than "a broader spectrum of
Americans," most of us will look for the first option he gives.
YouTube.com (4-30-07)
Newshounds.us (4-30-07)
|
| Photo of Sean Hannity from ocwhite.com |
Ann Coulter Criticizes John Edwards at the First Democratic
Presidential Debate (posted on 5-4-07)
The Situation: Conservative pundit Ann Coulter
sharply attacked two of John Edwards' responses at the first Democratic presidential debate: First,
she characterized Edwards' |