Properly functioning indoctrination has

a variety of tasks, some rather delicate

One of its targets is the stupid and ignorant masses

They must be kept that way, diverted with emotionally

potent oversimplifications, marginalised and isolated

Western Media: Propaganda Megaphones

A system of indoctrination has a variety of tasks, some rather delicate. One of its targets is the stupid and ignorant masses. They must be kept that way, diverted with emotionally potent oversimplifications, marginalised and isolated. - Chomsky, Deterring Democracy

How often, dear reader, do we go away hungry from the media board, and for the same reasons? What a dismal experience it is to spend twenty minutes leafing through a two-inch wedge of newsprint on a Saturday morning, finding almost nothing of human interest but plenty that offends and grates.

Why is the media, for all its high-tech sophistication, wealth and power, +so+ bland, so empty, so dull?

The answer is that its capacity for sincerity and truth is fundamentally compromised by the profit motive at its heart. What can a system based on unrestrained greed possibly have to say about a world crucified by greed?

How can it afford to make sense, to talk about what really matters? Does the corporate system want us inspired, enlivened, mobilised?

Or does it want us trudging around in the same old circles of relentless production and consumption, with the promise of satisfaction always just up ahead, just one more purchase away?

The average journalist may mean well. But the average journalist is inevitably diminished by the profit-making media Moloch, as Norman Mailer has observed:

"There is an odour to any Press Headquarters that is unmistakeable... The unavoidable smell of flesh burning quietly and slowly in the service of a machine." (Norman Mailer, The Time Of Our Time, Little Brown, 1998, p.457)

Newly retired CBS news anchor Dan Rather can now talk openly about this moronic inferno:

"It's fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions. One finds oneself saying: 'I know the right question, but you know what, this is not exactly the right time to ask it.'" (Greg Palast, 'Dan Rather conks out,' Noseweek, April 2005)

Alas, while still inside the system, Rather infamously declared:

"George Bush is the president, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one American, he wants me to line up, just tell me where." (Quoted, Howard Zinn, Terrorism and War, Seven Stories Press, 2002, p.58)

Anyone writing for the mainstream simply knows that certain things are not allowed. It is as though an invisible force were cramping the mind - we know we +can+ write this or that if we like, but we know what the consequences will be.

It takes one slip to be labelled 'extreme' and written off. A journalist friend wrote to us recently:

"You must see the reaction in a newsroom when one mentions Chomsky or Pilger. They run the other way, and I can see they are afraid by the look on their faces. Fact is that once you understand and admit what you are doing, you can't continue with it. When I mentioned Chomsky, one person commented, 'Oh, he's way out there.' 'Way out where?' I asked."

And there is always a long line of people willing to take our place and to respect the boundaries ('What nonsense! No one has ever told me what to write!').

And remember, leading commentators are paid vast sums for doing very little. How else are they to make this kind of money? How much better to let someone else ask the tough questions and instead seek job security in bland observations, trivia and obfuscation.

Senior media figures on the mainstream 'left' are where they are because they know how to play this game. The idea is to talk a good fight, to elicit applause from the 'left', but also quiet nods of acceptance from the media gatekeepers, the people they are supposed to be challenging.

A key talent is to appear passionately radical while subtly indicating that one is not 'extreme', that the rules of the media club are accepted. The first rule of media club is: Don't talk about the inherent contradiction of a corporate 'free press'.

The second rule: Rule one does not exist. The third rule: Do not discuss the existence or non-existence of rules one and two.

Our society often has minimal respect for systems of thought produced by much older, non-Western cultures. But these philosophies often provide acute insights into the art of being honest. How many modern professional journalists would recognise the crucial importance of the following advice?:

As if they were stones on a narrow slippery path, you should clear away all ideas of gain and respect, for they are the rope of the devil. Like snot in your nose, blow out all thoughts of fame and praise, for they serve only to beguile and confuse. - Geshe Wangyal, The Door of Liberation

There's No Such Thing As 'Objectivity' in Western Media

"Objectivity" is the sacred cow of professional mainstream journalism. All "professional" J-schools stress the importance of filling reportorial and editorial duties with the utmost "objectivity".

The problem is that, when pursued to its ultimate logical conclusions, human objectivity turns out to be a hoax, a fiction that, in expert hands, usually hides precisely the opposite, a very definite world view which, wittingly or unwittingly, colors all choices, percepts, and opinions.

In an environment in which most J-school students are simply indoctrinated to become unquestioning, careerist cogs in the machinery of corporate media, discussions of this kind may serve as an alarm bell for those wishing to become real journalists, real servants of the public interest.

The bias of objectivity

It's always easier to see the bias of others than to recognise one's own. A story that supports the status quo is generally considered to be neutral and is not questioned in terms of its objectivity while one that challenges the status quo tends to be perceived as having a "point of view" and therefore biased.

Statements and assumptions that support the existing power structure are regarded as 'facts' whilst those that are critical of it tend to be rejected as 'opinions'.

The officious policing of impartiality and balance will mean ensuring that statements by those challenging the establishment (government or business) are balanced with statements by those whom they are criticising, though not necessarily the other way round.

Too much emphasis on objectivity in news and current affairs can lead journalists to leave out interpretations and analysis which might be construed as personal views.

They play it safe by reporting events without explaining their meaning and keeping stories light and superficial so as not to offend anyone.

Journalists who accurately report what their sources say, can effectively remove responsibility for their stories onto the people they interview and quote.

The ideal of objectivity therefore encourages uncritical reporting of official statements and those of authority figures. In this way the individual biases of individual journalists are avoided but institutional biases are reinforced.

The enforcement of impartiality tends to give powerful industry spokespeople guaranteed access to the media, no matter how flimsy their argument or how transparently self-interested. No such access is guaranteed to critics.