George W. Bush and his Republicans
managed to take all of America’s major ‘news’-media, and to turn them into
super-prostitutes.
November 19, 2018
By
Eric Zuesse, originally posted
at strategic-culture.org:
In order to understand today’s
demonization of Vladimir Putin, one must go back to US President George W.
Bush’s propaganda for “regime-change in Iraq” and demonization of Saddam Hussein at that time.
The US regime now has come to recognize that with Putin’s high
approval-ratings from the Russian public, the US aristocracy’s dream of fomenting Putin’s
ouster by Russia’s voters will not work; and, so, all foreign leaders who
cooperated with Russia, such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, and Bashar
al-Assad, were first targeted by the US regime for “regime-change,” so as to
isolate Russia and soften it up for the demanded US-takeover (‘democracy’, ‘free market’, etc., which Russia actually now already has,
at least as much as America does); and, then, since that hasn’t yet worked, came the
US aristocracy’s campaign to ‘protect The
West’ by NATO troops and weapons surrounding Russia and forcing regime-change in Russia.
It has escalated now to the point where World War III is more likely than
ever it was during the Cold War.
Regime-change in Russia will thus
either occur by the democratic vote of the Russian public at some distant time
and produce a Russian Government that’s likely to be against the US regime in
every possible way (which the current Russian Government is not), or else it
will require a US-and-allied invasion of Russia, and that would destroy the
world (but the US
aristocracy want it anyway).
However, America’s aristocracy (or as
they call it when referring to the same thing in low-income countries,
“oligarchs”) — basically just its billionaires — are very impatient; they want
to control the entire planet during their own lifetimes, and care little (if at
all) about what will happen to the planet after they’re gone. (Look, for
example, at their enormous resistance to doing anything against global
burnout; protecting
their fossil-fuels investments is ‘more important’.) Their ‘non-profits’ are just tax-avoidance schemes
that double as PR operations for themselves and as ways to get their names in
print and on big ‘non-profit’ buildings, like the Pyramids were in ancient Egypt. (Those Egyptian aristocrats wanted permanent honors,
but today’s American ones want only to be recognized as being top-of-the-heap
while they’re still alive; it’s a cultural difference.)
Anyway, here is how George W. Bush
and his Republicans managed to take all of America’s major ‘news’-media, which
were highly
prostituted even before he came into office, and to turn them into super-prostitutes like the
very worst of them prior to his Presidency were. That very
worst was most prominently recognized as having been the neoconservative (or
pro-US-imperialism) Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel. Of course, it’s rotten, today, no less than it
was back in 2000, and here’s a representative sample of that, displaying a
classic propaganda-operation:
This particular show aired on 5
September 2015 on Fox ‘News’, and interviewed their contracted expert:
TRANSCRIPT, starting at 4:45:
4:45, Interviewer: The other
place that nobody seems to want to go these days is Russia and China, and
Russia and China are both the two countries that have really gotten behind
Assad, and certainly try to prop him up and those kinds of things; and as we
look at pictures from China’s military day parade [posted onscreen], how much
of this is Russia and China trying to slough off these refugees on Europe and
everybody else … to try to gain political and global capital?
McFARLAND: Well, in China I think
less so, but Russia, certainly, because we’ve seen even in the last week that
Russia has increased its military presence in Syria. Russia is trying to prop
up the Assad government, like the Iranians are; and so Russia is sending
military equipment; it’s sending it by sea, it’s sending it overland, it’s
sending it by air, to try to prop up the Assad government to continue the
fighting.
Q: To continue the refugee crisis?
MCFARLAND: Oh, sure, exactly.
They want their suckers to believe
that the Government of Syria wants “to continue the refugee crisis” (which
actually was resulting from the Democratic
Party’s President Barack Obama’s policy, but Republican-Party billionaires want regime-change
in Syria as much as Democratic-Party ones do and so this con is a bipartisan
one) instead of to restore the peace and modest prosperity that had preceded
the US-Saudi-Turkish-UAE-Quwaiti campaign to recruit and arm tens of thousands
of jihadists into Syria to overthrow Syria’s committedly non-sectarian and
highly secular Government, headed by Assad. They want their fools to believe
that Assad instead of Obama sought the overthrow of Assad. But no matter how
stupid their pitch is, it’s acceptable by their very conservative audience.
Even when Fox News needs to cover-up evils of a Democratic
Party regime in order to sic their suckers on hating Assad or any other
ally of the arch-demon Putin, they do it, in order to service their Republican
Party billionaires, who are just as eager to take over Russia — and its allies
such as Syria — as Democratic Party billionaires are. And that’s how bad Fox
‘News’ is, and was. But now they’re all like that.
THE BACKSTORY:
Whereas back in 2002 and 2003, the US
aristocracy’s biggest push for “regime change” was to remove Saddam Hussein
from power in Iraq; and whereas in 2011 the biggest push for “regime change”
was to remove Muammar Gaddaffi from power in Libya; and whereas next in 2011
the biggest push for “regime change” became to remove Bashar al-Assad from
power in Syria; and whereas in 2013 the biggest push for “regime change” became
to remove Viktor Yanukovych from power in Ukraine; the biggest push for “regime
change” now is to remove Vladimir Putin himself from power in Russia.
Media-lies have been crucial to them
all; and here is how it’s done — by spreading Fox’s garbage over the rest of
the major ‘news’ media:
On 2 October 2003, the media-watch
organization, worldpublicopinion.org, headlined “Misperceptions,
the Media and the Iraq War:Study
Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly Related to Support for War:
Misperceptions Vary Widely Depending on News Source: Fox Viewers More Likely to
Misperceive, PBS-NPR Less Likely.” In fact, the people who received their news
primarily through NPR or PBS exhibited the lowest rate of misperceptions at
that time, and Fox News Channel viewers exhibited the highest
misperceptions-rate: Whereas 77% of NPR/PBS listeners/viewers gave correct
answers on all three factual news questions asked, only 20% of Fox News Channel
viewers did; and whereas only 23% of the NPR/PBS audiences got one or more of
these three factual questions wrong, 80% of Fox’s did.
So, the George W. Bush Administration
forced NPR and PBS to adhere more fully to Bush’s (the US aristocracy’s) line.
Bush lowered the best of the nation’s news-edia down to the standards that
already existed for the lowest.
At NPR’s “Morning Edition” on 20 May
2005, host David Folkenflik reported about the pre-Bush culture at the
Corporation for Public Broadvasting and compared it to the new culture there.
He said that, the “culture gap
became evident as long as two years ago. At oneclosed board meeting, according to two former CPB
officials, [the
Bush-appointed CPB chief Kenneth] Tomlinson suggested bringing in Fox News Channel anchor
Brit Hume to talk to public broadcasting officials about how to create balanced
news programs.”
Word was now out, among journalists
throughout the world, that President Bush aimed to turn his country’s public
broadcasting system into a domestic propaganda organ; and so, on May 30th, The New
York Times headlined “Ombudsmen
Rebuff Move by Public Broadcasting”, and reported — datelined May 27th from London —
that: “An [international] association of news ombudsmen has rejected an attempt
by two ombudsmen from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to join their
organization as full-fledged members, questioning their independence. The
Organization of News Ombudsmen, which represents nearly a hundred print and
broadcast ombudsmen from around the world, more than half of them from the
United States, voted at its annual conference here last week to change its
bylaws to allow full membership only to those who work for news organizations,”
which excluded representatives from CPB, because “it does not itself gather or
produce news.” Observed one member, who happened to be the ombudsman from NPR,
“We want members who are responsive to readers, not to governments or lobby
groups.”
The Los Angeles Times media
critic David Shaw took a broad historical view of this matter, headlining May
29th “There’s a ‘Nuclear
Option’ for PBS’ Woes” opining
that no PBS at all would be better than a PBS that’s a propaganda organ for the
White House, and reminding readers: “The Bush administration is not the first
to challenge the independence of PBS. Back in the 1970s, the Nixon
administration was so estranged by PBS coverage of Watergate and the Vietnam
War that it stacked the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting with
Nixon sympathizers. ‘There were tremendous fights, with the Nixon
administration trying to prevent public television from doing any public
affairs programming at all,’ Lawrence Grossman, the former president of PBS,
subsequently told the New York Times. The Bush administration, which has
already accomplished the heretofore seemingly impossible by becoming even more
media-averse than the Nixon administration, seems determined to surpass the
wizard of Whittier and Watergate in bringing the CPB to heel as well.”
Mr. Shaw, like other major-media
commentators about the national media, had previously stood by in silence,
during 2002 and 2003, while America’s major media cavalierly spread amongst the
US public, as virtually unchallenged, the false rumors coming from the Bush
Administration, and from its allies such as the Bush-Administration-financed
group of exiles, the Iraqi National Congress, saying that Iraq’s leader Saddam
Hussein had been proven to be storing huge quantities of weapons of mass
destruction and to be working in cahoots with Al Qaeda to threaten the United
States. However, now, just a few years later, these very same “news” media were
so frightened at the rising extent of this Administration’s control over their
“news,” that these commentators were publicizing what those fascists were doing
to force them, ‘journalists,’ into a military lock-step. This change in
atmosphere was stunning; America’s press were now trying to extricate
themselves from the prison they had only recently helped to construct for
themselves. They didn’t think that they might get caught up in the prison that
they had helped construct to contain the general public.
The United States had entered
historic new territory after nearly 50 years of aristocratic/theocratic
mass-indoctrination of the American people, which had occurred with the full
support and cooperation of the nation’s presslords. There was now doubt; the
old arrangements finally started to become questioned. Things were no longer
settled. This was a real change of mentality. Only recently, there had been a
total passivity of the US press: it propagandized for the President’s Medicaid
prescription drug plan; it propagandized for his fabricated accusations against
“Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction”; it served as an extension of the White
House press office on many other of the President’s fraud-based programs. But
this passivity was now finally replaced by a rising fear within the press, that
the US might be transforming into a fascist state, which could threaten the
press itself. The presslords themselves were at last becoming disturbed.
However, this President was already
near to his goal of a totalitarian lock-down. Consequently, what could the
press do, at such a late date? They had already given him the rope to hang not
just the public, but themselves. He took it. The American press that
stenographically transmitted to the American public the US government’s lies
about “Saddam’s WMD” is continuing as if it hadn’t
been sufficiently compliant. America’s great victories in
overthrowing Gaddafi and Yanukovych are now supposed to be followed by Assad,
and then Putin.
And European nations take this
leadership as their own, instead of abandoning the US, abandoning NATO, and
abandoning the US-controlled EU; abandoning all the mega-corporate,
US-aristocracy-controlled, international-corporate fascist system — and now
they willingly take in the millions of refugees from the bombs that the US had
dropped in Libya and Syria, and that the US-installed rabidly anti-Russian
government in Ukraine is dropping onto the areas of the former Ukraine that
have rejected the US-imposed (in February 2014) government in Kiev.
And the next target is Putin.
So: that’s the backstory behind the
lie that Putin instead of Obama caused those millions of refugees pouring into
Europe.
And, in German ‘news’ media, Bashar
al-Assad and ISIS are being blamed for it, because practically no German is so
media-deluded (like America’s conservatives are) as to think that Putin is to
blame for it; and here is a
German who states in very clear terms how rotten he thinks Germany’s ‘news’
media are (though
America’s obviously are even worse) with those German media blaming “that the
reasons for refugee-flows are Syrian President Bashar Assad and ISIS” instead
of that “America is the cause of all these problems, American foreign policy.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.