manipulation of the media

  1. 273 Posts.
    Teaming Up With the Media
    Freedom of the press has always passed itself off as one of America's most sacred cows. In reality, it has faithfully served and is still serving as another of the elite's Trojan Horses.

    Those who consider America's media to be the freest in the world are perhaps overlooking one important consideration. Virtually all the means of communication from orbiting satellites, to the television networks, to the individual TV stations, to the newspaper chains and the major book publishing houses are owned by the economic elite!

    Consolidating Ownership of the Media

    The important thing to realize is not just that the elite own virtually all the Western media, but that it is now owned by a very small handful of media moguls. The shocking truth is that the ownership of newspapers and TV stations has already been consolidated to such a staggering degree that unmanipulated news coverage has practically ceased to exist.

    Only one man and his media holdings need be mentioned to provide some tip of the iceberg proof to substantiate that perspective. His name is Rupert Murdoch, and he is an American billionaire. His media holdings are registered as The News Corporation Ltd. in Australia "for accounting advantages", but his holdings span four continents.

    The areas over which he has the ability to exercise a simultaneous coordinated control include the editorial content and direction of newspapers such as the Boston Herald American, the Chicago Sun Times, and the Sun and the Times of London, to name but a few, and he holds interests in many others including The Financial Times, the Economist, and Reuters, {B140} the European Wire service. He owns 5 magazines in Britain, approximately 20 magazines in the U.S., and more than 100 newspapers in Australia. {B141}

    His American based Metromedia TV station network alone cost about 2 billion dollars, and he has a 4 channel satellite television network called Sky Television in Britain.{B142}

    Some of his other media holdings include the 20th Century Fox Film Studio (remember that Henry Kissinger and Gerald Ford have been its past directors), the Harper & Row publishing house, the Star, New York magazine, the San Antonio Express, New Woman, Elle, In Fashion, Automobile, European travel & Life, Premiere, etc. etc. Recently Rupert Murdoch agreed to pay 3 billion dollars for 4 publications: TV Guide, Good Food, the Daily Racing Form, and Seventeen.

    With wealth of this magnitude involved, it is not difficult to establish first of all that the bottom 90 percent of society are virtually excluded from media ownership. He himself has referred to newspapers as a series of "capital intensive" "local monopolies". {B143}

    The Newhouse family of New York, the 5th richest family on the planet, owns Advance Publications and Newhouse Broadcasting outright. Besides being the ninth largest cable TV operator in the U.S., they own 22 daily newspapers, Random House publishing company, and a host of magazines such as the New Yorker, Vogue, Vanity Fair, Glamour, and Parade. {B144}

    Billionaire Randolph Hearst and family, own 14 daily newspapers, 6 TV stations, 7 radio stations, and some book publishing companies. {B145} Should we look for a better reason to explain why his daughter Patty was released into his custody, without punishment, after she had been photographed holding a gun in a bank stick-up, to earn money for a group of anti-government activists. The American media chorus justified her release by claiming that she had been kidnapped and brainwashed, and since brainwashing is their forte, opposition to the argument was conspicuous by its absence.

    Kenneth Irving and family of Canada, the world's 8th richest billionaire has virtually monopolized ownership of all English speaking newspapers in his province. {B146} The Thompson family of Toronto, Canada (the 10th richest billionaire family) now owns even more newspapers than anyone in the States. In Britain, Robert Maxwell, another billionaire is busy consolidating the media there.{B147}

    The owner of the largest media conglomerate in the world is Reinhard Mohn, yet another of the world's billionaires. {B148}

    Each of these media magnates probably echoes the wishes of Rupert Murdoch who has been quoted as saying that his objective is a "global communications company". Each newspaper, magazine, and TV station reaches a specific section of the population; collectively they form a woven grid of influence that few active members of society can elude.

    It would perhaps be worth pointing out that for all intents and purposes, media ownership within each of Western society's Feudal empires, Britain, Australia, Canada, America, Germany, etc., has already been consolidated into the control of a small handful of media moguls. Will it be necessary to have these moguls unite under one corporation name before the term "Big Brother" gets seriously discussed? Media owners can, and do, install TV network directors and newspaper and magazine editors whom they are assured will broadcast and print exactly what the elite want the American public to see, hear, and read. Whether they are openly united under one corporate "Big Brother" logo or not, is irrelevant. Covertly they are part of the elite team. Their coordination and control is best exemplified by considering how well they all work together to elect the team's political functionaries into public office.

    Using the Media to Rig Elections
    The media's role in undermining the function of true democracy, and especially at election time, cannot be overstated. The elite are not satisfied with infiltrating the nation's highest political offices, nor are they satisfied with negating the effects of democracy with special interest lobbying. No, that's not quite enough.

    Before the bottom 90% of society are even allowed to approach the polling booth, the elite take the opportunity to subject the entire population to no less than six full months of intense political conditioning in which individuals and policies that pose a threat to their wealth and power, are systematically discredited. By praising their sympathizers and discrediting and smearing their opponents, the elite have consistently and successfully used the media, to elect enough political candidates to the White House and Congress to ensure success with their future lobbying.

    Needless to say, most of the politicians running for election or reelection are doing so with funds contributed by the elite in one way or another, and of course election support translates into either payoffs for past favors, or for favors due and as yet unpaid.

    The Hollywood Connection
    The use of the media as a political propaganda tool is old hat, in fact, use of the Hollywood motion picture industry began as far back as 1934 during the campaign to elect a new governor of California. Upton Sinclair, a sincere and dedicated socialist, was running as a Democrat, and had won the Democratic primary with a landslide. By proposing a special tax on the California movie industry, Sinclair put into motion events which transformed elections thereafter into propaganda media events.

    To scuttle the movie tax, and therefore to make Upton Sinclair lose the election, studio heads like MGM's Louis Mayer, Irving Thalberg, and Harry Cohn of Columbia conducted the first major motion picture oriented smear campaign. In the process, they set a precedent which would thereafter significantly reduce the fairness and integrity of the democratic process.

    To scuttle Upton Sinclair, they first of all threatened to move at least four studios to Florida. Next Mayer distributed blank checks to his employees. All the cheques were made out to himself. Employees were effectively being intimidated to donate money to a slush fund to defeat Sinclair. Columbia's Harry Cohn used other tactics but also threatened his staff using their job security. Warner Brothers studio simply assessed each staff member a $3 contribution. The half million dollars generated that way was increased to nearly 10 million, an unprecedented amount with which to launch a political campaign for Governor. The money was used to pay for newspaper ads, radio ads, billboard advertising, phony anti-Sinclair smear groups, and a massive leaflet campaign.

    All this direct participation by Hollywood was nothing when compared to their most devastating piece of underhanded trickery and deceit that ended up setting the standards for all future election campaigns, ...national or otherwise.

    MGM studio, under Irving Thalberg's direction produced a contrived campaign propaganda film that was edited down to 6 minutes and added to Randolph Hearst's Newsreels which normally ran twice per week in all theaters. Louis B. Mayer went so far as to threaten to withhold the feature films if the political trailers were not shown as well. {B149}

    The film depicted respectably dressed citizens declaring their intent to vote for Sinclair's opponent. Those who spoke well of Sinclair were chosen for their hobo derelict appearance. Of course many of the hobo type characters who appeared in the smear pictures were studio extras( i.e. Hollywood actors and actresses). {B150} The carefully edited film left the impression that Sinclair was a champion for rough illiterates who would quickly transform California into a welfare state. The campaign employed psychological tactics to implicitly and explicitly stress that Upton would turn California into a Russian colony. They even stooped to suggest that he might begin dynamiting churches and nationalizing the children.

    William Randolph Hearst Sr., father of one of the previously mentioned billionaire owners of consolidated media holdings, used not only his California newspapers to spearhead the attack on Sinclair, but his Movie Newsreels as well to smear Sinclair to defeat.

    Those who wish to read about this precedent setting event in much greater detail can refer to an article entitled, How Hollywood fixed an election, which appeared in the Nov 88 issue of the American Film magazine. Hollywood, thereafter, was considered a vital and indispensable political tool.

    Today's Elections
    Elections are still won and lost through media manipulations. The impact of carefully designed and contrived backdrops for the carefully scripted "30 second sound bites" is well known to media manipulators who employ proven psychological tactics.

    In the 1988 Presidential campaign, Bush's Republican party supporters distributed millions of leaflets stating that all the murderers, rapists, drug pushers, and child molesters in Massachusetts would vote for Michael Dukakis, ...still a powerful brainwashing trick in the 80's. The degree to which a society can be effectively controlled using the media cannot be overemphasized. Mr Bush's TV commercials discrediting Mr Dukakis were practically on a par with those that were used to discredit Upton Sinclair back in 1934.

    Unfortunately, the public is already so jaded, that the media manipulators don't even try to conceal the fact that what gets shown on TV as casual interviews are in fact, specially staged and scripted performances filmed by "purposely invited TV film crews", to achieve "predetermined reactions" at "precisely the desired time". They are known in the industry by the euphemism "photo opportunities".

    Although photo opportunities used to be private affairs, nowadays they are pre-arranged and stage-managed so well, that everyone gets invited to record the event for their papers or their TV networks.

    Even the rhetoric used by our nation's leaders is not their own. Some of the most important words uttered during these sound bites by both Ronald Reagan and George Bush were written by a hired speech writer, Peggy Noonan. What qualifications does she have to write stirring speeches for successive Presidents? Well, it certainly can't be her political convictions, because she used to be a Democrat. But she did work for seven years as a writer and producer for CBS News, and even wrote copy for Dan Rather.

    Ms Noonan helped George Bush to see a "thousand points of light", just as she helped Reagan convince the nation that:

    "...the freedom fighters of Nicaragua. You know the truth about them. You know who they're fighting and why. They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers".

    Doesn't that kind of bring lumps to your throat?...the variety you would just as soon spit out. {B151}

    The reason that the media cooperate so readily and eagerly in this type of trickery can be traced back to the McCarthy era in the 50's. Even then the elite were so aware of the media's potential for influencing public thought, that they took the drastic step of ridding the media of those who might offer serious criticism against either the elite or their policies.

    Purging America's Leadership of Critics

    In the early 50's, capitalists were in a mild state of paranoia concerning the growing spread of Communism throughout the world. The people of China had just followed in Russia's footsteps and overthrown their emperor. At this point, America realized that the best way to stamp out public discussion of the shortcomings of monarchies and governments run by economic elite minorities, was to purge the country's key positions of socialist thinkers. The purge was spearheaded by a Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy who worked in close cooperation with J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI. Together these two men mounted a fierce campaign that lasted years, and quite successfully instilled in the public a fear and hatred of anything associated with socialist thinking. Nowhere was this carried out more fiercely than for people working in Hollywood's film industry.

    During the McCarthy era, anyone working in the industry, whom the FBI suspected of having socialist leanings was branded as a Communist, and banned from employment. Many went underground and continued working under false identities, while others fled the country. As a result of this purge, Hollywood continues to be one of the most useful controlled outlets for propaganda. Because this campaign was carried out so ruthlessly, pro-elite sympathizers were left to occupy all the key social positions, and especially with regard to the media.

    Maintaining Team Loyalty and Unity
    Today, the most important media members of our society to be kept sympathetic, or on the payroll are: TV Network owners and directors, newspaper owners and editors, film company board members, and advertising industry heads, etc.

    Incidentally, before I had become aware of the degree of consolidated ownership of the media, I had always wondered how such tight control over the press is managed, and I was given my first clue when on a flight from Tucson one day, I met a newspaper editor who was on his way to an editor's convention. When he mentioned that he used to work for the CIA, a group renown for its covert scheming, I was left wondering how many more of the nation's editors had acquired at least some of their skills from this College of Infiltrating Activists.

    An additional, but vital clue concerning media's link with Capitol Hill and the White House came when I learned that Henry Kissinger and Gerald Ford have served together on the board of directors of 20th Century Fox.

    You don't need to be a rocket scientist to recognize this inter-relationship of the elite with both the media and Hollywood, as a telltale hint of the complex ways in which the elite achieve their political and psychological objectives. Hollywood's propaganda potential alone is enormous and has been used extensively. What more obvious connection exists between Hollywood and the White House than Ronald Reagan himself. When Reagan needed support for his Star Wars program, up popped movies like Rambo (with Presidential endorsement, ...no less), Rambo II, and Rambo III. Is there an end in sight? Which leads us to the question as to whether there was any conscious intention for the Star Wars movie to help prepare the public for a military space program by the same name.

    Not surprisingly, in the 60's era when police were being publicly criticized and looked down upon because of their heavy handed use of force to suppress demonstrations and anti-Vietnam war protests, TV cop shows and movies, and "made for TV" movies started springing up like mushrooms to the ludicrous extent that at one point in time there were more than twenty police promotional films, (TV cop shows), running concurrently. Although Hollywood has a large role to play, newspapers and TV play the biggest role.

    Today, the media is as interconnected with the elite's political functionaries as ever. Incidentally, Caspar Weinberger, formerly Ronald Reagan's Trilateral Commission Defense Secretary, is now the publisher of Forbes magazine. {B153} And oh yes, Texan Eugene C. Pulliam, founder and owner of a chain of 7 newspapers died in 1975 leaving his grandson Dan Quayle some media power too.{B154}

    Ownership of the media has never been more consolidated, and the ability to control public thinking has never been more tightly controlled. Consequently, using the media to get sympathetic politicians elected in the first place, is a snap. Discrediting "liberalism" is a snap. Carrying on alliances with dictators (without suffering any media criticism) is a snap.

    Acknowledging the Elite's Teamwork
    By far the most important thing to realize is that the elite remain in power because they are highly organized. The elite use campaign financing to buy loyalty from politicians who then work in close cooperation with upper echelon media managers to sell the elite's actions and policies to the public. Together, they determine and control the content of information that flows out through the mass media. In effect, they practically dictate the opinions of those who derive their impressions of America and the world primarily from newspaper and television sources.

    For those of you who are still reluctant to think that the so-called "freest media in the world" cooperate with politicians behind the scenes to accomplish just that, let me hand you a bombshell. Think back for a moment to the fact that the Trilateral Commission is virtually operating America. How could this information have slipped the attention of the freest media in the world? (society's watchdog) Very simply. The reason is as shocking as it is revealing.

    To help elect Carter, and to be assured of coordinated cooperation of the media when required, the following media kingpins were also included as

    Trilateral Commission Members:
    The Editor in chief of Time Magazine

    The Director of the New York Times

    The Director of the Wall Street Journal

    The Director of the Los Angeles Times

    The Editorial Director of the Chicago Sun Times

    But that's not all! TV Network heads were also plugged into the Trilateral Commission.

    The President of the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS)

    And, the Chase Manhattan Bank board membership, ruled over by David Rockefeller, also interlocked with the American Broadcasting Company (ABC).

    ***

    The fact that the media kingpins have cooperated to virtually keep the public in the dark regarding the existence of the Trilateral Commission, should stand as an excellent example of the extent to which the elite and the media function as an integrated team. Media's role as "society's watchdog" is a carefully cultivated hoax that allows and assists the elite to enforce whatever social policies suit them best. The fact that most voters haven't even heard of this extremely powerful group of international social strategists constitutes one of the most treasonous cover-ups of the century.

    The Trilateral Commission could easily serve as a blueprint for a Big Brother organizational structure. Fusion of the nation's economic elite with the nation's media kingpins lies at the heart of elitist power. The benefit of a Big Brother media pyramid, is that the elite can speak into the media system at the top, and virtually the identical message reaches each and every member of society. Let's consider the mechanisms that are used to accomplish this.

    Making Sure Everyone Receives the Same Story
    Wire Services

    Perhaps the worst aspect of the media brainwashing is the degree to which the elite are able to coordinate and synchronize the various newspaper and TV networks.

    Seeing and hearing the same news on different networks and in different newspapers automatically lends an air of authenticity and credibility to the information. Considering the degree to which ownership of the various media outlets has been consolidated into the hands, and ultimately the control, of a very few of the elite, the mass media information we receive deserves absolutely no credibility at all.

    With TV, the variety of channels is superficial and misleading as well, because one can swap from channel to channel and from Network to Network only to see the very same film footage of news events, and the same editorial comments being made from information they all picked up from the same Wire Service. This is especially true where government news releases are involved. {B154} Once the government inputs its official colored version of an event or policy into the Wire Services (like United Press International, or Reuters), ...within seconds, every newspaper and TV station can be broadcasting the identical story, whether it's the truth, or misinformation. And because the Wire Services reach everywhere on the planet, misinforming the whole planet at once is now possible. In overtly totalitarian regimes, information control and censorship is expected and apparent, ...in America it's worse because its hidden. Getting the same message out to everyone has been made even easier by yet another ongoing technique, the number of newspapers has been drastically reduced. In other words, diversity of opinion and real criticism of current policies has been almost totally eliminated.

    Focusing Readers' Attention

    One Newspaper Per City

    Because the dissemination of selected information and ideas, as well as censorship, is greatly facilitated by being brought under centralized control, the consolidation of ownership of the diverse media outlets has been going on relentlessly behind the scenes. With only one point of view to publish, the elite don't require more than one newspaper per city. Since the 20's, the number of cities with at least two daily newspapers has dropped from over 500 to 19!! {B155}

    Even though Los Angeles is one of the largest cities in the world, its citizens can now take their pick from just one editorial view of American and foreign events. In Nov 89, with the closure of The Los Angeles Herald Examiner, citizens of L.A. joined the majority of Americans who derive their knowledge of the world mainly from one newspaper's point of view, and from TV, where information is fragmented into 30 second sound bites, or equally superficial photo opportunities.

    To better understand how the smaller newspapers have been squeezed out and eliminated, readers can read the article "Do you sincerely want to publish? in Forbes Sep 18 1989 issue on page 68.

    Logically, the process of consolidation should have been the focus of utmost concern for a society that considers it possesses a free press. It should therefore be noted that the media virtually never editorializes about this ongoing process, ...or on the dangers to freedom of speech that accompany consolidated ownership of the media.

    In a country that boasts of having the freest press in the world, it should be sadly acknowledged that nowadays the only way the public get a chance to purposely voice their opinions through the media is by writing a letter to the editor. From personal experience I can attest to the fact that not only can such a letter be ignored completely, it can be partially quoted, or quoted out of context.

    Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.

    A.J. LIEBLING

    In contrast, the editors or more specifically the owners of the editors (Rupert Murdoch, and people like him) can easily coordinate the same political coloration of information simultaneously through each of the media entities under their control, and raise any topic of their choice through the editorials daily, ...repeating specific topics as often, or as seldom as they wish. This of course brings up one other aspect of coordinated news coverage that lends itself to consolidated ownership, ..."precision timing" in the simultaneous release, or delayed release of carefully prepared news items.

    In America, the President reigns for 4 years, and journalism governs for ever and ever.

    OSCAR WILDE

    Focusing Viewers' Attention (TV and Movies)

    Viewer Guides

    As far as TV programming goes, you might be tempted to point out that a viewer has dozens of channels to choose from. In this regard, two factors need discussing, uniformity of news and related news comments, and the ratings game.

    Not only can the network owners influence or determine the choice of programming to be shown on their networks, Rupert Murdoch went even one step further by buying up TV Guide. Now he is in a position to not only determine what will be shown on his own Fox network, but he also possesses the means to steer the viewer toward his network's programs by rating his own programs slightly better than those of his competitors, if and when he wishes.

    Brandon Tartikoff, the programming head of NBC was quoted in the August 22 1988 issue of Newsweek as saying "If we sense a loss of objectivity in the editorial pages of TV Guide, we will take a shift in print buying. We can advertise our shows without TV Guide." He was voicing his fears about how the new owner, Rupert Murdoch, who owns the Fox Network might use TV Guide to influence the TV audiences to watch more Fox Network programs and consequently less of the programs from other networks. (such as NBC) {B156} More importantly, the ratings (1,2 or 3 stars), or even the descriptions of the programming can be written up (or omitted). Viewers are more tempted to watch programs that have been described with favorable descriptions, or rated with 3 stars or more, than programs that have been given no description at all.
    Documentary programs critical of the elite or their policies are broadcast occasionally to maintain the illusion of freedom of speech, but are usually given little if any description in a TV Guide so that viewers who wish to view such material can very easily miss viewing them.

    When required, the TV viewer guides in newspapers can in fact be coordinated with the write-ups in the TV Guide to maximize the number of viewers for specially prepared propaganda programming.

    The content of TV shows is a case in point. Many live talk shows and situation comedies deal with current controversial topics. Therefore the opinions voiced, as well as the opinions that are not voiced, are extremely significant. Not only is the media purposely used to actively shape public opinion, it is equally effective in controlling public criticism of current events. Network news coverage, with its carefully chosen verbal and video content plays a major role in the formation of public opinion. If newscasters were all as concerned about the future and integrity of the country as Bill Moyers or Fred Friendly, we would have little to fear, but such is not the case.

    In a similar way, movie reviews in both newspaper and in TV commercials can be used for example to encourage moviegoers to watch a particular show such as "Mississippi Burning", which not only depicts black FBI men in an era in which black FBI men did not exist, but FBI men risking their lives fighting for civil rights issues on behalf of the blacks. It would be easy for members of the younger generation to emerge from that movie thinking that FBI men were champions of the civil rights movement at that time. In reality, it would have been fairer to compare them with the type of Sheriff depicted in the movie "Easy Rider". This particular example was not brought up to point out whether or not the inaccuracy was intentional, but to illustrate just how easily new generations in particular can be influenced by Hollywood or TV shows into forming erroneous impressions of previous eras.

    Now that we have seen how well the media is organized to influence both the nation's newspaper readers and its TV viewers, let's consider what the elite can achieve through media manipulation.{B156}

    The Role of the Media

    In Chapter 1, we saw that the elite actually exist, despite their purposely low profiles. In Chapter 2, we saw how the elite easily conscript politicians to carry out their wishes. In Chapter 3 so far, we have seen how the elite have conscripted the media ...by buying it up, purging it of critics, consolidating ownership, and placing trusted pro-elite individuals in key positions. In reality, politicians work in close cooperation with the nation's top media managers to sell the elite's actions and policies to the public. Generally speaking, the two groups work together to carry out the following simple tasks.

    1) Convince the public that America has the best social system possible.(i.e. in reality that Feudalism is the best possible system)

    2) Prepare the public for the elite's upcoming actions or policies.

    3) Defend and justify the elite's actions and policies.

    4) Discredit those who criticize the elite's actions or policies.

    5) At election time, use any means available to help elect the elite's political candidates.

    To accomplish the above tasks, the media team uses every psychological trick they think they can get away with. And it is these tricks and techniques that we will now consider.

    Using Recurring, Mind-programming Concepts
    Of all the psychological techniques used, the most seductive but the least obvious, is that of giving repeated media exposure to concepts that subconsciously program the public to be pro-elite. The average American still clutches onto flawed concepts of America that are being relentlessly dished out by the media to leave the public in a state of mind that allows the elite to continue their exploitation of national and international resources unhindered.

    The owners of the media have been working on conditioning our minds for quite some while, and I remember how slowly my own mind responded to the deep significance of the wealth distribution statistics. We are all handicapped by the fact that it is almost impossible to reverse years of brainwashing overnight.

    Nevertheless, being aware of the techniques is the first step to being free of their effects. Some quite erroneous themes have been reinforced over and over, to the point that most Americans have been totally seduced by the underlying message.

    Let's take a look at the first example.


    1) Anyone Can Get Rich, or Become President

    If asked why they thought America was a land of opportunity, many would reply that in America "anyone can be President, and anyone can work hard and get rich".

    The fact that only one of the 250 million Americans can be president at any one time seems to get overlooked in the process. To say that "practically no one in America can be President" would in fact describe reality more accurately.

    Let me ask the original question again. This time we will replace fantasy with reality.

    Why do you think America is the land of opportunity?

    Answer: Because only those candidates whom the elite wish to back with campaign financing and media support end up in the White House, and because the richest 1%, as well as the next richest 9%, both separately own more assets than the combined assets of the bottom 90%.

    Hopefully, this example exposes once again the need to come to grips with reality and shake off some of the traditional but erroneous ways of thinking about America.

    To help the bottom 90% accept their subsistence realities while waiting for the pie in the sky to materialize, the elite employ a couple of concepts to establish an air of normality to the existing wealth distribution inequities. The first concerns the unwarranted attention paid by the media to the British Royalty.

    2) Royalty Kept in Spotlight (to Normalize Inequality)

    Isn't it a bit peculiar for a nation which supposedly doesn't want a King or Queen, to have its newspapers and magazines print news articles every time Prince Charles sneezes or Princess "Di" buys a new dress? Of course it is, but the media has always given unwarranted coverage to the British Royalty, therefore doing so does not appear peculiar at all. However, by doing so, Americans are constantly reminded that some fellow human beings are "Royalty".

    The constant attention given to Royalty by the American media is really only a clever mask to conceal a subtle conditioning:
    to normalize the existence of class and economic distinctions and inequalities.

    The term "Royalty" is loaded with connotations of superiority, both economic and social. The fact that in 1990 people would still curtsy and bow to fellow human beings who have successfully dragged Feudalism into the 21st century bears witness to the power of this technique. What a pompous affront to mankind, but a cunningly useful mind conditioning tactic that the economic elite gladly keep dangling regularly in our media. It is obvious that many, especially in Britain, have been successfully conditioned to accept the normality of a caste system based on inherited wealth and power. Force feeding the public (through books, newspapers, TV, and magazines) with a steady diet of news items related to "Royalty", ranks high on the elite's list of indispensable mind-conditioning tricks. To cement the "more equal than others" concept in the nation's psyche, another equally powerful and totally disarming theme has been etched into the nation's thinking.

    3) Any Degree of Economic Inequality is Acceptable

    Is there anything in our present system to prevent
    the same degree of wealth distribution inequities that occurred under early Feudalism, from occurring again under Capitalism?
    The answer is ...NO!!

    As it stands today, we have been socially conditioned
    to accept ANY degree of economic inequity as
    an unquestionable condition of capitalism!

    The preceding statements are extremely significant. Your freedoms depend on your ability to appreciate the folly of continuing to accept that condition.

    The standard of health and education benefits available to an individual is increasingly determined by one's economic wealth. For an ever growing percentage of the nation, dental services, like legal services and many aspects of medical care, are ceasing to be luxury expenses. They are now downright unaffordable!

    What loss of social services, or level of wealth distribution imbalance are you prepared to accept or overlook? At what point would you agree that something is definitely wrong with the system?
    ...when the richest 1% own more equity than 93% of us equals?
    ...or perhaps when they own more than the bottom 95% ?
    Quite seriously, ...what percentage would it take? The elite are at 90% now, ...and still climbing.


    4) Patriotism (i.e., Automatic Loyalty to the Status Quo)

    Generally speaking, the elite's candidates avoid taking definitive stands on the vital issues of the day. Instead of actually committing the party to specific action, they prefer to employ a range of psychological tricks to deflect attention away from vital issues and onto selected red herring non-issues.

    At every opportunity, they try to be photographed amid a sea of waving flags, while they spout hollow patriotic rhetoric which is preceded and followed by bands playing the national anthem. It would be an hilarious spectacle if the brainwashing did not have such serious consequences. In fact George Bush went so far as to stage one of his election rally "photo opportunities" in a flag factory (...of course it was televised!).{B157} By bonding himself with the theme of patriotism, and physically surrounding himself constantly with flags and items which conjure up ideas of loyalty to country, George Bush and countless others before him built a subconscious equation in the public's mind.

    Reject George Bush, ...and you reject the flag, the nation, military servicemen, veterans in wheelchairs, policemen, and every other patriotic symbol that the media were called in to photograph him with.

    Anyone who objected to George Bush's plan of making the recital of patriotic verse mandatory for school children was immediately tarred with the "unpatriotic" brush. The elite have always used patriotism as a vehicle to slyly demand automatic loyalty to the status quo.

    This means automatic loyalty to an economic class system where the richest 1 percent own more than 90 percent of the country's working serfs, ...and where the majority (over 50 percent) of the population most likely own less than 5 percent of the national wealth. George Bush would also like you "to be forced" to swear allegiance to that system. It's not difficult to figure why; the rich folks definitely don't want Feudalism to stop. Don't you think you ought to salute the flag or recite the pledge of allegiance because you want to, and not because of a dictatorial imperative. Swearing allegiance to Feudalism is somewhat akin to making reservations for your place on a chain gang. Patriotism is only one of several themes that is used year-round to condition the nation's psyche into accepting pie in the sky concepts of collective well-being that a social system based on gross economic and social inequalities will never achieve.

    For years at a stretch, voters can be treated like governmental doormats. Then for six months prior to an election, the doormats are rolled up, bound together, and elevated to form a flagpole from which is hung the largest flag available. Then like clockwork, in a show of post-election gratitude, the doormats are again taken to the cleaners.

    The recurring themes just mentioned are no doubt very familiar to all readers. There are others. With regard to the tactics used every day, normally one does not have to search hard for evidence of media manipulations because the evidence is presented every single day on TV and in newspaper news coverage. The evidence could fill whole libraries.

    Media Manipulation Techniques
    Let's now review some of the most used media manipulation techniques. But to make the topic as interesting as possible, we will consider how the techniques have been used to color the reporting of American foreign policy. However, in order to see behind the foreign policy smoke screen, a few initial perspectives may help.

    Perspectives for Interpreting Foreign Policy

    Firstly, the elite's foreign policy actions become more transparent when one recognizes that practically all foreign policy is designed to assist the elite in modern day colonialist exploitation, which can be categorized into five basic tasks.



    1. Protecting their existing foreign investments (e.g., Kuwait, Panama, etc.) 2. Setting up new exploitation opportunities (e.g., Mexico, former Soviet Union countries, etc.)
    3. Giving support to another colonialist ally (e.g., England with the Falklands, France with Vietnam, etc.) 4. Trying to prevent the total loss of a country's exploitation potential by preventing the country from adopting either a socialist or communist system of government (e.g., Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador, etc.) 5. Attempting to destabilize and overthrow anti-American or existing left-wing governments to install puppets who will reestablish exploitation opportunities (e.g., Iraq, Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, etc.)

    Because it is becoming more difficult to exploit either the land or the human resources in America due to increasing pressure from concerned citizens, corporate America invokes chess-like strategies to make the human and natural resources of Second and Third World nations available for their use.

    For example, countries such as South Korea, which have a Communist counterpart, have had billions of dollars pumped into their economies, in an effort to produce Capitalist showcases to serve as ideological bait for enticing less developed nations to form relationships with the Western elite.

    Successfully wooing foreign countries for this purpose is akin to sending out marriage proposals. Seeing as the American Dream has turned out to be an illusion, fewer and fewer countries are falling in love with capitalism nowadays, a sign of the times, and many more marriages of convenience are being arranged.

    For a personal share of the profits, selfish and greedy dictators have traditionally shown an eagerness to allow Western capitalists to take advantage of their country's unorganized human resources, and to exploit their natural resources, with scant concern for ecological or long term repercussions.

    The World Bank is often called in on these joyous occasions to supply the engagement presents, usually some grants, or low interest loans. Mention is often made at this time, of the lavish wedding presents to follow, which normally include at least one air force base and/or a naval installation. This is a particularly attractive scenario for dictators who use the American backing to maintain their anti-democratic dictatorial controls.

    Occasionally however, a foreign country which possesses a resource, strategic geographical position, a cheap unorganized labor pool, or some other such advantage does not wish to do business with the Western elite. Perhaps they feel capitalism would not provide the optimum in long term development for their country, or they think they can get a better deal elsewhere. In such cases, the Western elite may secretly offer a lucrative proposal of support to other powerful elements within the country. Almost always, a willing partner can be found who is eager to take a shot at being the country's new dictator in exchange for the necessary military support to stay in power long enough to personally benefit from the co-venture.

    The planning required for the more serious International social functions is handled by the National Security Advisor, or by such little known, but immensely powerful organizations as the Trilateral Commission, and various other right-wing think tanks like the John Birch Society and the Brookings Institution in Washington.

    The catering for many of the functions is normally handed over to the CIA, the operational arm of these various think tanks, which then has the means at its disposal to covertly organize and fund whatever paramilitary groups or individual operatives (like Oliver North), that may be required to carry off the function. The inherent covert nature of the CIA makes it a formidable tool in the hands of the elite who wish to carry out strategies that would not stand up well to public or legal scrutiny. Some of the events especially the marriages of convenience previously mentioned can turn out to be rather socially unpleasant events, because proceeding with the relationship usually involves snubbing the country's current leaders. And that invariably leads to bad blood between the rival forces.

    Enough of perspectives.

    Let's now review some of the techniques used to report actual past foreign policy adventures in order to appreciate the media's invaluable role in making cover-up excuses to sell the elite's unethical and immoral conduct.

    Restricting News Coverage to the Elite's Version

    First of all, diversity of news coverage perspective is killed simply by reducing the number of newspapers per city, ...mostly to one. With TV, the variety of channels is superficial and misleading when it comes to news coverage, and especially when Official Government News Releases are involved.

    Officially prepared government accounts of events are normally characterized by a government spokesperson usually standing behind a podium with a round seal of the United States mounted on it, and a flag or two serving as a backdrop framing the speaker. Seated in front of the spokesperson, there is normally a room full of reporters who ought to be "on the spot", covering the story in person. Where military actions are involved, a general or two usually accompany the speaker complete with their charts, diagrams, and a specially prepared 30 second video clip. We've all seen it. They do it all the time. Absent is the "on the spot film footage" taken by freelance photographers, as there invariably is if the action were taking place 5000 miles away in some remote corner of China, or Russia.

    The coverage of the Panama invasion was a classic example.

    For nearly three days, Americans were shown the same two snippets of government supplied film footage. The American news crews had been flown into Panama by the Pentagon, but had been virtually held captive on one of the American bases and fed with government approved news releases, at government arranged news conferences. In reality, for the first two days at least, there was a "news blackout" coverage of the Panama invasion!! The elite refused to allow the American media to report that whole blocks of the city had been bombed flat, and that Panamanians had been rounded up and held in what amounted to concentration camps to prevent them from defending their own country against the invasion forces. We saw more of the Tiananmen Square action than we ever did of the Panama invasion, and Panama is only an hour away!!

    At will, the government can, and periodically does, impose a moratorium on "freedom of the press" at times when freedom of the media is most required. This degree of censorship has the undeniable stamp of a feudal oligarchy!

    Did the press complain? Hardly! They're an integral part of the cover-up. Protests by the media were conspicuous by their absence! In any case, protests jeopardize jobs and therefore family security. Restricted coverage is done primarily to control the first impressions.

    Controlling the "First Impressions"

    Most people form long lasting, if not permanent appraisals of strangers based on their "first impressions" The same thing happens with news stories, and this is the secret behind "photo opportunities" and "30 second sound bites". The technique becomes especially valuable where information is restricted to official news releases, as was done with Panama. In order to maximize the effects of restricted news coverage, another equally important tactic is used, ...the opinion polls.

    Reinforcing Public Approval Using "Opinion Polls"
    When the media team has to relate news that is potentially embarrassing to the elite or their government functionaries, the media team uses the power punch which consists of giving information exclusively through one or more carefully prepared official news releases, followed by newspaper and TV station editorials, thereafter followed immediately by opinion poll surveys.

    In addition to the "official pollsters (like the Harris or Gallup polls) taking their surveys, both TV and radio stations ask their viewers and listeners to call in right after their brainwashing sessions to register their reactions to the news story.

    Supportive reactions are fed back to viewers and listeners almost immediately. The ease with which these polls can be rigged may not be obvious. For example, if only three callers phoned in, two supportive and one in disagreement, the station could announce that the poll showed that twice as many viewers supported the President, the policy, etc., as opposed it.

    Not only that, in order to maximize the effects of gerrymandering, the elite have spent great sums of money canvassing the country from door to door to learn how particular households vote. In other words, it would be relatively easy to call specific households and obtain consistently predictable responses for opinion polls. This type of information would also provide invaluable assistance in selecting jurors as well.

    In America, opinion poll results help to persuade people who have not yet made up their minds. A good percentage enjoy the security of agreeing with the majority. Thought-conditioning using opinion polls works, perhaps a little too well.

    In any event, the secret of success of this technique is to solicit public reactions immediately after serving up either misinformation, or a specially sanitized or colored version of the event specially written to evoke feelings of patriotism and loyalty to country. In this way, the elite can get public support for practically any action or policy they care to carry out.

    The technique was used very effectively with respect to Panama, to gain widespread public support and approval for what amounted to not only an invasion of another country's sovereign territory, but more importantly, for an aerial assassination attempt to kill the head of a foreign country.

    The fact that America installed a puppet government to ensure its continued control over the Panama Canal, was a topic of discussion conspicuous by its absence. The fact that the treaty (allowing American troops to occupy Panama) was in a few short years going to expire, didn't get mentioned much by the press corps either.

    With regard to the Panama invasion, and other events like it, Jeff Cohen, executive director of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (a New York-based media watch group), summed up the role played by the media like this.

    "What the American media does, is ...use jingoistic and chauvinistic methods of explaining the world and then they poll the audience to come back with jingoistic and chauvinistic opinions that get recycled in an endless loop of flag-waving."


    Another memorable instance of this technique being used occurred after the U.S. navy had blasted an Iranian passenger jetliner out of the sky with 290 passengers aboard.

    News of the event was channeled through official White House and Pentagon news briefings which were repeated over and over, and which drove home to Americans that it was Iran's errors and negligence that were to blame. The two main justifications given for the missile attack were the following:

    1) The aircraft was outside the commercial jet flight corridor.

    2) The plane was at about 7,000 ft. and descending on an intercept path with the battleship Vincennes.

    Then for the next three days, the public was subjected to countless opinion polls, the results of which overwhelmingly exonerated the U.S. navy of any guilt.

    The public's opinions were already chiseled in stone when the U.S. changed its story and admitted that the aircraft carrier Vincennes had voluntarily placed itself under an Internationally acknowledged commercial flight corridor. Moreover, the White House eventually admitted that the jet had in fact taken off on schedule, and when shot down, was flying in the International flight corridor at about 12,000 feet, and was either climbing or on level flight.

    By that time, the truth held no significance
    ... the misinformation and opinion polls had already left their indelible impressions!!

    All but the naive should recognize that the American public had been purposely, and once again quite successfully, fed lies so that the American elite could indulge in additional psychological warfare and revenge. It should be easy to recall in retrospect at least, that prior to the attack, the American people had already been whipped up by anti-Iranian films depicting the Iranian people as mindless shouting fanatics. Of course the Ayatollah had been depicted even more so.

    The media incidentally never voiced any concern that it had served as a tool to dispense factual inaccuracies to the public, nor did it attempt to hold anyone accountable for the lies, ...that time, or any of the other countless times it has done so.

    By eventually exposing the truth, however quietly (i.e. buried in a small item on page 38 with an uninteresting byline, or at the tail end of the classified section), the whole media information team could, for posterity, point nevertheless to where the truth had actually been printed. Unfortunately they make use of misinformation regularly.

    Even now, it is alleged that some of the film footage for the 1987 CBS documentary "The Battle for Afghanistan" had been staged. In a similar way, it now appears that a film shown by ABC News of July 21, 1989 which shows a briefcase being handed by an American diplomat to a Soviet agent in Paris (the action intimating that the diplomat was a spy), was a "simulation", shot by ABC in Vienna. {B159}

    The only reason the truth emerges in some cases, is that witnesses from foreign countries print the real truth in their own newspapers, and then it becomes impossible to keep the truth suppressed.

    In any case, the next technique to consider involves word trickery.

    Selling Bad Products using "Word Trickery"

    A good example of this deceitful technique was used in the Panama invasion as well, by referring to the "aerial assassination attempt" as "Operation Just Cause".

    When American soldiers are faced with a "target-rich environment", it probably means they got to fire into a crowd. But the word "rich" has an automatic subconscious appeal.

    The term "surgical strike" gets used because the term "surgical" brings with it a positive association with doctors and saving lives. Missiles have been called "Peacekeepers". Obvious connotation.
    And of course to justify giving financial and military support to a group of ruthless mercenary killers (usually the unemployed military henchmen of deposed dictators), they are euphemistically referred to as "Freedom Fighters".

    Ever since the population of Nicaragua overthrew their American backed oppressive dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979, they have been prevented from building their nation by having to divert most of their nation's energy to fighting the Contras, who can only survive from external American funding because they do not have the popular support of the people. Consequently, the Contras have to physically locate themselves outside of Nicaragua in the neighboring country of Honduras, which has been coerced by the American elite into providing a sanctuary. The Contras were from the start CIA funded mercenaries whose numbers rise and fall not as a result of political convictions, but strictly as a result of the availability of American money. Through American Presidential and congressional support, the former members of Somoza's death squads are allowed to continue on with their work, even after it had been publicly exposed that the Contras used the drug trade as a source of additional income.

    This "Freedom Fighter" scenario, which involves public and covert assistance from the CIA, congressionally endorsed political and economic support, and a media whitewashing campaign, ...is played out with regularity whenever dictators are toppled.

    As a result of continually having to spend the same amount of money to defend themselves as America gives the Contras, second world countries like Nicaragua are kept economically and socially crippled by this type of contrived prolonged war. They are prevented indefinitely from getting on with the task of rebuilding war ravaged economies.

    The Western media naturally keeps reporting that the new system is not working; that the people were better off under the former dictator; and that they are becoming demoralized and impatient with the new leaders. Some of this might be true, but it is precisely what the relentless American intervention is supposed to achieve.

    News Omissions
    As debilitating as the previously described Contra-style guerrilla war is for a 2nd world nation, it is certainly better than the fate suffered by such countries as Cambodia and Vietnam which were almost bombed off the face of the earth. As a direct result of the "keep them dumb or misinformed" tactics employed by media manipulators, the severity of the U.S. destruction of Cambodia went almost unreported, and should stand as another poignant example of news censorship. Few North Americans would be aware that the death toll in Cambodia was as high or higher than in Vietnam.

    Incidentally, due to the horrendous quantity of AGENT ORANGE defoliant used in these countries, it will take several generations before vegetation growth returns to normal, and even longer before the number of shameful birth defects subsides.

    It will be many more decades before the last child's legs or arms are blown off by the countless anti-personnel mines left by a military force who simply got back in their planes and left their brutal legacy of destruction behind. According to a recent documentary, these buried anti-personnel mines still claim about 1 victim per week,
    ...ten years after the war supposedly ended!! {B160} Are their lives any less valuable than American hostages?

    Or has the value of the lives of the American hostages been purposely inflated by the press for psychological reasons to justify the continuation of atrocious Middle Eastern foreign policy. It should be perfectly obvious that the hostages have much greater value to America as captives than if they were free. Even if they were not valuable in the propaganda war, the lives of the hostages are not as valuable to America as retaining the billions of dollars removed from Iran with the Shah. That's the bottom line. And that leads us to another favorite technique.

    Playing Down the Importance of Facts

    We should remember that the American government and media branded as terrorists those Iranians who are holding the American hostages. But few Americans either know or remember that the hostages were taken in desperation, as a bargaining tool to get back the billions of dollars that the U.S. helped the Shah to "REMOVE" from Iran when he was thrown out by his own countrymen. Moreover, it should be well remembered that the Shah only came to power in the first place due to the covert activities of the CIA chief Allen Dulles, and his brother John Foster Dulles who was Secretary of State. The CIA covertly funded terrorist street gangs in Iran to carry out operations that purposely led to the overthrow in 1953 of the then ruling premier of Iran, Dr. Mussadegh, who was not pro-American.

    What few people readily acknowledge is that America regularly assists departing dictators to literally clean out the foreign country's bank vaults of money and gold.

    The news media usually leaks out information like this as quietly as possible, and once it has leaked it once, it may definitely not get mentioned again. Yes, the truth may have been mentioned quietly, but the lack of appropriate emphasis regarding the severity of the consequences to the economy of the country concerned is obviously playing down the relative importance of the facts.

    The effects of stealing billions of dollars from the economy of a Second World country is about as serious as bombing the industries in each major city of that country. This type of atrocity is worse than any colonial exploitation with perhaps the exception of the Spanish looting of South and Central America.

    American complicity in cleaning out other countries' vaults has occurred on plenty of occasions and must be recognized as an integral aspect of American foreign policy!!

    The wealth removals that occurred when General Ky left South Vietnam, when Baby Doc left Haiti, and when Ferdinand Marcos left the Philippines, ...are just a few more of the recent examples. America also helped Chiang Kai-shek to "remove" much of China's art treasures and to clean out the China's Central Bank Reserves when the Communists came to power in 1949.

    Unfortunately, robbing foreign countrys' treasuries is just another of the many tactics the American elite uses to hobble the economies of governments newly formed by grass roots citizens who have banded together to depose their dictators.

    Possible Corrective Actions
    The bottom 90 percent must first of all concentrate their lobbying efforts to get rid of consolidated ownership and control of the media, ...especially of TV and newspapers.

    1) Legislation must be enacted to ensure that moneyed interests do not control the content or dissemination of information. Their ownership of the communications media involves a "conflict of interest" of the highest order. No other reform compares in any way with the importance of this prerequisite.
    Increasingly, the quality and content of programming chosen by the profit-oriented media owners has been so poor that it drove desperate citizens to privately fund their own network (the Public Broadcasting System). Unfortunately, the high cost of running stations has driven certain PBS stations to seek a portion of the needed funding support from basically the same sources that have corrupted the integrity of our elected politicians(i.e. large corporations). Regrettably, the programming occasionally and increasingly bears the stamp of the elite's influence.

    As long as the elite hold a virtual monopolistic control over the media, only short-term, illusive control can be obtained. As long as it is legal for individuals like Rupert Murdoch to single-handedly own as many newspapers, magazines, TV stations, radio stations, and satellite communications networks as they wish, the economic elite will continue to use their influence to support and elect those who show willingness to vote for policy that maintains the status quo.

    Begin by restricting any single person, family, or corporation from owning more than one media entity, ...in other words only one newspaper, or one TV station, or one radio station, coordinated and synchronized manipulation would become all that more difficult, if not impossible. Not only should the sources of news information be stated, harsh penalties should be introduced to act as disincentives for spreading misinformation. Individuals should be jailed for knowingly spreading misinformation.

    THE PERMANENCE OF ALL OTHER REFORMS HINGES ON THE DEGREE TO WHICH FREEDOM AND INTEGRITY OF THE MEDIA IS ACHIEVED.

    2) Periodically, individual investigative reporters such as Neil Sheehan (The Pentagon Papers), or Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (Watergate), achieve the recognition they so justly deserve for the critical social role they play. However, this is unfortunately the exception rather than the rule.
    To encourage, and promote the efforts of investigative reporters, and to counteract the effects of consolidated ownership of the media, namely editorial control over the content and coloration of media information, I advocate the creation of an organization devoted to the promotion of media integrity.

    The organization could also monitor the objectivity of the media, and perhaps give out non-monetary recognition awards to individual newspapers, or current affairs TV shows like 60 Minutes, which show obvious integrity with regard to acting as social watchdogs.

    Another of its functions would be to hand out grants each year as rewards to investigative journalists, freelance or otherwise, who had contributed to the exposure of social corruption or injustice.
    With damage suits for single car accidents exceeding one million dollars, an annual operating budget of from two to five million dollars would seem a very small price to pay for social integrity insurance for an entire nation.

    3) Corporations, governments, and the media have all cooperated to do everything in their power to discourage whistle blowers. A careful review of former case histories will attest to the lengths to which the elite are willing to go to keep employees from exposing the unethical or corrupt activities of society's kingpins. Media censorship continues in part because individuals who have made their careers in the media cannot afford to jeopardize their family's security, or their own career development to speak out against those that employ them.

    For the most part, reporters are told what stories to cover and usually even how to cover them. The stories are biased before the reporter even leaves his desk. In any event, editors have plenty of opportunities to influence the emphasis or coloration of a news item before it hits the news anchorperson's desk.

    Democracy becomes a government of
    bullies tempered by editors.

    RALPH WALDO EMERSON

    As long as the American public see nothing unusual with ex-(national security advisers) and ex-Presidents exercising their power and influence within Hollywood movie studio boardrooms, and ex-(CIA agents) operating as newspaper editors, American Feudalism and Neocolonialism will certainly flourish.

    Big Brother is operating quite satisfactorily, thank you.

    Bibliographic References for Chapter 3
    {B140} "Even Rupert has his limits" BusinessWeek (Oct 2 1989): p35
    {B141} "Murdoch's empire" Newsweek (Aug 22 1989): p43
    {B142} "Even Rupert has his limits" BusinessWeek (Oct 2 1989): p34
    {B143} "Murdoch's empire" Newsweek (Aug 22 1988): p45
    {B144} The Billionaires" Fortune (Sep 12 1988): p71
    {B145} "The Billionaires" Fortune (Sep 12 1988): p84
    {B146} "The Billionaires" Fortune (Sep 12 1988): p71
    {B147} "The Billionaires" Fortune (Sep 12 1988): p92
    {B148} "The Billionaires" Fortune (Sep 12 1988): p84
    {B149} "How Hollywood fixed an election" American Film Magazine (Nov 88):
    {B150} Swanberg, W.A. Citizen Hearst (New York: Bantam Books, 1971), p.531
    {B151} "The wordsmith behind The Speech" Newsweek (Aug 22 1988): p16
    {B152} Cap Weinberger to become fourth Forbes Publisher" Forbes (Oct 3 1988): p
    {B153} "The Quayle family newspapers: Black, white - and green all over" BusinessWeek (Aug 28 1989): p29
    {B154} "When the presses stop" The Economist (Nov 11 1989): p36
    {B155} "Do you sincerely want to publish?" Forbes (Sep 18 1989): p72
    {B156} "Murdoch's empire" Newsweek (Aug 22 1988): p47
    {B157} "Flag burning and flag waving" The Economist (July 1 1989): p19
    {B158} "U.S. jingoism is revealed in striking lack of criticism of Bush's action in Panama" The Toronto Globe and Mail (Dec 22 1989): pA1
    {B159} "The case of the briefcase" The Economist (Jul 29 1989): p24

 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.