As cited in George Seldes 1943 book FACTS AND FASCISM: New York Times, October 28, 1934: "Benefits of Fascism Viewed On Birthday; In Thirteen Years Regime Regarded As Having Accomplished Many Laudable Things In Italy."
So it didn't just start.
But I did notice that cable news network explosion of propaganda in 1995, during the O.J. Simpson trial. I worked at a job where I was able to listen to the trial all day and was amazed at how different the coverage of the trial at night was from what had actually occurred. If you based your judgment of Simpson on what Geraldo, John Gibson or the others spewed at night, no wonder you may have been surprised when he was acquitted.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at June 29, 2008 09:19 AMParadox, you've nailed it once again.
Every authoritarian regime must first control the information fed to the population. The current Corp/Gov arrangement ensures that those who rely on corporate media sources will be fed information that furthers that corporation's agenda. And courts have ruled that the media has no legal or civil duty to be truthful.
The internet, as it now exists, is breaking down that propaganda matrix. However, as our energy intensive quality of life continues to decline and financial systems collapse, I would expect that a free internet will be made illegal and replaced with one the can be controlled. It is already being monitored with powerful surveillance software and complicit corporate actors.
I have come to suspect that the "War on Terror" has more to do with controlling an armed and desperate population in a time of economic strife and energy paradigm shift, than protecting the homeland from radical Islamic jihadists. We are seeing the beginning of the beginning of the end of the age of oil and the ramifications, especially on complex, energy dependent societies, are hard to get your head around.
Posted by brisa at June 29, 2008 12:34 PMWhat happened to the free press and other media, which by the way, are owned by wealthy barons who could see that Republican rule could make them wealthier, started taking more active control over the media by pushing conservative propaganda and slanting the news to meet their agenda. The public could not see what was happening and started believing the Republican propaganda and swallowed the lies.
Posted by Captain Dan at June 29, 2008 01:07 PMRevolution anyone?
Posted by Judith at June 29, 2008 01:50 PMLike Gil Scott-Heron said long ago, "The revolution will not be televised." It would be too much reality for the fake-reality networks.
Posted by Sharon at June 29, 2008 02:53 PMYou mean they could tell the faux reality from the real reality. Amazing!
Posted by Judith at June 29, 2008 03:02 PMWell, paradox, you are certainly right on the substance of your post. But I want to give Tommy Friedman just a little bit of credit this time. One of the things he has consistently harped on over the years is the necessity of getting ourselves away from an oil based economy (and things like gas-guzzling SUVs) that feeds authoritarian regimes that are not really our friends. On this point I think he's been right all along. He's certainly had his head up GWB's ass on the war and has refused to connect the dots on any number of issues. But here he's preaching on the one issue on which he's been right all along.
Posted by Delia at June 29, 2008 03:54 PMDelta:
Friedman has been one of the most consistant and vocal supporters of globalization. A supply model that is expremely energy intensive. I think it safe to say that without cheap and plentiful oil, it is local production, especially of food stuffs, that will have a competitive edge.
Friedman seems unable to appreciate the unsustainability of globalization in the face of energy depletion.
Posted by brisa at June 29, 2008 08:36 PMThe economic cycle has not been repealed.
All booms are followed by busts.
Posted by muck at June 29, 2008 08:45 PM"...continued funding of the Iraq war, and capitulation on FISA [by Democrats]. I wish I knew why...."
COMPLICITY.
muck: "All booms are followed by busts."
What Bush boom??? His economic record is pathetic, with real income going down for regular Americans.
Posted by Gay Veteran at June 30, 2008 10:26 AMThis commentary is all correct.
The point though is that liberalism was largely dead in America between 1979 and 2001. It's only with the utter excesses of Bush that we begin to see a resurgence.
It took the neo-cons between 1964 when they hit rock bottom with the crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater, to 1980 when they all swept into power with Reagan.
That's 16 years! We're only in year 7. I'd say we're doing a bit better than they did, but by no means enough to save our country if push comes to shove today.
But, a long-term perspective is necessary for one's sanity.
Posted by Cugel at July 1, 2008 12:16 AMparadox makes interesting use of the term "Republic health." It seems right to me, having tried to define "republic" in a history book (The End of Kings, 1983) using Dr. Johnson's "a government of more than one."
But that means that it's not the Press but Congress and the Courts that mean most to the Republic's health, and especially their continued resistance to efforts by the Executive and its appointees to control them.
Posted by W. R. Everdell at July 1, 2008 05:37 AM