Bernays was behind the scenes on most major acts of mass manipulation in the U.S. for decades, both commercially and politically. He was hired to improve various' presidents approval ratings, but he also taught our government how to stage and sell wars. The term "banana republic" originated when United Fruit's payoffs to corrupt leaders in Central America couldn't contain rising citizen revolts. The company brutally exploited the laborer underclass in order to sell bananas super cheap to U.S. markets, but when Guatemala's new reform government tried to enforce human rights guidelines, Bernays was brought in. Company operatives staged attacks and fed "exclusive" misinformation to the media in order to foment public and political sentiment against these "savage commies". Suddenly a brutal coup took place, (coincidentally by forces friendly to United Fruit) and they restored "order", annihilating, torturing and displacing hundreds of thousands of impoverished workers and indigenous Mayan peoples.
This method would repeat itself following the incredible build up of the military industrial complex, despite President Eisenhower's clear warning that for-profit commercial forces were infiltrating the political decision making processes of the government and military and that the public needed to be vigilant, aware and "stand guard" (wink, wink).
We now know the report of an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to start the escalation in Vietnam was false, but the administration ignored the subsequent retraction once they had the provocation that they wanted. Within days Congress granted LBJ a "blank check". In Senate hearings, when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was asked if we were truly provoked, he said "Our Navy played no part in, was not associated with, was not aware of, any South Vietnamese actions, if there were any."
Of course there were no South Vietnamese actions, the provocations were entirely American! Now in his 80s, McNamara admitted his manipulation technique in a documentary: "I learned early on ... never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you. And quite frankly, I follow that rule. It's a very good rule."
Similarly, the intel leading up to the Iraq war was fudged. Cheney's office fed disgraced reporter Judith Miller lies about WMD factories and after the NY Times ran the story on the front page, the national media followed along. A simple, time-tested Bernaysian tactic of popular opinion "bandwagon jumping" after a "media plant". This was confirmed later when Colin Powell's longtime Chief of Staff Col. Wilkerson exposed on PBS that he and Powell had perpetrated a hoax on the American people due to pressure from Cheney, and that Powell doubted the evidence the whole way, stifling his own better judgment and pissing away his credibility forever on the gamble that WMD would eventually be found to make his lies moot. On the same PBS program, Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix personally stated that Cheney warned him just outside the Oval Office to support the President's findings or he would be "discredited". Unfortunately, we couldn't withdraw from Iraq after learning the evidence had been manipulated and owe our current troubles to this duplicity.
Though many doubted justification for an Iraqi invasion from the start, suspicious of war hawks' ties to defense industry donors and the enormous potential for profiteering, polls proved that the trusting American public, including Congress fell for the hoax and it took months and years to unravel the truth when a cornered George W. Bush famously blustered "mistakes were made". Make no mistake, manipulations were made. Even if we ignored the pre-invasion protest marches worldwide and dozens of world leaders including U.N. Security Council members doubting the strength of Bush's evidence, the fact that all-points information control tactics were in place should have been a clear tipoff to any enlightened student of history.
Besides the usual in-country propaganda campaigns via coalition-backed newspapers and radio broadcasts, back home we saw a more modern manipulation in the ridiculous notion of the "embedded" reporter, that is a "news" correspondent traveling and bunking with one side of an armed conflict purporting to tell the full story objectively.
But perhaps the strongest vehicle assisting Bush's war never-ending pro-war media campaign is the for-profit talk radio industry, led by nationally syndicated hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Completely one-sided and in lock step with war-pimping, capitalist and imperialist ideology, these highly successful hosts, including the improbably rich Limbaugh have garnered incredible ratings and revenues by remaining steadfastly in the neo-con corner, transforming many listeners into agents for dispensation of their talking points. Though neither Hannity nor Limbaugh allows equal time for well-articulated dissenting views on their air, many listeners take their long-winded soliloquies as credible and meaningful. A more discerning look shows this is due to their skillful control of their audiences, using subtle Bernaysian and Pavlovian methods, they encourage deep loyalty as they foster emotional investment and eventual attachment in their listeners by spinning the news of the day in ways that project an inclusive moral superiority and familial warmth.
Though they have scores of imitators, and even left wing counterparts, these top-rated radio giants are at the peak because they radiate their innate homespun charisma in ways that masterfully cloak incomplete and often irrational arguments with a well honed delivery and natural oratory confidence. Hannity's call screeners are far more permissive then Limbaugh's, though I've heard him reply to straightforward, specific questions about how he believes the Iraq war will be won with Bush-like vagaries, such as "the winds of freedom will blow". Would either host allow a sampling of calls representative of the actual population however, there would be about 70-75% anti-war calls, so they are indeed a testament to a firmly-committed propaganda mission, as shills for the Republican party energizing those less likely to ask questions.
If not for surveys and polls, we might not realize how many Americans detest Bush's policy decisions. But it was directly in response to the same type of Bernaysian tactics, Cold War-era abuse of power and affronts to civil liberties that prompted Gallup, Roper and other pollsters to refine their scientific and statistical sampling methods, yielding much greater accuracy and effectiveness in reassuring the population that despite what we are told, there is little need to reshape our entire lives out of unfounded paranoia or hysteria.
What we need desperately today is to teach every middle schooler how to recognize and deconstruct media manipulation. Almost every ad we see today includes a false promise or exaggeration of some type. There are grievous conflicts-of-interest in a media that uses its news division to promote it's movie arm, which ties in to its music division and merchandising operation. So too are the complex webs of media, political and corporate interconnectedness which affect our every consideration. For example, the six o'clock network news is dominated by pharmaceutical ads in most markets today. Can we trust they'd be reporting on studies involving these drugs? Of course not. Indeed, just the opposite, many food and drug firms set up shell "advocacy" operations that publish studies in praise of their drugs. These ties are not disclosed.
Based on the gullibility of the current adult generation, I'd say our kids need to be better equipped to find more reliable sources of information and be better taught how to process it. Product placement has progressed far beyond Michael J. Fox drinking a Pepsi in a movie - today, toy companies produce entire TV series' and lease an entire season of time from networks to publicize their characters. The Hallmark channel has struck deals with American Girl dolls to air programs "imbedding" their products and you can wonder what subliminal cues may lie in such programs, directed at impressionable young girls, some practically babies. Disney has your kids locked up from cradle to grave, with the biggest kids movies, TV and radio stations, magazine and book divisions, retail stores, theme parks, you name it. But McDonalds is particularly heinous, with campaigns such as "her first fry", encouraging careless parents to feed unhealthy fast food to small children, who quickly come to associate McDonalds with prizes and playhouses, specifically designed to lure your kids back again and again.
In particular, youngsters need to become aware of motive. In the confusing amalgams of entertainment, infotainment, edutainment and advertainment it's important to understand who is behind it and why. Modern ad methods such as emotional branding can hit kids up with a free music video that turns into a cell phone ad at the very end. They should be encouraged to recognize that this is corporate co-opted "art" and take note of how the messages may be infused with materialism, sexuality and self-gratification in a new, underhanded form of salesmanship. They should learn that quick-cut editing is designed to invoke stress and control the viewer's heart rate, and how background music is used to manipulate emotions. Also they need to be aware that there can be subliminal messages or images beneath the surface, or that directors can introduce unfounded associations between two elements, for example superimposing a sinking ship behind an image of a political candidate.
Then there are ads and products that exist solely to rip us off. Just like we are buried with spam online, we are inundated with TV, radio and print ads for worthless products and "legal" scams, like postal jobs, hair growth serums and real estate schemes. Though it seems improbable, these scams are successful, preying on the weak-minded, and gullible -- and that is us! Until we see those ads disappear forever, rest assured these vendors are profiting and it's a sad commentary on how little credit for intelligence we are given - and just how responsive to manipulation our society truly is.
Several European countries have banned advertising to children on TV and in various family venues. This has come as a result of expansion of Western junk food franchises and marketing. Before you ask yourself why don't we have such laws here, forget it. Instead of being ashamed the Europeans are enacting laws to protect their kids from our American-style consumption habits, Kraft, Kellogg and General Mills have joined multiple food industry lobbies in creating an alliance that will pro-actively attempt to ward off any such regulation here.
Many don't realize that the U.S. wasn't always like this. From the early adoption of the radio around 1916 till the early 20s, there were no ads on the air because the scientific community was determined to make radio a positive and socially uplifting medium for information and relaxation. When radio began to use advertising to produce revenue, it was suspended during prime evening and "family" times because ads were considered noise pollution, a detriment to mental health, like that annoying "tom-cat on top of the back fence". During the depression, however, radio stations had to give in to the demands of advertisers for their survival, and ads have been part of commercial American radio ever since. Now they are everywhere, from our TV sets to web pages, movie previews, supermarket floors, and whole new waves of highway billboards as localities lease highways to private firms.
GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about ethics issues, media manipulation and overconsumption. He has recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of curbing overpopulation and international adoption, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, outsider art, obscure garage rock and vinyl records.
A very fine essay, Mr. Wynn. Thank you for taking the time to articulate so clearly what has been fluttering around the edges of my consciousness for several years now. A combination of cirumstances, and if I'm honest, a few bad decisions, resulted in some financial difficulties for me over the last five years. ( And I'm talking about living very close to the poverty level here, no savings, debt-to-income ratio severely out of balance). Commercial television and cable were the first non-essential items to go. I've listened only to non-commercial radio for a long time anyway. I gave up on renting DVDs from the local franchise purveyors, the local small independent shops, and finally subscribed to a mail order service with an inventory of somewhere around 70,000 titles, including foreign and documentary. Because I have lacked discretionary income, I have given up gong to the mall, the great American pastime. I haven't been able to replace my 11 year old vehicle. My occupation requires a practical wardrobe and precludes fashion of any kind. The net result has been a very liberating distancing from the media barbarians at the gate of my self-awareness. I hasten to add that I did not arrive at this situation solely because of my financial difficulties, and in fact, a great deal of conscious thought went into my decision to stop chasing the almighty dollar and instead learn to live with less income but more peace of mind. Making lemonade indeed.
This kind of decision is probably easier for me than for many others because I live alone (3 dogs, 1 cat, all geriatric), my child is grown, I am single, and I can gratefully say that I am very independent emotionally and mentally. I might add that I am by temperament a cynic and a curmudgeon, so I'm quick to doubt and resist the pressures to conform. But it has been sickeningly clear to me for years that the media and advertising cartels have co-opted any independent thought in most of the American population. The failure to teach critical thinking in public schools at any grade level has created 2 generations of lemmings who are proud to pose as free mobile advertisements for the very companies which enslave them with addictions to alcohol, tobacco, gambling, religion, oil and gasoline, farm equipment, cars, and trucks, and pretty much any other consumer product you can name. In my part of the country, it is common to see a $40,000 car or pick-up truck parked beside a used-up, worn-out junk house trailer on a lot scattered with trash and broken plastic toys. Cognizant dissonance reigns.
I agree with your recommendations for change, but I fear that our psyches have been so damaged that our hard-wiring is actually changed and most of us will not be able or willing to retreat from the edge of the cliff. And when we finally jump over that edge, no more and no less than because everyone else is doing it, those cartels who have co-opted us will have won.
A. Kaiser
by
Annie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 10:06:20 AM
An excellent article and a very perceptive comment as well. I was nodding in agreement and talking back to your essay as I read it. I teach college composition, and my biggest goal for the students is to teach them how to deconstruct visual rhetoric and jump-start their critical thinking abilities. Most of them are clueless about media manipulation and thinkig for themselves in constructing argument. They are stunned when they realize that things they take for granted often have a hidden agenda. I did not know about some of the history behind advertising and propaganda, but now I will be sure to use some of this information for my class. I taught my son to deconstruct ads when he was very small. Now at 15 he is both politically and culturally savvy. We shop at thrift stores and, though we do watch some TV, we still like to take apart the commercials... when we don't mute them!
by
Debbie Scally (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 12:14:43 PM
The media is the government's mouthpiece. Long ago, they stopped pursuing news and instead merely regurgitate gov't positions. The main goal of the news is to censor anything opposed to the gov't will. Censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" America Deceived (book) from Amazon and Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. That is why the internet is surpassing the mainstream media.
by
Lorring II (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 7:21:58 AM
It is not Judaism causing media to withhold information or introduce bias counter to the interest of Americans, it is greed or immorality. Indeed I would assert the Jews mentioned in your link (which seems to be a white supremacist site and will probably be removed) aren't all too religious, they, like the millions of Christians who ignore Jesus Christ's clear message of pacifism and charity and the Muslim extremists who have revised Mohammed's message to include and condone violence, are actually devotees of Mars, god of war.
Acting to insult eachother, condoning violence and war is the opposite of all accounts of Jesus' beliefs, indeed the all-important point of the story of Jesus crucifixion is the example that one should not allows sins of others to corrupt our own morals.
Anti-semitism is a sure way to guarantee your own censorship - any real corruption you may have uncovered will be ignored. If you really think the best way to combat media manipulation is to disseminate hate speech I doubt you will reach many people. For example, if I was a Jew reading your post, but wasn't personally an immoral media manipulator, I would be extremely offended. Such is the damage of the "broad brush" you use to accuse all Jews of corruption, such is the lack of logic you demonstrate, the lack of balance and lack of tolerance which is needed to build bridges across communities.
You may get your jollies bashing Jews but you yourself are a media manipulator and, based on similar spam mails that went out today, I suspect are part of a funded campaign.
by
Gustav Wynn (51 articles, 34 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 238 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 1:00:12 PM
Congratulations on COMPLETELY IGNORING FACTUAL INFORMATION.
Amazing the length people will go to in order to avoid looking at reality. I invite you to factually disprove what i have said about Jewish media ownership. I invite you to factually disprove what i said about Jewish leadership in both left and right policy institutions and organizations.
Fantastic how we've allowed ourselves to become convinced that truthful statements about people who do us harm is hateful! I wonder how that idea was worked into our culture...maybe media had something to do with it?
I invite any reader on this board to do some investigation for themselves--that way there's no "hate" material to offend. Go spend an hour or 2 and discover for yourselves who owns and operates American media. Don't take my word for it, don't take anybody else's word for it--motivate yourself!
These are facts. FACTS. And I am NOT sorry if it offends you.
by
Chris Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 6:23:15 PM
I'm not ignoring your "information" I'm disproving it and thereby discounting it. You seem to believe ALL Jews engage in media manipulation? That just because a corrupt media figure is Jewish means all Jews are corrupt?? No logic there.
If there is just one Jew in the media who isn't corrupt, or one non-Jew in media who IS corrupt, your statement is disproven. This should be easy.
What about Mike Bloomberg, Stephen Spielberg - powerful and popular Jewish media figures who support various humanitarian causes. What about Rick Rubin?
Then corrupt non-Jews in media: How about Silvio Berlusconi, Serge Dassault, Jesús de Polanco, Wm. Randolph Hearst, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity?
You must know the majority of Jews across the world, including the most religious Jews have nothing to do with media, or media manipulation. In fact, the many Jewish media moguls who might be considered corrupt are hardly religious, perhaps even non-practicing - where are their yarmulkas?
It is not Judaism, it is immorality. Just in case you are unclear: there are Jews who are not corrupt and there are corrupt people who are not Jews. You owe it to logic to look at another factor besides Judaism to identify the problem. I would suggest capitalist greed, something ALL corrupt media manipulators DO have in common.
by
Gustav Wynn (51 articles, 34 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 238 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 10:53:49 PM
I appreciate your comments but allow me to again show you how your statements do not hold up to the tenets of basic logic. I assume a fair way to summarize your argument is that "The Jews control the media, they are manipulating us and causing us harm".
I see you reduced your number of the corrupt Jews in media from 100% to 99%. However you have no citation to a scientific survey that demonstrates this or any other number as accurate, making it nothing but fiction of your own invention, bent by will and showing a racist bias and I'll elaborate on how.
I'll grant you that there are a high number of Jews who work in the media, it's not unusual or wrong for a particular race to have a high concentration in one profession. Historically there have been a lot of Irish cops, Middle Eastern cab drivers, Korean greengrocers or Romanian fortune tellers. This is neither here nor there, it's just a proclivity for a race to be close knit, keep traditions going, be part of family or friends' businesses or pool resources. Despite some stereotypes, there is no inherent harm in this.
Jews came to the US as migrants like anyone else, often shying from physical labor to become vendors, merchants and manufacturers. It's safe to say they emphasized education and upward mobility to their young, taking much pride in a grown child becoming a professional, such as a doctor or lawyer. Again there is nothing inherently wrong with this - you wouldn't begrudge any race of people the same opportunity in America to make their lives anything they wanted, as long as they weren't hurting anyone else.
Now comes the question of whether Jews operate in a manner detrimental to others, taking advantage of their positions to exert bias in promoting the religion or culture of Judaism. The answer to this is yes and no. That is, some surely do but others do not. Surely the Jewish Forward does, and unabashedly, as a newspaper by and for Jews, just like Ebony, Jet or BET does for Blacks, the Irish Echo does for Irish and Al Jazeera TV does for Muslims. It's often a fine balance, supporting your own kind and seeing how that affects those who are not your kind. For example a scholarship for Eskimos is already discriminatory to non-Eskimos. Do these culture-oriented media have a bias that can be considered wholesale corruption of the entire company and everyone that works there? No - the devil is in the details and each report, author and incident must be weighed on it's own merits.
The same goes for CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, Newsweek, Time, US News, AP, Reuters and others in the so-called "mainstream media" - they have reports that are biased and reports that aren't. Therefore they cannot be broad brushed. Ironically, both the left and right complain about the mainstream media simultaneously claiming bias against their side. Obviously, it varies depending on the report and who wrote it, and whose ox is being gored. The NY Times and CBS are accused of left-leaning, but almost any liberal or progressive would disagree, claiming they do not go nearly far enough. Obviously, as large corporations with business in front of Congress, they have "skin in the game".
Logically, your "alarm" due to an inordinate amount of Jews in the media is useless without proving that there is systematic bias and abuse. Clearly the most biased of the large media is Fox. I say they should be boycotted and removed but not because there are Jews working there, because they are yellow journalists. CNN also has turned a largely blind eye to Bush's failures in past years. Looking at his disapproval ratings, it's clear there is bias in coverage. I personally know a CNN employee who tells me coverage of Bush's failures has been suppressed for years. All of these media are compromised in some way. The best bet for to be properly informed is to use a variety of sources, understanding that no individual source by itself is complete. This said, BBC, PBS and NPR to me most closely resemble responsible journalism.
There are "many" Jews in the media, including a number of the most rich and powerful media moguls who are also corrupt. But I am asserting it's NOT due to their Jewish background, rather it's their exact the opposite, their LACK of ethics that causes this, even if they steer money to "Jewish" causes.
The Jewish religion as I understand it preaches basic morality, for example via the Ten Commandments, just as Christianity and Islam do. Manipulating a news story is a direct example of harming "thy neighbor" and therefore is blatantly antithetical to the most popular, most visible doctrines of Judaism. Therefore, if a powerful Jewish mogul does manipulate readers, he is a renegade Jew, just like radical Islamists who bomb people in the name of Allah or warmongering Christians who fund death squads, sell WMD to dictators or torture people have strayed from the stated dictates of their religions.
To criticize these moguls is fair, but not as Jews - this does a disservice to the vast majority of Jews the world over who haven't harmed anyone. The number of Jews in the media who also happen to be corrupt is a tiny fraction of the total number of Jews in the world, therefore your statements are false, and not by a little, by a lot. In fairness to these millions of peaceful, moral, law-abiding Jews, you have to figure out a better way to state your argument.
Another pitfall would be to consider those corrupt media moguls listed on your web link as pro-Israeli - Israel itself and Jews everywhere are sharply divided, embroiled in a massive debate of it's own conscious, with a huge portion of Israelis taking the position that their own government is out of control, a violent, imperialist regime treating Palestinians and others unfairly. So when you get right down to it, even using the term pro-Israeli is unfair to the millions of Israelis who disagree with the policies of the Israeli government and the various militant factions that contribute to the violence and strife in the region.
Logic also requires us to acknowledge that being a corrupt media mogul is nothing exclusive to Jews - as we've already visited, we see this in the plurality of media magnates from all corners of the globe including not only Goebbels, Berlusconi, Moon and their ilk, but specifically the the long history of blasphemous Christian broadcasters like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Jones, and the recently disgraced Ted Haggard, the singularly most powerful voice in the Evangelical right before his dishonesty was laid bare.
Since we can no longer use the term Jew, or pro-Israeli to logically classify the corrupt media moguls who manipulate our people, we need to look for another term. The interconnected subsets of race, gender, class, geography, age, religion, and political affiliation can carve groups up in various ways. Yet the only descriptions that hold true under any and all conditions for these media manipulators is the fact that they are UNETHICAL. Regardless of whether they are defiling Christianity, Judaisim, Islam or American common law, media manipulation is an immoral act which can be committed by any race, creed or culture. People should be judged not by their race but by the content of the character.
An example of this is your own attempt to associate "Jews" with "pedophilia", pointing out mentions of pedophelia in the talmud. But some of what we call pedophelia today was commonplace not only in ancient Judaism, but almost every other ancient culture the world over. Not only did marauders of every stripe and variety (including Huns, Vikings and Crusading Knights) kidnap and rape underage vicitms, many families themselves sold their young daughters off in exchange for dowries as a matter of course. It's still done today in the third world, showing us how we all lived before evolving into a more enlightened civilization.
In modern times, no race or nationality is free from pedophiles but I've never seen evidence of any systematic pedophilia from any particular cultural or religious group except for Nambla and the Catholic church which has endured decades of embarrassing scandals regarding the behavior of rogue practitioners and subsequent cover ups sanctioned by church leadership. Remember, as recently as the mid-70s, child pornography was legal in the U.S. and the legal age of consent was lower almost everywhere, so today's attitudes are unique in history.
The idea of the ancient talmud condoning sex with 3-year olds is quite shocking. I've never heard a credible source confirm an authentic talmud contains this language but I understand this to be your belief as fed to you, and will only point out that it is illogical to accuse modern Jews of engaging in or condoning pedophelia by projected "association". If I said all Christians were murderous rapists because the Crusaders were, you might see a similar flaw in this logic. In other words, one can only be a pedophile if one is actually a pedophile. It's illogical and manipulative to suggest that today's Jews engage in pedophelia unless you have separate corroboration. Just as there are numerous and conflicting versions of the bible, the talmud has been edited by Popes, destroyed and rewritten various times, and translated from ancient tongues leaving hotly contested debate. But even if it were true about the one version of the talmud you have supposedly uncovered, no where do we see Jews anywhere openly defending pedophelia in any way today. Therefore your assertion is a stretch, a manipulative association based on disputed evidence. Though you have your own right to believe it, I'd look to a few objective sources of documentation other then racist websites!
Your complaints about corrupt Jews in the media are exaggerated and unfounded under the scrutiny of logic. You cannot talk of "lie after lie" without specifics. Who lied in the media, and when? I am all ears. The guilty parties in the lies leading to the Iraq war have been right wing Christians for the most part, as have the liars and manipulators that led us into Vietnam. There is solid proof of the president, vice president and his cabinet lying and blatantly fabricating propaganda, passing it off as news and were caught red handed - on the most grave issues possible. If you are concerned about lies in the media, where do you prioritize these very important lies?
You need to furnish proof about the Jews being anything more a part of the "unimaginable evil" that infects our media then any other race, and especially because they are such a large part of the industry. I am open to hearing specifics from credible sources.
To summarize, I've reminded readers that there are scores of responsible, ethical Jewish media moguls (my favorites being Jon Stewart and Mel Brooks). Spielberg's "Munich" was a very well balanced portrayal of the deadly Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
I've also shown there are many corrupt non-Jews in the media. If media manipulation is a problem, it must be combatted even handedly otherwise you are as guilty as them, for the news media's greatest crime is lack of objectivity and ethics.
I can appreciate your attempt at a civil, logical intellectual argument supporting your statements. But your lack of evidence, specifics, and links to sites that contain ads for "Prussian Blue" make you look like a racist.
As Oscar Wilde once said, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple".
Jews have the same problem as Christians and Muslims, Israelis the same as Americans and Arabs. We are all people internally divided - we all have major objections to the actions of our governments and so-called leaders, and we disagree on how to treat the least among us and deal with foreigners. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of all races and creeds are law-abiding citizens trying to live in peace and raise families.
by
Gustav Wynn (51 articles, 34 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 238 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 2:16:44 PM
