Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 61 Share on Twitter 2 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 12/5/16

Government pollution of MSM drives people to seek alternatives

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   43 comments
Message Peter Duveen
Become a Fan
  (28 fans)

It is every human being's right to examine information from any source whatsoever and to critique or be persuaded by that information. This is why freedom of speech and freedom of the press are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. No government or institution has the right to restrict information in order to gain the support for its policies or undermine support for other policies. Governments that attempt to restrict or manipulate information to the exclusion of any and all viewpoints are viewed as tyrannical. We can thus classify the United States government as tyrannical to the extent it carries out deliberate policies to do just that. These policies are too infrequently exposed, particularly in a public forum. But they were in the 1970s in the case of congressional hearings to determine the extent to which the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency sought to shape public opinion. These were the famous Church hearings, named after U.S. Senator Frank Church, chairman of the committee that convened them, and if that was not enough, one of the nation's most prominent journalists at the time, Carl Bernstein, published a lengthy article based on these hearings, which exposed to the American public the extent to which government intervened to deliberately shape public opinion.

It may be argued that the U.S. government has no right to proliferate narratives that promote its policies. But there can be no argument that this government has absolutely no right to stifle the free flow of information otherwise, particularly of viewpoints that contradict the government's various narratives. Yet it has become quite clear, at least to close to a majority of Americans who voted for Donald Trump in the last presidential election, that this is indeed what the government sought to do. It is apparent to many in this group that the government had its favored candidate that would have continued the status quo particularly with regard to foreign policy. Any listen in to the mainstream media outlets would have confirmed this sense. To name a couple, CNN as well as National Public Radio, itself a publicly funded entity, were nonstop critics of the Trump candidacy, and aggressive promoters of the candidacy of his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton. These networks threw everything and the kitchen sink at Trump, and yet, in spite of their blatant partisan efforts, failed to derail his candidacy, and in fact may have indirectly promoted it by their outrageous efforts to impose their view on the American public. People who detected biased reportage and suspected a conspiracy within the mass media were determined to move in the opposite direction. And because of the inherent unfairness of the media barrage against Trump and in favor of Clinton, they were compelled to rely on what are generally termed alternative media sources--alternatives to the well-heeled and slickly produced media fare available on radio, television, and to some extent online.

During the election cycle, the Clinton campaign claimed that sensitive and potentially incriminating emails obtained and disseminated to the public by WikiLeaks originated from the Russian government in a deliberate effort by that country to undermine Clinton's chances of winning the election. Pundits throughout the mainstream media, typified by NPR coverage, allowed virtually no dissent. Counter-viewpoints were repressed. And the government chimed in in support of the narrative. As a result, many strongly suspect that the government had a stake in getting Clinton elected, and worked to suppress debate on the charges she made regarding Russia and Trump, these charges even going so far as to say that Trump was Russia's candidate, or that he was a Russian stooge.

Clinton having lost the election, these same forces have recently introduced a new narrative, that Russia tried to manipulate public opinion by influencing what are called alternative media outlets to support Trump or promote a pro-Russian dialogue of sorts. "Fake stories," according to the most recent transformation of this train of thought, were introduced in order to support the candidacy of Trump, and Russian trolls or agents were vigorous promoters of such fake stories. The public, according to this narrative, was hoodwinked into electing Trump president. In order to prevent such from happening again, it is now suggested that providers of internet platforms for human communication weed out "fake" stories that became the primary media force behind the Trump victory. By doing so, however, they would interfere with the free and broad dialogue that is an inherent human right, and that no government save a tyrannical one would attempt to stifle.

The question may be asked, why has the public turned from the mainstream media to alternative news and dialogue web sites to find information and discuss it? The answer is obvious from what has been said above. Dialogue and the free flow of information, debate and the airing of a range viewpoints on particular issues, have been thwarted by major media outlets to the extent that people have been driven elsewhere in their thirst for information and knowledge. And it is just this tendency, which the government itself triggered by attempting to control the mind-set of the citizenry, that the government now wants to stifle in the name of stopping fake stories that may have an impact on national security by interfering with the election of its favored candidate. In other words, people sought to escape the information bottle that mainstream outlets, in harmony with government pressure or influence, sought to confine their audiences to. Government manipulation of the media has utterly polluted mainstream information sources with not only worthless, but also dangerous, government propaganda, and has driven people to rely on underground sources for what is news. Yet according to the ridiculous narrative proposed, the government must now become the censor of all that passes before the eyes of the citizenry, lest it be misled by some "fake" news. And other media figures have taken up and elaborated on the fake narrative in proposing how to cleanse the internet of lies and distortions--the very excesses that have been historically traced to the government and its media lackeys.

What is needed are safeguards to prevent the government from influencing media, either overtly or clandestinely, with emphasis, not on only what the government promotes, but more importantly, on its deliberate attempt to stifle dialogue and the wide range of information sources the public now relies upon. This, and not the imposition of a censorship by media conglomerates, will dry up the necessity of Americans going to the trough of the internet, as the national media recovers from its contaminating relationship with the government. The government and the mass media must hear this cry loud and clear--"Don't mess with my information stream! Don't even think about it!"

Valuable 5   Must Read 4   Well Said 4  
Rate It | View Ratings

Peter Duveen Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Born in New York, March 14, 1949. Staff writer for the New York City Tribune, Economic Growth Report, Register-Star. Presently publish on OpEd News. Mr. Duveen heads up a project known as "The Museum of Brooklyn Art and Culture,' which explores (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Virologist to make his case for lab origin of swine flu

Ron Paul: "Bailout" bill could trigger a major depression

An Era That Has Gone VII

Government pollution of MSM drives people to seek alternatives

Author Griffin: Obama, special prosecutor best hope for new 9-11 probe

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend