Re: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything
- From: "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:48:55 -0400
In article <1123499621.346528.248810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> , "Ben"
<ArGee45@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> MCP wrote:
>> http://rain.prohosting.com/imoffi/naug12005.htm#1300
>>
>> THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION:
>> by Dr. Tim O'Shea
>>
>> We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known.
> Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being
>> shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it
> is being subtly and inexorably erased. The doors of our
>> perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?
>>
>> It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how
> most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically
>> implanted in the public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day.
> In an effort to save time, I would like to provide just a
>> little background on the handling of information in this country. Once
> the basic principles are illustrated about how our current
>> system of media control arose historically, the reader might be more apt
> to question any given story in today's news. If everybody
>> believes something, it's probably wrong. We call that Conventional Wisdom.
>>
>> In America, conventional wisdom that has mass acceptance is usually
> contrived: somebody paid for it. Examples:
>>
>> · Pharmaceuticals restore health
>>
>> · Vaccination brings immunity
>>
>> · The cure for cancer is just around the corner
>>
>> · When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics
>>
>> · When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol
>>
>> · Hospitals are safe and clean.
>>
>> · America has the best health care in the world.
>>
>> · And many many more
>>
>> This is a list of illusions that have cost billions and billions to
> conjure up. Did you ever wonder why you never see the
>> President speaking publicly unless he is reading? Or why most people in
> this country think generally the same about most of the
>> above issues?
>>
>> How This Set-Up Got Started
>>
>> In Trust Us We're Experts, Stauber and Rampton pull together some
> compelling data describing the science of creating public
>> opinion in America. They trace modern public influence back to the early
> part of the last century, highlighting the work of guys
>> like Edward L. Bernays, the Father of Spin. From his own amazing
> chronicle Propaganda, we learn how Edward L. Bernays took the
>> ideas of his famous uncle Sigmund Freud himself, and applied them to the
> emerging science of mass persuasion. The only difference
>> was that instead of using these principles to uncover hidden themes in
> the human unconscious, the way Freudian psychology does,
>> Bernays used these same ideas to mask agendas and to create illusions
> that deceive and misrepresent, for marketing purposes.
>>
>> The Father Of Spin
>>
>> Bernays dominated the PR industry until the 1940s, and was a significant
> force for another 40 years after that. (Tye) During all
>> that time, Bernays took on hundreds of diverse assignments to create a
> public perception about some idea or product. A few
>> examples: As a neophyte with the Committee on Public Information, one of
> Bernays' first assignments was to help sell the First
>> World War to the American public with the idea to "Make the World Safe
> for Democracy." (Ewen) A few years later, Bernays set up a
>> stunt to popularize the notion of women smoking cigarettes. In organizing
> the 1929 Easter Parade in New York City, Bernays showed
>> himself as a force to be reckoned with.
>>
>> He organized the Torches of Liberty Brigade in which suffragettes marched
> in the parade smoking cigarettes as a mark of women's
>> liberation. Such publicity followed from that one event that from then on
> women have felt secure about destroying their own lungs
>> in public, the same way that men have always done. Bernays popularized
> the idea of bacon for breakfast. Not one to turn down a
>> challenge, he set up the advertising format along with the AMA that
> lasted for nearly 50 years proving that cigarettes are
>> beneficial to health. Just look at ads in issues of Life or Time from the 40s
and 50s.
>>
>> Smoke And Mirrors
>>
>> Bernay's job was to reframe an issue; to create a desired image that
> would put a particular product or concept in a desirable
>> light. Bernays described the public as a 'herd that needed to be led.'
> And this herdlike thinking makes people "susceptible to
>> leadership." Bernays never deviated from his fundamental axiom to
> "control the masses without their knowing it." The best PR
>> happens with the people unaware that they are being manipulated. Stauber
> describes Bernays' rationale like this: "the scientific
>> manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos and
> conflict in a democratic society." Trust Us p 42 These early
>> mass persuaders postured themselves as performing a moral service for
> humanity in general - democracy was too good for people;
>> they needed to be told what to think, because they were incapable of
> rational thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph from
>> Bernays' Propaganda:
>>
>> "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an
> invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
>> country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas
> suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is
>> a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.
> Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this
>> manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In
> almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of
>> politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we
> are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who
>> understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is
> they who pull the wires that control the public mind."
>>
>> Here Comes The Money
>>
>> Once the possibilities of applying Freudian psychology to mass media were
> glimpsed, Bernays soon had more corporate clients than
>> he could handle. Global corporations fell all over themselves courting
> the new Image Makers. There were dozens of goods and
>> services and ideas to be sold to a susceptible public. Over the years,
> these players have had the money to make their images
>> happen. A few examples:
>>
>> Philip Morris
>> Pfizer
>> Union Carbide
>> Allstate
>> Monsanto
>> Eli Lilly
>> tobacco industry
>> Ciba Geigy
>> lead industry
>> Coors
>> DuPont
>> Chlorox
>> Shell Oil
>> Standard Oil
>> Procter & Gamble
>> Boeing
>> General Motors
>> Dow Chemical
>> General Mills
>> Goodyear
>>
>> The Players
>>
>> Though world-famous within the PR industry, the companies have names we
> don't know, and for good reason.
>>
>> The best PR goes unnoticed.
>>
>> For decades they have created the opinions that most of us were raised
> with, on virtually any issue which has the remotest
>> commercial value, including:
>>
>> pharmaceutical drugs
>> vaccines
>> medicine as a profession
>> alternative medicine
>> fluoridation of city water
>> chlorine
>> household cleaning products
>> tobacco
>> dioxin
>> global warming
>> leaded gasoline
>> cancer research and treatment
>> pollution of the oceans
>> forests and lumber
>> images of celebrities, including damage control
>> crisis and disaster management
>> genetically modified foods
>> aspartame
>> food additives; processed foods
>> dental amalgams
>>
>> Lesson #1
>>
>> Bernays learned early on that the most effective way to create
> credibility for a product or an image was by "independent
>> third-party" endorsement. For example, if General Motors were to come out
> and say that global warming is a hoax thought up by some
>> liberal tree-huggers, people would suspect GM's motives, since GM's
> fortune is made by selling automobiles. If however some
>> independent research institute with a very credible sounding name like
> the Global Climate Coalition comes out with a scientific
>> report that says global warming is really a fiction, people begin to get
> confused and to have doubts about the original issue.
>>
>> So that's exactly what Bernays did. With a policy inspired by genius, he
> set up "more institutes and foundations than Rockefeller
>> and Carnegie combined." (Stauber p 45) Quietly financed by the industries
> whose products were being evaluated, these "independent"
>> research agencies would churn out "scientific" studies and press
> materials that could create any image their handlers wanted. Such
>> front groups are given high-sounding names like:
>>
>> Temperature Research Foundation
>> Manhattan Institute
>> International Food Information Council
>> Center for Produce Quality
>> Consumer Alert
>> Tobacco Institute Research Council
>> The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
>> Cato Institute
>> Air Hygiene Foundation
>> American Council on Science and Health
>> Industrial Health Federation
>> Global Climate Coalition
>> International Food Information Council
>> Alliance for Better Foods
>>
>> Sound pretty legit don't they?
>>
>> Canned News Releases
>>
>> As Stauber explains, these organizations and hundreds of others like them
> are front groups whose sole mission is to advance the
>> image of the global corporations who fund them, like those listed on page
> 2 above. This is accomplished in part by an endless
>> stream of 'press releases' announcing "breakthrough" research to every
> radio station and newspaper in the country. (Robbins) Many
>> of these canned reports read like straight news, and indeed are purposely
> molded in the news format. This saves journalists the
>> trouble of researching the subjects on their own, especially on topics
> about which they know very little. Entire sections of the
>> release or in the case of video news releases, the whole thing can be
> just lifted intact, with no editing, given the byline of the
>> reporter or newspaper or TV station - and voilá! Instant news - copy and
> paste. Written by corporate PR firms. Does this really
>> happen? Every single day, since the 1920s when the idea of the News
> Release was first invented by Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p 22)
>> Sometimes as many as half the stories appearing in an issue of the Wall
> St. Journal are based solely on such PR press releases...
>> (22) These types of stories are mixed right in with legitimately
> researched stories. Unless you have done the research yourself,
>> you won't be able to tell the difference.
>>
>> The Language Of Spin
>>
>> As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays gained more
> experience, they began to formulate rules and guidelines for
>> creating public opinion. They learned quickly that mob psychology must
> focus on emotion, not facts. Since the mob is incapable of
>> rational thought, motivation must be based not on logic but on
> presentation. Here are some of the axioms of the new science of PR:
>>
>> · technology is a religion unto itself
>>
>> · if people are incapable of rational thought, real democracy
is dangerous
>>
>> · important decisions should be left to experts
>>
>> · when reframing issues, stay away from substance; create
images
>>
>> · never state a clearly demonstrable lie
>>
>> Words are very carefully chosen for their emotional impact. Here's an
> example. A front group called the International Food
>> Information Council handles the public's natural aversion to genetically
> modified foods. Trigger words are repeated all through
>> the text. Now in the case of GM foods, the public is instinctively afraid
> of these experimental new creations which have suddenly
>> popped up on our grocery shelves which are said to have DNA alterations.
> The IFIC wants to reassure the public of the safety of GM
>> foods, so it avoids words like:
>>
>> Frankenfoods
>> Hitler
>> biotech
>> chemical
>> DNA
>> experiments
>> manipulate
>> money
>> safety
>> scientists
>> radiation
>> roulette
>> gene-splicing
>> gene gun
>> random
>>
>> Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like:
>>
>> hybrids
>> natural order
>> beauty
>> choice
>> bounty
>> cross-breeding
>> diversity
>> earth
>> farmer
>> organic
>> wholesome
>>
>> It's basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word association. The fact that GM
> foods are not hybrids that have been subjected to the slow
>> and careful scientific methods of real crossbreeding doesn't really
> matter. This is pseudoscience, not science. Form is everything
>> and substance just a passing myth. (Trevanian) Who do you think funds the
> International Food Information Council? Take a wild
>> guess. Right - Monsanto, DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola, NutraSweet - those
> in a position to make fortunes from GM foods. (Stauber p
>> 20)
>>
>> Characteristics Of Good Propaganda
>>
>> As the science of mass control evolved, PR firms developed further
> guidelines for effective copy. Here are some of the gems:
>>
>> · dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and
name calling
>>
>> · speak in glittering generalities using
emotionally positive words
>>
>> · when covering something up, don't use plain
> English; stall for time; distract
>>
>> · get endorsements from celebrities, churches,
> sports figures, street people - anyone who has no
>> expertise in the subject at hand
>>
>> · the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just
like you
>>
>> · when minimizing outrage, don't say anything
> memorable, point out the benefits of what just happened,
>> and avoid moral issues
>>
>> Keep this list. Start watching for these techniques. Not hard to find -
> look at today's paper or tonight's TV news. See what
>> they're doing; these guys are good!
>>
>> Science For Hire
>>
>> PR firms have become very sophisticated in the preparation of news
> releases. They have learned how to attach the names of famous
>> scientists to research that those scientists have not even looked at.
> (Stauber, p 201) This is a common occurrence. In this way
>> the editors of newspapers and TV news shows are often not even aware that
> an individual release is a total PR fabrication. Or at
>> least they have "deniability," right? Stauber tells the amazing story of
> how leaded gas came into the picture. In 1922, General
>> Motors discovered that adding lead to gasoline gave cars more horsepower.
>>
>> When there was some concern about safety, GM paid the Bureau of Mines to
> do some fake "testing" and publish spurious research that
>> 'proved' that inhalation of lead was harmless. Enter Charles Kettering.
> Founder of the world famous Sloan-Kettering Memorial
>> Institute for medical research, Charles Kettering also happened to be an
> executive with General Motors.
>>
>> By some strange coincidence, we soon have the Sloan Kettering institute
> issuing reports stating that lead occurs naturally in the
>> body and that the body has a way of eliminating low level exposure.
> Through its association with The Industrial Hygiene Foundation
>> and PR giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane Kettering opposed all anti-lead
> research for years. (Stauber p 92). Without organized
>> scientific opposition, for the next 60 years more and more gasoline
> became leaded, until by the 1970s, 90% of our gasoline was
>> leaded. Finally it became too obvious to hide that lead was a major
> carcinogen, and leaded gas was phased out in the late 1980s.
>> But during those 60 years, it is estimated that some 30 million tons of
> lead were released in vapor form onto American streets and
>> highways. 30 million tons.
>>
>> That is PR, my friends.
>>
>> Junk Science
>>
>> In 1993 a guy named Peter Huber wrote a new book and coined a new term.
> The book was Galileo's Revenge and the term was junk
>> science. Huber's shallow thesis was that real science supports
> technology, industry, and progress. Anything else was suddenly junk
>> science. Not surprisingly, Stauber explains how Huber's book was
> supported by the industry-backed Manhattan Institute.
>>
>> Huber's book was generally dismissed not only because it was so poorly
> written, but because it failed to realize one fact: true
>> scientific research begins with no conclusions. Real scientists are
> seeking the truth because they do not yet know what the truth
>> is.
>>
>> True scientific method goes like this:
>>
>> 1. Form a hypothesis
>> 2. Make predictions for that hypothesis
>> 3. Test the predictions
>> 4. Reject or revise the hypothesis based on the research findings
>>
>> Boston University scientist Dr. David Ozonoff explains that ideas in
> science are themselves like "living organisms that must be
>> nourished, supported, and cultivated with resources for making them grow
> and flourish." (Stauber p 205) Great ideas that don't get
>> this financial support because the commercial angles are not immediately
> obvious - these ideas wither and die. Another way you can
>> often distinguish real science from phony is that real science points out
> flaws in its own research. Phony science pretends there
>> were no flaws.
>>
>> The Real Junk Science
>>
>> Contrast this with modern PR and its constant pretensions to sound
> science. Corporate sponsored research, whether it's in the area
>> of drugs, GM foods, or chemistry begins with predetermined conclusions.
> It is the job of the scientists then to prove that these
>> conclusions are true, because of the economic upside that proof will
> bring to the industries paying for that research. This
>> invidious approach to science has shifted the entire focus of research in
> America during the past 50 years, as any true scientist
>> is likely to admit. Stauber documents the increasing amount of corporate
> sponsorship of university research. (206) This has
>> nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge. Scientists lament that
> research has become just another commodity, something bought
>> and sold. (Crossen)
>>
>> The Two Main Targets Of "Sound Science"
>>
>> It is shocking when Stauber shows how the vast majority of corporate PR
> today opposes any research that seeks to protect
>>
>> · public health
>>
>> · the environment
>>
>> It's a funny thing that most of the time when we see the phrase "junk
> science," it is in a context of defending something that may
>> threaten either the environment or our health. This makes sense when one
> realizes that money changes hands only by selling the
>> illusion of health and the illusion of environmental protection. True
> public health and real preservation of the earth's
>> environment have very low market value. Stauber thinks it ironic that
> industry's self-proclaimed debunkers of junk science are
>> usually non-scientists themselves. (255) Here again they can do this
> because the issue is not science, but the creation of images.
>>
>> The Language Of Attack
>>
>> When PR firms attack legitimate environmental groups and alternative
> medicine people, they again use special words which will
>> carry an emotional punch:
>>
>> outraged sound science
>> junk science sensible
>> scaremongering responsible
>> phobia hoax
>> alarmist hysteria
>>
>> The next time you are reading a newspaper article about an environmental
> or health issue, note how the author shows bias by using
>> the above terms. This is the result of very specialized training. Another
> standard PR tactic is to use the rhetoric of the
>> environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous and untested product
> that poses an actual threat to the environment. This we
>> see constantly in the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically modified
> foods. They talk about how GM foods are necessary to grow
>> more food and to end world hunger, when the reality is that GM foods
> actually have lower yields per acre than natural crops.
>> (Stauber p 173)
>>
>> The grand design sort of comes into focus once you realize that almost
> all GM foods have been created by the sellers of herbicides
>> and pesticides so that those plants can withstand greater amounts of
> herbicides and pesticides. (The Magic Bean)
>>
>> Kill Your TV?
>>
>> Hope this chapter has given you a hint to start reading newspaper and
> magazine articles a little differently, and perhaps start
>> watching TV news shows with a slightly different attitude than you had
> before. Always ask, what are they selling here, and who's
>> selling it? And if you actually follow up on Stauber & Rampton's book and
> check out some of the other resources below, you might
>> even glimpse the possibility of advancing your life one quantum simply by
> ceasing to subject your brain to mass media. That's
>> right - no more newspapers, no more TV news, no more Time magazine or
> Newsweek. You could actually do that. Just think what you
>> could do with the extra time alone.
>>
>> Really feel like you need to "relax" or find out "what's going on in the
> world" for a few hours every day? Think about the news of
>> the past couple of years for a minute. Do you really suppose the major
> stories that have dominated headlines and TV news have been
>> "what is going on in the world?" Do you actually think there's been
> nothing going on besides the contrived tech slump, the
>> contrived power shortages, the re-filtered accounts of foreign violence
> and disaster, and all the other non-stories that the
>> puppeteers dangle before us every day? What about when they get a big
> one, like with OJ or Monica Lewinsky or the Oklahoma city
>> bombing? Do we really need to know all that detail, day after day? Do we
> have any way of verifying all that detail, even if we
>> wanted to? What is the purpose of news?
>>
>> To inform the public? Hardly. The sole purpose of news is to keep the
> public in a state of fear and uncertainty so that they'll
>> watch again tomorrow and be subjected to the same advertising.
> Oversimplification? Of course. That's the mark of mass media
>> mastery - simplicity. The invisible hand. Like Edward Bernays said, the
> people must be controlled without them knowing it.
>> Consider this: what was really going on in the world all that time they
> were distracting us with all that stupid vexatious daily
>> smokescreen? Fear and uncertainty -- that's what keeps people coming back for
more.
>>
>> If this seems like a radical outlook, let's take it one step further:
> What would you lose from your life if you stopped watching
>> TV and stopped reading newspapers altogether? Would your life really
> suffer any financial, moral, intellectual or academic loss
>> from such a decision?
>>
>> Do you really need to have your family continually absorbing the
> illiterate, amoral, phony, uncultivated, desperately brainless
>> values of the people featured in the average nightly TV program? Are
> these fake, programmed robots "normal"? Do you need to have
>> your life values constantly spoon-fed to you? Are those shows really
> amusing, or just a necessary distraction to keep you from
>> looking at reality, or trying to figure things out yourself by doing a
> little independent reading? Name one example of how your
>> life is improved by watching TV news and reading the evening paper.
>>
>> What measurable gain is there for you?
>>
>> Planet of the Apes?
>>
>> There's no question that as a nation, we're getting dumber year by year.
> Look at the presidents we've been choosing lately. Ever
>> notice the blatant grammar mistakes so ubiquitous in today's advertising
> and billboards? Literacy is marginal in most American
>> secondary schools. Three fourths of California high school seniors can't
> read well enough to pass their exit exams. (SJ Mercury 20
>> Jul 01) If you think other parts of the country are smarter, try this
> one: hand any high school senior a book by Dumas or Jane
>> Austen, and ask them to open to any random page and just read one
> paragraph out loud. Go ahead, do it. SAT scales are arbitrarily
>> shifted lower and lower to disguise how dumb kids are getting year by year.
>>
>> At least 10% have documented "learning disabilities," which are
> reinforced and rewarded by special treatment and special drugs.
>> Ever hear of anyone failing a grade any more? Or observe the intellectual
> level of the average movie which these days may only
>> last one or two weeks in the theatres, especially if it has insufficient
> explosions, chase scenes, silicone, fake martial arts,
>> and cretinesque dialogue. Radio? Consider the low mental qualifications
> of the falsely animated corporate simians they hire as
>> DJs -- they're only allowed to have 50 thoughts, which they just repeat at
random.
>>
>> And at what point did popular music cease to require the study of any
> musical instrument or theory whatsoever, not to mention
>> lyric? Perhaps we just don't understand this emerging art form, right?
> The Darwinism of MTV - apes descended from man. Ever notice
>> how most articles in any of the glossy magazines sound like they were all
> written by the same guy? And this guy just graduated
>> from junior college? And yet he has all the correct opinions on social
> issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug,
>> homogenized corporate omniscience, which enables him to assure us that
> everything is going to be fine... All this is great news
>> for the PR industry - makes their job that much easier. Not only are very
> few paying attention to the process of conditioning;
>> fewer are capable of understanding it even if somebody explained it to them.
>>
>> Tea In the Cafeteria
>>
>> Let's say you're in a crowded cafeteria, and you buy a cup of tea. And as
> you're about to sit down you see your friend way across
>> the room. So you put the tea down and walk across the room and talk to
> your friend for a few minutes. Now, coming back to your
>> tea, are you just going to pick it up and drink it? Remember, this is a
> crowded place and you've just left your tea unattended for
>> several minutes. You've given anybody in that room access to your tea.
> Why should your mind be any different? Turning on the TV,
>> or uncritically absorbing mass publications every day - these activities
> allow access to our minds by "just anyone" - anyone who
>> has an agenda, anyone with the resources to create a public image via popular
media.
>>
>> As we've seen above, just because we read something or see something on
> TV doesn't mean it's true or worth knowing. So the idea
>> here is, like the tea, the mind is also worth guarding, worth limiting
> access to it. This is the only life we get. Time is our
>> total capital. Why waste it allowing our potential, our personality, our
> values to be shaped, crafted, and limited according to
>> the whims of the mass panderers? There are many important issues that are
> crucial to our physical, mental, and spiritual
>> well-being. If it's an issue where money is involved, objective data
> won't be so easy to obtain. Remember, if everybody knows
>> something, that image has been bought and paid for. Real knowledge takes
> a little effort, a little excavation down at least one
>> level below what "everybody knows."
>>
>>
>> --
>> Men are everywhere that matters!
>
>
> And you think this is confined to Americans?
We DO seem to be the most egregious case of it.
That's why I always say, Kill Your Television.
Deb.
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Philosophers,Fools and Clowns...
- Next by Date: Re: Shortcake Warning !!!!!
- Previous by thread: Re: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything
- Next by thread: Re: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
