I used to think the traditional print media was a neutral bystander reporting the news, not an active participant in attempting to shape the future.
We all know that manipulation of the "news" is the most effective means of government propaganda, anyone looking at polling in 2003 back when 69% of Americans thought Iraq and 9-11 were intrinsically tied to each other now knows the effectiveness of propaganda on public opinion.
"There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.
Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll.
2003 article
This is old news - today's manipulation after "teh jump"
From today's WaPo opinion headlines: Subscription
Democratic Stalemate
Robert D. Novak
Don't expect a winner to emerge tomorrow -- or any time soon.
Obama vs. the Phobocracy
Michael Chabon
Barack Obama represents the triumph of hope over fear.
Hillary vs. the Patriarchy
Erica Jong
All her life, Hillary Clinton has been working for mothers and children -- of all colors.
A Campaign of Her Own
Sally Quinn
Hillary Clinton needs to tell her husband to butt out of her campaign.
The day before Super Tuesday, let's look at what they have to say:
Not surprising anyone, Novak has nothing nice to say about Democrats, while licking the boots of Republicans. His final paragraph sticks it to Sen Clinton pretty good:
Senatorial support of Obama helps explain why the McAuliffe plan failed. In addition to habitual Democratic resistance to being controlled, many of Clinton's colleagues simply do not trust her. They complain that in Thursday's debate from Los Angeles she repeated that she opposed the Levin amendment to the 2003 Iraq war resolution because it would "subordinate" U.S. decision-making to the United Nations. It did not, and Clinton made no such claim until her presidential campaign. That kind of performance has helped create the stalemate.
Next up, a very pro - Obama article that leaves the reader with this:
And when we all wake up on Nov. 5, 2008, to find that we have made Barack Obama the president of the United States, the world is already going to feel, to all of us, a little different, a little truer to its, and our, better nature. It is part of the world's nature and of our own to break, ruin and destroy; but it is also our nature and the world's to find ways to mend what has been broken. We can do that. Come on. Don't be afraid.
Beginning to see a trend here? (I'm a frustrated Edwards supporter, btw. I vote in Marland next week for whichever remaining Democrat will pound whichever remaining Republican into the dirt)
I'm using the last paragraphs of these opinion pieces because that reveals to us the gist of the article in a journalistic "wrap up" kind of way. It's how I was taught to write - I assume all writers utilize their closing statements as a wrap.
Erica Jong, who writes for Huffington Post also, writes forcefully for Senator Clinton:
I understand my hopeful friends who think an Obama button will change America. But I'm sticking with Hillary. I trust her because all her life, her pro bono work has been for mothers and children. And mothers and children -- of all colors -- are the most oppressed group in our country. I trust her to speak for our children and grandchildren -- and for us. She always has.
Is she alone today in support for a woman president? Is today's Opinion page a "Barack the Vote" support page? Let's see what else we have:
Do we really want our first female president elected out of sympathy because her husband humiliated her again? If I've heard one person say it I've heard it from 100 in the past few weeks: "If she can't control her husband, how can she control the government?"
There's really only one person who is responsible for getting him off center stage effectively, and that's Hillary Clinton herself. Harry Truman had a famous line about the presidency that could well apply to her now: The buck stops here. For Hillary, Bill's campaign should stop now.
I needed two paragraphs to give you the flavor of Sally Quinn's article. This starts out claiming a joint presidency on the possibility of the first female presidency, then ends up jabbing Senator Clinton with a reminder of past humiliations. Reminding us that the Republicans are going to put Monica back on the front page should Hillary be nominated.
Is all of this a not so subtle anti-Hillary, pro-Obama message today? We've got one more to look at from Susan Dunn:
Barack Obama's ardent, heartfelt promise to bring Americans together and turn the nation's capital into a place of bipartisan harmony not only buys into the seductive myth of national unity but misconstrues the very essence of democracy -- which is nonviolent political conflict.
I had to pick an early paragraph here, because the article only mentioned one candidate - albeit in a negative way.
So does my own concluding paragraph support my original theory - that the Washington Post Opinion Page is attempting to sway public opinion tomorrow? Bob Novak is characteristically anti-Democrat. Michael Chabon was decidedly pro-Obama. Erica Jong was pro-Hillary, but Sally Quinn was decidedly anti-Hillary. Susan Dunn simply opined that Senator Obama cannot unify the country, that political conflict is good. Not a word about the Republican race, except for Novak anointing McCain the winner tomorrow in his article hit piece.
Propaganda, the gift that keeps on screwing the majority. Not one negative word against any Republican - just divisiveness for Democrats.