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
