The real First Freedoms- Speech, Press, Assembly

There was a PBS show recently which identified "the First Freedom" as freedom of religion, and its protections under the Bill of Rights and Constitution.  That same First Amendment also includes freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and petionning for a redress of grievances.

I've been working on this all month, along with major articles on the university system, as a result of watching some Regent's meetings and other events in Missoula and Bozeman, and some summary comments about the HELP act and why it is far from optimal, given all the constraints health care providers now face.  Every day, it seems like there are new idiocies to deal with, and sort out from the useful parts of these policy changes. 

 Framing the Debate

A Berkeley journalism professor, George Lakoff, became briefly famous for a series of presentations (on Alternative Radio, for example) which he called "Framing the Debate."  It's a kind of censorship or "news management" which is based on telling people a vast fabric of lies, and then "polling" them to get a "scientific understanding" (i.e. official and marketable to candidates, advertisers, lobbyists, etc.)  of their preferences and thinking on the various issues. 

This is most of what the media does nowadays.  It crafts its "product" to attract the wealthiest and most powerful advertisers, and to make sure that elections are never too "one-sided" because one side spent a lot more money than the other.    

The "news stories" and analysis isn't the main reason for maintaining vast corporate broadcasting networks and newspaper chains.  Of course it's all about jobs and profits, and providing some sort of "product" to whomever pays, in whatever ways, for their services.  And it's the secondary and tertiary effects of what is printed or broadcast, and people's willingness to pay to see these effects in action.  That might mean having their story told in such a way that it benefits them politically or economically.  Not only is this considered "fair", but any media outlet which doesn't maintain certain views or let its staff maintain their own views is considered derelict - to the cause of Capitalism, God, and Country, if nothing else. 

A "free press" was supposed to tolerate this state of affairs, but not when vast media monopolies connected with the government and its surveillance apparatus, or outright spying and disinformation campaigns like the CIA did for many years via the foreign press journalists who were "recruited" after they had already established a reputation for integrity.   It's all part of the package.  There's too much money involved to let elections and public opinion much less scientific and academic understanding, develop spontaneously and naturally, instead of from some centralized "authority."

Most people no longer "respect authority", the government, elected officials, or anyone else unless we know them personally.  But the power of propaganda (or better put, "brainwashing") or other psychological manipulation and conditioning to reach "conformity" in thinking and behavior is now more powerful and all-pervasive than ever before.  Major issues (like the economy, health care, strategic diplomacy, food safety, military spending, etc.) are only discussed within the framework of certain "opinion leaders" like the major TV networks, public broadcasting, The New York Times/Washington Post group, etc. 

The voices of real experts who have demonstrated a profound understanding of our present global crisis and what to do about are simply never heard, or when they are, in such a context that they have no impact.  Our only hope seemed to be in the kinds of information networks which now exist, but didn't prior to about 20 years ago.  Yet, the ability to shape mass public opinion and election results remains elusive.

The issues are always "framed" (or "spun", as they used to say) to fit the needs of the advertisers, and these "corporate sponsors" pay millions ($billions, collectively) to make sure the right people get elected, and have the right advisers and corporate bill-writers to pass the "laws" which we elect "legislators," supposedly, to write.

It is these media moguls who will both direct policy and "spin" it so that people will think that something good is happening.  Of course, there are always real people at the front lines of whatever the policy is addressing, and if we hear from them, it is likely that we will lose all confidence in what "our government," on whatever level, is doing.  Therefore, censorship and disinformation are the orders of the day, and whistle-blowing, rather than being a public virtue, has been designated as "treason" be nearly every Presidential candidate running, including Bernie and Hillary.  

Because we are now in an election cycle, we are more concerned with "the political process" rather than the issues and policies actually proposed or defended by the candidates.  And so, it is vain, indeed, to expect the successful candidates to actually deal with the matters at hand in some responsible fashion after they are elected. 

The way that political issues are "framed" determines the outcome, and who benefits from the supposed "solutions."   Obviously, very little changes from year to year or from election to election.  The same issues are debated (or rather, mis-debated or whitewashed) over and over, again, with nothing but partisan loyalty and class affiliation to distinguish one "position" or candidate from another.

For future discussion...
"Bi-partisanship" - Ayn Rand's "The New Fascism:  Rule by Consensus"

Ivan Illich's "De-schooling Society"