La campaña contra Siria

Hace 10 meses que los dirigentes occidentales y sus corporaciones mediáticas iniciaron una campaña a favor de una guerra contra Siria. Las acusaciones lanzadas contra Bachar al-Assad buscan justificar una nueva intervención militar. Pero en Siria no se intimidan. Y los posibles aliados de Estados Unidos en esta aventura comienzan a retroceder.

Thierry Meyssan/Red Voltaire

En 1999, durante la guerra de Kosovo, la Red Voltaire expresó su indignación sobre el hecho de que Francia participara en la guerra junto a la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN), sin que se realizara un voto al respecto en la Asamblea Nacional y con la complicidad de los presidentes de los grupos parlamentarios. Señalamos entonces que la negativa del presidente de la República y del primer ministro a organizar un verdadero debate permitía presagiar la opacidad que rodearía la conducción de la guerra.

También tomamos entonces la iniciativa de publicar un boletín cotidiano sobre el conflicto. La OTAN eliminó de inmediato los sitios web del gobierno serbio, lo que impidió tener acceso a la versión serbia sobre los hechos. Para remediar esa carencia nos suscribimos a las agencias de prensa de la región (las de Croacia, Bosnia, Grecia, Chipre, Turquía, Hungría).

Durante todo el conflicto ofrecimos un resumen diario de la conferencia de prensa que deba la OTAN en Bruselas, y también uno de los testimonios de los periodistas de países vecinos, quienes habían tenido a veces graves diferencias con Serbia, pero cuyos gobiernos narraban los hechos de la misma manera. A medida que pasaba el tiempo, la versión de la OTAN y la de los periodistas locales fueron separándose, hasta que llegó el momento en que ya no tenían nada en común.

Al final eran ya dos historias radicalmente diferentes. No teníamos forma para conocer quién mentía o si una de las dos partes estaba diciendo la verdad. Nuestros lectores tenían la impresión de estar volviéndose esquizofrénicos, sobre todo si se tiene en cuenta que los medios de prensa de Europa occidental sólo repetían la versión de la OTAN y que, por lo tanto, nuestros lectores sólo tenían dos versiones paralelas cuando nos leían a nosotros.

Proseguimos esa línea de trabajo a lo largo de los tres meses de duración de los combates. Cuando por fin cesó el tronar de las armas, los colegas y amigos que pudieron entonces viajar a los lugares de los hechos comprobaron con estupor que no hubo “propaganda de ambas partes”.

No, la versión de la OTAN era totalmente falsa mientras que la de los periodistas locales era verídica. Durante los siguientes meses, informes parlamentarios de varios países integrantes de la Organización permitieron comprobar los hechos. Varios libros fueron publicados sobre el método concebido por el consejero de prensa de Tony Blair, método que permitió a la OTAN manipular a toda la prensa occidental y que se conoce como story telling.

Se puede intoxicar a todos los periodistas occidentales y esconderles los hechos si se les narra un cuento de niños (a condición de no interrumpir jamás la narración), de cargarlo con referencias capaces de despertar lejanas reminiscencias y de mantener su coherencia.

No tuve entonces el reflejo de irme rápidamente a Serbia antes de que estallara la guerra y ya no pude hacerlo cuando comenzó el tronar de las armas. Pero en este momento, amigo lector, me encuentro en Siria, donde he tenido tiempo de investigar como es debido y desde allí escribo este artículo. Es por lo tanto con conocimiento de causa que afirmo aquí que la máquina de propaganda de la OTAN se ha puesto nuevamente en marcha en el caso de Siria, como anteriormente sucedió en Serbia.

La OTAN está divulgando una historia que no tiene nada que ver con la realidad y lo hace con el ánimo de justificar una “intervención militar humanitaria”, al estilo del oxímoron blairiano. Y ahí termina el paralelismo: Slobodan Miloševi? era un criminal de guerra que nos presentaron como un autor de crímenes contra la humanidad para justificar el desmembramiento de su país; Bachar el-Assad es un combatiente de la resistencia antiimperialista y antisionista que apoyó al Hezbolá cuando Líbano fue atacado y que además respalda al Hamás y a la Yihad islámica en su lucha por la liberación de la patria palestina.

Cuatro mentiras de la OTAN

1. De acuerdo con la OTAN y sus aliados del Golfo, masivas manifestaciones se han desarrollado en Siria desde hace ocho meses en demanda de más libertades y del retiro del presidente Bachar el-Assad.

Falso. Sólo en algunas ciudades, y al llamado de predicadores sauditas y egipcios a través de Al Jazeera, se produjeron algunas manifestaciones contra el presidente Bachar el-Assad y lo cierto es que éstas reunieron, cuando más, un total de 100 mil personas. En éstas no se pedía más libertad, sino la instauración de un régimen islámico. Si se exigía la dimisión del presidente no era por causa de su política, sino porque los manifestantes apoyaban una corriente sectaria del sunismo, la corriente takfiri, y afirman que Bachar el-Assad es un hereje –porque es alauita– sin derecho por lo tanto a ejercer el poder en un país musulmán que, de acuerdo con la corriente takfiri, sólo puede ser gobernado legítimamente por un sunita perteneciente a la misma escuela teológica de dicha corriente.

2. Según la OTAN y sus aliados del Golfo, el “régimen” respondió a las manifestaciones dispersando a las multitudes con el uso de municiones de guerra, lo cual habría provocado al menos 3 mil 500 muertos en lo que va del año.

Falso. En primer lugar, es imposible reprimir manifestaciones que nunca han tenido lugar. Además, desde el principio mismo de los incidentes, las autoridades comprendieron que el objetivo era provocar enfrentamientos de índole confesional en un país donde el laicismo ha sido la columna vertebral del Estado desde el siglo VIII. Así que el presidente el-Assad prohibió a las fuerzas de seguridad, a la policía y el Ejército, el uso de armas de fuego en cualquier circunstancia en la que existiera la más mínima posibilidad de herir a civiles. Su objetivo es impedir que la existencia de heridos o muertos de tal o más cual confesión pueda servir de pretexto para justificar una guerra confesional. Las fuerzas de seguridad están aplicando esas instrucciones presidenciales al pie de la letra, incluso, al precio de poner en peligro las vidas de sus propios integrantes. En cuanto a la cantidad de muertos, en realidad son la mitad de la suma mencionada. Y la mayoría no son civiles sino soldados y policías, lo cual pude comprobar personalmente en el transcurso de mis visitas a los hospitales y las morgues civiles y militares.

3. Cuando logramos romper el muro del silencio y que numerosos medios de prensa reconocieran la presencia en Siria de escuadrones de la muerte provenientes del exterior que asesinan civiles en las ciudades y tienden emboscadas al Ejército, la OTAN y sus aliados del Golfo empezaron a hablar de un ejército de desertores. De acuerdo con el Organismo, hubo militares (no policías) que recibieron órdenes de disparar contra la gente, por lo que decidieron rebelarse y conformar un ejército sirio libre, que ya contaría con 1 mil 500 hombres.

Falso. Únicamente se han producido unas pocas decenas de deserciones y los desertores han huido a Turquía, donde están bajo las órdenes de un oficial integrante del clan de Rifaat el-Assad y Abdel Hakim Khaddam, públicamente vinculado a la estadunidense Agencia Central de Inteligencia. Lo que sí existe es un creciente número de jóvenes que se niegan a hacer el servicio militar, a menudo debido a presiones de sus familiares más que por decisión propia, ya que los militares que caen en una emboscada no tienen derecho a defenderse haciendo uso de sus armas si se hallan civiles en el lugar. Así que los militares tienen que estar dispuestos a sacrificar sus propias vidas si no tienen cómo escapar de sus agresores.

4. Según la OTAN y sus aliados del Golfo, el ciclo revolución/represión ha cedido su lugar a un principio de “guerra civil”. Atrapados en esa circunstancia, 1.5 millones de sirios estarían siendo víctimas del hambre. Sería por lo tanto conveniente organizar “corredores humanitarios” para permitir el envío de alimentos y la huida de los civiles que deseen abandonar las zonas de combate.

Falso. En relación con el número y la crueldad de los ataques perpetrados por los escuadrones provenientes del exterior, los desplazamientos de la población no son numerosos. Siria es un país autosuficiente en el plano agrícola y la producción no ha disminuido significativamente. Sí existen, en cambio, frecuentes interrupciones de la circulación a través de las carreteras en las que se producen la mayoría de las emboscadas. Además, al originarse algún ataque dentro de una ciudad, los comerciantes cierran de inmediato sus establecimientos. Esto ha ocasionado graves problemas de distribución, incluso en lo tocante a la alimentación. Pero ni siquiera son ésas las verdaderas causas del problema. Son las sanciones económicas las que están provocando un desastre. Siria, país que a lo largo del decenio había registrado una tasa anual de crecimiento del 5 por ciento, ya no puede vender sus hidrocarburos a Europa occidental y su industria turística está siendo gravemente afectada. Mucha gente ha perdido así sus empleos e ingresos y por lo tanto se ve obligada a economizar en todos los aspectos. El gobierno está haciéndose cargo de esas personas y está distribuyendo gratuitamente combustible (para la calefacción) y alimentos. Lo cierto es que, ante tal situación, hay que decir que sin la ayuda del gobierno de el-Assad, esos 1.5 millones de sirios serían hoy víctimas de la desnutrición por causa de las sanciones de los países occidentales.

En definitiva, aunque nos encontramos aún en una etapa de guerra no convencional, con el envío de mercenarios y de fuerzas especiales para desestabilizar el país, la descripción que ofrecen la OTAN y sus aliados del Golfo ya se aleja considerablemente de la realidad. Y el abismo entre esa imagen y la realidad de los hechos irá acentuándose cada vez más. En lo que a usted concierne, amigo lector, al no estar en el lugar de los hechos, no tiene razón alguna para confiar en mí más que en la OTAN. Pero sí existen, sin embargo, algunos indicios que pueden indicarle cómo orientarse.

Cuatro evidencias que la OTAN se empeña en ocultar

1. Sería lógico creer que las acusaciones sobre la supuesta represión y la cantidad de víctimas han sido objeto de la más cuidadosa comprobación. Pero no es así. Todos los datos al respecto provienen de una sola fuente: el Observatorio Sirio de Derechos Humanos, con sede… en Londres, cuyos responsables se escudan tras el más estricto anonimato. ¿Qué valor pueden tener esas graves acusaciones si no se confrontan con los informes de otras fuentes? ¿Por qué instituciones como la Oficina del Alto Comisario de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos se hacen eco de tales acusaciones sin tomarse el trabajo de comprobar su veracidad?

2. Rusia y China recurrieron al veto contra un proyecto de resolución del Consejo de Seguridad de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas que posibilitaría una intervención militar internacional. Los responsables políticos de la OTAN nos explican, apenados, que los rusos están protegiendo su base naval militar del puerto sirio de Tartus, y que los chinos son capaces de cualquier cosa con tal de obtener unos cuantos barriles de petróleo. ¿Debemos aceptar el concepto maniqueo de que Washington, Londres y París hacen gala de buenos sentimientos mientras que Moscú y Pekín son esencialmente egoístas e insensibles al martirio de un pueblo? ¿Es posible no darnos cuenta de que Rusia y China tienen muchos menos interés en defender a Siria que los países occidentales en destruirla?

3. Resulta extraña la composición de la coalición de estos países supuestamente bien intencionados. ¿Podemos acaso pasar por alto el hecho de que los dos principales contribuyentes de la Liga Árabe y promotores de la “democratización” en Siria son precisamente Arabia Saudita y Qatar, dos dictaduras al servicio de Estados Unidos y de Gran Bretaña? ¿Podemos quizá dejar de preguntarnos si los mismos países occidentales que acaban de destruir sucesivamente Afganistán, Irak y Libia –donde ya demostraron lo poco que les importa la vida humana– son realmente honestos cuando enarbolan el estandarte humanitario?

4. Y ante todo, para no dejarnos manipular en cuanto a los acontecimientos en Siria, es esencial ponerlos en su contexto. Para la OTAN y sus aliados del Golfo –cuyos ejércitos ya invadieron Yemen y Bahréin ahogando allí en sangre las manifestaciones– la “revolución siria” es la prolongación de la “Primavera Árabe”, según la cual los pueblos de la región aspiran a la democracia de mercado y al confort del american way of life.

Por el contrario, para rusos y chinos, al igual que para venezolanos y los surafricanos, lo que sucede en Siria es la continuación del “rediseño del Oriente Medio ampliado” anunciado por Washington y que ya ha dejado 1.2 millones de muertos, un proceso al que toda persona preocupada por la vida humana debe sentirse deseosa de poner fin. Estos últimos recuerdan que, el 15 de septiembre de 2001, el entonces presidente George W Bush programó siete guerras. Los preparativos para el ataque contra Siria comenzaron oficialmente el 12 de diciembre de 2003, con el voto de la Syria Accountability Act, en medio de la euforia por la caída de Bagdad. Desde ese día, el presidente de Estados Unidos –cargo que hoy ejerce Barack Obama– cuenta con la autorización del Congreso para atacar Siria y ni siquiera está obligado a presentarse ante los parlamentarios estadunidenses antes de dar la orden de abrir fuego. Así que la cuestión no es saber si la OTAN ha encontrado una justificación divina para desencadenar la guerra sino más bien si Siria podrá encontrar un medio de salir de esta situación, como ya logró hacerlo ante todas las acusaciones difamatorias, y para no caer en todas las trampas anteriores, como el asesinato del exprimer ministro libanés Rafiq Hariri o el ataque israelí contra una imaginaria central nuclear militar.

Los grandes medios, como “testigos”

Quisiera señalar, amigo lector, que la Red Voltaire facilitó una gira de prensa organizada por iniciativa del Centro Católico de Información de los Cristianos de Oriente, en el marco de la apertura a los medios de prensa occidentales, la que el propio presidente el-Assad anunció a la Liga Árabe.

Nosotros ayudamos a los periodistas de los grandes medios a viajar a las zonas de combate. Nuestros colegas se sintieron al principio incómodos en nuestra compañía, al mismo tiempo porque tenían de nosotros una imagen negativa preconcebida y porque creían que trataríamos de lavarles el cerebro. Pero pudieron comprobar después que somos normales y que nuestro compromiso no nos ha hecho renunciar a nuestro espíritu crítico.

En definitiva, a pesar de que están convencidos de la bondad de la OTAN y de que no comparten nuestro propio compromiso antiimperialista, pudieron comprobar la realidad de los hechos. Con honestidad, mencionaron en sus trabajos las acciones de las bandas armadas que siembran el terror en el país.

También es cierto que se abstuvieron de contradecir abiertamente la versión atlantista y que trataron de conciliar con ésta lo que ellos mismos habían podido ver y oír, lo cual los obligó a veces a hacer toda una serie de piruetas alrededor del concepto de “guerra civil” entre el Ejército sirio y los mercenarios extranjeros. En todo caso, los reportajes de la Radio Televisión Belge o los del diario La Libre Belgique (por citar tan sólo dos casos), demuestran que desde hace casi 10 meses la OTAN ha ocultado las acciones de los escuadrones de la muerte extranjeros cuyos crímenes atribuye a las autoridades sirias.

Fuente: Revista Contralínea 266 / 08 enero de 2012

How Television Can Make You Believe Things That Aren't True

Newly published research suggests nuggets of misinformation embedded in a fictional television program can seep into our brains and lodge there as perceived facts.

CULTURE

Miller-McCune.com / By Tom Jacobs

Our beliefs about the world are shaped by many factors. The courses we took in college. The lessons we learned from our families.

And, of course, the prime-time courtroom drama we watched a couple of weeks back.

Newly published research suggests nuggets of misinformation embedded in a fictional television program can seep into our brains and lodge there as perceived facts. What’s more, this troubling dynamic seems to occur even when our initial response is skepticism.

That’s the conclusion of a study published in the journal Human Communication Research. It asserts that, immediately after watching a show containing a questionable piece of information, we’re aware of where the assertion came from, and take it with an appropriate grain of salt. But this all-important skepticism diminishes over time, as our memory of where we heard the fact or falsehood in question dims.

A research team led by the University of Utah’s Jakob Jensen conducted an experiment in which 147 students watched a specific episode of the David E. Kelley drama Boston Legal. Immediately afterward, they completed a survey in which they revealed how strongly they related to the characters, how closely they felt the show reflected reality, and the degree to which they felt transported into the narrative of the show.

Half also completed a separate set of questions, including their opinion on the effectiveness of EpiPens — devices that deliver a measured dose of ephinephrine to counter the effects of a severe allergic reaction. In the episode, use of the device failed to stop such a reaction, resulting in a child’s sudden death — a highly unlikely scenario that outraged an advocacy group.

The study participants were emailed a follow-up survey two weeks after watching the show. Those who did not receive the second set of questions, including the one on the effectiveness of EpiPens, filled it out at that time.

The results: “Individuals queried two weeks after exposure to the television program were more likely to endorse the false belief than those queried immediately after exposure.”

These findings are consistent with those of a 2007 study, which similarly found the persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. In that case, the misinformation was embedded in a written story.

“Two studies have now shown that fiction (written and televised) can produce a delayed message effect,” Jensen and his colleagues write. This is troubling, they add, noting, “People are bombarded by mass media every day all over the world, and a sizeable (and growing) body of mass communication research has demonstrated that much of this content is distorted in a multitude of ways.”

Indeed, ABC — the same network that ran Boston Legal — was widely criticized in 2008 when an episode of another legal drama, Eli Stone,suggested a link between autism and a vaccine. While this link has beendefinitively debunked, this research points to one reason it and other falsehoods continue to circulate.

The “sleeper effect” — the notion we can hold onto a piece of information while gradually forgetting it came from an unreliable source — was first proposed in the late 1940s, and a meta-analysis in 2004 confirmed its validity. Importantly, Jenkins notes that in both his study (featuring misinformation conveyed in a fictional television program) and the 2007 paper (where a falsehood was presented as part of a written work of fiction), the size of this effect was greater than that found in the 2004 meta-analysis.

This suggests to him that delayed-message effects “may be larger and meaningfully different” in cases where the misinformation is presented in fictional form. In other words, we may be particularly susceptible to believing falsehoods originally conveyed to us through fiction, perhaps because the context — the TV episode or short story in question — is more likely to fall from our minds.

To read more HERE.

Behind The Scenes With The Reporter Who Took Down Murdoch

"Even though his reputation has suffered, he still has the objective tools of power," says Nick Davies, the Guardian reporter who broke the Murdoch phone hacking story.

Media Matters for America

Nick Davies is a British journalist and filmmaker who began his career in the mid-1970s. An accomplished freelancer and special correspondent for the Guardian, he is the author of five books, including Flat Earth News, a withering and widely-praised critique of the British press. His forthcoming sixth book will concern the latest and arguably most important scoop of his career -- the phone hacking scandal that has rocked News Corp. to its foundation. Davies met with Media Matters in New York to discuss his scoop and why he thinks "Murdoch has a lot to answer for."

How long were you on the phone hacking story before it broke open?

I started looking at it in January 2008. At first, it was just one project I was working on of many. The first story didn't appear until July 2009, after 18 months of working on it. It was a big story that caused a huge reaction in the UK. Then I began tackling it full time -- producing some 80 stories over a two-year period.

When did you begin to suspect there was something big under the surface?

Very early on. During the 18-month period when I was working on it part-time, I learned enough to know the truth. Not only were there a lot of journalists doing a lot of illegal things within the Murdoch organization, the former editor [of the paper in question] happened to have gone to work for the man about to become the prime minister. Instantly, the significance of the story is raised a level. And then you have the fact that the largest police force in the country had clearly failed to investigate, or inform all of the victims. And I found out early on that one of the hacking victims was the deputy prime minister -- a man who knew about economic and military secrets. It was also clear early on that the members of the Press Complaints Commission, the press regulatory body, failed to do their jobs.

How is News International different from other media companies operating on Fleet Street?

News International has been rather unlucky because they're the ones who got caught. But lots of other newspapers on Fleet Street have been doing the same thing. But the story has become about the Murdochs because Rupert Murdoch is so peculiarly powerful. I think you could put a reasonable case together for saying he's the most powerful man in the world.

Do you think the Murdoch family was shocked to lose its immunity so suddenly?

In the United Kingdom, they had acquired so much power that nobody was interested in confronting them. So that is why Scotland Yard didn't investigate the hacking charges properly. That is why political leaders have been accommodating them. It reached a point where they said, "We can't run a government in this country unless he supports us, so we have to keep him on side." While the Guardianwas popping away on this story, even the rest of Fleet Street was reluctant to pursue it. There was a widespread fear of the old bugger. Which is very unhealthy. But nobody predicted the extent to which they would be defeated. What happened in July, after the Milly Dowler story, the scale of opposition was so great that there suddenly came this break-point where everyone could see he was being taken on. He lost the aura of invincibility. Everyone found their spinal columns, at last.

How would you describe his new stature in the U.K., post-scandal?

He presented this image to the Select Committee of a humble old man. Part of that was a PR construct designed to win sympathy. But I don't think that's the truth. Some people say he's finished, so tarnished that he'll never again have access to political power again. But I'm not sure that's true. Even though his reputation has suffered, he still has the objective tools of power. He still does own these media organizations. And therefore politicians will continue to try to accommodate him.

To read more HERE.

10 Steps to Defeat the Corporatocracy

The only way to overcome the power of money is regain our courage and solidarity. Here's how to do that.

AlterNet /By Bruce E. Levine

Many Americans know that the United States is not a democracy but a "corporatocracy," in which we are ruled by a partnership of giant corporations, the extremely wealthy elite and corporate-collaborator government officials. However, the truth of such tyranny is not enough to set most of us free to take action. Too many of us have become pacified by corporatocracy-created institutions and culture.

Some activists insist that this political passivity problem is caused by Americans' ignorance due to corporate media propaganda, and others claim that political passivity is caused by the inability to organize due to a lack of money. However, polls show that on the important issues of our day - from senseless wars, to Wall Street bailouts, to corporate tax-dodging, to health insurance rip-offs - the majority of Americans are not ignorant to the reality that they are being screwed. And American history is replete with organizational examples - from the Underground Railroad, to the Great Populist Revolt, to the Flint sit-down strike, to large wildcat strikes a generation ago - of successful rebels who had little money but lots of guts and solidarity.

The elite spend their lives stockpiling money and have the financial clout to bribe, divide and conquer the rest of us. The only way to overcome the power of money is with the power of courage and solidarity. When we regain our guts and solidarity, we can then more wisely select from - and implement - time-honored strategies and tactics that oppressed peoples have long used to defeat the elite. So, how do we regain our guts and solidarity?

1. Create the Cultural and Psychological "Building Blocks" for Democratic Movements

Historian Lawrence Goodwyn has studied democratic movements such as Solidarity in Poland, and he has written extensively about the populist movement in the United States that occurred during the end of the 19th century (what he calls "the largest democratic mass movement in American history"). Goodwyn concludes that democratic movements are initiated by people who are neither resigned to the status quo nor intimidated by established powers. For Goodwyn, the cultural and psychological building blocks of democratic movements are individual self-respect and collective self-confidence. Without individual self-respect, we do not believe that we are worthy of power or capable of utilizing power wisely, and we accept as our role being a subject of power. Without collective self-confidence, we do not believe that we can succeed in wresting away power from our rulers.

Thus, it is the job of all of us - from parents, to students, to teachers, to journalists, to clergy, to psychologists, to artists and EVERYBODY who gives a damn about genuine democracy - to create individual self-respect and collective self-confidence.

2. Confront and Transform ALL Institutions that Have Destroyed Individual Self-Respect and Collective Self-Confidence

In "Get Up, Stand Up, " I detail 12 major institutional and cultural areas that have broken people's sprit of resistance, and all are "battlefields for democracy" in which we can fight to regain our individual self-respect and collective self confidence:

• Television

• Isolation and bureaucratization

• "Fundamentalist consumerism" and advertising/propaganda

• Student loan debt and indentured servitude

• Surveillance

• The decline of unions/solidarity among working people

• Greed and a "money-centric" culture

To read more HERE.

Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid

A new survey of American voters shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources.

News Corpse / By Mark Howard
AlterNet

Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.

So the more you watch, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false. This study corroborates a previous PIPA study that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that demonstrated the break with reality on the part of Fox viewers with regard to health care. The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day.

In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That’s a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:

• 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
• 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
• 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
• 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
• 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
• 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
• 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
• 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
• 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News.

By the way, the rest of the media was not blameless. CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before it can brag about it.

The conclusions in this study need to be disseminated as broadly as possible. Fox’s competitors need to report these results and produce ad campaigns featuring them. Newspapers and magazines need to publish the study across the country. This is big news and it is critical that the nation be advised that a major news enterprise is poisoning their minds.

This is not an isolated review of Fox’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Fox News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies. We have the evidence that Fox is tilting the scales and we must now make certain its corporate owners do not get away with it.

Elecciones en EU: Los pronósticos, los riesgos...

Partido Demócrata. La derrota.

Olga Pellicer

MÉXICO, D.F., 1 de noviembre (Proceso).- Este 2 de noviembre tendrán lugar las elecciones intermedias en Estados Unidos. Está en juego el total de la Cámara de Representantes, un tercio del Senado y 37 gobiernos estatales. Entre estos últimos se encuentran los estados fronterizos de California, Nuevo México Arizona y Texas. Los resultados cambiarán la correlación de fuerzas políticas en la Unión Americana; para México, los efectos se dejarán sentir de inmediato.

Encuestas y análisis coinciden en señalar que el Partido Demócrata sufrirá importantes pérdidas. El escenario más probable es la pérdida de la mayoría en la Cámara de Representantes, una disminución en el número de asientos en el Senado, sin que sea todavía claro si el Partido Republicano podrá, a su vez, obtener la mayoría que requiere para imponer decisiones. En otras palabras, se espera un gobierno dividido: mayoría republicana en la Cámara y ausencia de mayorías contundentes, demócrata o republicana, en el Senado.

Es normal que en las elecciones intermedias el partido en el poder experimente pérdidas. Esta vez lo llamativo ha sido la intensidad de la contienda, en parte por la dimensión de los recursos invertidos, en parte por la vehemencia del debate. De acuerdo con un reportaje aparecido en Washington Post (25/10), se trata de las elecciones intermedias más caras que hayan tenido lugar en Estados Unidos. Se calcula que al terminar las campañas se habrán invertido más de 2 mil millones de dólares; el equivalente a 4 millones de dólares por cada asiento en disputa.

Esa cifra tan elevada de recursos revela la cantidad de intereses que se encuentran en juego. Parte de esos fondos provienen de grupos de interés y corporaciones actuando de manera anónima; su objetivo más evidente es la derrota de ciertos candidatos demócratas. En otros casos, se trata de candidatos republicanos muy poderosos económicamente, como Linda McMahon, republicana de Connecticut, que ha invertido 40 millones de su fortuna personal para derrotar a su contrincante demócrata.

Paralelamente al gasto desenfrenado, la campaña se ha distinguido por el histerismo de las acusaciones en contra del gobierno de Obama provenientes, principalmente, de los miembros del movimiento conocido como Tea Party. Para ellos, la administración de Obama conduce al país al comunismo, destroza los valores más sagrados de la sociedad estadunidense, favorece los movimientos religiosos que son enemigos de los Estados Unidos, es partidario de crímenes como el aborto o de la destrucción de las familias a través de las bodas homosexuales y otras acusaciones propias de la extrema derecha

Ese ambiente, signo de una gran polarización y temores irracionales, ha tenido como caldo de cultivo la situación económica. La economía es la preocupación dominante al momento de celebrarse estas elecciones, la que permite los extremos ideológicos y la entrada a la campaña de poderosos grupos de interés. Hay temor por la lentitud de la recuperación e incertidumbre respecto a la posibilidad de una recaída; inquieta, en particular, el desempleo que se mantiene en índices muy altos (10%), el pago de las hipotecas, el gasto gubernamental y los niveles del déficit público.

En algunos círculos se empieza a tocar el réquiem para el gobierno de Obama. Consideran estas elecciones el presagio de su derrota en 2012. Sin embargo, la historia electoral de Estados Unidos obliga a ver con cautela esas opiniones. Cabe recordar que tanto Reagan como Clinton se encontraban en índices muy bajos de popularidad en elecciones intermedias en las que su partido sufrió pérdidas considerables. Sin embargo, fueron reelegidos con amplio margen en las presidenciales celebradas dos años después.

En este momento, los resultados están bajo la influencia de un gran activismo republicano y una apatía de los votantes demócratas, quienes se encuentran desilusionados y, según encuestas, permanecerán en sus casas el día de la elección. Sin embargo, ello no significa que se volcarían hacia los republicanos en las presidenciales, ni que mantendrían el abstencionismo en esa ocasión. Todo depende del golpe de timón que dé Obama para recuperar popularidad los próximos dos años. Gran parte de su futuro, además de habilidad política, está relacionado con el comportamiento de la economía, así como del entusiasmo que pudiesen levantar los proyectos republicanos. Hasta ahora esos proyectos han resultado interesantes en círculos locales, de allí su avance electoral. Pero el partido está muy dividido entre radicales y moderados y no se vislumbra un líder con capacidad de unirlos y posibilidad de triunfo a nivel nacional.

El cambio en el mapa político en Estados Unidos que tomará forma el 2 de noviembre presenta serios desafíos para México. Hay motivos para esperar con temor los resultados en los gobiernos fronterizos. Así, Bill Richardson, de Nuevo México, podría ser sustituido por una gobernadora republicana, Susana Martínez, cuyas posiciones en contra de trabajadores indocumentados ya son conocidas.

De otra parte, la llegada de nuevos representantes al Congreso obliga a estudiar su perfil e identificar las posiciones que pudiesen tener influencia en decisiones que afectan a México. Por ejemplo, se sabe que la Asociación del Rifle ha sido particularmente generosa financiando a candidatos que, desde luego, se opondrán a cualquier intento de restablecer la prohibición de venta de armas de asalto, un asunto que interesa particularmente al gobierno de Felipe Calderón.

Están por delante dos años difíciles en Estados Unidos, con un Congreso polarizado donde se empantanará cualquier iniciativa y un Ejecutivo concentrado en preparar su reelección. Con ese interlocutor se tendrá que dialogar sobre problemas vitales para nuestro país ¿Podrá hacerse? l

WikiLeaks Latest Document Dump Is Largest Intel Leak in US History

The US government is racing to prepare for the fallout.

At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs'), document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the United States Army. Each is a 'SIGACT' or Significant Action in the war. They detail events as seen and heard by the US military troops on the ground in Iraq and are the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the United States government has been privy to throughout.

The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period. For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivallent population size.

Please donate to WikiLeaks to defend this information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1pTl8KdREk

Right-Wing Extremists Organize and Promote Violence on Facebook

-- Should the Feds Bust Them Or Leave Them Alone?

From militias to white supremacists, right-wing groups are using social networking to organize and spread propaganda. Should the government do something?

AlterNet / By Justine Sharrock

With all the concern about the lack of privacy on Facebook, one would think that the online social networking site would be the last place that paranoid, right-wing extremist groups would organize. But a wide range of groups, from patriot organizations to militias and even white supremacists, are using social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and YouTube to organize and even espouse illegal activities.

Take the American Resistance Movement, a network of militia groups that vows to take up arms against what it claims is an increasingly tyrannical government. Its Facebook pages and those of its members are filled with conspiratorial news about the New World Order and impending martial law, information about AK-47s, announcements for meetings, links to YouTube recruitment videos, and information about boycotts and elections.

Clicking through ARM's profiles and walls offers an insider’s view of what these groups are all about. ARM member and Three Percenter Bradley Clifford, who ran the ARM online forum, suggested that I check out Facebook, MySpace and YouTube rather than ARM's own Web site to “get a better picture” of the group. In fact, he eventually ended up taking down its Web site all together.

The photo pages are filled with shots of masked men holding machine guns, some with the U.S. flag tied around their lower faces. There are photos of AR-15s and AK-47s, Palin signs, eagles and hot chicks with guns. There are American flags, Don’t Tread on Me flags and Confederate flags. Images of the Founding Fathers sit next to those of Obama depicted as a socialist in front of the Russian flag. Favored Thomas Jefferson quotes like “The Tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” and "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny" litter posts and individual About Me sections.

Looking through pages for ARM as well as linked groups like Sons of Liberty, (a “peaceful” group whose mission states, “As John Locke said, it is not only the right, but the duty of the people to overthrow an oppressive government. In the future, if need be, the new 'sons of liberty' shall and will take back control of this nation.”) Three Per Centers, Right to Revolt and “White Fang Revolution,” linked YouTube videos range from footage of militia trainings, infomercials about the New World Order and hip hop videos promoting an armed revolution. There are tips on how to stockpile ammo and survival gear, and calls to impeach Obama and resist the New World Order.

It seems odd to see all this on Facebook, but in some ways it makes perfect sense. Any grassroots political movement from the Tea Parties to MoveOn to Obama’s election volunteers has to maximize social-networking sites to be successful. Likewise, right-wing extremist groups realize that the reach and efficiency these sites offer can’t be duplicated. They can reach members who are isolated in rural areas (or liberal pockets like San Francisco), link to like-minded organizations and quickly disseminate information far and wide.

Anuncian en Cuba multitudinaria marcha contra la "injerencia" de EU

Raúl Castro, titular del gobierno cubano.

La redacción

MÉXICO, D.F., 29 de abril (apro).- Ante las críticas que ha recibido el gobierno cubano tras la muerte del disidente Orlando Zapata y el ayuno que desde hace dos meses sigue el también opositor Guillermo Fariñas, la Central de Trabajadores de Cuba (CTC) convocó a una movilización para el próximo 1 de mayo, en rechazo a "una hipócrita campaña de difamación" orquestada por Estados Unidos.
En comunicado difundido este jueves por la prensa local, la CTC afirmó que el 1 de mayo “inundaremos las calles y las plazas públicas... reafirmando nuestro categórico respaldo a la revolución, al Partido (Comunista de Cuba), a Fidel y a Raúl".
La organización destacó que la marcha se realizará "en momentos en que los enemigos de la Revolución, apoyados por los grandes medios de comunicación masiva, han tejido una hipócrita campaña de difamación, con la complicidad de sus agentes internos (opositores) pagados con fondos del gobierno estadounidense y la participación interesada de sus socios europeos".
De acuerdo con la CTC, la información sobre la muerte de Zapata, tras una huelga de hambre, y el ayuno que sigue Fariñas, está llena de "calumnias" y "busca engañar al mundo" sobre la realidad cubana.
La marcha "será la repuesta contundente que de todos demanda hoy la patria" ante la “injerencia” de Estados Unidos y de la Unión Europea, apuntó la CTC.

Police admit arrest of Frenchwoman Florence Cassez was staged

TOP STORY
A look at the Cassez case
VIDEO

Mexican police have admitted that Florence Cassez, a Frenchwoman serving a 60-year prison sentence for kidnapping in Mexico, was already in custody when she was arrested in front of TV cameras.

By Guillaume LOIRET

(text) Mexican police have revealed that they staged the arrest of Florence Cassez, a Frenchwoman convicted of kidnapping and currently serving a 60-year prison sentence in Mexico. Cassez, who has maintained her innocence since the start of the affair, was in fact already in custody when the police led the press to believe that her arrest, on December 9, 2005, was being made live in front of cameras.

FRANCE 24 asked Patice Gouy, RFI correspondent in Mexico for 30 years, to shed some light on the matter.

What was the point of staging this arrest?

Patrice Gouy: You have to put the staged arrest in the context of the moment: Florence Cassez’s arrest in December 2005 took place at a time when kidnappings were a major problem for the Mexican police. With roughly 500 kidnappings per year, authorities felt the need to make an example out of someone, and the case of Florence Cassez landed at the right time. The case allowed them to “prove” that gangs were becoming more and more international, and Mexican authorities felt that French consular officials in Mexico would not react firmly.

Could this revelation of a document from the Mexican Ministry of Justice admitting the staged arrest become an exit strategy for Florence Cassez?

P.G.: In any case, it’s the beginning of a solution. On the one hand, the document, which exists since 2007 and should have been submitted for the Frenchwoman’s appeal trial, proves the Mexican justice system’s lack of trustworthiness in a case already containing several inconsistencies and gaps in information. It also allows Cassez’s defence team to appeal the sentence before the Supreme Court and even to directly file a complaint against the Mexican police for falsification of documents. The way out for Cassez could ultimately be a trial in a final court of appeal, but for that she’d have to wait until President Felipe Calderon’s term ends (in 2012) and new judges are named.

Could this latest twist alter the opinion of Mexicans, who have been largely convinced of Cassez’s guilt?

P.G.: Calderon was in favour of Florence Cassez’s release, but in a country as nationalistic as Mexico it was out of the question to drop the case before the presidential election in 2006. Despite a shaky case, Mexicans were disgusted with all the kidnapping incidents and would not have understood a decision to let this one go. But today, things are different. This document [revealing the staged arrest] could initiate a shift in public opinion, and that’s where the role of the press will be essential. The Mexican press is traditionally very cautious, and even more so on television, but if the media switches sides in this case they can move public opinion toward a recognition of Florence Cassez’s innocence.

Now I Understand Why They Hate Us

By David Hilfiker, AlterNet.

How a middle-class white guy came to accept the evil embedded in American political and military might.

Shortly after the attacks of 9/11, many American voices raised the question, "Why do they hate us?" The "they," in this case, was Muslim fundamentalists, but the same question could have been asked of South American peasants, of the people of Iraq or Iran, of the poor of India or Indonesia, or, indeed, of the poor anywhere.
In fact, "they" don't only hate us; the feelings of people around the world toward the United States are a complex mixture of positive and negative. On the one hand, for instance, much of the rest of the world is excited by the election of Barack Obama. Almost six years ago, visiting Iraq just before the American invasion, I listened to Iraqis who professed their admiration for much of America and how American democracy has been a "beacon" to the rest of the world. On the other hand, those same Iraqis felt betrayed by the United States that would attack a country that did not threaten it. And by 2008, multiple polls of people around the world revealed a deep anger toward our country: Clear majorities believe us to be the "greatest danger to world peace." My own coming to understand why they hate us has been a painful process, but one I consider important to share with any American who still does not understand.
My Own Conditioning: The City Upon a Hill
I grew up in the 1950s. Americans were still celebrating our critical role in defeating Germany and Japan and, we thought, protecting the world from fascism. Our economy was as big as the combined economies of the rest of the world put together, and we had used some of that economic power through the Marshall Plan to successfully rebuild the economies of war-shattered Europe. We were the rising empire, and we saw ourselves as the world's savior. It seemed to us (middle-class whites) a time of prosperity and suburbanization, an era of magnanimity and cooperation, a period of confidence that our national path would be continuously upward. I remember predictions that our increasing economic productivity would enable us to halve the work week within a generation while still raising our standard of living.
As a society, however, we generally chose not to see the more ominous realities. Few of us reflected upon the wanton destruction of innocent life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The CIA-instigated overthrow of democratically elected leaders in Iran, Guatemala and elsewhere and, a little later, the assassination attempts on Fidel Castro were only outlandish rumors (that only "the paranoid" believed). The white majority could still ignore segregation. I did not find out about the bizarre, anti-communist antics of Sen. Joe McCarthy until I was in college, a decade later.
Little of our dark side entered my consciousness in the 1950s and early 1960s. Rather, I grew up with the unarticulated sense that our nation was nearing the perfect society; we were "almost there," not so distant from the Kingdom of God. In Puritan Christian terminology, we were the "city upon a hill," "the light of the world" that should not be hidden. God had blessed us; we saw ourselves as exceptional people and exceptionally righteous. In 1963, I hitchhiked from London through Europe to Finland to visit my future wife, and I do not remember feeling surprised that the American flag on my luggage made it easier to get rides. Of course foreigners loved Americans; who wouldn't?
Paradoxically, even the moral and political disaster of the Vietnam War reinforced my sense that America would continue to move toward its ideal. I came of age during the war and joined in active opposition to it, ultimately refusing induction into the Army. While still in college, I became a speaker for the War Resisters League, touring campuses and lecturing against the war. I learned about some of the disturbing realities of American imperialism in Southeast Asia, of course, but -- again without articulating it to myself -- I judged it a momentary anomaly of, rather than a continuation of, our history.
Not until much later did I make the connections between the killing of 2 million to 3 million Vietnamese (the vast majority innocent civilians) with the genocide of Native Americans or the enslavement of African Americans or the deaths of the half-million Filipino civilians who died following our 1898 attempt to control their country. Rather, I interpreted the strength of our anti-war protests to block the re-election of President Johnson and ultimately force withdrawal from Vietnam as manifestation of the power and hope of American democracy. Despite the fact that a few years later during my second trip to Europe I was better off hitchhiking without the American flag, the Vietnam War and our resistance to it strengthened my faith in our country, its democracy and its inherent goodness.
During the 1970s and early 1980s, I was immersed in medical school and doctoring in a small town in northern Minnesota. The war in Vietnam was over, I was not paying much attention to foreign affairs, and I was completely unaware of American interventions in Central and South America (such as the CIA participation in the overthrow of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile). From my point of view, American society seemed to work pretty well. We were still the city upon a hill.

In order to read the complete article HERE.

What You'd Know About Israel If You Watched Al Jazeera TV

By Shane Bauer, New America Media.

AlterNet

Live coverage of the war hasn't made it into most American living rooms.

DAMASCUS, Syria -- Throughout the 11 days of Israel's pummeling of Gaza, live coverage of the war hasn't made it into most American living rooms.
That's because Israel, America's staunch ally, isn't allowing journalists to enter Gaza while Al Jazeera, called anti-American and pro-terrorist by many in Washington, is the only network broadcasting live images from Gaza to the world.
The 350 reporters who descended on Israel when the conflict began are stuck at the border between Israel and Gaza. Israel says that opening border crossings to journalists would put their soldiers in danger, but many have accused them of trying to control the story. Instead of giving their viewers up-close pictorial evidence of what is occurring in Gaza, television networks have been restricted to showing their viewers plumes of smoke as they rise in the distance.
But Al Jazeera, the Qatari network that has previously undergone attacks and had its reporters arrested by the U.S. military, remains typically defiant. While other networks are increasingly severed from Gaza as phone lines are cut and 75 percent of the territory is without electricity, Al Jazeera is bringing its approximately 140 million English- and Arabic-speaking viewers live images of bombings, tanks rolling through Gaza's farmland, and interviews with civilians and aid workers inside Gaza city.
Like all of the networks, Al Jazeera gives constant hard-hitting interviews with politicians and analysts from Israel, the West Bank, and the rest of the Arab world. But while others can only balance pundits with more pundits, Al Jazeera has been taking the viewer to the scene to weigh the words of politicians against the reality on the ground.
Take Israel's claim that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. After showing an Israeli politician writing off the assertion of the existence of a humanitarian disaster, Al Jazeera cut to the Al Shifa hospital, the largest in all of Gaza. There, we saw that there were not enough medical supplies and civilians lying on bloody hospital beds told us that their lives were not only being crippled by bombs falling on their houses, but by the extreme lack of water and food for the people cowering inside them.
One man, as he held his dead, pale faced 7-month-old son in his arms, said, "We were in our house for three days before the bombs fell on us. We called for the Red Cross and humanitarian groups, but no one was able to reach us…We have no one but God."
Israeli officials continue to assert that they are allowing in humanitarian aid by opening the border, but as Al Jazeera's Ayman Moheyaldin reported from the inside, "The point is not that you open the crossings to allow in 30 to 40 trucks, but that you keep them open and allow a continuous amount of goods to enter for a sustainable amount of time."
The problem isn't only that supplies can't get in. People still can't get out. Most are left searching hopelessly for safety while their stories remain trapped within Gaza's walls.
"There is nowhere safe in Gaza," an enraged John Ging, head of the UN Relief and Works Agency in Gaza, told Al Jazeera's Sherine Tadros in front of the Al Shifa hospital today. Those words came after the Israeli Defense Forces bombed a UN school that was being used as a refuge. Later in the day, a second UN school was struck by the Israelis, killing at least 40. "Everyone here is terrorized and traumatized and they have the right to be because there is no safe haven…This violence needs to stop now. Neither side can wait for the other to stop first," he said.
While Al Jazeera might be the only channel reporting from inside Gaza, scores of channels across the Middle East are airing constant commentary as well as images of wailing women, dead children, and burning buildings on loop. On the Syrian satellite station Al-Sham, for example, a pro-Hezbollah series about Israel's occupation of south Lebanon was alternated with a 20-minute musical piece sung over images of dead babies, American soldiers kicking men in orange jumpsuits, a naked Arab man with a bag over his head running from American military dogs, stone-throwing Palestinian children, and endless footage of blood-soaked Palestinians and Iraqis. The song's chorus, "The heart of humanity has died. It died between us brothers. Maybe we forgot one day that all Arabs are brothers," reflects the deep anger that people are feeling toward the inaction of Arab governments here.
By and large, media here is "all Gaza, all the time," and the more people see and hear about what is going on there, the angrier they seem to get. As I rode a bus into the Palestinian refugee camp, Yarmouk, a few days ago, the Syrian radio station was taking calls. A woman screamed into the airwaves, "The people of Gaza don't need food; they need guns to resist the Israelis!" The bus remained silent, full of straight-faced, clench-jawed passengers.
Many went home and watched the ground invasion live a couple of hours later in night vision-green on Al Jazeera. Since then, the death toll has climbed to at least 598, according to Al Jazeera, with 2,700 injured.
Meanwhile, the world's only live coverage of the tragedy is kept away from American eyes. While Al Jazeera English competes with CNN and BBC as one of the largest networks in the world, no major American cable provider has been willing to carry the channel since it launched in 2006. Some say cable providers are squeamish about working with a channel popularly perceived in the United States as giving airtime to terrorists.
But Al Jazeera is finding its way around the problem. Today, Americans hungry for inside coverage of Gaza can download Livestation, a free program that will let viewers watch Al Jazeera English among other international networks. Defiant as always, Al Jazeera might break through another media blackout, and into American homes.

People Easily Fooled by Propaganda

Forget Red vs. Blue -- It's the Educated vs. People Easily Fooled by Propaganda

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig.

AlterNet

Millions of Americans live in a non-reality-based belief system informed by childish clichés - they can barely differentiate between lies and truth.

We live in two Americas. One America, now the minority, functions in a print-based, literate world. It can cope with complexity and has the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth. The other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture. It cannot differentiate between lies and truth. It is informed by simplistic, childish narratives and cliches. It is thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection. This divide, more than race, class or gender, more than rural or urban, believer or nonbeliever, red state or blue state, has split the country into radically distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities.
There are over 42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read, as well as the 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. Nearly a third of the nation's population is illiterate or barely literate. And their numbers are growing by an estimated 2 million a year. But even those who are supposedly literate retreat in huge numbers into this image-based existence. A third of high school graduates, along with 42 percent of college graduates, never read a book after they finish school. Eighty percent of the families in the United States last year did not buy a book.
The illiterate rarely vote, and when they do vote they do so without the ability to make decisions based on textual information. American political campaigns, which have learned to speak in the comforting epistemology of images, eschew real ideas and policy for cheap slogans and reassuring personal narratives. Political propaganda now masquerades as ideology. Political campaigns have become an experience. They do not require cognitive or self-critical skills. They are designed to ignite pseudo-religious feelings of euphoria, empowerment and collective salvation. Campaigns that succeed are carefully constructed psychological instruments that manipulate fickle public moods, emotions and impulses, many of which are subliminal. They create a public ecstasy that annuls individuality and fosters a state of mindlessness. They thrust us into an eternal present. They cater to a nation that now lives in a state of permanent amnesia. It is style and story, not content or history or reality, which inform our politics and our lives. We prefer happy illusions. And it works because so much of the American electorate, including those who should know better, blindly cast ballots for slogans, smiles, the cheerful family tableaux, narratives and the perceived sincerity and the attractiveness of candidates. We confuse how we feel with knowledge.
The illiterate and semi-literate, once the campaigns are over, remain powerless. They still cannot protect their children from dysfunctional public schools. They still cannot understand predatory loan deals, the intricacies of mortgage papers, credit card agreements and equity lines of credit that drive them into foreclosures and bankruptcies. They still struggle with the most basic chores of daily life from reading instructions on medicine bottles to filling out bank forms, car loan documents and unemployment benefit and insurance papers. They watch helplessly and without comprehension as hundreds of thousands of jobs are shed. They are hostages to brands. Brands come with images and slogans. Images and slogans are all they understand. Many eat at fast food restaurants not only because it is cheap but because they can order from pictures rather than menus. And those who serve them, also semi-literate or illiterate, punch in orders on cash registers whose keys are marked with symbols and pictures. This is our brave new world.
Political leaders in our post-literate society no longer need to be competent, sincere or honest. They only need to appear to have these qualities. Most of all they need a story, a narrative. The reality of the narrative is irrelevant. It can be completely at odds with the facts. The consistency and emotional appeal of the story are paramount. The most essential skill in political theater and the consumer culture is artifice. Those who are best at artifice succeed. Those who have not mastered the art of artifice fail. In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we do not seek or want honesty. We ask to be indulged and entertained by clichs, stereotypes and mythic narratives that tell us we can be whomever we want to be, that we live in the greatest country on Earth, that we are endowed with superior moral and physical qualities and that our glorious future is preordained, either because of our attributes as Americans or because we are blessed by God or both.
The ability to magnify these simple and childish lies, to repeat them and have surrogates repeat them in endless loops of news cycles, gives these lies the aura of an uncontested truth. We are repeatedly fed words or phrases like yes we can, maverick, change, pro-life, hope or war on terror. It feels good not to think. All we have to do is visualize what we want, believe in ourselves and summon those hidden inner resources, whether divine or national, that make the world conform to our desires. Reality is never an impediment to our advancement.

To read more HERE.