A Propaganda Lesson from the New York Times.  

Propaganda is an important political tool ages old, well-seasoned, and essential to any authoritarian political system in power or to any cabal waiting in the shadows for their chance. We would all be living in some place more dismal than Foggy Bottom or Fresno if we believed that that news is not slanted by bias, poltroonery or imbecility with conclusions and pleas not supported by the facts. Today we take a lesson in advanced political propaganda with a fine example.

The most sophisticated form of propaganda employs a carefully controlled landscape or policed stage setting where the players can display the appearance of an unbiased and perfectly objective analysis of some matter urgently presented. The actors point to or suggest some obvious conclusions to be drawn or hinted about while actually obscuring the intent of the article. The facts and counter arguments are moot and absent in a good piece of yellow journalism and ignored out of necessity and adherence to the theme. The New York Times has mastered this technique and raised propagandism to heights appropriate to far left liberalism along with its anti-capitalist stance, racist pronouncements, and pro Marxist stand along with other radical political themes creating the grand gestation pool from which they take sustenance. Stalin would be proud of this work. He praised Walter Duranty, the New York Time’s finest journalist to date and his picture still hangs in the lobby of the Old Grey Lady in NYC.

A good lesson case is the recent article by Linda Greenhouse offered to the readers as a:

‘Supreme Court Memo’ entitled: Oral Dissents Give Ginsburg a New Voice on Court (Published: May 31, 2007) [1]

The lead paragraph sets the stage to introduce some ‘new’ findings for the reader:

“Whatever else may be said about the Supreme Court’s current term, which ends in about a month, it will be remembered as the time when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg found her voice, and used it.”

From this startling news we must presume that she was silent before, or somehow restrained in some audio-deficient medium where she could not speak or communicate. Victim hood is now suspected.

[1] We are introduced to the possibility of her being muzzled or her notions and emotions suppressed by some mysterious veil or cabal. She is now a confirmed victim.

[2] The notion of a possible courageous female fighting gloriously for equality may be entered as evidence in this saga. Feminism rises to the occasion!

And more:

“Justice Ginsburg read forceful dissents from the bench. In each case, she spoke not only for herself but also for three other dissenting colleagues, Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer”.

[3] We are now introduced to a new leadership role for this Justice and her comments are reinforced by her cohorts, three other liberal Justices. Her allies are now identified by counting backward from nine, a process that even some liberals can manage if not rushed. Note: there is no mention of liberalism here, but the next few lines widen the stage:

“But the words were clearly her own, and they were both passionate and pointed.”

[4] What the hell does this have to do with the law?? Nothing! This paragraph conveys no information except that she was not exactly carved out of some stooge-like mass and set up to parrot platitudes. She thinks and now talks!! Wow. She has apparently broken new ground in the intricate workings of SCOTUS. Let the whooping begin. Nothing legal here.

“In the abortion case, in which the court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act seven years after having struck down a similar state law, she noted that the court was now “differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation.” In the latest case, she summoned Congress to overturn what she called the majority’s “parsimonious reading” of the federal law against discrimination in the workplace.”

[5] Here, we bring in the far left-liberal action items for judicial activism as a matter-of-fact item and hint to the reader that the composition of the Court has changed. Abortion is mentioned as being obviously lawful and supported by her and the ban on PBA [Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act ]is indicted herewith. The ‘majority’ is now at fault. We have defined the enemy and they are them.

[6] Notice the phrase “a restrictive abortion regulation” that removes the regulation from a somber and learned analysis by the High Nine and immediately suggests that the Court (SCOTUS) has erred and previously sustained mountains of injustice. The intrepid sole woman on the court will valiantly fight for justice.

“To read a dissent aloud is an act of theater that justices use to convey their view that the majority is not only mistaken, but profoundly wrong. It happens just a handful of times a year. Justice Antonin Scalia has used the technique to powerful effect, as has Justice Stevens, in a decidedly more low-key manner.”

[7] Here, we introduce the Devil in the form of the Highest Order of Satanic Being, a Justice who has opposite views on may topics dear to the left on topics such as abortion, sloth, sodomy, drug addiction, terrorism and reverse discrimination. Scalia is now the bully, clearly in the wrong, and the valiant woman stands up for what is right and what is wrong by being so bold as to use ‘strong court tactics.’ How brave. We are not introduced to any history concerning W. O. Douglas or Brennan or Harry Blackman as to their public comments, public interviews and vibrant speeches on various findings by the Court. We are certainly not shown the photograph of Justice Douglas reclining like a junkie in a speed stupor in his wheel chair appropriately outfitted with a strong rubber sheet lining his underside to keep his legal and fecal matter from tarnishing the Supreme Court steps and office area. Apparently, from the context, we only find that the nasty right wingers have used this blatant media circus swindle except others were more demure when they attempted to gallantly compete with those in the wrong . Stand by for the crescendo:

“Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, said of Justice Ginsburg’s comment linking the outcome in the abortion case to the fact of the court’s changed membership. “She is accusing the other side of making political claims, not legal claims.”

[8] The punch line appears. This is the central message shaped and formed so even the least cognitively endowed mesomorph may hiss and whoop at the galactic news. THEY have brought politics to the Court!! Enter, stage left, the ‘unbiased observer’ and learned ‘legal expert with portfolio’ who sanctifies the message: The other side is using politics in the court!!! No?! Really? Here we have a summary indictment of the other justices from the lofty nest of academia. The Leftist Elites sound the siren and issue a clarion call for assistance. And, we are to conclude from this theater that the left never uses politics in law and there must not be any leftist judicial activism as it is not mentioned here.

Another testimonial bursts forth in song:

“She has always been regarded as sort of a white-glove person, and she’s achieved a lot that way. Now she is seeing that basic issues she’s fought so hard for are in jeopardy, and she is less bound by what have been the conventions of the court.”

[9] How brave!! How pure!! Such a brave new world she lives in that she can challenge the nasty old demonic composition of the Court’s conservatives because she ‘knows they are wrong.’ This form of conduct, along with the faulty and biased interpretation of her message, actually highlights the left’s frantic need to bring politics into the Court, as if we were not aware of that. Perhaps, the reader now believes that politics is necessary to battle the Evil Right. Is it time for civil disobedience on the Court? Activism time? This piece masks the notion that liberals have politicized the court for decades.

“Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., are not open to persuasion on the issues that matter most to her.”

Emotion devoid of any legal antecedents or reasoning! Given the stogy pyramid theory of modern composition used in journalism, where propagandists learn to compose their articles in retrograde starting with the conclusion while slipping a few supporting details, somewhere around the third paragraph is where the Swan Song barking habitually begins and most of the red meat is chucked to the now-infected dogs. By the fourth paragraph, or so, on cue from the rigid propaganda training of the author (read Propagandist Extraordinaire) , we find the obvious conclusion and the rest is meager amplifying fluff:

Citing no references to the laws of the land in this NYT piece, Justices Roberts and Alito must be wrong because she cannot persuade them to change their views, thus they are demons and subject to ridicule. They are playing politics and just plain wrong!!

The champion of justice bravely stands up for truth and justice and the Liberal Way.!!

The rest of the article is an menial ensemble of hoots, mumblings and baleful bleats from the usual political pedestrian-grade front parlor fluffers and bottom feeders who claim expertise in the legal arena and are in fact only functionally more fresh sand for the cat’s litter box in the context of this article. Mere fluff.

Conclusion:

This is a classic piece of disinformation and propaganda worthy of the New York Times Daily Walter Duranty Award with the following sterling attributes:

[a] The poor heroine has suffered the abuse of evil white males in her job and she struggles for truth and justice against the collusion and intimidation of the Controllers of the Court. There is no mention of the basis for law or any legal reasoning anywhere in the article.

[b] She is obviously ‘correct’ about her maudlin pleas and case opinions and does her touching best to do combat with the Forces of Evil. There is no mention of the basis for law or any legal reasoning anywhere in the article.

[c] Echoes from the cheap seats reinforce her political views, not supported by legal reasoning or case law, but by rabid emotion as if to sanctify the only correct path to justice. There is no mention, for the third time, of the basis for law or any legal reasoning or references to the Federal body of law anywhere in the article.

Classic piece of propaganda from the masters of the game.

rycK