How big a lie do GOP "talking points" have to be before we can call them a Stalinist "party line"?

[arendt]

“In all dictatorships targeting the free press begins with political pressure—loud, angry, campaigns for the news to be represented in a way that supports the group that seeks dominance. Attacks escalate to smears, designed to shame members of the press personally; then editors face pressure to fire journalists who are not parroting the party line. A caste of journalist and editors who support the regime develops, whether out of conviction, a wish for advancement, or fear.

- Naomi Wolf, "The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot"

The party line, as perfected by Stalin, was an ever-changing pile of contradictions which could not be deduced by reasoning from facts, but rather had to simply be memorized and repeated. One day a person was in favor, the next day executed. One day a project was glorious, the next day canceled. The only way to know what behavior would not get you a "tenner" in the camps was to read the official party newspaper every day and repeat it back when questioned.

With the naked favoritism the corporate media is displaying towards a clearly flawed, vicious, and desperate John McCain, it is obvious to any thinking person that America no longer has a free press. It is clear that America has a "party line" propaganda ministry. This ministry uses all the techniques of totalitarian regimes: suppression of embarrassing stories, manufacturing of phony stories, rigged polls, biased newsreaders, and a corps of reactionary apparatchiks to deliver "talking points" - the new eupehemism for "the party line".

Pending further developments, I withhold judgment on whether the Obama strategy of "staying positive" is going to work in the face of the corporate media smear machine - especially when that machine now seems free to make up total lies and distortions with absolutely no legal or political ramifications. In this situation, the Democratic Party may be like the Russian people under Stalin. Those folks were not stupid enough to believe the party line; they went along because they were in fear of their lives.

----

My bottom line is not to waste my time on manufactured issues (like TV ads about counter-factual assertions and non-existent linkages). The American people are sick of this kind of manipulation. The biggest "issue" in this campaign is the one that the media will never talk about: the destruction of press freedom by corporate/GOP control.

That is why I come to post on and read from DU, because there is some semblance of freedom here. But, please, people, don't use the precious and limited "mindshare" that people make available to DU to rehash these phony controversies and manufactured wedge issues. And, I'm begging you - stop obsessing over poll numbers. They are all rigged.

Instead, use your mindshare to exchange the truth about what is really happening in the world. Please continue to talk about military, economic, and political facts instead of trying to make rational sense out of the "party line" irrationality that is constantly spewing from every media orifice. They want you to examine their shit. It wastes your time and makes you smell.

I'm saying: just ignore it. I stopped getting news from TV and the corporate press more than a decade ago, and I feel better informed because of that.

Peace

arendt

[rfranklin]

1. Not advisable...most Americans know nothing of our history....

And even less about Russian history.

[arendt]

2. Every American over the age of 20 was indoctrinated about the evil Communists...

they were warned about insidious agents of international communism. The paleo-cons are still doing so.

In fact, it is that very rhetoric which the MoP has re-purposed to demonize liberals. (As if the herd-of-cats party could get it together enough to have a party line.) I'm just asking folks to call a spade a spade. Hell, send them to Lew Rockwell's site. He's a conservative who knows a party line when he hears it.

arendt

[jmondine]

6. Good point...

It's not just honest, but because of the anti-communist indoctrination we received, it has just enough shock value to cause some to question the inflammatory propaganda currently passing for news.

[rfranklin]

8. But, but...the communists were lefties!

The idea that the right could be Stalinists will not fly.

[arendt]

9. The right has been trying to convince folks that the Nazis were lefties for decades...

because "socialist" was in the name of their party.

The right will believe anyything that their masters tell them to.

arendt

[WinkyDink]

3. Didn't we pass this line ca. Watergate?

[arendt]

5. In Watergate, the process worked, even if the result was nullified by pardon.

The Congress actually did its job. The press actually did its job. Yes, I know, it was a CIA counter-coup against Nixon. But, hey, at least they pretended to play by the rules. The W-gate GOP squeeled like stuck pigs - but that was their right.

For me, the two events were totally different. In Watergate BOTH sides had access to the media and to the levers of power. Lately the GOP have all the media and all the power. The media is TOTALLY corrupt at this point. They are openly trashing the Dems and covering Bush's, Cheney's, and McCain's sorry asses.

arendt

[WinkyDink]

10. OP's subject title: "GOP talking points".

[arendt]

13. What is your point?

I listened to the Watergate hearings and read the press coverage. You did NOT get the total endorsement of the blatant lies of the GOP and the blatant suppression of the facts that we have today.

Yes, we got adversarialness. But, we also got the facts. When Archibald Cox was fired, we got the details.

But, of course, they were just inventing this whole game back then - what with Nixon bringing in advertising men as his top policy advisors, which was a major departure for the politics of that era.

I repeat. What is your point? Can you spell it out?

arendt

[depakid]

4. Propaganda, interestingly enough- was largely an American "invention"

Edward Bernays being the Edison or Henry Ford of "public relations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

His seminal book (aptly titled) Propaganda, is free to read online:

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

I highly recommend it.

[samsingh]

7. we're there now.

[KittyWampus]

11. thanks, it's a good question. Does a real journalist simply repeat Republican talking points?

how can they repeat them without the preface- the Republican party claims xyz.

[H2O Man]

12. Interesting question.

Two thoughts: First, in every campaign, we do well to recognize that there are three distinct groups: (a) those who definitely support you; (b) those who definitely oppose you; and (c) those who are "undecided." Without going into the merits of if the current situation is "Stalinist," it might be worth considering how that word plays with those that you want to reach.

I suspect that a segment of the Group A Obama supporters would think the word "Stalinist" is accurate. But another segment of Group A would likely find that description unlikely to convince the "undecideds." Group B anti-Obama voters already have made up their minds, and favor the parts of the media that could be described as "Stalinist." They would be pleased to have the negative associations of that word injected into the debate, because anger and fear are their only hope. But perhaps the most important consideration would be Group C: is a loaded word, such as "Stalinist," likely to appeal to them?

This brings me to point #2: Malcolm X used to say that if you have a bottle of medicine that you believe that society needs in order to deal with a social ill -- and McCain is nothing if not a symptom of a social disease -- then you never want to put a skull & cross-bones on that bottle.

I think that it is important that democrats at the grass roots level confront the very real issues with the corporate media that you acurately describe. But I think that it is important to consider what tactics are most likely to work in our favor.

Interesting OP/thread. Thank you.

[arendt]

14. I'm supposed to worry about how fictitious "undecided" voters react to "Stalinist"?

First, thank you for your polite comment. But, it is way too "inside baseball".

The country has never been more polarized. McCain is busy playing the racist card, and you are worried about the effect of telling the truth by linking media tactics to those of a hated dictator?

IMHO, the Democrats would do well to take the gloves off against someone. It may as well be the media. The media have been crucifying them for years. Most of the public is beginning to get that the media is their enemy. So, why is calling the media (as opposed to McCain or the GOP) Stalinist such a no-no?

Until the Dems get a fair shake from the media, they will continue to be crippled, cringing losers. They need to "play the refs" as hard as the GOP.

All they have to do is put up commercials, ala Jon Stewart, juxtaposing the double standard. If the media won't run them, put them up on the Internet.

---

I'm sorry, but I find your strategizing to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. It just buys into the whole rotten "frame" that the media has created about the mythical swing voter. The only swing vote in this election will be racists deciding whether or not they would rather let their country go down the drain rather than vote for a competent black man. (And their simply aren't enough Dem-leaning racists to make a difference. So screw them.)

arendt

[H2O Man]

15. Go to it, then.

By all means.

[H2O Man]

16. In fact,

let's do a little DU experiment. You write some letters-to-the-editor using the Stalinist example, and I'll write some that are in a similar vein, but slightly different. I find that comparing the corporate media to fast food chains is a good way to get a point across. Although it can be hard to accurately measure the amount of good LTTE do, I think that we can find a few agreeable ways.

Let me know how many papers, etc, you write to. Then I'll send my letter(s) to an equal number. We'll see how many get printed. I'm sure that we can both get a few published. The "reaction" from others in the reading audience can be measured by responses in other LTTE, and to some extent by "word of mouth." In the region where I live, the vast majority of my LTTE get reactions from republicans who are eager to disagree with me, and a number of people in the community usually say something to me, if only, "nice letter."

I'm outlining a basic letter, that will express my opinion that the corporate media is "McDonalizing" the news. I think it's a better symbol than "Stalinizing." They mass-produce something that looks like real news, much as McDonald's mass produces something that resembles food. The difference between MSNBC and CNN is about as much as the difference between McDonalds and Burger King. You get the idea.

I suspect that more people would read and understand "MDonaldized news" than "Stalinized news." But you could be right, and I could be wrong. It could be fun to find out, and it might provide a good lesson for DUers on communications in political contests.

[KittyWampus]

17. kick