The Spirit of Tom Paine

By Stephen Lendman
Created Jan 5 2007 - 10:01am

We only know about Tom Paine because Thomas Edison discovered him in the
1920s. Edison believed he was our most important political thinker, and it
was essential that his writings and ideas be taught in the nation's schools.
It's no exaggeration that there might never have been an American Revolution
without this man's writings that had such a profound influence on the
nation's founders and masses of people he reached through one of the few
"mainstream" means of communicating of that period.

Paine was an unlikely man to have had such influence. He was humbly born and
raised in England, was largely self-educated and decided to come to the
colonies in 1774 after meeting Benjamin Franklin in London who encouraged
and sponsored him to do it. It was a decision that changed the world, but
who could have imagined it at the time.

Paine only began writing two years earlier when he took up the cause of
excise (or customs) officers arguing in a pamphlet he wrote they were
unfairly paid and deserved more. When he came to the colonies he chose the
right place settling in Philadelphia where he began writing for the
Pennsylvania Magazine, later became its editor and began working on Common
Sense in 1776 that he published anonymously. It became an instant
best-seller in the colonies and in Europe, made Paine internationally famous
and was the most influential piece of writing of the Revolution. It sold as
many as 120,000 copies in a population of about four million (equivalent to
a runaway 9 million copy best seller today) and convinced many in the
colonies to seek independence from the Crown that happened shortly
thereafter. He followed up with 16 more pamphlets under the title The
Crisis, or American Crisis that were written throughout the war until it
ended in April, 1783.

Paine was profoundly and progressively radical - way ahead of his time and
what passes for "Western civilization" and mainstream thought today. He
opposed slavery, promoted republicanism, abhored the monarchy, and in many
ways was the founder of modern liberalism that Washington and Jefferson
called that "liberal experiment, the United States of America." These were
the kinds of men who founded the nation - skeptics of the institutions of
power that included the "kingly oppressions" of monarchs, the church and the
mercantilist corporatism of that time represented by the dominant predatory
giant of its day - the British East India Company. Because of the unfair
advantage it got from the Crown (a precursor to the kind of outrageous
government subsidy and legislative help corporate giants now get), it gained
a competitive edge over colonial merchants that led to the famous Boston Tea
Party in 1773 that helped spark the Revolution.

Paine had a voice and made it heard in his writings that were disseminated
in one of the mass media instruments of that era that consisted largely of
pamphlets like his and colonial-era newspapers beginning with the first ever
published called the Boston News-Letter debuting in April, 1704 before Paine
was born and Ben Franklin's Pennsylvania Gazette first published in 1728
that grew to have the largest circulation of the time and was considered the
best newspaper in the colonies. Paine got mass exposure in a way that would
be impossible today for his kind of writing - to promote his radically
progressive views that would make a neocon cringe enough to see to it those
kinds of ideas never saw the light of day in today's world run by the
institutions of power Paine and the founders abhorred.

Think about it. This was a man who was an anti-neocon, anti-militarist, and
anti-neoliberal predatory corporatist progressive thinker supporting the
rights and needs of ordinary people. He developed a seminal compendium of
liberal thinking against those notions of governance in his book The Rights
of Man. He believed neither governments or corporations should have rights,
only people. He thought inherited wealth would be exploited by those having
it and would be used to corrupt governments and allow their heirs the
ability to create dynasties that would result in a new feudalism. He
promoted progressive taxation believing everyone should pay them acccording
to their income. He supported enlightened anti-poverty social programs to
provide food and housing assistance for the poor and retirement pensions for
the elderly. He felt the best way to build a strong democracy was to provide
financial aid to help young families raise their children. He was a strong
anti-militarist and wanted all nations to reduce their armaments by 90%% to
ensure world peace.

He and the founders also wanted the new nation to have a middle class and
understood no democracy can survive without one. These enlightened thinkers
knew a viable middle class depends on a public that's educated, secure and
well-informed and that the greatest danger to its survival is an empowered
economic aristocracy that would polarize society and destroy the very
democracy they were trying to create, imperfect as it was.

Imagine if those "radical" ideas were spread in today's mass media that sees
to it the public never hears that kind of thinking. They did in Paine's day,
and it led to a Revolution that freed us from monarchal rule and inspired
the founders to create a great democratic experiment in America never tried
before in the West outside Athens in ancient Greece that only lasted a few
decades. From it we got a Constitution, Bill of Rights and a system of
governance Lincoln said "was conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal (in a) government of the people,
by the people, (and) for the people."

That could never happen today with the channels of communication Paine used
to electrify and inspire a nation closed off to prevent their use against
the kind of oppressive authority Paine opposed. It caused the founders'
great democratic experiment to be lost because people no longer know how
much the dominant political class is harming them by serving the interests
of wealth and power and getting plenty of it for themselves in the process.

If Paine were here now, he'd lead the struggle against that kind of system
the way he did in his day, but he'd get little space in the mainstream to
help and would have to settle for smaller audiences available through the
alternative ways to reach the public now. The free press of Paine's day is
now open only to the interests of capital who can afford to own one. And
those espousing "radical" views like Paine's are barred from being a part of
it.

What the Founders Created, the Dominant Corporate-Controlled Mass Media
Thought-Control Police Destroyed

In his seminal work Taking the Risk Out of Democracy, Alex Carey wrote "The
twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great
political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate
power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting
corporate power against democracy." Doing it was what 1920s intellectual
writer and dean of his day's journalists Walter Lippmann referred to as the
"manufacture of (public) consent" in a democratic system where it can't be
done by force. Manufacturing Consent was the title used by Noam Chomsky and
Edward Herman for their landmark 1988 book that was dedicated to the memory,
spirit and work of Alex Carey. It explained how the dominant major media use
a "propaganda model" to program the public mind to go along with whatever
agenda serves the interests of wealth and power even when it's against the
welfare of ordinary people which it nearly always is.

Today in the US, the major media are nothing short of a national
thought-control police. They're owned or controlled by dominant large
corporations (the kind Noam Chomsky calls "private tyrannies") grown
increasingly concentrated over time and having a stranglehold over the kinds
of information reaching the public. It's given them and the interests they
represent the power to destroy the free marketplace of ideas essential to a
healthy democracy now on life support in large measure because of how
effective they are.

Ben Bagdikian documented their progression in the various editions of his
important book, The Media Monopoly, most recently updated in 2004 called The
New Media Monopoly. He showed since 1983, the number of corporations
controlling most newspapers, magazines, book publishers, movie studios, and
electronic media have shrunk from 50 to five "global-dimension firms,
operating with many of the characteristics of a cartel" - Time-Warner,
Disney, News Corporation, Viacom and Germany-based Bertelsmann. Maybe it
should now be a big six after Comcast Corporation acquired AT&T Broadband in
2001, expanded its cable and other holdings further since, and is now the
nation's largest cable operator reaching over 23 million US households.

These giants have a stranglehold over the dominant medium most people rely
on mainly for what passes for news, information and entertainment: the
national communication drug of choice - television, that according to
Nielson Media Research the average person in the US watches about 4.5 hours
daily in the 99%% of American households television reaches according to US
Census data and the 82%% of households with cable or satellite TV access
according to government and JD Power and Associates figures.

They don't get much in return for the time spent even back when innovative
early television comedian Ernie Kovacs commented on the quality of offerings
in his day. He said he knew why it's called a medium - "because it's neither
rare nor well done," and noted media critic George Gerbner harshly critized
the dangers of media concentration in the hands of corporate giants and the
adverse effects of its programming. He once said they have "nothing to tell
and everything to sell," and they subordinate their mandate to communicate
responsibly to their core function of profit-making.

And reflecting broadly on the corrupting and dumbing-down power of the US
corporate media, noted British journalist Robert Fisk once remarked "you
really have a problem in this country." Uruguayan author and historian
Eduardo Galeano cites a large part of the problem saying: "I am
astonished....by the ignorance of the (US) population, which knows almost
nothing about....the world. It's quite blind and deaf to anything....outside
the frontiers of the US." They know little inside it as well, and of course,
that's the whole idea to maintaining control. Misinform, distract, and
control all ideas and thoughts reaching the public - it's the key to
"keeping the rabble in line." If done well, it works better than all the
might of the most powerful nation on earth.

The Ugly Record of "The Newspaper of Record"

Nowhere is the problem of the dominant media more apparent and acute than in
what passes for news, information and punditry on broadcast and cable
television where the programming presented is poor enough to give pulp
fiction a worse name than it already has. But special condemnation is
reserved for the so-called "newspaper of record" reporting "All the News
That's Fit to Print," at least by its standards that are disturbing when
understood in the terms of what this publication's primary mission is - to
serve as the lead instrument of state propaganda making it the closest thing
we have in the country to an official ministry of information and
propaganda.

The "Gray Lady," as it's called ("Shady Lady" would be more apt), has been
around since it was founded in 1851 as a "conservative" counterpart to
Horace Greeley's liberal New York Tribune by Republican Speaker of the New
York State Assembly, Henry J. Raymond and former banker George Jones. It was
then taken over by Adolph Ochs in 1896 who became its publisher until Arthur
Sulzberger assumed the reigns in 1935. His heirs have maintained it since
with Arthur, Jr. now the publisher as well as chairman of the whole company
that's publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange and that over the
years became a media empire of nearly two dozen other newspapers, nine local
TV stations, a piece of the Boston Red Sox and other enterprises and 2005
revenue of $3.4 billion - a long way from its humble beginning when its
debut simply said: "....we intend to (publish) every morning (except
Sundays) for an indefinite number of years to come."

The NYT is a pillar of the corporate media and a member of the "corporate
America" community whose tenets it finds no fault with when they harm the
common good, as it nearly always does. Nor is it bothered by its own
hypocrisy claiming to be a voice of moderation or liberal thought when, in
fact, it's just the opposite on issues that matter most - like war and peace
and the highest crimes of elected officials it ignores, especially when
committed by Republicans (once publishing the Pentagon Papers
notwithstanding).

The Times plays a crucial role as a loyal servant of empire and its business
establishment. No other member of the corporate media has such influence or
reach as its message goes out to the world and is picked up throughout it in
its highest places. Its front page is what media critic Norman Solomon calls
"the most valuable square inches of media real estate in the USA" - more
accurately, in the world. Bluntly put, the New York Times has unmatched
media clout, and it uses it shamelessly in service to the interests and
ideology of its advertisers. It also plays the lead role as an agent of
disseminating state propaganda and is able to have it resonate throughout
the corporate media, including on television where it counts most, that
generally jump on key stories featured on its front pages and in the columns
of its leading journalists of which it has many and who show up often in
on-air interviews to echo what they write.

The Times also has a bad habit of being disingenuous and allowed to get away
with it. While claiming to maintain a firewall between its business and
journalism sides and between its news reporting and editorial functions, it
does nothing of the sort. In that respect, it's no different than most all
other members of the corporate media club. All professionals who work there
march in lock step with the ideology of management with barely any more than
a little wiggle room allowed on the major issues affecting business or state
policy.

There's a clear line of authority coming down from the top of the Times
hierarchy dictating everything, especially what's printed on its pages. Any
Times writer diverging from this with the temerity to tell a version of the
truth the paper wants suppressed will end up in the Siberia of obit writing
or such if they're still even allowed to draw a pay check. There's an
unposted sign on the front of the Times building (and throughout the
corporate media) all who work there understand and obey - All those entering
here give up the right to think and write freely and will henceforth follow
management's unwritten and unspoken directives or go find another line of
work.

Serving as chief empire-propagandist is an old Times tradition going back
decades and best remembered during the prime years of James "Scotty"
Reston - its best and most famous journalist who walked easily in the halls
of power and was consulted by its denizens. That, of course, is the problem
as cavorting with those in power throws any objectivity about them out the
window and makes it easy for those having it to get away with almost
anything and not have to worry about the dominant media holding them to
account.

The Judith Miller saga is a prime example but just the latest incarnation at
least up to the time her antics got her in trouble, and she ended up being
canned. Judith had lots of predecessors whose names people forget (Claire
Sterling being one during the Reagan years), but they served most
prominently throughout the cold war years especially when the Times was, and
still is, a devout advocate of the home country's notion of "free market"
capitalism (of the predatory kind), a flag-waving supporter of its imperial
wars of conquest, and a committed enemy of the "evil empire" until it ended
and any other country not willing to play by US-imposed rules - Iran under
Mossadegh, Guatemala under Arbenz, Cuba under Castro, Chile under Allende,
Nicaragua under the Sandinistas and Ortega (now reincarnated), Venezuela
under Hugo Chavez, and Bolivia under Morales among others soon to include
Ecuador under Rafael Correa when he takes office as the country's populist
president in January. The paper also works closely with the CIA going back
to when Allen Dulles ran it under Eisenhower with some of its supposedly
independent foreign correspondents in the agency's employ or engaged with
it.

The Times, of course, played the lead media role in taking the nation to war
after the 9/11 tragedy that got Judith Miller sacked once her lying for the
state was exposed. For many months leading to the March, 2003 Iraq assault
and invasion, the NYT's front pages screamed with daily disingenuous reports
about the so-called WMDs "the newspaper of record" knew didn't exist because
years earlier it reported the story.

In August, 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's trusted son-in-law and head of
Iraq's weapons industries, defected to the West and took with him crates of
secret documents on the country's weapons programs including its so-called
WMDs that included no nuclear ones. He was debriefed by US intelligence
agencies and the UN, told all, and made headlines around the world including
on the front pages of the NYT. It all went down the "memory hole" in the
run-up to March, 2003 with the false and misleading reporting in the Times
led by Judith Miller's reports who was practically deified for her writing
that all turned out to be lies.

Now Judith is gone, but her style of reporting remains the way things are
done on the NYT's pages, especially the front one. After playing the lead
cheerleading role taking the nation to war based on falsely reported
threats, the Times is at it again. Back in 2003 and earlier, the primary
reason for war was the claim Saddam had developed WMDs and was a threat to
use them. The paper then trumpeted top administration (unproved) charges
that US intelligence had evidence Saddam stockpiled chemical and biological
weapons, was concealing them, and was seeking nuclear ones - all untrue.

Now with the ruse exposed, the Times is trying to rewrite history claiming
in September "the possibility that Saddam Hussein might develop 'weapons of
mass destruction' and pass them to terrorists was the prime reason Mr. Bush
gave in 2003 for ordering the invasion of Iraq." Clear evidence he had them
pre-war is now only a "possibility" according to Times-think. This kind of
revisionism is standard practice at the NYT and a prime example of the "the
newspaper of record's" disservice to its readers wanting the truth. That's
impossible to get on the pages of the New York Times.

The Times is also a loyal supporter of all things business and the elitist
community whose interests nearly always conflict with the public welfare the
paper falsely wants its readers to think it supports. It doesn't, and it
shows up on its pages all the time. It was clear from its contempt for
working people with its staunch support for NAFTA that's caused the loss of
hundreds of thousands of jobs in the three countries signed on to it
including so many higher paying ones in the US.

Earlier it was late or tepid on major stories like the Savings and Loan
scandal in the 1980s caused by excess banking deregulation and concessions
to Wall Street, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) "$20
billion-plus heist" it pulled off unnoticed until it messed up and got
caught, and since March, 2003 its failure to report on the misuse of many
billions of taxpayer dollars companies like Halliburton and Bechtel profited
hugely from in Iraq and Afghanistan improperly and still do despite Bechtel
having gone off to new predatory ventures. And that's besides the many
billions more in the grand theft pulled off by the defense establishment in
its collusion with the Pentagon in the business of waging war that's so
profitable for the legions of weapons makers and their suppliers for the
blood money they get from it - from us through our misspent or stolen tax
dollars.

The Preeminent Newspaper Dedicated to the Interests of Business and
Industry - The Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal began publishing in 1889 seven years after its
parent Dow Jones & Company was founded in 1882 by Charles Dow, Edward Jones
and Charles Bergstresser whose name never became prominent maybe because it
wasn't as catchy as the other two. For many years, the Journal had the
largest newspaper circulation in the country until the forgettable USA Today
overtook it. What USA Today didn't overtake was this paper's influence that
reaches virtually all those holding positions of power and prominence in
business and government and many beyond. It's news pages also put out the
kind of information its high-powered readers need to know and is usually out
in front breaking stories regarding happenings in business and industry
providing enough context to explain it well.

It's quite another story on the Journal's editorial page where hard right
opinion ideology nearly always trumps any attempt to stick to the facts, but
it's red meat for its adherents. The paper states its editorial philosophy
up front as favoring "free markets" and "free people" that comes down to
supporting all things good for the corporate community and all state policy
doing the same, including waging wars of aggression when they're good for
business as they always are as long as they go as planned, and even if they
don't up to the point where policy followed looks to have more of a future
profit downside than the bottom line benefits of the moment.

Journal editorial writers also take a particularly belligerent stance
against foreign leaders following an independent course, forgetting "who's
boss," and being unwilling to serve our interests ahead of those of their
own people. Case in point, and any of several stand out prominently - Iran,
Syria, North Korea and Venezuela under Hugo Chavez who on December 3 won a
landslide reelection victory (greater than any in US history after 1820 when
elections here became partisan contests regularly) under a model democratic
process lauded by hundreds of independent observers from around the world
(including the Carter Center in the US) and shaming the way elections are
run in this country that reek with taint and fraud.

But here's what editorial writer Mary Anastasia O'Grady (whom this writer
has clashed with before) had to say about it in her post-election December 8
article titled "The Best Election Money Could Buy," a clear example of
yellow journalism and disinformation dripping with the kind of vitriol and
venom O'Grady excels in. She claims "Chavez supporters had more than once
shot and killed unarmed civilians with impunity," but doesn't mention a
shred of evidence to prove it because there is none and it never happened.
She speaks of Chavez's "feared National Guard pour(ing) out of a military
vehicle....and armies of informal government enforcers known as chavistas
(this writer is proudly one as it means someone supporting Hugo Chavez and
his enlightened democratic and social policies)" on another side of a
street. She refers to their presence as "lawlessness" ignoring the fact that
the military was there in case of disorder, (there was none) and the
chavistas were massed on the streets in a post-election joyous celebration
unlike anything ever seen in the US. O'Grady likely couldn't understand the
people of Venezuela love their president and went to the streets to show it.

O'Grady continued saying she "never believed Fidel Castro's 'mini-me' would
be defeated....even though there is scant evidence that a majority of
Venezuelans back his socialist revolution." Did this woman just arrive from
another planet? The independent pre-election polls gave Chavez an
insurmountable 30 point edge, and the final results independently judged
free, fair and open gave him a smashing nearly two to one victory over his
only serious opponent representing the interests of wealth and power the
great majority of people in the country rejects that shows a clear
endorsement of Chavez's Revolution.

Nonetheless, O'Grady wasn't deterred claiming (with no evidence, of course)
"a Chavez victory could (only) be had 'legally' through a combination of
coercion, manipulation and the liberal use of state funds" - again editorial
bombast that's totally unfounded. O'Grady says nothing about opposition
candidate Manuel Rosales, chosen in Washington, getting millions of
US-funded covert dollar support, something that never would be tolerated
here by a foreign government in a US election or a foreign corporation. She
cites the "independent electoral watchdog group known as Sumate" for another
phony complaint, again failing to disclose this organization was formed in
2002, is funded by the Bush administration to subvert the democratic process
in Venezuela, and was involved in the signature collection process in the
run-up to the failed recall election in 2004 trying to unseat Hugo Chavez.

The rest of O'Grady's piece drips with the same kind of agitprop
disinformation only a hard right ideologue, like this woman whose background
is from Wall Street, would love. The fact that what she writes has no
bearing on the truth is of no consequence to her or the other writers on the
Journal's editorial page. Their job isn't to tell it. It's to serve the
interests of wealth and power, and the only way to do that well is to make
sure readers never know how harmful those interests are to the great
majority of people everywhere including a fair number of them who read the
Wall Street Journal, but for their own sake should stay away from its
editorial page and its shameless servants of empire like O'Grady.

The Tainted Record in Public "Non-Commercial" Spaces

Today in the mainstream there are no safe havens. All major print
publications are corporate owned or controlled as are the on-air media
including the two main supposed "non-commercial" alternatives established as
independent, non-governmental, commercial-free public spaces now as much
under the control of the interests of wealth and power as the media giants.
Today so-called National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting (PBS)
are beholden to the interests of capital because that's where so much of
their funding comes from.

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) was founded by the Public Broadcasting
Act of 1967 to provide a programming diversity alternative to the commercial
broadcasters, began operating in October, 1970 and was required to follow a
"strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of
programs of a controversial nature." At the time, it was stipulated the
federal government was prohibited from influencing its programming content,
but that was controversial from the start as PBS operated with federal
funding making it a target whenever it took on an issue critical of the
mouth that was feeding it.

Today corporate donors make up a substantial proportion of PBS funding and
with it claim and get the right to decide what programming is run and what
it may contain along with Republican allies in the administration and
Congress who have plenty to say and put their man, Kenneth Tomlinson, in
charge of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to see they got it when
George Bush appointed him as chairman of the CPB for a two-year term
beginning in September, 2003 after he was earlier appointed to its board by
Bill Clinton and confirmed in September, 2000.

This was a clear case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house forcing
even the administration-friendly New York Times to report a front-page story
in May, 2005 that evidence was mounting that Tomlinson pressured PBS
officials to produce more conservative programming and purge shows
considered more liberal. It prompted an unnamed senior FCC official to tell
the Washington Post the CPB chairman "is engaged in a systematic effort not
just to sanitize the truth, but to impose a right wing agenda on
PBS....almost like a right wing coup." In other words, to make sure the
ideology in PBS programming was no different than the way the commercial
giants see things.

This should have come as no surprise with someone like Tomlinson in charge.
He had a conflict of interest based on his prior employment where he was
director of US propaganda for Voice of America (VOA) from 1982 - 84, was
then appointed to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), served as its
chairman and in that capacity oversaw most government propaganda broadcasts
to foreign countries including by VOA, Radio Free Europe, the Arab language
Alhurra and Radio Marti beamed into Cuba that combined reaches 100 million
people worldwide.

He was also ethically tainted at the time according to a State Department
inspector general report for having "used his office to run a horse-racing
operation and had improperly put a friend on the payroll" and without board
approval signed off on $245,000 of invoices for questionable purposes. He
never should have been put on the CPB board or gotten the top job there and
now no longer does after being forced to resign in November, 2005 for trying
to politicize the agency with his hard line tactics and unethical
practices - something that's become standard practice on Capitol Hill under
Republican control.

Sadly, things haven't improved as one Republican ideologue replaced another
with the Bush appointment of Cheryl Halpern to be CPB chairperson. And on
November 14, 2006, the Tomlinson record was no obstacle preventing George
Bush from renominating him as chairman of the BBG for a term to run until
August 13, 2007 despite his nomination having been stalled in the Senate
because of allegations of misconduct. So far, no charges have been brought
against Mr. Tomlinson, and it's doubtful they will be when the 110th
Democrat-controlled Congress takes over in January. On Capitol Hill, the
climate and culture of corruption is bipartisan, long-standing, and it
doesn't take long for the new party in power to engage in the same kinds of
unethical practices that drove out the former one. It just takes a while for
them to get caught at it.

The situation is no better at National Public Radio (NPR) that long ago
abandoned the public trust it was sworn to uphold when it was founded in
1970 as in independent, private, non-profit member organization of public
radio stations in the country. It's as tainted and corrupted as its
television counterpart and now also gets a substantial proportion of its
funding from corporate donors demanding influence, like the kind a $225
million behest can buy. That's the amount gotten from the estate of the late
Joan Kroc, widow of Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald's Corporation that
never needs to worry about an unfriendly report on NPR's airwaves no matter
how egregious its behavior, and there's plenty of it to reveal that stays
suppressed in all the major media including on NPR, the "peoples' radio."

Despite its mandate to be unbiased and serve the public interest, NPR steers
clear of that in its one-sided kind of "journalism." It's careful to shy
away from all controversial topics that may be sensitive to corporate
interests that include those providing it funding support or might wish to
like Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto and Walmart that already do. It's also
"respectful" of whichever party is in power with Republican administrations
getting special deference as they were from 1994 until the Democrats took
control of the Congress in the November, 2006 mid-term elections. Even
George Bush's most extreme transgressions can't get NPR's ire up enough to
report accurately on them.

That's made even clearer when it's known what kind of man it has in charge -
current president and CEO Kevin Klose. Like the CPB during the Tomlinson
tenure, so too is NPR run by a man who used to be the director of all major
worldwide US government propaganda dissemination broadcast media including
VOA, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Worldnet Television
and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti. And like Tomlinson, it made him an ideal
choice for a comparable job at NPR, the "peoples' radio," that like the
"peoples' television" and its flagship Lehrer News Hour, never met a
US-instigated war it didn't love, support and report endless supportive
propaganda about while suppressing all news unfriendly to the US empire and
its business interests.

So far as its known, however, Mr. Klose hasn't been accused of the kinds of
activities attributed to his former CPB counterpart, staying free from the
taint that forced Mr. Tomlinson to resign. That aside, it's had no positive
impact on NPR's programming that's just as committed as PBS to serving the
interests of wealth and power feeding it while ignoring the public trust
despite the considerable funding it gets from that source from frequent
on-air fund-raising efforts it has no right or justification asking for.

The Passing of Two Noted War Criminals - A Brief Study in Contrasts

The passing of two noted figures now making daily headlines is one
illustration of how corrupted the dominant US media is in their reporting of
news and information only exceeded by the crimes of state and predations of
corporate giants they conceal and distort because they're one of the serial
offenders and must portray the illusion of a free society guaranteeing
liberty and justice for all when, in fact, only those of privilege get those
rights.

So on December 31 the New York Times reported "Thousands Honor (former
president Gerald) Ford (who died on December 26 at age 93 lying in state)
Under (the) Capitol Dome." We can read effusive eulogies extolling the
common man who "didn't ask to be president....he didn't have an agenda....He
was a good man, an honorable man....(and) We owe him a debt of
gratitude....He was....a decent man....called on at the right time to serve
the country when we needed it most."

Baloney, and so much for illusions. Now a dose of hard reality about a man
who rightfully should be condemned and not praised for his time in office
and only less than others preceding and following him because his short two
and one-half year tenure caused less harm that was still a considerable
amount.

In one sense, Gerald Ford was an interregnum president given the job to calm
the public's collective ire and angst from years of abuse of the public
trust under Richard Nixon including the horrors of aggressive war in Vietnam
he allowed to go on and secretly expanded for a time while falsely
committing to end it honorably. No war begun dishonorably can ever end with
honor, and Gerald Ford never even tried doing it. All he could do was accept
defeat and cut and run leaving behind a legacy of Southeast Asia poisoned by
illegal toxic chemicals and turned to wasteland with several million dead he
never even apologized for. Imperial powers never confess sorrow. It might be
taken for a sign of weakness or upset future plans to do it again as Iraqis
and Afghans can testify to.

Ford was also falsely portrayed in the media as "Mr. Nice Guy" hiding the
fact he was just another privileged white American male elected to Congress,
spent a quarter century there and ended up as the nation's first unelected
president (although legally, unlike the current incumbent) replacing the man
forced to exit the job in disgrace to avoid being thrown out of it in even
greater humiliation.

Little or nothing good can be said about Gerald Ford whose assignment was to
calm the nation's collective nerves with lots of disingenuous corporate PR
and media makeover help. His tenure was marked by a distinct lack of vision
or any courage and conviction to move in a new direction and away from a
tainted past he was part of that was never acknowledged in the media to
conceal his time in the Congress supportive of two major Southeast Asian
wars of aggression causing massive death and destruction unreported and all
the other crimes of state committed during his years in public office he
might have stood against but never did.

Consider further who served under Gerald Ford that explains much about what
his administration stood for: his Secretary of State was Henry Kissinger,
George HW Bush was CIA Director, Donald Rumsfeld the Secretary of Defense,
his White House Chief of Staff was Richard Cheney, and his council of
economic advisors chairman was Alan Greenspan in training to move to the
banking cartel owned and controlled Federal Reserve where he continued for
18 years betraying the public trust to enrich the financial community he
served. With that kind of team surrounding him, what possible good could
have come from Ford's tenure. None did, but you'd never know it hearing the
kind of undeserved effusive praise pouring out of the mouths of everyone
allowed air time on the major media while suppressing all the negatives
deserving condemnation unaired and unspoken in the flow of disingenuous
legacy-building of the man, his life and presidency. In the land of
media-created illusion, could anyone have expected otherwise.

Gerald Ford revealed was a man who as appointed vice-president let himself
fall under the spell of general and future Reagan Secretary of State
Alexander Haig who cut him a deal to become president in return for
committing the unforgivable act (some rightfully call a crime) of pardoning
Richard Nixon saving him from having to be held to account for his crimes in
office. He also gave Henry Kissinger authority to allow Indonesia's
president Suharto the right to commit genocide against the defenseless
people of East Timor killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people only
wanting their freedom from imperial aggression and their right to live
peacefully in their own land. Earlier he was an important figure as one of
the seven Warren Commission members chosen to conceal the real cause of John
Kennedy's death in 1963 unrevealed, of course, to this day. Save your praise
and tears for this man now departed. He deserves none of either.

Neither does the other fallen leader whose fate was the hangman's rope that
may have been warranted but not by the process that got it to his neck or
the illegal authority claiming power to put it there to have him hang from
it until dead. Few will mourn Saddam Hussein but even despots deserve a
better fate, as do all people, but won't ever get it when the law judging
them is what the US hegemon says it is - nearly always violating
international statutes and norms that was clearly true in how justice was
denied Saddam.

But that wasn't the way the Wall Street Journal's January 2 editorial page
portrayed it with their lead opinion commentary titled: Justice for a
Tyrant. It ended contemptibly claiming "3,000 Americans (gave) their lives
in (a) noble mission (ridding) the world of a man who might have killed
hundreds of thousands more." The only truth in the editorial was the
statement that "Too few of the world's mass killers face such a reckoning,"
but the Journal writer failed to mention where the worst of the lot are now
domiciled.

The fallen Iraqi leader had the misfortune not to have been from that
favored home country of the WSJ and thus was subjected to its victor's
justice that guarantees none at all to its victims. He was captured and
brought to trial by the US occupier's illegally constituted court (giving
kangaroos a bad name), called the Supreme Iraqi Criminal (Hanging Court)
Tribunal (SICT) that had no authority under international law to conduct the
proceeding. The whole process was a funded and scripted in Washington sham
with a known guilty as charged verdict in advance, no due process allowed,
and a videotaped trip to the gallows disgracefully played out round the
world on national television stopping only short of viewing the trap door
sprung but leaving little to the imagination.

Not a word was heard in the dominant US media about top Bush administration
officials and earlier ones who not only conspired, supported and funded
Saddam at his worst, but their crimes overall, then and now, far exceed
anything the Iraqi leader was forced to pay for in a disgraceful drawn out
public spectacle trial and execution played out for full political advantage
amounting to none at all and likely was botched by the stupidity and
audaciousness of doing it during the time of the Hajj, or sacred pilgrimage,
to Mecca and on Eid al-Adha, or feast of the sacrifice - the holiest day of
the Muslim year. In a final irony at this deplorable moment, awaiting his
imminent inglorious death amid disgraceful taunts by his hangmen, the world
saw an image of this brutish man, reciting verses from the Koran, as the
most dignified man at his own execution.

Saddam killed many thousands of his countrymen and women and deserved to be
held to full account for them lawfully. But the only law afforded him was
that of victor's justice also guaranteeing crimes far greater than his went
down the "memory hole" as though they never happened allowing those guilty
to be shamelessly lauded as heros played off in sort of point-counterpoint
fashion in the case of the two most recent fallen war criminals neither of
whom got the justice they deserved.

Video News Releases (VNRs) - Fake News Masquerading As the Real Thing

VNRs are fake news reports allowing corporate-sponsored pre-packaged
propaganda to be aired on television masquerading as real news without the
public knowing it's being deceived. They're produced by corporate PR firms
for their clients and are widely distributed and accepted by TV stations
that get to fill air time without the cost involved to produce their own
material. It's a win-win-win situation for VNR producer, the corporations
getting free airing of their messages and the media outlets getting free
material with the cost saving going right to their bottom line. The only
loser is the public getting conned and not knowing it. VNRs also have their
ANR (audio news releases) counterpart distributed to radio stations making
them part of the scheme to defraud the public as well and pocketing profits
from doing it.

Also in on the con is our own government producing its own pre-packaged fake
news getting widespread airing on TV and radio to go along with all the
media-produced material out in front in their shameless cheerleading for
whatever agenda the administration in power is pursuing and needs to lull
the public into believing it's for the common good which it never is. The
Bush administration has been aggressive in the use of phony "ready-to-serve"
news reports at times blanketing the airwaves with them from 20 or more
federal agencies selling everything from war by the Department of Defense,
supposed "benefits" of big media by the FCC, and the Healthy Forests
Initiative (HFI) by the Interior Department hiding the destructive corporate
clear-cutting agenda endorsed by George Bush.

In addition, the Bush White House put journalists on the federal payroll to
write positive news stories on a range of issues like portraying the
administration as "vigilant" and "compassionate" and promoting government
programs like the sham Medicare Part D prescription drug plan that's a
consumer rip-off for most seniors and a bonanza for the big drug companies
that can charge any price they want under it. Also fraudulently promoted has
been the benefits of Bush's No Child Left Behind program for the Department
of Education that's one more government-sponsored plan to wreck public
education and hand it over to private corporations for profit starting with
forcing school districts wanting to qualify for federal funding to use
corporate-subsidized and mandated tests that are worthless and harmful to
learning as they prevent schools from concentrating on teaching.

Again, it's a win situation for all the parties involved as the federal
government promotes its corporate-friendly programs, the industries wanting
them get the benefits, the PR firms and journalists "on-the-take" are
well-compensated, and the media outlets get free material to fill their time
slots. Only the public loses including having to pay to be deceived with our
own federal tax dollars and now gets to be subjected to thousands of fake
corporate and government-sponsored news reports annually comprising an
alarming percentage of what media outlets air pretending the material is
real news and information.

The sham persists and grows, and the FCC, in charge of the public airwaves,
is part of the scheme as it's doing virtually nothing to stop it although
it's mandated to do it under the Communications Act. In its April, 2005
Public Notice, the agency stated "whenever broadcast stations and cable
operators air VNRs, licensees and operators generally must clearly disclose
to members of their audiences the nature, source and sponsorship of the
material." It doesn't happen, the FCC doesn't step up to do it, and the Bush
administration disagrees with its agency's stated but not followed mandate
regarding its own pre-packaged propaganda claiming these VNRs are
permissible as long as they're "informational." Left unsaid is whether or
not the "information" serves the public or some other interest or is fact or
fiction. From the well-documented record of the Bush White House, it would
take a giant leap of faith to believe whatever it puts out is anything but
the latter.

Political Propaganda to Program the Public Mind

Australian-born Alex Carey, cited above, produced innovative work
documenting how political and corporate propaganda began and grew more
sophisticated through the years. It was first used in the US effectively
during WW I and the administration of Woodrow Wilson who was reelected in
1916 on a platform promise of: "He Kept US Out of War." No less disingenuous
than most other politicians, Wilson began planning to enter it in 1917 and
did it by establishing the Committee on Public Information under George
Creel to orchestrate a public campaign that was able to turn a pacifist
nation into raging German-haters resulting in the Congress overwhelmingly
declaring war on Germany in April, 1917.

The campaign so impressed the business community it recruited Edward
Bernays, who worked with Wilson and was a nephew of Sigmund Freud, to
develop its propaganda messages to shape public opinion. Bernays and Ivy Lee
pioneered the modern public relations industry and along with political
scientist Harold Lasswell and others helped develop the propaganda
techniques used so effectively today by government, the corporate media and
their PR allies.

They helped develop the ways business and government program the public mind
(the ones Walter Lippmann called "the bewildered herd") by manipulating
mainstream journalism and discourse to convince people to support their
agenda even at the expense of their own well-being. It's done the way
Lasswell explained saying "More can be won by illusion than by coercion
(and) Democracy has proclaimed the dictatorship of (debate), and the
technique of dictating is named propaganda."

Bernays added: "It is impossible to overestimate the importance of
engineering consent....(it's) the very essence of the democratic process."
He explained further in revealing detail the way things are done now by
today's master mind-manipulators: "The conscious and intelligent
manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an
important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen
mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true
ruling power of the country. We are governed, our minds are 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."

Thought Control by the Corporate Media in A Democracy

Engineering consent is also the essence of its corruption as today giant
corporations control our lives, how we're governed and the information we
receive that influences how we think and act. It's the realization of
Lincoln's fear when he wrote: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching
that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my
country....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high
places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to
prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all
wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." He left
out the part about future governments colluding with the country's "money
power" making it easier for them to benefit at the public's expense and be
able to destroy the republic in the process as Lincoln feared.

Lincoln wrote those words before the collusion began post-Civil war in the
first gilded age of the "robber barons" who were pikers compared to the
current crop in an era of "globalization" and
"the-anything-goes-under-the-administration-of-George Bush." It was long
before technology made mass communication possible and the privately-owned
media could gain the kind of reach and influence it now enjoys. It was also
before the Supreme Court in 1886 gave corporations the right of personhood
granting them their long sought after same constitutional rights as people
without the responsibilities, enhancing their power greatly, and allowing
them to become the dominant institution of our time with the help of the
major channels of communication they own, control and use to their
advantage.

With them, they control the free flow of information assuring it's
compatible with the interests of wealth and power but that ends up being
harmful to the public welfare that gets more marginalized as corporate
dominance and influence grow. It's left democracy on life support and
allowed giant corporations, including the huge media ones, to co-opt
government at all levels and do it by keeping the public uninformed on the
most vital matters it needs to know about to keep democracy healthy and
vibrant. The media gatekeepers make sure that doesn't happen by suppressing
all the ugliness it wants concealed, falsely portraying a picture of society
in glowing terms and failing to let on its mission is to serve the interests
of capital, something these corporate giants are rich in and want a lot more
of.

It's long past the time needed to jump-start a process to fight back - to
rebuild democracy allowed to wither and is now somewhere between life
support and the crematorium. It should start with a national debate on the
most pressing issue of our time that must be resolved before anything else
can be - real media reform, reclaiming our space and giving the public more
control of the airwaves it owns, breaking up the giants, creating more
competition and diversity in the commercial spaces, allowing the free flow
of information now denied in the mainstream, and creating more open and
expanded non-profit/non-commercial alternatives including online where the
free interchange of ideas flourishes but is endangered as discussed below.
Without all this, no democracy is possible.

It means stanching the corroding effect of a culture of out-of-control
commercialism and the glorification of wars against threats that don't exist
and waged for conquest and profit. It means reigning in the media giants
allowed to go unchecked and helped by friendly legislation that must be
halted and reversed. It's up to those on the left and the public en masse to
get on this issue - to understand how central it is to all others including
war and peace and the health of the state, and to realize how endangered we
are by the predations of giant corporations, including the media ones, in
league with a rogue government that must be contained to have any chance to
save a republic on life support, if that.

The challenge ahead is to halt this assault on the public welfare and
sensibility, free society and mainstream journalism from the control of
capital and a government serving it, reclaim the public airwaves and mass
communication systems and give it back to the citizenry and honest
journalists who'll work for all the people and not just those holding the
"commanding heights" of business and government. There's nothing sacrosanct
about the current media structure that's the result of decades of big
media-friendly laws, regulations and huge government subsidies all crafted
secretly by the industry without public knowledge, participation or consent
and gotten under administrations of both parties. Changing this is a tall
order, and one needing a great vision to drive it, especially in the face of
the powerful forces working against it in business and government. They're
the enemy, and only mass people-action can and must stop them.

The Battle to Save the Last Frontier of Press Freedom

Today another major threat looms that will move things in the wrong
direction if it succeeds. It's the battle to maintain internet neutrality
that's being debated in Congress, and will resume in the new one in January,
as part of several vital pieces of legislation that will decide how it turns
out. Included is S 2360, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 that
prohibits blocking or modifying data in transit other than spam and illegal
content. In June, the House rejected HR 5273, the Network Neutrality Act of
2006, that would have denied phone and cable companies the right to price at
their discretion to sell favored treatment for content in their spaces at
higher rates. It also passed HR 5252, the Communications Opportunity,
Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act, that will give these companies the
freedom to choose wealthier customers by eliminating the current requirement
to serve low income ones as well.

The COPE Act is now in the Senate, and internet neutrality advocates are
fighting to defeat it saying its passage will compromise the internet space
irrevocably by giving the cable and phone giants a monopoly on high-speed
cable internet. This will effectively deny low-income households broadband
access and allow these companies the ability to monitor and filter content
as they choose. Also under consideration is S 2917, the Internet Freedom
Preservation Act of 2006, that amends the Communications, Consumer's Choice
and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 introducing more rigid net-neutral
standards including a ban on the blocking of lawful content and on
quality-of-service deals between network and content providers.

The stakes on how all this turns out are enormous to the freedom of the one
remaining open public space (along with the few remaining small independent
publishers) it's crucially important to preserve before anything more can be
done to reclaim more of what rightfully belongs to us all. Supporters of net
neutrality want legislation and regulation mandating digital democracy to
keep the internet free from the corrupting influence of corporate control
working against the public interest in pursuit of profit. They want it to
mandate that phone and cable companies allow internet service providers free
access to the public space of their cable and phone lines and to prevent
these companies from being able to screen or interrupt internet content
consistent with current law. Otherwise, these giants will become
self-regulating, able to charge whatever prices they wish and at their
discretion block out whatever content they won't allow in our public space
they control for their own private interest.

In the past 10 years, the telecom, broadcast and cable giants have spent a
fortune getting legislation passed favorable to its interests and getting
back far greater riches and media and telecommunication concentration and
control in return. They've profited hugely at the public's expense through
massive tax breaks, relaxed ownership rules and unrestricted control of the
public airwaves and broadband markets the big five giants plus cable giant
Comcast now dominate and exploit with few checks and balances put up against
them.

The battle lines are now drawn as public advocates face down the cable and
telecom companies to preserve the last media frontier of a free and open
internet that's become a symbol and best hope to revive a democratic
society, structure and culture now in big trouble. Against us are the
corporate media predators who covet what they have no right to have and want
to deny the public what's now available to them at reasonable and
nondiscriminatory cost. If they prevail, they intend to establish internet
toll roads or premium lanes so that users wanting speed and access have to
pay extra for it. Those who won't or can't will get slower service and be
unable to access some formerly free sites without paying for them. The idea
is to give the industry another lucrative revenue stream and do it at the
public's expense. It's also another effort to control thought, suppressing
altogether what's unfriendly to state and corporate interests and do it in a
venue never intended to be exploited for commercial gain or be restricted in
its ability to remain free and open.

This is a battle the public can't afford to lose, and the telecom cartel
will pull out all the stops to win. It'll be up to the new 110th Congress to
decide, and the outcome at this stage is very much up for grabs. The
commercial giants have outspent public interest advocates 500 - 1, but
concerned citizens fought back flooding the 109th Congress with over one
million letters demanding they allow a free and open internet information
commons to remain in place. 2007 will likely be the year of decision, and
how it turns out will be a crucial marker for potential future media reform
and whether there's any chance for a democratic resurgence and national
rebirth desperately needed.

In the spirit of Tom Paine, here's what it comes down to:

Step one: save the internet as a free and open space. Keep it out of the
hands of corporate media predators wanting to profit from it at our expense
and control its content.

Step two: address the greater issue of media reform and change to open the
major channels of communications to more competition and public
participation.

Step three: achieve steps one and two and then take on the biggest issue of
all - saving the republic the way our Forefathers did in creating one that
over time we allowed to founder because we lost control of our public media
spaces and allowed the forces controlling them to program our minds and
thinking to accept what's best for them but against our own self-interest
and survival.

It's never to late to act, but it's high time we realized we'd better do it
and quickly. Freedoms don't protect themselves and are easily lost the way
Edmund Burke explained saying: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of
evil is for good men to do nothing." Abolitionist Wendell Phillips added
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

It all starts with public awareness through knowledge that's what Thomas
Jefferson meant when he said "If a nation expects to be ignorant and
free....it expects what never was and never will be....Educate and inform
the whole mass of people....They are the only sure reliance for the
preservation of our liberty....Enlighten the people....and tyranny and
oppressions....will vanish like evil spirits....Every generation needs a new
(regenerating) revolution."

The revolution we need now begins with regaining control of the means of
mass communication to achieve an enlightened public Jefferson spoke of.
Achieving that means all else is possible.

Dedicated to the Spirit of Tom Paine's Corner and Its Editor Jason Miller

This essay is dedicated to the man whose web site inspired it. Jason Miller
operates Tom Paine's Corner and states its purpose proudly at the top of its
front page - ...."a site dedicated to advancing universal human rights,
fostering social and economic justice, and supporting the cause of all
oppressed, exploited and impoverished human beings on our earth." Visit his
blog site and see how well he does it. And remember the way to achieve
Jason's noble goal, and all others who share it with him, is to have an
informed and aware electorate that's only possible when the means of
communication operate to serve the public interest unlike the way they now
do. It's hoped this article will inspire and arouse its readers to work to
make that possible.

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson