by Norla M. Antinoro, Ph.D.
December 29, 2006

The First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Propaganda it seems. The corporate media can say anything they want any time and not be answerable to anyone except their ratings. They use that Constitutional freedom to launder the brains of America's citizens.

The human brain has a learning faculty that can be used to get information into the thing without conscious control or effort if it is presented just the right way. If the headline or sound bite is the right brief length, the message will be into the brain, processed and stored before the conscious mind can decide to change channels or turn the page. This fact is used to powerful effect by the various big media to influence the way the political wind blows in this country.

Let's look at the way AOL, for example, uses their front page to hit the viewer right in the lower midbrain and bypass the cortical cognitive functions. They choose a picture and give it a brief bold caption that is read and absorbed before you can click the mouse button. Message received unfiltered. Leading up to the 2000 and 2004 elections they used that to push Bush. Even in our current corrupt system, there are limits on who and how much money can be spent by candidates and their supporters and it must be accounted for carefully. From time to time people have been required to pay back money or pay fines for inappropriately ignoring the rules.

To get around these limits, AOL and other news sources set up their guy in bogus "news" stories and put them on the front page with an effectiuve photo. The photo is always chosen so that the picture conveys their message even if the viewer does not glance at the words. In 2000 they showed Bush smiling and looking smart enough to read on every news story they used and everything he did made the news from his choice of breakfast cereal onward. In 2004 they used posed 9-11 shots of Bush at the WTC rubble with a little American flag or on the deck of a carrier looking triumphant. He looked like a take charge kinda guy, one you could trust, one you just might buy a used car from.

I knew the election in 2006 was going to the democrats by the way AOL was slanting the news. Now they are slanting things against Bush and the Republicans a bit but still leaving room for maneuvering if they change their minds. Bush is still shown on the front page nearly every day but the chosen pictures make him look like a childish, peevish, snotty little brat or a total fool. The headlines go along the lines of "Can anybody trust this man?" in their suggestiveness. Yesterday the picture was a classic and the headline suggested that Bush was an idiot and going against the advice of his entire sentient staff and the majority of American citizens in a push for a troop build up in Iraq.

Just five minutes ago they changed that picture to one a little more neutral along with a slightly more neutral headline: Bush asks new defense chief for build up plan.

AOL uses a white background on their front page. They should change that to yellow.What they are doing is blatantly making an effort to push the opinion of the American public to their own corporate views.

There was a sort of tradition among reputable news voices. The hard news was presented in a neutral fashion with the basic facts. The opinions go on the editorial page. Today there are no such separations. The news is slanted in the choice of headlines, the choice of pictures, the timing, and the placement. Perhaps it would be okay if they were labeling what they are doing as editorializing. But they do not; they call it "news". Edward R. Morrow is spinning in his grave.

We once had a fairness doctrine that governed the media outlets. If one side of the political debate presented a view, the opposing side had to be given air time or column inches to present their opposing views. This was federally mandated, not a cultural tradition. The broadcasters made their choices clear by putting the side they didn't like late at night along with the old movies sandwiched between commercials for used cars and handy kitchen gadgets but the views were there and people could access them. Pictures were eye grabbers intended to get the readers and viewers to read or watch, not so much to sway their political opinions.

The fairness doctrine was not a full answer but it helped. We need to bring it back. As soon as possible. What AOL and other corporate news media giants are doing amounts to nothing more than brainwashing as they essentially use subliminal advertising to get their messages into the brains of America around and under the filters of our conscious minds.

So the next time you glance at your homepage or peruse the newspaper, remember that there is no one out there controlling the message or the messengers to make sure the "news" they present is accurate, fair, or objective. Don't believe anything you see and only half of what you hear as the pirate in red said. Question everything, as I used to tell my students. They are trying to push your subconscious mind into their paths. So when you see that picture on the front page or home page and read the catchy little headline, automatically stop and make a conscious decision about the message they are trying to send past your mental guardians. Your conscious mind can override their manipulations if you train it to. Look at the picture of Bush and decide consciously whether you are going to accept the implied message. Every time you see a picture or headline take the time to do that same thing. Insert a conscious, aware, awake guardian at the controls.

While I am perfectly willing to have everyone in America agree with AOL that Bush is a snot nosed bratty immature idiot making stupid decisions, I want them to come to that decision based on objective reality not the slanting yellow journalism of the corporate media. Let's get objectivity back in the news.