In the early chapters of Gilmor’s We the Media, he lays the groundwork for asserting that news organizations, and companies in general, should encourage feedback on their respective industries from customers and the like. One of his suggested examples is in the airport industry. Travelers, who usually know airports the best, and notice changes, should be encouraged to engage in discussion with the airline officials to make airports safer. People should be encouraged, Gilmor claims, to suggest changes and to point out failures and potential loopholes in order to protect the flying public.
I found it bizarrely coincidental that as I was browsing the CNN United States homepage I found an article relating specifically to this point. The article “FBI Investigates Student Over Website,” tells of a college student who did just what Gilmor suggested. For his dissertation, Christopher Soghoian, a student at Indiana University created a Web site exposing airport loopholes.
But, what was the reaction?
He became a suspect to the FBI. Government officials were concerned that Soghoian was conspiring with others, with the bad intentions of doing harm by making the airport security loopholes known.
Today, on his blog, Chris announced that the FBI has dropped its case and found him innocent. He explained the purpose of this website as purely to help improve the security situation at airports. Apparently, he was trying to follow Gilmor’s advice, to the t!
However, it seems that at this point in time, it’s the government who are unwilling to consider Gilmor’s and promote civic participation in matters of national security.

In the heat of the Senator Foley scandal I noticed a seemingly odd occurrence. On the cover of Time Magazine, smack in the middle, was the rear view of an elephant. The headline was something to the extent of “The End of the Republican Party.” While the picture was powerful in its starkness of a single elephant on a white background, it was the cover of the New York Times Magazine, a few days later that struck me. On the cover, there was yet another elephant. But this time the image represented an article dealing with the phenomena of endangered elephants. I found it interesting that even though the content was wholly unrelated, the images used were identical.
Upon showing this to my parents, my mother replied, “its zeitgeist.”
Zeitgeist is defined as “a phenomenon based on fate where something simultaneously happens everywhere at a certain time.” My mother informed me, that this is also a concept in media. Frequently, when one issue or image is used, it is used everywhere. When I logged onto CNN this evening, I found myself in another zeitgeist moment.
For the past day and a half, one of the news stories that was inescapable was the story of Sean Bell, a black man who was shot and killed outside a strip bar on the day his honeymoon was supposed to begin. The issue is meriting so much attention because as of yet, it is unclear why he and the other men he was with were shot, resulting in the one fatality. Every news circuit has been carrying this story all day. The grieving mother of his children visited the scene. A vigil was held where the participants counted to the number 50- the supposed number of how many shots the police fired at the men. Reverend Al Sharpton has gotten involved to express his anger. And, even Mayor Bloomberg has expressed the fact that he has found this matter to be “unacceptable.”
My moment of zeitgeist arrived at 9:30 p.m., after my last class, as the CNN homepage appeared on my computer screen. “Stories Differ in Police Killing, Chief Says,” read the headline. At quick glance I assumed this article was about the abovementioned shooting. But no! Unlike the first shooting, which occurred in Queens, New York, this shooting took place in Atlanta, Georgia. Last week, yes, last week, Kathryn Johnston, an 88-year old black woman, was shot and killed by police in a drug raid on her home. On Tuesday the police came to her home. They claim that she opened fire on them and they returned fire, mortally wounding her. Her family claims that this “little old woman” had nothing to do with drugs, nor did she allow other to use her home to sell drugs. Thus an investigation is underway.
I find myself wondering, what brought about the uncovering of this case that occurred earlier last week? Why did the Atlanta police chief announce that an investigation would commence today? In the Sean Bell case, the shooting occurred at 4 a.m. and within a few hours of publicity an investigation was underway!
Is there a relationship between the publicity of the Queens shooting and the surfacing of the Atlanta shooting, which is almost a week old?
Is it zeitgeist?
With this current example in mind, it is interesting to consider what causes zeitgeist. What we know is that the Sean Bell story was a popular story today. People were mobilized to hold a vigil, all the developments on this case were noted on websites, and this story was a top new story on news outlets. As depressing and horrible as it is to imagine, I see no other explanation than going back to our good old profit-seeker model.
Here we had a human-interest story that had all the elements of good news. We had police brutality, death, and a grieving widow. With all the interest it seems that the news wanted to capitalize on this attention, and what better way to do it that by digging up a similar story.
Sad, how two deaths, of which we know little to nothing about, become attempts of news outlets to attract viewers.

While I cannot deny that some of Gilmor’s technological jargon evaded my understanding, I must admit that I found myself seeing my own computer life in the journey to new media that Gilmor described in chapters one and two. In these chapters Gilmor details the development of the computer and the Internet and its interplay with media. As Gilmor went through each of the different stages I saw my family and myself in each stage and our growing familiarity with the Internet.
I was born into a family that already had a computer. My mother, when pregnant with my older brother decided that she should take a class to learn DOS. Then she bought our first Apple, the first of many Macs! From a young age Prodigy was a regular term in my home, though only my mother was the expert. I remember playing all the Broderbund Games (I think that is what they were called); we must have had every Learning Center game they produced! For several years the computer was purely a game pod for me. Eventually, it became a word processor also, as I started needing to type my papers. Yet, I was still scared of this so-called “Internet,” of which only my mother “knew the code.”
When America Online came out, we quickly switched, and interestingly, at the same time, the computer was moved from the basement office onto the second floor, near all the bedrooms. Coincidence, I think not! Finally, I decided to take the jump. All of my friends talked to each other on Instant Messenger, after school, so I too, needed to join. I remember the drama that accompanied choosing a screen name and email as well as a password.
My first experiences with Internet were email, IM, and chat rooms, though to this day I do not understand what my friends and I found entertaining about going into chat rooms and talking to each other, pretending to be total strangers.
As my family experienced different events, we became savvy in the different aspects of this new world of Internet. When my brother had his Bar Mitzvah my parents started a mail list with many relatives. This continued after the bar mitzvah, as family members shared their personal news with one another.
I distinctly remember the first time I used a search engine. My sister had been diagnosed with a brain tumor. I remember sneaking into the computer lab in my elementary school during lunch and typing in “ganglioglioma.”
High school brought a whole new wave of familiarity with the Internet. The idea that the Internet contained research information had been totally unknown by me. I remember thinking how many of my middle school papers would have been easier if only I would have made that realization.
Similar to what Gilmor said, my use of the Internet as a news provider did not really exist until September 11th. Only then did I become an avid browser of the various news outlet websites.
My most advanced Internet experiences have really been my more recent experience in the world of blogging. I recall, about a year or so ago, my cousin sent me a link to his blog, and I honestly had no clue what I was looking at. Yet now, just like with all my other Internet learning, I am once again unfazed.
Though still, every so often there are the new Internet experiences to be had. For instance, I watched my first full-length television show online, just last week!
What Gilmor’s first two chapters have left me with is a similar idea to what I learned from reading the book The World is Flat, that key to being successful in this day and age and understanding and properly using all the technology out there is the ability to be flexible. Everything can change in the drop of a hat and we must be open to new technologies and new technological experiences to live in this world and make sense of it. A prime example of this being my father, who, just a few years ago, at the age of 64 finally realized that he too, must embrace this world, and was the last member of my family to “sign on.”

Fascinatingly enough, after devoting a half hour to the quest for negative criticism, I am empty handed in my search for an unfavorable critique of Eric Boehlert’s Lapdogs. However, it seems quite appropriate that once published, this book would merit little attention from the media, or anyone else. If purposely ignored, this seems all too similar to Boehlert’s discussion of Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, whose protests were totally ignored by the press, in an attempt to make it seem that they did not exist. It only seems right that Boehlert would get the same treatment- no publicity for something never mentioned!
My reading of selections of Boehlert’s book was much like preaching to the choir. Once again my preconceived views of the post 9/11 press, particularly the White House Press Corps, as puppets to the Bush administration, has been confirmed.
Boehlert’s central claim in the book is that the press were more antagonistic towards former President Clinton than they currently are towards President Bush. In an article from the American Journalism Review, Rachel Smolkin writes that this is true mostly due to the appeal of scandal. She writes that the personal scandal that enveloped President Clinton’s presidency was far more entertaining to critique and expose than President Bush’s wartime maneuvers.
Eric Alterman’s article in the Nation, “Lies About Blowjobs. Bad Wars? Not so Much,” highlights this idea. Alterman notes that when President Clinton attempted to hide some sexual indiscretions, which had NOTHING to do with the running of a country, many of the press claimed that he merited impeachment. However, the fact that President Bush may have lied to the American people about A WAR seems to be okay.
Similarly, in a blog, under the heading “Press as biased against Clinton as it is pro Bush,” the author details how the press hounded President Clinton from the beginning of the election campaign, straight on till today. The Whitewater scandal, as well as the several harassment and sex scandals were never brushed under the rug. Yet, we never have heard the extensive juicy details of President Bush’s cocaine use or his bout with alcoholism.
It thus seems that Eric Boehlert’s claim is correct. For a plethora of reasons, the press have been much more antagonistic to President Clinton than they have been to President Bush.

We have a rich history of case law dealing with the limiting of free speech. In truth, from the inception of the United States of America, those in power have sought to suppress dissident views. In particular, much case law exists concerning free speech during war times. In the claimed interest of national security and patriotism, free speech is frequently “put on hold” during war times.
As early as 1798, speech has been limited in times of war or post war. Claiming to be necessary for the new United States to survive its days of infancy, Congress passed the Sedition Act, which prohibited any printing, uttering, or publishing of information that would be contrary to the view held by the administration. This law stood, unopposed and unchallenged until its expiration. Following this, with each major war, cases have arisen as the dissenters express their opposition.
But, even beyond legal restriction on free speech, frequently during wartime, social pressure, antagonistic to dissenting opinions, is just as strong. In the post- September 11th world, where every car, home, and, business proudly waved the American flag, oppositional sentiments were not tolerated.
Like W.E.B Dubois, I believe that “…any system of spreading information, in any country which denies the intelligent citizen and voter certain facts or groups of facts, is fundamentally and dangerously wrong.” The restriction of free speech is undemocratic. Of course exceptions like state secrets that cannot get out exist, but the gross over-rationalization that is seen in case precedent is unacceptable. Much like W.E.B. Dubois, I think the power to prevent and stem this wrongdoing exists primarily among the American people. We should demand alternative viewpoints from our media and be reluctant to believe anything and everything we read.
Critical to maintaining an environment of free speech is not giving into the propaganda that encourages demonization of oppositional or dissenting opinions. If achieved, free speech will be a given and restriction- unthinkable. People would less eagerly fall pray to propaganda and require factual and ration proof to support going to war.
In this realistic world restriction on free speech would never stand.

A funny thing happened to me when I went to AlJazeera.Net.

After reading the article from The Nation, about the bad rap that Al Jazeera gets for being an independent news source, I attempted several times to access the website. As I sat in the Stern Computer Lab, switching computers each time I was logged off, I started to think, maybe this was not just a technical error. After all, no one else in the room seemed to be having problems using the Internet.
From a young age, as a member of the Jewish community, I was raised to think of Al Jazeera as the lowest of the low, the worst type of propaganda that could easily be equated to that of the Nazis. Yet, for the brief few minutes, on each computer, that I was able to browse the website, I found myself shocked at the fact that most of the headlines present were similar to those I had seen on CNN.com earlier that day. As I browsed the site, in my limited time, I was very impressed and shocked to find a Code of Ethics. In this Code of Ethics, I found rules that any Western paper would have. Ideals of factual observation, objectivity, and desire to print the truth were all espoused.
In Jeremy Schahill’s article, the author discusses the secret memo concerning President Bush’s plan to bomb Al Jazeera headquarters. America’s war on Al Jazeera, Schahill concludes, is for no other reason than for the fact that it does not espouse Western views. Bombing Al Jazeera would be as undemocratic as, hypothetically of course, a university restricting use of its computers to access a particular website.
In discussing this issue with the computer room and other friends, the resounding opinion was that, if in fact Yeshiva University does restrict website use in its computer labs, it is in the interest of security. The last thing anyone wants, one friend said, is for some website user to be linked to Al Jazeera and the Stern Computer Lab. Yet, I disagree. If in fact, Yeshiva University restricts computer usage (which as a disclaimer I would like to say that this totally could have been a fluke, and just a series of bad coincidences) they are being just as un-Western as the accused, Al Jazeera.
It seems that we are victims of propaganda concerning Al Jazeera ourselves. We are told of how bad they are on a double front. As Jews, we are told to see them as anti-Semitic and attacking our people. As Americans, we are told to see them as aiding and abetting terrorism.

Funny how when we finally decide to find the truth, we cannot access the website.

One of the most powerful strengths of propaganda is the ability to take a weakness or a failure, and through manipulation and deceit turn it into a glorified triumph of mythic proportions. There are few better examples of this than the Munich Beer Hall Putsch.
The true story is that Hitler and others, upset with their recent defeat in World War I as a result of weakness and betrayal from German leaders, sought to overthrow the government, beginning their stronghold in Munich. On November 8, 1923 and leading into November 9, Hitler and his followers held hostage all those in the beer hall, present for a speech from Gustav von Kahr, the newly appointed Bavarian Commissar. The goal was to persuade the officials present to aid Hitler and to march on Berlin. While the officials present agreed at the time, at gunpoint, within a few days Hitler was arrested for treason. Though sentenced to five years, he served a mere eight months.
Though the extent to which this putsch was a failure is clear to the reasonable viewer, the Hitler propaganda machine did not see it this way. This document, an outline for how to celebrate the holiest day on the Nazi calendar, highlights the ability to completely change the nature of an event. November 9 was not an embarrassing day, but a day of pride. Among Nazis this day did not symbolize the failed beginnings of a movement, but rather, the initial ascent to glory.
Key to this conversion into a holy and proud day is the element of martyrdom. In O’Shaugnessey the significance of martyrdom to propaganda is discussed. The idea that people would die for a movement or a cause is the most impassioned rallying cry possible. To say that one would die for a cause shows the highest level of dedication. By turning this day into a memorial for martyrs is a rally cry on its own.
Thus this truly embarrassing event was transformed into a ritualized memorial day, filled with song and emotion. And as we know, ritual is yet another essential in the web of propaganda.

In Chapter 2 O’ Shaughnessey presents the idea that one of the main functions of myths is to maintain the status quo. Whether through glorification or demonization, the present state of society is sustained through acceptance and perpetuation of the myth and its relevant ideas.
In my mind, it is hard to find a better example of this than the myths surrounding women in the 1800’s. The Victorian Era was a period of great change for everyone in industrializing nations. The Industrial Revolution brought with it new jobs and new opportunities for all. But, this brought with it a problem, how would the men maintain the status quo, keeping the women home and out of the workforce? MYTHS!
The myths surrounding women of this time period fall under both categories, negative and positive, or as stated above, glorification and demonization. Women were raised with the notion that they were fragile and delicate with the life purpose of marriage and childbirth. Her goal was to achieve the glorified role of the “Republican Mother.” This myth, that women exerted the most influence and power in the world through the raising of her sons was accepted and perpetuated by women. Particularly in Britain, these women were told that through the proper raising of her sons she would ensure the success of the empire. In this role they were also encouraged to engaged in “Social Housekeeping,” charitable acts that were extensions of their home activities, like caring for the sick and cooking for the homeless. This myth ensured that women would remain in their sphere, in the home to fulfill this job that was bigger than them.
But, if it was not enough to maintain the status quo through the giving of purpose to women, the women were held back from the workforce and education because of misconceptions about their biology. Myths were established that claimed that beyond woman’s physical inferiority, her woman-ness made her weak. At the onset of menstruation she was no longer capable of higher learning, for any mental exertion was believed to sap power from her reproductive organs- a terrible fate for a woman whose goal was to produce children! This myth, perpetuated by men, woman, and doctors alike, ensured that women did not seek higher education or taxing mental activities.
I think today we can still find remnants of this idea of maintaining the status quo and keeping women in the home. The “Soccer Mom” is glorified to the extent that she is basically a cornerstone of our society. Daytime television is geared towards her, cars are made for her, and she even is defined on Wikipedia! Similarly, ideas of women’s physical inferiority are still alive today as well as misconceptions and fear from males concerning menstruation.
All hail the power of myths?

With Part I of O’Shaughnessy under my belt I must admit that I am no closer to determining the nature of propaganda than I was before. However, I do understand the theory behind it all much better. The problem with defining propaganda is that it can never be defined ultimately. The definition is a changing one, one that must incorporate historical experiences as well as present circumstances. Propaganda has many components but to varying degrees, depending on the political scientist. These different elements include: manipulation, intent, and breadth to name a few. Interpretation is the key to propaganda. Even if the intent of the source of the propaganda is to manipulate, the goal is dependent on the negotiated meaning of the active audience. Basically, propaganda can be anything, everything, or nothing.

Being that we are quickly approaching the 2006 Midterm Elections, I chose an article on the elections from WatchingAmerica.com. The article I chose was from the Economist, a British paper, and is titled “Watching from Afar: How the Rest of the World Sees America’s Mid-Term Elections.” Before I get to the issue that I would like to discuss at length, I would like to note that I have never seen an article in the United States written like this. Frequently we hear about how connected Europe is and how close in terms of distance and relationship-wise the countries are. The article truly projected this. When reading this I felt like I was reading a European paper; it was not like reading an article here, where only America’s views are discussed. When reading this article I was presented with the views of several countries and I felt like I was getting more of a global picture, which I found refreshing.
What I would like to look at is whether this article, the foreign coverage of a domestic American political event is propaganda or merely a difference in perspective. With the first part of O’Shaughnessy in the back of my mind, I am in the mode of thinking that anything has the potential to be propaganda. O’Shaughnessy asserts that media, in its selection of what is or is not news has the ability to impose a certain mindset on the public, and thus is a form of propaganda. I find this idea to be persuasive. Interpretation plays a significant role in journalism and because of this, ideologies are sure to be inserted into articles, reports, and such.
I think that a difference in perspective signifies a difference in ideology and opinion, and the expression of this through the media is in fact propaganda. I would like to just add here, that like O’Shaughnessy asserts, propaganda is not inherently bad, but to go even farther I think that propaganda in the media may just be unavoidable. After all, few journalists or media conglomerates lack an agenda.
An article like this would never be written in the U.S. It teems with distaste for the current American war in Iraq and detestation for President Bush. It almost seems to be shouting, “I told you so,” to America. While dissatisfaction is certainly written about here, it is not done in such a harsh tone.
The article is claiming that the world should be interested in these midterm elections because there are currently several issues of significance that the new Congress would be dealing with. This idea of being interested in the politics of other countries seems almost un-American. Our xenophobic and ethnocentric elites encourage us to lead and assume that the rest of the world will follow with few concerns.
This frank and global-minded article certainly emits a worldview and approach unlike that in America. It further encourages anti-Iraq and anti-Bush Europeans and certainly can be considered propaganda.