A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too." The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?" the scorpion replies: "It’s my nature…" Now, if you are wondering if this story is about modern day politicians, you might possibly just be right.
This week kicked off with a massive scandal when a former high-ranking White House staffer openly admitted that he not only manipulated the media — but he also said that they were pretty much too dumb to know what was going on, and by default, the public at large was as well. The New York Times quoted Ben Rhodes when he said — “…all these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus, now they don’t. They call us (at the White House) to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter [the White House] talks to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea of change. They literally know nothing.” Get that? The talking points that drive the daily news cycle and in turn are repeated ad nauseam are created by people that should know what they are talking about, but do not! But it gets better!
The article in the New York Times goes on to note that — “The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false.” Did you catch that? Manufactured! As in created out of thin air! Or even false! Maybe the Iranian deal was a good one. Maybe it was a bad one. Apparently, it doesn’t matter. What does matter, however, is pushing an agenda, using whatever means necessary. But there is more!
The NYT article also noted that — “Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public.” That’s right. Apparently this method has now become a “model” and something that will be replicated in the future. Scary, right? Although there has always been a thin line that politicians walk on between truth and untruth, in this case, the line seems razor thin.
Talking about razor thin, as in the shrinking support that she has, Breitbart is now reporting that — “a pro-Hillary Clinton political action committee (PAC), is spending over $1 million on online trolls in order to ‘correct’ Bernie Sanders supporters on social media sites.” That’s right. Hillary Clinton, in a bid to save her failing campaign is resorting to dirty tactics. And by failing campaign, it should be mentioned here that a recent article at the American Mirror discussed how — “Clinton lost the West Virginia primary to Bernie Sanders 51% to 36%.” In that article, it was pointed out that — In 2008, she received just slightly more than 240k votes. This time around, Clinton netted a little more than 84k votes— a 65% decline.” That article ended on a bittersweet note when it revealed that — “According to data, 33% of Democrats say they will vote for Donald Trump in November. Only 44% of Dems say they’ll vote Clinton. Twenty-one percent say they’ll support neither.” Pretty amazing, right? But let’s get back to that dirty tricks part.
The article at Breitbart goes on to note — “the task force will “combat online political harassment,” boasting that it has already “addressed more than 5,000 individuals who have personally attacked Secretary Clinton on Twitter.” So, instead of basing her campaign on the many successes that Hillary Clinton has had over the years, which by the way, is none, unless you count starting an illegal war in Libya or being able to drag out an impossibly simple did-she or didn’t she break email rules investigation, she too will now have to change the perception that people have of her. Or at least try too. And her campaign is going to spend a million dollars or more to try to sell her to the public. But will they buy it?
And speaking of buying it, or in this case, maybe selling it, the Washington Examiner recently noted that apparently there aren’t enough government agencies in Washington DC. So much for smaller government, because as everyone knows, bigger is better. The article pointed out that-“The Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, would create a Center for Information Analysis and Response in the State Department.” That’s right. This new government agency apparently will read foreign newspapers, watch foreign TV, and surf foreign news websites, all in a bid to counter and spin it for domestic American consumption or maybe even just disappear it. So much for truth these days — or anything resembling it.
So, what do you think dear listeners — “What is the difference between propaganda and news?”