Ideological Hegemony

Thought Control in American Society

Introduction

In June 2003 a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that about 1 in 4 Americans (incorrectly) believed
Iraq had used weapons of mass destruction during the recent war with the United States. [1] A separate
poll in the same month found that 34% of Americans believed the United States had already found
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [2] In September another poll found that 69% of Americans
believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9–11. [3] Even the Bush administration has been
forced to admit that these claims are not true. These misconceptions are the outcome of a system of
thought control called ideological hegemony. Hegemony operates through many mechanisms including
the media, education system, newspeak and others with the primary function of maintaining support for
the dominant socio-economic system in the United States.

In all class societies, the ruling class can maintain control through violence and/or ideology. If the
majority can be persuaded that the rule of the ruling class is legitimate then it can be maintained with less
violence. Examples of ideologies that serve this function include the divine right of kings, social
Darwinism and Marxism-Leninism. All of them acted to legitimize the rule of specific elites in certain
societies and helped those elites maintain power. Some hierarchical societies rely more on violence,
others rely more on ideology. The United States relies more on ideology, although a certain degree of
force is used.

In Russia prior to 1905 there were a number of large peasant revolts over the centuries that could have
potentially threatened the power of the monarchy. However, all such revolts did not see the monarchy as
the problem. They assumed that it was various “bad apples” which caused their problems, not the social
system. The rebels believed the oppressive actions the monarchy took were the result of bad advisers,
corrupt officials or other glitches in the system – but never the outcome of having a monarchy. This belief
that the monarchy was not to blame, the system just needed a few reforms, helped prevent the system
from being overthrown as most rebellions against the monarchy didn’t seek to overthrow it. The
monarchy did not fall until after most stopped believing that the problems were the result of “bad apples”
rather than being inherent in a monarchical system.

Ideological hegemony in the United States operates in a similar manner. Certain fundamental principles
are never questioned – capitalism, private property, the state, imperialism and other assumptions. So
long as those fundamental principles are not questioned debates can rage back & forth and all sorts of
different positions can be formulated. The more vigorous the debate is the more it will tend to shore up
the status quo as it will make society seem more open and pluralistic than it really is. Thought is
bounded, with liberalism on one end, conservativism on the other end and various other ideologies in-
between (I count libertarian capitalism as being within this spectrum). The legitimacy of private property,
the state, etc. is always assumed.

For example, it is generally assumed that most US interventions into other countries in recent history are
intended to be benevolent. Some may argue that such interventions don’t have the positive effects their
supporters desire or that they aren’t worth the costs, but the assumption that the US acts with benevolent
intentions, even if it makes mistakes sometimes, is assumed to be true. Similar assumptions are made
about capitalism, the state, etc. Some may argue these things need to be reformed but the vast majority
assumes they are legitimate. So long as that assumption is held by a large majority of Americans the
system will be secure, just as the monarchy was secure in Russia when the vast majority assumed its
legitimacy. Anyone dissatisfied with the status quo will end up being drawn to various reform schemes,
voting for different politicians and the like instead of supporting the overthrow of the system.

These assumptions are both shared by the vast majority of Americans and transmitted to the populace
through a variety of mechanisms. In an important sense hegemony, once established, is self-
perpetuating. Those who believe in these ideas, to varying degrees, tend to advocate and promote them,
passing them on to others and to the next generation. These values are also transmitted, often indirectly,
in movies, novels, scholarship, entertainment and other forms of communication that reaches large
numbers of people. This isn’t necessarily intentional or explicit.

Critics play an important role in perpetuating ideological hegemony. If even the most ardent critics of the
current regime share these basic assumptions then it will serve to reinforce those assumptions. If even
they share these assumptions then even fewer will question them, as doing so would seem insane.
Those dissatisfied with the status quo will tend to become involved with movements and ideologies that
accept these fundamental principles and therefore will not represent much of a threat to the dominant
socio-economic system.

The kind of ideological hegemony that operates in America is different from the mechanisms used by
totalitarian states to maintain control. Totalitarian societies tend to rely more on violence to control the
population, although they usually also have an ideology to support the status quo. The United States
does occasionally use violence to control dissent, such as the frame up of Sherman Austin, and has
around 100 political prisoners. [4] However, force is not used against dissidents on nearly the scale it is
in totalitarian states, where dissidents are systemically rounded up. Most dissidents in the United States
can criticize the government with low odds of going to jail for it. So long as their ideas are kept
marginalized, so long as the vast majority continues to believe in the system, dissidents do not represent
much of a threat to the status quo. Allowing most dissidents to exist, but marginalizing their views,
actually strengthens hegemony because it makes the system seem freer and more open. In a totalitarian
system the spectrum is narrower and all dissent is suppressed, while the ideological hegemony that
exists in the United States just marginalizes dissent, instead of suppressing it, and acts to insure that
most people continue to believe in the system.

Neither ideological hegemony nor the existence of an elite ruling over the United States is some giant
conspiracy. They are both the outcome of the way American society is set up and a long historical
evolution. Hegemony is the result of the way the media, education system and other institutions are set
up and have evolved. The structure of the system is such that those who are outside the liberal-
conservative spectrum tend to be weeded out when rising up the hierarchy for positions involved in
perpetuating hierarchy (editors, teachers, etc.), not as the result of a conspiracy but as the result of the
way the system operates, and those who are not weeded out are marginalized. Whenever any society is
divided into hierarchies (rich and poor, powerful and powerless) an elite is formed consisting of those on
the top of the hierarchy. Several centralized, hierarchical institutions including large corporations, a
powerful military and a bureaucratic state run the United States. Those on the top of these institutions,
what sociologist C. Wright Mills called the power elite, have far greater power, wealth and prestige than
those below them.

Hegemony operates through many institutions and mechanisms. The news media reinforces it by
emphasizing facts that are consistent with the liberal-conservative spectrum while downplaying facts that
might cast down on it. The education system reinforces hegemony by training the population to obey
authority and indoctrinating children with the fundamental principles underlying hegemony, principles
which they usually continue to believe as adults. Both of these largely exclude dissident views.
Hegemony is written into the very structure of our language, through a process called newspeak. And
there are also other elements to hegemony, but these are the main ones addressed here. In addition,
some of these institutions have functions other than directly reinforcing hegemony. The education
system is a kind of Keynesianism and the media helps create artificial scarcity, for example. These other
functions are not examined here, the focus is on how each of these institutions acts to create and
reinforce ideological hegemony.

The Media

There are many models about how the news media works. One is the “fair and objective” model that
asserts that, for the most part, the media objectively and fairly report on the events of the day and give an
accurate picture of reality. Overall, coverage is balanced and does not reflect any ideological bias. One
variant of this is the idea that the media are highly critical of the powers that be and act to expose
government or corporate abuse & wrongdoing. Another model is the “liberal bias” theory, which asserts
that the media is biased in favor of liberalism. A third theory is the propaganda model, which asserts that
the media as a whole is neither liberal nor conservative but acts as propaganda for the interests of
business, political and military elites. Within the media, the “fair and objective” model is the theory
promoted the most. The “liberal bias” theory is not promoted by the media as much, but one can still find
it advocated within the media. The propaganda model almost never referred to within the media and
most of the exceptions are criticisms of it. The evidence favors the propaganda model by a large margin,
and overwhelmingly disproves the “fair and objective” model.

In the United States the media are for-profit companies and usually owned by other large corporations.
Those who manage and control these corporations, the business elite, have common interests with other
members of the business elite and with the state. The media are also dependant on other corporations
for advertising, from which they derive their main revenue. The products they produce are not their
shows; the products they produce are audiences, which they sell to advertisers. Advertisers tend to
prefer wealthier audiences to poorer ones because wealthier ones are more likely to be able to afford
their products and to be able to buy larger quantities of their products. You don’t see many
advertisements geared towards homeless people. Thus what the media produces tends to be geared
towards attracting the wealthier, and tends to go along with their prejudices and beliefs. The media also
depends disproportionately on the government as a news source. These factors act to mold what the
media reports. Coverage tends to stay within the liberal-conservative spectrum; things outside of it are
marginalized. Unlike a totalitarian system, they aren’t necessarily 100% excluded but are marginalized.

Corporate ownership of news media creates a huge conflict of interest. Shortly after ABC (including the
ABC radio network) was acquired by Disney Jim Hightower’s leftist talk show, which was very critical of
Disney, was cancelled. [5] In 1998 ABC cancelled a 20/20 story that investigated allegations that Disney
allowed known child molesters to gain employment at Disney World without a background check. [6]
Things aren’t always that direct, though. Only the wealthy can afford to set up a newspaper with a wide
circulation or a major news network. Others are excluded, and so the news tends to reflect the views of
the wealthy owners while the less wealthy tend to be excluded even if there is no explicit censorship
policy.

The dependency on advertising for revenue also influences coverage. A survey of 55 members of the
Society of American Business Editors and Writers at the society’s 1992 conference found that 80%
believed advertiser pressure was a growing problem and that 45 percent knew of instances where news
coverage was compromised by advertiser pressure. [7] In 2001 NBC agreed to run ads for Amazon.com
during certain programs, including news programs like Today, on NBC, CNBC and MSNBC in exchange
for a percentage of the sales generated. Riverside, California’s Press-Enterprise had a box in their
March 8th, 2001 newspaper that read, "More than 125,000 daily Press-Enterprise readers have eaten at
a Mexican restaurant in the past 30 days. Advertise your restaurant in Riverside and San Bernardino for
under $250.00 and get a free feature story." [8] The influence of advertisers isn’t always this direct and
explicit, though. A publication which ran stories critical of corporate power and which questioned the
dominant socio-economic system could not expect to get much advertising from those same
corporations, even if such stories were only a small percentage of content. It would be unable to
compete in the marketplace, thus the pro-corporate publications tend to dominate the media.

The media is also dependent on its supply of “raw materials” (information), which tend to come
disproportionately from the government and, to a lesser extent, big business. For example, the
allegations about President Bush going AWOL when he was in the National Guard were known for years
and circulated in left-wing circles in the run up to the 2000 election but were mostly ignored by the media.
It wasn’t until early 2004 that the media paid much attention to this, because a powerful democrat (John
Kerry) decided to bring it up and attack Bush with it, causing it to become a big issue. The media
implicitly takes the point of view of the American government, referring to government military forces as
“our” troops and “our” fighters, as if the networks owned them. They identify with the actions of the
government. The invasion of Iraq provides another example of this. Sixty-three percent of sources on
ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox’s
Special Report with Brit Hume, and PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer in the first three weeks of the
invasion were government officials or ex-officials, giving it a strong pro-war slant. Anti-war sources made
up 10% of all sources and only 3% of US guests. Polls at the time showed over 25% of Americans were
anti-war. [9]
There are many other examples of these factors acting to slant the news. There is a major controversy
over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but this is not the first time in recent memory
that a President’s excuse for war has been proven false. Clinton bombed Yugoslavia over the allegation
that it was committing genocide in Kosovo, but a subsequent NATO investigation found fewer than 3,000
corpses, both civilian and military, on all sides. NATO’s own figures state that 2000 people died on both
sides in the year of fighting prior to the bombing. Just as there is little evidence to support the claim that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, there is also little evidence to support the claim that Yugoslavia
was engaging in genocide in Kosovo. [10] This failure to find evidence of genocide did not cause a
controversy for Clinton, nor did the discrediting of Bush the first’s lies over the Gulf War create a
controversy. This is because of the guerilla war against American troops in Iraq, which did not happen in
Yugoslavia or the Gulf War. This has both kept Iraq in the news and caused a large portion of the elite
(including the business class that owns and funds the media) to come to the conclusion that the invasion
was a mistake and/or Bush bungled it. Opposition politicians and dissatisfied government officials have
brought attention to the failures to find WMDs and other controversies surrounding the war by criticizing
Bush for it. In Yugoslavia and other cases politicians & government officials didn’t criticize the President
over the fraudulent nature of his pretexts for war, and so after the war the media followed the lead of the
government and devoted little coverage to it. Government officials & ex-officials still dominate news
coverage, both positive and negative. Seventy-six percent of all sources in stories about Iraq on ABC
World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in October 2003 were current or former
government or military officials. [11]

In the summer of 2003 the media started raising the issue of Bush’s “16 words” in his state of the union
address alleging that Iraq sought to buy uranium from “a country in Africa.” The documents used to
support this assertion were shown to be a crude forgery by the International Atomic Energy Association in
March, but the media didn’t pay much attention to it until the summer. The reason is that prominent
democrats ignored it until the summer when they used it to attack Bush, at which point the media then
started paying attention to the story. The democrats act as a left-wing limit to debates within the media
and the republicans a right-wing limit. If they both agree on something then there is usually little debate
on the issue.

Western media rarely reports the names of the various groups engaged in the guerilla war against the
US occupation. This aids the government’s propaganda that they are all “Saddam remnants” and
“foreign terrorists.” Here is a partial list of groups involved in the insurgency:

*Active Religious Seminary

*Al-Anbar Armed Brigades
*Al-Faruq Brigades
*Armed Vanguards of Mohammad's Second Army
*Black Banner Organization
*General Command of the Armed Forces, Resistance and Liberation in Iraq
*General Secretariat for the Liberation of Democratic Iraq
*Harvest of the Iraqi Resistance
*Hasad al-Muqawamah al-'Iraqiyah
*Iraqi Communist Party-Al Cadre
*Iraqi National Islamic Resistance
*Iraqi Resistance Brigades
*Jihad Cells
*Liberating Iraq's Army
*Mujahideen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq
*Muslim Fighters of the Victorious Sect (aka, Mujaheddin of the Victorious Sect)
*Muslim Youth
*Nasserites
*National Iraqi Commandos Front
*Patriotic Front
*Political Media Organ of the Ba‘ath Party (Jihaz al-Iilam al-Siasi lil hizb al-Baath)
*Popular Resistance for the Liberation of Iraq
*Saddam's Fedayeen
*Salafist Jihad Group
*Snake Party
*Sons of Islam
*Unification Front for the Liberation of Iraq
*Wakefulness and Holy War
*White Flags [12]

As one can see just by looking at the names on this list, there are a variety of different groups involved in
the insurgency; they are not all “Saddam remnants” and “foreign terrorists” as the government claims.
Most groups can be divided into three different factions: the loyalists (who are pro-Baathist/pro-Saddam),
Islamists (who want to build a Muslim theocracy in Iraq), and nationalists (who are secular & anti-Saddam
but want the US out). Examples of the loyalists include Saddam’s Fedayeen & Political Media Organ of
the Ba’ath Party, of the Islamists Armed Vanguards of Mohammad’s Second Army & Al-Faruq Brigades,
and of the nationalists General Secretariat for the Liberation of Democratic Iraq & Al-Anbar Armed
Brigades.

Discovering this isn’t hard even if you have few resources, just search the web for “Iraqi insurgency” and
you’ll discover plenty of information. The major news organizations, who have enough resources that
they could actually go to Iraq and directly report on these groups if they wanted to, do not report on the
facts of these groups because they rely almost entirely on government sources for their information about
the insurgency, and government sources rarely mention the names or ideologies of these groups. The
failure to report on these resistance groups further illustrates the media’s tendency to take government
statements at face value.

These cases aren’t limited to the Iraq war. A classic example is the Cambodia/East Timor comparison.
Both Cambodia and East Timor experienced genocides at about the same time yet received very
different media coverage. In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge won a civil war against the US-backed
government, after suffering from large-scale US bombing of the country that killed several hundred
thousand Cambodians. The Khmer Rouge was a brutal dictatorship that murdered huge numbers of
Cambodians. In 1979 the Khmer Rouge were forced out of power by an invasion from state socialist
Vietnam, which brought their genocide to an end. The US supported the Khmer Rouge’s subsequent
guerilla war against the Vietnamese in order to hurt Vietnam, but it failed to bring the Khmer Rouge back
to power.

In December 1975 Indonesia invaded and took over East Timor, with US support. Indonesia’s following
genocide in East Timor slaughtered between a fourth and a third of the population. The worst of the
genocide occurred in the first 5 years after the invasion. The US supported the invasion & genocide and
supplied East Timor with most of the arms used to carry it out. As atrocities increased the US flow of
weapons increased, to insure that the killings could continue and Indonesia wouldn’t run out of weapons.
All that was necessary for the US to stop this was to cut off the supply of weapons. The government in
Indonesia at the time was actually put in power by a CIA coup in 1965 that resulted in the murder of
between 500,000 and a million Indonesians.

These two genocides occurred at the same time and had many similarities but had very different media
coverage. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was an official enemy and coverage of the genocide there
was extensive, with little skepticism towards atrocity claims. Coverage of the genocide in East Timor was
far less and largely just regurgitated State Department and Indonesia lies. Media coverage declined as
the atrocities in East Timor worsened. When they reached their highest point coverage declined to zero.
Between 1975 and 1979 the New York Times gave 70 column inches to Timor but 1,175 column inches
to Cambodia. The New York Times is on the liberal end of the spectrum and tends to be more critical of
US foreign policy than many of its competitors. To this day, most Americans have never heard of the
genocide in East Timor. When official enemies commit atrocities the media plays it up, but when the US
commits atrocities the media plays it down.

There are many other examples of this pattern of marginalizing US atrocities while emphasizing enemy
atrocities. In the 1990s the US supported genocide in Turkish Kurdistan. While suppressing the
insurgency of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which was fighting for an independent Kurdish state,
the Turkish state murdered tens of thousands of innocent Kurds, destroyed over 3,000 villages and
outlawed the Kurdish language. The US supported all this and provided 80% of the weapons to do it.
This genocide received relatively little coverage and most of the coverage it did receive failed to make
the link to US funding of genocide. One of the standard pieces of war propaganda against Iraq was that
Saddam “gassed his own people.” The people he gassed were also Kurds. Between 1990–1999 the
term “genocide” was used by the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek,
and Time to describe the actions of Iraq against the Kurds 132 times, while it was used by the same
publications to describe the actions of Turkey against the Kurds only 14 times. When an enemy, like Iraq,
murders Kurds it gets lots of play but when an ally, like Turkey, murders Kurds it gets less play.

At the end of this genocide in Turkey the US led a NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, using the pretext that
Yugoslavia was committing genocide in Kosovo. Turkey is a NATO member; the claim that NATO
attacked Yugoslavia because it was committing genocide when one of NATO’s own members was
committing genocide is not credible. The media’s focus on the alleged genocide in Kosovo (which was
later shown to be greatly exaggerated, after the media stopped paying attention) can be contrasted with
the downplaying of US-supported genocide in Turkey. In 1999 & 1998 the Los Angeles Times, New York
Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, and Time used the term “genocide” to describe Yugoslav actions in
Kosovo 220 times, while the same number for Turkey’s genocide against the Kurds was 14. [13] The
large focus on refuges fleeing Kosovo can also be contrasted with the ignoring of refuges fleeing
Afghanistan during the US-Taliban war started a few years later.

This applies not only to genocide but also to the murder of dissidents. On October 19th, 1984 Polish
police murdered the priest and dissident Jerzy Popieluszka. American media gave this brutal murder
extensive coverage, much of it well deserved. In the 18 months after the murder, the New York Times
published 1183 column inches and 78 articles (10 on the front page) on it, Time and Newsweek gave it
16 articles and 313 column inches, and CBS news aired 46 news programs, 23 evening news programs
on it. On March 18th, 1980 the head of the Catholic Church in El Salvador, Oscar Romero, was
murdered by the US-backed dictatorship in El Salvador for his outspoken criticism of that dictatorship. It
received much less coverage from American media. In the following 18 months the New York Times
printed 16 articles and 219 column inches on it, Time and Newsweek 3 articles and 86.5 column inches,
and CBS news aired 13 news programs, 4 evening news programs on it. In fact, the murder of 100
religious dissidents by US-backed dictatorships in Latin America between 1964–1985, including 4
American churchwomen, received less total coverage than the murder of Jerzy Popieluszka. In the 18
months following each murder/disappearance the New York Times printed 57 articles (8 on the front
page) and 604.5 column inches, Time and Newsweek 10 articles and 247.5 column inches and CBS
aired 37 news programs, 16 evening news programs on these 100 murders. The murder of a single
priest by an official enemy, in this case a Soviet satellite state, received more coverage than the murder
of 100 religious dissidents by US-backed dictatorships in Latin America. [14]

There are many other examples of the media whitewashing or ignoring US-backed dictatorships. In the
ten years prior to the overthrow of the US-backed dictator of Nicaragua, Anastasio Somozo, US
television, all networks, devoted one hour of coverage to Nicaragua, all of which was on the 1972
earthquake. Between 1960 and 1978 the New York Times had a grand total of 3 editorials on Nicaragua.
[15] When the Sandinistas overthrew Somoza in 1979 coverage increased and the media began
demonizing the Sandinistas. Sandinista human rights abuses, atrocities and dictatorial behavior were far
less than the preceding Somoza dictatorship, and the surrounding US-backed dictatorships (which relied
on extreme state terror to maintain control), but were given far more attention by the media.

Many facts that would make the government look bad, not only US-backed dictatorships, tend to be
ignored or downplayed. One of the less publicized conclusions of the official Dutch inquiry into the 1995
Srebrenica massacre was that the US backed Islamist terrorists in Bosnia in the early ‘90s and flew in
weapons and Mujahideen (Muslim fundamentalist terrorists) from Afghanistan to Bosnia. This was one
facet of the US-NATO campaign to dismember Yugoslavia into several Western client states. The groups
the US supported in this operation were some of the same people it would later fight in its so-called “war
on terrorism” several years later. There were reports on this finding in European media, [16] but I have
been unable to find a single report on it in American media.
Bosnia was not the first place the US supported Islamist terrorists; the US also did it earlier against the
USSR in Afghanistan. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the American invasion of South Vietnam
have many similarities. In Afghanistan the USSR claimed that it had not invaded, that it was invited in by
the legitimate government to defend it from terrorists sponsored by Pakistan and the United States. Of
course, the government that “invited” the USSR in happened to be a Soviet satellite state. Once in the
USSR repeatedly overthrew the Afghan government whenever it wouldn’t go along with Moscow’s
orders. In Soviet mythology there was no Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there was instead a Soviet
defense of Afghanistan.

In South Vietnam the US claimed that it didn’t invade but was invited in by the legitimate government to
defend it from terrorists sponsored by outside forces. Of course, the government that “invited” the US in
happened to be an American satellite state. Once in the US repeatedly overthrew the South Vietnamese
government whenever it wouldn’t go along with Washington’s orders. In American mythology there was
no American invasion of South Vietnam, there was instead an American defense of South Vietnam.

The stories spun by each government were very similar, as were the invasions themselves. In
Afghanistan American media ridiculed Soviet propaganda & lies and called the invasion what it was, an
invasion. Soviet media adhered to the government line. In the invasion of South Vietnam American
media never called it an invasion, instead they adhered to the US government line that it was not an
invasion. The common myth that the media were anti-war is just self-serving propaganda (see chapters
5 & 6 of Manufacturing Consent by Edward Heman & Noam Chomsky). In reality the media overall
stayed within the government paradigm, viewing it as a defense against foreign sponsored guerillas.
Criticism of the war within the media was limited to the idea that it was a “mistake,” that this “defense of
South Vietnam” was not worth the costs and based on an erroneous analysis. This differs from the
position of the peace movement which argued that it was an invasion that was fundamentally immoral
and wrong. The later position was largely excluded from the debate within the media.

While American media correctly referred to Soviet satellite states as satellite states on many occasions,
American satellite states were never identified. When the USSR invades other countries and makes
them do it’s bidding those are (correctly) called Soviet satellite states but when the US invades other
countries and does the same thing not only are they not called satellite states but the invasions often
aren’t called invasions.

The groups fighting against Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, supported by the US, were predominantly
Muslim fundamentalist terrorists (Mujahideen), many of who would later go on to fight against the US.
Bin Laden was among their ranks, as were many other people who the FBI claims are members of Al-
Qaeda. During their war with the USSR the Mujahideen used many terrorist tactics, including targeting of
civilians, assassination of soviet officials, and throwing acid into the faces of unveiled women. While they
were doing this against the USSR American media identified them as “freedom fighters.” They were the
good guys in Rambo 3. After they started doing the same thing to the US they started calling them
“terrorists” instead of “freedom fighters.” Enemies are identified as “terrorists” and allies as “freedom
fighters” even if their tactics remain the same.

One should not get the impression that American media functions as a totalitarian system, however. The
system functions primarily as self-censorship. Because totalitarian press censorship is not in place there
is occasional “leakage” of things through the media that do not otherwise conform to the liberal-
conservative paradigm. For example, on November 26th, 2003 the Washington Post website held an
online discussion with Noam Chomsky on his latest book, Hegemony or Survival. [17] Noam Chomsky is
an anarchist and probably the best-known dissident in the United States. In a totalitarian system his
views would be completely excluded and suppressed. Instead, American media marginalize it to the
point where only a tiny number will come across it but do not 100% exclude it. This can actually make
the system more effective, as it makes the system look more open than it really is and disguises it’s
function as a form of thought control.

The inverse of the marginalizing of dissidents is the media’s tendency to rely disproportionately on the
powerful and to reflect their views. Between January 1st, 2001 and December 31st, 2001 more than one
third of the quoted Americans (and more than one fourth of the sources) on ABC World News Tonight,
NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News were elite Washington politicians. Seventy-five percent of
those politicians whose partisan affiliations could be identified were Republican, twenty-four percent
were Democrat, and only one percent was third party/independent. James Jeffords, the centrist Vermont
Republican who defected to the Democrats and was temporarily an independent during the transition,
made up 83 percent of the independent sources quoted. The 9–11 attacks increased the reliance on
Republican sources. Prior to it Republicans were 68 percent, Democrats 31 percent and independents 1
percent. After the attacks, Republicans were 87 percent, Democrats 13 percent and independents .1
percent. The slant towards Republicans is due to the fact that they control the executive branch of the
government and the media tend to rely on it more, making more quotes, etc. from the President, members
of the cabinet, etc. When that is factored out, the ratio of sources is 51% Republican, 48% Democrat and
2% third party/independent. George Bush alone was 9% of all quoted sources and 33% of all partisan
sources. Of the “experts” used as sources, corporate representatives and economists were the most
common (at 7% each), while non-governmental organizations and organized labor were quoted very
little (3% and .2%). Representatives from big business were quoted 35 times more often than
representatives of labor. While business & economic issues made up 15% of total coverage, only 1% of
total coverage was on labor issues and in labor stories business association representatives (26%),
economists (19%) & politicians (15%) were quoted far more often than labor representatives (2%).
These news shows also tend to rely disproportionately on men and whites. [18]

This distortion of the news in favor of the powerful happens not only in foreign policy but also on domestic
issues, such as the “anti-globalization” protests against the WTO, IMF and World Bank. The media, not
“anti-globalization” activists, invented the label “anti-globalization.” The press generally prefers to focus
on sensationalistic reports of protestor violence and assorted side issues rather than look at the critique
of these institutions offered by activists. When there is no protestor violence or property destruction the
media largely ignores the story (even if there’s lots of police violence) but when there is violence or
property destruction by protestors the media covers it but mostly ignores the issues they are protesting.
The average consumer of news would have very little idea of what the IMF, WTO and World Bank is, let
alone why many oppose them. On April 16 a story on the front page of the Washington Post, reporting on
the demonstrations against the IMF & World Bank, discussed activists “body odor,” claimed that “the fad
factor cannot be denied” and incorrectly claimed that the protests were "a demonstration without
demands." It was actually a demonstration with demands that the Washington Post (and most of the rest
of the media) chose to ignore, preferring to focus on activist’s “body odor,” drinking habits and fashion.
The media often refers to opponents of “free trade” as “anti-trade,” which is a misrepresentation because
most are not against all trade, just the form of trade currently being practiced.

The New York Times ran five opinion pieces against the April 16th anti-IMF/World Bank demonstrations
and none in favor. Opinion pieces in the Washington Post against the demonstrations totaled 3,780
words while supporters of the demonstrations had 1,825 words. In addition, when “anti-globalization”
views get in the media they are usually from the moderate wing of the movement. The more radical
segments are almost universally ignored. Anarchists played a major role in these demonstrations yet
anarchist views were almost never portrayed accurately in the media and anarchist opinion pieces never
ran in the major papers. Instead anarchists were portrayed as crazed bomb-throwing advocates of
chaos.

The focus on violence is also very one-sided. For the media, protestor violence is a big deal but police
violence is not. Police can bring body armor, tear gas and other weapons and the media thinks nothing
of it, but if protestors brought the same equipment the media would demonize them over it. Police are
rarely referred to as violent, even when they are violent towards protestors or others. They are assumed
to be legitimate. Police violence is played down (and usually isn’t even called violence), while alleged
protestor violence is emphasized and denounced. According to an ACLU report on demonstrations
against the WTO in Seattle that began on November 30th:

“For several days, it was illegal publicly to express anti-WTO opinions in a large section of downtown
Seattle. … Scores of citizens reported being prevented by police from engaging in peaceful, lawful
expression within the zone. Police ordered citizens to remove buttons or stickers from their clothing,
confiscated signs and leaflets, and blocked citizen entry to the core of downtown … Despite police and
media descriptions to the contrary, the protests during the WTO conference did not constitute a riot. They
were noisy and disruptive, yet demonstrators were overwhelming peaceful. Not so the police. … [police]
approved the use of tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets and clubs against people who were
demonstrating peaceably, against demonstrators who had not received or who were trying to obey police
orders, against bystanders, and to quell disturbances the police themselves had provoked. … The
Seattle Police Department used massive amounts of tear gas against crowds even when such use was
not necessary to protect public safety or the safety of officers. … [Police] used pepper spray repeatedly
against nonviolent protesters who posed no threat to public safety or to the safety of officers. … Rubber
bullets were used against people who posed no threat. … rank-and-file officers engaged in acts of
brutality … The police made hundreds of improper arrests, detaining for days people who would never
stand trial. … Individuals arrested during the anti-WTO demonstrations were mistreated and witnessed
others being mistreated by jail officers.” [19]

This sharply contrasts with the picture painted by the media of officers reacting against rioting protestors.
The media inverted the chronology – putting the destruction of corporate property by a minority of
activists before the use of pepper spray & tear gas by police and portraying police violence as a reaction
against it. Numerous eyewitnesses have reported that the police started attacking demonstrators prior to
the destruction of corporate property and Detective Randy Huserik, of the Seattle police, admitted that
pepper spray was used on non-violent activists prior to the attacks on corporate property. The media
instead blindly regurgitated a pro-police story. [20] The media’s description of the destruction of
corporate property as “violence” also shows how they implicitly assume the legitimacy of property rights.

Similar patterns existed in coverage of other “anti-globalization” demonstrations. In the demonstrations

against the G8 in Genoa, Italy the media largely ignored the positions of the demonstrators, again
focusing excessively on violence, and whitewashed police brutality, which resulted in the death of one
protestor. During the demonstrations the media blindly regurgitated police defenses of their actions, but
when these were exposed to be frauds the media ignored it. Pietro Troiani, a senior police officer,
admitted to planting bombs with demonstrators in order to justify a raid on activists but American media
didn’t run a single story on it. [21]

PBS and NPR are structured a little differently but tend to stick to a similar line as commercial media.
Although not directly owned by corporations, they are dependant on corporate funding and also receive
significant funding from government sources, including the Corporation for Public Sources. As such they
tend to slant things in manner similar to the rest of the media, although they are on the liberal end of the
spectrum and aren’t quite as bad as some other outlets.

For example, twenty-six percent of sources on all weekday broadcasts of “All Things Considered” and
“Morning Edition” on NPR from September through December 1991 were government sources. Fifty-
three percent of Washington-based stories were led with a quote major administration official or a
member of congress. Representatives of organized citizen groups and public interests experts made up
only seven percent of sources. Twenty-six out of twenty-seven regular commentators were white and
only twenty-one percent of sources were women. [22]

The sources on PBS’s NewsHour during the Kosovo conflict were slanted in favor of the government.
Between March 25 and April 8 1999 critics of the NATO bombing made up 10% of sources. Only six
percent of sources were Yugoslavian government officials, Serbians or Serbian-Americans, the groups
most likely to criticize the NATO bombings. Non-Serbian American sources against the bombing made
up 4% of sources. Thirty-nine percent of sources and 42% of live interviewees were current or former
government officials. Albanian refugees and spokespeople from the Kosovo Liberation Army (the CIA-
backed NATO proxy army) made up another 17% of sources. [23]

Local media and student media overall tend to follow a similar line as corporate media but because they
are structured differently do not always do this 100%. In some cases large corporations directly own
local news sources and in those cases they operate the same as the rest of the media. In other cases
they are owned by small businesses and are not owned by the elite. The elite usually does not own
student-run news sources, either. However, both of these tend to follow the focus of the major (corporate-
owned) news media. If something is on the front page of the New York Times and other major corporate
media the local/student editors will tend to put that on their front page as well, and focus attention on it. In
addition, they tend to rely on government sources, are dependant on advertising as a source of revenue
and are susceptible to pressure from the local business community, local government and/or school
administration. These tend to act to constrain coverage within student and local media. Leakage is a
little easier in these media, however, as they are not directly owned by big business. While a letter to the
editor advocating Communism would have a very difficult time being printed in the major papers, local
and student media are sometimes more open to printing various dissident views.

The effect of all this is to inhibit an understanding of events in the world in a manner that benefits the
power elite. It is not totally effective but has a successful record. The Center for Studies in
Communication of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conducted surveys that found:

“those who watched the most television on the Gulf War were the least informed about basic facts of life
in the region. Among the most frequent watchers, 32 percent thought Kuwait was a democracy; only 23
per cent were aware that there were other occupations in the Middle East besides Iraq's, and only 10 per
cent had heard of the intifada, the most sustained revolt in modern Middle East history. When queried as
to which three nations vetoed the recent United Nations resolution calling for an international peace
conference (the United States, Israel, and Dominica), 14 per cent correctly identified the U.S., but another
12 per cent thought it has to be Iraq. The Center's polls showed that only 13 per cent of these TV viewers
were aware of what official U.S. policy was toward Iraq before the August 2 invasion." [24]

An October 2003 study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) looked at three common
misperceptions among the public: that Saddam Hussein was directly link to the 9–11 attacks, that
weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq and that world opinion favored the US-led
invasion of Iraq. Massive evidence disproves all three misperceptions and even the Bush administration
admits they are false. It found that belief in these misperceptions correlates with support for the war.
These misperceptions are a by-product of the propaganda offensive launched by the Bush administration
in late summer 2002 which attempted to use 9–11 to justify the war and successfully convinced
Americans that Saddam was a grave danger to America who supported terrorism, had a deadly weapons
arsenal to use on the US, etc. It also piggybacked on negative perceptions of Iraq created by earlier war
propaganda under Clinton & Bush the first (while the US was supporting Saddam there wasn’t anti-Iraq
propaganda from the government, but after the US came into conflict with Iraq Saddam was demonized
as “the next Hitler”). That propaganda campaign was blindly regurgitated by the media, which, with a few
exceptions, showed little skepticism towards it until after the completion of the invasion. By September
2003 70% of Americans had come to believe that Saddam was directly linked to 9–11.

The PIPA study also found that for most news outlets watching more news did not decrease belief in
these misperceptions and for some news outlets belief in these misperceptions actually increased as
more news was watched, showing again the media’s role as purveyor of misinformation that benefits the
powerful. Belief in these misperceptions varied depending on one’s news source. Fox News had the
worst record, with 80% of viewers believing one or more misperceptions. NPR & PBS had the best
record, but even they did poorly with 23% of viewers believing one or more misperceptions. [25]

NPR & PBS, the sources that produced the lowest amount of those misconceptions, also happen to be
among those sources most frequently singled out by conservative critics alleging the media has a “liberal
bias.” Much of the evidence in favor of the “liberal bias” model is flawed and most of what isn’t fits better
with the propaganda model (of media subservience to the powerful) than with the “liberal bias” model.
The basic theory behind the liberal bias model is that most journalists are liberal and they tend to reflect
this in their reporting. Surveys have found that most journalists are moderates, not liberals, [26] but even
if we disregard this the model is faulty because it doesn’t take into account where power lies. The
average journalist doesn’t have a great deal of control over the media; power is concentrated in the
hands of the corporations who own the media.

In addition, liberals support capitalism, the state, private property, and the right of the US to intervene in
other countries, as do conservatives. Liberals support the main features of the current system; they just
want to make a few modifications. As liberals, conservatives and centrists all support capitalism (and the
state, etc.) the number of journalists who believe in those things vastly outnumbers those who don’t. By
their logic, the media should have an extreme pro-capitalist (and pro-statist, etc.) bias that vastly dwarfs
the alleged liberal bias.

A liberal bias, or the appearance of it, would actually help support the system as it would more firmly limit
thoughts within an ‘acceptable’ range. If the media is seen as being so liberal, adversarial and extreme
in their opposition to power then anyone who questions it’s basic assumptions (private property, etc.) will
be seen as going completely off the planet. Accusations of the media having a “liberal bias” help to
discipline the media and ensure that it continues to reinforce hegemony. Whenever it departs from the
liberal-conservative line critics of the “liberal media” pounce and pressure it back in line.

One example of this is the book Bias by Bernard Goldberg, a number one New York Times bestseller,
which advocates the “liberal media” theory. The book is very poorly researched and doesn’t even have
footnotes/endnotes, a bibliography or an index. Most of his assertions have little evidence to support
them, just vague impressions. “Instead of numbers or specific instances of biased coverage, Goldberg
prefers broad generalizations.” [27] Some assertions actually support the propaganda model more than
the liberal bias model, such as the claims that news organizations are mainly focused on profit and
oriented towards whites. Many quotes are not footnoted/endnoted and do not give enough information to
look them up.

Most of his assertions are focused towards the center and liberal wings of the media. It is true that certain
segments of the media are liberal (the New York Times, NPR, and others) but it does not follow that the
entire media are liberal. The appendix of Bias includes editorials he published in the Wall Street Journal
accusing the media of having a liberal bias. Does the Wall Street Journal have a liberal bias? Do talk
radio and Fox News? He presents no evidence to support such a claim. Showing that even the more
conservative sections of the media are liberal is important to prove his case – if even they are liberal then
obviously the rest of the media is liberal. The inverse holds true for the model presented in this essay,
that the media is subservient to the powerful. If that is the case then even those publications that tend to
be more critical of the powerful, like the New York Times, should tend to slant the news in favor of the
powerful. Evidence to show that this is the case was presented earlier, such as the East Timor/Cambodia
comparison. Goldberg, however, fails to present evidence to show that the conservative wing of the
media (Wall Street Journal/Fox News/Talk Radio) is biased against conservatives.

Some may object that corporate media gives people what they want and the current state of journalism,
biased or otherwise, is the result of people wanting it. This is based on the myth that anything having to
do with a market is a reflection of “what people want” and somehow democratic. No doubt slaves, bought
and sold on the market, would have disputed such an idea. Markets tend to skew towards those with
more wealth because more profit can be made by catering to their desires and needs. It’s “one dollar,
one vote” and those with more dollars have more influence. In the case of the media the customers are
not the general public but advertisers. Those advertisers tend to prefer customers with more wealth
because they can sell more products that way. There aren’t many advertisements directed towards
homeless people. Thus the media tends to reflect the views & prejudices of the advertisers, the wealthier
strata they are oriented towards and the business elite that controls the media.

In addition, there are several examples of media bias not reflecting the views of the general population.
In the invasion of Iraq, only 10% of sources used were anti-war while over 25% of the population was
anti-war (see above). In the debate on healthcare in the early ‘90s the media mainly presented the
debate as one between Clinton’s proposals and his conservative opponents. The majority of the
population favored the single-payer option but, with a few exceptions, the media largely ignored that
idea. The debate was restricted and excluded the position supported by the majority of Americans. [28]
These show that the media is not simply reflecting public opinion. Although the media is often effective at
molding public opinion, it is not always so as demonstrated by the healthcare debate. Americans didn’t
decide that they don’t want to know the names and platforms of the various groups fighting the guerilla
war against American troops in Iraq. Nor did people decide that they didn’t want to know about the US-
sponsored genocide in East Timor. They couldn’t have – most didn’t know about it because the media
gave very little coverage to it.

This media system didn’t just appear out of thin air, it has been evolving for a long time. In the late 19th
century as industrial capitalism was taking hold and industry was being concentrated into smaller and
smaller hands the media also became more concentrated. Large corporations began buying out
newspapers and/or withdrawing advertising from publications that were too critical of corporate power.
This wasn’t the result of a giant conspiracy of business owners but of many people acting in similar ways
because they were in similar situations.

The First World War was a major step towards creating the media system we have today. The Wilson
administration, “established a government propaganda commission, called the Creel Commission, which
succeeded, within six months, in turning a pacifist population into a hysterical, war-mongering population
which wanted to destroy everything German, tear the Germans limb from limb, go to war and save the
world.” [29] The Creel Commission pioneered Public Relations techniques used to manipulate public
opinion and the use of corporate media to whip up war hysteria. It found that flooding news channels
with “facts” (official information) allowed them to control news coverage. During the war the government
stepped up censorship and actively suppressed anti-war publications and groups, many of which were
socialist or anarchist. The previously growing Socialist Party, USA was broken, never to recover, and the
anarchist-leaning Industrial Workers of the World was turned into a shell of it’s former self. Repression
against dissidents continued after the end of the war as similar propaganda techniques were used to
create the Red Scare. By attacking dissident organizations and publications this repression accelerated
the concentration of the media into corporate hands.

As new media came about government intervention also played a significant role in keeping it primarily
under corporate control and loyal to the government. In the late 1920s the predecessor to the Federal
Communications Commission granted licenses to operate radio stations primarily to commercial sources,
largely excluding non-commercial stations. Prior to that there was relatively little regulation of radio and
non-commercial groups, especially educational institutions, tended to dominate radio. Over the next
several years there was a popular movement attempting to reverse this decision but it was defeated. [30]
Similar principles favoring corporations over non-profit organizations were later followed for television
station licenses. Corporations dominate broadcasting because the government chooses to have
corporations dominate broadcasting. Government policies and laws, such as the 1996
Telecommunications act, along with various subsidies, including the use of publicly owned airways free
of charge, have continued to influence to structure of the media up to the present day.

Most of this is the result of the way the media and society is set up. Heads of the media don’t get together
in a big smoke-filled room and scheme how to fool Americans. Bias is the outcome of the institutional
structure of the media, not some giant conspiracy. Some groups do consciously attempt to manipulate
the media and sometimes these take the form of conspiracies (a group of people working together in
secret to achieve some goal). For example, the CIA has been known to infiltrate media organizations
and keep journalists on its payroll. It “also owns dozens of newspapers and magazines the world
over.” [31] The CIA altered the movie versions of George Orwell’s “1984” and “Animal Farm” to tone
down Orwell’s “pox on both houses” message, making them more anti-Communist and less anti-
capitalist. [32] In 1999 CNN allowed Army PSYOPS officers, government propaganda experts, to work in
the news division at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters. [33] CNN eventually admitted this, [34] but most of the
media ignored it. These are exceptions to the norm, however. Most media bias is the outcome of
institutional structure. That same structure also makes it easier for powerful groups to manipulate the
media through conspiracies or other means, magnifying their effect.

• The Education System

Another important part of hegemony is the education system. This serves two functions. Its primary
function is to train and indoctrinate the populace so that it is obedient and docile, enabling political and
economic elites to rule with less resistance. A secondary function is to train skilled workers necessary for
the economy and to school future members of the ruling class.

The primary purpose of the public education system, what Bob Black calls “youth concentration camps,”
is not to encourage independent thought or anything like that but to make us stupid and submissive. The
whole structure of public schools is designed to train students to obey authority. School is a
hierarchically structured organization; masses of students are subordinated to a few – teachers,
administrators, etc. They are trained to follow orders from a young age, to sit in nice neat rows, to get in
line, and so on. Children are raw materials who are to be ranked, graded and processed into
“respectable citizens” who do not question the dominant socio-economic system or create too much
trouble for the elite. Children who are taught from a young age to obey authority, especially in a
bureaucratic setting like public schools, will be more used to obeying authority as adults. The system
does not work perfectly, and not all are one hundred percent obedient by the time they become adults but
it works well enough to maintain the present system. A school system in which many students obey the
will of a few teachers and administrators is well suited to a socio-economic order in which many workers
obey the will of a few bosses and capitalists.

The structure of schools encourages emotional and intellectual dependency. Students are dependant on
the teacher to decide out what is to be learned, when it is to be learned and (mostly) how it is to be
learned. They do not investigate things themselves, with control over their own intellectual development
but are dependant on the teacher to determine the course of study. Students are thus trained to allow
others to do their thinking for them, which is well suited to a society in which a small minority dominates
the majority.

Schools also reproduce the class structure. Certain educations are deemed better than others and those
educations are distributed along wealth lines, with the wealthier getting the better educations. The kind
of education you receive opens and closes doors for you. Those with better educations get better jobs,
better opportunities and other privileges. “Refined” (ruling class) language and manners tend to be
passed on to children of the ruling class, via school and other mechanisms, while less “refined” language
and manners are passed on to children of the lower classes. Those with the less “refined” language and
manners are discriminated against in many areas. Tests are tilted in favor of those from the top levels of
American society in many ways, including the tendency to draw from examples more familiar to rich
children than poor children. This is the case even if the authors of the tests don’t intend it. Such
individuals tend to come from the higher levels of society and so tend to draw on examples from their
own experience, not poor peoples’ experiences. Schools attended by the wealthy tend to have better
funding than poor schools. Research by Ray Rist and others have shown that teachers tend to give
wealthier children better treatment than poorer children, often without realizing it or intending to do so.
[35]

What is taught in public schools also reflects its’ role as indoctrination center. This is especially true with
regard to those areas that affect social philosophy, such as history, economics and civics. Decisions on
what should be in textbooks, what guidelines to teach, etc. are not in the hands of teachers nor are
decisions made on the basis of scholarship. Public schools are State entities; actual power lies with the
State. In some places local school boards have a considerable amount of power, in others state
governments have more power, but in all cases power lies with the State. It, after all, owns, runs and
funds the schools. In addition several state entities not directly connected to schools, including the courts
and several federal agencies (including the department of education), have influence over the schools.
A number of non-state institutions also have influence over schools. Several private institutions,
generally funded by the wealthy, have a high degree of influence over schools including the Rockefeller,
Carnegie and Ford foundations. They played an important role in creating the modern public school
system and continue to influence it today. Large corporations also influence schools, both through the
fact that they are usually the producers of school materials and also because they have a considerable
degree of influence over all government decisions. Frequently these corporations act through
organizations like the Business Roundtable.

Power is fragmented across several different hierarchical institutions, all of which are controlled by elites
that share common interests with each other. This acts as a set of filters, insuring that schooling overall
teaches ideas within the liberal-conservative spectrum and ignores or disparages ideas outside it.
Various groups can attempt to mobilize to influence school decisions on textbooks, what to teach, etc. but
the structure of the system is such that overall the results end up reflecting elite ideology (remaining
within liberal-conservative ideology). Those with more resources can more easily pressure and
influence school decision making centers, giving a huge advantage to those with the most resources (the
wealthy and powerful). Thus influence on schools is largely restricted to elite factions or those who can
gain the backing of an elite faction. Those outside elite interests, those outside the liberal-conservative
spectrum, do not have the resources of elite factions (but are opposed by all elite factions, each with far
more resources) and so have a small impact on schooling. Thus what is taught in schools largely reflects
elite interests and is restricted to ideas within a narrow spectrum, ideas outside of that spectrum are
marginalized.

This can be seen clearly from how history is usually taught in public schools. History is greatly warped
and slanted to reinforce the dominant socio-economic order, historical scholarship that contradicts this
(and there is a considerable amount of it) is ignored. Both racism (as distinct from slavery) and anti-
racism tend to be invisible. [36] The origins, causes and evolution of racism are rarely analyzed. White
complicity in slavery tends to be minimized, paying more attention to the slaves than the owners. When
discussing Albert Einstein, Helen Keller or Martin Luther King Jr. their socialist beliefs are usually swept
under the rug, as are the White Supremacist beliefs of Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Abraham
Lincoln and other historical figures. The many atrocities committed by American foreign policy (such as
CIA coups in Zaire, Guatemala, Iran, Chile and elsewhere) are usually ignored or portrayed as
“mistakes.” Influences on US foreign policy are usually ignored in favor of portraying the US as an
“international good guy” always acting on behalf of human rights, democracy and rational
humanitarianism as a supremely moral force. The US is portrayed as always having benevolent
intentions, if the results go wrong it was a “mistake” perhaps caused by misunderstandings. Especially
when looking at recent history, government repression like COINTELPRO is downplayed or ignored in
favor of portraying the United States as “the land of the free.” The positives of the government tend to be
played up while the negatives are played down. The role of class in US history is downplayed. The
alleged “middle class” character of the United States is usually emphasized, portraying the US as a
meritocracy. Nearly the entire country is portrayed as middle class (an obvious absurdity), giving no real
analysis of class structure. Labor history is usually relegated to events fifty or more years ago, as if class
had disappeared. Overall, the picture it tends to paint is a rosy picture of a great nation progressively
overcoming obstacles. The views of professional historians are cast aside to distort history in such a
ways as to foster loyalty to the government and dominant socio-economic system. For a more in-depth
look at the trash that passes for “history” in public schools, see Lies My Teacher Told Me by James
Loewen.

The central function of public schools as indoctrination centers can also be seen in the teaching and
textbook guidelines passed by many states. Texas’s education law states that, “Textbook content shall
promote citizenship and understanding of the essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system,
emphasize patriotism and respect for recognized authority, and promote respect for individual rights.”
Textbooks “shall not encourage life styles deviating from generally accepted standards of society,” nor
shall they “include selections which serves to undermine authority,” or “which would cause embarrassing
situations or interference in the learning atmosphere of the classroom.” Thus, Texas’s textbook laws
explicitly state that textbooks should not teach children to think for themselves and form their own
opinions but that they should believe in the dominant socio-economic system. Most states have similar
guidelines, although not all are as explicit and there are significant variations. [37]

Texas and California tend to dominate the textbook market both because they have large populations
(and therefore order more textbooks) and also because of the way they select textbooks. Some states
leave textbook selections entirely up to the local school boards. The state governments in California,
Texas, and elsewhere centrally regulate what textbooks are allowed, drawing up lists of books that are
acceptable to use in classrooms. This gives them greater bargaining power that therefore gives them
greater influence over textbook manufacturers. As a result their textbook guidelines have a
disproportionate influence over the textbooks used in other states.

California’s textbook guidelines are more liberal than Texas’s but it still remains well within the liberal-
conservative spectrum and is oriented more towards indoctrinating children instead of enabling children
to understand different theories and form their own conclusions. California’s textbook law states that,
“governing boards shall include only instructional materials which, in their determination, accurately
portray the cultural and racial diversity of our society, including … the contributions of both men and
women … the role and contributions of [various ethnic groups] … the role and contributions of the
entrepreneur and labor in the total development of California and the United States.” The last part is
slanted against the idea that labor did all the contributing (entrepreneurs are just parasites) and against
the inverse idea. It also says that, “instructional materials for use in the schools … shall include only
instructional materials which accurately portray … Humanity’s place in ecological systems and the
necessity for the protection of our environment,” [38] which is slanted in favor of liberal environmentalism.

The Content Standards for California Public Schools says that students are to:

“Explain how economic rights are secured and their importance to the individual and to society (e.g., the
right to acquire, use, transfer, and dispose of property; right to choose one's work; right to join or not join
labor unions; copyright and patent). … Discuss the individual's legal obligations to obey the law, serve as
a juror, and pay taxes. … Understand the obligations of civic-mindedness, including voting, being
informed on civic issues, volunteering and performing public service, and serving in the military or
alternative service.”

Students are also to “Describe for at least two countries the consequences of conditions that gave rise to
tyrannies during certain periods (e.g., Italy, Japan, Haiti, Nigeria, Cambodia).” The United States is never
labeled a tyranny. They also include patriotic indoctrination: “[students are to] Understand the unique
character of the American Revolution, its spread to other parts of the world, and its continuing
significance to other nations.” The standards also support the American state in foreign policy: “[students
are to] Analyze the causes of the Cold War, with the free world on one side and Soviet client states on the
other, including competition for influence in such places as Egypt, the Congo, Vietnam, and Chile.” To
identify one side as the “free world,” an American propaganda term, obviously indicates that the schools
are to teach that the American side was the good side. It also requires one to ignore many facts, or to
completely redefine freedom, since there were numerous brutal dictatorships in the US camp during the
Cold War (Pinochet’s Chile, NeoNazi Brazil, Fascist Spain, etc.). It also identifies “Soviet client states” yet
says nothing about American client states. The view that the Soviets were the good guys, or that both
sides were equally bad, is excluded. Instead there is the standard view of the US as “international good
guy.” [39] Thus, although California is on the more liberal end of the spectrum, it is still firmly within the
liberal-conservative spectrum and acts to indoctrinate students to believe in property rights, government
and the other “fundamental principles” upon which the hegemony is built.

This is true of many other states as well. Colorado’s Academic Standards state:

“In grades K-4 what students know and are able to do includes … describing the purposes of government
… describing what life would be like without law and order … Explaining why the power of a government
should be limited … explaining the importance of respect for individuals, property, rule of law and civic
responsibility … [and] identifying important individual economic, personal, and political rights (for
example, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to own property).”

For grades 5–8:

“what they know and are able to do includes … explaining major ideas about why government is
necessary (for example, promote the common good, protect individual rights, safety, order) … explaining
how the United States Constitution is a vehicle for preserving liberty, yet allows for change … explaining
how law protects individual rights and promotes the common good … [and] identifying and applying
criteria useful in selecting political leaders at local, state, and national levels.”

In grades 9–12 “what they know and are able to do includes … identifying the scope and limits of rights
(for example, all rights have limits).”

There are many ideas about what “the purposes of government is.” Marxists think the purpose of
government is to maintain class domination, it is a means by which the ruling class suppresses the other
class(es). Anarchists think it is a means by which a minority dominates the majority. These ideas,
however, are outside the liberal-conservative spectrum and so are generally not taught. Instead the
belief that government is necessary to promote the common good, protect individual rights, protect safety
and ensure order are taught. Instead of exposing students to many different theories and encouraging
them to think for themselves, beliefs that reinforce support and obedience to the state are taught while
excluding beliefs that do not reinforce that obedience (such as anarchist or Marxist theories of the state).
The rationale given in the beginning of the section on economics openly admits that one of it’s purposes
is to indoctrinate students into believing in capitalism: “Students need an understanding of basic
economic concepts in order to become … productive members of the workforce; and … promoters of the
free enterprise system.” [40]

Occasionally, a teacher may stray from these standards and teach ideas outside the liberal-conservative
spectrum, but the overall trend is to keep ideas within state-capitalist ideological hegemony. A number of
institutional constraints make deviation outside the liberal-conservative spectrum difficult for any public
school teacher. The school board and/or state government, not the teachers, selects textbooks. As such
they almost always stay within the liberal-conservative spectrum, conflicting with the attempt of a
dissident teacher to break out of that spectrum. Standardized testing also helps enforce obedience to the
liberal-conservative line. There is a large school bureaucracy that can be used to pressure and
discipline a teacher if s/he starts teaching anything outside of ideological hegemony. Most teachers
themselves accept the ideas of hegemony and so don’t even consider attempting to teach anything
outside it. Allowing a small number of dissident teachers to exist, and to occasionally deviate from the
liberal-conservative line in the classroom, doesn’t really threaten the system. It’s only a threat if such
things grow too fast or become too big.

Private schools usually operate within the liberal-conservative spectrum as well. Such schools are
usually for-profit operations, owned by capitalist companies, and are thus controlled by people with a
vested interest in preserving the dominant economic system (capitalism). Their main customers also
tend to come from groups with more income (lower income groups usually cannot afford it), who are more
likely to support the dominant socio-economic system. Government regulations can also act to pressure
private schools to reproduce bourgeois ideological hegemony.

Colleges and universities function a little differently. Their main function with regard to students is to train
highly skilled workers, future managers/coordinators and members of the ruling class. They still act as
indoctrination centers, but this is not their primary function as in k-12. Control over teachers and what is
taught is not quite as tight as in K-12. Professors can choose what textbooks they will use and have a
much greater degree of control over what they teach, unlike k-12 where local school boards and/or state
governments exert a greater amount of control over textbooks and what is taught. Tenure makes it easier
for professors to take positions outside the liberal-conservative spectrum with fewer negative
consequences. As a result there is a somewhat greater diversity of views taught and dissident views are
not suppressed quite as thoroughly as in K-12, although liberal-conservative ideas are still
overwhelmingly dominant. This slightly greater amount of dissent allowed within universities is still small
enough that it doesn’t really threaten the system. Whenever dissent grows too large purges are
launched to suppress it, such as the infamous blacklists during McCarthyism.

Universities serve another function separate from its relationship to students. They generate ideologies
and theories that help to prop up the status quo. Many of those ideologies are eventually filtered through
the rest of society and used to justify the socio-economic system. Those intellectuals who depart from the
liberal-conservative line generally have a much more difficult time getting their ideas to the general
public, as the media, education system, etc. tend to filter such ideas out but those within the liberal-
conservative spectrum more often have their ideas spread to other parts of the population. During the
First World War the government found that if they could convince the educated classes that their war
propaganda was true they would further disseminate the propaganda and help bring the rest of the
country around to the government’s position. To this day the intelligentsia acts in a similar manner. If
they can be kept indoctrinated then it will magnify the effects of ideological hegemony.

As with the media, some conservatives have alleged that colleges & universities are dominated by
liberals and discriminate against conservatives, maintaining a “hostile environment” against
conservatives. David Horowitz and his “Students for Academic Freedom” (an appropriately Orwellian
name) are probably the best-known conservatives pushing this view. They have called for the hiring of
more conservative teachers and for schools, and the state, to enforce rules allegedly designed to prevent
this discrimination against conservatives. There are problems with their data purporting to show that
liberals outnumber conservatives, but even if we ignore that their own data undermines their position.
Their own data indicates that liberals, conservatives and those in-between constitute the overwhelming
majority of professors. Liberals believe in capitalism and the state, as do conservatives and those in-
between. Hence capitalists (and statists) are the overwhelming majority; by Horowitz’s logic colleges
have an overwhelming pro-capitalist bias, one far larger than it’s alleged liberal bias. Yet none of them
have a problem with this.

The real aim of Horowitz & co.’s drive is to suppress views to their left and to make colleges more closely
follow the neoconservative line. They have no problem with the “hostile environment” that colleges have
towards supporters of Stalin or Mao. “Free speech zones” and the like are used at least as much against
the radical left as against conservatives, yet they have said nothing about this. Nor have they
complained about the capitalist indoctrination in k-12 schools, which is vastly greater than in colleges.
Conservative professors vastly outnumber anarchist professors; yet the same people who have called for
hiring more conservatives on the grounds of “intellectual diversity” have no problem with this slant
against anarchists. Economics classes overwhelmingly teach that market capitalism is the best system
and ignore or denigrate economic paradigms outside of neoclassical economics. Political science
classes overwhelmingly teach support for the state, including the idea that the United States is a
democracy, and ignore or denigrate views opposed to it. Horowitz & co. has no problem with all this.
They don’t have any objection to having a “hostile environment” towards unpopular ideologies, just so
long as it isn’t conservatives who are being targeted.

They frequently group anyone to their left, including Marxists & anarchists, with “liberals” even though
there’s a huge difference between liberals and these (mostly marginal) radical left groups. The Young
Conservatives of Texas, University of Texas Chapter (yct at ut) is one of the many groups campaigning
against this alleged “liberal bias” on campus. They compiled a “watch list” of professors who allegedly
use the classroom for political purposes. [41] It includes Harry Cleaver, an Autonomist Marxist – far to the
left of even Lenin. [42] In 2003 the chairman of yct at ut was Austin Kinghorn, who complained about a
professor he had which claimed the United States is “a worse terrorist threat than the 9/11 terrorists." He
cites it as an example of this “liberal bias” and complains that, "there was no opposing view
presented." [43] Regardless of whether such a view is true or not, it is a small dissident viewpoint you
rarely hear in the media or even from most teachers. Austin Kinghorn doesn’t complain that the opposite
view, that the United States isn’t a terrorist state, almost never has the opposing view presented when it
appears in media, schools or elsewhere. It’s only with things to their left that these neocons get upset. If
they really valued “intellectual diversity” they would be pushing for marginalized far left groups to be
promoted, not suppressed, as that would increase “intellectual diversity.” The fact that they don’t shows
that this isn’t really their aim. The driving force behind it is an attempt by neoconservatives to suppress
and restrict groups to their left. By grouping marginal dissident groups with liberals and demanding the
influence of both be curtailed they are effectively attempting to suppress dissidents and narrow the
spectrum.

It didn’t always work this way. Previous class societies had different systems of thought control but the
modern public education system in the United States didn’t really come about until the late 19th century.
Although flawed, the school system that grew in the first seventy years after independence was capable
of teaching literacy and basic skills. “Abundant data exists to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex
literacy in the United States [among the non-slave population] was between 93 and 100 percent
wherever such a thing mattered.” [44] Children are not the inherently incompetent people modern
Americans assume they are. The U.S. Navy’s first Admiral, David Farragut, got his first command when
he was twelve years old. Such things were not uncommon; people were considered adults at an earlier
age two hundred years ago. Adolescence is a relatively recent construction, a production of the rise of
the modern public school system.

That system arose not because the old system was ineffective at teaching basic knowledge and skills but
because new forms of control were needed. After the civil war the last remnants of pre-capitalist systems
were wiped out and industrial capitalism grew The rise of industrial capitalism brought with it intense
class struggle between the capitalist class and the rapidly enlarged, and impoverished, working class.
Numerous waves of strikes repeatedly spread across the nation, militant labor unions like the Knights of
Labor and the I.W.W. arose and powerful socialist & anarchist movements spread. In 1888 the Senate
Committee on Education stated, "We believe that education is one of the principal causes of discontent of
late years manifesting itself among the laboring classes." [45] Several mechanisms emerged to control
the working class, one of which was the creation of todays forced, rigid, potential-destroying education
system as a means of training workers to be uneducated and docile. Schools were made compulsory
(everyone is to be indoctrinated) and consolidated into much larger units for mass schooling. Major
changes were made to course content (including the replacement of history with “social studies”),
“scientific management” & social Darwinist ideas were applied to schools, as were ideas based on
Pavlovian conditioning & the Taylor system, and a large school bureaucracy grew to control the students
& teachers. Sections of both the right and the authoritarian left, including liberals and Fabians, played a
major role in the creation & evolution of this system.

The liberal thinker John Dewy, who played a significant role in the creation of this system, in 1897 said,
“Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social
order and the securing of the right social growth.” [46] President Woodrow Wilson expressed a similar
goal in a speech to businessmen: “We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another
class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit
themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” [47] William Torrey Harris, US Commissioner of
Education from 1889 to 1906, wrote in his book The Philosophy of Education, “Ninety-nine [students] out
of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom.
This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the
subsumption of the individual.” [48] In the same book he wrote, “The great purpose of school can be
realized better in dark, airless, ugly places.... It is to master the physical self, to transcend the beauty of
nature. School should develop the power to withdraw from the external world.” [49]

Large corporations, various business associations and corporate-funded foundations such as the
National Association of Manufacturers, the National Civic Foundation, the Ad Council, the Business
Roundtable, the Carnegie foundation and the Rockefeller foundation played a significant role in bringing
about the modern public school system. James Bryant Conant, President of Harvard from 1933 to 1953,
wrote that the change to the modern public school system had been demanded by, "certain industrialists
and the innovative who were altering the nature of the industrial process." [50] One of these foundations,
the Rockefeller Education Board, spelled out its goals:

“In our dreams...people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present
educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by
tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these
people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to
raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo
great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we
have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple...we will organize children...and
teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.” [51]

In 1913, after a year of testimony, a congressional investigation into the role of corporate foundations in
education found that:

“The domination of men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not
limited to their employees, but is being rapidly extended to control the education and social services of
the nation. … The giant foundation exercises enormous power through direct use of its funds, free of any
statutory entanglements so they can be directed precisely to the levers of a situation; this power,
however, is substantially increased by building collateral alliances which insulate it from criticism and
scrutiny.” [52]

In 1954 another congressional investigation into the same issue began, but pressure from big business
and a hostile media campaign forced it to end prematurely. Before it was shut down, it came to these
tentative conclusions:

“The power of the individual large foundation is enormous. Its various forms of patronage carry with them
elements of thought control. It exerts immense influence on educator, educational processes, and
educational institutions. It is capable of invisible coercion. It can materially predetermine the
development of social and political concepts, academic opinion, thought leadership, public opinion. The
power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when foundations act in concert. … This
Interlock has some of the characteristics of an intellectual cartel. … It has ramifications in almost every
phase of education. It has come to exercise very extensive practical control over social science and
education. … The power of the large foundations and The Interlock has so influenced press, radio,
television, and even government that it has become extremely difficult for objective criticism of anything
the Interlock approves to get into news channels – without having first been ridiculed, slanted and
discredited. … These foundations and their intermediaries engage extensively in political activity, not in
the form of direct support of candidates or parties, but in the conscious promotion of carefully calculated
political concepts.” [53]

These investigations were conducted when two different parties were in power and separated by many
decades. Both had similar findings, were ignored, led to no action or change in the system and have
now been effectively erased from history. In contemporary debates about education these investigations
and their conclusions are completely ignored outside dissident circles.

Once again, none of this is some giant conspiracy. It is the outcome of the way the education is set up.
The very structure of the education system causes it to act this way. Most of the people who originally set
it up were quite open about what they were doing and believed that setting up schools like this was the
right thing to do.

Newspeak

Newspeak is the manipulation of language to reinforce the dominant power structure. The term comes
from George Orwell’s book 1984 in which newspeak is created by a totalitarian government in order to
control the population. Newspeak is not unique to modern society but has existed in many other
hierarchical societies. In many societies language tends to be manipulated in such a way so as to
reinforce the dominant power structure (which benefits the elite). For example, there are many pejorative
terms to refer to women (bitch, whore, cunt, slut, etc.) but few that refer to men. This both reflects and
reinforces part of the power structure, patriarchy (men having more power than women). Language
manipulation that benefits those with more power tends to come about because those with more power
control the means of communication and because in many societies there is a strong tendency to see
everything in terms of one’s own society. In the US the media and education system help perpetuate
newspeak but it is not limited to just these institutions, it is used by most people on a regular basis as part
of their normal speech. In some cases governments or corporations intentionally create elements of
newspeak to further their agendas, in others it evolves without conscious intentional manipulation.
Newspeak works in many different ways to inhibit thought processes and reinforce the current system.

One common way this works is giving terms of political discussion an ‘official’ dictionary definition while
using the term in a different way. Words and phrases are thus constructed so as to conceal their actual
meaning. For example, look at the phrase “conspiracy theory.” Officially, this refers to a theory that
attempts to explain something as the result of a conspiracy – of certain people intentionally working
together in secret to achieve some goal, usually an immoral or illegal goal. This is not how the term is
actually used, however. In practice the term “conspiracy theory” applied only to theories not supported by
the government as a way of discrediting them. The official explanation for 9–11, that Al-Qaeda did it, is a
conspiracy theory. Al-Qaeda is allegedly a network/group of evil Muslims working together in secret to
launch attacks against the United States and other targets because they “hate freedom.” This is the very
definition of a conspiracy theory, if anyone other then the government put forth this Al-Qaeda theory it
would be labeled a conspiracy theory. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant; a conspiracy theory that is
true is still a conspiracy theory. But the Al-Qaeda theory is never referred to as a conspiracy theory; only
theories not backed by the government are called conspiracy theories. The term “conspiracy theory” in
newspeak thus has a double definition: the official dictionary definition and the unofficial definition, how it
is actually used. “Conspiracy theory” is a term applied a theory that clashes with the official government
version as a way of discrediting that theory. Even theories that aren’t conspiracy theories in the technical
sense, such as institutional theories (theories which explain certain events as the result of the set up of
the social system rather then individuals working together in secret), are sometimes called “conspiracy
theories” by their critics as a way of shutting off thought.

The term “terrorism” is another example of newspeak. In practice this is just a pejorative term for any
group that happens to oppose the US. The CIA has engaged in assassinations, arson, bombings,
overthrowing governments, targeting of civilians and numerous other acts which would be considered
terrorist if engaged in by an official enemy yet the CIA (outside of radical literature) is never called a
terrorist organization. When Muslim fundamentalists, including Bin Laden & co, were fighting the USSR
(and client states) they were called “freedom fighters.” Now that they have started fighting against the US
(and client states) they are now called “terrorists.” While fighting the USSR they would target civilians,
assassinate government officials and throw acid in the faces of unveiled women. They did similar
atrocious acts while fighting against the US. Yet it was only when they started fighting the US that they
were called terrorists, before that they were called freedom fighters. They went from ally of the US
government to enemy of the US government, and thus went from freedom fighter to terrorist. What
changed was whose side they were on, not what methods they used. [54]

The use of euphemisms can also become a form of newspeak. By substituting one word with another
word that sounds better the power structure can make certain things sound better. For example, during
World War Two the United States had a “department of war” which played a big role in organizing the US
war effort. As the Cold War started it was merged with the department of Navy to form the “department of
defense.” Most of what the department of defense does isn’t really defense; it’s the use of military force
abroad. They switched from “department of war” to “department of defense” because defense sounded
better and made it easier to gain public support. The term “defense” is commonly used as a substitute for
“military” or “war” in a manner like this (and not only by the US). For example, talk of “military budgets”
today is rare; instead the term “defense budget” is used. This euphemism puts the state and military in a
more positive light.

When referring to US satellite states the term “ally” is used instead of “satellite state” to obscure the fact
that the US is dominating other countries, making US imperialism look like something other than
imperialism. This is not done with official enemies – the USSR’s satellite states were always (correctly)
called satellite states.

The term “communism,” has also been subjected to newspeak, especially during the Cold War. In
common usage this is a vague term used to demonize all sorts of different ideas. It is a generic
bogeyman that during the Cold War was used to describe most US enemies. In practice any person or
group that believes the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people it rules, and
which opposed US government policy, is likely to be labeled “Communist.” They can be church groups,
student unions, or whatever but if they subscribe to this heretical idea and oppose US policy they’ll be
called Communists. It is not necessary to be a Marxist, have a favorable disposition towards the USSR,
or advocate central planning to be labeled a “Communist.” Even groups that explicitly support capitalism
can be labeled Communist. For example, the Arbenz government in Guatemala, which was overthrown
by a CIA coup in 1954, explicitly called for the creation of a modern capitalist economy – yet it was
labeled Communist. None of the countries commonly called “Communist” (USSR, China, etc.) ever
claimed to be Communist – they claimed to be in a transition to Communism called the “dictatorship of
the proletariat.” The term “communist” in common usage is just an extremely vague term used to
demonize a large set of groups who disagree with American policies.

Democracy is an example of what is called a glittering generality. It's an extremely vague term that
sounds good but doesn't mean much at all. Almost everyone says they advocate democracy. North
Korea claims to be a democracy, so did Saddam's dictatorship and so does the USA. All of these
countries had elections and all are actually ruled by a small elite. The US is always identified as a
democracy but enemies of the US are never called democracies, even when their political system is very
similar to the US. At the time of the CIA coup Guatemala’s government was partly inspired by the US’s
government but it wasn’t called a democracy – it was demonized as a “Communist dictatorship.” Israel is
usually identified as a democracy but Iran is not, even though both have very similar forms of
government. Both are theocratic republics that hold semi-free elections, abuse human rights and have a
limited degree of civil liberties. But only Israel is identified as a democracy, because it is US client state,
while Iran is not called a democracy because it is opposed to the US. Advocating democracy is like
advocating "good things" – it's a vague term that sounds nice but means little.

Another way newspeak works is through simply defining terms in such a way that it becomes very difficult
to think about certain ideas. For example, take capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system based on
wage-labor. In capitalism the majority of the population has to sell their labor (usually through working at
a job) in order to make a living. They sell their labor to the capitalists, those who own the means of
production, either directly or through an organization controlled by capitalists (such as a corporation).
This can be differentiated from other economic systems, such as feudalism where most people don’t
have to sell their labor but are serfs subordinated to a lord or slavery where most don’t sell their labor but
are completely owned (and bought and sold) by a master. Newspeak obfuscates this by confusing
capitalism with trade (or markets). In newspeak ‘capitalism’ becomes synonymous with ‘trade’ or
‘markets.’ Trade has existed in many societies from primitive villages societies to slave states to
industrial capitalism. To claim they are all practicing the same system is absurd. There is obviously a
great deal of difference between the economic systems of the United States, a capitalist country, and the
Roman Empire, a slave society, even though both had a great deal of trade. The newspeak definition of
capitalism equates these two very different economic systems. By taking such an overly broad definition
of capitalism the newspeak definition of capitalism makes it very difficult to talk about capitalism in the
non-newspeak sense (an economic system based on wage-labor). By equating capitalism with trade,
and denying us a term to describe an economic system based on wage-labor, newspeak makes a
critique of capitalism much more difficult to talk about, thus protecting the status quo.

Similar to capitalism, newspeak also gives the state (or government) an overly broad definition, which
has the effect of making it difficult to talk of abolishing the state. The state is an organization with a
monopoly (or near-monopoly) on the legitimate use of violence. It is a centralized hierarchical
organization that uses armed bodies of people with a top down chain of command (such as police and
militaries) and coercive institutions (such as courts and prisons) to force those within its’ territory to obey
it. The newspeak definition equates the state with organization, thereby obfuscating what exactly the
state is and making critiques of it difficult to conceive.

Newspeak also defines the term ‘anarchy’ to mean complete chaos. Anarchy comes from the great and
literally means ‘no rulers.’ There is a well-developed body of anarchist theory that advocates not chaos,
but a society organized by voluntary non-hierarchical associations. The equation of anarchy with chaos
is nothing more than a smear used to discredit a radical philosophy. Most who equate anarchy with
chaos have read little or no anarchist theory and do so only because ideological hegemony pushes that
equation (through the media, schools, newspeak, etc.). Several centuries ago democracy & republics
were also equated with chaos, just as anarchy is today.

An unusual case of newspeak is that of “political correctness.” Many movements seeking to break down
certain hierarchies, such as the women’s movement or the black liberation movement, recognized that
language is constructed in such a way so as to reinforce the hierarchy they are fighting against and, as
part of their attempt to weaken that hierarchy, attempted to modify language so that it does not reinforce
the hierarchy they are campaigning against. For example, anti-racist movements have succeeded in
making the term “nigger” no longer acceptable for whites to use and getting most people to acknowledge
it’s racist meaning. With a few exceptions, however, these goals have not been achieved. Most of the
successful modification of language intended to weaken newspeak (and it’s reinforcement of the power
structure) has been on minor things that don’t really threaten the hierarchies they are attempting to
undermine. Most have been limited to racial and sexual hierarchies as well; newspeak that reinforces
class and statist hierarchies (such as the selective use of the term “terrorism” noted earlier) has been
virtually untouched.

The phrase “political correctness” was originally a term used by leftists to make fun of each other. It
referred to following the party line of one of the various left-wing, usually Marxist-Leninist, sects. It didn’t
become popular among the mainstream until the right seized on the term. They used the term to refer to
the (mostly unsuccessful) attempts of various liberation movements to modify language so it did not
reinforce the hierarchies they were fighting against. The right claims that “political correctness” is an
attempt by “totalitarian leftists” to engage in thought control, and portray it in a manner similar to how
newspeak has been portrayed in this essay. Virtually any group campaigning for greater racial or sexual
equality will be accused of being “politically correct.” Some on the right use the term so broadly that it
refers to anything they disagree with. In practice the accusation of “political correctness” operates in a
manner similar to how they claim supporters of “political correctness” behave – as a way of demonizing
certain actions and a form of thought control. The manipulation of language to support the power
structure (such as the selective uses of the terms terrorism, communism and defense) is never identified
as “political correctness” outside of radical circles. Newspeak is the manipulation of language to
reinforce the power structure, while “political correctness” (outside of dissident circles) is a pejorative
term for reducing newspeak or any other modification of language the user does not like.

The Objectivity Myth

The idea of “objectivity” is also used to reinforce ideological hegemony. Ideas and sources outside the
liberal-conservative spectrum are dismissed as “un-objective,” “biased,” “inflammatory” or sometimes
“extremist.” Only the ideas & sources within the liberal-conservative spectrum are considered “objective.”
Sometimes this is also used by groups within the liberal-conservative spectrum against each other, such
as a conservative denouncing a liberal’s position as “biased” (or vice versa).

For example, journalist Christian Parenti was invited to talk on the March 2nd, 2004 edition of PBS’s
News Hour with Jim Leher. Leher asked Parenti whether bombings in Iraq would make the American job
there harder. Parenti’s response was:

“I would think so. I would think that we have to look at some of the deeper causes as to why there's so
much frustration. Why are Iraqis so angry and willing to point the blame at the U.S. after this sort of
bombing? A lot of it has to do with the failure of meaningful reconstruction. There still is not adequate
electricity. In many towns like Ramadi there wasn't adequate water. Where is all the money that's going to
Halliburton and Bechtel to rebuild this country? Where is it ending up? I think that is one of the most
important fundamental causes of instability, is the corruption around the contracting with these Bush-
connected firms in Iraq. Unless that is dealt with, there is going to be much more instability for times to
come in Iraq.” [55]

Two days later Leher issued an on-air apology for this, claiming that the discussion on Iraq was not “as
balanced as is our standard practice.” PBS later indicated that it was Parenti’s comments, quoted above,
which were the source of this “lack of balance.” Nothing Parenti said was factually inaccurate, nor did
PBS claim it was. Several months earlier New York Times reporter John Burns expressed support for the
occupation of Iraq on the show. In September 2002 Donald Rumsfeld claimed that Iraq in 1990 had
plans for invading Saudi Arabia, which was shown to be a lie more then a decade ago but Leher did not
attempt to correct Rumsfeld’s factually inaccurate statement. In neither case was there an apology for
this “lack of balance.” This illustrates how the idea of “balance” is used as a way of limiting thought within
a certain spectrum. When individuals express support for the occupation of Iraq, or government officials
like Donald Rumsfeld make false statements, these don’t need to have an opposing view presented to
“balance” them. When Bin Laden opponents are on they don’t need to be balanced with Bin Laden
supporters. But when someone too critical of the status quo, as Christian Parenti was, is on then they
need to be “balanced” with an opposing view. If someone deviates too far from the ‘party line’ then an
opposing view needs to be presented to refute it but those who adhere to the ‘party line’ do not need an
opposing view presented. That is what being “fair and balanced” really means in its actual
implementation.

Another example is the treatment of the Internet. One is supposed to be wary of news on the Internet
because “anyone can put anything up.” This idea is repeatedly promoted in the media, schools and
elsewhere. It is true, but it is also true of television, radio, newspapers and most other sources of
information. The only real qualification to put something on the TV, etc. is that you are rich enough to
afford to do so. Critical thinking, and a healthy degree of skepticism, should be applied to everything, not
just things on the Internet. To be more critical of things on the Internet as opposed to things on TV, etc. is
implicitly to assume that rich people, and organizations controlled by rich people, are more credible than
non-rich people. There is no reason to make such an assumption.

There is no such thing as a values-free source as values-free is itself a value. Every source of news must
decide what stories should be covered, which to ignore, which should be emphasized and which should
not. Sources do not have the resources to cover every single story equally and even if they did it would
produce an information overload, making it not very useful to the average reader. The only way to really
understand what’s going on in the world is to read a variety of different sources with different points of
view (and I don’t mean multiple corporate sources – they all represent more or less the same point of
view).

Closely related to this is the cult of moderation. Moderation is often held up as a virtue and politicians
(and others) rush to portray themselves as “moderates” while portraying their opponents as “extremists.”
Very few people who call themselves moderates actually take a truly moderate position. Few self-
described moderates advocate a moderate amount of slavery; even though that’s the position you arrive
at if you take their philosophy seriously. To advocate absolutely no slavery at all is an extremist position,
as is advocating massive amounts of slavery. A genuine moderate position is between the two extremes,
in favor of a moderate amount of slavery. What is really meant by “moderate” is not actually being
moderate (few do that), but advocating the status quo. The praising of moderation is really the praising of
support for the status quo, which obviously reinforces the dominant socio-economic system.

It is not uncommon for those who have been highly indoctrinated into the liberal-conservative paradigm
to reject ideas outside the liberal-conservative spectrum on the grounds that such ideas are “biased,”
“un-objective,” “subversive,” “inflammatory,” “aren’t even-handed,” “lack balance,” etc. Accusing
something that openly argues for a particular conclusion of arguing for a particular conclusion (“being
biased”) is a rather strange accusation. Such an accusation is only relevant if the thing being accused
claims that it is not arguing for a conclusion (which is the case with the media & education system).
Calling something a theory a name does not refute that theory. The accusation of something being
“biased,” “lacking balance,” etc. is itself “biased” (promoting an opinion). There’s nothing wrong with
promoting particular ideas and arguing for those ideas, so long as you’re open about what you’re doing.
Any argument against such a position would be arguing for a particular idea and so is self-refuting.
These are not rational arguments but reflect the kind of incapacity to think about issues found in fanatical
religious cults.

The same standard applies to this essay. There’s a difference between an individual article, essay,
website, etc. arguing in favor of something and a social system which acts to systemically exclude certain
ideas while enabling others to monopolize the press, schools, etc. There exists a social system that acts
to indoctrinate the majority of the population into believing the liberal-conservative paradigm but it does
not follow from this that the liberal-conservative paradigm is false. Hypothetically, it might be the case
that there exists this system of thought control and some ideology within the liberal-conservative
spectrum happens to be correct. This is not the case, but refuting the liberal-conservative paradigm is
outside the scope of this essay. The media filters information by emphasizing facts that support the
liberal-conservative paradigm, such as genocide in Cambodia and Iraqi atrocities against the Kurds,
while downplaying or ignoring facts that harm the liberal-conservative paradigm, such as genocide in
East Timor and Turkish atrocities against the Kurds. The education system acts to promote belief in the
liberal-conservative paradigm and discourage belief in theories outside the liberal-conservative
spectrum. These ideas also happen to support the position of the elite and reinforce support for the
dominant socio-economic system. Whether liberal-conservative ideas happen to be correct and whether
ideological hegemony exists are two separate issues. Even if it could be shown that a philosophy within
the liberal-conservative spectrum were correct this would not change the fact that there exists a social
system, hegemony, which acts to indoctrinate the populace into believing in those ideas.

Notes
1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23974–2003Jun23?language=printer
2 http://www.pipa.org/whatsnew/html/new_6_04_03.html
3 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003–09–06-poll-iraq_x.htm
4 For a partial list of political prisoners, see http://www.prisonactivist.org/pps+pows/pplist-alpha.shtml
5 http://www.fair.org/extra/9512/hightower.html
6 http://www.conservativenews.org/InDepth/archive/199810/IND19981014g.html
7 Lawrence Soley, Extra!, July/August 1997 http://www.fair.org/extra/9707/ad-survey.html
8 http://www.fair.org/reports/ff2001.html
9 Steve Rendall & Tara Broughel, Extra!, May/June 2003 http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html
10 http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/freezer1.htm
11 http://www.fair.org/extra/0403/iraq-study.html
12 Sources: http://www.freearabvoice.org/ http://www.wbai.org/artman/publish/article_530.php http://
www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/policywatch/policywatch2003/751.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/
military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug31/fp1.asp http://
www.jihadunspun.net/articles/18122003-Iraqi-Resistence/ir/ailatir03.html http://www.neravt.com/left/
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Iraqi_insurgency&redirect=no
13 Herman, Manufacturing Consent p. xxi
14 Herman, Manufacturing Consent p. 37–86
15 Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, p. 40
16 Richard Aldrich, Guardian, 22 April, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/
0,3604,688310,00.html
17 http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_books_chomsky112603.htm
18 Ina Howard, Extra!, May/June 2003 http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/power_sources.html
19 http://www.aclu-wa.org/ISSUES/police/WTO-Report.html
20 Seth Ackerman, Extra!, January/February 2000 http://www.fair.org/extra/0001/wto-prattle.html
21 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2636647.stm
22 http://www.fair.org/reports/npr-study.html
23 http://www.fair.org/reports/kosovo-sources.html
24 Quoted in Commissar of the Free Press http://struggle.ws/issues/war/afghan/pamwt/media.html
25 http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/10/06/0396325 http://www.pipa.org/
OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/
Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
26 http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
27 Steve Rendall & Peter Hart, Extra!, March/April 2002 http://fair.org/extra/0203/goldberg.html
28 Naureckas, p. 157–170
29 Chomsky, Media Control http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-media-control.html http://
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/MediaControl_excerpts.html
30 McChesney, Rich Media, p. 189–225
31 Zepezaur, p. 52
32 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031800–02.htm
33 http://www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html
34 http://www.fair.org/activism/psyops-response.html
35 Henslin p. 332–335
36 See Loewen, p. 137–199
37 Quoted on Delfattor, p. 139
38 Quoted on Delfattor, p. 125–126
39 The content standards are available online at http://www.cde.ca.gov/standards/
40 Colorado’s Academic Standards are available online at http://www.cde.state.co.us/index_stnd.htm
41 This list is available at http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/yct/watchlist.html
42 Some of Harry Cleaver’s writings can be found online at http://www.eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/
hmchtmlpapers.html
43 The Washington Post 24 November 2003, Texas Conservative Students List Professors "Too
Politicized" by Karin Brulliard http://www.refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.php?aid=1177
44 Gatto, p. xvi
45 Quoted on Gatto, p. 153
46 Quoted Gatto, p. xxviii
47 Ibid., p.38
48 Ibid., p. 106
49 Ibid., P. 106
50 Ibid., p. 321
51 Ibid, p. 45
52 Ibid, p. 252–253
53 Ibid, p. 255
54 See my essay “The Myth of the War on Terrorism” http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-
Politics/TerrorMyth.html
55 http://www.fair.org/activism/newshour-parenti.html

Sources:
Accuracy in Media (AIM) http://www.aim.org
Bias by Bernard Goldberg
Censors in the Classroom by Edward B. Jenkinson
The Chomsky Reader edited by James Peck
The CIA’s Greatest Hits by Mark Zepezauer
Commissars of the Free Press http://struggle.ws/issues/war/afghan/pamwt/media.html
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt
Dumbing US Down by John Gatto
Essentials of Sociology by James M. Henslin
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) http://www.fair.org
The Fair Reader edited by Jim Naureckas & Janine Jackson
It’s the Media, Stupid by John Nichols & Robert W. McChesney
Lexis-Nexis
Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen
Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky
The Media and Politics edited by Paul A. Winters
Necessary Illusions by Noam Chomsky
Propaganda by Jacques Ellul
Rich Media, Poor Democracy by Robert W. McChesney
A Social History of the Media by Asa Briggs and Peter Burke
The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
What Uncle Sam Really Wants by Noam Chomsky
What Johnny Shouldn’t Read by Joan Delfattor