Thursday, July 29, 2004

PunditWatch: Day 4 of the Democratic Convention

Two speeches formed the highlights of the final day of the 2004 Democratic Convention. Gen. Wesley Clark gave an extremely effective speech. John Kerry, after being introduced by excellent, moving speeches from his daughters and patrol boat buddies, probably gave the speech of his life according to Republic pundit David Brooks and liberal pundit Mark Shields on PBS. (Their criticism of the convention noticeably died down today.) As the pundits pointed out, Kerry can only receive a relatively small bounce due to number of voters that were already decided going into convention. Kerry's very positive speech included a muscular patriotism, promises to resolve all of the main grievances against the Bush Administration, and a progressive policy at home promising economic revival through technological progress, effective social policy, and good government. It was the correct speech for this moment in the nation's history, likely determined not only by highly paid political consultants and focus groups, but also by Kerry and the Democrat's own common sense interpretation of what the nation most needed and where the nation most saw itself going at this point in history. Suffice it to say, he looked very electable.

I have to agree with all five or six of the PBS pundits (who I've been quite critical of in the past) that there is very little the Democrats could have done differently. They really could only have changed minor details.

So I decided to tune in to "Toyko Rose" (link) to get their coverage. (Recall how yesterday I described "Tokyo Rose" (a local AM talk radio station) as even more biased than Fox News.)

It quickly became apparently that Toyko Rose was a true propaganda broadcast. Kerry highlighted his war hero status during the convention speech, and this was the immediate basis of Toyko Rose's attack following the speech. (In past, this has proven to be a big mistake. Opponents that have attacked Kerry's Vietnam record have angered his war buddies, who would begin to actively campaign his behalf.)

Tokyo Rose claimed that Kerry hid his boat behind trees in Vietnam (while surrounded behind enemy lines in order to successfully elude them and return to his own lines.) Tokyo Rose attempted to portray this as cowardice, bringing in another person claiming to be a Vietnam veteran who was angry that Kerry "hid behind trees" while surrounded by the enemy.

The reason I say it was a true propaganda broadcast is what happened next. Tokyo Rose then brought in a "liberal" to argue on Kerry's behalf, doing so, however, in a completely ineffectively manner. Although it was possible the "liberal" was selected because she was completely incompetent as a debater, most likely this is a true example of black propaganda. The "liberal" actually presented a fake "liberal" argument that would disgust both true liberals and conservatives. This is true "black" propaganda, namely, conservative propaganda that is disguised to be coming from the mouths of a "liberal" in order to demoralize liberals and misrepresent them.

The "liberal" said that Kerry was a war hero because he felt sympathy for the Vietnamese enemy (before proceeding to further discredit herself by making ad hominem attacks on the conservative Vietnam "veteran" in the broadcast.) and conducted his military operations so as to kill as few Vietnamese as possible.

I highly doubt Kerry would have received as many medals as he did (silver and bronze star, amongst others) had he conducted his war efforts by running around Vietnam feeling sympathy for the enemy. This is likely completely inaccurate, and designed to confuse liberal listeners by presenting a fake "balanced" view from a liberal that is only designed to completely misrepresent Kerry's accomplishments.

Interviewing fake "liberals" is not journalism; it is true propaganda.

It is unfortunate that a few greedy media companies in America are funding this corrupt effort to keep the Bushies in power in the hopes that an FCC rule change will give them a few percent greater market share.

The airwaves are the property of the American people and are held in trust by these corporations who ostensibly use them to promote the common good. This is why we have FCC regulations (currently Bush controlled, unfortunately).

It is regrettable that these corporations, apparently acting in partnership with elements in the Bush Administration, have decided to abuse that public trust and opted to try to use these public resources to misinform the American people in this way.

The good news is that, at least out here in California, it appears that they are completely failing in this effort.