|
Truth?…. Justice?…The
American Way?… Or How Disinformation in the Biased Media Changes
Public Perception By Ivan W. Parkins
June 24, 2008, 2pm EDT, I have just seen on the National Geographic
Channel (NGC) a particularly interesting, and especially timely, example of
disinformation. It was a carefully
selected account of events and proceedings leading to President Clinton’s
impeachment and acquittal. Little, if
anything included was false; much that was not included was true and more
significant. That
severe judgment is prompted mainly by my having recently discovered and read
David Schippers’ book, SELL OUT ,
published in 2000. former Chief
Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, Schippers did appear
in the NGC documentary, but only very briefly. Originally, he had been reluctant to take
the investigative job. He was, after
all, a Democrat, a former head of the FBI’s Organized Crime and Racketeering
Unit, under Attorney General Robert Kennedy.
But, Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, an acquaintance, said that was why
he wanted Schippers. Of
course Schippers’ party links and the fact that he worked satisfactorily with
an “extreme right-winger” like Ken Starr did not fit well into a picture of
events as having been engineered by a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” One
incident that Schippers relates in his book has Starr replying to Clinton
lawyer David Kendell’s charge that too much information was being leaked to
the media… “ Mr. Kendell, the only information that has never leaked was that
unavailable to the White House.” (page 151)
But, the great injustice was not the Lewinsky Case, most of which did
become public in lurid detail. More
grave, and clearly related to Clinton’s performance in office were matters
such as illegal citizenship grants and campaign gifts from the Chinese. About those, the White House was able to
stall with legal challenges and slow yields of documents until just before
the 1996 elections. Members of
Congress, many Republicans along with most Democrats, saw those issues as
threats to their reelection, and opposed the whole impeachment process.
Clinton’s problems would have been much greater if he had had to
respond in public to charges that he had demanded quick citizenship for
75,000 persons with arrest records, 115,000 with unclassifiable fingerprints,
and 61,000 who had filed no fingerprints at all (page 45). But those and the questions about illegal
campaign contributions were left to Janet Reno and other Clinton
subordinates. Of
course, Clinton’s great victory over impeachment is now what most casual
observers now remember. What Mr.
Schippers calls the “flat-out rigged ballgame” (page 7) have never been
transformed by our information system into a part of the public’s political
memory. I
am reminded of recent diatribes by candidates about the need for change. Yes, we do need change, but I am troubled
by what changes. I.W.Parkins 62908 |
|
(The following is a “letter to the editor”
published in The Detroit News,
12/30/2005) Presidential Abuses Ignored? Tony Snow’s Dec. 12
column, “Knollenberg aids Clinton report cover up”, illuminates questions that have bothered me
regarding President Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal. Did that extravagant media event actually
benefit Clinton and his supporters?
Did it overshadow and obscure greater abuses of presidential power and
possible charges of the kind that brought down President Nixon?- I.W. Parkins
12/30/2005 |
|
In Response To Fr. Goodrow Column, Daily Times-News, Mt. Pleasant, MI
10/29/69 An
unparalleled burden of communication has fallen upon contemporary man. It is the most critical problem of these
times. Never before have people been
faced with the need for communicating with all of their fellows. Never before has every race, social class,
and society in the world contended with all others for shares in the fruits
and the freedoms of human endeavor.
Never before have provincial and parochial views been so
inadequate. It is a situation which
offers, at one time, the most terrifying and the most magnificent prospects
in all of human experience. I
must object to Father Goodrow’s treatment of conformity and morality. I believe that he has failed to grasp both
the magnitude of the contemporary problem and the nature of aggravating and
ameliorating forces. Fr. Goodrow sees
the problem as one of accepting “ever-multiplying sub-cultures”, a challenge
which he addresses especially to conformist Midwesterners. In
fact, the problem, or at least the most significant part of it, is that
previously submerged people now insist upon participating in the hopes and
rewards of their societies and of world civilization. Technological and institutional advances in
the fields of communication, education, and politics have brought us suddenly
to this critical point of mutual awareness.
What the outcome is to be depends largely upon our human capacity to
accept others of differing appearance, behavior, and conviction. The mutual survival of cultures and
sub-cultures is at issue. But there is
nothing in this situation which implies a multiplication of sub-cultures. Fr.
Goodrow, in defending proliferating sub-cultures, e.g., the hippies, calls
attention to what I believe is a largely unnecessary and an extremely
unfortunate complication of the basic problem. In a time when unprecedented burdens upon
our capacity to communicate stem from new racial, class, and international
relationships, some privileged groups insist upon adding their
particularistic and disruptive demands for special attention. Usually, they proclaim their concern for
the less privileged races classes, and nations. Do they really believe that such things as
long hair, obscenity, and pot are aides or necessary concomitants to peace
and social justice? And if, as I
believe, those things are no better than trivial and personal affectations,
should not they be deferred in the interest of more fundamental changes?
Some conformity, I insist, is one of the essentials of
communication. There is no way to
communicate between those who defy and distract one another. Violence, a remaining alternative, is not
so much a way of communicating as it is a means of exhausting will and
emotion-perhaps, in the hope that communication will follow. Language it self is a convention to which
increasing numbers of men have conformed more and more extensively in the
interest of communication. And he who
would have his words heeded often finds it necessary to dress and behave in
such a way as not to distract his
audience from his message. It behooves
those of us who recognize that the need for communication is critical to so
conform in our personal manners that no significant portion of attention is
wasted upon our affectations.
Tolerance seems to be Fr. Goodrow’s answer to the communication
problem and , indeed, tolerance is essential.
The demands which the present situation makes upon our tolerance are
greater than any such number of people has previously been expected to
bear. But, if in my quarter-century of
higher education I have observed any trends regarding tolerance, I would
identify these: The bulk of Americans
(including Midwesterners) has advanced considerably towards acceptance of
people of different birth and behavior, while the cacophony of charges which
an educated minority level against their more provincial countrymen has grown
steadily. I doubt that the latter
development aids communication, yet it is a major preoccupation of those from
whom the society has a right to expect something less parochial. So
much for communication and conformity; where does the creative individual
enter? Often it is observed that such
individuals differ from the general run of men. As much might be claimed for individuals
who are particularly destructive. Add
to that observation all of the trivial differences, plus all of those
differences which we hope that men will learn to overlook, and surely he is
deluded who cultivates mere difference as a mark of creativity. The delusion prospers, but few of its
victims contribute to improved communication. If
man is to avoid a holocaust, the answer lies not in any proliferation of
differences for difference’s sake, nor in sanctimonious lectures by some of
us to others allegedly less tolerant than ourselves. Each of us needs to muster as much
tolerance as he can; at the same time, each should so conform as to demand no
more tolerance of others than, for the survival of his essential self, he
must. |
|
Democrat Credibility? (The following commentary was published in the
The Suncoast News , Feb. 4, 1998. It is related to the accompanying article on
media disinformation regarding President Clinton on a National Geographic
Program.)
Gross, relevant and easily documented facts are being ignored by many
persons commenting upon the constitutional-severity and partisan-bias aspects
of charges against President Clinton. The
President’s defenders make the point that he was elected after the public had
heard many of the charges against him.
Some of them insist that unlike President Nixon’s Watergate crisis,
this one does not warrant interfering with a sitting President. Iran-Contra, in the second Reagan
Administration, is also being cited by Clinton’s supporters.
But, regarding the popular choice argument, Clinton has not won a
majority of votes cast, and his re-election was no landslide. One the other hand, Nixon won by nearly 18
million votes, still the largest plurality in our history. Reagan, in 1984, won by a plurality
approaching 17 million, the second largest.
Running third in this comparison was Lyndon Johnson with a plurality
of more than 15 million. All
three were also majorities of the vote cast, and by landslide
proportions. Yet our three top
presidential winners were all soon driven from office or seriously threatened,
and all, including Democrat Johnson, due mainly to Democrat Congresses. How
much credibility do Democrats deserve, now, when they contend that attacks
upon Clinton are constitutionally irresponsible and partisan, i.e.
Republican, motivated interferences with American’s choice of leaders? I.W. Parkins-7/4/98 |
|
MAN: A
LONG VIEW The
species Homo Sapiens is engaged in the most grand of adventures. Other species also seek to survive and to
thrive. We alone, are able to refine
and extend our comprehension of the universe and to consciously enhance our
survival capacity. Among our greatest
problems is how to enable more of our species to participate meaningfully and
cooperatively in this grand adventure. The
varied ethnic and cultural groups of our species are both an advantage and a
problem. It is advantageous that we
are not all equally dependent upon the same resources and the same climatic
conditions. It is burdensome and
dangerous that some portions of our species feel a need to contend
destructively against others. Our
history, from the earliest evidences to the present, is essentially one of
extending our cooperation over space and the increasing numbers of humans who
inhabit it. Although many basic
features of individual and family lives remain much the same, the extent and
structures of our larger groups have changed radically, And, all-in-all, we have progressed and
prospered in both our total numbers and the security of our individual
lives.- I.W. Parkins, 6/2008 |
|
Once Upon A Time
When Americans were divided and confused, especially about their role
in the world, there appeared a man of great eloquence and passion. He traveled the length and breadth of our
land, arousing and inspiring people as he went. He promised change, hope, and new ways of
doing things.
Heaping disdain, especially upon America’s foreign policy, he
threatened even to supplant the inept President. And, yes, this story does have a happy
ending.
Somehow, President George Washington did survive his second term-and
not as a total failure. The government
of France changed, again. Citizen
Edmond Charles Genet was recalled, but decided not to risk his neck under
untried leadership. Instead, he
married the daughter of a prominent New Yorker, and spent the rest of his
life as a solid American citizen. Some
of us “old guys” get confused about who and what is really new. -I.W.Parkins 6/2008 |
|
OUR CONSTITUTION The
Constitution of the United States was drafted, primarily, to establish
greater order among people and states that had recently won increased
freedoms. Some of those freedoms were
recognized by the Framers in the document itself and by the First Congress in
the Bill of Rights. But the primary
purpose of the effort was to bring greater order to the people and states,
without which most new liberties appeared unlikely to survive.
Representation and an independent judiciary, but few of their details,
were presumptions of nearly all American factions of that time. The key innovation was the nature and
powers of the Executive Branch. Thanks
largely to the character and performance of George Washington, both in
promoting the Constitution and in filling the chief executive office, we got
a single and vigorous, but temporary Presidency. In
short, greater public order was the chief purpose, and a strong but temporary
executive was the foremost innovation, of the Constitution. Unfortunately, neither of those facts is
adequately recognized by Americans today. –I.W.Parkins, 6/2008 |
|
Disinformation, the Making of Liberal Ideology |
|
Page 10 |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2010, All articles, text, web pages property of
Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material
requires permission of the author
and can be obtained by contacting,
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |