In a democratic society, one of the political prerequisites is the dialogue required to define and eventually enact public policy. It is fair to question whether pundits, journalists, and political commentators support this brand of politics or hinder it. If the former is true, then political reporting supports the dialogue by reflecting the public will and/or the positions of duly elected/nominated representatives. If the latter is true, then political reporting can become nothing more than the management of information for the purpose of self-interest. In other words, it can become a form of propaganda (ref. Webster’s Dictionary, “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause”). Certainly, political operatives (e.g. campaign managers, press spokesmen, etc.) often excel in this form of politicking. Unfortunately, the “free” press too often provides them a megaphone for the controversial spin or allegation that might capture the public’s attention. Who can resist such coinage as “Governor Moonbeam,” “flip-flopper,” “leading from behind,” or “great communicator,” however misrepresentative these terms may be? For example, was Jerry Brown affected by the full moon when he promoted more sustainable development decades ago or was he just ahead of his time? Though it is true that Mitt Romney advocated his approach to mandated healthcare in Massachusetts for the rest of the nation, did he ever specify it should be a Federal program? Why is “leading from behind” not considered leadership? (Many NFL quarterbacks would beg to differ with the implication of this oxymoron.) And how well did President Reagan communicate his role in the Iran-Contra affair to justify his famous moniker (to paraphrase, “I don’t remember . . .”)? In this context, labels, tag lines, spin, and misnomers like “personhood” or “race baiting” are no more than self-serving propaganda. You may disagree with the terms I “labeled” as misnomers. But do your really believe there is conscious awareness in a zygote? Or do you not see a blind bigotry in any attempt to suppress dialogue on racial issues? If I’m right, then we are all being subject to the tyranny of propaganda where rhetoric subverts meaning.

In Russia, Putin has done a masterful job of controlling the press. He has cleverly used the rhetoric of nationalism as justification for his foreign invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. In order to gain some measure of international support for his policies, he has even established news organizations in America and Europe. Propaganda, after all, has always been one of the tools of tyrants, along with military power and suppression of opposition parties. In America, the news media has too often succumbed—perhaps unwittingly–to the lure of this same device. Following the example of Madisen Avenue, it has applied the mechanisms of word association, out-of-context snapshots, rhetorical hyperbole, and technical wizardry to illicit an unconscious acquiescence from a public mesmerized by presentation rather than substance. These mechanisms can be harmless, even trivial when used merely to attract readers or improve ratings. But applied to politics, they become as subversive as any propaganda waged by tyrants (ref. “Why Fable News?”). Oddly, this form of propaganda is generally anti-government because it reports “scandals” before evidence of such, policy opposition without debate, provocative statements taken out of context, and a laser-like focus on government shortfalls in lieu of subsequent remedies or successes. At times it seems the fifth estate has sold out its journalistic credentials to a kind of mindless propaganda. Although the intent may not be subversive, the result is the same: an inattentive public is lured into disgust and apathy.

Sound bites, catch phrases, and provocative insinuations may win an audience, but they do not make for substantive reporting. And the gross propagandizing of political issues does not alleviate or clarify a contentious debate. In fact, the only winner in this debate is ignorance; and the loser, democracy.