CPI: THE FORERUNNERS OF CENSORSHIP

"We must listen carefully to the questions that our neighbors are asking, and we must ask ourselves whether these questions could be subverting the security of our youn men in uniform," said Ewen from House of Truth. Also he said, " These are questions constantly whispered by Germans sympathizers, openly asked by many others who simply do not understand."
The CPI was started by President Woodrow Wilson to help sell the idea of America going into WW1. There main job was to mass persuade the audience to help with the effort. Through their efforts they made advancements in advertisement, motion pictures, etc. They had their claws into every mass media and perhaps made it better. The bad side is they made it possible for the government to censor people. They knew how to sto[p the newspapers, prevent other movies that went against their views. They even had a network of spies that helped promote their idea and spied on their neighbor. In the end, the CPI was started by people who was a gainst corruption, but they made it posssible for people to corrupt their syste,, aka Macarthism.

"A war for Liberty and Humanity"

"It is a proud banner, which stands the whole world over for freedom and
humanity with few stains of defeat or injustice upon its folds. The great heart
of the nation has swelled with pride at the righteousness of the cause in whose
aid it is now advancing."

During a time of war the country comes together. There is a sense of nationalism that overpowers society. America stands as the country that comes to the aid of other countries in a time of need.

William Mckinley

Acoording to William McKinley, "It is sometimes hard to determine what is best to do and the best thing to do is oftentimes the hardest. The prophet of evil would do nothing because he flinches at sacrifice and effort, and to do nothing is easiest and involves the least cost."

In reference to the Spanish American war and america's move into the Phillipines, it is my opinion that former President McKinley feels that it was the best decision for America to interfere with the structure of the Phillipenes. And that it would be almost cowardly if the U.S .minded their own business just because it would cost less. But the U.S. would never do that no, not if we could benefit in some shape or form from it.

"The Future of the Philipino Islands is in the hands of the American People"
He goes on to refer to a ratified treaty which gives the executive department of our government the responsibility of preseving peace and protecting life and property as well as gives the fillipinos a "guiding hand" and influences them to liberization and uplifting education. He refers to them as free and enfranchised so that now they would look upon the U.S. as their emanicipators. Our government isn't included in the population of the phillipines yet we control the preservation of peace, life and property and the filipinos should see us as their "american emanicipators" and not their "american masters".
It sounds as If as their "emancipators" we just set them free from a group of people who probably felt they were doing the same thing.

Remaining Loyal to the Foundations of the US

In Carl Schurz's article Imperialism Hostile to Liberty, he believesd that the United States violated it's own beliefs by staying in the Philippines and not handing the government over to the people of the Philippines. He calls this "criminal aggression" and disloyal to the people of the United States.

The Spanish-American War, although fought internationally, created a national dispute within the United States. There were those who believed, like Schurz, the US should have not been in the Philippines. America was founded on the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Another of our nations foundations is the idea that governments receive their power from the consent of the people. By staying in the Philippines we contradicted our own foundations and natural rights. But there are those who believed that being in the Philippines were helpful to both the Philippines and the United States (economically). The "savages" of the Philippines would have an opportunity to be civilized and the US would have a new market to sell it's goods and earn more capital. These two different ideals created a divide in Americans, which Schurz compared to the Civil War.

"The attempt of 1861 was to divide the country. That of 1899 is to destroy its
fundamental principles and noblest ideals"

What Burden??

I hope I'm not taking the poem for face value but I interpret it to mean that the white man's job is to take over countries and make them better. Even though they do all of that work, the people in the imperialized nation are ungrateful and other nations are jealous and judgmental.
"Through all the thankless years
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!"
I feel as though, the burden is by choice. I don't see any nation begging to be seized. The white man is complaining about not being thanked but no one asked for their help and a lot of the time, they do more harm than good anyway. The reason they are helping these nations are for their own benefit. They wouldn't be sending their sons and the best of their people to fight for the good of others.

William J. Bryan on Imperialism

" I may be in error, but I believe our nation is in greater danger just now than Cuba. Our people defended Cuba against foreign arms; now they must defend themselves and their country against a foreign idea- the colonial idea of European nations. The imperialistic idea is directly antagonistic to the idea and ideals which have been cherished by the American people since the signing of the Declaration of Independence."

Imperialism is something that was not for the United States and it was something that they had tried to avoid by signing the Declaration of Independence, as stated by William J. Bryan. Imperialism was an ideal that didn't go well with the American people and not only were we trying to protect and defend Cuba, but now the American people were to also look after themselves and their country as they were going against an idea that not only didn't appeal to them, but was the complete opposite that they know as a people and as a country.

Primary Documents #7: Far From Home

On the first page of our packet, Primary Documents, we encounter a paragraph that goes on to state the following:

"In the democratic age, wars can not be fought without the public's consent. Then, as now, Americans had to be convinced to conquer strange countries, to pay for war overseas and die in far away lands. Through public speeches, newspapers and magazines the case was made for supporting American intervention, with appeals made less to reason and more to public emotion. But this was contested terrain, and the same media were used to argue against US imperialism as well."

Now, I know this paragraph was already done by another student but, after I had read this, I had to write about it because I whole heartedly agree with that other student. I belive that we as a public have no say what so ever in what happens in war and in deciding if a war were to take place. That is all based on who has the money and the power and who can make the final decision and if that person wants to go to war, then we are going to go to war, whether it be the popular decision or not.

Imperialism Hostile to Liberty

In the speech given by Carl Schurz in Chicago, October 18, 1899 he demands that the public binds together and does not allow the United States to take an imperialist's role in the world. He lectures that:

"The United States has always protested against the the doctrine of international law, which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong. A self-governing state cannot accept sovereignty over an unwilling people. The United States cannot act upon the ancient heresy, that might makes right."

This country could actually use a speech like this one today. The Iraq War we are in now shows how the United States (or more accurately, the leaders of the United States) has turned their backs on their beliefs a hundred years ago. The line that stuck out the most was the second one about the unwilling people. It is similar to the cliche, you cannot help someone who does not want to be helped. We have had a long history of helping countries in need, but where did we cross that thin line?

Imperialism By William Jennings Bryan

Imperialism By William Jennings Bryan
(The Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz…A man who has a “loud roar” but no political power)

“Our people defended Cuba against foreign arms; now they must defend themselves and their country against a foreign idea-the colonial idea of European nations”

Bryan is arguing against imperialism, he is fearful of the United States intentions in Latin America and the Orient. He uses statements from Lincoln and Jefferson to justify his argument, he is fearful of the U.S. occupation, “conquest” and subjugation of different races. He oddly enough believed we should be “compensated” with bases in all these countries. He felt we should be free from European Imperialism. He also felt we should annex “Porto Rico” because “they didn’t want to rule themselves” but felt we should not have anything to do with the Philippines. His flawed argument tries to steer the public against imperialism but for intervening in foreign affairs and considers the annexation of Puerto Rico as justifiable because they are close to us, but the Philippines not because it’s too far away.

E. L. Godkin

"Newspapers are made to sell; and for this purpose there is nothing better than war. War means a daily sensation and excitement. On this almost any kind of newspaper may live and make money. Whether the war brings victory or defeat makes little difference. The important thing is that in war every moment may bring important and exciting news--news which does not need to be ACCURATE or bear sifting."

After reading this I was shocked but at the same time I realized how true it was. I think that it is horrible that things like this could be true the first thing is that "news which does not need to be ACCURATE or bear sifting." that to me just makes me not want to trust the media I think that if I am reading something or watching I would rather be told the truth then given false hope or made to believe that I am safe when in fact I am in danger on so many different levels.

The next part that made me really think was "Whether the war brings victory or defeat makes little difference" to me that makes little sence because depending on the war and the cause and effect of the war dont you think that say if it was WWII again and hitler took over the United States do you really believe that we would have a free press like we do now? I mean i think that the out come of the war does matter.

GOD Fearing Rican's...

" No imperial designs lurk in the American mind. They are alien to American Sentiment, thought and purpose." Alien to American sentiment!!! Now as these soilder march along the coast, and into the cities of Puerto Rico they dont Plan to eat the children of these god fearing people! NOooooo.....they've only come to take away their government, and their livellihood. "our military forces have come to occupy your preety little garden. The first effect of this occupation is the severance of your former easy manner of eanring a liveihoodand the establishment of our capatilists. The sole object of our presence will b eto overthrow all your old and time-honered customs,..." NoooooooooOOoooo..... Of course America is anti-imperlist nation..... Even though the plan was to take over Puerto Rico over, the plan was simply for our nation to take over this smaller nation economically, socially, and politically. So Those Puerto Ricans had one thing to do. Hold on to all they could grab.... and watch as our good nation showers this little nation with their imperalist blessings!!!!!

U.S Big Brother or Big Bully?

" We proceeded to distribute propaganda in the form of circulars amongst the people, telling them how good and holy we were and that, we had only come to take away their good government and make them work like the devil all the rest of their days: they had no intentions of eating their children, in fact canibalism had been abolished in our country some time since, and that we were going to set them an example of Godly snd upright living." (The Porto Rican Campaign)

Since the start of the United States this country is suppose to be the right way to live. The only problem with that is that who are we as Americans to say the way we think and run things is right? There is a differnce going into a country and taking their main natural recources and goods, and going and help a country which is in need. History shows that the U.S tends to go to smaller countries and take what we need and not really care about that country. That can be Using recources, putting our army there, taking or exporing products etc.Yes we do help countries we don't always just use them, but who are we to say if a country needs our help or not if they don't ask.
"The sole object of our presence will be to overthrow all your old and time-honored customs, and give to the people of your beautiful island, the largest amount or work and the smallest pay consistent with military occupation. We have not come to make war upon you, but on the contrar, to protect you and your property for our rich beholders and speculators" (The Porto Rican Campaign)

I feel like this is happening now with the whole thing in Iraq. I feel like this is the reason many countries around the world hate us. It's not just because they envy what we have but they don't want us to go and supposedly HELP their country. By helping them we might cripple them in the long run.

I Disagree

"In the democratic age, wars can not be fought without the publics consent". I disagree with this statement that was from Primary documents:Far From Home. I think as we can plainly see back in 2003 when President Bush announced we were going to war with Iraq, this was not the case. Plenty of Americans protested that war, yet it went on anyway. I think that the people in charge make the decisions and the common, middle class taxpayers pay for it. As of now our deficit just keeps increasing and we keep printing out more money. This makes the dollar value go down and makes it even harder for people who were just getting by. Anyway not to get off the topic, people have always protested America going into war since the beginning. Vietnam was a very big example of radical sixties protesters pouring their heart and soul into their cause flooding the streets of Washington in an effort to get America out. If it were true that a war could not be fought without the publics consent then we would not be in Iraq right now. It cannot work that way because if the President needed everyone's consent, nothing would ever get done.

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman Manufacturing Consent

“A propaganda model focuses on inequality in wealth and power and its effects on mass-media.” while was reading this article i could not help but think how true that this was I think that Chomsky and Herman make great points about how the media is such a huge tool for propaganda after reading this article it made me think of a movie that i had watched "Out Foxed" about the owner of Fox tv network and how his station is able to drive home each message that they want the viewer to understand. I think that this would be something for people to watch if they do not believe that the media is controling factor in propaganda.

Imperialism-Its Dangers and Wrongs

Imperialism-Its Dangers and Wrongs by Samuel Gompers

"If the Philippines are annexed what is to prevent the Chinese, the Negritos and the Malays coming into our country?"

This quote is one of Gompers' main arguments. He fears that if the United States expands into the Pacific and annexes the Philippines, then the Philippines would be a gateway for the "Chinese and the semi-savage races" to come into our country. Gompers greatest fear was that the Chinese would "swarm into the United States" and "engulf" our civilization.

Another point that Gompers makes is if the United States were to force themselves onto the Philippines, "how many lives shall we take?" Gompers seems to be against installing a government in the Philippines through violence. He questions if there will be any sympathy in the United States for the killings in the Philippines. He finishes his speech by saying that the "semi-savages" in the Philippines have the same natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"I saw what was left" from primary documents

In the article entitled, "I saw what was left", posted in the New York
World on May 26, 1896, it is stated,

"all the bodies have been stabbed by sword bayonets and hacked by sabers until I could not count the cuts: they were indistinguisable."

This quote describes the physical conditions that soldiers were left in
during the Spanish American War. These bodies were left in such terrible conditions, with cut off ears and split open mouths, leaving it impossible to be able to tell anyone apart. It can be said, that this article is being used to convey the point that the human brutality that was taking place during this war was unexplicable in a nation that was supposedly a well disciplened and civilized nation. In short, this wtiter is saying that something had to be done immediatly to stop this brutality because what was left were lifeless bodies which endured physical brutality that was beyond inhumane.

MEMORANDUM

MEMORANDUM
from the desk of
Frederick Emory
Chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce

In this memorandum, chief Emory was speaking in regards to the question if the media caused the War of 1898.
Emory states that the war was due to financial interests in the West Indies and South America that the sinking of the USS Maine and the press had nothing to do with the decision to go to war. This memorandum was issued in 1902 just a few years following the war, and was used to downplay the presses influence over government policy. Emory clearly wants people to believe that the only reason for war was the protection of American interests abroad and to open up markets for U.S. resources.

Although the main reason behind the war does seem to be what Emory states you cannot discount the power of the Junto and yellow press during the war. Especially considering how many sessions of our government included references to articles printed in the papers and how public opinion was calling for war. Also from the beginning President McKinley stated he did not want war yet even after Spain gives in he chooses to ask congress to go to war anyway, in part due to public pressure according to many historians.

The Conquest of the United States by Spain

The Conquest of the United States by Spain by William Graham Sumner

“The great foe of democracy now and in the near future is plutocracy. Every year that passes brings out this antagonism more distinctly.”(1, Sumner)

The definition of a plutocracy is as follows; A plutocracy is a form of government where the state's power is centralized in an affluent social class. The degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low.

This summarizes Sumners argument the best, he feared that the imperialism and expansionism that began to take place in the United States following the War of 1898 would lead to the end of democracy. He foolishly believed that the United States would have been able to sustain as a democratic system without the military actions and expansions we took in the beginning of the 20th century. He also seemed to state that there would be a elite ruling class and everyone else would suffer and be poor if we allowed “militarism and imperialism” to take place. He implies that Spain actually won the war because he thinks that ultimately our victory will lead to a loss of democracy in the end.

The Growth and Expansion of Public Opinion: The Fine Line of Entertainment and War.

"The Growth and Expansion of Public Opinion" by E.L. Godkin was written in January 1898, over a hundred years ago. It's interesting that it still holds water today. War is exciting so who cares about peace. War is entertaining to the public. Peace is not entertaining. Godkin wrote,

"Newspapers are made to sell; and for this purpose there is nothing better than war. War means a daily sensation and excitement. On this almost any kind of newspaper may live and make money. Whether the war brings victory or defeat makes little difference. The important thing is that in war every moment may bring important and exciting news--news which does not need to be ACCURATE or bear sifting."

Accuracy is not important 100 years ago, nor is it that important now. It is not a hard concept--more exciting news does sell more. Accuracy is not revered when it comes to capitalism. Excitement sells newspapers not valid information or peaceful times. It is not that surprising considering that humility and leud behavior is what we as a society find entertaining and the topic of conversations. It is most interesting when people make fools of themselves on the media and the media just loves to exaggerate it. That is what sells. Selling and making money is way more important the truth and peace. Entertaining and selling newspapers are way more important than loved ones and innocent people getting killed because of war. With war, there is entertainment everyday.

Washington's Better Part Speech

Booker T. Washington's speech at the Chicago Peace Jubilee in 1898 remains true to Washington's style of appeasing the white oppressors rather than demanding the basic civil rights that were absent from African Americans until the 1960's. In his speak, Washington of Blacks making wise choices by in many cases choosing the best of who worst options. He states:
"When in the childhood of this nation the negro was asked to submit to slavery or choose death and extinction as did the aborigines, he choose the better part, that which perpetuated the race."
Washington also states that Black Americans have long been at the side of its (in my opinion) evil step-father, and being victorious in ever endeavors such helping defeat the British and the Spanish but America had yet to conquer the issue of "racial prejudice". Washington continues to say that "the black race shall not leave you unaided" but he never really demands for the racial equality that was lacking during his time and that to me is problematic.

Manufacturing Our Media

In "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media", Herman and Chomsky speak of how the elitist minority spread there propaganda by dominating the general publics means of entertainment and information amongst things and uses this outlet to spout there political views, moral beliefs and religious ideologies. As stated by Herman and Chomsky, these major media conglomerates work in a system of filters that assure there dominance over our everyday life, all while profiting in the process. They also state that although these corporations are separate entities, they work with one another to assure that they remain at the forefront of American media.

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent". In the beginning of this book they talk about the "filters" that are in the mass media. Herman said,

"The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters", fall under the following headings: (1) the size concentrated ownership, owner wealth and profit orientation of the dominate mass media firms, (2) advertising as the primary income source of new mass media, (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by the government, buisness, and experts funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power. (4) Flak as a meaning of disciplining the media and (5) anticommunism as a national religion and control
mechanism."

The information coming from the mass media sources are manipulated by the goals and agendas of the different organizations or shareholders of these media companies. There are twenty four companies that are large, profit seeking corporations that are owned and controlled by very wealthy people. It's shocking to think that these people might be manipulating the news and imposing their own agenda on the United States.

FRONTLINE: newswar preview site | PBS

FRONTLINE: newswar preview site | PBS

Frontline will be airing a new three part series about the conflict between the news industry and political power in America. Check out the preview site interviews. The series will begin tomorrow night on channel 13. You can also watch it online.

Here's the description from Frontline

"News War: Secrets, Sources & Spin (Part I)
Feb. 13, 2007 at 9pm
Correspondent Lowell Bergman examines the relationship between the Bush administration and the press; the controversies surrounding the use of anonymous sources from Watergate to the present; and the unintended consequences of the Valerie Plame investigation -- a confusing and at times ugly affair that ultimately damaged both reporters' reputations and the legal protections they thought they enjoyed under the First Amendment.

News War: Secrets, Sources & Spin (Part II)
Feb. 20, 2007 at 9pm
The series continues with a look at the legal jeopardy faced by a number of journalists. Correspondent Lowell Bergman interviews reporters facing jail for refusing to reveal their sources and asks how much the press can reveal about secret government programs in the war on terror without jeopardizing national security. FRONTLINE examines how much of this battle is politics and whether such reporting actually harms national security.

News War: What's Happening to the News
Feb. 27, 2007 at 9pm
(90 min) The third part of News War puts viewers on the front lines of an epic battle over the future of news. Correspondent Lowell Bergman talks to network executives, journalists, Wall Street analysts, bloggers, and key players at Google and Yahoo! who are all battling for survival and market dominance in a rapidly changing world of news. FRONTLINE also goes inside the embattled newsroom of The Los Angeles Times."

Ashamed to be from Texas?

Grammy Sweep by Dixie Chicks Is Seen as a Vindication - New York Times:
What is the relationship between the music industry, radio and war? The Dixie Chicks anti-Bush comments at concert in London resulted in a loss of air-time on country radio and angered the conservative Nashville country music establishment. The more liberal Grammy voters reacted to this shunning of the Dixie Chicks with 5 Grammy Awards. According to the Times:

"To some, the voting served not only as a referendum on President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, but also on what was perceived as country music's rejection--and radio's censorship--of the trio. "

Anti-war comments hurt the Dixie Chicks with some fans and attracted others. One part of the music industry tried to chill anti-war speech by making artists pay for dissent. Other parts of the industry market dissent and promote anti-war sentiments. Clearly the commercial music industry does not speak with one voice when it comes to the war and other controversial topics. What sells? War? Peace? Patriotism?

Check out the following image of a roadside sign and a couple of comments reacting to it posted on a Canadian blog

"Perfect. I needed that picture. I am a DJ at a country music station. We have been forbidden to play any Dixie Chicks for years now, by the very conservative station owner. Its getting really really old.

By Miss Cellania, at 11:30 PM

I miss hearing the Dixie Chicks on the radio but Natalie still shouldn't have said that. I don't like Bush but he still needs respect!

By spb, at 7:36 PM "

Manufacturing Consent

In Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman they talk about how "the monopolistic control over the media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the dominant elite." (1) This does not occur in all countries but the ones that it does occur has a five step propaganda model involved on page two of the chapter. The elite rich and powerful that do dominate the media have a great influence that trickles down on the employees. When this influence and censorship do trickle down they say employees "objectively" interpret the news so they feel that there is no outside influence effecting the stories or the truth which is not the case. (2)
Personally, even if there is outside influence because the elite can censor all outgoing news to the public does not mean that the employees realize what the situation really is. I do not think that people can just convince themselves that what they are judging and sending into society is right; to me they just want to ignore or be oblivious to the situation. The biggest problem is that in order to change the elite controlling society people would have to more than likely change government legislation and have the middle and lower classes in society have some financial help to do that. As Chomsky and Herman say the five filters are all connected and interwoven so that they support each other and the chance of change is slim to none. (2)

Primary Documents on the Spanish American War

The primary documents packet was a packet about peoples different views on the Spanish American War. The packet had Five main points.
1.) The first point is that the reason why it happenned was economics. The country was going into an inflation and they wanted to sell their items to a global market.
2.) The second point was the yellow journalism. Jounalist like William Hearst and Pulitzer were making big bucks selling papers with war headlines. Even though some of the facts could have been false.
3.) People had to sell the idea of fighting as a good thing. Eventhough the underlying though was imperialism.
4.) The misstreatment of peasent Spaniards during and after the fighting.
5.)Booker T Washington asking the question why African Americans were good enough to fight for their country, but not good enough for equal rights.

Herman & Chomsky

Curran and Seaton's analysis in Great Britain, "a radical press emerged that reached a national working class audience. It was effective in reinforcing class consciousness:it unified the workers because it "promoted a greater collective confidence by repeatedly emphasizing the potential power of working people to effect social change through the work force of 'combination' and organized action." This would let people increase their open mindedness about there jobs and stick together by being less selfish. Workers also were given costs by imposing taxes, and an expensive security bond as a condition for publication. There were made to drive out radical media by raising there costs. Curran and Seaton however, accomplished that the market did successfully. The taxes were repealed of the inflicting taxes from 1853-1869, and a new daily newspaper was established through the rest of the nineteenth century. This was a very dedicated radical press which has succeeded for a long time.

Imperialism and the White Man's Burden

"Take up the White Man's burden-
Send forth the best ye breed-
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild-
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child..."

Rudyard Kipling, 1899

The poet Rudyard Kipling was expressing the racist ideology of the "white man's burden" which was used to support the imperialistic thrust of the United States during the Spanish American War of 1898. The idea was that the inhabitants of the new colonies, the "half devil and half child," in this case, the Philippinos, needed the help and mothering of the wiser protector/mother, the United States. This was really just a rationalization for American imperialism.

The thinking behind the "white man's burden" is, by no means, an ideology of the past. Most times that the United States makes a move internationally, whether it be Viet Nam in the 1960s-70s, or Iraq in the present day, the move is backed up by the thinking of the "white man's burden." The United States takes on the role of the wise mother taking charge of her foolish ducklings, who are in need of some solid disciplining. The problem for the mother is that the ducklings often don't want to tow the line.

Chomsky & Herman on the Integration of Media into the Market System

According to professor's Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, the media has been getting more acclimated into the market systeam and rightfully so if it is to hope that it's propaganda will be addressed and advertised to the fullest.

"This trend toward greater integration of the media into the market system has been accelerated by the loosening of rules limiting media concentration, cross-ownership, and control by non-media companies. There has also been an abandonment of restrictions- previously quite feeble anyway- on radio-TV commercials, entertainment-mayhem programming, and "fairness doctrine" threats, opening the door to the unrestrained commercial use of the airwaves."

They are trying to say that with the integration of media into the market system has picked up and been easier as of late because of the loosening of the limits on what can and can not go over the air, in terms of promotion and advertising, making it more likely for more people and companies to get involved and promote by any means necessary.