Divide and Conquer 101: "Dem leaders rally behind anti-abortion rep in tough primary contest"
Confused by all the political propaganda? You don't need to be. Doing a close reading of the news is just like doing a close reading of any text. You do not have to feel helpless when the GOP or the Kremlim bombards you with their carefully crafted message, one designed to push your buttons and make you act like a Fembot from Austin Powers. You can learn how to be an active rather than a passive reader.
Lesson one:
This article is from the Hill. It was linked in todays Latest Threads. It was written by Mike Lillis. I do not know who picked the title, so I am not going to accuse Mr. Lillis of being part of the Republican conspiracy to divide and conquer the Democratic Primary. He may just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time with the kind of story that Putin and the KGB need right now. A story that goes "Democratic Party Centrists are so power mad that they are selling out the interests of (insert important member of the Democratic base)." Since most of the damage from a story like this is done by the title--people do not actually read the article attached, this story is a feather in the cap of some editor at the Hill and maybe in the cap of the author himself. I am not going to commit on that without reviewing Lillis body of work as whole ( I will save that for later). Maybe he is another John Solomon. Maybe he is just some dude. However, in the all important first paragraph ,Lillis/his editor anoints the opposition candidate as "anti-bullying" which, in today's climate is like calling her the Virgin Mary which makes Nancy Pelosi (see the second most important, last paragraph) the Whore of Babylon for violating her principles and supporting an anti-abortion candidate. How do you feel about a journalist/editor calling Pelosi the Whore Babylon? Remember, subtext counts, often more than the spoken text.
But enough of that. This post is not about Lillis/his editor. It is about that annoying article title. This thread is meant to be a quick exercise in recognizing political propaganda and responding to it in the appropriate way--which is to condemn the source of the propaganda, not spread its divide and conquer message.
Anytime you see an article like this linked in Latest, I strongly recommend taking a step back and asking yourself "Why were these words chosen?" The article title is never chosen at random. Someone did this on purpose. And our job as Democratic is to stop these kinds of dirty tricks in their tracks.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377660-dem-leaders-rally-behind-lipinski-in-tough-primary-contest
A quick word about propaganda pieces. Many readers will only see the title. A smaller number will only read the first and last paragraphs. This is where you will find the propaganda. Often, seemingly reputably writers will fill in the rest of the article with a lot of qualifiers and "nothing is black and white, everything is shades of gray can't we all just get along some of my best friends are Black, gay, handicapped...."---but the meat and potatoes, the take away point will be in the title and first and last paragraphs. And once again, a well intentioned author can have his work butchered by the editor, so I cant really blame Mr. Lillis unless he does this over and over.
= new reply since forum marked as read
