Press, influence and manipulation (1/2)

Listen

In 2001, France was honored with a world first: the release of the first so-called "triple-play" offer, ie high-speed Internet, telephone and television. Extraordinary thing, from a simple telephone socket, I now receive more than 200 television channels, mostly foreign. The sight of national channels having already been unbearable for me for a long time, I enjoy receiving “information” and points of view from all over the world. In this pivotal period, where the United States is bringing us into the era of the "war against terrorism", I have the opportunity to carry out a comparative media watch. Who talks about what and how, what is highlighted or on the contrary hidden. At that time, these media were still emerging, due to a lack of development of distribution channels, but would increase in power considerably during the 2000s. They followed a pattern geared towards "continuous information", pioneered by CNN (from 1980) , but largely embellished with cultural programs and reports. From the patient study of these media for two decades, I have seen the repetition of certain techniques and methods universally employed in the manipulation of “information”. In this first part, I do not intend to draw up an inventory of these methods, nor to make an abstract technical analysis of them, but simply to recount some events which I have witnessed, leaving it to the reader to extrapolate on what he has seen, sees and will see in the media. There will be nothing very revolutionary for those already initiated into critical analysis. have the objective of influencing public opinion and recovering its bet. The Emir of Qatar did not spend billions to launch Al Jazeera out of sheer philanthropy, to entertain the audience, or to "inform" them. Nor is it enough to put billions on the table to have any influence. The first task of a channel is to have viewers. This phase of conquest of the public is crucial for the profitability of the investment. Thus, I will take as examples Al Jazeerra English, Euronews, or more recently RT.

In its early days, Al Jazeera was a "refreshing" channel. And even more its declination in English (2006). The Qataris have bought a "turnkey" media, qualified technicians, polished infographics, and above all charismatic program owners, recruited all over the world, and often already having a reputation as refined intellectuals in the Anglo-Saxon world. . Excellent cultural programs on varied and often original subjects. A cinema section, led by a charming blonde, does not hesitate to make fun of the box office dwarfs with the utmost politeness and the most subtle irony. Interviews with actors talk about philosophy as much as about cinema, it's really rewarding to attend these sets, both for the interviewee and for the spectator. The reports open up an unprecedented window on the world, with empathy and humanity. We cry in the cottages, listening to the sadness and melancholy of a young Indonesian girl, torn from her dreams of emancipation and personal development when she had to leave school to support her family by working. Another novelty, for the first time, you hear long interviews with characters you know but who have never had the opportunity to express themselves. Thus, a report on Hamas, during which its leader, Ishmael Haniyeh, recounts calmly, with humor and melancholy, his memories of struggle, the memory of fallen comrades. He tells how a member of the organization began to tinker with rockets with the means at hand. Simple firecrackers at first, his comrades affectionately laugh at him: "well, if it amuses him". Then the rockets start going further and further and precisely. All are stupid, in front of the report that the tinkerings of the comrade offer a means of pressure on the Zionist enemies, who will become the spearhead of the strategy of the group. to speech. The spectator is in no way locked in an ideological bubble: colonels of the Zionist occupation army, members of the American administration are invited to react, in the same way as officials of the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Saudis... The channel gives everyone a voice, and organizes real contradictory debates, without deciding itself, without taking sides. It gradually captures the audience frustrated to hear only the American-Zionist point of view in the rest of the Western media, tired of unilateralism and bias.

But, according to the consecrated expression of this other continuous news channel, that of the Presipauty of Groland: "And suddenly, it's the drama".

How to recognize signs of anorexia in young girls http://t.co/kAB3uMLTRE via @themesnap

— Louise McDermott Mon Dec 01 14:00:08 +0000 2014

The time for return on investment has come. The Emir of Qatar has entertained you for years, now you have to checkout. In 2011, it was the “Arab Spring”, a great upheaval orchestrated by the movements supported and financed mainly by Qatar. And there, pluralism, contradictory debates, all that disappears. "Operation Flag" loop. In Libya, images are filmed and broadcast of bands of shaggy and scruffy “soldiers”, wearing flip-flops and armed with disparate guns. On the other hand, they all have a brand new flag in their hands, the old flag of the country, from before Gaddafi, which disappeared 50 years ago. Where do these flags come from? Same phenomenon in Syria. In prime time, Al Jazeera broadcasts images of "spontaneous revolts" in the south of the country, in Deraa. The image is shaky, to look like “filmed on a mobile phone” in complete spontaneity, often blurred, rarely clear, then distorted by pixelation. Amateur work, uncontrolled live. But here, the same mystery: in a country where there is no online store, not even Amazon, that can deliver anything, in a country where the Internet is underdeveloped, how do the brave villagers we sees assembled in a square have they been able to obtain magnificent brand-new flags in the colors of a country that does not exist? How did these modestly dressed peasants acquire these dozens of shimmering pieces of cloth?

There followed a constant feeding of the artificial "Sunni-Shiite" conflict, the use of all the fashionable expressions and qualifiers in the West, Bashar Al-Assad: "he kills his own people", the "butcher of Damascus and other variations on an alleged Shiite plot. The channel has conscientiously built up a credibility, a clientele, then used it to justify and legitimize the political operations of its masters... Same phenomenon with Euronews. In 2004, I chat with colleagues over lunch. The question comes: what media do you follow? For my part, I answer: “a bit of everything, but I like Euronews, their neutrality in the journalistic approach”. A year later, I would not have said the same thing. As for Al Jazeera, in these blessed phases of audience capture, it is the triumph of pluralism, freedom of expression and non-partisanship. Then comes the backlash, or return on investment. In this case, it already concerned Syria, but in a previous episode. Following the assassination of Rafiq Hariri in 2005, then Lebanese Prime Minister, an intense media campaign accused Syria of being responsible: "Syria pointed the finger", according to the expression consecrated at the time. Before any investigation, and without any historical reminder, the culprit is unilaterally designated. The Syrians, in charge of securing Lebanon since the end of the civil war in the country, are asked to leave the field. What they will do. A year later, the Zionist entity launched a large-scale operation (messed up) against Lebanon, aiming to “destroy the capacities of Hezbollah”. Euronews suddenly ceases its commitment to neutrality. Another affair which rises in these years, the “Iranian file”. It is a veritable all-out smear campaign that is beginning against the Islamic Republic. Ignored or almost for 10 years, Iran returns to the forefront of the pro-Western media scene. Oppressed minorities, condition of women, weapons of mass destruction, everything goes. This thousand-year-old nation-civilization, scarred by 8 years of war imposed between 1980 and 1988 by Saddam Hussein, then a great friend of the West and defender of progressive values, armed and supported by the free world, including in the form of supply of chemical weapons, which it will use extensively. Saddam was “rewarded” by the same in 2003, by the destruction of Iraq, then his execution. it is apparently the turn of Iran from the years 2005-2006. Not a single evening without the French housewife being warned of the "imminent" danger of the "Mullahs' regime". Comic strips, animated films, poignant testimonies in political-variety shows... It's time for democracy to triumph. One morning, I watch Euronews, a report on Iran. Interview of Iranian students, veiled: the image is black, we can only make out a white spot which serves as their face, animated by convulsions as they make remarks in support of Iranian sovereignty against the "values ​​of the West”. They seem to live underground. Following plan, the interview of a young “dissident”. Background of lush plants, beautiful light that makes her red-colored hair, blue and fuchsia clothes glow. A few days later, broadcast on Euronews of a conference by Ayatollah Khamenei, head of state (but not of the government) of Iran. Same observation: the Iranians do not have light bulbs, and apparently live underground: it is as dark as an oven. The ayatollah speaks: glaucous voice, with a strong echo, particularly sinister. It is dark, we only see his white beard and his face, cut by a turban that is also black. Creepy. The same minute, I zap on an Iranian channel now censored on my box. Same event, but amazement: the Ayatollah does not speak in a dark room but on a blue background, and he is surrounded by superb floral arrangements. And Iranian sound engineers are not morons, his voice is clear and warm, no sinister echo. Conclusion: the free world, led by Euronews, has deliberately tampered with the images, by forcing the contrast all the way to darken any image relating to Iran, and has even taken the luxury of adding echo to the sound, to create an “Adolf 1930s” atmosphere. Long live democracy, long live the free world, long live free and independent journalism...

The RT case is quite similar in trajectory. Although very old, it has had a notable start in recent years. In its English version, the editorial line takes up Soviet recipes: it is a question of showing the contradictions of the West. Every time three pecnots hold up a sign in New York, there is an RT camera to publicize them. The reports on the United States essentially show the social misery of the proletariat. Those on Russia, on the other hand, never address this issue, although drug addiction, prostitution and violence are notoriously widespread. It's fair game, you will say to me, of course, but the paradoxical side of the thing is that, on a Russian channel, you will learn more about the United States than about Russia... The arrival of RT France in 2017 was a breath of fresh air in the French audiovisual sector. Dissident voices, plurality, quality reports, and “alternative” information, all the ingredients for capturing viewers are there. A fairly neutral editorial line in the treatment of information, except, and this is quite legitimate, when it comes to questions related to the international situation. Their coverage of the "yellow vests" phenomenon was particularly remarkable, in comparison with their competitors. The only space that escaped denigration, RT sided with the people. The channel can legitimately be considered the best French-language audiovisual media. Unfortunately, the beautiful story ends with the coronacircus. More editorial originality, RT France applies all the ingredients of misinformation that gave birth to this "crisis" and participates in spreading collective hysteria. Indeed, this massive campaign of manipulation was noticeable from the start. For a very simple reason: before anyone had access to figures, the media in unison engaged in disaster mode. The catastrophe was there before anyone could have an informed and scientific opinion, based on reality. The media, including RT, threw figures at us, without any context, without any analysis and putting into perspective in relation to the previous years. We had to wait for the mortality curves to suggest, deceptively, that an exceptional phenomenon had occurred for the journalists to show them. Throughout the first part of the affair, until May, the public had to be content with a "raw" figure of deaths per day, which was perfectly uninterpretable. Another sleight of hand still in effect: the number of cases. Knowing that the virus remains about two weeks in the body before disappearing, constantly accumulating and without time limit the number of "infected", this figure, the "number of cases" means absolutely nothing, it is a pure mathematical monstrosity. But it has the advantage of “going big”. The hype of alarmist titles: "Death of a 16-year-old girl in Belgium", forgetting to specify that she had lived, so to speak, in the hospital since her birth, suffering from multiple serious pathologies. Parade of "poignant testimonies" and other "cries of alarm" ... Comes the inevitable "Raoult affair". In the IHU video entitled "Coronavirus, analysis of epidemic data in the world: diagnosis must be the priority", at 1 minute, the professor shows and explains why the coronavirus is nothing exceptional, that its mortality is quite comparable to known pathogens, and why one must always observe the overall mortality to judge a phenomenon. At 3 minutes 8 seconds, I quote: “We have to stop telling things that terrify people”. Strangely, the press then fell in love with chloroquine, and launched as it knows how to do, "polemics around the miracle cure", waves of off-topic palaver and animation of amateur fights, suddenly transfigured into pharmacopoeia experts. To divert a well-known maxim: "When Professor Raoult points to the mortality curve, the idiot is looking at chloroquine".

Same observation for a later video. RT France journalists produce an article that links to the video entitled “Coronavirus: Acknowledgments, Toxicity of Treatments, Mortality”. Main information that the article extracts: the departure of the professor from the strategic council and a few remarks on chloroquine. However, at 5 minutes, 20 seconds, he analyzes the dangerousness of the virus and reiterates his comments on the literally banal nature of the new coronavirus. Information, which, in the light of the media hysteria and the totally misperceived perception that follows in the public, should he appear as the main subject of the interview? Nay. The article begins with this sentence: “Professor Raoult, who does not hesitate to take decisions against government directives to treat the epidemic, will no longer go to the scientific council, which does not correspond to the idea that it is made up of “strategic advice”. Leaving a kind of doubt hanging over the ego of the professor, who would have his own ideas about what strategic advice is. But at 1 minute 4 seconds, the professor says: “the advice does not correspond to what I think is a DUTY of strategic advice”. The word "duty" having escaped the ear of the journalist, the meaning of the sentence is changed. Indeed, those who have been consultants know that the "duty to advise" is an expression that we use when honesty obliges us to say something that the client of the consultation does not want to hear... Thanks to all these methods, the media were able to manufacture “raoulards” and “anti-raoulards”, while making them tear themselves apart on a related subject. This is more generally the role of the press these days. Create antagonistic and irreconcilable camps around irrelevant topics. Same technique with Trump against Biden, Putin against the West, etc. The audience is divided into two equivalent and symmetrical forces which cancel each other out. Conclusion of the article: some suggestions. Stop participating in the “circular flow of information”. When a media puts information in front of you that revolts you, think above all that it is the desired goal, it is a manipulation technique like any other. Check the source, whenever possible, don't settle for press summaries. Do not follow the hierarchy of subjects that the press imposes. Know how to read between the lines and analyze the semantic content of a statement, what words are used, what the vocabulary suggests. Spot the recurrence of particular expressions, which are in fact propaganda “slogans”. Don't feel obligated to side with the camps that the press fabricates. Think that the suggestion effect is a weapon whose use is generalized, it is not a question of lying, but of ensuring that the information delivered is misinterpreted.