Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Bush Administration Spent $1.6 billion on propaganda in the US (2003-05)

washingtonpost.com — How much is good press worth? To the Bush administration, about $1.6 billion.

Bury

msaleem 1 year 23 days ago, made popular 1 year 23 days ago

1649 diggs
digg it

135 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -6/+30Propaganda is put out by other cheaper means too. If much of the news today regards government a media outlet needs an avenue to tap into that source. The administration can simply offer more to those outlets that present a more favourable view on their actions; this in itself is both 'carrot and stick'. From a purely capitalist perspective it can be in a network's interest to align themselves more with the administration to ensure a more direct access to the source. A bit like, "I'll tell you a secret if you'll be my friend."

It is why it is invaluable to a democratic system for there to be an open and public question and answers session each week between politicians, ruled by a bipartisan chair, so even if the reporters can't ask the questions directly, those that form the opposition can on their behalf.
- SeethisPass, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16It's called information dominance.
  It is the reason Americans are all so confused about what's going on.
  I don't want my information falsified.
  Do you?
  - SeethisPass, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Many articles on the front page have far less Diggs.
    - mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I wonder how much Clinton actually spent to fool the public into believing he was a good Pres.
      - MalenfantX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are you saying Clinton paid to have Bush installed? Because Bush is why we look back on Clinton as a good president.
  - MrEguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It may also be referred to as the promulgation of disinformation.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation
- slipgrid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11They spent 1.6 billion, and it's not near enough to keep the truth back.
  - caferrell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Maybe not to us, but how many Americans are reading Digg?
    Most Americans believe the gross lies on Fox or the pro-war spin on CNN.
    Most Americans believe that the Patriot Act was enacted on order to keep them safe.
    Bush's propoganda is working just fine.
    It hurts deeply but its true.
    - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2True, people seem to think that for disinformation to work it needs to be all encompassing. It doesn't - in part it is enough to have it put out at alongside genuine information. People still won't know what to believe but as long as something endorses the Administration's line that is adequate for people to stay sheep and to continue to defer responsibility to the White House. If thinking is too hard, people are happy to let others do it for them.
- manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I don't think that counts in the free propaganda that he received from Fox.
  - MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6How do we even know it's free?
    
    I find it hard to believe that SOMEONE wasn't getting fat pockets from all the lies.
    - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Murdoch was. His business is media. You tow the party line, they give out massive tax cuts to those which you fall under and access to a rich source of administration officials which furthers business. Its a cycle of development. Unfortunately for Fox the cycle works in reverse too. Recently viewing figures, which post 9-11 had soared, have begun to slump. The idea of it being a propaganda network has propagated. As viewing figures decline the number of insightful reports, some even damning the administration, have begun to increase (don't laugh - they have been a stratling few in the last month). Fox is in the unusual position of being pulled into the centerground by capitalist free market forces. The market has a demand for truth meaning that Fox has to report more to the center at the same time Fox realises that much of its news comes from the Administration and so it wants to appease them. It is tearing itself down the middle. Either way it is bad news for Bill O'Reilly - either he keeps doing what he is doing and the country thinks he's a mouthpiece or he denounces the Administration and makes himself look like a hypocrite. Like Coulter his career is damned.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7My only problem with information like this and say, 2.3 trillion missing from the pentagon is that its always followed by a major event that makes it all worse. And because of that, i'm bracing myself.
  - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2When the market crashes they'll find the 2.3.
notque, on 10/10/2007, -11/+24The rest of the bewildered herd just has to be basically distracted. Turn their attention to something else. Keep them out of trouble. Make sure that they remain at most spectators of action, occasionally lending their weight to one or another of the real leaders, who they may select among.

This point of view has been developed by lots of other people. In fact, it's pretty conventional. For example, a leading contemporary theologian and foreign policy critic Reinhold Niebuhr, sometimes called "the theologian of the establishment," the guru of George Kennan and the Kennedy intellectuals and others, put it that "rationality is a very narrowly restricted skill." Only a small number of people have it. Most people are guided by just emotion and impulse.

Those of us who have rationality have to create necessary illusions and emotionally potent over-simplifications to keep the naive simpletons more or less on course. This became a substantial part of contemporary political science. In the 1920's and early 1930's, Harold Lasswell, the founder of the modern field of communications and one of the leading American political scientists, explained that we should not succumb to "democratic dogmatisms" about men being the best judges of their own interests. Because their not. We're the best judges of the public interests. Therefore, just out of ordinary morality, we have to make sure that they don't have the opportunity to act on the basis of their misjudgments.

In what is nowadays called a totalitarian state, then a military state, it's easy. You just hold a bludgeon over their heads, and if they get out of line you smash them over the head. But as society has become more free and democratic, you lose that capacity. Therefore you have to turn to the techniques of propaganda. The logic is clear. Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. That's wise and good because, again, the common interests elude the bewildered herd. They can't figure them out.
- wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6notque, I like most of what you post, but this is plagiarism unless you cite Noam Chomsky as the author. Not cool.
  
  edit: I see you posted more long articles with citations. I'm not trying to attack you, but anyone who disagrees with what you've posted is going to say your spamming the thread, and you pretty much are.
  - notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Apologies, I missed it. I often cite them, and occasionally move much too quickly. I will try to take more time and make sure that mistake doesn't occur.
    
    I am certainly not "spamming" the thread, however I am significantly going against Digg norms. Sometimes I get modded up while doing it. Other times I don't.
    
    The Information is contextually accurate to the article and important. It'd be different if I was posting large blocks of text on Propaganda in an article about the Iphone, although I do think it would increase the intellectual value of the iphone discussion :)
    - wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Fair enough. I do hope someone's listening.
      - notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I appreciate and respect your opinion as well. I understand I may alienate people who are generally supportive of my cause, but if a tactic that is not harmful to you is more important than the issue, then you're not on my side anyway.
        
        That wasn't to you, just a general expression.
  - notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5There are some rather interesting things in there if you take the time to look. like Reinhold Neibuhr is mentioned. Obama mentioned that is one of his favorite writers.
    
    Here's an article kind of spelling out what some of that means, and what happened. http://www.tnr.com/blog/openuniversity?pid=104944
    
    I talked about this issue on digg when it happened (you can look to the digg article on it if you like). It's pretty interesting to pay attention to these things.
    
    Yes, It's much longer than the normal digg comment. I get complaints when I type of responses that are too long. Things that are not cut and pasted.
    
    But ultimately I have a question to answer. Am i harming anyone? No. Is it important? Yes. Do people often see this stuff? No.
    
    So as someone who wants people to understand and to think about these issues, I need to keep them relevant. Thus when there's an article happening now, I want to bring up some context that will help people understand it. Obviously they will need to commit their own time to the issue, but if they don't even see it, they won't have the opportunity.
    
    You can look up my comments in one of the digg checkers and see that I respond in my own words often to a lot of people. I truly believe in this stuff, and think it's vital. My goal needs to be increasing awareness, and action from people which is why I pushed through and lobbied for a general strike.
    
    This is so critically important it demands our attention, and if it isn't wanted there is a simple way to deal with my nonstandard tactics. Digg it down.
    
    However, if the democracy of digg feels it's equally as important as i do, they should digg it up, and further HELP ME spread positive useful information that can help us organize, communicate, and foster change.
    
    It's like me handing you something on the street. You can throw it away (not read it), but that doesn't change the fact I'm going to hand it to you in the hopes that you do read it, do consider it, and start to act on it.
  - notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5One last thing, if we had an open, honest, and reasonable media you would see my views. Since we have a corporatized media, you don't. We have no worker's press in the United States. We used to.
    
    In a discussion about propaganda, it's useful to remember just how much people have to counter it. The Bush Administration spent 1.6 billion on propaganda from 03-05.
    
    I spent x% of my time countering it. I don't have 1.6 billion, so I have to do things like this.
notque, on 10/10/2007, -12/+13Support our troops - who can be against that, or yellow ribbons - who can be against that?

Anything that's totally vacuous and diverts, after all what does it mean to be in favor of .. suppose somebody asks, do you support the people in Iowa, can you say I support them or no I don't support them. It's not even a question it doesn't even mean anything. And that's the point of public relations slogans like support our troops is that they don't mean anything, they mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa.

Of course there was an Issue -- the issue was do you support our policy but you don't want people to think about the issue that's the whole point of good propaganda, you want to create a slogan that nobody is gonna be against and I suppose everybody will be for because nobody knows what it means because it doesn't mean anything, but it's crucial value is it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something. Do you support our policy and that's the one you're not allowed to talk about.

So you have people arguing about do I support the troops, of course I don't? etc and then you go on. That's like Americanism and harmony, we're all together, empty slogans that somehow join in and lets make sure we don't have all these bad people around who disrupt all of our harmony with their talk about class struggle and their rights and that sort of business. Well, that's all very effective, it runs right up to today and of course it is carefully thought out. You know the people in the PR industry aren't there for the fun of it, they're doing work, they're trying to instill the right values, infact they have a conception of what a democracy ought to be, it ought to be a system in which the specialized class are trained to do their work for the service of the masters, the people who own the society, and the rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization because organization just causes trouble.

They ought to be just sitting alone in front of the television set and having drilled into their heads daily the message which says the only value in life is to have more commodities, or to live like that rich middle class family you're watching and to have nice values like harmony and americanism and that's all there is in life. You may think in your own head that there's got to be something more in life than this but since you're watching the tube alone you assume I must be crazy because that's all that's is going on over there, and since there's no organization permitted, that's absolutely crucial, you never have a way of finding out whether you're crazy and you just assume it because it's the natural thing to assume. That's the ideal and great efforts were made into trying to achieve that ideal and there is a certain conception of democracy behind it.
- Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Wow Plagiarism.
  - notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I should have posted it's by Noam Chomsky. I was going way too fast, I will work towards avoiding that in the future.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not to be contrary, but I actually am against yellow ribbons. Those things piss me off to no end. If I want to support some cause(which I'm sure my taxes do already, not that I have a choice) I can do so without insisting everyone else know about it. What more, what of the ribbons a person doesnt buy? Do they not support victims of breast cancer because they didn't buy a pink ribbon too? Spreading informative messages to raise awareness and understanding of a cause is one thing. Wearing a meaningless colored cloth is quite another.
  
  I think I became so bitter about all this in my time living on campus and getting hounded by cancer fighting causes that insisted I was evil for not wearing one of their stupid ribbons. Sorry to digress.
  - notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't be sorry, I was interested in reading that. Thanks. I disagree, but I haven't had the same experiences, and I think it's just so important. But does it increase awareness? Interesting questions.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Just to be absolutely clear, that is a Quote from Noam Chomsky, Apologies for not listing that clearly. I often do if you are interested, my comment history is always available via a digg comment checker.
ramong, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10No wonder he hasn't been impeached, everyone is brain numb.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm
notque, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Propaganda by Edward Bernays

http://www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html

The invisible government tends to be concentrated in the hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses. To advertise on a scale which will reach fifty million persons is expensive. To reach and persuade the group leaders who dictate the public's thoughts and actions is likewise expensive.
For this reason there is an increasing tendency to concentrate the functions of propaganda in the hands of the propaganda specialist. This specialist is more and more assuming a distinct place and function in our national life.
New activities call for new nomenclature. The propagandist who specializes in interpreting enterprises and ideas to the public, and in interpreting the public to promulgators of new enterprises and ideas, has come to be known by the name of "public relations counsel."
The new profession of public relations has grown up because of the increasing complexity of modern life and the consequent necessity for making the actions of one part of the public understandable to other sectors of the public. It is due, too, to the increasing dependence of organized power of all sorts upon public opinion. Governments, whether they are monarchical, constitutional, democratic or communist, depend upon acquiescent public opinion for the success of their efforts and, in fact, government is only government by virtue of public acquiescence. Industries, public utilities, educational movements, indeed all groups representing any concept or product, whether they are majority or minority ideas, succeed only because of approving public opinion. Public opinion is the unacknowledged partner in all broad efforts.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5 EDUCATION is not securing its proper share of public interest. The public school system, materially and financially, is being adequately supported. There is marked eagerness for a college education, and a vague aspiration for culture, expressed in innumerable courses and lectures. The public is not cognizant of the real value of education, and does not realize that education as a social force is not receiving the kind of attention it has the right to expect in a democracy.
  It is felt, for example, that education is entitled to more space in the newspapers; that well informed discussion of education hardly exists; that unless such an issue as the Gary School system is created, or outside of an occasional discussion, such as that aroused over Harvard's decision to establish a school of business, education does not attract the active interest of the public.
  There are a number of reasons for this condition. First of all, there is the fact that the educator has been trained to stimulate to thought the individual students in his classroom, but has not been trained as an educator at large of the public.
  In a democracy an educator should, in addition to his academic duties, bear a definite and wholesome relation to the general public. This public does not come within the immediate scope of his academic duties. But in a sense he depends upon it for his living, for the moral support, and the general cultural tone upon which his work must be based. In the field of education, we find what we have found in politics and other fields—that the evolution of the practitioner of the profession has not kept pace with the social evolution around him, and is out of gear with the instruments for the dissemination of ideas which modern society has developed. If this be true, then the training of the educators in this respect should begin in the normal schools, with the addition to their curricula of whatever is necessary to broaden their viewpoint. The public cannot understand unless the teacher understands the relationship between the general public and the academic idea.
  The normal school should provide for the training of the educator to make him realize that his is a twofold job: education as a teacher and education as a propagandist.
notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0318258

Renowned Historian Howard Zinn On the History of Government and Media Lies in Time of War
- SeethisPass, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3speaking of media lies/ bias, Digg still hasn't bumped this article to the from page even with 158 diggs.another article was bumped today that only had 38
  - notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's there now. :)
dannyapplesauce, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14BREAKING: Politicians spend money to make themselves look good and make their opponents look bad.

YAWN ...

It's all Poli-tricks and it won't change until the American people wake up and see that this country has fallen to *****.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9And do something about it.
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8BREAKING : it's your money they use.
- trurevmbr07, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i agree but this is tax money, politicians use private funds, this should be illegal(if not already)
- jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think your response is one of the problems with this country.
- enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Conservatives always yawn when they're told Republican leaders are wasting their taxes on illegal activities. But when a Democrat spends one cent on a program to give uninsured kids health care, there's hell to pay. How brainwashed you are.
jester55, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7for God's sake stop posting walls of text in the comments.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11If a few people get to read it, it was worth it. Apologies that it harms you in some way.
  - Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2It's not YOURS though. You're stealing others' work.
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1difficult huh ?? reading without a brain.
- neko, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Proin porta, ipsum at elementum suscipit, mi nisl egestas sem, sed ultrices nisl velit non metus. Pellentesque risus. Mauris in tellus vitae augue dictum consequat. Donec fermentum dui ut libero malesuada vestibulum. Aenean dolor. Donec fermentum. Duis suscipit sem sed leo. Pellentesque ornare cursus magna. Cras et nisi in mauris tincidunt hendrerit. Aenean faucibus sem a nulla. In nonummy. Fusce lobortis faucibus turpis. Suspendisse auctor. Donec ornare dignissim elit.
  
  Aenean non est. Ut elit sem, dapibus vel, accumsan eu, elementum nec, neque. Suspendisse nibh. In justo. Nulla ultrices mi eu justo. Pellentesque pretium egestas justo. Nam pharetra malesuada velit. Mauris venenatis. Vivamus ac turpis sit amet nulla aliquet scelerisque. Vivamus volutpat consectetuer lectus. Nam vitae nisl pulvinar purus aliquam egestas. Sed nec orci. Vestibulum imperdiet nibh id dolor. Suspendisse potenti.
  
  Cras adipiscing dolor ac mi. Quisque lacus risus, aliquet at, hendrerit eget, tincidunt sed, sem. Proin ligula justo, tincidunt eget, placerat id, malesuada vel, turpis. Nam metus. Quisque lobortis eros non ligula. Nullam id elit. Ut vel elit. Curabitur pellentesque diam a nulla. Etiam eget orci. Aenean in orci et orci laoreet malesuada.
  
  Vestibulum est. Donec laoreet viverra erat. Nullam ullamcorper lorem. Nulla facilisi. Cras mauris ligula, pretium in, egestas nec, egestas id, mi. Nullam ultricies faucibus massa. Curabitur venenatis. Praesent aliquet mauris. Curabitur rutrum nonummy lacus. Suspendisse potenti. Etiam rutrum ligula in erat. Curabitur pretium est eu magna. Nulla mauris.
- theeEqualizer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1For god sakes, either develop an attention span or go somewhere that provides you the tiny digestible sound bytes you are capable of grasping. Sorry, but complex things cannot be summed up in one sentence. You may wish they could, but it just isn't so. But you are a good little sheep.
0rion16, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39If they spent 1.6 billion on propaganda, how could their approval ratings be so dismally, record-breakingly low? Imagine their public image without all that propaganda. Even Cheney would hate Cheney.
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Cheney has no emotions except hate.
- DangerCollie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You're talking about the administration that spent billions on security at home then out of the other side of their mouth claims the terrorists will follow us home from Iraq. Who puts the Arabian horse guy in charge of FEMA and attacks terrorists by invading Iraq, the country with fewer terrorists (at the time we invaded) than anywhere else in the mid east. I certainly believe they could hand out 1.6 billion in sweetheart contracts to their PR buddies and still not have anything worthwhile to show. They're incompetent in everything they do.
- MrEguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2...without all that propaganda, even Satan would hate Cheney.
MercedRocks, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2Yawn
- theeEqualizer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Craving more entertainment??? Don't waste your time with all this adult talk. QUICK! Turn on CNN or Fox, there's another story about what's wrong with Linsay Lohan and Britney... Hurry up! You're gonna miss it! Go!
SeethisPass, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6It's called information dominance and it's why America is so confused about what's going on.
Information dominance is an attack against all of us.
I don't want my information falsified.
Do you?
- SeethisPass, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4There is no possible way that my comment which I am replying to deserves -1 Digg.
  
  Maybe you guys are looking for more of bush';s propaganda money huh?
  - LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2sorry dude, but you've just been added to the list. I am perma dugg down to 0 every time I post, no matter what. This site is being looked at by _____
- zouhair, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Dugged down because you are saying the same thing as one far above you
dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6no wonder the american people are so ***** clueless as to what is really going on
SeethisPass, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The number of Diggs here have been falsified is what I believe.
I'm certain that a free public would not come up with these "opinions", or that is, the number of negative diggs against positive statements.
CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Based on how much this is getting dugg down, the propaganda continues.
tyfin85, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1I probed through the article and all I read was "WAHH WAHH GOVERNMENT SPENDING" I don't know what liberals are trying to achieve with this kind of media. I suppose it's because his term is almost up, and they have to milk Bush for all he's worth until someone else comes along that isn't as easily ridiculed. So all you opinionated people, be glad he's around while he still is. Without Bush, you'd all be back at the Nickelodeon forum arguing about your favorite Invader Zim episode.
- TheEditor1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"you'd all be back at the Nickelodeon forum"
  
  That is PRICELESS. Now we know where the PaulBots and moonbats came from.
  - chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You just can't put a price on stupid assumptions, can you?
- theeEqualizer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, you are profoundly retarded, aren't you? The article, while it did cite specific dollar amounts, was not about government spending. It was about the effort to use money to try to control what the populace believes about this administration. Anyone with a sixth grade education could pick up on that. You remember those assignments in the 6th grade where you had to read a paragraph and then describe what it was about? Did you not do well on those tasks? Or did you think you were being clever? I don't give a crap about Invader Zim and you're a moron. Here, I'll speak to you in your language: "WAHH WAHH, people are picking on Bush! WAHH"... Republican whiners. Pathetic.
- hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"WAHH WAHH GOVERNMENT SPENDING." Isn't that usually a *Republican* whine? Do you have no sense of irony at all?
nubnub, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It didn't work.
indicas, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Money well spent!
- theeEqualizer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well we can see where your values lie. Contrary to honesty, accountability, and truth. See, I thought the Republican party was all about honesty and accountability. All throughout the 80s, the 90s, and in recent years I've listened to that garbage from the right wing over and over. And now this. "Money well spent..." Well I guess it was worth it to see your party exposed for the dishonest anti-American traitors that they are. I'm surprised that you'd want to admit in public that you support that.
justananomaly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It's bad when you don't have the knowledge to give yourself a good image and have to pay others to do it for you (Which in this case given his current approval ratings didn't work out too well..)
zombiedepot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I don't think any amount of propaganda can increase the approval rating now.
1applemaybe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1too much spending
MadGouki, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If anyone else is ready to start the revolution, I'll join your legions. California will be the first state to go.
apexim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I am sure some of that money is paid to anti Ron Paul bury brigade
Ransomowris, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2A year and a half old. Hm.
davidswelt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6What is all that money used for? For instance to establish the feeling of fear.

Here's a remarkable comparison coming from a recent interview with a philosopher, who likens the establishment of fear by the ruling party via the media:

"It is one of the big differences between the propaganda system of a totalitarian state and the way democratic societies go about things. Exaggerating slightly, in totalitarian countries the state decides the official line and everyone must then comply. Democratic societies operate differently. The line is never presented as such, merely implied. This involves brainwashing people who are still at liberty. Even the passionate debates in the main media stay within the bounds of commonly accepted, implicit rules, which sideline a large number of contrary views. The system of control in democratic societies is extremely effective. We do not notice the line any more than we notice the air we breathe. We sometimes even imagine we are seeing a lively debate. The system of control is much more powerful than in totalitarian systems.

"Look at Germany in the early 1930s. We tend to forget that it was the most advanced country in Europe, taking the lead in art, science, technology, literature and philosophy. Then, in no time at all, it suffered a complete reversal of fortune and became the most barbaric, murderous state in human history. All that was achieved by using fear: fear of the Bolsheviks, the Jews, the Americans, the Gypsies – everyone who, according to the Nazis, was threatening the core values of European culture and the direct descendants of Greek civilisation (as the philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote in 1935). However, most of the German media who inundated the population with these messages were using marketing techniques developed by US advertising agents.

"The same method is always used to impose an ideology. Violence is not enough to dominate people: some other justification is required. When one person wields power over another – whether they are a dictator, a colonist, a bureaucrat, a spouse or a boss – they need an ideology justifying their action. And it is always the same: their domination is exerted for the good of the underdog. Those in power always present themselves as being altruistic, disinterested and generous.

"In the 1930s the rules for Nazi propaganda involved using simple words and repeating them in association with emotions and phobia. When Hitler invaded the Sudetenland in 1938 he cited the noblest, most charitable motives: the need for a humanitarian intervention to prevent the ethnic cleansing of German speakers. Henceforward everyone would be living under Germany’s protective wing, with the support of the world’s most artistically and culturally advanced country."

(from an interview with Noam Chomsky)
- jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Godwin's Law INVOKED!!!!!!!!!! - You sir are officially a moron
  - davidswelt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This article directly addresses propaganda, in which case Godwin doesn't apply...
geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5msaleem has 2 front-page stories in a row. That's statistically very unlikely unless Digg is being gamed. Talk about a hypocrite.
- TheEditor1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"That's statistically very unlikely unless Digg is being gamed."
  
  Congratulation, you win. Digg is gamed every day but people are wearing ***** colored glasses and don't see it.
- garryw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You mean to say Ron Paul isn't for real?
  - TheEditor1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1RP is a RINO and more liberal that the Republican he 'claims' to be.
livewithhonor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1its good to know where my tax dollars go!
Grumps, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1$1.6 billion is fairly the daily expenses of Iraq.
baalzebub, on 10/10/2007, -1/+41.6 billion dollars worth of sand bagging & damage control, and the dirty crook still don't look good...
segfaultxr7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That article really doesn't provide much useful information. $1.6 billion sounds like a lot, but how much does the government usually spend in the same time period? Maybe spending on propaganda has quadrupled since the Iraq war. Maybe it's half of what it was during the Clinton years.

I'm not by any means defending this (I do not think the government should spend a single dime of our money trying to influence our opinions), but it would be helpful to have some context.
Cyberen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I wish I lived in a world where propaganda didn't work.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You should be more specific. In totalitarian societies propaganda works much less than here. Everyone knows you don't listen to what leaders say in totalitarian societies. For some reason people listen to them like they would speak the truth here.
- jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Dont go on digg either
Fizzledizzle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Damn, if he would only have spent 1.3 billion he could have given the other 300 mill... to me
Dotnetsky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Boy is this crap passé. Haven't we got anything more interesting to "Me too" about?
KiloCharley, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Breaking; Bush administration spends 11.9 Gazillion Dollars to keep this story off Digg.
what a Maroon!
bremstrong, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2My first thought is, whose money?
siszam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Read The Chavez Code and see how the U.S. own documents prove the government financed an attempted overthrow of Chavez and continues to fund anti Chavez propaganda. Why? Because he helps his people and doesn't agree with Bush's corporate, fascist agenda.

If we had all the money our government spends killing people and creating enemies, providing healthcare and funding social security would be no problem. But the government wouldn't profit from a healthy, secure citizenry. Republicans would rather pretend to be good while stealing from you to line their pockets and dole out corporate welfare than to actually do good.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dugg you up, although Chavez does help his people better than any administration we've supported there, he still leaves many things to be desired.
  
  But you are right. Chavez has done a ton of good there, and the propaganda is why no one here knows it. I've yet to see anyone else talk about him honestly other than myself :)
- jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Calling chavez good while bashing US govt - talk about pot calling kettle black
  - Crad123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2looks like the propaganda worked for you. Brainwashed moron.
- SJZero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You know what I love about comparing Bush to fascists? Mussolini was a powerful, charismatic leader who, despite his strong leadership skills, literally couldn't run a country to save his life. Despite that, he cleverly used propaganda, manipulated lawmakers and the public to become the immensely popular leader of a monarchy. His government sent Italy into terrible amounts of debt, squandered taxpayer money on massive programs that ended up hurting the country by basically turning huge swaths of land into working welfare areas by subsidizing relatively useless grain farming, and sending his country into expensive wars while hurting relations with other countries with his nationalistic attitudes.
  
  Bush, on the other hand, is not charismatic, is not a great leader, but much like the fascists under Mussolini, has pursued bunch of touchy-feely, feel-good politically correct claptrap; a logically reprehensible plan for the country which has destroyed New Orleans, obliterated any chance of Iraq rejoining the first world in our lifetimes, resulted in consumer debt so high it's actually affecting international markets, sent the country into a recession.
  
  But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! That chavez guy, he's pretty mean!
ctrlfreak13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The actual GAO report can be found here:
Full report (PDF): http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06305.pdf
Abstract: http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-06-305&accno=A44798
YeaMeSmall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ummm Propaganda and Advertising are rwo WAY different things. So they put money into "media organazitions" doesnt mean thats propaganda. I dislike Bush just as much as the next person but juse cause he puts money into his ad campaign and commercials doesnt mean thats propaganda. If the word bribe was in there then yes it would be propganda. but it didnt.
- Crad123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Look up the word propaganda in the dictionary, moron.
LuciusBrutus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Obama for Pres! He will save us!
LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1here's a good link for many videos that's not tainted by the propaganda machine.
http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9
gjscds, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Read the Effing article, you liberal eff tards. This isn't "propaganda", it's a bunch of public service announcements.

"The new report reveals that federal public relations spending goes far beyond "video news releases." The contracts covered the waterfront, from a $6.3 million agreement to help the Department of Homeland Security educate Americans about how to respond to terrorist attacks; to a $647,350 contract to assist the Transportation Security Administration in producing video news releases and media tours on the subject of airport security procedures; to a $6,600 contract to train managers at the Bureau of Reclamation in dealing with the media."
- RubberChicken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1OK - that's about $0.06B of 1.6 Billion.
- hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You're right. Paying conservative shill columnists to write good things about your policies is "public service," not "propaganda." I'm off to send a check to Bush now, with a note saying, "Please spend on Ann Coulter rant."
RubberChicken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The ROI on that marketing campaign has got to be above 500%. Nice essays at the top - my Tuesday sucked as well.
- Crad123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Noam Chomsky is amazing.
rodgerdodger5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This documentary was done a while back but it will give you an idea of what goes on now (only much worse). It is excellent.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=411888315354425208

This is also interesting reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith-Mundt_Act
Fracture98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Well, if the "One dollar is all it takes to feed a child for a day" folks are right, Bush could have fed 4,400,000 kids for a year. Perhaps that would have pushed him up to a 26% approval rating.
anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4This line item should be $0. For real. Whether you call it negatively "propaganda" or positively "public relations" or whatever, this item should be zero. Government officials talk, news reporters take it down, and bear the cost from there. There should be absolutely no budget for media spin companies from the government. Unless, its a corrupt to the core government. Oh, now we know...
BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Due to how powerful the media is with current technology, it more important now than ever before, that everyone read George Orwell's 1984. There is no clearer look at mind control than that book.

We are living the 1984 experience right now.

Also, watch this 3 part documentary and form you own opinion (notice how I suggest you form your own opinion instead of telling you what to think) http://www.calgary911truth.org/my_weblog/2007/06/zeitgeist_the_m.html
SilverBack101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your tax dollars well spent apparently.
2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Terrorism Terrorism Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism BelivedToBeLinkedToAlQaeda After 9/11... Terrorism Terrorism"

Such a great contribution to the human race.
- Crad123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The people who believed that crap are worthless human beings. Now I know why the power elite thinks the masses are useless eaters.
DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2wait till you see how much he spent on gay porn!
Username222, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And they say democrats waste money with tax dollars.... Is there anything that the Bush administration hasn't ruined or taken advantage of yet?
mal1964, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1close loophole now!

http://www.theorator.com/senate.html
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Bush Administration Spent $1.6 billion on propaganda in the US (2003-05)

Login or register to add a comment