Barry Bonds, ABC radio and Social Security reform

When one hears a human voice on the radio, one expects the speaker to have certain characteristics in common with most humans. One expects a certain degree of reasonableness, honesty and a semblance of human logic. That is why it is so difficult for many of us to get used to the bias that so prevails in the MSM/DNC. The MSM/DNC assumes the form of human faces and voices. It is hard for us to conceive of those voices pursuing an agenda that is destructive and vicious. Yet that is what we find when we take a few minutes to contemplate the agenda that lies behind most network news broadcasts.

Case in point - a recent ABC "top of the hour" 5 minute news radio broadcast. The network announcer cited some bureaucrat that believed we could ignore the Bush SS reform package because the issue could be solved much more simply - by taxing a higher portion of workers' earnings. Of course, most listeners would instinctively be opposed to higher taxes in any form. So the announcer threw in a MSM/DNC inspired comment, to the effect that this new alternative would mean only that "Barry Bonds" would be finished paying his FICA on "January 3rd instead of January 2nd".

ABC's use of symbolism was brilliant.

Nevermind that we all know that such a proposal would directly affect many more people than Barry Bonds. Nevermind that those directly affected would reduce their investments, hiring, business expansion, etc. Nevermind that ABC completely glossed over the actual effects of such a proposal.

What is fascinating is the extent to which ABC would go to mislead the listener. The propogandist that wrote that newscopy specifically chose Barry Bonds as the bogeyman that would bear the brunt of the anti-Bush SS proposal. The writer didn't choose a popular rich person like Oprah or some entertainer. The writer didn't choose a politically controversial rich person, such as a Kennedy or a politically active actor. The writer didn't choose Michael Jackson or Ted Turner. Any of those names would have clouded the issue with unrelated controversy.

Instead, the writer chose a baseball player who is mildly controversial only because of baseball related issues - steroids, attitude, etc. By placing the burden of the MSM/DNC anti-Bush alternative-of-the-week on a mildly unpopular ball player, ABC displayed great finesse. The listener would be led to believe that no great shakeup need occur. We need only a quick fine-tuning. Barry Bonds will pay one more day of FICA taxes and our retirement is secure. What could be safer and more harmless?

What is so ominous about this short broadcast is the obvious careful effort that was undertaken to achieve the maximum manipulative effect. The MSM/DNC has become quite masterful at packing a great wallop into one or two sentences. What is more ominous about this and other broadcasts is the goal of the MSM/DNC. ABC's writers spent so much effort solely for the purpose of creating confusion so as to prevent reform that could avert a financial catastrophe. We know the catastrophe is coming. What is the motivation behind those who would use confusion to undermine efforts to prevent the catastrophe? I am not writing about those who merely disagree over the correct solution. I am writing specifically about those who use clever language and careful symbolism to mislead the public into acquiescence. Open debate is fine. What ABC does bears no resemblance to open debate.

The question is, how well will those tactics continue to work in the age of the new media?