The entire spectrum of American media has flailed and floundered in its attempt to grasp, much less report, on the realities of the pandemic. During the Trump Covid year, Americans were treated to major media both debunking and supporting Trump's carny barker predictions and recommendations, many of which were absurd and blatantly wrong. It was relatively easy for those of us not in the clown car to see that none of the clowns knew how to drive. Occasionally, some Americans took to drinking bleach or goose stepping to whatever administration blather was promoted at the moment, but for the most part, the emperor didn't do much to hide his intellectual nakedness.
A year under Biden has been very different in style, if not in result. The carny barker has been replaced by mellifluous preachers, telling us more of what we want to hear, but in a smoother-than-Trump way. Trump was a gate-crasher selling used cars with a megaphone. We invited Biden in, and he's pushing some version of societal Amway. All we have to do is buy in to whatever he's selling, and all will be right with both our personal worlds and the culture in general. Except, of course, it isn't.
As propaganda goes, the Biden blather hasn't been as obvious or absurd as Trump's, but really, could anyone gild those Trump informational lillies? Instead, the Biden administration and the bulk of American media have introduced an overwhelming wave of Covid spin. As propaganda, it's not terribly subtle, but it is ubiquitous, which is perhaps why it goes largely unexamined and unchallenged. In twelve months, Biden, American pharmaceutical firms, and American media in general have generated background noise that not only attempts to drown out contrarian voices, but that filters out all data not supportive of a particular grand Covid-19 narrative.
I'm an old former journalism major, and I have never witnessed anything like it. The edits used in presentations, the specific repeated misrepresentations of contrarian arguments, the tidal wave of homogeneous messaging, I have not seen this coming from the United States in my lifetime. These "Propaganda Files" will break down specific media stories and themes. Most of the manipulations and unfair practices are rather easily identified, which is what bothers me as a critic attempting to highlight this stuff. Every Journalism 101 grad should be able to see the problems upon first exposure to most articles. Media professionals and academics teaching the subjects can certainly see all of this more easily and clearly than me. But the homogeneous goose stepping continues with minimal pushback from anyone but a far right more invested in whackadoodle conspiracy fluff than reality.
How did we get here, and why?
Intro to 2022 Propaganda
Today, as an introduction, I'd like to discuss some of the words crucial to the pandemic. Originally, when the pandemic began in the U.S. in early 2020, "mitigate" meant to make the pandemic less severe or serious for the country as a whole. That initially meant taking actions to stop the spread of Covid. Two years later, the word "mitigate" has become, as used by American government institutions, something quite different. Instead of describing ways to fend off the spread of a deadly virus, now it refers more to reducing the economic impact and to reducing the number of hospitalized or dying. "Mitigate" no longer refers to stopping disease spread, but to conceding virus ubiquity and managing consequences rather than managing spread. What's fascinating is that, with the introduction of vaccines, one would anticipate the definition of "mitigate" moving away from acceptance of virus spread. The transmissibility of Delta and Omicron, however, has eased the use of "mitigate" in the other direction.
The Biden administration and current U.S. narratives try to have it both ways. What is implied in all of the pro-vaccine "mitigation" language is that vaccination somehow still prevents spread, although with Delta and Omicron, there is little evidence of that.
This transition from "mitigate" referring to "stopping virus spread" to "mitigate" as meaning "managing the economy and the economy of health care" is significant. It is not some kind of necessary or natural evolution in attitude and use of the term. Many other countries still define "mitigate" as primarily referring to stopping the spread of Covid itself.
"Civic Duty"
"Civic duty" is another phrase that has evolved during the last two years. Mention of and emphases on "civic duty" initially referred to mask wearing and social distancing. These were individual acts with clear benefits to others as well as to self. Unless people are morbidly obese and living up three flights of stairs, there is no objective cost to wearing a mask or maintaining social distancing.
Now, "civic duty" has extended to some amorphous need to get vaccinated so as to keep oneself out of hospitals and reduce stress on the not-really-national health care system. This is a very curious and dramatic shift in the media definition of pandemic "civic duty."
The original emphasis really carried no negatives for self. But getting a vaccine that is effective only against the variant du jour is a different type of alleged civic duty. It creates (eventually measurable) self risk with each application, and the individual assumes all kinds of long-term risks. This is not an exaggeration, as long-term Covid and vaccine effects are still unknown since we are nowhere near anything that could be considered long-term.
Analyzing Propaganda
These evolutions in meaning have been pernicious, that is, gradual and increasingly subtle. I'm sure that there are hundreds of graduate students in fields from communication to social psychology who are cataloguing the language of these times and who are also fully aware of the shifts and manipulations. Eventually, actual scientists will come forth with their observations regarding the influence communication of the last two years. Until then, I'll stick to what I do best -- point out the obvious that few appear to notice and fewer want to discuss. Then I'll just plod forward, doing the best I can.
What I believe will happen with most of my analyses is that people will be surprised at the obviousness of what I point out, they'll acknowledge it because there won't be a way to ignore it, and then most will say, "But..." Their first reflex will be "But," and then there will be an excuse or a pooh poohing of the observation. Those in journalism, however, are going to be sensitized. And that's all I can really do.
The majority of these "Propaganda Files" will focus on specific articles with particular journalistic flaws that should be caught by anyone who's taken two journalism courses or who has ever worked at a newspaper. There's no shortage of examples, so I'll get to it.
Bob Dietz
January 28, 2022
