Hidden Propaganda

In 1962, Konrad Kellen wrote in the introduction to Jacques Ellul's Propaganda. The formation of men's attitudes that Ellul designated „intellectuals as virtually the most vulnerable of all to modern propaganda, for three reasons: (1) they absorb the largest amount of second-hand, unverifiable information; (2) they feel a compelling need to have an opinion on every important issue of our time, and thus easily succumb to opinions offered to them by propaganda on all such indigestible pieces of information; (3) they consider themselves capable of judging for themselves.“

Needless to say, the likely victims of propaganda are often also the unconscious producers of propaganda. Here’s an example that, not least for the sake of argument, equates journalists with intellectuals.

On Sunday, April 8, 2007, the Washington Post published an article called “White House Looked Past Alarms on Kerik” by its staff writers, John Solomon and Peter Baker. The article begins like this:

When former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani urged President Bush to make Bernard B. Kerik the next secretary of homeland security, White House aides knew Kerik as the take-charge top cop from Sept. 11, 2001. But it did not take them long to compile an extensive dossier of damaging information about the would-be Cabinet officer.

They learned about questionable financial deals, an ethics violation, allegations of mismanagement and a top deputy prosecuted for corruption. Most disturbing, according to people close to the process, was Kerik's friendship with a businessman who was linked to organized crime. The businessman had told federal authorities that Kerik received gifts, including $165,000 in apartment renovations, from a New Jersey family with alleged Mafia ties.

The article then goes on describing in detail the financial deals, the initially positive reviews of the nomination by New York’s Democratic senators Clinton and Schumer and how, after again new revelations, Kerik’s nomination eventually collapsed.

***

At first glance, it seems that this is simply good reporting. Who did what to whom and when and where and all the rest of it. Moreover, it is well written and one comes away with the feeling of now knowing what there is to know about this case. So what is the problem then? The problem is that the necessary questions were never asked. And because they were never asked, one feels at the end of the article that the system works well for the one rotten apple was duly taken care of.

What do I mean by the necessary questions? This one for example: How was it possible that such a guy was heading the New York Police Department? To be fair, somebody must have asked at least a somewhat similar question for Solomon and Baker report that Giuliani told reporters that they had a right to question his judgment in putting Kerik in charge of the New York Police Department and recommending him to Bush. „I should have done a better job of investigating him, vetting him“, Giuliani said. „It's my responsibility, and I've learned from it.“

It goes without saying that this is a rather poor statement. But worse, it was not followed up. I mean: Mister Giuliani worked together with Kerik for many years, he is the godfather of the two youngest of Kerik’s children, Kerik sat on the board of Giuliani Capital Advisors – it is pretty obvious that they must know each other pretty well. Moreover, according to the Washington Post, “Kerik rose up through the ranks of city government when Giuliani was mayor, serving as chief of both prisons and commissioner of police. He moved to Giuliani's firm in 2002 and oversaw much of the firm's security work”. In other words, Mister Kerik was, despite his numerous flaws that must have been obvious for everybody around him, clearly never regarded unfit for his job. On the contrary: “He earned thirty (30) medals for meritorious and heroic service, including the department's Medal for Valor for his involvement in a gun battle in which his partner was shot and wounded in December 1997” as Wikipedia reports.

Really good reporting would have not only questioned but scrutinised how it was possible that this man could have had such a career; really good reporting would have exposed the flaws of the system that allowed such a man to rise up through the ranks of city government; really good reporting would have never accepted Giuliani’s response „I should have done a better job of investigating him, vetting him …It's my responsibility, and I've learned from“ but would have challenged him for it is hard to believe that he did not know what kind of man Kerik is. And what exactly did Giuliani really learn from all this? Apart from quickly removing Kerik from the board of his firm, that is? How come that journalists didn’t ask?

Right, flawed journalism then. Nothing extraordinary, happens every day. But what has this to do with propaganda? Journalism that almost exclusively concentrates on who did what to whom and when etc., journalism that personalises almost every issue, journalism that fails to investigate, analyse and expose the ‘How come? How is this possible?’ is no journalism at all, it is propaganda.