How the US Government uses the media to influence its enemies

By Shane Sareli

 

The US Government, via several departments and agencies, uses the media to influence its enemies.  This influence takes various forms and is used to accomplish different objectives depending on which part of the government is being used.  In addition, there is a direct relationship between which part of the government is doing the influencing, who the “enemy” may be, and what kinds of media tactics are used.

 

At a high level, the US Government’s media manipulation to influence enemies comes mostly from the Executive branch.  Within this branch, the major players are the Military, the Whitehouse, and the CIA; although, other groups (like the FBI, Homeland Security, etc) also play lesser roles.

 

Whitehouse Administration & Enemy Definition

 

For the Whitehouse, the use of media to influence the enemy involves a spectrum of meaning.  On the one hand, the Whitehouse Administration attempts to directly confront and transparently influence the thoughts and actions of other countries.  Some of these other countries may or may not be our “enemy”, although history has shown that this relationship has a tendency to vacillate over time depending on sways in the current US agenda (for example Iraq, Taliban, Russia).  Those countries that are our enemies, for example the “Axis of Evil”, are openly and obviously the subjects of Whitehouse media influence during formal press meetings[1].  Currently, this has been taking place on a daily basis with Whitehouse officials sending direct messages to Iraq and the Iraq people.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, the Whitehouse Administration’s enemies can also be categorized as any group of people who stand in the way of the President’s reelection or the Administration’s short-term agenda.  This can include both officially neutral countries and even our own Allies.  We are now seeing this in unprecedented form with the way the Administration is dealing with France, Germany, and the UN with regard to taking military action against Iraq[2].  In addition, the “enemy” of the administration, based on the above given criteria, can also be parts of the American public.  With Bush’s need for American support of the war, he surly chalks up war dissenters and negative press as the enemy and he tries in any way possible to use the media to influence these groups to support his war and his agenda.  This is clearly evident from his repeated claims to the pubic and the international community: “You are either with us (the Administration) or against us”[3].

 

 

 

Methods

 

There are many ways in which the Whitehouse uses the media to influence its enemies.  As for all politics, there is no simple way to cover all of the exact ways in which political agendas are carried out via the media.  However, a subset of these methods could be generalized as follows:  scare tactics, threats, spin, patriotism, national security, and humanitarianism.  Again, this is by no means a complete list, but it doesn’t need to be because the objective is simply to show some of the ways in which the media serves as a conduit for accomplishing the Administration’s agenda with respect to influencing enemies.

 

Scare tactics

 

The Whitehouse Administration uses scare tactics to accomplish several goals.  One of these goals is to increase the government’s ability to control and monitor the public.  Secondly, they seek to crystallize public opinion by scaring people into agreeing.  As Julius Caesar observed, the best way to control the public masses is to scare them into giving up their rights:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

  If the public thinks that their personal safety is at stake, they are much more willing to trust the judgment of their elected leader who professes to be protecting them and their interests.  We have excellent evidence of this in the current “War on Terror” where the FBI and Homeland Security tee-up the Whitehouse’s effort to build public support for the war against Iraq by raising and lowering the “Terror Threat Level”.

 

The recent raising of the terror threat color to orange was accompanied by warnings that US intelligence has heard “chatter” that terrorists may attack someplace in the near future.[4]  Subsequently, many reporters complained that these announcements should include something more tangible and proactive.  In response, Tom Ridge announced to the press that Americans should react to seeing the terror threat light set to orange by stocking up three days of food and water, creating a plan on how they can reach loved ones in case they are separated by an imminent biological/chemical/nuclear attack, and purchasing plastic sheeting and duct tape to secure windows and door ways in case of chemical and biological weapons.[5]  This ridiculous announcement solidified the “Terror Threat Warning System” as a more appropriately named “Administration Emergency Scare Tactic System”.[6] 

 

Rallying with the Whitehouse to build support for the war, Prime Minister Blaire in synchronicity called out the military to surround and defend the Heathrow airport in case of terrorist attack.  Public response is easily predictable to such scare tactics.  'I'm a bit freaked out', one woman told The Times - 'A big tank with a big gun just went past. It's a bit full-on, isn't it? You don't have the army at Heathrow for no reason.'[7]

 

There are other ways that the Administration can scare enemies.  In Iraq’s situation, the military buildup and testing of live ammo along the Iraqi border serves as a constant reminder to Saddam and the Iraqi people that Bush and his Administration mean business.[8]  In addition, the open verbal threats that America is willing to go to war at any cost, in interviews with Administration officials, sends a direct message aimed to influence Saddam to disarm and/or resign. 

 

In addition to open threats, sometimes it may be what the government doesn’t say that can have the most impact.  For example, the Administration has made it clear that they are considering the use of all possible methods of combat and that “nothing has been ruled out” if Saddam attempts to use chemical or biological weapons against the US in the event of conflict.[9]  This is a thinly veiled threat to Saddam that the US will use everything including nuclear weapons against Iraq if they use chemical or biological weapons against our military force.  This tactic has been used in the past and is believed to have kept Saddam from using chemical and biological weapons during the first gulf war.[10]  Since this is more of a threat than a scare tactic, more will be said about his topic on the next section.

 

Threats

 

Threats are probably the most common and transparent attempt to use the media to influence enemies.  The Whitehouse makes almost daily threats against Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, Saddam, and Terrorism.[11]

 

During and since WWII, the threat of using nuclear weapons has been used by nearly every administration to influence or control their enemies.  During WWII, the two bombs dropped over Japan lead to both Japans’ immediate surrender and the rest of the world recognizing the US as a superpower when they received news reports and video footage of the devastation of these powerful nuclear attacks.  Subsequently, nuclear weapons became the underlying tension throughout the Cold War.  These threats had two effects on the Soviet Union.  One, it prevented an outright war between them and the US and two it served to motivate them to start an arms race with the US; which they were doomed to lose and would cause their ultimate bankruptcy.[12]

 

National Security

 

The Whitehouse regularly uses this issue of national security during media interviews to add credibility to their claims (for example Bush supports his war by saying Iraq threatens national security[13]).  Recently, the Whitehouse has been releasing regular statements about their knowledge of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and that this “solid evidence” is sufficient reason to go to war with Iraq.  However, up until Powell’s meeting with the UN Security Counsel no proof had yet been presented.  Even then, the “solid evidence” was mostly based on assumptions of other “top secret” knowledge.  Recently, the Administrations’ most popular saying with regard to evidence specifics has been that the Government must “protect it's sources.”[14]

 

However, this ability for the Whitehouse to make bold claims and try to motivate the American public through the media to adopt these claims when the support for them are all too confidential to divulge can be a powerful weapon.  It allows the Whitehouse to basically say whatever they want to the media and not be expected to have to back it up with proof.  The effect is also very convincing.  When the media get their hands on this kind of stuff it starts to circulate so fast and recycle between news agencies so much that many times reports and viewers alike forget where the information originated or what support has really been shown or not shown.  Also, most Americans understand the need for military secrecy and so, while they would like to see proof, they find it difficult to doubt the credibility of those whom they believe are protecting their interests (especially when they are war heroes like Colin Powell who seem to be able to do no wrong in the eyes of the media).  At the same time, it doesn’t take much insight to see how this sort of influence can be both dangerous and easily abused.  

 

Spin

 

The Whitehouse Administration, like every political group, uses “spin”, or strategically worded versions of truth, to influence their enemies.  This has been done in two major ways.  First, it is used to influence the American public to support the president and his agenda.  Secondly, it has been used to influence the public of other countries to make it harder for them to resist the desired action of their populace.

 

A good example of selling spin to the media is how the current administration was able to pass the controversial, but cleverly named, US Patriot Act to combat global terrorism.  However, a careful review of its terrorism fighting provisions, specifically related to seizure of foreign funds, reveals that it has an extremely weak policy when it comes to US ally Saudi Arabia—from which 15 of the 19 terrorists in the World Trade center attack were citizens and the home of Osama Bin Laden.[15]

 

Another good example of spin is the idea of spinning some governmental action as an act of humanitarianism.  A recent example of this was the war in Afghanistan.  The Whitehouse Administration used the media to influence both the American public and the world by saying how oppressed the Afghanistan people are and how the Taliban overthrow meant the increased freedom of millions of people—especially women.[16] 

 

The irony in the way this was spun was that the Taliban came into power through assistance by the United States.[17]  In addition, there are many countries that oppress their people whom the US either supports because they are allies (for example Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey).[18]  While the US partly purports to go to war with the Taliban for humanitarian causes, it simultaneously supports sanctions on Iraq, which have created a humanitarian disaster there resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children since the end of the Gulf War.[19]  Lastly, no mention was made either by the Administration or the major media organizations that the overthrow of the Taliban meant that the US could now move forward with its long-awaited plans of building a gas pipeline across the country—something the Taliban rule was impeding at the cost of billions of dollars to American Oil companies in previous investments.[20]

 

 

 

Patriotism

 

The use of patriotism is probably the most prevalent use of the media to influence enemies of the Whitehouse Administration.  However, it is almost exclusively used against the American public.  One of the strongest evidences of the power of this method of media influence could be seen after the Sept. 11^th attacks.  American flags were everywhere and patriotism was on the tip of every persons tongue.  The Administration took advantage of this opportunity to lead the country in a celebration of pride in patriotism.  However, they didn’t stop there.  They used this influence and power to pass one of the most politically controversial bills ever:  the US Patriot Act.  I won’t go into detail here, but this “patriot act” is probably the most blatant and powerful attack on citizenship rights America has ever seen.[21]  In addition, the Administration was so successful at building influence using patriotism and scare tactics that they forced this 347-page bill through Congress in just five weeks without any of the normal time-consuming review processes.  During the process, the Administration even had Attorney General John Ashcroft warning Congressmen that failure to immediately pass this bill would make them responsible for any future terror attacks that it could have prevented.[22]

 

In addition, the Administration has done a good job of using patriotism as a means to quiet or suppress dissenters.  For example, in early in December 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a stern warning to anyone who questioned the government’s moves to expand its power in the fight against terrorism. “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty,” he told a Senate committee, “my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.”  On a similar note, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer cautioned that Americans should “watch what they say.”[23]  Similar tactics have been used in the media to make anti-war protesters look like they are anti-American or unpatriotic.[24]

 

CIA

 

The CIA is the most secretive and mysterious of the US Government agencies that use the media to influence enemies.  The CIA has one of the most direct methods of using the media to influence people:  “black” propaganda.  The CIA was officially created in 1947, but it’s history as an American Institution, in various forms, goes back to the Revolutionary War when the first intelligence and covert operations were executed.  This included George Washington and Benjamin Franklin fabricating news articles and letters and using spies to win the war against the British.[25]  However, it wasn’t until “black” propaganda, subversive materials, and spy intelligence helped to win WWII that the American Government finally realized the long-term value of having a permanent non-wartime Information Operations branch.

 

Psychological Operations as conducted by the US Military is generally the dissemination of "truthful" information, not propaganda that is categorized as "white, gray, or black". Now what is the difference between PSYOP and propaganda?  A memorandum prepared by the Chief of Army Field Forces at Fort Monroe, Virginia in September of 1953 briefly explained the difference between "gray" propaganda, messages broadcast with the goal of "avoiding identification," and "black" propaganda, which involves "attribution to a source other than the true one."  An example of CIA/Military “black” propaganda was the broadcasting of Radio Hanoi from a Navy EC-121 aircraft during the Vietnam War, which was meant to “deceive its listeners into believing that they were listening to the North Vietnamese Radio Hanoi.”[26]

 

A more recent set of definitions, reportedly used by former CIA chief William Colby calls truthfully-attributed and non-attributed messages "white" propaganda, whereas messages falsely attributed to a third party are considered "gray."  The term "black propaganda" is reserved for those materials "planted by the United States but in such a way that it seems to be the product or even an internal document of the target group."  In other words, "black” propaganda is nothing less than a form of intellectual and political subversion.[27]

 

Disinformation

 

The CIA influences other countries in a variety of ways (assassinations, for example[28]) but we are only going to concern ourselves with what they call “disinformation.”  One way the CIA disseminates propaganda is by using its network of CIA “assets” (including American journalists) who will author, pretend to have authored, or plant articles or letters that the CIA wants published to achieve a specific strategic goal.[29]  The other way that the CIA generates false information in foreign media is to pay people to lie about events or facts, or to even stage events.[30]  Everyday journalists, who are unwittingly serving the purposes of the CIA, reporting on these false news items and disseminate them.

 

Enemies

 

The CIA’s enemies are in some ways different and the same as the Whitehouse and the Military’s.  The CIA was established following World War II to gather intelligence and influence foreign governments to the benefit of American business and national security.  In doing so, they are unofficially supposed to achieve several objectives:  1) promote or assist in the creation of US friendly governments, 2) maintain stability for existing US friendly governments, and 3) leverage the people in foreign lands and governments to serve as the proxy of the US military to achieve American objectives.  Therefore, it is these foreign governments or people that are the targets of CIA media influence.

 

There are many examples of all three of these objectives being achieved.  In the first case, we have the CIA training and funding guerrillas, rebels, and dissenting groups in Central and South America (an excellent example is Chile and the removal of President Salvador Allende from power).[31]  In the second case, we have the US support via the CIA of many totalitarian governments including Saddam Hussein as long as they support the US (like helping us get even with Iran via the Iran-Iraq war).[32]  Lastly, we have the CIA training, funding, and arming Bin Laden, Islamic Radicals, and other Afghanistan men to fight the Russians during the Cold War.[33]

 

An interesting example of the CIA and Iraq, which is quite relevant today, is the way they used the UN weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq after the Gulf War.[34]  Their real objective was to monitor the security surrounding Saddam Hussein.[35]  Although this was a commonly known fact a few years ago, after Clinton pulled the agents out of Iraq, the current media coverage almost never mentions this. 

 

In fact, most mainstream news agencies have actually printed the exact opposite of what they printed four years ago.  Four years ago it was common knowledge that Clinton pulled the UN inspectors out of Baghdad (without the Security Counsel’s permission).  Now, however, the same news agencies are printing articles that say Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.[36]  In addition, mainstream media is also failing to print the fact that there were CIA agents previously using inspectors to spy on Iraq before 1998 as a historical backdrop to their articles about how Saddam is claiming that the current inspectors are “spying” on Iraq.[37]  As a result, the current news coverage suggests that this is just another ploy by Saddam to discredit the process—the exact opposite of the truth.  This failure to accurately report could possibly be another example of media influence that the Whitehouse has on mainstream media.  They have censored the media during wars in the past, why not during a “War on Terrorism”?[38]

 

Military & Definition of Enemy

 

The US Military also uses the media to influence its enemies.  This is done in ways quite different from the politically charged methods of the Whitehouse or the covert methods of the CIA.  For one, the enemy is different.  Whereas, public opinion can be considered a major enemy of the Whitehouse, the Military is less susceptible to public opinion influence.   This is mostly because there is less media coverage of what the military is actually doing, except for what they choose to release to the media.  In addition, the Military also has the luxury of leveraging “National Security” to cover-up things that could possibly generate negative press.  Lastly, the Military as an entity doesn’t need to worry about getting re-elected like the Whitehouse Administration does.

 

Enemies and Methods

 

As a result, the Military’s enemies are more direct enemies—countries that we are already or going to fight in battle.  For this reason, the Military’s use of the media takes a very different form.  In addition to using the mass media via press releases and interviews, the Military has their own specialized media generating groups.  In fact, they have their own name for their uses of media to influence enemies: PSYOP or Psychological Operations. 

 

On the home front, the Military tries to build public support and lure new recruits by creating a positive image of the uses of the Military as protector of America and romanticizes the technological superiority of the US Military (for example the relentless Military commercials and ads).[39]  Bush recently revived a long-standing tradition of previous presidents when he asked Hollywood soon after 9/11 to create movies that would build support for Military and the coming war effort against Terrorism.[40]

 

But the Military has a constraint that the Whitehouse Administration does not.  The drafters of the Constitution feared the threat of a standing Federal army and made many provisions to regulate creation and powers of a US military on the populace.  For this reason, the military has to be careful with how it attempts to influence the American public with the media because misleading or false information could cause a backlash or could be illegal.

 

A great example of public backlash took place last year when someone from the Pentagon leaked a memo to The New York Times about the Pentagon’s OSI, or Office of Strategic Influence.  This new office “plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations” in an effort “to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries.”[41]  There was a lot of controversy was over the fact that they openly included disinformation and misleading foreign countries, including allied nations, for the sake of US Military strategic goals.  For Americans, this is a real problem because due to globalization, media agencies and groups like the AP exist both globally and in the US.  This means that false information the military strategically releases makes its way back to the American public. 

 

Due to a flood of poor publicity, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield was forced to abolish the project in news media press interviews.[42]  However, in an unpublicized interview found on a government site, he later says that the policies and methods outlined in the OSI project would live on under different names but that he would simply kill the name of this project to appease the American public.[43]

 

The military already has established longstanding methods for utilizing the media and communication mediums.  The first is a set of rigorous standards, policies, and procedures for handling the news media and the type and quantity of information that they are given.[44]  This even includes media censorship.[45]  The second is the Military’s strategic and tactical use of media to influence enemies called PSYOP.

 

Psychological Operations (PSYOP) or Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR) is used in both combat and peacetime.  Retired US Army veteran “Psywarrior” describes PSYWAR as:

“the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behavior ... to create in target groups behavior, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives. The form of communication can be as simple as spreading information covertly by word of mouth or through any means of multimedia”.

…A psychological warfare campaign is a war of the mind. Your primary weapons are sight and sound... The weapon is not how it’s sent, but the message it carries and how that message affects the recipient... Music or sound can be a major factor in motivating emotion if it is associated with the right message.”

He goes on to give examples of how most people feel feelings of pride when they see the American flag go by in a parade or when they hear the national anthem.  These kinds of emotional responses to sights and sounds are used as weapons of influence in PSYWAR.[46]  PSYOP can be disseminated by face-to-face communication, audio/visual means (television), audio media (radio or loudspeaker), and visual media (leaflets, newspapers, books, magazines and/or posters).[47]

 

PSYOP are used to assist the civil and military authorities in consolidating their gains, by establishing and maintaining law and order, and by re-establishing civil government in an occupied or liberated area.

 

All three types of psychological operations - - Tactical, Strategic and Consolidation--- can be employed to produce the following desired effects:

 

1.         Reduce moral and combat efficiency within the enemy’s ranks.

2.         Promote mass dissension within and defections from enemy combat units and/or revolutionary cadre.

3.         Support our own and allied forces cover and deception operations.

4.         Promote cooperation, unity and morale within one’s own and allied units, as well as within resistance forces behind enemy lines.[48]

 

PSYOP techniques have been successfully used in every major war and battle the US has ever been involved in; however they have been increasingly used in the last 50 years.[49]

 

Global Perspective

 

Americans aren’t the only ones that know their government is using the media to influence their enemies—other countries know this too.  In fact, it seems logical that this would be a contributing factor for why only 20% of the world enjoys a free press.[50]  These governments could be trying to protect themselves and their public support from the influences of American Information Warfare.  This seems like the logical thing for a foreign government to do considering that many governments have been overturned by CIA infiltration and media manipulation.

 

Other countries, especially our allies, were as shocked as most Americans were of the revelations of the Pentagons plans for creating an OSI.  In response to learning about the policies of the OSI a European diplomat said: "Everyone uses disinformation for military reasons, but I have never heard of using official sources to spread false information to the media of an ally."[51]

 

The manipulation of our supposed “free press” is one of the many points of ridicule of the US by foreign governments.  We claim to have a Free Press that serves as an independent and unbiased 4^th branch of government to further protect Liberty, but the concentration of power of most mainstream media to only a few hands and the regular omission of important news says otherwise.[52]  While it is not being claimed here that the mainstream media is under the thumb of the government, it is being suggested that the evidence points to a very close and interdependent relationship that manifests itself in pro-American pro-Administration news coverage.  As most media analysts will say, it isn’t the news that is covered that you need to watch out for, it’s the news that isn’t covered.

 

One possible solution to this problem of media credibility in the US is for the creation of a legally empowered watchdog agency.  Media watchdog groups, like FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), already exist, but they only have the power to expose abuses by publicizing them.  This is useful for the astute researcher or political buff, but because these agencies aren’t themselves part of mainstream media they don’t have the kind of exposure that will reach the average American.  In addition, they don’t have the power to change or punish news organizations that do not accurately or fairly report.  These organizations merely highlight the problem as opposed to correcting it.

 

In the Constitution, the drafters saw the Free Press as a check to governmental power and corruption.  Theoretically this works.  Practically it doesn’t.  Chomsky and others have proven why the media is severely biased and the news highly filtered to the preferences of the elite and wealthy.[53]  For this 4^th Estate idea to work, it really needs to be taken more seriously by the public.  In addition to the status quo of the media acting as a check and balance on the Government, there needs to be new Governmental checks against the media.  The could mean the creation of one or more publicly empowered watchdog agencies that monitor and punish news agencies that fail to meet the most basic tenets of fair and accurate reporting. 

 

Creating these watchdog agencies will accomplish two things:  1) it will help prevent the government from abusing the current media to accomplish its goals of control and manipulation of the masses, 2) it will raise the bar for the factualness of general news coverage and the American public will be more informed about both national and international news.

 

Although this isn’t the topic of this paper, it is at least fair to mention that other countries also manipulate the media as the US does.  Russia for example, has a long-standing and coveted PSYOP group.[54]

 

Ethics

 

The issue of our Government using the media to influence enemies raises many ethical issues.  These issues could be divided into two basic groups:  1) ethical issues related to Americans, 2) ethical issues related to foreign lands.  Within the first group, there are the issues of the government’s credibility and the honor of our country.  Is it right for a democratic government to lie to its constituents under the premise that it is for their greater good?  Also, if the government lies, how can it be simultaneously legal for it to punish people for corruption or perjury—assuming that there shouldn’t be a double standard.  Lastly, there is the issue of trust.  If a people can’t trust the government that rules it, doesn’t this undermine the government’s power?  Let’s not forget to mention what these uses of the media do to the media’s credibility.  Without media credibility, where do democratic societies turn for accurate information about their governments?

 

For the second group of ethical issues, we have the problem of trying to maintain world peace thru treaties that are based on trust yet a government that openly admits to using lies and deceit as part of foreign policy.  It seems quite reasonable that our allies took a good long look at their trust in the US when they found out that the US has no qualms about opening trying to undermine their power via misinformation.  Assuming that it is possible to fix the problems that give rise to the first group of national issues, there still remains the question of foreign policy.  Some relief to many of Americans problems in dealing with foreign countries may be possible through new legislation that would end the double standard of our current foreign policy.  America professes to protect freedom globally, but in reality they are simply protecting American freedom globally—most times at the cost of other peoples domination and oppression.  An end needs to be made to this double standard.  America, if it really believes the propaganda it sells, should have a foreign policy that requires it to treat other countries and peoples with the same rights as American citizens—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

There is also a larger issue at hand:  how could the US Government allow these kinds of abuses to occur in the first place?  If you notice, all of the groups that use the media to influence enemies listed in this paper are part of the executive branch of government.  One reason why these kinds of abuses could occur may have to do with too much power and not enough supervision existing in the executive branch.  This branch commands a majority of the tax payer’s money and has the cloak of national security, so it seems reasonable that it would have the greatest checks and balances to it’s power, yet it doesn’t.  It may be necessary to create additional oversight committees or agencies that have unlimited security access to monitor all executive branch activities and prevent collusion between separate groups or abuses based on political agendas (some of these kinds committees already exist but their flaws are the subject of a possible future paper).

 

Conclusion

 

The US Government uses many methods for influencing their enemies through different uses of the media.  Although different parts of the government use the media differently and have different enemies to influence, there are many similarities in the final outcome and the damage that is done to the Government’s reputation and the credibility of the media.  These uses of the media, some more controversial than others, are by no means methods of years gone by—they are being used every single day.  As Americans, it become our duty to keep ourselves informed of the objective truth as to what is really going on in both the US and the rest of the world.  Also, if we truly enjoy the liberties and benefits we have enjoyed under our government then it is our obligation to use what we learned to make better-informed decisions and votes that prevent and stop abuses of the US Government wherever they may occur.