Delivering Propaganda?

When I saw the heading of William E. Jackson, Jr.’s column in Editor & Publisher, ‘Delivering Propaganda, As If It is Toothpaste,’ it got my attention. But to learn that it was the documentary ‘Obsession‘ that he was talking about, my next thought was, maybe he should have targeted the NYT and the MSM with a title like that, ‘Delivering Propaganda,’ instead of this documentary.

That documentary has a history to it that Mr. Jackson apparently is not aware of, or chose to ignore. Because of pressure from the CAIR crowd, it was pulled from a multi-faceted series on PBS about radical Islam and the War On Terror. It correctly shows radical Islam for what it is, what it does, and what it believes.

No movie distributor would carry it, probably out of fear. And no major TV network would air it. It was that powerful of a presentation. So now that it is literally given away, Jackson calls it propaganda. Newspapers isn’t the only distribution method for Obsession. They are also using direct mail.

His article illustrates why some think that the mainstream media serves as the marketing wing of the DNC, and in some cases, al-Qaeda.

related links: Delivering Propaganda, As If It is Toothpaste | Obsession – Radical Islam’s War Against The West

4 thoughts on “Delivering Propaganda?”

  1. I want to share with you a passage from a book I read recently:

    He tried always to be on the side of the angels. He didn’t think the war in Iraq was going to happen, right up until it did. It broke his heart not because he gave a damn about Iraq but because he loved America and believed that the land and people of Lincoln and Twain would find a way to be right. He believed, like his immigrant forefathers, that America could be a beacon and a paradise.

    He couldn’t help thinking that all that money we were spending blowing up things and killing people so far away, making people the world over hate and fear us, would have been better spent on public education and libraries. It’s hard to image that history won’t prove him right, if it hasn’t already.

    — Mark Vonnegut, writing about his father, Kurt, in the introduction to Armageddon in Retrospect

  2. It’s not paramount because we’ve got too other many problems that are hurting people.

    Obama definitely wants to dismantle the Patriot Act, and any Constitutionalist should support that, because the Patriot Act is a despicable affront to personal liberties and is inviolate of our founding principles. Obama does not however want to give enemy protections under our Consitution. He wants them to be treated according to Geneva Conventions.

    I WISH THE PUBLIC KNEW THERE WAS STILL A WAR GOING ON. I wish the public REALISED how much of their tax dollars are going into that hole. I wish they REALISED why we owe China so much money. If I had the resources, this is the poll I would put into the field: “Do you feel the Iraq war is worth the $2.4 billion weekly cost?” I guarantee I’d get a 65%+ NO answer.

    The position of the Democratic Party regarding the “War on Terror” is this, as I see it: We cannot wage a “war on terror”, (a) because you can’t fight ideas, and (b) because we simply can’t afford to sustain it. Furthermore, we should not fight at the expense of conditions at home or at the expense of our Constitutional liberties. There ARE other things we need to worry about. National security is important, very important, but we need to reassess our priorities and the threats against us and adjust accordingly.

  3. Well, for me, national security (remember 9/11?) is paramount in my mind. The fact that it isn’t paramount in many peoples’ mind nowadays is because we, thankfully, haven’t been attacked on our land since 9/11/2001. Complacency becomes a problem with that kind of success.

    I perceive Democrats in Washington to be soft on terror and that is based on reality, not propaganda. It is Obama who wants to dismantle the Patriot Act, and give enemy combatants protections under our constitution. If reminding the voting public that there is still a war going on hurts Obama’s campaign, then that is his problem to fix. Or not. He could show some solidarity in the effort, instead of trying to fight it. That is his, and his party’s, choice. Is it not?

    It doesn’t matter to me who produced that documentary. I could see that the people in it and the words they were saying were their own. They were not Jewish Canadian and American actors. I’m glad somebody had the wherewithal to make it.

    As to what to call it, whether a global war on terror, radical Islam, whatever, that doesn’t matter to me either. But when the enemy says that Allah tells them to dominate the world, and killing civilians as non-believers is just fine with Allah, in fact, commanded by Allah, then you can’t escape the label Radical Islam. That’s what it is. It is NOT to be confused with normal Islam. Call it whatever you like. If we don’t confront it, we’ll all be dead sooner rather than later. That’s why I use the words that I do. They mean things that are not bigoted, imho.

  4. “It correctly shows radical Islam for what it is, what it does, and what it believes.”

    Well, I disagree with you even on that point, but that’s ignoring the bigger issues.

    (A) This film is the propaganda. It was made and distributed by Jewish Canadians and Americans who are extremists themselves and wish to scare people, to make national security the bigger issue the November, for their gain.

    (B) We, we being both the propagandists and the MSM, continue to define these terrorists by their religion, which is improper. They are terrorists. Period. Terrorism is terrorism, and it’s inspired by political conflict, not religion. The tacking on of “Islamic” is bigotry, plain and simple.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *