Allow Debate, but Control the Spectrum
Noam Chomsky analysing our Western media, again, from ‘The Common Good’ (1998):
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
“… when you come back from the Third World to the West – the U.S. in particular – you are struck by the narrowing of thought and understanding, the limited nature of legitimate discussion, the separation of people from each other.”
As with his other books, these control tactics reflect just television and media pre-2000. The tools honed with social media and the internet are obviously much more effective for the above goals, given their adaptive nature.
The latest ‘shocking’ revelations about C19 lab leak and inept government officials ‘botching’ pandemic responses have already been summarized as more proof that we need a better response ‘next time when this happens’ (not ‘if’). In both the U.K. and the US, leaks and hearings about government responses are all over MSM, and in both cases the end result is just as Chomsky shows – ensuring the spectrum of discussion remains in control, and give the appearance of lively debate within that spectrum.
The narrative out of the U.K. recently supports this – the ‘whistleblower’ who has been allowed complete media coverage revealing how government officials were laughing about scaring people with variants. It sets up for mainstream to allow people to get angry and debate over how the government handled the pandemic early on. It even allows to offer up a fall-guy like Hancock, who can be a symbol for the government failures. But all this leads not to revealing the true issues, like purposely letting people in care homes die in droves, or over-counting deaths using ‘any death for any reason with a positive test’ criteria up to 2 months after. Rather it helps to reinforce the ‘we need a stronger response next time’ narrative.
The same for the American version currently. The ‘shocking’ revelations about the lab-leak origins do not expose any of the real issues. Like withholding standard treatments for respiratory illnesses, over-counting deaths via PCR-test to inflate numbers, and purposely seeding care homes with sick patients to drive up deaths (NYC). Rather it keeps the debate only within the realm of ‘how could our government screw this up, and what should we do for future pandemics?’
The March 8, 2023 Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic recently showed this as well. It continues the façade of Republican-versus-Democrat to ensure the same camps are divided and fighting in public, as well as continuing the ‘China-evil’ narrative. But the main theme throughout the initial testimonies is that ‘we really bungled this, and we need to fix this for when it happens next time’. Most of the presenters praise the WHO and Tedros as being a more-prepared, less-partisan solution that we must utilize ‘next time’. J.J. Couey has a good breakdown of the Subcommittee hearings here – specifically at the 52-minute mark (“we got lucky with C19, the NEXT one may be more deadly!”) The stage is already set for younger generations to see it as normal for a world-organization to oversee their lives due to what they deem is vital for their safety. Anyone older than 40 or so doesn’t really factor in to this. The majority of those have responded to this test of opt-in privileges for living as being normal. Those trying to reject it will simply be the minority or just cut out of the system.
Anything and everything in ‘mainstream’ (legacy) media (and social media) is there because someone or some group wants you to see it, and wants to ensure you see only one narrative. These leaks and committees and prepared responses all point to the same outcome – ‘this was bungled, our leaders are failures, we need a better response next time’. Possibly a few Faucis or Hancocks will be offered up as scapegoats, but the overall plan to have the WHO direct and manage ‘deadly emergencies’ anytime they declare one remain. People will probably welcome it for next time.
These tactics that Chomsky pointed out 30 or so years ago keep on getting used over and over, and the keep working over and over on a sufficiently high portion of the population. Almost everyone in my circles, maybe even some who are/were familiar with Chomsky specifically and media analysis in general, sees nothing wrong with any of this. They may sneer at media like ‘I don’t trust them’ over woke issues or other narratives, but deadly Convid19 is all on the up and up.
I keep wondering ‘how can so many people be so easily led time and again?’ Then I see a healthy-looking mid-30s male with a mask on outdoors, sanitizing his hands and avoiding people and go ‘oh, right’.