Who (says) What (to) Whom (in) What Channel (with) What Effect - Harold Lasswell
Writing on Doris Lessing, I noted that it is not just the message but the messenger. Lessing could write critical books or essays on Rhodesia because she was a Rhodesian. Her Rhodesian identity was on display for readers of said media, but her identity as a communist was her stamp of approval by media gatekeepers and tastemakers. Lessing was a reliable tool to push the progressive theme, so she could be trusted for publication. Readers would give credibility to a Rhodesian criticizing Rhodesia, eating up what she wrote. Those evil Rhodesians can be made good if they just did not have such an awful social structure. Lessing is just an example of this big media method of the messenger sending a message along with the subject material.
The New York Times did this in the last Sunday with James McAuley's oped "The City With a Death Wish in Its Eye" about Dallas's role in JFK's death. Those pesky evil Texans were sending hate vibes to everyone, which caused a mentally off communist to shoot JFK. McAuley is a Marshall scholar studying at Oxford. He is also a Harvard graduate of 2012. The New York Times had a Texan tell you about evil Texas. Let's back up one sentence. McAuley is 23 years old and was given the NY Times platform. This might explain all of the scare quote usage. Jesus, it reads like a Tumblr social justice warrior rant. The message is still that hate filled, right wing bigots killed JFK, and this Texan right here says so, which means it must be true. Pay no attention to the cathedral approval (Harvard-Oxford) or to the fact that the Texan author was born roughly thirty years after the event took place in Texas.
Big Media does this with just about everything of importance. Charles Murray's thoroughly researched The Bell Curve was a sledgehammer to the blank slatist educational agenda. It had to be met with full propaganda force. The NY Times on October 24th, 1994 published an opinion piece on the agenda behind his tome. Within a week, NPR dragged out on October 28th, 1994 to be exact, a one Mr. Obama to call Murray a racist, defend welfare from the attack the book posed to it, and well, what exactly is special about Obama in '94? President of the law review and Harvard Law Graduate class of 1991. See genes are not responsible for intelligence, this black guy right here is living proof! Check his speech. Empty words, cliches and platitudes, wait, I'm sensing a pattern to this Obama guy's speeches.
One might argue that this happens in every documentary. Not quite. If you watch a documentary on say the jazz age, you will see several older white historians (90% of which are male) talking about the big themes and broad ideas. Then, the documentary will have a woman historian who just happens to specialize in women of the jazz age. They will have a black historian who talks about blacks in jazz. Substitute any American idea for jazz and that is every documentary, which reveals how old white men will investigate everything and not just specialize in their group's activity. Those documentaries select subject matter experts who happen to be minorities or women. These news articles are different. These bits of propaganda use a Rhodesian who left Rhodesia as a young adult to discuss Rhodesia decades later, a 23 year old Texan to discsuss Dallas in 1963, and a black Harvard graduate with no knowledge of science to discuss a book on genetics, biology and intelligence.
Those three are not experts but symbols. All three were sucked up into the education filtration system and vetted by the communists. The Last Psychiatrist's wonderful essay on Sheryl Sandberg skewered a major example of this. Sandberg's very status is the message of "work equals good, you can have it all" on women. Ideological conformity was confirmed prior to giving them a platform, and the message must be cathedral approved. Beyond the message, they themselves are a message. The evil Rhodesian can be molded to a good person. The evil Texan can be an enlightened spirit. The black guy can become an eloquent Harvard graduate. Anything is possible, if you just follow our guide to progressive political philosophy.