The Doors Of Perception:
Why Americans Will
Believe Almost Anything
By Tim O'Shea
|
Aldous Huxley's inspired 1956 essay
detailed the vivid, mind-expanding, multisensory insights of his mescaline
adventures. By altering his brain chemistry with natural psychotropics,
Huxley tapped into a rich and fluid world of shimmering, indescribable beauty
and power. With his neurosensory input thus triggered, Huxley was able to
enter that parallel universe described by every mystic and space captain in
recorded history. Whether by hallucination or epiphany, Huxley sought to
remove all controls, all filters, all cultural conditioning from his
perceptions and to confront Nature or the World or Reality first-hand - in
its unpasteurized, unedited, unretouched, infinite rawness. Those bonds are much harder to break
today, half a century later. We are the most conditioned, programmed beings
the world has ever known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually
being shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it
is being subtly and inexorably erased. The doors of our perception are
carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right? It is an exhausting and endless task to
keep explaining to people how most issues of conventional wisdom are
scientifically implanted in the public consciousness by a thousand media
clips per day. In an effort to save time, I would like to provide just a
little background on the handling of information in this country. Once the
basic principles are illustrated about how our current system of media
control arose historically, the reader might be more apt to question any
given popular opinion. If everybody believes something, it's
probably wrong. We call that Conventional Wisdom. In Examples:
* Pharmaceuticals restore health * Vaccination brings immunity * The cure for cancer is just around the
corner * Menopause is a disease condition * When a child is sick, he needs
immediate antibiotics * When a child has a fever he needs
Tylenol * Hospitals are safe and clean. * * Americans have the best health in the
world. * Milk is a good source of calcium. * You never outgrow your need for milk. * Vitamin C is ascorbic acid. * Aspirin prevents heart attacks. * Heart drugs improve the heart. * Back and neck pain are the only
reasons for spinal adjustment. * No child can get into school without
being vaccinated. * The FDA thoroughly tests all drugs
before they go on the market. * Back and neck pain are the only reason
for spinal adjustment. * Pregnancy is a serious medical
condition * Chemotherapy and radiation are
effective cures for cancer * When your child is diagnosed with an
ear infection, antibiotics should be given immediately 'just in case' * Ear tubes are for the good of the
child. * Estrogen drugs prevent osteoporosis
after menopause. * Pediatricians are the most highly trained
of al medical specialists. * The purpose of the health care
industry is health. * HIV is the cause of AIDS. * AZT is the cure. * Without vaccines, infectious diseases
will return * Fluoride in the city water protects
your teeth * Flu shots prevent the flu. * Vaccines are thoroughly tested before
being placed on the Mandated Schedule. * Doctors are certain that the benefits
of vaccines far outweigh any possible risks.
* There is a power shortage in * There is a meningitis epidemic in * The NASDAQ is a natural market
controlled only by supply and demand. * Chronic pain is a natural consequence
of aging. * Soy is your healthiest source of
protein. * Insulin shots cure diabetes. * After we take out your gall bladder you
can eat anything you want * Allergy medicine will cure allergies. This is a list of illusions, that have
cost billions and billions to conjure up. Did you ever wonder why you never
see the President speaking publicly unless he is reading? Or why most people
in this country think generally the same about most of the above issues? HOW THIS WHOLE SET-UP GOT STARTED In Trust Us We're Experts, Stauber and
Rampton pull together some compelling data describing the science of creating
public opinion in THE FATHER OF SPIN Bernays dominated the PR industry until
the 1940s, and was a significant force for another 40 years after that. (Tye)
During all that time, Bernays took on hundreds of diverse assignments to
create a public perception about some idea or product. A few examples: As a
neophyte with the Committee on Public Information, one of Bernays' first
assignments was to help sell the First World War to the American public with
the idea to "Make the World Safe for Democracy." (Ewen) A few years later, Bernays set up a
stunt to popularize the notion of women smoking cigarettes. In organizing the
1929 Easter Parade in Bernays popularized the idea of bacon
for breakfast. Not one to turn down a challenge, he set up the advertising
format along with the AMA that lasted for nearly 50 years proving that
cigarettes are beneficial to health. Just look at ads in issues of Life or
Time from the 40s and 50s. During the next several decades Bernays
and his colleagues evolved the principles by which masses of people could be
generally swayed through messages repeated over and over hundreds of times.
One the value of media became apparent, other countries of the world tried to
follow our lead. But Bernays really was the gold standard. Josef Goebbels,
who was Hitler's minister of propaganda, studied the principles of Edward
Bernays when Goebbels was developing the popular rationale he would use to
convince the Germans that they had to purify their race. (Stauber) SMOKE AND MIRRORS Bernay's job was to reframe an issue; to
create a desired image that would put a particular product or concept in a
desirable light. Bernays described the public as a 'herd that needed to be
led.' And this herdlike thinking makes people "susceptible to
leadership." Bernays never deviated from his fundamental axiom to
"control the masses without their knowing it." The best PR happens
with the people unaware that they are being manipulated. Stauber describes Bernays' rationale
like this: "the scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary
to overcome chaos and conflict in a democratic society." Trust Us p 42 These early mass persuaders postured
themselves as performing a moral service for humanity in general - democracy
was too good for people; they needed to be told what to think, because they
were incapable of rational thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph from
Bernays' Propaganda: "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of
society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of
our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas
suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of
the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human
beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly
functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere
of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are
dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental
processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires
that control the public mind." A tad different from Thomas Jefferson's
view on the subject: "I know of no safe depository of
the ultimate power of the society but the people themselves; and if we think
them not enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not take it from them, but to inform their
discretion." Inform their discretion. Bernays
believed that only a few possessed the necessary insight into the Big Picture
to be entrusted with this sacred task. And luckily, he saw himself as one of
that few. HERE COMES THE MONEY Once the possibilities of applying
Freudian psychology to mass media were glimpsed, Bernays soon had more
corporate clients than he could handle. Global corporations fell all over
themselves courting the new Image Makers. There were dozens of goods and
services and ideas to be sold to a susceptible public. Over the years, these
players have had the money to make their images happen. A few examples: Philip Morris Pfizer Union Carbide
Allstate Monsanto Eli Lilly tobacco industry Ciba Geigy lead industry Coors
DuPont Chlorox Shell Oil Standard Oil Procter & Gamble Boeing General
Motors Dow Chemical General Mills Goodyear THE PLAYERS Dozens of PR firms have emerged to
answer that demand. Among them: Burson-Marsteller Edelman Hill &
Knowlton Kamer-Singer Ketchum Mongovin, Biscoe, and Duchin BSMG Buder-Finn Though world-famous within the PR
industry, these are names we don't know, and for good reason. The best PR
goes unnoticed. For decades they have created the opinions that most of us
were raised with, on virtually any issue which has the remotest commercial
value, including: pharmaceutical drugs vaccines medicine
as a profession alternative medicine fluoridation of city water chlorine
household cleaning products tobacco dioxin global warming leaded gasoline
cancer research and treatment pollution of the oceans forests and lumber
images of celebrities, including damage control crisis and disaster
management genetically modified foods aspartame food additives; processed
foods dental amalgams LESSON #1
Bernays learned early on that the most
effective way to create credibility for a product or an image was by
"independent third-party" endorsement. For example, if General
Motors were to come out and say that global warming is a hoax thought up by
some liberal tree-huggers, people would suspect GM's motives, since GM's
fortune is made by selling automobiles. If however some independent research
institute with a very credible sounding name like the Global Climate
Coalition comes out with a scientific report that says global warming is
really a fiction, people begin to get confused and to have doubts about the
original issue. So that's exactly what Bernays did. With
a policy inspired by genius, he set up "more institutes and foundations
than Rockefeller and Carnegie combined." (Stauber p 45) Quietly financed
by the industries whose products were being evaluated, these
"independent" research agencies would churn out
"scientific" studies and press materials that could create any
image their handlers wanted. Such front groups are given high-sounding names
like: Temperature Research Foundation
International Food Information Council Consumer Alert The Advancement of
Sound Science Coalition Air Hygiene Foundation Industrial Health Federation
International Food Information Council Manhattan Institute Center for Produce
Quality Tobacco Institute Research Council Cato Institute American Council on
Science and Health Global Climate Coalition Alliance for Better Foods Sound pretty legit don't they? CANNED NEWS RELEASES As Stauber explains, these organizations
and hundreds of others like them are front groups whose sole mission is to
advance the image of the global corporations who fund them, like those listed
on page 2 above. This is accomplished in part by an endless stream of 'press
releases' announcing "breakthrough" research to every radio station
and newspaper in the country. (Robbins) Many of these canned reports read
like straight news, and indeed are purposely molded in the news format. This
saves journalists the trouble of researching the subjects on their own,
especially on topics aboutwhich they know very little. Entire sections of the
release or in the case of video news releases, the whole thing can be just
lifted intact, with no editing, given the byline of the reporter or newspaper
or TV station - and voilá! Instant news - copy and paste. Written by
corporate PR firms. Does this really happen? Every single
day, since the 1920s when the idea of the News Release was first invented by
Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p 22) Sometimes as many as half the stories appearing in
an issue of the Wall St. Journal are based solely on such PR press releases..
(22) These types of stories are mixed right in with legitimately researched
stories. Unless you have done the research yourself, you won't be able to
tell the difference. THE LANGUAGE OF SPIN As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and
Edward Bernays gained more experience, they began to formulate rules and
guidelines for creating public opinion. They learned quickly that mob
psychology must focus on emotion, not facts. Since the mob is incapable of
rational thought, motivation must be based not on logic but on presentation.
Here are some of the axioms of the new science of PR: * technology is a religion unto itself *
if people are incapable of rational thought, real democracy is dangerous *
important decisions should be left to experts * when reframing issues, stay
away from substance; create images * never state a clearly demonstrable lie Words are very carefully chosen for
their emotional impact. Here's an example. A front group called the
International Food Information Council handles the public's natural aversion
to genetically modified foods. Trigger words are repeated all through the
text. Now in the case of GM foods, the public is instinctively afraid of
these experimental new creations which have suddenly popped up on our grocery
shelves which are said to have DNA alterations. The IFIC wants to reassure
the public of the safety of GM foods, so it avoids words like: Frankenfoods Hitler biotech chemical DNA
experiments manipulate money safety scientists radiation roulette
gene-splicing gene gun random Instead, good PR for GM foods contains
words like: hybrids natural order beauty choice
bounty cross-breeding diversity earth farmer organic wholesome. It's basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word
association. The fact that GM foods are not hybrids that have been subjected to
the slow and careful scientific methods of real cross-breeding doesn't really
matter. This is pseudoscience, not science. Form is everything and substance
just a passing myth. (Trevanian) Who do you think funds the International
Food Information Council? Take a wild guess. Right - Monsanto, DuPont,
Frito-Lay, Coca Cola, Nutrasweet - those in a position to make fortunes from
GM foods. (Stauber p 20) CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD PROPAGANDA As the science of mass control evolved,
PR firms developed further guidelines for effective copy. Here are some of
the gems: - dehumanize the attacked party by
labeling and name calling - speak in glittering generalities using
emotionally positive words - when covering something up, don't use
plain English; stall for time; distract - get endorsements from celebrities,
churches, sports figures, street people...anyone who has no expertise in the
subject at hand - the 'plain folks' ruse: us
billionaires are just like you - when minimizing outrage, don't say
anything memorable - when minimizing outrage, point out the
benefits of what just happened - when minimizing outrage, avoid moral
issues Keep this list. Start watching for these
techniques. Not hard to find - look at today's paper or tonight's TV news.
See what they're doing; these guys are good!
SCIENCE FOR HIRE PR firms have become very sophisticated
in the preparation of news releases. They have learned how to attach the
names of famous scientists to research that those scientists have not even
looked at. (Stauber, p 201) This is a common occurrence. In this way the
editors of newspapers and TV news shows are often not even aware that an
individual release is a total PR fabrication. Or at least they have
"deniability," right? Stauber tells the amazing story of how
leaded gas came into the picture. In 1922, General Motors discovered that
adding lead to gasoline gave cars more horsepower. When there was some
concern about safety, GM paid the Bureau of Mines to do some fake
"testing" and publish spurious research that 'proved' that
inhalation of lead was harmless. Enter Charles Kettering. Founder of the world famous
Sloan-Kettering Memorial Institute for medical research, Charles Kettering
also happened to be an executive with General Motors. By some strange
coincidence, we soon have the Sloan Kettering institute issuing reports
stating that lead occurs naturally in the body and that the body has a way of
eliminating low level exposure. Through its association with The Industrial
Hygiene Foundation and PR giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane Kettering opposed
all anti-lead research for years. (Stauber p 92). Without organized
scientific opposition, for the next 60 years more and more gasoline became
leaded, until by the 1970s, 90% or our gasoline was leaded. Finally it became too obvious to hide
that lead was a major carcinogen, and leaded gas was phased out in the late
1980s. But during those 60 years, it is estimated that some 30 million tons
of lead were released in vapor form onto American streets and highways. 30
million tons. That is PR, my friends. JUNK SCIENCE In 1993 a guy named Peter Huber wrote a
new book and coined a new term. The book was Galileo's Revenge and the term
was junk science. Huber's shallow thesis was that real science supports
technology, industry, and progress. Anything else was suddenly junk science.
Not surprisingly, Stauber explains how Huber's book was supported by the
industry-backed Manhattan Institute. Huber's book was generally dismissed not
only because it was so poorly written, but because it failed to realize one
fact: true scientific research begins with no conclusions. Real scientists
are seeking the truth because they do not yet know what the truth is. True scientific method goes like this: 1. form a hypothesis 2. make predictions for that hypothesis 3. test the predictions 4. reject or revise the hypothesis based
on the research findings Another way you can often distinguish
real science from phony is that real science points out flaws in its own
research. Phony science pretends there were no flaws. THE REAL JUNK SCIENCE Contrast this with modern PR and its
constant pretensions to sound science. Corporate sponsored research, whether
it's in the area of drugs, GM foods, or chemistry begins with predetermined
conclusions. It is the job of the scientists then to prove that these
conclusions are true, because of the economic upside that proof will bring to
the industries paying for that research. This invidious approach to science
has shifted the entire focus of research in Stauber documents the increasing amount
of corporate sponsorship of university research. (206) This has nothing to do
with the pursuit of knowledge. Scientists lament that research has become
just another commodity, something bought and sold. (Crossen) THE TWO MAIN TARGETS OF "SOUND
SCIENCE" It is shocking when Stauber shows how
the vast majority of corporate PR today opposes any research that seeks to
protect: Public Health and The Environment It's a funny thing that most of the time
when we see the phrase "junk science," it is in a context of
defending something that may threaten either the environment or our health.
This makes sense when one realizes that money changes hands only by selling
the illusion of health and the illusion of environmental protection. True
public health and real preservation of the earth's environment have very low
market value. Stauber thinks it ironic that industry's
self-proclaimed debunkers of junk science are usually non-scientists
themselves. (255) Here again they can do this because the issue is not
science, but the creation of images. THE LANGUAGE OF ATTACK When PR firms attack legitimate
environmental groups and alternative medicine people, they again use special
words which will carry an emotional punch: outraged sound science junk science
sensible scaremongering responsible phobia hoax alarmist hysteria The next time you are reading a
newspaper article about an environmental or health issue, note how the author
shows bias by using the above terms. This is the result of very specialized
training. Another standard PR tactic is to use the
rhetoric of the environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous and
untested product that poses an actual threat to the environment. This we see
constantly in the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically modified foods.
They talk about how GM foods are necessary to grow more food and to end world
hunger, when the reality is that GM foods actually have lower yields per acre
than natural crops. (Stauber p 173) The grand design sort of comes into focus
once you realize that almost all GM foods have been created by the sellers of
herbicides and pesticides so that those plants can withstand greater amounts
of herbicides and pesticides. (The Magic Bean)
THE MIRAGE OF PEER REVIEW Publish or perish is the classic dilemma
of every research scientist. That means whoever expects funding for the next
research project had better get the current research paper published in the
best scientific journals. And we all know that the best scientific journals,
like JAMA, New England Journal, British Medical Journal, etc. are
peer-reviewed. Peer review means that any articles which actually get
published, between all those full color drug ads and pharmaceutical
centerfolds, have been reviewed and accepted by some really smart guys with a
lot of credentials. The assumption is, if the article made it past peer
review, the data and the conclusions of the research study have been
thoroughly checked out and bear some resemblance to physical reality. But there are a few problems with this
hot little set up. First off, money. Even though prestigious venerable
medical journals pretend to be so objective and scientific and incorruptible,
the reality is that they face the same type of being called to account that
all glossy magazines must confront: don't antagonize your advertisers. Those
full-page drug ads in the best journals cost millions,Jack. How long will a
pharmaceutical company pay for ad space in a magazine that prints some very
sound scientific research paper that attacks the safety of the drug in the
centerfold? Think about it. The editors aren't that stupid. Another problem is the conflict of
interest thing. There's a formal requirement for all medical journals that
any financial ties between an author and a product manufacturer be disclosed
in the article. In practice, it never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142
medical journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, A 1998 study from the New England
Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial
ties to the drug they were studying. (Stelfox, 1998) Big shock, huh? Any
disclosures? Yeah, right. This study should be pointed out whenever somebody
starts getting too pompous about the objectivity of peer review, like they
often do. Then there's the outright purchase of space.
A drug company may simply pay $100,000 to a journal to have a favorable
article printed. (Stauber, p 204) Fraud in peer review journals is nothing
new. In 1987, the New England Journal ran an article that followed the
research of R. Slutsky MD over a seven year period. During that time, Dr.
Slutsky had published 137 articles in a number of peer-reviewed journals.
NEJM found that in at least 60 of these 137, there was evidence of major
scientific fraud and misrepresentation, including: * reporting data for experiments that
were never done * reporting measurements that were never made * reporting
statistical analyses that were never done oEngler
Dean Black PhD, describes what he the
calls the Babel Effect that results when this very common and frequently
undetected scientific fraudulent data in peer-reviewed journals are quoted by
other researchers, who are in turn re-quoted by still others, and so on. Want to see something that sort of
re-frames this whole discussion? Check out the McDonald's ads which often
appear in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Then keep in mind
that this is the same publication that for almost 50 years ran cigarette ads
proclaiming the health benefits of tobacco. (Robbins) Very scientific, oh yes. KILL YOUR TV? Hope this chapter has given you a hint
to start reading newspaper and magazine articles a little differently, and
perhaps start watching TV news shows with a slightly different attitude than
you had before. Always ask, what are they selling here, and who's selling it?
And if you actually follow up on Stauber & Rampton's book and check out
some of the other resources below, you might even glimpse the possibility of
advancing your life one quantum simply by ceasing to subject your brain to
mass media. That's right - no more newspapers, no more TV news, no more Time
magazine or Newsweek. You could actually do that. Just think what you could
do with the extra time alone. Really feel like you need to
"relax" or find out "what's going on in the world" for a
few hours every day? Think about the news of the past couple of years for a
minute. Do you really suppose the major stories that have dominated headlines
and TV news have been "what is going on in the world?" Do you
actually think there's been nothing going on besides the contrived tech
slump, the contrived power shortages, the re-filtered accounts of foreign
violence and disaster, and all the other non-stories that the puppeteers
dangle before us every day? What about when they get a big one, like with OJ
or Monica Lewinsky or the Consider this: what was really going on
in the world all that time they were distracting us with all that stupid
vexatious daily smokescreen? Fear and uncertainty -- that's what keeps people
coming back for more. If this seems like a radical outlook,
let's take it one step further: What would you lose from your life if you
stopped watching TV and stopped reading newspapers altogether? Would your life really suffer any
financial, moral, intellectual or academic loss from such a decision? Do you really need to have your family
continually absorbing the illiterate, amoral, phony, uncultivated,
desperately brainless values of the people featured in the average nightly TV
program? Are these fake, programmed robots "normal"? Do you need to have your life values
constantly spoonfed to you? Are those shows really amusing, or just
a necessary distraction to keep you from looking at reality, or trying to
figure things out yourself by doing a little independent reading? Name one example of how your life is
improved by watching TV news and reading the evening paper. What measurable
gain is there for you? PLANET OF THE APES? There's no question that as a nation,
we're getting dumber year by year. Look at the presidents we've been choosing
lately. Ever notice the blatant grammar mistakes so ubiquitous in today's
advertising and billboards? Literacy is marginal in most American secondary
schools. Three-fourths of Or observe the intellectual level of the
average movie which these days may only last one or two weeks in the
theatres, especially if it has insufficient explosions, chase scenes,
silicone, fake martial arts, and cretinesque dialogue. Radio? Consider the
low mental qualifications of the falsely animated corporate simians hired as
DJs -- seems like they're only allowed to have 50 thoughts, which they just
repeat at random. And at what point did popular music cease to require the
study of any musical instrument or theory whatsoever, not to mention lyric?
Perhaps we just don't understand this emerging art form, right? The Darwinism
of MTV - apes descended from man. Ever notice how most articles in any of
the glossy magazines sound like they were all written by the same guy? And
this writer just graduated from junior college? And yet has all the correct
opinions on social issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug, homogenized
corporate omniscience, to assure us that everything is going to be fine...
Yes, everything is fine. All this is great news for the PR
industry - makes their job that much easier. Not only are very few paying
attention to the process of conditioning; fewer are capable of understanding
it even if somebody explained it to them. TEA IN THE CAFETERIA Let's say you're in a crowded cafeteria,
and you buy a cup of tea. And as you're about to sit down you see your friend
way across the room. So you put the tea down and walk across the room and
talk to your friend for a few minutes. Now, coming back to your tea, are you
just going to pick it up and drink it? Remember, this is a crowded place and
you've just left your tea unattended for several minutes. You've given
anybody in that room access to your tea. Why should your mind be any different?
Turning on the TV, or uncritically absorbing mass publications every day -
these activities allow access to our minds by "just anyone" -
anyone who has an agenda, anyone with the resources to create a public image
via popular media. As we've seen above, just because we read something or see
something on TV doesn't mean it's true or worth knowing. So the idea here is,
like the tea, the mind is also worth guarding, worth limiting access to it. This is the only life we get. Time is
our total capital. Why waste it allowing our potential, our personality, our
values to be shaped, crafted, and limited according to the whims of the mass
panderers? There are many truly important decisions that are crucial to our
physical, mental, and spiritual well-being, decisions which require
information and research. If it's an issue where money is involved, objective
data won't be so easy to obtain. Remember, if everybody knows something, that
image has been bought and paid for. Real knowledge takes a little effort, a
little excavation down at least one level below what "everybody
knows." 1 REFERENCES Stauber & Rampton Trust Us, We're
Experts Tarcher/Putnam 2001 Ewen, Stuart PR!: A Social History of
Spin 1996 ISBN: 0-465-06168-0 Published by Basic Books, A Division of Harper
Collins Tye, Larry The Father of Spin: Edward L.
Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations Crown Publishers, Inc. 2001 King, R Medical journals rarely disclose
researchers' ties Wall St. Journal, Engler, R et al. Misrepresentation and
Responsibility in Medical Research New England Journal of Medicine v 317 p
1383 Black, D PhD Health At the Crossroads
Tapestry 1988. Trevanian Shibumi 1983. Crossen, C Tainted Truth: The
Manipulation of Fact in Robbins, J Reclaiming Our Health Kramer
1996. O'Shea T The Magic Bean 2000
www.thedoctorwithin.com Alternative Medicine magazine May 2001. |