Frank

I'd like to thank myself for attending this press conference. I'm glad I could make it on such short notice. I'll start with a question from myself—Yes, you, sir, with the familiar face:

Me: "Ranjit, what do I make of the quality of my coursework so far?"
Me: "Good question. I think the work has been steady. I've had my highs and my lows. Right now I'm just taking it one day at a time, focusing on the fundamentals…next question…"
Me: "Ranjit, as a lifelong Red Sox fan, I must be thrilled with their recent World Series victory."
Me: "I'm glad I brought that up. Yes, I never thought I'd live to see the day. Next question."
Me: "Sir, what about rumors floating around campus that you have a hold on your enrollment for an unresolved vaccination issue?"
Me: Who told me about that? That's a cheap shot. I'm out of line, mister. This press conference is over…

The above is my own version of the press conference recently held by FEMA in response to the wildfires raging through California. In case you didn't hear by now, FEMA staged a fake press conference to update us on its efforts. Reporters were replaced by staff members, and probing questions replaced with scripted inquiries. Journalism replaced by propaganda.

Since word has gotten out about the fake presser, at least one head has rolled. John "Pat" Philbin, who ran FEMA's external communications at the time, has since stepped down. He maintains, however, that the staged event was entirely his idea. One bad apple.

Funny thing is Philbin insists that FEMA's second-in-command, Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson, took the "questions" without knowing they came from his own staffers—even though he called out to them by name!

Heckuva job, Philby!

The Bush administration had strong words for FEMA. U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, who oversees the agency, spelled out his disapproval in no uncertain terms:

"I have made unambiguously clear, in Anglo-Saxon prose, that it is not to ever happen again and there will be appropriate disciplinary action taken against these people who exhibited what I regard as extraordinarily poor judgment."

I wonder if Chertoff was dressed in full knight's armor as he spoke in fluent Anglo-Saxon prose?

Chertoff's reprimanding overlooks one inconvenient fact: FEMA got its fake news playbook from none other than the Bush Administration.

Think back to 2005 (I know, it's next to impossible in this attention-challenged world, but here's some help: Britney just announced she was preggers with her first airbag). Okay, so now that you have a mental signpost…back in '05, it was revealed that columnist Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 by the U.S. Department of Education to endorse "No Child Left Behind."

Before that, in 2004 (Britney was just getting over her first marriage to Jason Alexander—no, not the Seinfeld dude, some country bumpkin…), anyway, back in '04, the Department of Health and Human Services was cited for passing off a series of video news releases as freelance journalistic pieces. The video news releases touted the benefits of a new Medicare law, and, of course, made no mention of the fact that they came directly from the federal government.

From these staged news pieces and events to screened questions at town hall meetings to arbitrarily rising terror alerts, if there's one thing this administration knows (and let me say it in clear Anglo-Saxon prose) it's propaganda.

But what exactly is propaganda, anyway?

Having only a general idea of the concept, I headed to a book on the subject we recently published in my place of employment (the University Press of Kansas). The book, Total Cold War, details President Eisenhower's attempts to win the Cold War battle over "hearts and minds" through propaganda applied to audiences both abroad and at home.

According to the author:

Propaganda is notoriously difficult to define, but at its core, the term refers to any technique or action that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, or behavior of a group, usually to serve the interests of the sponsor….It generally disguises the secret intentions and goals of the sponsor: it seeks to inculcate ideas rather than to explain them; and it aspires to modify or control opinions and actions to benefit the sponsor rather than the recipient. As such, propaganda also functions as an instrument of coercion: it seeks to compel the target audience to submit to the will of the propagandist. (7)

The author goes on to say that propaganda is not synonymous with "lies." In fact, the most effective propaganda is that which is based on facts and rings true to the audience. Sounds fairly harmless, right? However, as the author explains, propaganda (even if based on truthful facts) has a dark side that shouldn't be confused with "information" or "education":

As David Welch points out, "propaganda is different from information—which seeks to transmit facts objectively—and from education, which hopes to open its students' minds. The aim of propaganda is the opposite: to persuade its subject or public of one point of view; and to close off other options." (8)

In other words: Nothing to see here—pay no attention to the tiny man behind the large curtain.

Take this definition into mind and now look back at those seemingly harmless violations. Telling us what to think about education policy, health policy, emergency response—at the exclusion of any and all criticisms—sure doesn't sound like American democracy to me.

I understand that FEMA would want to protect its image, especially after the beating it took for its response (or lack thereof) after Hurricane Katrina. But to put that self-preservation above the right of the people to get honest answers to honest questions about a natural disaster is simply unconscionable.

Perhaps the real reporters would have asked the same obvious questions—but maybe one reporter in the room would have deviated, and that one reporter might have brought up an issue that FEMA isn't willing to disclose. In other words, we'll never know. We're simply forced to take what FEMA fed us, which was intended to close discussion, rather than encourage it.

The Bush administration claims that they don't condone this type of behavior, but I'm sure they're already planting their next story. It won't be long before there's need to spin something else: the effectiveness of the surge, the triumphs of the Iraqi government, the problems with socialized health care, pick a controversy.

The rest of us—the American public—need to take a closer look at the news we receive. That won't happen until there is more transparency within the media, and if anything, the trend is pushing further and further away from that.

Meanwhile, I don't think FEMA has named a replacement for Philbin, but word on the street is that they have an excellent candidate...goes by the name of Baghdad Bob.