Letter: Manufacturing consent

Not for the first time reading a foreign policy news piece in the Monitor from the Washington Post, I was reminded of the Cold War era joke about the Soviet journalist visiting the US to study propaganda. When learning the purpose of his visit, an American asked, “What propaganda?” and the Soviet replied, “Exactly!”

The title of the WaPo piece was “China sweet-talks Russia.” The use of “sweet-talks” tells the reader with a critical eye the direction this news article is headed. Further down, we read that Russia has faced “crippling” Western sanctions and isolation on the international stage.”

Well, it is true that Russia has faced many Western sanctions, but they haven’t crippled Russia’s economy, since it is expected to grow. This is in contrast to the economies of the European Union’s member states, nearly all of which are shrinking. And Russia is hardly “isolated” on the international stage, as a founding member and active participant in BRICS. The BRICS member states have a combined GDP greater than that of the EU and the US together. And calling China’s “Global Times” “hawkish”? By what metric is this adjective deemed necessary in an objective news story? Or is it meant to apply more generally to any Chinese news source?

Propaganda manufactures consent for policies that might otherwise be deemed unwise. Often, like Boris and Natasha from “Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle,” it’s hiding in plain sight. You just have to look for it.

Bruce Currie

Concord