This is an abridged version of an article published in Taiwan's “The Journalist ”, a weekly news magazine. In the article, the writer laments that the American media has become a political tool that assists the expansion of terrorism.
Three American missiles hit the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia “by mistake” and sparked off demonstrations and protests of students and the masses in mainland China. It is worthy to note the mode of reporting and the language used in the American media with regards to this incident.
First of all, there is the “mode of exclusion”。 The American media has always love nitpicking where other things are concerned, but as to how three “intelligent weapons”could have hit a target “by mistake” and with such accuracy, the most basic media scepticism was not to be found. This is indeed an eye-opener.
Anyone with some knowledge will know that this was not an accidental hit. It was right on target. Therefore, the American media should have posed these questions： Why was the Chinese embassy the target for missile strikes？ Why did three missiles simultaneously struck “by mistake” and with such accuracy？ Alas, they are not at all interested in these obvious questions.
This is a form of “mode of exclusion”。 Never ask questions which are not supposed to be asked. For one, it is to shirk the responsibility in the international arena. For another, it is to shape the thinking modes of Americans within the United States. This “mode of exclusion” of the American media has developed into a new “political correctness” which appears on its own without any directives from the media bosses.
Secondly, there is “selective inclusion” and“misinformation”。 For instance, in the reports on the students' demonstrations and protests in China following the missile strikes, the American media, in its images and reports, has repeatedly reminded their readers and viewers that they were state-orchestrated demonstrations. This is very strange. It is strange to the point of perversity. The US has bombed another country's embassy, but does not allow the citizens of that country to protest. Any protestors who took to the streets must have been mobilised by the government.
Such a mean and despicable attitude stems from the attempt to shirk its own responsibility by calling into question the genuineness of the demonstrations. In the reports of the protests and demonstrations by the American media, the inconvenience suffered by and the anxiety of the US embassy staff were played up, and the demonstrations were seen as a big threat. The fact that the US has bombed someone else's embassy was downplayed, while the seriousness of irrelevant incidents was exaggerated. Their deliberate obfuscation of the issue and shameless spouting of nonsense show up their malevolence.
And this is the American media's “model of argument”。 In his four books on the American media - “Manufacturing Consent”, “Necessary Illusions： Thought Control in Democratic Societies”, “Turning the Tide” and “The Culture of Terrorism” - American linguistic doyen Noam Chomsky argues that the American media has already become a propaganda tool for American terrorism.
Its ultimate aim is to convince the public, make them realise how evil the enemy is, and set the stage for the inteference, sedition or support of national terrorism, so as to achieve the goals of perpetuating a never-ending arms race and armed conflicts. To all of this, a noble reason is bestowed.
In their news reports, the American media is becoming used to “excluding” or “including” the issues.
As the United States is seeking the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the current Yugoslav conflict, its media has vilified the Serbs in its one-sided reports, ignoring the massacres of the Serbs by Croatians, Bosnians and Kosovo Albanians.
Three years ago, the American media worked closely with the US government, and labelled the Kosovo Liberation Army as “terrorists”。 But today, they are seen as “fighters for a just cause”。 This arbitrary change in labels stems from the fact that three years ago, the United States had wanted both Croatia and Bosnia to secede.
If then it had included Kosovo, an inherent part of Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia would have given strong opposition, and the problem of Croatia and Bosnia would not have been solved.
However, the above problem has already been resolved, and Yugoslavia can now be disintegrated even further. To give legitimacy to its present cause, the US has transformed former “terrorists” into “fighters for a just cause”。
The US assigns labels on others according to its own strategies, and the media can lend support to such efforts with the necessary images and news angles. This is selective misinformation. In an era where the media is highly sophisticated and the people's memories are short, it is becoming increasingly easy to use the media in the manufacturing of consent.
In the media age, the structural control of the media, and the moulding of fixed models of argument and rhetoric through the media, are equivalent to moulding political agenda and public opinion. Control over the media means control over ideas, language and the way people discuss particular issues.
Most of what have happened in Yugoslavia can be explained from the angle of how the media creates language and the way we think. The incident of the “accidental”missile hit is but one example.
美國媒體變恐怖主義傳聲筒
媒體的責(zé)任是報道事實,但作者認(rèn)為美國媒體的選擇性報道方式,已使它淪為政治的工具,在戰(zhàn)爭中更助長了恐怖行動的擴(kuò)張。
美國的三枚飛彈,同時“誤擊”中國駐南斯拉夫大使館,引發(fā)大陸學(xué)生及群眾的**運(yùn)動。非常值得注意的,乃是美國對整個事件的報道模式及其使用的語言。
其一是“排除模式”。美國媒體一向?qū)e的事情喜歡雞蛋里挑骨頭,但對自詡“聰明的武器”卻三枚居然都那么準(zhǔn)地“誤擊”,連最起碼的懷疑精神都告失去,寧不使人嘖嘖稱奇。
稍微有點(diǎn)常識的人都知道這絕非誤擊,而是準(zhǔn)確地?fù)糁心繕?biāo)。因此,美國媒體應(yīng)當(dāng)提出這樣的問題：為什么以中國大使館為打擊之目標(biāo)？為什么會三枚飛彈同時那么準(zhǔn)確地“誤擊”？但對這些如此明顯的問題,它們卻毫無興趣。
這就是一種“排除模式”,不去問不該問的問題,一則在國際上逃避責(zé)任,另外則是在國內(nèi)誤導(dǎo)美國人民的思考模式。美國媒體的這種“排除模式”,早已發(fā)展成一種不必媒體老板交代即會自動出現(xiàn)的新“政治正確”。
其二則是“選擇性的包含”及“誤訊”。以這次飛彈攻擊所引發(fā)的大陸學(xué)生**為例,美國媒體在畫面及文字上,即不斷強(qiáng)調(diào)這是大陸官方都鼓動的*。這實在是非常奇怪,而且奇怪到很變態(tài)的一種心態(tài)。將別人的大使館炸掉,居然還不準(zhǔn)*,*者一定是官方發(fā)動的群眾。
這種心態(tài)的卑鄙與惡質(zhì),乃是在于非法化*活動以逃避自己的責(zé)任。美國媒體在報道**時,并將使館人員因此而造成的不便與不安,夸大處理,*活動儼然變成了很具威脅性的事情。將自己炸別人寫得輕淡幾筆,卻將不相干的事情寫得嚴(yán)重?zé)o比,因果倒置,胡扯耍賴,其邪惡由此可見。
而這就是美國媒體的“論述模式”,當(dāng)代美國語言學(xué)大師杭士基曾先后以《加工制造同意》、《必要的幻象：民主社會的思想控制》、《改變潮流》、《恐怖主義文化》等四本討論美國媒體之著作,闡釋美國媒體早已成為美國國家恐怖主義的宣傳機(jī)器。
而其終極目的,則在于“說服公眾,使人民了解敵人的邪惡,并設(shè)定干涉、*、支持其國家恐怖主義的舞臺,進(jìn)而達(dá)到無休止的軍備競賽和武力沖突之目的,并使這一切都有高貴的理由。”
如果由近代美國媒體史的發(fā)展以觀,60年代及70年代初之前是個階段,當(dāng)時的媒體可以說乃是一個單獨(dú)的公正勢力,它和“軍—產(chǎn)復(fù)合體”的統(tǒng)治階級并無太大的利益掛¤,因而遂能以中立的態(tài)度看待不正義的越戰(zhàn),并對越戰(zhàn)進(jìn)行批評。
反戰(zhàn)運(yùn)動和媒體的角色,使得越戰(zhàn)終究無法取得正當(dāng)性,而這也是美國在越南戰(zhàn)場失敗的主因。
不過,值得注意的,乃是越戰(zhàn)尾聲,代表了美國統(tǒng)治階級的“三邊委員會”曾特別就越戰(zhàn)引起的統(tǒng)治危機(jī)進(jìn)行研究,研究題目乃是《民主體制的可統(tǒng)治性》報告結(jié)論中指出,“媒體已成為國家權(quán)力的明顯資源”,媒體的無法掌握,“內(nèi)則使得民主過度,使政府威信掃地；外則使國家在國際社會的影響力衰退”或許正基于這樣的覺悟,美國遂于1970年代中后期進(jìn)行了一次大規(guī)模的媒體股權(quán)交換。
普利茲獎得主巴迪姜在《媒體壟斷》這部著作里,即對這種“軍－產(chǎn)－媒體”聯(lián)合的新結(jié)構(gòu)做了詳盡的分析。從此以后,美國“自由媒體”的時代宣告結(jié)束,媒體與統(tǒng)治集團(tuán)掛¤,并成為國家恐怖主義的宣傳機(jī)器的新時代開始來到。
1960年到70年代初,媒體敢于揭露軍特部門秘件,敢于抨擊侵略活動之勇氣,開始被一種新的“共識”及“政治正確”所收編。
杭士基教授在前述四本討論到媒體控制的著作中,曾對80年代后,美國的媒體宣傳及控制有過詳細(xì)的討論及分析。
例如,媒體會自動地設(shè)定出誰是“有價值的受害人”,或誰是“無價值的受害人”。當(dāng)它要丑化某個國家時,就會從該國找出“有價值的受害人”。但若是美國的朋友,或?qū)γ绹月犛嫃牡挠箤賴?縱使再多人受害,媒體也將無動于衷,因為他們是“無價值的受害人”。
就以眼前的事情為例,庫特族分布于中東各國,在伊拉克所受待遇,在土耳其則所受待遇最慘,但因土耳其為美國之庸屬國,縱使再多庫特族被殺,也都只是“無價值的受害人”；伊拉克對庫特族,但因它的反美,遂使得美國不斷慫恿庫特族反叛并使之成為“有價值的受害人”不久前,美國甚至協(xié)助土耳其至外國綁架庫特族領(lǐng)袖,但美國媒體卻對這樣的行為無所置評。
美國媒體的墮落由此可見。易言之,這等于他們在決定什么人的死亡與受害是有價值的或無價值的。塞爾維亞人及伊拉克人的死亡當(dāng)然沒有價值。
例如,美國媒體已愈來愈習(xí)慣于報道新聞時,將什么話題“排除在外”及“包括進(jìn)來”。
就以稍早前的波灣戰(zhàn)爭為例,美軍有一個工兵旅即用挖土機(jī)挖出壕溝,而后將伊拉克傷兵用推土機(jī)推進(jìn)壕溝活埋,主流媒體居然視為理所當(dāng)然地不予報道；對美軍轟炸造成伊拉克平民至少25萬人死亡也無動于衷。
有關(guān)近年來的南斯拉夫*,美國為了肢解南斯拉夫,媒體也一面倒地丑化塞爾維亞人,對克羅埃西亞、波士尼亞,以及科索沃阿爾巴尼亞裔對塞爾維亞人的屠殺不予報道。
三年前美國媒體配合政府,將“科索沃解放軍”定位為“恐怖分子”,到了今日,則又被視為“正義斗士”,標(biāo)簽的任意變換,原因在于三年前美國主要以肢解克羅地亞及波士尼亞為目標(biāo),設(shè)若當(dāng)時也將南斯拉夫固有領(lǐng)土科索沃包括進(jìn)來,勢必造成南斯拉夫嚴(yán)厲反對,而使克羅地亞及波士尼亞問題亦無法解決。
而今前面的問題業(yè)已解決,已可進(jìn)一步肢解南斯拉夫,為了合理化自己,于是昔日的“恐怖主義”立即翻轉(zhuǎn)成了“正義斗士”。
完全根據(jù)自己的策略而決定將別人貼上什么標(biāo)簽,媒體都能充分配合地采取必須的畫面和報道視角。這些乃是選擇性的“誤訊”,在這個媒體發(fā)達(dá)而人民健忘的時代,借著媒體來加工制造同意,已的確愈來愈容易了。
杭士基在《恐怖主義文化》里特別指出,當(dāng)年的“伊朗——尼游丑聞案”可以說乃是一個最特殊且成功,甚至“*的助手弋貝爾及史大林都會為之大笑”的案例。
當(dāng)時國務(wù)院為了替*及侵略制造民意基礎(chǔ),特地在國務(wù)院下秘密設(shè)置“公關(guān)室”,展開一個代號“真理作業(yè)”的“心理戰(zhàn)計劃”,由“國安會”主控,“將宣傳當(dāng)作機(jī)密消息”發(fā)給媒體,為了如何掌控媒體,他們于85年3月,甚至草擬了一份厚達(dá)15頁的備忘錄。
那是近代美國借著掌控媒體而制造民意的最成功的經(jīng)驗,此后更江河日下,無往不利。
媒體時代,媒體的結(jié)構(gòu)性掌控,以及借著媒體而塑造出固定的論述及修辭模式,也就等于塑造出了政治的議程及民意。掌控媒體也就掌控了概念、語言、人們談?wù)撃硞€問題的方式。
發(fā)生在南斯拉夫的所有事情,有一大半都可以從媒體創(chuàng)造語言及思考方法的角度來加以切入。飛彈“誤擊”事件,不過是其中的一環(huán)而已。
Three American missiles hit the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia “by mistake” and sparked off demonstrations and protests of students and the masses in mainland China. It is worthy to note the mode of reporting and the language used in the American media with regards to this incident.
First of all, there is the “mode of exclusion”。 The American media has always love nitpicking where other things are concerned, but as to how three “intelligent weapons”could have hit a target “by mistake” and with such accuracy, the most basic media scepticism was not to be found. This is indeed an eye-opener.
Anyone with some knowledge will know that this was not an accidental hit. It was right on target. Therefore, the American media should have posed these questions： Why was the Chinese embassy the target for missile strikes？ Why did three missiles simultaneously struck “by mistake” and with such accuracy？ Alas, they are not at all interested in these obvious questions.
This is a form of “mode of exclusion”。 Never ask questions which are not supposed to be asked. For one, it is to shirk the responsibility in the international arena. For another, it is to shape the thinking modes of Americans within the United States. This “mode of exclusion” of the American media has developed into a new “political correctness” which appears on its own without any directives from the media bosses.
Secondly, there is “selective inclusion” and“misinformation”。 For instance, in the reports on the students' demonstrations and protests in China following the missile strikes, the American media, in its images and reports, has repeatedly reminded their readers and viewers that they were state-orchestrated demonstrations. This is very strange. It is strange to the point of perversity. The US has bombed another country's embassy, but does not allow the citizens of that country to protest. Any protestors who took to the streets must have been mobilised by the government.
Such a mean and despicable attitude stems from the attempt to shirk its own responsibility by calling into question the genuineness of the demonstrations. In the reports of the protests and demonstrations by the American media, the inconvenience suffered by and the anxiety of the US embassy staff were played up, and the demonstrations were seen as a big threat. The fact that the US has bombed someone else's embassy was downplayed, while the seriousness of irrelevant incidents was exaggerated. Their deliberate obfuscation of the issue and shameless spouting of nonsense show up their malevolence.
And this is the American media's “model of argument”。 In his four books on the American media - “Manufacturing Consent”, “Necessary Illusions： Thought Control in Democratic Societies”, “Turning the Tide” and “The Culture of Terrorism” - American linguistic doyen Noam Chomsky argues that the American media has already become a propaganda tool for American terrorism.
Its ultimate aim is to convince the public, make them realise how evil the enemy is, and set the stage for the inteference, sedition or support of national terrorism, so as to achieve the goals of perpetuating a never-ending arms race and armed conflicts. To all of this, a noble reason is bestowed.
In their news reports, the American media is becoming used to “excluding” or “including” the issues.
As the United States is seeking the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the current Yugoslav conflict, its media has vilified the Serbs in its one-sided reports, ignoring the massacres of the Serbs by Croatians, Bosnians and Kosovo Albanians.
Three years ago, the American media worked closely with the US government, and labelled the Kosovo Liberation Army as “terrorists”。 But today, they are seen as “fighters for a just cause”。 This arbitrary change in labels stems from the fact that three years ago, the United States had wanted both Croatia and Bosnia to secede.
If then it had included Kosovo, an inherent part of Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia would have given strong opposition, and the problem of Croatia and Bosnia would not have been solved.
However, the above problem has already been resolved, and Yugoslavia can now be disintegrated even further. To give legitimacy to its present cause, the US has transformed former “terrorists” into “fighters for a just cause”。
The US assigns labels on others according to its own strategies, and the media can lend support to such efforts with the necessary images and news angles. This is selective misinformation. In an era where the media is highly sophisticated and the people's memories are short, it is becoming increasingly easy to use the media in the manufacturing of consent.
In the media age, the structural control of the media, and the moulding of fixed models of argument and rhetoric through the media, are equivalent to moulding political agenda and public opinion. Control over the media means control over ideas, language and the way people discuss particular issues.
Most of what have happened in Yugoslavia can be explained from the angle of how the media creates language and the way we think. The incident of the “accidental”missile hit is but one example.
美國媒體變恐怖主義傳聲筒
媒體的責(zé)任是報道事實,但作者認(rèn)為美國媒體的選擇性報道方式,已使它淪為政治的工具,在戰(zhàn)爭中更助長了恐怖行動的擴(kuò)張。
美國的三枚飛彈,同時“誤擊”中國駐南斯拉夫大使館,引發(fā)大陸學(xué)生及群眾的**運(yùn)動。非常值得注意的,乃是美國對整個事件的報道模式及其使用的語言。
其一是“排除模式”。美國媒體一向?qū)e的事情喜歡雞蛋里挑骨頭,但對自詡“聰明的武器”卻三枚居然都那么準(zhǔn)地“誤擊”,連最起碼的懷疑精神都告失去,寧不使人嘖嘖稱奇。
稍微有點(diǎn)常識的人都知道這絕非誤擊,而是準(zhǔn)確地?fù)糁心繕?biāo)。因此,美國媒體應(yīng)當(dāng)提出這樣的問題：為什么以中國大使館為打擊之目標(biāo)？為什么會三枚飛彈同時那么準(zhǔn)確地“誤擊”？但對這些如此明顯的問題,它們卻毫無興趣。
這就是一種“排除模式”,不去問不該問的問題,一則在國際上逃避責(zé)任,另外則是在國內(nèi)誤導(dǎo)美國人民的思考模式。美國媒體的這種“排除模式”,早已發(fā)展成一種不必媒體老板交代即會自動出現(xiàn)的新“政治正確”。
其二則是“選擇性的包含”及“誤訊”。以這次飛彈攻擊所引發(fā)的大陸學(xué)生**為例,美國媒體在畫面及文字上,即不斷強(qiáng)調(diào)這是大陸官方都鼓動的*。這實在是非常奇怪,而且奇怪到很變態(tài)的一種心態(tài)。將別人的大使館炸掉,居然還不準(zhǔn)*,*者一定是官方發(fā)動的群眾。
這種心態(tài)的卑鄙與惡質(zhì),乃是在于非法化*活動以逃避自己的責(zé)任。美國媒體在報道**時,并將使館人員因此而造成的不便與不安,夸大處理,*活動儼然變成了很具威脅性的事情。將自己炸別人寫得輕淡幾筆,卻將不相干的事情寫得嚴(yán)重?zé)o比,因果倒置,胡扯耍賴,其邪惡由此可見。
而這就是美國媒體的“論述模式”,當(dāng)代美國語言學(xué)大師杭士基曾先后以《加工制造同意》、《必要的幻象：民主社會的思想控制》、《改變潮流》、《恐怖主義文化》等四本討論美國媒體之著作,闡釋美國媒體早已成為美國國家恐怖主義的宣傳機(jī)器。
而其終極目的,則在于“說服公眾,使人民了解敵人的邪惡,并設(shè)定干涉、*、支持其國家恐怖主義的舞臺,進(jìn)而達(dá)到無休止的軍備競賽和武力沖突之目的,并使這一切都有高貴的理由。”
如果由近代美國媒體史的發(fā)展以觀,60年代及70年代初之前是個階段,當(dāng)時的媒體可以說乃是一個單獨(dú)的公正勢力,它和“軍—產(chǎn)復(fù)合體”的統(tǒng)治階級并無太大的利益掛¤,因而遂能以中立的態(tài)度看待不正義的越戰(zhàn),并對越戰(zhàn)進(jìn)行批評。
反戰(zhàn)運(yùn)動和媒體的角色,使得越戰(zhàn)終究無法取得正當(dāng)性,而這也是美國在越南戰(zhàn)場失敗的主因。
不過,值得注意的,乃是越戰(zhàn)尾聲,代表了美國統(tǒng)治階級的“三邊委員會”曾特別就越戰(zhàn)引起的統(tǒng)治危機(jī)進(jìn)行研究,研究題目乃是《民主體制的可統(tǒng)治性》報告結(jié)論中指出,“媒體已成為國家權(quán)力的明顯資源”,媒體的無法掌握,“內(nèi)則使得民主過度,使政府威信掃地；外則使國家在國際社會的影響力衰退”或許正基于這樣的覺悟,美國遂于1970年代中后期進(jìn)行了一次大規(guī)模的媒體股權(quán)交換。
普利茲獎得主巴迪姜在《媒體壟斷》這部著作里,即對這種“軍－產(chǎn)－媒體”聯(lián)合的新結(jié)構(gòu)做了詳盡的分析。從此以后,美國“自由媒體”的時代宣告結(jié)束,媒體與統(tǒng)治集團(tuán)掛¤,并成為國家恐怖主義的宣傳機(jī)器的新時代開始來到。
1960年到70年代初,媒體敢于揭露軍特部門秘件,敢于抨擊侵略活動之勇氣,開始被一種新的“共識”及“政治正確”所收編。
杭士基教授在前述四本討論到媒體控制的著作中,曾對80年代后,美國的媒體宣傳及控制有過詳細(xì)的討論及分析。
例如,媒體會自動地設(shè)定出誰是“有價值的受害人”,或誰是“無價值的受害人”。當(dāng)它要丑化某個國家時,就會從該國找出“有價值的受害人”。但若是美國的朋友,或?qū)γ绹月犛嫃牡挠箤賴?縱使再多人受害,媒體也將無動于衷,因為他們是“無價值的受害人”。
就以眼前的事情為例,庫特族分布于中東各國,在伊拉克所受待遇,在土耳其則所受待遇最慘,但因土耳其為美國之庸屬國,縱使再多庫特族被殺,也都只是“無價值的受害人”；伊拉克對庫特族,但因它的反美,遂使得美國不斷慫恿庫特族反叛并使之成為“有價值的受害人”不久前,美國甚至協(xié)助土耳其至外國綁架庫特族領(lǐng)袖,但美國媒體卻對這樣的行為無所置評。
美國媒體的墮落由此可見。易言之,這等于他們在決定什么人的死亡與受害是有價值的或無價值的。塞爾維亞人及伊拉克人的死亡當(dāng)然沒有價值。
例如,美國媒體已愈來愈習(xí)慣于報道新聞時,將什么話題“排除在外”及“包括進(jìn)來”。
就以稍早前的波灣戰(zhàn)爭為例,美軍有一個工兵旅即用挖土機(jī)挖出壕溝,而后將伊拉克傷兵用推土機(jī)推進(jìn)壕溝活埋,主流媒體居然視為理所當(dāng)然地不予報道；對美軍轟炸造成伊拉克平民至少25萬人死亡也無動于衷。
有關(guān)近年來的南斯拉夫*,美國為了肢解南斯拉夫,媒體也一面倒地丑化塞爾維亞人,對克羅埃西亞、波士尼亞,以及科索沃阿爾巴尼亞裔對塞爾維亞人的屠殺不予報道。
三年前美國媒體配合政府,將“科索沃解放軍”定位為“恐怖分子”,到了今日,則又被視為“正義斗士”,標(biāo)簽的任意變換,原因在于三年前美國主要以肢解克羅地亞及波士尼亞為目標(biāo),設(shè)若當(dāng)時也將南斯拉夫固有領(lǐng)土科索沃包括進(jìn)來,勢必造成南斯拉夫嚴(yán)厲反對,而使克羅地亞及波士尼亞問題亦無法解決。
而今前面的問題業(yè)已解決,已可進(jìn)一步肢解南斯拉夫,為了合理化自己,于是昔日的“恐怖主義”立即翻轉(zhuǎn)成了“正義斗士”。
完全根據(jù)自己的策略而決定將別人貼上什么標(biāo)簽,媒體都能充分配合地采取必須的畫面和報道視角。這些乃是選擇性的“誤訊”,在這個媒體發(fā)達(dá)而人民健忘的時代,借著媒體來加工制造同意,已的確愈來愈容易了。
杭士基在《恐怖主義文化》里特別指出,當(dāng)年的“伊朗——尼游丑聞案”可以說乃是一個最特殊且成功,甚至“*的助手弋貝爾及史大林都會為之大笑”的案例。
當(dāng)時國務(wù)院為了替*及侵略制造民意基礎(chǔ),特地在國務(wù)院下秘密設(shè)置“公關(guān)室”,展開一個代號“真理作業(yè)”的“心理戰(zhàn)計劃”,由“國安會”主控,“將宣傳當(dāng)作機(jī)密消息”發(fā)給媒體,為了如何掌控媒體,他們于85年3月,甚至草擬了一份厚達(dá)15頁的備忘錄。
那是近代美國借著掌控媒體而制造民意的最成功的經(jīng)驗,此后更江河日下,無往不利。
媒體時代,媒體的結(jié)構(gòu)性掌控,以及借著媒體而塑造出固定的論述及修辭模式,也就等于塑造出了政治的議程及民意。掌控媒體也就掌控了概念、語言、人們談?wù)撃硞€問題的方式。
發(fā)生在南斯拉夫的所有事情,有一大半都可以從媒體創(chuàng)造語言及思考方法的角度來加以切入。飛彈“誤擊”事件,不過是其中的一環(huán)而已。