he following piece
is one I picked up from the Internet. I do not remember how I found it or who
wrote it, but I saved it somehow on my laptop because the topic is, well,
appropriate for the Philippines. Based on these seventeen, how well do you think
does the Philippine government do?
Here goes:
"Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity
can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based
defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques
depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition
party.
1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it
didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?"
gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild
rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn
about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to
believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or
"hysterical.")
4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects
of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild
rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to
debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist,"
"nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be
sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their
charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You
must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have
thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.
6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by
suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are
simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared
to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham
opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and
avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the
impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless,
less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a
fallback position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective
damage control, the fallback position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to
carefully limited markets.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the
truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a
vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is
irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the
Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They
haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this
theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would
report the leak.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g.
If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating
and/or publicizing distractions.
14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing
of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.
15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is
to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but
anonymous, source.
16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own
stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt
real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people
for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What
could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups
defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don't
the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio,
and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening
out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control
enough, but, obviously, it is not.