Corporate Media and Our Election

Oct 23, 2024

—

A Critical Analysis

Political campaigns and their supporters in the establishment-aligned corporate media have become battlegrounds not just for policies and vision but for control over narratives. The 2024 campaign cycle has become increasingly corrupted with rhetorical strategies largely authoritarian in nature. Through the use of logical fallacies and media misrepresentation, our corporate media system serves to control public perception, silence dissent, and suppress freedom of speech—essential pillars of a healthy democracy.

Misrepresentation: A Consistent Pattern

A key tactic of authoritarian regimes is the control and manipulation of information. This form of control can take many shapes, including the subtle and repeated distortion of a political opponent’s words. Former President Donald Trump has frequently been the target of such misrepresentations. While Trump is no stranger to controversy, a deeper examination of media narratives reveals an unsettling pattern of false attribution and selective quoting designed to mislead the public.

The “Very Fine People” Hoax

Perhaps the most infamous example of media misrepresentation is the so-called “very fine people” hoax. After the tragic events in Charlottesville in 2017, Trump was widely quoted as having referred to neo-Nazis and white supremacists as “very fine people.” This narrative was repeated endlessly by many media outlets and political figures, despite the fact that Trump explicitly condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis during the same speech. This selective quoting distorted his actual stance and framed him as endorsing hate groups.

The lasting power of this falsehood is a testament to the effectiveness of manipulating public perception through half-truths. This distortion served to demonize Trump without engaging in a substantive critique of his policies or actions. By misrepresenting his words, the media created a straw man—an easily refutable caricature of Trump, divorced from reality.

It Continues to This Day

This same strategy is still being used. Most recently, in a video where Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz claims that Trump said he wanted “the kind of generals that Hitler had.” Once again, this claim is based entirely on hearsay from John Kelly, a Neocon with more ties to the neoliberal corporate uniparty—a revolving door of politicians and corporate interests that often place profit over constituent needs—than to any populist movement. As such, Kelly is motivated to keep a populist candidate from being elected. The rhetorical tools used here are a textbook example of propaganda intended to manipulate an audience.

Appeal to Authority: Walz leans on the credibility of figures like General Mark Milley, James Mattis, and John Kelly to argue that Trump is dangerous without offering concrete proof of these allegations. Instead of presenting evidence, he relies on the status of these individuals to validate his claims.
Bandwagon Fallacy: The implication that because multiple high-ranking military figures oppose Trump, the public should automatically follow suit plays into the bandwagon fallacy. The audience is encouraged to adopt the opinion of the majority rather than think critically about the issue.
Straw Man Fallacy: The claim that Trump desires “Hitler-like generals” is presented without context or verification. This creates a false version of Trump’s views, which is then attacked as part of the broader campaign narrative. The deliberate misrepresentation fuels a distorted narrative designed to cast Trump in the worst possible light.

These tactics represent a continuation of the “very fine people” strategy. Instead of engaging with Trump’s actual policies or statements, the campaign relies on exaggerated or false claims to attack a fabricated version of him. This manipulation, when repeated enough, creates an emotional narrative that distracts from real issues and further entrenches political divisions.

Authoritarian Influence Through Speech Control

At the heart of any authoritarian regime is the control of speech. The corporate uniparty—a revolving door of politicians who enjoy lucrative and often corrupt business relationships with lobbyists and, more often than not, represent corporate interests over their constituents’ needs—is largely represented by the establishment left. (As the Republican establishment continues to crumble under the weight of populism—a political approach that seeks to represent the interests of ordinary people, often by challenging the established elites—this uniparty shifts to align more with establishment Democrats.) This uniparty has taken the strategy of controlling speech further, as exemplified by Tim Walz when he misrepresented First Amendment protections in his public statements. In a recent claim, Walz stated that there are no free speech protections for “mis/disinformation and hate speech,” despite the fact that under U.S. law, both forms of speech are protected unless they incite violence.

As highlighted in a piece by the Cato Institute, the only category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment is incitement. By framing “misinformation” and “hate speech” as unprotected, Walz paves the way for potential speech suppression, making it easier to silence opposition under the guise of protecting the public. This is a dangerous precedent. What constitutes “misinformation” or “hate speech” is often subjective and can be weaponized against political enemies.

The redefinition of free speech is a hallmark of authoritarianism. By controlling the boundaries of acceptable discourse, political leaders can limit dissent and maintain control over public narratives. In the context of the current campaign, this redefinition serves to delegitimize opposition and marginalize dissenting voices.

The Role of Fallacies in Propaganda

The media’s repeated use of logical fallacies, amplified by political figures, plays a critical role in this influence strategy. As Chromo’s response to the Walz video succinctly puts it: “A single sentence comprised of the appeal to authority fallacy, the bandwagon fallacy, and the straw man fallacy all wrapped up neatly to create a broken narrative some people call propaganda… The amount of times the media has claimed Orange Man said things he never said…”

This statement reflects the extent to which fallacious reasoning has become a core tool of political messaging. Propaganda isn’t necessarily about outright lies—it’s often about crafting a narrative that feels true, even if it’s built on misrepresentation. By relying on appeals to authority and the bandwagon fallacy, political figures avoid engaging with real arguments and instead push emotionally charged narratives designed to evoke fear and compliance.

Conclusion

The 2024 campaign, particularly as exemplified by Tim Walz’s rhetoric, shows a troubling turn toward authoritarian strategies of narrative control. Through media misrepresentation, manipulation of free speech norms, and the use of logical fallacies, the Democratic campaign has crafted a narrative that suppresses dissent and avoids substantive debate.

The pattern of distorting Trump’s words and actions is just one facet of this broader strategy. The redefinition of free speech to exclude “mis/disinformation” and “hate speech” opens the door for further suppression of political opposition. As the political landscape continues to shift, it is essential to remain vigilant, critical, and committed to open discourse, ensuring that public conversations remain free from manipulation and open to all perspectives. Its time to encourage and inspire the people in our circles to engage with their media through the use of Critical thinking skills with an eye open to the media manipulation weve grown far to accustomed to.

Some Ideas To Reflect On:

Does seeing how quotes can be misrepresented by the media change how you view political discourse? How do you verify the accuracy of what you hear in the news?

When media outlets or political figures repeat claims based on hearsay or selective evidence, how does this shape your understanding of political figures? Have you ever noticed yourself following popular opinions without seeking more context?

How do you think redefining terms like ‘hate speech’ or ‘misinformation’ can impact the free exchange of ideas in a democracy? What are the risks if such terms become too subjective?

What steps can you take to ensure the information you consume is reliable and not influenced by propaganda or logical fallacies? How can you encourage open discourse in your own circles?