Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Right-wing propaganda marches in Parade Magazine

Posted by Matthew Wheeland at 11:03 AM on October 11, 2005.


Last Sunday's "Personality Parade" column stepped beyond the realm of pointless celebrity gossip into outright propaganda.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get The Mix in your
mailbox!

 

Just like all of you, I can't resist a small dose of celebrity nonsense. Partly because it is omnipresent, and partly because it's a strange human compulsion to dig through others' dirty laundry. So I'll read Salon's The Fix, I glance at the covers of the Enquirer and Us Weekly when I'm in the supermarket, and when I get the chance, I read Walter Scott's Personality Parade, published each Sunday in Parade Magazine.

Parade bills itself as "the most widely read magazine in the country" with more than 75 million weekly readers. Mostly it's insipid pap, but occasionally hidden inside the tedium is a little gem that imparts deep insight or, more often, scary right-wing propaganda.

Take last week's "Personality Parade" for a perfect example. Putatively a Q&A column about the lives and loves of celebrities, Scott occasionally drops some bias in the mix, under the guise of "opinion." Since this week's outrageous column won't be available until October 17, I'm going to reprint it in all its short, bizarre glory.

This exchange appeared nestled between a tidbit about how actor James Woods damaged a nerve in his elbow from leaning against poker tables too much (don't worry: he's fine!) and the band that appeared in the new NBC show "Three Wishes" (the band's called Ryan Shupe and The RubberBand):

Q: I'm interested in where Fidel Castro gets the dough to shore up his bankrupt regime. Can you illuminate? -- Robert Henry, Los Angeles, Calif.
A: In the wake of the collapse of the USSR, which bankrolled him to the tune of $4 billion a year, Castro has turned to Hugo Chavez, Marxist president of Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil-exporter. In addition to shoring up Castro, he's funding revolutionaries and terrorists throughout Latin America.

In case you missed that rhetorical slight of hand, let me spell it out for you. Scott took a question about the international globe-trotting jet-set superstar Fidel Castro -- well within his purview as a glitzy dirt-slinger -- and deftly turned it into a lie-filled tirade about the democratically elected leader of another country.

What we also have here is a really fascinating, explicit insight into how the right-wing propaganda machine works. Between Pat Robertson's calls for assassinating Chavez in August and Walter Scott's reinforcing of the "terrorist-funder" / "enemy of the state" meme, it seems we must be getting much closer to taking military action on Chavez. Stay tuned to Parade Magazine and you can read all about it!

Digg!

Matthew Wheeland is an Associate Editor at AlterNet.


On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.
Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"Walter Scott" is a pseudonym for...
Posted by: Warren on Oct 11, 2005 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...well-known attack journalist Ed Klein. I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article.

When Klein's book on Hillary came out, I wrote to the editorial board of "Parade" and to all its major advertisers, advising them that I would no longer read their publication when it arrived with my sunday paper, citing Klein's opus as the reason.

I have to say that putting "Parade" directly into the recycling bin has not reduced my quality of life one bit; I recommend it (especially if you write letters to their various big cheeses and advertisers!).

Warren

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Parade
Posted by: esactun on Oct 11, 2005 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right-wing claptrap in Parade is nothing new, really. What also isn't new is the US Gov't's hatred for and overthrow of any democratic gov'ts that dare to not toe their line.

Is Chavez the next Mossadegh of Iran or Allende of Chile? Given that the Bush regime is even more morally bankrupt than his 50s and 70s predecessors, it sure seems likely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One more thing
Posted by: esactun on Oct 11, 2005 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny how Parade "tut tut tuts" over Chavez's alleged funding of alleged "terrorists", yet what did the ink-stained wretches have to say but "Go Team!" when the US Gov't actually funded actual terrorists (including a chap named bin Laden) all through the 80s?

Could 9/11 have ever happened without the expertise handed over to al-Qaeda by the CIA back in the day? But that can't be discussed because *horrors* that would mean actual *accountability* for the Reaganites who (thanks to SCOTUS) are all back in power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I see the right!
Posted by: cstriker on Oct 11, 2005 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Omg! I just saw it. In Bush's speech the other day he was trying to turn our interest away from the scandels and other crazy things coming out of his administration. He chose to direct us back into the "War on Terror". Now everyone is sneaking in these little lies about Chavez. I am looking for the next terrorist action in our country (powered by the CIA) to push us into conflict with Chavez.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Call to action. Stop the Republican Party.
Posted by: maximus on Oct 11, 2005 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call to action. Stop the Republican Party.

http://tinyurl.com/8ghl8

http://tinyurl.com/b97vk

Where Republicans tread, innocent people end up dead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saw it Sunday
Posted by: Tommy on Oct 11, 2005 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It appeared in the Winston Salem Parade last Sunday, and when I saw it I thought, "Damn!" Thanks for bringing this up, because it was one of the most ridiculous answers I've ever read. I don't know much about Castro, but I know propaganda when I see it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing new
Posted by: PaulaJ on Oct 11, 2005 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not too long ago Scott took a swipe at Chelsea Clinton's character by insinuating she had the same moral flaws as her father. He gave no example other then to say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I found that pretty interesting given her sterling reputation particularly compared to the Bush twins. Say what you want about Bill and Hillary. They seem to have reared a fine daughter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nothing new Posted by: Fade
» RE: Nothing new Posted by: blogjunkie
the readers...
Posted by: JohnnyM on Oct 12, 2005 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This happens in many "trash" magazines and newspapers, all the time.

But you can't blame just the Republicans, because the democratic propaganda machine use it too when they get the chance.

Unfortunately, the people who read the trash believe everything they read! They're unable to think for themselves, and therefore they're where the blame should lie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the readers... Posted by: Fade
Surprise, surprise
Posted by: hbw on Oct 12, 2005 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never read Parade unless I'm desparate. Someone did direct my attention to a surprising claim in Parade a few years ago. Was it before 9/11? can't remember. They listed the top 10 human rights violating governments. #1 on the hit parade was...Saudi Arabia. Iraq was #2. Kuwait was in there somewhere, too. Nice to be friends with #1, isn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

blogjunkie
Posted by: blogjunkie on Oct 12, 2005 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The difference being that the Bush twins have a background of breaking the law, whereas the same cannot be said for Chelsea Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chavez and FARC part I
Posted by: fitzjohn on Oct 14, 2005 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though probably laden with lies, 'Guerrilla Nation' (weeklystandard.com article by Thor Halvorssen, 1-26-05) says in part:

"In February 2001, months after the Chavez government denied supporting FARC, the capture of a Colombian terrorist revived the debate. Jose Maria Ballestas, a leader of Colombia's other left-wing terrorist organization, the National Liberation Army (ELN), was captured in Venezuela's capital by Interpol operatives working in conjunction with the Colombian police. Although Ballestas was wanted for a 1999 commercial airliner hijacking, he was immediately released from custody by order of the Chavez government. As the Colombian media cried foul, Chavez officials denied that Ballestas had ever been arrested and claimed that "news" of his arrest was actually a story concocted by enemies of the Chavez government. When Colombian officials responded by releasing a video of the arrest, the Chavez government tried to claim that Ballestas was seeking asylum from political persecution in Colombia. As diplomatic tension reached a fever-pitch, Venezuela re-arrested Ballestas and grudgingly extradited him to Colombia.

The extradition of Ballestas to Colombia seems a highly-unlikely thing for a government with the reputation of Venezuela to do, especially given that Venezeulan Interior Minister Luis Miquilena describes Ballestas as a man facing 'politcal persecution' in Colombia. I wonder what prompted Venezuela to do that?

"Three months after diplomatic tension over the Serna incident died down, the Chavez-FARC connection surfaced again when Venezuela's intelligence chief, Jesus Urdaneta, publicly denounced Chavez for supporting FARC. A lifelong friend and military colleague of President Chavez, Urdaneta publicized documents showing that the Chavez government offered fuel, money, and other support to the terrorists. The documents included signed letters from a Chavez aide detailing an agreement to provide support for FARC. That aide later became Chavez's minister of justice, a position which gave him oversight of the entire Venezuelan security apparatus."

We can't rely on the words of the neocon Halvorssen, Venezuelan Government anti-drug czar with the rank of ambassador (1989-1994). This was during the administration of Chavez' predecessor, so independent verification is advisable. Can anyone dispute the allegations Halvorssen makes about Ballestas or Urdaneta?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chavez and FARC part II Posted by: fitzjohn
Are they Lies?
Posted by: isambard on Oct 26, 2005 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You wrote:

"Scott took a question about the international globe-trotting jet-set superstar Fidel Castro -- well within his purview as a glitzy dirt-slinger -- and deftly turned it into a lie-filled tirade about the democratically elected leader of another country."

How do you know the things Scott wrote are lies? Or do you just assume that they are?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]