Propaganda by Omission
Newspaper Sites Hide, Bury and Ignore Ruling on "Unconstitutional" Health Care Law
by Steve Stakem - February 1, 2011, 12:50 p.m., EST

---

Propaganda: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

It seems the above definition needs a little expansion when it comes to the mainstream media in the United States. This Merriam-Webster entry for "propaganda" would be more complete if it read "the spreading and/or omission of information for the purpose of helping or injuring a cause. The omission-style of propaganda was, and still is, on full display with the handling of yesterday's Federal Court ruling declaring President Obama's and the Democrat health care law unconstitutional.

It was amazing this morning to peruse the various newspaper websites to find yesterday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Vinson in Pensacola, Florida either hidden, buried or in some cases missing altogether.

Certainly this story is newsworthy to say the least. As a matter of fact, it is the number one story in the United States, trumping even the lead-up to Sunday's Super Bowl, the winter storms sweeping America, or the latest arrest of some Hollywood idiot. Understandably, the political turmoil and uprising in Egypt is the most newsworthy on a worldwide scale, but a second court ruling by a U.S. Court, in a case brought by more than half of the several States, declaring a massive "health care reform" law unconstitutional should be the foremost U.S.-story lead for every major news outlet in America.

Especially, this should be the case when most of the leading rags touted the Obama/Democrat legislation as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Without it, the editorials screamed, America would be left a third-world country with more than half its people dying in the streets over the next 20 years.

Today however, less than 24-hours after the ruling, some news outlets act as if the ruling is entirely irrelevant, or as if it never happened at all. Let's take a look, shall we? This isn't an analysis of every newspaper site in the country, but an overview of those from some major U.S. cities. You can be the judge as to whether the story was given its fair place in the headline cycle, or intentionally ducked to one degree or another.

The Washington Times and St. Louis Post-Dispatch got it right on its websites. Home Page and visible. The Times led with it after the ruling yesterday, and left it top-left this morning, eclipsed only by the No. 1 worldwide story, Egypt. The Dispatch also led with it. Seattle's Times rolled the story above the fold, No. 2, again behind Egypt. The Philadelphia Inquirer also placed the story Page 1 on its website. (The Philadelphia News, which lays its home page out the same as the Inquirer went with Page 8 for the story.)

USA Today placed the "unconstitutional" ruling first under Nation & World heading, while the Wall Street Journal, mostly a business and financial newspaper, placed it on its main page, story one under Law. On the home page at the LA Times, the story ranked third. As for heavy leads at the major newspaper sites, that's about it.

Unabashedly, the Washington Post poked the story middle-page with one line, as the NY Times went all the way down to the bottom, again with one line. In other words, the NY Times placed the news value of the "unconstitutional" ruling as dead last for main page importance. Now that's interesting coming from the home of "all the news that's fit to print".

Now on to the near to outright dismissals.

The Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune had nothing on their home pages. Nothing. Scroll over "News" and then "Nation/World" and something would be found. (Another glance at the Tribune, nothing there. A search may be necessary.) This is not surprising for obvious reasons. These Illinois rags are key parts of the pro-Obama, pro-Democrat, pro-labor union propaganda machine. Case in point, propaganda by omission.

It was to be reported that the Boston Globe buried the article on the "Politics" page below a couple of other links - well that was the case earlier. On a final verification, the article was nonexistent across page headlines and section links, before the site asked for registration sign-up. (Yeah, sure. I'll sign-up. This is such a useful website for such a great newspaper.) Dittos for the Boston Herald. Nothing. Again, propaganda by omission ...

Atlanta's Journal-Constitution covered the ruling with an article about its praise from Georgia lawmakers. The Houston Chronicle did likewise with "Texas Republicans welcome federal court ruling on health care," dated yesterday.

In the district of Democrat Leader and Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Chronicle placed the story on the Nation page with an idiotic AP hit piece that makes absolutely no sense. (Please read the lead paragraph and the first sentence of paragraph two.) Editorials disguised as news articles, gotta love it ... Start throwing the illogical use of the word "logic" around and it gets even better!

Rounding out the overview, the San Diego Union-Tribune linked the story No. 7 under "Hot Topics", while at least another six newspapers in addition to the Chicago Tribune showed nothing. The Sacramento Bee, nothing. The Miami Herald and New York's Newsday, nothing. The Detroit Free Press, Baltimore Sun, and Dallas Morning News, again, nothing, nada, zilch. Nothing at all in plain slight or by perusal.

Did yesterday's ruling even come down on the unconstitutionality of the Obama-Democrat health care reform? Some readers might wonder. Perhaps searches of respective sites would return something.

Case in point, propaganda by omission. It exists at American news outlets in varying degrees. It's no wonder print circulations are in such decline.