How to Shape Public Opinion - Rockefeller Memo to Clinton 1993

[Kirkhill]

Must Read;

From the Clinton Library via Judicial Watch and Prairie Pundit.


This 1993 Memo (if it is what it purports to be) lays out the point by point strategy on how to create public opinion.  It includes everything from discrediting critics by ad hominem attacks on lifestyle or constant referral to them as "professional lobbyists" to this gem:

"Guidance and cooperation in news planning is essential. Right now every
news organization (MTV to JAMA) is planning expanded coverage of health
care. News directors, planners and editors, and features producers and editors
are anxious and willing to receive guidance on how to time and shape their
coverage. White House communications staff should be meeting with every
major news organization to gain as much insight and offer as much guidance
about coverage as possible.."

Remember this was the Clinton Whitehouse.   I can't help wonder if the editors etc would be as "anxious and willing to receive guidance on how to time and shape their coverage" for the Bush Whitehouse.

Curious though how the Free Press would be  "anxious and willing to receive guidance on how to time and shape their coverage" from ANY Whitehouse.

Edit: I am almost forgot to mention how closely this matches with the strategies being employed on the Global Warming and Iraq debates as well as our own Afghanistan debate.

Edit note:  I had to repost the redacted section from the original document as for some reason the posted version included spelling and punctuation errors not seen in the original memo.  I have made the adjustments to make the posted version conform to the original Judicial Watch posting and marked my "corrections" in red.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Would not be terribly surprising, given that:

In that regard, the poll finds that many journalists ­ especially those in the national media ­ believe that the press has not been critical enough of President Bush. Majorities of print and broadcast journalists at national news organizations believe the press has been insufficiently critical of the administration. Many local print journalists concur. This is a minority opinion only among local news executives and broadcast journalists. While the press gives itself about the same overall grade for its coverage of George W. Bush as it did nine years ago for its coverage of Bill Clinton (B- among national journalists, C+ from local journalists), the criticism in 1995 was that the press was focusing too much on Clinton's problems, and too little on his achievements.

There are significant ideological differences among news people in attitudes toward coverage of Bush, with many more self-described liberals than moderates or conservatives faulting the press for being insufficiently critical. In terms of their overall ideological outlook, majorities of national (54%) and local journalists (61%) continue to describe themselves as moderates. The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar ­ 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative).

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=825

 

[tomahawk6]

The Clinton's have been fighting the release of documents tooth and nail because it clearly wouldnt help her to get elected. In fact the memo's released so far just confirm in the minds of many that she cant be trusted. With negatives close to 50% she is going to have a hard time getting elected President. If she took Obama as VP she might have a shot, but after the comments made so far each side would have to turn the other cheek. The longer the contest lasts the more bitter it may become. If Edwards gets knocked out by the end of the month most of his supporters will swing to Obama. Policy wise there is no difference between any of the democrats running for they all are socialists. If the dem's can hold onto both House's then the US domestically at least will go down a road that just scares alot of conservatives - like moi.