(This is intended to essentially underscore what Parenti presented on his article that preceeds this one)



These incredibly deceptive labels were dispensed while viewing Rupert Murdock's propaganda mouthpeice, L.A.'s Fox 11. First, on their story about the guy that lead the cops on a four and a half

hour chase around L.A. and the hours long stand-off that followed. During the broadcast, it was repeatedly mentioned that the suspect may have robbed the gas station and lead the cops on the chase because he was having "personal problems"-i.e. he was desperate because of his circumstances and therefore, we who are viewing this are apparently supposed to conclude that anyone subjected to the loss of their home,job,marriage, etc. should automatically be "suspicious"-liable to resort to crime. In other words, watch out for these "deviants"! Then there were the (again repeated) comments about him "doing something weird" (lighting sparklers) inside his van during the seven(?) hour stand-off. Well, let's see-you're sitting alone in your car during a long stand-off with dosens of cops with all their weaponry trained on you-no hope, no future(except many years in jail), having acted out of desperation(no, this is NOT a justification of the crimes he committed, just an attempt at REALISM-i.e put yourself in his shoes-WHAT WOULD YOU DO?). Hours are passing by-nothing to do but sit there, waiting for the cops to make their move-you see the sparklers your kids left on the seat(?),some entertainment before they blow me away??-or-Maybe I can end it all now if I light these and provoke them("suicide by cop") WHAT WOULD YOU DO???-any QUALIFIED psychologists out there?

But Rupert Murdock's well paid on-air lackies clearly demonstrate through their "commentary" they hold no degrees in psychology, psychiatry or any other behavioral sciences-they just sit there and parrot their bosse's rhetoric on the scripts held in front of their over made-up faces(vee vere just following orders!).

Then there was their story on the woman in Houston who killed all of her children, apparently(we are told) because she had depression and other disorders. If true, O.K.-so far so good as far as their reporting goes. But then they insert the remark(more than once, of course) that she was "dripping wet" when she answered the door. HUH?? So what does this have to do with her crime? Or the price of tea in China? Appearently, we are to assume that anyone who in any way gets him/herself "dripping wet", even in the (assumed) privacy of their own home, is somehow "deviant"?-OR WHAT?? Again-where is a QUALIFIED psychologist to explain remarks like this to all of us ignorant and un-enlightened in this science? They sure don't work for Rupert Murdock, Disney, General Electric or the other KKKorporate owners of the "media"-i.e. propaganda mouthpieces. One possible explanation for these utterances seems to stand out-these "reporters" are merely being paid to help enforce their bosse's perception of social hegemony- or so it suspiciously appears.