Friday, November 29, 2019
Few good researchers would argue that deceptive advertising is the leading cause of violence, early child abuse leading to escalating violence and abandoned inner cities are virtually guaranteed to be far more important; however, there should be no doubt that it is a major contributing factor, especially when there have been so many stories about kids getting killed over hyped up sneakers or Black Friday riots during the holiday shopping season.
Some of the research showing that marketing to kids can lead to violence may be complicated, and subject to debate; however, there's little doubt that one of the leading factors of violence is high rates of poverty and income inequality, and it's easy to demonstrate that deceptive advertising controlled by Wall Street corporations is a leading factor increasing these problems therefore they contribute to the violence they cause as well. I've reviewed studies from other sources showing large correlation between poverty, income inequality and violence in the past, along with my own reviews, and will include links to them below.
If there's any doubt about whether or not advertising contributes to poverty or income inequality, just consider what advertising contributes to the quality of merchandise.
Nor does it help improve service for consumers; instead it misrepresents their merchandise so that people expect more than they pay for which routinely angers people! In a for-profit economic system they don't maximize profits by providing honesty in advertising; they maximize profits by studying what the most manipulative ways to fool people are. This inevitably leads to starting the indoctrination process as early as possible; as several good researchers including Susan Linn, Juliet Schor, Roy Fox, and more have demonstrated with their work; in some cases the words from those creating the propaganda like Edward Bernays or Cheryl Idell also confirm this, although they try to spin it to seem otherwise.
If you haven't heard of these good researchers or the advertisers studying how to manipulate people that's no surprise, because the for profit media establishment practically never mentions them, nor do they cover some of the best research about more important causes of violence as I've reported on in numerous articles following mass shootings including Burying Solutions to Prevent Gilroy, Dayton and El Paso Shootings. In our current political and economic system deceptive ads receives overwhelming protection under the first amendment; however the best research to reduce violence is relegated to alternative media the academic world or books in the library that hardly anyone reads. This means policy to address violence is based on propaganda controlled by the mass media and politicians not by academics that are looking out for the best interests of the majority of the public.
Advertising does nothing to improve the quality of merchandise of services yet the rise in advertising spending has consistently been above the average inflation rate, and advertisers are paid much more than most working class workers that provide service or labor that improves the quality of life for consumers. There should be little or no doubt that this will inevitably lead to higher rates of poverty and income inequality, especially with little or no regulation to preserve honesty in advertising or to demand disclosure of psychological manipulation tactics, assuming people actually want to acknowledge that adverting contributes to poverty.
Those in the industry, of course, don't want to acknowledge this, therefore they can come up with an enormous amount of propaganda to confuse the issue and convince people otherwise, if they have to. However, the most effective way to accomplish this goal has always been to simply decline to discuss it at all and refuse to report on research that raises doubts about the adverting industry, which is exactly what mainstream media has been doing for decades.
Since the mainstream media is financed by mainly advertising they have a financial incentive to suppress criticism and the amount of money spent on advertising has been growing faster than the rate of inflation for decades, while manufacturers have been cutting cost often contributing to lower quality merchandise. at the same time the biggest corporations have been consolidating, meaning that far fewer companies are competing against each other.
This means that instead of competing based on the quality of merchandise, corporations are competing based on their ability to create deceptive ads to convince people to obsessively buy stuff, often that they don't need, which leads to increased income inequality and poverty, as well on spending on things that don't improve quality of life or addressing social issues that might contribute to violence.
Naomi Klein described how much faster advertising spending was growing, than the rest of the economy in her book in the following excerpt and there's additional data to show that it's continued since this was published:
According to articles about Growth of advertising spending worldwide from 2000 to 2021 (2019-21 are projected as of this writing) the average growth in advertising is usually over 4% from 2000-2018 and according to US Inflation Rate by Year from 1929 to 2020 (2019-21 are projected as of this writing) the average rate of inflation isn't much if any more than 2% from 2000-2018. This means that deceptive ads are taking up a growing percentage of the GDP, and it also means that consumer decisions based on these ads, especially when people don't seek out alternative sources to hold them accountable, are less likely to be well informed, since the people controlling the information have a financial incentive to distort it to increase profits.
Advertising is one of the leading industries that is designed to shift wealth from the working class to the wealthy by controlling the information we use to make decisions. The people that create this deceptive advertising get paid much more than the manufacturing jobs that produce the goods or provide services that help get them to consumers. These are college educated people that are taught how to manipulate the public for the benefit of the wealthy, often paid six figures, while wages are being suppressed for most other workers.
Frederic Bastiat once said "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Advertising is a major part of the way this is accomplished in our current economic system.
There's also plenty of research to show that advertising is intentionally designed to create tensions among family members in more ways than one as demonstrated by Susan Linn who reports on Cheryl Idell’s “Nag Factor study” in her book:
The "Nag Factor" is clearly far more concerned with increasing profits than maintaining good relationships among family members. they also target lower income or divorced parents more, which may also be a risk factor for other social problems, including violence. Parental guidance is an important factor when it comes to solving social problems, yet this will inevitably make it more difficult. By shrouding their research in secrecy, there's no way if they uncovered additional potential arguments while promoting the "Nag Factor" or other psychological manipulation tactics; although we do know that when kids kill each other over sneakers, they have riots on black Friday, or annual thefts of Christmas decorations, that the advertising and media institutions practically never even consider the possibility that it might be related to their business practices, and if forced to address the issue can be expected to spin it in their favor, which is part of their standard practice when faced with controversies of any kind.
This isn't limited to potentially creating tensions between parents and children as a result of nagging; the marketing industry is also intentionally teaching girls to promote products to each other as part of peer pressure, one of the most outrageous examples is the "Girl’s Intelligence Agency" as describes by Juliet Schor in the following excerpt from her book:
The potential for this type of marketing practice to cause arguments between child is obvious, and it's virtually guaranteed that they try similar tactics with peer pressure among boys. I'm sure many parents or teacher must be outraged by this and anyone that remembers what it's like to be a kid can imagine how this can cause problems.
Many of them must have already dealt with arguments as a result of peer pressure, although I haven't heard of many that have been directly ties to marketing as a result of GIA or another organization similar to them, but there was one killing this year at a "Sneaker Release Party" which may be related to marketing, (more below) but investigation of it wasn't adequate to determine this. Many kids are reluctant to talk to adults about this so it's virtually guaranteed that there are many more issues that many parents aren't aware of; however there are exceptions including many kids that apparently write to there favorite celebrities including fictional novelists like Judy Blume who published some of these letter thirty years ago and a couple of them seem to apply to this kind of peer pressure including one that describes a clique leader that tells others what to wear or eat and what brands to buy:
I have no idea how far along the marketing to kids research was in the eighties, especially since it's so secretive, but there's no doubt, thanks to documents leaked or released from the tobacco industry, that they began researching marketing to children at least as far back as the fifties. I'm sure I read somewhere that many of the marketers from the tobacco industry later went to work for other industries including food or sneaker industries, presumably sharing any research they had about peer pressure used to promote products, although I can't remember the source. However, Philip Morris owns Kraft foods and research on interlocking board members or sales from one company to another are readily available and many of these corporations have ties to each other.
There are probably much more arguments as a result of peer pressure related to marketing that doesn't get reported at all, but occasionally it gets so extreme that there should be little doubt that marketing to kids is virtually guaranteed to be a significant contributing factor, like the epidemic of shooting and killing people for overpriced sneakers that goes back to the eighties, and may still be going on today although there's not nearly as much reporting on it any more. But there are at least a few cases this year, including one murder that took place at a "Sneaker Release Party."
Since the media consolidated into six corporations controlling over 90% of the national media, there's good reason to doubt the quality of their reporting and a review of the history of media may show that it was never as reliable as many of us used to believe, so it's difficult if not impossible to know if the killing of kids over sneakers is more or less common than it used to be when there were a few national news stories about it. A thorough online search might help narrow this down but without better resources than Google searches it's unlikely to be complete, especially since these incidents are routinely reported as isolated and there's no effort to track them, but there have been at least two or three more sneaker shootings just this year including Dispute over gym shoes leads to shooting in Detroit's Midtown 04/03/2019 14-year-old shot and killed over pair of shoes, family says 09/23/2019 Sneakers, iPhone, $55 Stolen During Coral Springs Firefighter's Killing: Warrant 10/28/2019 and a couple years ago Trial of 16-year-old charged with killing teen over Nike Air Jordan sneakers begins 07/13/2019
This doesn't necessarily mean that the sneakers were the sole contributing factor in these shootings or killings, though. I wrote to several researchers to get their views including James Garbarino who I've cited previously in other articles and said that advertising to kids is part of what he calls a "Socially Toxic Environment" although it isn't the only factor. Most of his research focuses on early child abuse leading to escalating violence later in life, including bullying, domestic violence etc., which I have no doubt is one of the most important contributing factors to long term violence, if not the most important one. Perhaps a close second might be abandoned inner cities where the highest murder rates, including many of these sneaker killings occur, which is another major aspect of what he called a "Socially Toxic Environment" and Jonathan Kozol went in to this much more in several of his books including Savage Inequalities 1991
I don't know whether or not there's less hype about sneakers or people are less likely to fall for it, but there aren't as many killing for sneakers as was reported when Sports Illustrated reported the following article, and another more recent one from seven years ago, although I can't rule out the possibility that the consolidated media is simply not reporting on them adequately when thy do happen:
Even some of those promoting sneakers selling for outrageous prices have expressed concern although they may try to spin it and deny that advertising is much is any of a contributing factor, like the following excerpt from an article seven years ago by someone that seems to be a sneaker enthusiast that partially buys into the absurd hype around petty sneakers:
That article came from a web site called "Sneaker Freaker" which appears to be accompanied by a magazine that looks like a sneaker promotion from beginning to end; the people getting so excited about these sneakers are far more familiar with the potential violence surrounding the absurd hype than the vast majority of the public, yet they seem to think it's worthwhile. This is part of the factionalization of America where different segments of society live in their own worlds and don't get information or peer review from other segments of society. This is partly a result of mainstream media that has turned into obsession TV repeating the same propaganda over and over again supported by wealthy elites without covering any of the most effective research to prevent violence or expose their propaganda tactics that are being used to indoctrinate children.
The marketing industry is using tactics that you might expect from drug dealers or pedophile rings to indoctrinate kids not to talk to others about manipulation tactics. No doubt the marketing industry would be outraged by this and claim that they take precautions to ensure that they don't use the same manipulation tactics as drug dealers and pedophiles; and I'm sure they do, since they're well aware that it would be a public relations disaster if their marketing people were caught dealing drugs or molesting children. However, when they're more concerned about people willing to indoctrinate kids to maximize profits they inevitably attract people with limited ethical values and repulse those that are inclined to speak out against these practices. Both Susan Linn and Juliet Schor wrote about some reservations so of the marketers to kids have and some of the justifications that adopted to downplay this which is far more likely when their financial well-being is based on justifying marketing to kids and looking the other way when it comes to ethical problems.
There's already been at least one high profile example where a sex offenders, Jared Fogle, was exposed being in the advertising industry, perhaps there might be many more, although they may not all be reported in a high profile manner if there are. In the business world, Laura Groppe, Cheryl Idell and other experts on marketing to children are often presented as glamorous entrepreneurs, although they don't get much media coverage their work has an enormous impact on the development of marketing to children, yet since the media makes their profits selling these ads they have a financial incentive to minimize the coverage of the critics of these tactics; and researchers exposing them get far less media coverage, and in some cases may even be portrayed as pinko commies, or something like that, although when people check their work it's clear that this is an obvious smear.
There are some articles citing the work of researchers like Susan Linn, Julet Schor and other child rights advocates on the mainstream media but they get very little circulation and are placed in locations that aren't likely to get the attention of the majority of the public, except for those that search for it. I had never heard this subject discussed until after I stumbled on a library book on the subject, which lead me to several other books on the subject. While researching it I found several more mainstream media articles, which were often written years earlier, yet I had never heard of them before. The only exception was one morning about six or seven years ago when I was writing about the subject and up early watching the first hour of Morning Joe they mentioned something very briefly about it before moving on to the next story, and I didn't catch most of it because I wasn't paying much attention at first; however, since Morning Joe routinely plays the same hour over three times in a row I made a point of watching carefully, especially at the same time after the hour when I expected them to play that same segment again. It turns out that they don't always play the same exact hour every time, this was cut in the two following hours yet little or nothing else changed in it which is a common propaganda tactic, to repeat the things they want people to remember over and over again and to minimize coverage for subjects they want to avoid.
There are several examples of this where they wrote articles about new marketing tactics, or old one that weren't previously reported briefly, at a low profile years ago if not decades, then quickly forgot about it without going into any follow up while the tactics continue to be used without any scrutiny, including one article I found that was twelve years old about Laura Groppe where Juliet Schor expressed her outrage, and another one about four years ago where the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood was exposing a new doll called "Hello Barbie" that shared information from children talking to the doll on the cloud which could be analyzed by computers to study new marketing techniques; essentially they're using this doll to spy on children to develop more effective ads to manipulate them. In both cases there was no follow up and the vast majority of parents are almost certainly not aware that these practices aren't regulated or that the media coverage on it was kept to a minimum, and it's difficult if not impossible to know how many more indoctrination tactics that get no media coverage at all.
Professor Garbarino also cites marketing to kids and Cheryl Idell's work as part of a Socially Toxic Environment which could potentially be a contributing factor for violence as described in the following excerpt:
I wrote him about his views on this subject a couple weeks ago and he responded by saying "I do think that the advertising for kids IS a dimension of 'social toxicity.' I dealt with those issues in my 1994 book Raising Children in a Socially Toxic Environment, and will do so again in an updated version on which I am currently working (that will emphasize the relationship of this issue-- among others-- to dealing with climate change in the coming decades). I completely agree with those who have challenged and criticized psychologists who contribute to this dimension of 'the dark side.'" I didn't read this book but found the following article about the subject, which includes some comments about advertising, pollution or disruptions in family life, presumably including the ones that can be caused by the "Nag Factor" which can lead to arguments with parents over petty marketing hype, and the "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child," which the United States is one of a handful of countries that haven't ratified it, yet the media practically never mentions this:
James Garbarino's primary focus on a lot of his research involves early child abuse leading to escalating violence later in life and this includes his opposition to the use of "'physical assault as discipline' (a term I much prefer to the euphemism of 'corporal punishment,' which only serves to obfuscate)." Statistics back up his opposition to corporal punishment, since it's presumably used most widely in the homes of the same nineteen states that still allow it in the schools; and as I pointed out in Research On Preventing Violence Absent From National Media these nineteen states have had average murder rates for the past ten years that are 22% to 31% higher than in the states that don't allow it in schools. This is one of the activities that the "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child" is trying to prevent and presumably the reason the United States refuses to ratify it might be that southern states want to continue this practice. Yet not only doesn't the media provide any media coverage bout the United States refusal to ratify this convention; but they also refuse to provide coverage on the research showing how early child abuse leads to escalating violence.
Most conservative pundits would no doubt be outraged by the claim that "when families cannot provide for their children, the U.N. Convention says that society should pick up the tab," however we're already doing that, in a much more inefficient manner through the court system and other social problems that result of abandoned children by abusive parents or in abandoned inner cities! We spend a fortune keeping two million people in jail, far more than any other country in the world and even more on court costs or other expenses resulting from high crime rates in troubled areas. Europe does a far better job addressing the social needs of their people in economic system that our politicians and media pundits demonize as socialist, yet they have far less income inequality, drug addiction, murder rates, and other social problems. Our murder rates are consistently above five per 100,000 although they did drop briefly below, for a few years, yet the European average has been only about three, and many of the countries that ban corporal punishment in both the home and schools have rates less than one, a fifth of our murder rates. The only reason Europe isn't even farther below our average is because handful of countries like Russia and Ukraine are much higher.
Programs like the home visitor program which Professor Garbarino supports and provided research showing it's far more effective then relying solely on punishment ads a deterrent, this is cited in my previous article about "Burying Solutions to Prevent Gilroy, Dayton and El Paso Shootings," and there're plenty more programs like that which can help reduce violence; but instead of implementing them our government is suppressing funds for them and shipping jobs overseas where they use child labor forcing local workers to compete with them & creating a race to the bottom both her and abroad while they rig the economic system in a manner that is designed to create more economic inequality which is contributing to social problems including violence!
In a functioning democracy, we need a media establishment that is willing to report on the most effective research to solve social problems; we don't have that! Although those that look for this research in libraries, alternative media, or academic research can find it.
I also wrote to Susan Linn who responded by saying "Violent media is heavily marketed to children—so it’s not so much the deception, but the products being marketed and any violence included in the advertisement itself. Here’s a link to the most recent American Academy of Pediatrics statement on media violence," and sent a few documents that might be helpful about violence in media. She also covered this in her book in the following excerpt:
Susan Linn also agrees with Professor Garbarino that our economic system is also a contributing factor for many social problems, including violence, and she provided some additional research on this, including her claim that advertising violence may be a contributing factor to real world violence, in the following article:
The claim that violence media contributes to violence is treated as a highly controversial subject by the media, and academics like Susan Linn and James Garbarino that present studies showing that it does get little or no attention. Susan Linn acknowledges that it's not the sole contributing cause of violence behavior and Professor Garbarino puts most of his emphasis on other aspects like child abuse, implying that it's probably not the most important factor; and as I pointed out in Burying Solutions to Prevent Gilroy, Dayton and El Paso Shootings. Vox provided a chart that showed that Japan and South Korea both sell more video games than the United States, yet the United States has ten times higher violent gun violence deaths, and while violent media and video games have been escalating dramatically over the mast five decades the murder rates have been dropping significantly; however this chart of the decline in murder rates over decades doesn't take any consideration of any other contributing factor, making them of little value from a statistical point of view, although they do imply that there are other factors involved.
If, however you compare the decline in murder rates and other types of violence to the decline in child abuse over the same time period then there's a much stronger correlation, clearly implying that it's a much more important contributing factor. Yet there's still plenty of research that does try to separate different contributing factors, including the ones cited by both James Garbarino and Susan Linn among many other researchers; however, to the best of my knowledge there's little or no research into how much of a contributing factor lack of coverage in traditional media about leading causes of violence, or discussion in the political debate.
Susan Linn points out a partial solution when she writes "It has been pointed out that if broadcasters were to be charged a fee for their use of the digital spectrum, the government could earn $2 to $5 billion annually that could then be spent on a truly public, truly non-commercial broadcasting system. Since government expenditures for public broadcasting are currently in the $250 million range, imagine the commercial-free programming that a few billion dollars could create – including programming for children." Susan Linn "Consuming Kids" 2004 P.153 In addition to funding programming for children that money could be used to ensure that the media provides ample coverage for the best academics that can explain the leading causes of violence and most effective ways to reduce it!
Of course media pundits would be outraged by this is they were forced to discuss it at all and say it would drive up the cost of television or something; but the cost of television is already far higher than most people realize; and guess who's paying for it and how. The public is already paying for it in the form of what I call a hidden propaganda tax. The media is funded by advertising and the cost of these ads is passed on to consumers yet we have little or no influence on the reliability of the ads or the coverage the media provides.
The so-called experts or media pundits that they give an enormous amount of coverage to get paid much more than the most credible experts that can do a much more effective job teaching about the leading causes of violence and how to prevent it; and it's not the "free market" that makes these decisions! the vast majority of the public doesn't have the educational background to participate in these decisions thanks to incompetent media coverage, nor do they even understand who makes the decisions how or why! It's Wall Street executives that make these decisions; they pay people providing propaganda that makes them richer by deceiving the public much more than they pay those that teach how to reduce violence!
This problem isn't limited to advertising to kids; advertising to adults is also a major factor, especially if they weren't taught to recognize fraudulent ads when they were younger and indoctrinated from an early age to accept an economic system that glorifies many contributing causes of violence n or censors other factors; this includes both insurance and gambling. As I reported previously in Insurance Executives Profit By Inciting Murder Occasionally Paying Killers there are dozens if not hundreds of people murdered every year that may be related to a life insurance motive and at least seven or eight people got away with murder in the past and collected over a million dollars, before eventually being caught; and there's also plenty of violence associated with Gambling after the Mandelay Bay massacre I reported Las Vegas Massacre Is Just A Minuscule Fraction Of Gambling Crime which documented dozens if not hundreds of other murders at Casinos and plenty of studies show how gambling is a major contributing factor to crime.
However, both the gambling industry and insurance industry spend enormous amounts of money on advertising and the media often has interlocking boards of directors or stockholders with these industries and research about this is also absent from the media!
The best researchers often explain how a rigged economic system is contributing to violence which is why they can't get media coverage!
The following are some additional sources or related articles:
Susan Linn Consuming Kids
Roy Fox Harvesting Minds
Studies on Media Violence
Do Video Games Make Kids Saints or Psychopaths (and Why Is It So Hard to Find Out)? August 28, 2014 Common excerpt with "Mediators and moderators of long-term effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: practice, thinking, and action." : More than 90% of American youths play video games. More than 90 % of games that are E10+ rated, teen rated, or mature rated contain depictions of violence, and that violence is often portrayed as justified, fun, and without negative consequences
Mediators and moderators of long-term effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: practice, thinking, and action. May 2014
There Is Broad Consensus: Media Researchers Agree That Violent Media Increase Aggression in Children, and Pediatricians and Parents Concur July 2015
Our economic system is based on the assumption that all spending that contributes to the GDP is good, whether it improves the quality of life or not; therefore if adverting drives up the GDP without improving the quality of life this is considered a good thing, at least for the rich who increase profits. But this isn't a good thing for the working class when cuts to education or other social services are accompanied by obsessive spending on products promoted by deceptive ads that do little or nothing to improve the quality of life. spending on social workers to reduce violence doesn't contribute to the GDP, but when kids spend three or four times more than a pair of hyped up Air Jordans or Lebron James sneakers than they're worth and they lead to fighting and even killing kids for these sneakers the growth in the GDP clearly isn't improving the quality of life.
No Logo by Naomi Klein (part I) 11/27/2000
The Advertising Industry Has a Problem: People Hate Ads 10/28/2019 Agencies are better informed than ever before about consumers, having amassed huge stores of their data. But many of those consumers, especially the affluent young people prized by advertisers, hate ads so much that they are paying to avoid them.
Growth of advertising spending worldwide from 2000 to 2021 (2019-21 are projected as of this writing) Average growth in advertising is usually over 4% from 200-2018
US Inflation Rate by Year from 1929 to 2020 (2019-21 are projected as of this writing) Average rate of inflation isn't much if any more than 2% from 2000-2018
New Study Confirms Advertising as Key Driver of the U.S. Economy; Advertising is a Major Contributor to GDP, National Employment and Labor Income 11/15/2015 "According to a new report, advertising contributed $3.4 trillion to the U.S. GDP in 2014, comprising 19 percent of the nation’s total economic output. The report was commissioned by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and The Advertising Coalition, which represents the nation’s leading advertisers, advertising agencies and media companies."
U.S. Advertising As Percentage Of GDP Slows 04/08/2016 Looking at the past 15 years -- 1999 to 2014 -- total advertising averaged 1.17% of GDP. Looking only at 1999 and 2010, advertising as a percentage of GDP was 1.25%.
Hello Barbie, Your Child's Chattiest and Riskiest Christmas Present 12/15/2015
Marketing To "Tweens" Going Too Far? 05/14/2007
Thursday, November 21, 2019
It should be clear to anyone keeping track of the news that the coup in Bolivia has no legitimacy, at least if they've checked alternative media; however some people that rely primarily on the mainstream media might not know the full story since there are significant number of politicians supporting it already, and the media is trying to avoid calling it what it is!
This should be considered vital for all of us, because it indicates that we have an international oligarchy suppressing democratic rights and threatening to derail major reforms, including those needed to address Climate Change which are threatening us all, although this isn't mentioned by traditional media and often by many alternative media outlets either.
There was never any doubt that Evo Morales was in the lead; the only question was if he had enough votes to avoid a run-off which would require either 50% of the vote plus one or 40% with 10% more than the runner-up, which he did as described in the following report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research indicates:
Mark Weisbrot one of the authors of this report explains how this was misrepresented in the media and the Organization of American States in this article How OAS Deception Helped the Coup in Bolivia, 11/19/2019 where he says "there was an interruption in the vote count at 84% of votes tallied and Evo was ahead by 7.9%, and then vote, the tally resumed… And by the way, this is not even the official tally, so we shouldn’t even really be arguing that much about it because it doesn’t count for anything. It’s just a quick count that’s done to let people know what’s going on as the votes are coming in. And they don’t tell you that either in most of these… In almost none of these articles do they even tell you that this isn’t even the official count, and the official count was never even interrupted."
Weisbrot goes on to explain that once they misrepresented this they repeated it over and over again and that it wasn't the first time they had done something like this. The OAS had also interfered with Haiti's elections and numerous other countries. It's hard to imagine why they would go to such extremes to overthrow democratic governments, but that has been a pattern of behavior, and the leading motive is, presumably greed and thirst for power, as most people seem to believe; however, this is also threatening efforts around the world to reverse the impact from climate Change, which Evo Morales and leaders of other third world countries has spoken in favor, but the Trump administration and some of the right wing dictatorships including Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil who doesn't seem to want to take action to reverse Climate Change any more than Donald Trump and many of the oil companies profiting from it.
Even if you accept that it was less than ten percent lead then the reasonable demand should have been a run-off which Evo probably would have won; however the right wing responded by organizing violence riots intimidating Morales supporters, and the majority of the traditional media doesn't appear to have covered this adequately as described in the following article from Fairness and Accuracy in reporting which is followed by another one by Caitlin Johnstone:
FAIR goes on to describe her racists comments among other things which is confirmed in the Wikipedia page for Jeanine Áñez Chávez (retrieved on 11/21/2019) which says
Her senior ministers included prominent business people from Santa Cruz de la Sierra. Her government did not include any members of the indigenous peoples in Bolivia, which The Guardian described as a sign that she did "not intend to reach across the country's deep political and ethnic divide." Her designated interior minister vowed to "hunt down" his predecessor, which reportedly stroked fears of a "witch-hunt" against members of Morales' administration. She further stated that Morales would not be permitted to run in an upcoming election for a fourth term, should he return to Bolivia.
In the face of protests against the interim government, Áñez called for police to restore order and, on 14 November, issued a decree that would exempt the military from any type of criminal responsibility when maintaining order. On 15 November, security forces fired upon protesting coca farmers in Cochabamba, resulting in nine deaths, with dozens more injured.......
Through social media, Áñez has made remarks towards indigenous peoples that have been described as "racist" by The Guardian, "anti-indigenous" by the Agence France-Press, and "provocative" by the New York Times. Around 41% of the population of Bolivia identifies itself as indigenous. On Twitter, she called the Aymara people's New Year celebration "satanic" and said that "nobody can replace God", and has implied that indigenous people were not genuine for wearing shoes.
As an un-elected leader she's declared that the person chosen by 47% of the people, more than 10% more than the runner up, can't run for office, and she's giving the police immunity to use violence against those protesting against her government after she rose to power as a result of violence protest.
There can be no justification for this, yet the media and numerous governments including Trump have accepted her as a legitimate interim president! Bernie Sanders came out and called it what it is, a coup; Elizabeth Warren seems to be hedging saying The Bolivian people deserve free and fair elections, as soon as possible. Bolivia's interim leadership must limit itself to preparing for an early, legitimate election. Bolivia's security forces must protect demonstrators, not commit violence against them. 11/18/2019 without questioning how she rose to power in the first place or calling it a coup, as Sanders did.
Caitlin Johnstone also exposed some of the media bias and pointed out a possible motive when she reminded people that Evo Morales called out the United States for supporting repeated coups dating back at least to the 1953 against Iran at the United Nations last year which got very little attention, nor did a more recent one where Evo Morales speaks about Climate Change:
Additional excerpts are available at Evo Morales Bolivian Slams President Trump And US Not Interested In Democracy 11/1/2019 which includes his reference to Iran in 1953 among other things.
These are all bad enough, but perhaps what may be more important is the fact that international corporations, the United States government and the media among other organizations are supporting absurd policies that are leading to the destruction of our environment and they're preserving an economic system which is oppressing people all over the world especially indigenous people. Evo Morales spoke even more about recently in this speech to the United Nations, from September, which wasn't covered much if any more than his previous speech:
The threat to the planet as a result of Climate Change is just one of the reasons why all of us should be concerned with the Bolivian coup; another one is, of course, as the old saying goes, "First they came for the Socialists, but I'm not a socialist" etc. or what they do for you they'll do to you, if they think they can get away with it and this type of violence has a history of escalating. They've already tried to overthrow the government in Venezuela several times and interfered with many other Latin American governments as Evo pointed out in his speech. Like Jeanine Áñez Chávez, Juan Guaidó was never elected by the people, yet he claimed to be the legitimate president of Venezuela with the United States support, despite having little support form the majority of people from Venezuela.
This problem didn't begin with Donald Trump and there's little or no chance that it will end when he's out of office, no matter how they remove him. The same media establishment and Democratic Party that is trying to expose him also propped him up by giving him obsession coverage before the 2016 election and rigging the primary for someone so horrendous he could beat her! Most of the coups supported by the United States took place long before he took office; and unless we do something to bring major reform and stop them from rigging primaries for corrupt politicians they'll continue to take place!
The same Democratic Party that pretends to oppose him voted for massive increases in the Defense bill; they also just voted to give this person who they're supposedly trying to impeach the right to continue spying on us & suppressing our rights, by renewing the Patriot Act without any accountability! Democrats have supported coups in Honduras, Venezuela and other countries as much as the GOP.
Even when it comes to impeachment they didn't begin it over the worst crimes that Trump was involved in, including violations of the emoluments clause, oppressing rights of immigrants putting them in cages, even though they're victims of oppression from coups supported by USA, instigating violence in the Middle East by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, and much more; instead they used the Ukrainian scandal as grounds. It may be reasonable to be outraged because Trump is using his political clout to start an investigation against his opponent, but that opponent is equally corrupt and they're trying to convince us that we should accept corruption as usual and look the other way when the corrupt person is on your side!
But the threat to the environment is escalating and at some point we're going beyond a point of no return, most estimates indicate this is within about ten years, yet we're constantly bickering and often doing more harm than good thanks to extremists in denial that are in power.
The mainstream media is hardly covering this adequately, any more than they cover many of these speeches, wars base don lies, or epidemic levels of destruction to the environment including the Amazon which I reviewed in Amazon Fire Already Headed Down Memory Hole Like Kuwait Fires & China Smog! In that article, as well as others I pointed out that the researchers within the academic and political world have to be as aware if not much more aware of how much damage they're doing to the environment and the fact that when it gets bad enough it will destroy even the wealthiest people.
This means that either the entire political establishment is insane and willing to destroy the planet for short term profit or they must think they have a way to avoid destroying the planet or .... what else? Something else insane? There's no doubt there's something extremely far-fetched going on, although there might not be enough evidence to show what. One possibility that I've been considering is that Philip Corso, who claimed that he shared technology obtained from alien spacecraft in a best selling 1997 book "The Day After Roswell" might be at least partly right. If so that could explain the rapid development of advanced technology since World War II which has been escalating rapidly in the past twenty to forty years.
If this is the case then it could begin to explain many other major unsolved mysteries, including UFOs, Crop Circles, Cattle Mutilations, how ancient megaliths were moved, mystics that haven't been fully explained, and much more. If it's not true then there's another mystery about why the media establishment and hundreds of members of the military or other related researchers and investigators are trying to make it look like there are aliens when there aren't. Either there's a conspiracy to make aliens, or cover them up!
There's no doubt that there's problems with this theory; however there're also major problems with the official explanation of history and science as well as the insane political establishment and constantly fighting wars based on lies. I haven't declared it to be conclusive, but without a much better explanation to major unsolved mysteries the official version isn't conclusive either. we need full disclosure of what ever the government and corporations or other organizations know about these mysteries, and sincere peer review to check the facts before we can know for certain which version is true; but that's not what we're getting from the traditional media or political establishment.
Another thing we can be certain of, when it comes to the 2020 elections, is that the only candidate the media provides fair coverage for that consistently stands up for fundamentals of democracy and defends the environment or the working class among other things is Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden was never a serious candidate which was exposed in a couple runs for president and while he was making an absurd number of gaffes as vice president. I can't imagine why they ever pretended otherwise. They've done a much more effective job creating propaganda to make Elizabeth Warren look progressive, but those doing a good job checking alternative media are much more likely to recognize that her record doesn't come close to matching her rhetoric.
I can't imagine why they're pretending that Pete Buttigieg is rising in the polls either, there's as many problems with his candidacy as there is with Biden's. If an alternative to Bernie or Warren does rise in the Democratic Party it won't be either Biden or Buttigieg, nor is it likely to be Deval Patrick or Michael Bloomberg, both of whom are running campaigns that look like a joke.
If there is a candidate as good or better than Bernie Sanders it's one that the mainstream media refuses to cover! In the long run the grassroots are going to have to demand fair coverage for all candidates for office local and national; even Bernie Sanders won't be nearly as effective as us if we're going to get the reform we need.
The following are some additional sources or related articles to this:
CodePink Founder Medea Benjamin Threatened with Arrest After Protesting U.S. Foreign Interventions 11/14/2019
'They Choked Me. They Threw Me Down.': CodePink's Medea Benjamin Assaulted by Right-Wing Venezuelan Opposition and Threatened With Arrest 11/14/2019
Medea Benjamin: After this peaceful protest, 5 police cars sorted up at my house, threatening to arrest me for assaulting the congresswoman next to me, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Police state 11/13/2019 https://twitter.com/medeabenjamin/status/1194755106174066691 After this peaceful protest, 5 police cars sorted up at my house, threatening to arrest me for assaulting the congresswoman next to me, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Police state
Medea Benjamin: Police intimidation, surrounding my house and threatening to arrest me 11/13/2019
Capitol Police Attempted To Arrest Code Pink Activist Medea Benjamin For Allegedly 'Assaulting' Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz 11/13/2019
The War on Latin America’s Left 11/17/2019
'Pinochet-Style Dictatorship': Bolivia's Coup Government Threatens to Arrest Leftist Lawmakers and Journalists 11/18/2019 "Bolivia is living through a violent, regressive, completely undemocratic power grab. All governments must sever relations with this illegal regime."
Protestors Massacred in Post-Coup Bolivia 11/18/2019
WATCH: Bolivia President Evo Morales Ayma's full speech to the UN General Assembly 09/ 24/2019
The U.S. Is Setting the Stage for Another Coup in Iran 11/18/2019
General Assembly Seventy-fourth session 09/24/2019 President Morales Ayma (spoke in Spanish): .......
Where can I find statements made by Bolivia during the General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly?
Is it a crime to tell the truth? Bolivia President Evo Morales at the United Nations in February of this year. Right in front of Trump./16/2019
Bolivia’s New Self-Declared “Interim President” Believes Indians Are “Satanic”, Shouldn’t Be Allowed in Cities 11/13/2019
Calling for an 'End to Violence,' Bernie Sanders Becomes First 2020 Democratic Presidential Contender to Criticize Bolivian Coup 11/11/2019 "I am very concerned about what appears to be a coup in Bolivia, where the military, after weeks of political unrest, intervened to remove President Evo Morales."
Police fire tear gas at protesters in Bolivia election unrest 10/29/2019 Continued protests come as President Morales and opposition candidate Carlos Mesa wrestle over an audit of the results.
Bolsonaro attacks 'putrid' media over Marielle Franco murder revelations 10/30/2019 Brazilian president seethes after investigation revealed suspects met at his compound before leftist politician’s murder. “You rascals, you scumbags! This will not stick!” Bolsonaro fumed after the report on Marielle Franco’s 2018 murder.
While Warning of Nazi-Like Fascism and Corporate Crimes, Pope Francis Proposes Adding 'Ecological Sin' to Church Teachings 11/16/2019
Big Oil Needs to Pay for the Damage It Caused 11/18/2019
Bolivia’s Anti-Indigenous Backlash Is Growing 11/13/2019
What the coup against Evo Morales means to indigenous people like me Nick Estes 11/14/2019 The indigenous-socialist project accomplished what neoliberalism has repeatedly failed to do: redistribute wealth to society’s poorest sectors
Bolivia coup led by Christian fascist paramilitary leader and millionaire – with foreign support (Enhanced version] 11/18/2019
Bolivian U.N. Ambassador: “Racist Elite” Engineered Coup to Restore Neoliberalism in Bolivia 11/19/2019
Bernie Sanders' Stance on Bolivia Matters 11/18/2019 “I don’t agree with that assertion,” he said. “I think Morales did a very good job in alleviating poverty and giving the indigenous people of Bolivia a voice that they never had before. Now we can argue about his going for a fourth term, whether that was a wise thing to do. … But at the end of the day, it was the military who intervened in that process and asked him to leave. When the military intervenes, Jorge, in my view, that’s called a ‘coup.'” ....... Any presidential candidate who claims to represent workers and marginalized communities, who even nominally opposes U.S. imperialism, should be able to identify a coup as such. If they can’t, why should we trust them to implement a just and holistic foreign policy?
Sema Hernandez: I'm indigenous. I don't speak for all indigenous people, but I will speak for myself: I condemn @ewarren for taking this position on the #BoliviaCoup. The interim leadership is ethnically cleansing Bolivia's indigenous population and declaring Bolivia a Christian nation. 11/18/2019
Bolivian President Evo Morales resigns following mass protests 11/10/2019
Opinion: The OAS lied to the public about the Bolivian election and coup 11/19/2019
Bolivia's Evo Morales: 'Let me come back and finish my term' 11/17/2019
After Week of Violence and Unrest, Warren Criticized for Conciliatory Remarks on Post-Coup Bolivia 11/19/2019
Bolivia's democratically elected President Evo Morales explains how the US government was behind the far-right military coup that overthrew him. "The US embassy was conspiring against me," he said, adding that the US directly supported the right-wing opposition to undermine him. 11/19/2019
Top Bolivian coup plotters trained by US military's School of the Americas, served as attachés in FBI police programs 11/13/2019
House Democrats Hand Trump 'Authoritarian' Surveillance Powers 11/19/2019
Bernie Sanders Is the Only Presidential Candidate to Call Bolivia President's Ouster a 'Coup' 11/19/2019
Bolivia is falling into the grips of a brutal right-wing regime 11/19/2019
The Coup in Bolivia Has Everything to Do With the Screen You’re Using to Read This 11/20/2019
Evo Morales Urges United Nations to 'Denounce and Stop This Massacre' as Bolivian Military Guns Down Protestors 11/20/2019
Handing Trump 'Terrifying Authoritarian Surveillance Powers,' House Democrats Include Patriot Act Reauthorization in Funding Bill 11/19/2019 "Wow. House Democrats are ignoring civil liberties and including a three month straight reauthorization of the Patriot Act (with zero reform) in the continuing resolution."
President Donald Trump Applauds Bolivia's Military For Role In Coup 11/11/2019
Bolivian President Evo Morales accuses US of 'harboring terrorists' 09/25/2013
Bolivia’s Morales, at UN, says natural resources, basic necessities must be viewed as human rights 09/20/2017
Trump backs Brazilian president as he rejects aid for fighting Amazon fires 08/27/2019
Bolivia President Evo Morales speech to the United Nations General Assembly, September 24, 2019