Political metaphors and the gulf war
How does wealth influence the mass media?
What are some propaganda techniques?
But conservatives say so...Are you sure?
The "liberal" media on Mumia Abu-Jamal
Media's support for the auto industry
Media has no interest in white-collar crime
Media's support for neoliberalism
One way the media helps authoritarians prevent dissent is to distract the people with useless "junk food" news, like human interest stories.
For example, in 1996 we the people were enlightened by such information as:
Winter says this is "McNews. News Lite. They're filling the newspapers and broadcasts with it, and the notion of an informed citizenry and democracy itself is suffering as a result." (For example, the Globe and Mail ran three stories (on pages 8, 12 and 13) throughout the entire year of 1995 about a bill in congress that would weaken US anti-pollution policies, which effects the health of Canadians. Compare that to nearly 500 times as much about the (imaginary) deficit!)
Especially ironic is that these examples are from Canadian newspapers, though only one has anything to do with Canada - and that's about the deficit, which suggests that government services, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which provides Canadian news and content, should be cut.
Interesting, considering that the CBC is a competitor to newspapers...
"The [Newswatch Canada] study concludes that [the news] is not only dominated by men, but by white men from elite backgrounds. A particularly interesting finding was the prominence of female sources and reporters for domestic stories (often considered to be 'soft news'), while males dominated 'hard news.'"
Articles from FAIR's Women's Desk
Media welfare debate: a war on poor women
Pope VS Veep: overpopulation blamed on poor women
Wall Street Journal, 10/20/95) "The chief cause of black poverty is welfare state feminism. Thirty years of affirmative action have artificially elevated black women into economic power over men. This regime prevailed over the highest levels of the economy . to the underclass. It prevailed on college campuses. It dominated government job training programs. It even invaded such male bastions as the cockpits of fighter planes, police squad cars, fire stations, construction sites, and university athletic teams.
"It is an unpopular fact of life that in all societies and in all races monogamous marriage is based on patriarchal sex roles, with men the dominant provider. Welfare state feminism destroyed black families by ravaging the male role of provider."
And now, the downright perverse
The Ottawa Citizen (August 18),"Sarajevo's women maintain elegance, pose and beauty" by Kittie McKinsey: "Thanks to the privations of war, Sarajevo women are slim and fit." "Dodging sniper bullets and schlepping heavy canisters of water up many flights of stairs in apartment buildings where elevators don't work have also been an excellent fitness program." "She's wearing a silky, olive-green jumpsuit, with a gold chain at her neck and a wide, black lizard belt nipping her waist. Her immaculate black high heels match the belt. She's perfectly quaffed and her rose nail polish matches her lipstick"
(Source: Lydia Sargent)
Even conservatives say no:
"Journalism today is very different from what it was 10 to 20 years ago. Today, op-ed pages are dominated by conservatives.... We have a tremendous amount of conservative opinion, but this creates a problem for those who are interested in a career in journalism after college.... If Bill Buckley were to come out of Yale today, nobody would pay much attention to him. He would not be that unusual...because there are probably hundreds of people with those ideas [and] they have already got syndicated columns."
-- Adam Myerson, editor of the Heritage Foundation's Policy Review (Newslink, 11/88)
In Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn Jr.'s report What do our 17-year olds know (1988) they found that 51% could correctly define laissez-faire, while only 43 could identify Joe Mcarthy, and only 32% knew that the civil war was in the last half of the 1800's. (Pp. 49, 69, 83) Liberal media? Or do they mean neo-liberal media?
Interesting...
Polls showed that in 1994, when Clinton's health care plan was described but not named, two-thirds of Americans favored it.
However two-thirds were against it once they were told it was "The Clinton Plan."
So anyway...
As long as their a single word in the newspapers that dissents from corporate orders, right-wing think tanks will accuse the media of having a leftist bias, and will call form "more balanced" (ever more authoritarian!) coverage. For example, this is what PBS would be like if they had their way.
For example, Rush Limbaugh claims that the media is liberal - strange, considering all of the air time he gets.
Proof that Rush Limbaugh is a liberal
We all know that the media is a liberal propaganda machine, as prophesied in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Therefore, the fact that the media can't get enough of Rush must make him a liberal. Take a look:
Used as an "expert" on:
Published in:
A U.S. News & World Report piece (8/16/93) by Steven Roberts declared, "The information Mr. Limbaugh provides is generally accurate."
A National Review cover story (9/6/93) called him the "Leader of the Opposition." Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says he tapes Limbaugh's radio show and listens to it as he [Clarence, of course!] works out (USA Today, 5/13/94). (Source: FAIR)
Sarcasm is bad for your health - back to reality
How "if it bleeds it leads" helps "tough on crime" authoritarians
From EXTRA! (July/August 1998),
If there truly were a liberal bias in mainstream media, right-wing commentators would not dominate the three major opinion-shaping forums in our country: TV punditry, talk radio and syndicated columns.
Next time someone tells you that the right wing is unfairly treated in the mass media, start reading from this list. Challenge them to match these names with left-wing pundits who have equivalent access to the public debate -- not tepid centrists who rally 'round the status quo, but leaders of and advocates for progressive movements, as unabashed in their politics to the left as these conservative voices are to the right...
Forbes magazine
Good old Forbes magazine...Owned by an old-money man so crooked he's actually running for president! Forbes is the biggest advertiser in the magazine world - because of an agreement not to print any bad news about those who buy ad space! It's some of the most despicable propaganda I've seen - opening a copy to a random page I found an article saying that laws against CFCs would make air conditioners impossible and make the economy collapse etc. Another article from Clinton's first term predicted that he wouldn't be re-elected - and to think that people use this magazine when making investments!
I've noticed that the big money think tanks are starting a campaign to convince the middle class that *YOU TOO* can become rich. Considering how well make-money-fast schemes work, I expect them to have some success. I came across an article proclaiming this in - of all magazines - the Futurist. The article had nothing to do with futurism, and it basically went like this:
If you are a doctor, and you marry another doctor, have no children, eat potatoes and turnips, and have lucky investments, by the time you retire you will have one million dollars.
Wow - anybody can become a millionaire! Now why don't those damn starving orphans shut up?
A random "liberal media" claim shows the state of conservative scholarship:
Here's part of a page I accidentally saved on my hard drive during research. At the time I didn't realize that it was a conservative page - beware the hazards of skim-reading! Anyway, you can sort of picture this as a "random" or "typical" conservative argument:
"If one were to conduct a search on Lexis-Nexis on the terms "rightwing" and "leftwing", one would first find that the former outnumbers the latter by a incredibly large ratio."
(Our conservative friend overlooked one detail - for "solid proof" one has to ACTUALLY DO THE EXPERIMENT. It's not good enough to say "If one were to do an extensive survey, one would find that all conservatives are morons".)
"If one were to conduct the query on both terms in conjunction with the terms "extremist" or "radical", one would find almostno references to negative terms in conjunction with "leftwing" and a plethera of references to negative terms in conjunction with "rightwing.""
*IF* again. Actually, this part could actually be true - but only because leftists don't shoot people over issues like abortion, or bomb government buildings, or collect weapons for doomsday. And as for "radical", it's not a negative term - it's simply a description.
"This is solid proof of a leftist bias,"
If that's solid proof, what would an actual study be? Rock-hard, fully erect proof from Gawd [TM]?
"but more importantly, this is solid proof of conditioning through repetitive association."
The argument has nothing to do with conditioning - though any adman could provide "solid proof: of conditioning through repetitive association", this conservative isn't scholarlyenough to bother. He is needlessly wordy though - which counts as "solid proof" to most conservatives!
We go on:
"For instance, the media constantly refers to the "radical Christian right," often with images of abortion clinic bombings and other negative images."
Who bombs adortion clinics? The fluffy taoist center?
"But when is the last time you heard "radical Jewish left?""
Just before the Holocaust.
"In fact, there is a "radical Jewish left." All one need do is examine the CEO's, [!] managers, directors, writers, directors, etc_of the leftwing media in this country, "
This is called a circular argument. Why do you think the media is liberal? Because it's owners are liberal? Why do you think it's owners are liberal? Because they own the liberal media? Why do you think the media is liberal? etc. Also, no evidence for the media being Jewish - all I know on this subject is that during the holocaust reports were usually small print in the back pages of newspapers. Strange thing for a "Jewish brainwashing machine" to do...
"as well as the leaders and financiers of the major left wing organizations such as the ACLU, Brookings Institution, People for the America Way, Gun Control Inc. etc_.many of them are "radical Jewish leftists.""
The same technique as before - no examples, no evidence, just "if you looked, you would see"...
"did you ever hear Ted Kaczinsky called a "leftwing extremist" (which he is) by the press? (a press which in a twisted sort of way, probably views Kaczinsky in an heroic light!)."
See my page: Myth: The unibomber is leftist. Notice the utter lack of examples. No explaination on how a terrorist could be portrayed heroically - except for his own personal interpretation, which says a lot about his idea of heroism...
"To call Kaczinsky a "leftwing extremist" would reinforce negative connotations and images associated with the term "left" and "liberal"
...But it would be proved bullshit by the first page or so of his manifesto! The media isn't *THAT* bad!
"...and the leftist media would never allow this."
Anyone who is making any sort of attempt to be believable would never allow this.
"They will however, allow all variations of negative associations with the terms "right", "conservative", and "Christian"."
Examples? "All variations" - let's see, I haven't seen Christians being called "draft-dodgers" or "pot-smokers", or "eco-terrorists" or "bleeding-hearts" or "traitors" etc...
"These are but two pitiful examples"
Pitiful, yes. Examples, no.
"...of the constant leftist drumbeat pounding negative associations into the psyche of the American people via the most powerful medium of communication in the history of Man_ television. Day by day, words are twisted into new meanings."
Which explains why socialism and communism are dirty words, and why liberals are changing their name to "progressives". For a quick reminder of REAL word twisting, see my word page.
"People find themselves with antagonistic sentiments that they cannot logically justify. One often hears them say, "I just don't know, he just seems be so mean spirited." They are unaware of the means by which those negative sentiments are seeded in thier [sic] minds."
Of course, siding with the overdog, telling the starving to fend for themselves, supporting the bombing and invation of third world countries like Vietnam and Grenada, telling women to "quit whining", talking about "stupid and unskilled mexicans", agreeing with the Klan on every issue, calling a thirteen-year-old girl a bitch because he disagrees with her parents*, and endlessly blaiming the victim for everything doesn't make people consider right-wingers "mean spirited" (as if nobody uses harsher terms than that!) - brainwashing from the Jewish media does it! Gimme a break.
*Rush Limbaugh and Chelsea Clinton
Accuracy In Media (AIM), launched in 1969, is closely associated with founder Reed Irvine. In AIM's first year, Irvine advocated that Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers, and the Progressive Labor Party be charged with sedition during the Vietnam War. "If you're going to halt treason, you've got to do it while it's small," Irvine said at the time (Village Voice, 1/21/68).
Much of AIM's work is dedicated to getting those they disagree with fired. In 1982, AIM engaged in a campaign against Raymond Bonner of the New York Times, criticizing the Central America correspondent for reporting that U.S.-trained troops had massacred civilians at the Salvadoran village of El Mozote. AIM and its media allies (notably the Wall Street Journal editorial page) were successful in getting Bonner removed from his beat; years later, U.N. excavations at the site confirmed his story (Extra! 1-2/93).
This censorious attitude is linked to the group's disdain for the First Amendment: AIM used to offer as a premium the book Target America, by AIM board member James L. Tyson, which proposed that mandatory government "ombudsmen" be placed at each of the major networks to ensure "accuracy" and "fairness" when dealing with "large, difficult questions."
AIM has frequently criticized media coverage of its corporate backers (for example, oil and chemical interests), but much of Irvine's advocacy has little or nothing to do with media. In the 1990s, he urged the use of napalm against Salvadoran guerrillas (AIM Reports, 3/90), as well as encouraging the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq during the Persian Gulf crisis (Seattle Times, 1/16/91)....
The Media Research Center is headed by L. Brent Bozell III, the former director of the National Conservative Political Action Committee. In 1992, he took a brief time-out from the MRC to serve as finance chair for Patrick Buchanan's primary challenge to George Bush....
The MRC's main publication is MediaWatch. It also publishes the MediaNomics newsletter, part of MRC's Free Market Project, devoted to explaining "what the media tell Americans about free enterprise." Notable Quotables is the MRC's "bi-weekly compilation of the most outrageous examples of bias," but it often reads more like a collection of statements the MRC does not agree with....
The Center's now defunct TV, Etc. newsletter tracked the allegedly leftist politics of entertainment industry figures-devoting considerable energy to publicizing the off-screen comments of people who make their living reading lines written by other people. (The project bore an uncomfortable resemblance to Red Channels, the McCarthy Era blacklisting journal.)... TV, Etc. seems to have been replaced by the Parents Television Council. The PTC, launched in 1995...tracks programming content with its "Family Guide to Prime Time TV."
The main analytical technique used by the Center -- the counting of "thematic messages" -- is extremely dubious, eliminating all messages that fail to make an explicit statement of opinion...this technique often produces highly distorted findings....
An example was an MRC study cited in Media Monitor, 4/91 on the Gulf War threw out 5,666 of 5,915 messages, focusing only on what the remaining 249 said about the War. To learn more about MRC's bogus methodology, check out the FAIR site.
While the CMPA is often described at "non-partisan," it certainly seems to be a conservative project. Fundraising letters for the launch of the Center contained endorsements from the likes of Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Ed Meese and Pat Robertson. While Robert Lichter has said that "it's not in a scholar's blood to have an ideology," he's also criticized journalists like Peter Arnett for "seeming themselves as citizens of the world" rather than as patriotic Americans, according to an AP report (4/27/91).
"The first part of the [newswatch Canada] study compiled all references to the leading 15 think tanks -- seven left-wing, six right-wing and two middle-of-the-road -- for a six-month period, in 14 mainstream daily newspapers and CBC and CTV television news broadcasts. The political leaning of each think tank was assessed independently by several mainstream journalists.
In a second stage of research, coverage of the Fraser Institute (right-wing) and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (left-wing) was analyzed for the type and quality of coverage in the Vancouver Sun and The Globe and Mail. There were five times more articles about the Fraser Institute than about the CCPA..."
- Newswatch Canada
In search of innovative new ways to waste an hour of time, I decided to watch the 700 Club. What stunned me was that the first half hour looked excactly like any news program - a pretty fierce indictment of the media! The second half hour was stardard evangelism. By focusing on promises and miracles they managed to quote much scripture without actually giving God's opinion of anything.
They started with a Kosovo story. Like every other news story on this subject, it was quite balanced - but only because republicans are in disagreement! Unlike every other news story, there didn't seem to be much, if anything, mentioned about the refugees - too bleeding-heart I presume. The reporter in the story talked as if commenting on a football game.
Finally, things started getting interesting: a well-worded story on the flag amendment, or as they called it, defending the flag. Using a sort of "human shield" strategy, people nobody would dare argue with talked about how emotional the flag is to them: a world war 2 vet and a holocaust survivor. A few seconds was given to an ACLU lawyer (interviewed on the street while walking somewhere, I presume they were trying to "ambush" and get a stupid sound bite - they failed.) to make it look like they're giving liberals fair time - conservatives get 5 minutes, liberals get 5 seconds. Nice and equal. A gallop poll was said to have found 60% in favour of the amendment...I find this a little strange seeing that only a quarter or so of the US population voted republican...But then, who would argue with a holocaust survivor?
Now, time for the "ad breaks", those absurd little bits all infomercials add in order to make their paid program fit in with all of the other programs that paid for by admen. One was for a "fact sheet" of "current issues", which I will inform readers of how environmentalists are doomsday freaks who will get blown up when revelation comes next week. Another "ad" was to raise money for a 700 club in Israel, with the idea that the best way to stabilize a chaos of religious militants is to tell them the world is about to end and that the final battle between good and evil is at hand.
There was also an interesting story on drugs and vaccinations given to military personnel, in which a high-ranking brass type uses an appeal to fear argument - if we don't give 'em deformed babies the North Koreans will kill 'em all! Like all of the stories EXCEPT the flag amendment one, they did a little scripted-looking debate.
Thus ended the secular half of the show. Next comes the part where they use Christ as a human shield to defend their conservatism. Just your standard evalgelism, prayer, talk about ministries abroad and lots of righteous band-aiding to keep liberal Christians from daring to question their breatheren. And of course, to deflect anti-conservatism hatred into hatred of Christians.
Overall, I was impressed with the skill in which the 700 club does its soft sell. So soft that the only part where they did real propaganda was for (IMO) a non-issue. I might as well watch more of the 700 club, at least the first half hour, before they turn into Billy Graham wannabees, desperately trying to get converts, or at least their money. When Christ said to preach to every living thing I don't recall anything about a profit motive being involved.
From Britain: A case of media distortion in the "drug war":
18-year old Leah Betts was at a rave (A really intense dance party) where she drank alcohol, took dope and a popular (taken by about 500,000 people each weekend in the UK alone) rave drug called Ecstasy.
Before going on, lets examine raves some more: "A recent study by the Ergonomics Society found that heat levels in many [rave] clubs were a health risk, raising body temperatures above World Health organisation guidelines for the workplace. In one nightclub - which had good ventilation - the temperature was 84 degrees F with 70% - 90% humidity. After dancing for one hour in these conditions, the body temperature of clubbers had risen above 101 degrees F and they had lost, on average, one litre of sweat. Computer calculations showed that if they had continued to dance for a further three hours, their body temperatures would have risen to 104 degrees F (40 degrees C). In 1994, three deaths occurred at nightclubs; they were all admitted to hospital with body temperatures of above 105.8 degrees F (41degrees C). In a survey of nightclub regulars, 88% reported heat-related illnesses. If your body temperature rises above 42 degrees C, then your blood begins to form small clots which stick to your artery walls. This process uses up the clotting agent in the blood, leaving nothing to prevent bleeding. There are always tiny cuts and scratches inside the body and brain due to the body replacing worn and damaged tissue; normally these leaks are plugged by the clotting of blood. But above 42 degrees C this goes unchecked. Amphetamine [A less famous rave drug], Ecstasy and exercise all increase the blood pressure, [and cause dehydration] worsening the effect. If bleeding occurs in the brain, it can cause a stroke. If bleeding occurs for long enough it is possible to bleed to death. Heatstroke is the major cause of Ecstasy-related deaths..."
Most of the 7 ecstacy-related rave deaths in the UK from 1989 to 1992 were from dehydration, though Leah Betts died of water intoxication.
In response, British billboard advertisers designed posters and donated them free of charge to a state-backed campaign in the "war against drugs" - that is, the war against illegal drugs, the ones big business and taxmen can't profit from. The billboard advertisers never donated any space for a picture of any of the hundreds and thousands of tobacco victims, or weight-loss drugs, or pollution, or poverty... No real evidence or information was provided, only the raw emotional power of a dead girl. The campaign was irresponsible for many reasons:
1. Teenagers are always attracted to "danger"
2. They also defy authority by instinct
3. Demonizing one drug makes people assume that others are safe (though ecstasy is among the least dangerous)
4. Overall it created the illusion that the government is trying to save the lives of teenagers, distracting attention away from things that could actually make a difference. (Like a billboard against Tobacco, or creating a real democracy, for that matter.)
When Chumbawamba mailed postcards critical of the billboard campaigns to newspapers, the result was fast and furious.
"Leah's photo hijacked to back Ecstasy" ran a headline. The postcard was described as a "pro-ecstasy campaign". They telephoned a woman whose daughter had died from drugs, gave her their destription of the postcard, and then quoted the response. The billboard ad agency then described the postcards as "exploiting Leah's death to sell records."
Another newspaper reprinted the original story, who then called up Chumbawamba's regional press worker and tried to entrap him into admitting drug use.
With the press being so certain of the moral outrage caused by the postcard, what did Leah's parents think?
"That is exactly what we want - more information" - they said, agreeing with one of the messages in the postcard. They also stated that they agreed with the postcard in its resistence to the government "which fights Ecstasy but makes billions from legal killers like cigarettes and alcohol".
"Its failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor of journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the
ignorance of the community."
-- Oscar Wilde
"I am personally acquainted with hundreds of journalists, and the opinion of the majority of them would not be worth tuppence in private, but when they speak
in print it is the newspaper that is talking (the pygmy scribe is not visible) and then their utterances shake the community like the thunders of prophecy."
-- Mark Twain, speech, 2/1873
"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle... Perhaps an editor might
begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first
chapter would be very short."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1807
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
-- A.J. Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" The New Yorker, May 14, 1960
"By 1990, publishers of mass circulation daily newspapers will finally stop kidding themselves that they are in the newspaper business and admit that they are
primarily in the business of carrying advertising messages."
-- A. Roy Megary, publisher, Toronto Globe and Mail
And from the other side...
"The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all
effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands..."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 180-181.
"In political matters feeling often decides more correctly than reason."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 173
"All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the
greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 180
"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention.
It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 184
"It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance... As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the
effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 180-181
"[Propaganda] must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect... The art of propaganda lies in understanding the
emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 180
"[Propaganda] does not have multiple shadings; it has a positive and a negative; love or hate, right or wrong, truth or lie, never half this way and half that way……"
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 183
"[This is the] very first condition which has to be fulfilled in every kind of propaganda: a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be
dealt with……"
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 182
"The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective [propaganda] will be."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 180
"For I must not measure the speech of a statesman to his people by the impression which it leaves in a university professor, but by the effect it exerts on the
people. And this alone gives the standard for the speaker's genius."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 477
"The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blaséé young gentlemen, but to convince…… the masses. But the masses are slow
moving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times
will the masses finally remember them."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 185
"When there is change, it must not alter the content of what propaganda is driving at, but in the end must always say the same thing. For instance, a slogan must
be presented from different angles, but the end of all remarks must always and immutably be the slogan itself. Only in this way can the propaganda have a
unified and complete effect."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 185
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? To the scientifically trained intelligentsia or the less educated masses? It must be addressed always and
exclusively to the masses."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 179
"As soon as one point is removed from the sphere of dogmatic certainty, the discussion may not simply result in a new and better formulation, but may easily
lead to endless debates and general confusion."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"The grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"I have already stated…… that all great, world-shaking events have been brought about, not by written matter, but by the spoken word…… While the speaker
gets a continuous correction of his speech from the crowd he is addressing, since he can always see in the faces of his listeners to what they extent they follow
his arguments with understanding and whether the impression and the effect of his words lead to the desired goal -- the writer does not know his readers at all.
The essential point…… is that a piece of literature never knows into what hands it will fall, and yet must retain its definite form."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 469-70