Ooops! Caught ya: Manufacturing consent and the border

I’m quite certain I attended the meeting at Assumption High School on Saturday, but from what the Windsor Star initially reported on their website to what was reported in print makes me wish I was a fly on the wall late Sunday night in the editorial board room of the Windsor Star.

Mr. Arditti over at WindsorCityBlog covered this disturbing story with his usual wit adequately enough. However, I wish to tackle this from a different angle – a political economic viewpoint, or in layman’s terms – how we are being duped.

Okay, Chris where are you going with this?

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky developed what is called “The Propaganda Model.” For those that are interested, click here for a summary of this theory. For the rest, I found a short video which underlines where I’m going with this:

In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky argues that the media establishes and defends the agenda of the dominant privileged groups in society. “The media serve this purpose in many ways: through selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises.” This was echoed in a previous blog when I stated, “The first message was loud and clear and reflects conclusions made in ‘The Outcomes of Coattail Marketing: The Case of Windsor, Ontario, and Super Bowl XL,’ that the Windsor Star, ‘…was fully supportive of the official political line of the city.’”

What I found most significant about the “rewriting” of news, as cited in Mr. Arditti’s blog, was the change of the title of the article – to me, that was the “smoking gun” that led to my conclusion. The original title of the article was, “Tunnel only option for new border crossing.” Literally, overnight this transformed into “Tunnel option supported”. Two very different meanings – the most obvious being that the tunnel is now, one among many options for our border. This certainly is much more in sync with the “official political line of the city” as exemplified by Mayor Eddie Francis’ statement on February 8, 2007, A1:

“The mayor said simply presenting the provincial government with one option — a tunnel — was not the best course of action because a whole range of solutions are needed, including reducing the number of rail tracks in the city and creating a transportation hub at the airport.”

Quite the different statement than from what he stated on December 9th, 2006 when he said, “They are setting up the tunnel option to fail…They have emphasized the negative rather than give it an unbiased and fair treatment in comparison to other options.”

The second disturbing “rewrite” was the deletion of Councillor Dilkens quotation regarding the Ambassador Bridge and Bill Marra’s tunnel motion which, according to Chomsky, did not “comport with the ideology or interests of the gatekeepers and other powerful parties that influence the filtering process,” or in other words did not comply with the “official political line of the city.”

So, what is my point? Well, the purpose of manufacturing consent is to create numerous possibilities with the objective of implementing the preferred, usually most unpopular “possibility.” Ultimately, the goal is to make the unpopular the popular option. This is to say, obsfucate the issue and gradually implement the preferred option.

When the four main components of our border history file are viewed through this lens – it begins to make sense:

• WALTS 1997
• DRTP
• DRIC
• Schwartz 2005

The common theme amongst these is the utilization of existing transportation corridors and the appearance of horse-shoe and ring roads. And while we are distracted with tunnel talk, gradually elements of these plans (save for DRTP) are being implemented. How else would you explain Pupatello’s indifference, on October 7, 2006 to the relocation of the slots and Project Ice-Track to Manning Road? This surely wouldn’t have anything to do with the Manning Road expansion to the 401 would it? It all fits nicely into using the E.C. Row Expressway enroute to the existing border crossings and the future new border crossing which quite frankly, may or may not be built, since the DRIC Study is simply a recommendation – a point driven home on Saturday by project manager David Wake.

The bottom line is I believe we’re being duped – and I don’t even think some of the councillors are even aware that this whole debate is being manufactured for two purposes – fulfilling certain political aspirations and manufacturing consent for the preferred option.

Now I could be wrong – but the more I fit the pieces together of this perplexing puzzle, the more sense it makes. Unfortunately, it is a debate that could tear this community apart – from attempting to discredit dissidents, such as we saw with Arditti in the Star article, “Blogger linked to bridge firm,” to creating uncertainty and duress for residents in Sandwich Towne and Talbot/Huron Church.

It is unfathomable that this could actually be occuring with not one councillor, provincial or federal representative demanding answers. Instead, we get more rhetoric, wild claims and a contined obsfucation of the issues.

That, to me, is the greatest disservice possible to our community. Honesty and a straighforward presentation of facts – all of them – is what we deserve. But then again, that labels me an idealist and apparently there is no room in this debate for such notions as demonstrated by the Windsor Star’s “rewriting” of news.

Afterall, supporting the official “political line of the city” is so much more important than a healthy, informed debate.