This anguished shot at Rachel Maddow, by one who “used to watch [her] show religiously,” suggests (or so I hope) that liberals who can still add two plus two and get the answer sight are spitting out the Kool-Aid, and even, as in this case, speaking out against it, and those dispensing it.
“I think you believe that what you are saying is true,” concludes Diane Perlman—and that’s probably the case: Maddow—like Don Lemon, Sean Hannity, and all the other multimillionaires who vent propaganda for a living—is, necessarily, a true believer, or her performance would be less convincing.
Thus the best in-person propagandists—that is, those who personally sway their targets, whether at the podium or microphone, or on camera, as opposed to pushing buttons from behind the scenes—tend to be “sincere,” believing what they say, at least while saying it. (They may not believe it, or not quite so much, once the show is over.)
Open Letter and Challenge for Rachel Maddow
Ivermectin: Truth or Consequences
Diane Perlman, PhD
I used to watch your show religiously, having followed you for years. I remember you on Air America and watched your first MSNBC show, I believe on your grandmother’s birthday. You are brilliant, know how to investigate deeply and connect dots. You are an amazing teacher and educate my family members on current events.
I am a psychologist, with a former practice in psychoneuroimmunology, studying exceptional physical healing, and a political psychologist analyzing psychological dynamics in politics, psychological manipulation of fear, nuclear proliferation, demystification, and conflict transformation. I moved to DC to be near think tanks and do more good. We have a mutual friend, Steve Clemons.
A few months ago, I stopped watching cable news because I could no longer tolerate the condescending, contemptuous tone. I had been analyzing dynamics, mostly MSNBC, plus some CNN and FOX. I tuned in to your show again on August 20 because my sister told me that your reporting was amazing.
I experience you as a decent, ethical person with integrity, but am troubled by some reporting that succumbs to corporate influenced groupthink. We need smart analysts like you to challenge and demystify seductive, inflammatory, harmful, mindsets.
I debate with friends about whether you indeed have integrity and would revise your opinion upon a deep investigation of independent, accurate scientific information, or whether you are beholden to your Big Pharma sponsors’ conflicts of interests that promote false information which endangers the public. Big Pharma is by far the biggest US lobby, more than double Big Oil.
I was beyond shocked at your August 20 segment with false, misleading information on Ivermectin that discourages the use of this life-saving drug, thus allowing unnecessary suffering and death while falsely attributing its use to a Republican agenda.
Since completing this article I saw your August 27 segment,
Anyone who reads this entire article, follows the links and listens to testimonies and then listens your segment will get a lesson in pure propaganda. My apologies for this Rachel. I think you believe that what you are saying is true.