Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOn Iraq, the right was wrong. It's a slam dunk. So why do the wrong righties keep raking in big media cash? And why aren't lefties taking a victory lap?
It's a Back to the Future moment: back in 2002, polls found most Americans opposed to war with Iraq at roughly the same two-to-one ration as they do now. What changed Americans' minds between 2002 and 2003, supplemented by Bush Administration lies about fictional WMDs and liberation flowers, were millions of words published in major national magazines and regurgitated on television news programs by serious-looking, soft-spoken men boasting impressive journalistic and academic credentials. Pretend experts wove fantastic tales of wonderful geopolitical benefits that would derive from taking out Saddam. Invading Iraq was going to democratize the Middle East, force the Palestinians to sign a peace deal with Israel, and bring Elvis back to life.
Fareed Zakaria used his column at Newsweek to promote the now-discredited neoconservative democratization-via-regime-change thesis. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and another neocon, sang the same bellicose tune at Time. David Brooks and Thomas Friedman beat the war drum for the influential opinion page of The New York Times. Then, against the evidence and common sense, they declared Mission Accomplished.
"The only people who think this wasn't a victory," wrote Time's Charles Krauthammer after the fall of Baghdad and the toppling of Saddam's statue, "are Upper West Side liberals, and a few people here in Washington." Like the phony Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman stories, the statue story was fake. We "Upper West Side liberals" were right. But no one cares.
As the occupation went from bad to worse, the WordPerfect Warriors--none had served in the military or even visited a war zone-- were always a step or six behind, pushing for more troops in 2006 when they were three years too late to do any good.
There were, of course, strong antiwar voices. With the exception of Paul Krugman at the Times, however, they worked for media outlets with far narrower distribution than the scribes at the big newsweeklies. And they hardly, if ever, appeared on TV. The liberal weekly magazine The Nation led the antiwar pack with a circulation of 184,000 in 2004. But Nation pundits weren't nearly as left as guys like Kristol were right; many supported or remained silent, for example, about the invasion of Afghanistan. Outlets like The Nation were mere mouse squeaks next to the thunderous roar of Time and Newsweek's combined 7,100,000.
That was then, this is now, yet nothing has changed. Despite no WMDs. Despite turning more "corners" than a milligon. Despite a million dead Iraqis.
Imagine the scorn and derision that would have rained down upon antiwar dudes like me if WMDs had turned up behind cheering Iraqi throngs! There would have been purges and canceled book contracts and all manner of retribution. "Over the next couple of weeks," crowed Dick Morris on Fox News on April 9, 2003, "when we find the chemical weapons this guy [Saddam] was amassing...the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four years."
Where's the right-wing head-hanging?
Despite their F-rated performances on the biggest political story of their lives Morris, Krauthammer, Zakaria, Kristol, Brooks, Friedman and likeminded ideologues continue to sell their opinions for big bucks. True, Time and Newsweek publish columnists like Joe Klein and Jonathan Alter---antiwar liberals. Sort of.
Compared to their right-wing colleagues, however, these weak-kneed libbies are squishy and polite--nothing like their rabidly wrong right-wing counterparts.
In cartoonist Nina Paley's memorable phrase, these official lefties are "soft liberals" who call for the left to turn the other cheek to right-wing attacks. "[Democratic] kowtowing to [left-wing] extremists," Klein wrote in the June 18 issue of Time, "is exactly the opposite of what this country is looking for after the lethal radicalism of the Bush Administration."
Nowhere in the "mainstream" media--not in print, not on television--will you find a left-wing counterpart to radical right Bushists. You know, someone who wanted the troops out before we ever sent them. Someone who wants an evacuation, not a phased withdrawal. Who thinks Bush deserves a long stretch in Milosevic's old cell at The Hague. Who doesn't think Afghanistan had any more to do with 9/11 than Iraq. Real lefties are out there, all right, but they're marginalized, relegated to self-published preach-to-the-choir blogs and low-circulation rags (The Progressive, Mother Jones, Indymedia) and semi-underground radio broadcasts like Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now!"
Lefties have correctly called every shot since 2000. They were right from Florida 2000 to 9/11 to Gitmo to torture to the Patriot Act to WMDs to Abu Ghraib to domestic spying. Yet, against all logic and fairness, they're treated like kooks. Meanwhile, the real kooks are still getting paid to spout the same old nonsense.
On June 25 Peter Beinart, yet another pro-Iraq War wacko for Time, wrote this gem: "Obviously, 9/11--when the U.S. was attacked from Afghanistan, a terrorist-infested basket case--changed things." Well, no. We were attacked by Saudis and Egyptians and Pakistanis. Pakistan funded Al Qaeda training camps, most of which were in Pakistan; only a few were across the Durand Line in southeastern Afghanistan. 9/11 changed nothing. As usual, the U.S. attacked countries for fun and profit and allowed real, looming threats (Pakistan, North Korea) off the hook.
How many of Time's 4.1 million readers, who count on the magazine for reliable news and credible opinion, will believe Beinart's nonsense?
Which brings us to the age-old question: Why? Why does the "mainstream media"--big, influential, well-funded outlets--disseminate extremist pap while censoring sane, rational voices?
Marxists point to the Big Media's corporate masters. Pro-government and corporate propaganda, goes their reasoning, keeps the masses ignorant and supports business interests. Pardon the pun, but I don't buy it. I think the editors and publishers and producers and bookers are distracted. They're so busy meeting deadlines that they forget to keep track of how often they get things wrong. What's more, many media executives are lazy thinkers. Out-of-the-box ideas, such as the fact that politicians lie like they breathe and that there are perfectly justifiable reasons for hating the United States, scare them. So they shut out those with shaggy hair and off-the-rack suits, like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, who speak scary (and accurate) ideas out loud.
There's still one thing I don't understand: the business angle. Why would any media outlet risk its profitability by repeatedly printing and broadcasting big, honking mistakes? After all, credibility is the reason people (used to) buy newspapers.
Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.
© 2007 Ted Rall
48 Comments so far
Show AllSeems like the article and comments are shadows of truth that remain obscure in the light of our days. The evolution of democracy, capitalism and corporations demonstrate their natural propensity for shadowy collusion and self-perpetuated control. Collectively, we have become but a pawn in their global end game and we have sacrificed our birthright of liberty along the way for the security of believing in an illusion of well-being in a corporate world. Ultimately, we are responsible and we remain, faithfully, only pawns in their game. We are grateful pawns and we give thanks at the altar of the All Consumer Saints Church. It is a righteous consumer war we fight on the battlefield of Cultural Imperialism. We are at war. Please be patriotic and cast your support for your depreciating quality of sprawling life at your local Wal-Mart and stay tuned to your TV for command updates.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a
trial of strength and bid
defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson, 1812
siouxrose how can you even reply to macdog - as if that person would even pause to listen. Peta the most violent? It's the "right to life" people assassinating doctors and punching pregnant women in the stomach. It's the Republicans that stripped the Bill of Rights out of our Constitution. Blacks have been emancipated into our jails and death row in unprecedented numbers for crimes whites get a free pass. So obviously suggesting macdog get enlightened is a waste of time. Not going to happen. That person will go to the grave blind as a bat but unlike a bat, unable to navigate.
Well, remember that Rall's cartoons do get published in a lot of MSM newspapers - even if it is on the op-ed page rather than the comix page.
So, Rall may have internalized some of thw MSM's values. It is very insidious; for a journalist to resist the MSM is to risk unemployment and poverty.
The old days when most of the print media was run by political parties and factions frankly was a much better system than the current days of so-called "balanced" professional media.
Rall's media analysis was surprisingly naive. Many replies though, got it right.
It's common sense that the extremely rich owners of the MSM are right wingers who don't hire anyone remotely to the left. Books such as Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent give the details as does Greg Palast, McChesney, etc.
Is Rall reading the comments at CD? I highly doubt it. If he was, surely he'd have figured this out by now.
the difference between the left and the right is vast.
republicans believe they have a birthplace and respect it; and want to defend it: and respect it enough to defend it agasint enemies and that birthplace is america.
democrats beleive they were born here but discount it and daydream of the day that they can live in europe and canada: two places they love better; while theyre just passing through life in ther third choice: america.
Liberals are still arguing that we have any enemies.
liberals want everything handed to them for free: its how they get tagged as lazy. thats appropriate because liberals are lazy and this is why they become more "intellectual" which they mistake for intelligence. i find that most intellectuals are lost in their book wolrds: cant get into reality, read books on slaverey and cry and come out of those books wanting to emanicpate blacks... except for one minor inconvenience: its already been done. They just seem to have forgotten that. Ive noticed how democrats dont like you using the "B" word either unless of course its used on their terms.
liberals say republicans are violent: id say that burning suv's is pretty much a clear view of the violence of liberals and notice how whenever democrats stage a demonstration a riot breaks out. the fbi says peta is the most violent organization in the US. Just beware that if someone approaches you while your washing your suv in your backyard with a bucket of water, and offeres to wash your suv for you, it might be a liberal with a bucket of gasoline.
Republicans beleive in individual liberties and things that democrats discount like inalienable rights. Inalienable means essetially god given of which one is the right to bear arms: yes god does recommend defending yourself against violent liberals who own unregistered guns. Violent liberals of course who own illegal pistols and from them come most of the gun crimes that democrats complain about. Of course you democrats ask: did god tell you that? To which i reply "yes". as jesus said my sheep know my voice; while deomcrats take their instructions from talking to dead people like hillary speaks to eleanor roosevelt.
"i see dead people" rofl
Macdog
MACDOG: If you open your mind and really read the articles on CD and the comments posters share, you might grow a brain and become more enlightened.
THADDEUS: James Carroll of The Boston Globe wrote a truly luminous essay July 4, 2006 where he compared America's actual history with the ideal it strives to become. That said it all. Although this nation was founded on stealing indigenous land and carries the blood soaked stains of the slavery era, it's also important to remember that it's been (until fairly recently) a miraculous mixing bowl/melting pot, has enabled a middle class to emerge (although the neocons have this development seriously at risk, everywhere being undermined), has produced many great thinkers and inventors, writers and playwrights; and has had a minor Renaissance in the 60's & 70's that gave rise to Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Environmental activism, and acceptance of gays. We must remember our ideals because without them, there is no north star to navigate our "ship of state" to saner waters. All great spiritual teachers bring forth the power of forgiveness. When it's practiced earnestly, catharsis results. We can't clean up the past, but we can transcend it by electing never to repeat past trespasses. There is hope.
@samiemma,
Perzactly! Rall rocks!
Parsing through this thread I am at a loss as how to understand the whining of these people getting down on Ted's case when they can't even write half as cogently as the fellow they are dissing.
Wev'e lost our democracy because we have lost our voice. No one hears us anymore. Unless we get heard we are just wasting our time. We are just going to continue to slip further and further over the abyss. Bush has done considerable damage to our country of that there is no doubt. The only question I have is how do we get behind the wheel once again? How do we change campaign financing , fraudulent elections,lobbying,political whoredom ,greed,corporate thievery,imperialism,benevolent hegemony,etc,etc?? And furthermore where do we begin to chip away at the big rock to be the most effective? Good honest questions wish I had some kind of good honest workable answers. Clueless in Seattle
Ted Rall, right on the money!
thaddeusstephens July 21st, 2007 9:01 pm
It depends on how you define the word "democracy". You imply that "democracy" means more than just "majority rules". I accept that we have never lived in a society that has always perpetuated injustices, particularly when the victims have no effective defense. But the word democracy never implied true justice. Democracy always meant rule by majority. Majority rules can be brutal if you happen to be part of a minority.
I guess what we have, though, is not even "majority rules". Life here is not really one person=one vote. It has always been more of a case of one dollar = one vote.
Thaddeusstephens, so, democracy is a myth? Has there never been a democracy? I need some hope here.
Some serious points have been missed here-
1. This country has always had a very loud crowd of jingoists, neo fascist types, who have led the country in
1. Inhumane treatment of the indigenous people from the get-go
2. Allowing slavery to start and maintain itself as an institution
3. Invading other lands to take their resources and land; Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines, Hawaii, Vietnam and now Iraq; (this brief list leaves out much)
4. Suppressing the truth about American imperialism and printing volumes of propaganda including major textbooks on American History and politics.
5. We have never had a free press or a tradition of democracy-only the ideal and the foggy dream about what democracy would be like if it ever got started.
6. Alexis DeTocqueville's DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA was written from the viewpoint of an aristocrat who looked at the world through lens crafted by centuries of European jingoism and materialism that had brought us all such delights as the Spanish Inquisition. Many of DeTockqueville's praises ring hollow in view of the true history of America which really starts with an understanding of why a Portuguese trader landed here 485 years ago with slaves.
More to the present day situation-are school children being told about the torture, imprisonment and murders that are committed daily in such hell holes as Iraq?
In other words our glorious past, our days of "when we were a democracy" are stories, fabricated myths, fairy tales we tell our children and ourselves to salve our wounded and tragically flawed self image.
We wake to embrace the many headed beast.
We sleep to meet the enemy within.
We live to die in a tragic lie that mortally wounds the world around us.
We miss the action of our daily lives because we are caught in the perpetual dress rehearsal of killing and murder.
Ask the powerful 5 questions.
1. What power have you got?
2. Where did you get it from?
3. In whose interest do you exercise it?
4. To whom are you accountable?
5. How can we get rid of you?
ONLY DEMOCRACY gives us that right.
That is why NO-ONE with power likes democracy.
And that is why EVERY generation must struggle to win it and keep it.
Including you and me HERE and NOW.
Tony Benn, 2005
http://www.bennites.com/
PDJ: I agree with all your points and have read "Manufacturing Consent," but it's also true that profit plays a role through the corporate interests, arms manufacturing prime among those, that I mentioned in my posting.
This whole confusion regarding why the media won't provide our viewpoints or even news of event that would vindicate our viewpoints, only arises because of confusion as to who the CUSTOMERS of the media are. Three very important truths:
1. The paying CUSTOMERS of commercial media are the ADVERTISERS (or wealthy "underwriters" for the PBS/NPR).
2. The customers are NOT the viewers and listeners - they send the media no money.
3. They VIEWERS and LISTENERS are the PRODUCT being delivered to advertiser-customers.
But, the corporate advertisers want a lot more than just 30 second ad-spots. They want a compliant, unquestioning lisstening/viewing populace, who will accept not only their products without questioning their larger utility of social/environmental impact, but they especially don't want the public questing the whole economic system that concentrated the wealth in so few hands! But, if the public got real news and viewpoints, that is exactly what they would do.
The corporate advertizers then "vote with their feet" and avoid any media outlet (even the tame Air America) that doesn't promote their viewpoints - even if they might have lower advertising rates. This is no different than say, most CD readers choosing to shop only at unionized or Co-Op, stores, even if the prices are a bit higher.
Of course, the concentration of the media (or for that matter ownership of the whole economy) in a few hands only aggravates this effect.
So, no conspiracies or smoky rooms are necessary, to explain the media's behavior, just ordinary capitalism, doing what capitalism does.
If you haven't already, please read "Manufacturing Consent" by Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky. Also, research the "control of democratic society" theories by Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."
Edward Bernays, 1928
Would someone remind everyone else, why the United States Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms? Do you have a buddy, relative, lover, or friend in any of the myriad of police/military organizations which enforce the edicts of the corrupt government in Washington? Speak with them about their responsibilities.
Where do these fascist freaks hang out? Isn't it time that the public pushed back? Make their lives a little more uncomfortable folks, deny them the right to walk in the park without armed escort, deny them the right to go out on the town on a Saturday night, make them surround their enclaves with electric fences and mine fields. Publish pictures of them and information on their movements.
Have you served them food and drink at their private functions? Maybe that would be a good time to give the elites a glimpse of your feelings. These rats don't give a shit about you, so why all the butt kisssy kissy? No matter how much you kiss their asses they will still shit right in your face.
The USA is now a tyranny, a terrorist state running amok, governed by criminals and stooges and thugs. The brownshirts/Blackwater have regrouped and Hitler is hiding behind cheny/bush & co.
If six million jews had owned rifles the second world war would have had a completely different outcome. (George would not be president today)
Time for a revolution.
The MSM whores for the plutes who buy their airtime and print space. Class warfare.
FPAL: I didn't say people sat around to enact ersatz conspiracies, but if you've followed John Dean's IMPORTANT insights into the AUTHORITARIAN character, these types of persons want all-out absolute control. They are drunk on power, and power is money in a world order increasingly under thrall to Mammon; and what is most profitable to this arrangement? Drugs (to keep people unhealthy and/or hypnotized), military might (war is VERY profitable to those who do not have any moral problem with murder), and entertainment (including sports, the "new opiate" of the peoples). It IS conspirational in the sense that the media moguls carry similar objectives and the same heinous disregard for human life. Obviously media wields an enormous power over human beings in terms of where the focus is placed. Most news is smoke and mirrors, triva as others have stated. WHY this is done is what's important. It's to ensure that the old bastions maintain power; however, when their particular species of power abuse throws EVERY ecosystem at risk, and increasingly threatens OUR lives and quickly vanishing liberties, we have an interest in pulling the curtain away to expose the OZ dwelling there. Ultimately, I think we both agree on these points. (I express with a certain drama, but the times are such that emotions run high!)
braithwa842 July 21st, 2007 1:57 am--Politicians currently have no choice, but obey their masters in the media
The media can make or break anyone. I like the way they cover every stupid little idiosyncrocy of O'Bama and Clinton, and totally ignore and belittle Kuchinich, Gravel and Nader. MSM really runs the country!
Many excellent points here. I just have one quibble. You all seem to think Rall dropped the ball at the end. I don't find that credible--I think this was a set-up. He wanted US to say all the things in the commentaries, and thus own the opinions more thoroughly, flesh out the analysis with more words than he could have squeezed into one essay. And he gets to avoid being painted as a "conspiracy theorist."
braithwa has it exactly right. The media focuses on trivia until the masses get restless and then they find some scandal to make people feel like something is "getting done", such as Walter Reed or some Congressman who has been soliciting male pages. Of course, these things have been going on forever and getting ignored, but all of a sudden it's important to trumpet them, and usually it's because a distraction is necessary to change the subject from something that might shift the power structure. For instance, Bush started talking up Iraq just as there was an inquiry into his insider trading issues when he was on the board of a sinking oil company and how the SEC had let him off the hook. That was August of 2002. Instantly the subject changed and that story got left in the dust.
I think a big problem is consolidation. When the newspapers were independently owned, there was a spectrum of editors with their viewpoints. Now we have five corporations controlling the news (six now that Murdoch has joined us) and they're pretty much in agreement about what they want us to know. It was Horace Greeley, founder of the New York Tribune, and one of the founders of the Republican Party, who when asked if we should have free public education, said "By all means teach them to read. Then we can tell them what to think". He would be proud to see how it has turned out. A country full of ignorant, frightened, obedient, subservient sheep. They believe what they hear, they do what they're told, they don't notice that they are working harder for less, they don't care about Constitutional rights, and most of them don't even vote.
If Bush had 90% approval ratings after 9/11, then at most 15 million people were thinking for themselves (I'm subtracting the kids from these numbers), and only 1 million were willing to take to the streets to protest his invasion of Iraq.
In SiCKO a French doctor was asked if he thought America would ever have universal health care and he thought briefly and said "No". It took me awhile to realize why. Because we ARE a nation of sheep. Americans won't stand up for themselves, won't fight for what they are entitled to. The insurance industry will take their money and use it to scare them into staying with the insurance system. And that's what they will do. It has worked every time. The insurance industry will spend billions if necessary to keep this system, and premiums will go up to pay for it. They've already almost doubled in the last six years. But there's a huge windfall coming for the industry. All these plans are MANDATORY. We will all be FORCED to buy insurance. This is almost as good as privatizing Social Security.
Rall is quite adept at grappling with large issues in an engaging and witty style. He also invariably says something original and unexpected, which makes for stimulating reading.
However, as most of the commentators have noted, he loses the trail rather badly at the conclusion of his essay.
"Distracted?" Too many meetings? This is supposed to explain the extreme right-wing bias of our corporate media, even when it's untethered from reality? Come on now, Ted.
Is it really the job of Krauthammer, Kristol, Brooks, Friedman, etc. to "get it right"? Not if you mean get it correct. But if you mean "get it right" in terms of promulgating propaganda and ideology for their wealthy right-wing owners and their immense media monopolies, then, yes, these "journalists" always get it "right"--even when they are totally wrong about everything under the sun.
And they're still churning it out:
If it's not Brooks hawking palpable nonsense in the Post about the "war on terror" then it's Kristol on TV calling for another war, this time on Iran.
I certainly wouldn't claim that Marxism is the only way to illuminate the human condition, but asking who benefits economically from a false ideology is an excellent place to start in any inquiry. If billions and even trillions of dollars are at stake in oil, military spending, and corporate globalization, then you aren't going to leave it to Ted Rall and Amy Goodman to trumpet the company line, are you?
Certainly seems more likely an explanation than tight deadlines, doesn't it?
Politicians currently have no choice, but obey their masters in the media. By and large, they do not get to stay in government if they stand on principle.
If somebody is killed and the media did not report it, then it is as if that event simply never happened. The media has the ability to make large event unnoticed as well as the ability to conjure into reality events that never happened. Take for example the aluminium tubes, the pulling down of Saddam's statue, the capture of the brave lady trooper, and did I mention the very real weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when no evidence for it existed (http://web.aanet.com.au/webspace/BloodForOil/factsheet.html).
Those who own the media can make a politician popular, or unpopular. They have power, and are used to getting their way. You might have noticed that when a fixable social problem exists, it may be totally ignored, until someone in the media brings it to the attention of the public. And at this point, the politicians act quickly to rectify the problem. That is, the problem only becomes the politician's problem when the media says it is a problem.
Many ask why Tony Blair went along with the Iraq fiasco. Why did he commit to the invasion so totally when there was no evidence of WMD. Did he have oil connections? No, he had the word from the media moguls about just where public opinion was going to be. He knew what the gaame plan was. He would be supported if he went along with it, or he would be destroyed if he did not go along with it. The following article from the independent highlights how Tony Blair consulted Rupert Murdoch before every major decision:- http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2782514.ece
Like Tony Blair, most of his cabinet and party sacrificed truth for their careers. Only George Galloway refused point blank, and as a result was relentlessly demonized by the media. Such was the media determination to get him that false documents (later exposed as forgeries) were created in order to "prove" that he was "in Saddam's pay". The only reason that he survived the media torrent, is because he found a totally pissed off Islamic electorate to represent.
Media ownership is far too important to be trusted to the very rich. A way must be found so that the media can be owned by the many. Perhaps the ownership of media shares can be limited so that it represents at most a readership of 100 people. That is, a paper with a readership of 100,000 should have 1000 equal shares.
Failing this, people need to be educated to interpret the news as part of their schooling. I would like to think that when students so educated are told in the news that "A is B", they would not automatically think that "A is B" but will rather think "I am being told that A is B. I wonder if A is really B?".
And if they are told that "A is B" persistently, in many different ways, I would like to think that people so educated would not automatically think "Now I really know that A is B.", but rather think "Why is it so important for them to tell us that A is B? What is their true motivation?".
If you look at the boards of directors of these corporations running our country, the same names keep popping up. They are all sitting on each others' boards. Would you call that a conspiracy, or just a collaboration toward a common interest?
Ted Rall fell down on this one.
Ted, I enjoy your writings but this one is not your best. You will not find a "...left-wing counterpart to radical right Bushists..." in the MSM because they will be fired (remember Phil Donahue or Dan Rather both SLIGHTLY left leaning). fbelcast has some good points.
Siouxrose is essentially right but overly conspiratorial. I don't think there's a room of guys who sit together and plot strategy on how to lie Americans into war and perpetuate fear of terrorist attacks. Rather, its a self reinforcing viewpoint that like-minded individuals pursue resulting in a single view being predominate.
To all, the message here is that Americans are trapped in an Orwellian democracy and have Orwellian freedom of thought and speech. In reality Americans have none. The government is controlled by American oligarchs not the people. The mass media is controlled by oligarchs to the point where different views are seldom heard and, more importantly, different thinking is never debated. Debate is shunned and when there is debate only 2 viewpoints can be discussed (Republican and Democrat both biased to American oligarchs - their lifeblood through funding).
Americans need to re-capture and re-assert their freedoms. Political discourse must be diverse and rich. The current American system of government will not survive. A new American revolution is needed.
Rall can't be that naive. The MSM is owned by seven major corporations whose heads are consevative Republicans and thus it is in their own interest to push the Bush line and not other lines. War makes for profits for corporations and the CEOs of these major corporations who own the MSM are also on the boards of other corporations and businesses. Also, politically, their hewing to the Bush line keeps Republicans in power (note the last two presidential elections) which is their party. It is in their interest to control the news and editors and columnists who do not hew the line will be fired and were fired as examples. YOur prestigious job as editor or columnist or talking head or talk show host--or the unemployment line. No choice at all.
While the role of profit has been brought into this debate no one has mentioned a contention MANY previous CD articles has made: that the giant media companies are subsidiaries of some of our nation's huge weapon's producers. War is our chief business, and that is what media sells for its masters. Eisenhower warned about this; and it has come to life. Chomsky and Zinn have chronicled the MANY wars of aggression the US has participated in, but the Bush-Cheney cabal has taken it all to a new level with its fictions prominently displayed begging for any opposing force to stand up to them, bullies r'U.S.
Yes, the news is right wing, and yes it's about creating higher profits for its masters, but who do these devices serve? Those who wish for the domination of the protocols of The New American Century, and the wars and soldiers necessary to further this absurd diabolical agenda.
"I shot an elephant in my pajamas this morning. How it got in my pajamas I'll never know."
Groucho Marx
Republicans are picking at the leg of the elephant and the Dems are kicking the butt of the elephant...but nobody is seeing the whole elephant...
All of what Ted is railing about is a much broader cultural story that supports a dominator/dominated mindset. Cheney/Bush and all this group subscribe to it totally--and believe it is the way it has to be--and thus, they're going to come out the Dominator. (Bin Laden thinks the same thing by the way). The world is in the grip of this failing story...
Read Riane Eisler's latest work...The Real Wealth of Nations and you'll see the old story--and how we got in this mess (and all Americans are playing their parts) and the great news is...we could change the story--but first we have to see the whole elephant....
Punditry is the only job that requires that you are wrong as often as possible or you lose your job.
You also need one sided or fake credentials like Kristol - editor of a magazine with nil for circulation and a big money loser.
People who are competent and have real credentials are rarely brought back on a show.
"William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and another neocon", appeared recently on PBS to sing the praises of his tune-
So much for the idea of "Public" television, PBS, in particular 'Frontline', is merely another podium for the vocalizing of governmentspeak by the Washington establishment.
What I perceive as the situation is one of paid propagandists, posing as journalists in the Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek or elsewhere. These posers sometimes outwardly let on who they are-which is rare, or are no doubt manipulated by the CIA behind the scenes.
A google search
http://www.google.com/search?q=CIA+control+of+the+press&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-...
yielded 2,120,000 English and French and German pages for CIA control of the press.
Read on and weep for the end of the idea of Democracy in America
http://www.politicsusaweb.com
A teenager once asked his father, a friend of mine, "What is the difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties?"
His answer: "One of them uses vaseline."
"The members of this "press" do exactly what their overtly fascist overlords tell them to. They are no longer news organizations; they are promulgators of far, far right wing propaganda . . ."
Thank you purvis ames.
I hope people will read the above statement more than once.
Actually the entire post by purvis ames is worthy of being read more than once by every reader.
The people who receive the "news", especially from tv or radio, get it for free. Some people would say that that is a hint about how much it is worth to be on the receiving end of the "news". The people who pay for the "news" control the "news" and you can bet that they are getting their monies worth. And you can bet they will continue to pay Kristol and his ilk to write and deliver their speeches for them. Why does the corporate "news" remind me of "professional wrestling"? Could it be that it's just a show? I am beginning to think the two have much in common.
I just can't say it any better than purvis,
"What press is Mr. Rall talking about? The press owned by News Corp., G.E., Disney, etc. The members of this "press" do exactly what their overtly fascist overlords tell them to. They are no longer news organizations; they are promulgators of far, far right wing propaganda and would tell you the earth is flat, black is white, and George W. Bush is the best president we ever had (see the human Mexican patio chair, Bill Kristol) if Rupert Murdoch and his ilk tell them to."
Rall was doing fine until he felt the need to say he is not a Marxist. His critique of a Marxist take on this issue was thoroughly unconvincing: 1) Distraction and laziness are not much of an explanation for years-long promotion of positions that have been demonstrated to be false again and again; 2) "out of the box" if "accurate" ideas [i.e., those of Chomsky and others] "scare them" for a reason: they would offend the corporate owners of the media. 3) Rall oversimplifies a Marxist explanation.
How about this: The major media normally promote the dominant ideology, which for some time has held that the US should run the world (for the world's benefit of course). This serves the interests of US-based transnational corporations, which are determined to get US government support for their world-wide search for profit, but ordinary people get to die, pay high taxes, etc., in this crusade. When such efforts don't work out, it's best to avoid any penetrating critique which might undermine the ideology.
There, that's one Marxist analysis. Try it, Ted, you might like it.
With the price tag there is on prime time TV, the limited sound-bite format of network television news, etc. not a second of air-time can be assumed to be accident, laziness, oversight, etc.
It's all laid out to match an established pattern or texture. Formula films, formula news. Start out with the teaser, the body count or sexcapade, something about Israel, proceed to a hapless problem (health care, mideast, etc.), make sure you don't interview anyone who'll identify its genuine solution or the guilty parties, never interview progressives, make sure you quote a right-wing thinktank or three, then wrap it up with a light-hearted personal human interest clip.
Fill in the slots, and bingo -- the evening news.
"After all, credibility is the reason people (used to) buy newspapers."
Nope. Americans buy newspapers for the comics. Its only a coincidence that the comics have moved to the op/ed pages these past few years--right, David Broder?
(Man, that guy cracks me up!)
"There's still one thing I don't understand: the business angle. Why would any media outlet risk its profitability by repeatedly printing and broadcasting big, honking mistakes?"
That's rhetorical, right Ted? Because, you know, "media outlets" do not make mistakes. Yesterday we were at war with Oceania. Today, Oceania is our partner in the terror "war."
When a civilian crashes his auto, "he lost control of his vehicle." When a cop crashes, "the car went out of control." The car made the mistake, see?
And nothing's gettin' done. We read the obvious over and over and yet the situation does not change. Ain't a damn thing getting done about it. Is this what the Germans did way back when it wasn't too long ago? I will live free or die
LeeAnn G,
It's not that we can't go for the jugular... it seems (to me at least) that most liberals have better things to do than attack folks on the right...unless they get in our faces. AS for the I told you so's: who wants to waste their breath with lying liars who will make up their own facts (or parrot those who will like Bill O'I'll lie nightly, and say it isn't spin.) without even a cursory fact check.
TV sets are good for two things only: DVD's (or VHS movies) and the weather. And the second one is debatable!
What press is Mr. Rall talking about? The press owned by News Corp., G.E., Disney, etc. The members of this "press" do exactly what their overtly fascist overlords tell them to. They are no longer news organizations; they are promulgators of far, far right wing propaganda and would tell you the earth is flat, black is white, and George W. Bush is the best president we ever had (see the human Mexican patio chair, Bill Kristol) if Rupert Murdoch and his ilk tell them to.
TV sets make good artificial reefs.
All she said is true, but she's forgetting something. She's forgetting that this is an imperialist country, not a democratic one. Over here forget about morality, compassion, humanity, and all that sort of bullshit. Over here money talks, bullshit walks. I give Mr Bush the most credit for exposing the real nature of the American democrapy. Bin Laden couldn't have done such a great job. I raise my hat to the Urinary Executive.
liberals are SO fair minded that they won't even take their own side in an argument.
The Repubs understand that when they are the opposition party they OPPOSE.
When the Dems are in opposition they want bi-partisanship.
**really good point and the one about not going for the jugular. When the negative connotation for "liberal" surfaced in the 88 campaign they could have turned it around by portraying conservatives in an equally negative way--but didnt. And those that do stand up for their principles--like Nader, get criticized by the left.
Rarely does the other side attack their own.
Well Ted, seems you have it all wrong as well. To suppose that "They're so busy meeting deadlines that they forget to keep track of how often they get things wrong." instead of the fact that the few remaining media comglomerates are in business to obtain ALL of the money and power, is to accept that never, once, even on accident, do they get something right.
To think they risk profitablility by airing or printing mistake after mistake is to be drawn to the illusion that news is their business. Papers are going to sell by virtue of classified adds, comics and obituaries. Advertisers are going to continue to buy space.
With the growth of the internet newspaper sales have fallen, and will continue to do so. But if only as fish wrappers, they will always sell a little. Their numbers will go largely over stated and ad revenues will continue as usual.
Television will always have it's appeal for it's vast diversity and visual appeal. Whatever sort of nonsense that captures American's attention will also capture advertising money.
News was once news but as FCC regulations were removed, allowing fewer and fewer players in the media market, the greedy and already ultra rich have further established their foothold on the American flow of information. But with so few participants it has become much easier to plan, to contrive, what to tell an already apathetic and indifferent citizenry. Without lesser agencies in the mix, reporting the truth, and discussing the relevant, the remaining corporations have no standards with which to be held accountable. So from here on it promises to get much worse.
It's more the act of ommission than of lying that hurts the public when it comes to news. We have grown to believe that the people who brought us Walter Cronkite will continue to expose the truth as it becomes vital to our interests. Therefor, when this mockery of a government votes on some new legislation that grants yet another advantage to the wealthy, with no regard to the cost in terms of human rights, environment, lives, money, resources or anything good, the media does not cover it at all. Instead, they give us just enough to keep us interested.
The smaller publications dedicated to the truth, that you call rags, are our last hopes of sanity. But with mindsets like yours, any real news, that cannot be accessed with our remote controls is marginalized.
So make no mistake about it, the MSM has been and will continue to attempt to control our thoughts, our values and very way of life with what they force feed us by way of the airwaves and print media. If it's good for their many faceted for profit businesses it's good for America.
But if it goes against the good of the corporation, and it's puppets in gubmint, it won't be discussed, or at least not in it's entirety.
In a world where lawyers are lobbyists, government officials are commentators, criminals are presidents, congresspersons are pimps, writers are whores, don't think for a minute it's just a big series of mistakes...
"There's still one thing I don't understand: the business angle. Why would any media outlet risk its profitability by repeatedly printing and broadcasting big, honking mistakes? After all, credibility is the reason people (used to) buy newspapers."
come on Ted any media outlet is a little sucker on the leg of a giant octopus (make that two or three octopi)....who's going to hold them to account? media concentration fuels the misinformation and the reason people (who still do) buy newspapers is they don't have much alternative at the news stand......
where's the true leftie media moguls anyway??
The crap they publish and broadcast will remain profitable. It was a real sage, H.L.Mencken, who wrote "NO ONE ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
LeeAnnG, you are absolutely right. I read somewhere, and I can't remember where, that liberals are SO fair minded that they won't even take their own side in an argument.
The Repubs understand that when they are the opposition party they OPPOSE.
When the Dems are in opposition they want bi-partisanship.
I once read that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats don't know how to go for the jugular. I forget who wrote this, but it surely can be applied to the radical right and liberals. Part of what makes people rightwingers is their taste for blood. Their way is the only way and those who don't agree are either traitors or non-believers or both. Traitors, in their book of rules, belong in jail or deserve the death penalty, while non-believers belong in Hell.
Progressives and liberals, on the other hand, tend to be open-minded and tolerant. That tolerance often extends even to the most extreme wingnuts. Political rightwingers (I refuse to call them "conservative," as they are nothing of the kind) also tend to be fundamentalist Bible thumpers. By definition, they exclude from salvation anyone who doesn't subscribe to their mythology. It's that "with us or against us" philosophy. I do realize that more liberal Christians don't necessarily subcribe to these ideas, and I'm not insinuating that this is the case.
Another difference between rabid True Believers and most non-believers is that non-believers don't think anyone should be eternally punished for what they believe. It's quite a fundamental distinction.
Lefties don't think righties represent a lack of patriotism. They might think rightwing ideas are loopy, but they also grant other people's right to think whatever they want. It's only when a way of thinking becomes destructive that liberals begin to strenuously object. The Bush administration's destruction of our civil liberties, economy, and world opinion is a good example of where to draw the line. Sometimes we go too far in our acceptance, and althought I mostly prefer our approach to theirs, it does seem to be beyond time to proclaim long and loud, "Hey! We were right and you were wrong!"
Amazing how Ted Rall can be so on and off at the same time. He says he "doesn't get how the media thinks it could remain profitable by creating big honking mistakes". If mistakes sell, there's no reason to correct them. When they stop making money, a little of the truth leaks out. But, as the father of our country, P.T. Barnum once said, there's a sucker born every minute. In the United States, bullshit has been a prime cultural product for a long time. When it stops selling, we'll get a little of the truth. But not much. A lie, as Mark Twain commented, gets halfway around the world before the truth has its boots on.
Rall thinks that capitalism corrects its errors through market discipline. And yet, just a paragraph before his puzzlement, he cops to the fact that media has proven incapable of uncovering much of our unpleasant reality, because it is faced with faster and faster production deadlines. Production is everything, content is less important. Especially when bullshit sells. He may not buy into that argument, but his own puzzlement gives the lie to his overall assessment of the situation.