Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Mighty, Scary Press Corps
Criticizing the McCain campaign for refusing to allow reporters to question Sarah Palin, Time's Jay Carney writes:
Political operatives love to talk about circumventing the media and other co-called "elites" -- i.e., independent specialists, observers and thinkers. The operatives convince themselves they can take their candidate's message directly to the people -- on their terms, without all that poking and prodding and skepticism. That's propaganda. In a democratic society, it rarely works for long.If only that were true. But if there's one indisputable lesson from the last eight years, it's that political propaganda works exceedingly well -- not despite an aggressively adversarial press but precisely because we don't have one. Carney's idealistic claims about the short life-span of propaganda in American democracy are empirically false:
"Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds" (Washington Times, 7/24/2006); "Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks" (Washington Post, 9/6/2003); "The same poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll that number actually climbs, to 62%" (USA Today/Gallup poll, 10/6/2004); "The latest Harris Poll has some interesting results on public opinions of Saddam Hussein's possible links to al Qaeda. Of those Americans polled, 64% agree that Saddam Hussein had 'strong' links to al Qaeda" (Harris poll, July 21, 2006); "49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to suspend the Constitution . . . Only a third of Americans understood that much of the rest of the world opposed our invasion [of Iraq]. Another third thought the rest of the world was cheering our invasion, and a third thought the rest of the world was neutral" (Rick Shenkman, June, 2008).
Of course Carney is right in theory that anyone running for Vice President ought to submit to questioning from the media. But the idea that her doing so will be some great blow against propaganda is wrong for numerous reasons. Who are these great, aggressive journalists who are going to question her in a meaningfully adversarial way in order to expose the falsehoods behind the image that is being created around her?
When they decide in a couple of weeks that Palin is ready to do so, she'll go and sit down with Brit Hume or Larry King or Charlie Gibson or some other pleasant, accommodating person who plays a journalist on TV and have a nice, amiable, entertaining chat about topics that are easily anticipated. Having been preceded by all sorts of campaign drama about her first interview and the excitement that she's not up to the task, her TV appearance will be widely touted, score big ratings, and will be nice entertainment for the network that presents it. It will achieve many things. Undermining propaganda isn't one of them.
This idea that she's some sort of fragile, know-nothing amateur who is going to quiver and collapse when subjected to the rough and tumble world of American journalism is painfully ludicrous, given that -- as the Canonization of the endlessly malleable Tim Russert demonstrated -- that imagery is a fantasy journalists maintain about themselves but it hardly exists. The standard journalistic model of "balance" means that the TV journalist asks a few questions, lets the interviewee answer, and then moves on without commenting on or pointing out false claims, i.e., without exposing propaganda (Carney can check his own magazine to see how that sad, propaganda-boosting process works -- here, here, and here). Few things are easier than submitting to those sorts of televised rituals.
Moreover, Sarah Palin isn't Dan Quayle. She is extremely smart -- much smarter than the average media star who will eventually be interviewing her -- and she is very politically skilled as well. She didn't go from obscure small-town city council member to Governor to Vice Presidential nominee by accident. She'll be more than adequately prepared for the shallow, 30-second, rote exchanges that pass for political interviews in our Serious mainstream discourse. Anyone expecting her to fall on her face or be exposed as some drooling simpleton is going to be extremely disappointed. That might (or might not) happen with real questioning, but she's not going to face that.
If anything, this growing drama about Palin's supposed fear of facing America's super-tough "journalists" who are chomping at the bit to expose her is going to help her greatly, for exactly the reason Digby wrote here, after highlighting Chris Matthews' complaints that Palin won't yet submit to interviews:
As if submitting to Chris Matthews' questions ever told voters anything meaningful about the candidates.Carney is exactly wrong. Propaganda thrives -- predominates -- in our democracy for many reasons, the principal reason being that we don't have the sort of journalist class devoted to exposing it. Anyone who wants to contest that should examine the empirical data above, or more convincingly, just look at what the Bush administration has easily gotten away with over the last eight years -- the systematic deceit, the radicalism, the corruption, the crimes.They are going to work themselves into a frenzy over this. And the right will hold Palin off just long enough for the outcry to become deafening. And then Palin will appear in front of a gargantuan television audience (again) on something like 60 Minutes --- and do quite well. They are already working the media hard to make sure they don't go for the jugular -- and they won't.
People need to get over the idea that Palin's some kind of Britney Spears bimbo. She's a professional politician and from the looks of it, a pretty good one. She's not going to fall on her face on TV. They will build the expectations accordingly.
The ideological extremism and growing ethical questions that define Sarah Palin -- and especially the discredited, rejected core beliefs of John McCain -- means that the McCain campaign should have much to worry about in this election. Having Sarah Palin face the mighty, scary American press corps certainly isn't one of them. That's just a melodramatic distraction, one that will redound to the GOP's benefit. Palin will "face" our media soon enough, and it will probably be the easiest thing she'll have to do between now and November.
* * * * *
Beginning this Monday, Salon Radio with Glenn Greenwald will resume on its regular schedule (every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 2:00 p.m. EST). The work involved in traveling to the conventions, covering the protests and other related events, and making videos and the like proved to be far more time-consuming than I anticipated and made producing the radio show virtually impossible. Now that things are returning to normal, the Radio Show will as well.
UPDATE: Several people in comments suggest/hope that Palin's refusal to submit to press questioning will alienate journalists and make them more intent on investigating her and subjecting her claims to scrutiny. A healthy journalistic instinct would indeed produce that reaction. But is that what we have?
It isn't just that the Bush administration has been the most secretive in modern history (though it has been), but Dick Cheney seemed to take sadistic pleasure in purposely concealing from reporters even the most innocuous information, just to show he could. He even refused to say how many people worked in his office, or who worked there, or even where he was and what he was doing on any given day. Did that propel journalists to investigate him more aggressively or subject his claims to greater investigative scrutiny? Yes, that is a rhetorical question. A properly functioning press corps would become more adversarial and aggressive when treated with such contempt by the GOP. Ours becomes more browbeaten, more passive, more eager to please.
146 Comments so far
Show Alllike I have said for years ( even before 911) the media in america is so controlled it is to a point I can't believe what I hear or read anymore.
Canada under Harper is pulling the same thing, the Green party is not allowed to take part in the televised debates leading up to the election and they have elected members of parliament much the same as Ron Paul etc were kept out in the cold.
Just imagine you are in the United States and get charged with a criminal offense which leads to a trial by jury. Out of your peers, 70% believe that Sadaam Hussein played a role in the destruction of the World Trade Centers. 64% will believe that Sadaam had close ties to Al Qaeda. Don't you feel good about getting a fair trial in America. Our jurors apparently don't let facts get in the way of their judgement. Just hope it's not a capital case!
So Palin will be interviewed by ABC's Charlie Gibson? Let us now start to discuss how other interviews by Gibson have gone, don't you think? Especially let us look at ABC's grossly unprofessional debate during the Demo Primary. These are topics up for discuss now, before the fowl deed is done and Charlie sells his soul.
Suppose we take the remark,
"Carney is exactly wrong. Propaganda thrives -- predominates -- in our democracy for many reasons, the principal reason being that we don't have the sort of journalist class devoted to exposing it."
and extend it a little to this:
"Greenwald is exactly wrong when he thinks he can accomplish anything by citing 'poll results.' Bogus poll results thrive -- predominate -- in our democracy for many reasons, the principal reason being that we don't have the sort of journalist class devoted to exposing them."
My point is that unless you or I were actually physically present at the creation of any given poll, we have scant reason to believe in the numbers. For Xsakes, the polls originate in the very organizations who gave us:
- Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
- the Iraq invasion is a war on "terror"
- the FBI correctly identified the origin of anthrax
- scientists are widely divided over the climate crisis
- only nuts and fools are worried about peak oil
- the economy is basically sound
- etc etc etc
This acquires additional poignancy now, when one sees so many headlines about poll results showing support for McCain/Palin equaling or exceeding Obama/Biden (not to suggest that Obama Will Save You, by the way).
Alot of people I've met who work for polls say that they know the questions are written by right wing foundations and the questions are skewed to deliberately confuse people and make them answer in a way that supports the right wing agenda. Unfortunately, many polls set up shop in college towns where there are alot of educated, articulate people who are out of work. Workikng for polls is like phone sales, you can be covered in tatoos and piercings and the person on the other end of the line thinks thay are talking to church lady!
The only pollster who ever called me said in a hysterical screech "Did you know that "they" are teaching the gay agenda to children in schools!" I can imagine some people are scared by that sort of thing. The more people are out of work, the more polls like this we will have. Then after the election they fire everybody.
Actually, in the context Carney concluded his thesis, there was ample resources to support his conclusion. That it flies in the face of current research is the sometimes predictable human social fabric that evolves, or warps, into a different weave. Sociology, and it's relatives, continually create quantitative formulae to define human behavior as if it were the study of a static phenomena. Do I need to say 'machine' and it's context?
This is why it will sell itself to advertising agencies. We are predictable to a quantifiable point that is handy for marketing purposes.
It is the 2-10% unknown of any individual, and thus by extrapolating to a population, the thoughts, actions, inactions, beliefs, ability to change a 20 year lifetime routine in a 24 hour period that prevents categorical, codified behavioral prediction.
Increased identification methods and technology, with benign reasons, from birth will reduce the unknown factor to a precise 2%, if allowed to proceed on it's present course.
Your points of polling that you maintain are given to us by dubious pollsters to support issues you infer are bogus are ill-researched. First of all, issues of a scientific nature, as 'global warming,' are presented to other scientists, then to organizations of science in the form of written articles increasing the number of scientists who review, critique and challenge theories, etc. BEFORE any polling group even hears of it, let alone the deadbrain press.
It is the 1st rule of the scientific method that reduces personal experience, without a knowledge of that experience, as without validity for lack of the verification of that singular event.
Your air bag is full of holes.
The only poll that counts is the one on Election Day, PERIOD.
This bounce in the polls for MadKane is yet another proof that Democrats are not a real opposition party, are they?
How easy would it be to expose and unmask this skag Sarah Appalling, who doesn't believe in evolution, global warming or the right to choose? She isn't fit to run for garbage collector let alone VP. And yet Obama is being the usual coward (aka Democrat). Can you imagine if Nader or McKinney were given the same media attention Obama/bin Biden have?
I thought it was funny when Tom Brokaw asked Joe Biden what he did when he first found out about Palin, and Joe was like "well Tom, first thing I did was call my wife" Heh, heh.
So anyway, we know that if Joe Biden is VP and by some unknown act of fate, the President, a woman will still be calling the shots.
Anyone know anything about Joe's wifes credentials for president?
If this isn't the media digging up good stuff for us to ponder,
I don't know what is. I think the public is lacking the critical thinking skills to catch all of little things like this that have huge implications.
This was the least of what was disclosed in that interview.
By what you described yourself in another post, I hope you know that when your children get to be your age, they'll be lucky to even have a chance thinking about these frivoloties. Palin can brag about her being a mother of 5 able to sit in a governor's mansion just like Obama can brag about being a community organizer and now a Senator. However, neither one of these people are going to answer these simple questions:
So what about voters similar to your background? What are your plans to save these labor union workers at the auto plants? What are your plans for helping families with more than two kids stay afloat?
Ok, Obama may be a little better because he's a member of what's supposed to be the "Party of the People" (long gone and now in name only) while Palin chose to join the Republican Party.
I'm sure that when your kids get to be your age, provided that this country even exists by then, it will be interesting when they ask you who you voted for and why. I have known children to show their anger and even hatred against their own parents for voting based on frivolous personalities more than on issues that mattered long term.
Fred, I don't necessarily write comments based on who I will vote for, more often than not I don't.
It's really none of your business who I vote for, and you'll never be able to guess who I do.
As I told another uptight poster, I don't know what else to say but this;
Laugh and the world laughs with you,
Cry and you cry alone.
This old earth is in need of mirth,
She has plenty of woes of her own.
Of course I could care less who you vote for. However, if you want to make a big deal about women politicians or even wives of politicians all the while the economy is tanking and the foreign policy failures are hitting the homeland the likes of which this country's never experienced before, be my guest. I'm not telling you who to vote for. It's your right to vote. I'm just pointing out obvious flaws. Fine, so Palin can multitask. Not that women can't do it but it all depends on the financial nature. I've looked at the faux noise blogs and just skimming the comments, I've seen plenty of pathetically dysfunctional comments blindly praising the GOP just because there happens to be a woman on the ticket. Joe Biden's wife is not going to have any impact on what Obama does especially since the Democrats are that way. On the other hand, even in VP status, Palin shows a lot of machoisms even more than Cheney himself and could very well control Mccain even if she doesn't replace him right then and there. I respect that you're a mother of 3 and I understand that Palin's a mother of 5 and can see where Palin identifies more with you and most women having more than 2 kids. Now, despite there being 3 kids in my family, my wife just so happens to see it all differently as do I thank Palin's a politician and chose to be that way. Anyway, if you want to vote for Palin, no problem. However, should Palin win, she would mostly likely join the neocons in implementing more policies detrimental to you and your child although I could be wrong though Palin has yet to prove so. If your children suffer as a result of those policies, I seriously doubt they'll forgive you. But don't take it personally. PEACE.
Leea blows a kiss to Frederick....peace back brother.
Come to think of it, you're correct. My wife read what I wrote and hit me on the end for not realizing that even in tough times, there's still room for cheering up. Like the Chinese would say, "we live in interesting times indeed". You are correct about people on this forum getting worked up. Sometimes, we allow ourselves to and don't even realize it. I found that out when I looked back at some of my posts.
These sites are crawling with Rovian trash and just plain, pretentious, confused idiots.
.....and you think there is somewhere you can go to be amongst other human beings and find yourself surrounded by people that are in any basic way different than this?
I don't see you taking on folks such as Snow Wolf. Explain.
I've been away for a couple of days so likely everybody's gone. I've answered Snowwolf several times, only when I think he's put out something that sounds credible, but that I think is wrong, and ought to be corrected. That happened a few weeks ago about NATO, where he quoted part of the charter to claim NATO was rightly in Afghanistan because one of the NATO partners had been attacked--the US on 9/11. I responded with the usual explanation that the US was not attacked by a country but by a bunch of criminals, etc., etc.
I also responded when he put out some stuff about the response of the media and the Dems regarding Palin. And also a few other times.
But dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who defend Bush/Cheney, as he does, and with the fairly typical religious beliefs to be expected (he figures intelligent design should be taught in school) don't interest me much on a site like this. It's a progressive site where the vast majority of people reading here are not very vulnerable to Snowwolf's arguments. Typical progressives are not going to hear one more typical defence of Bush/Cheney and go: OMG, I never thought of that; I'm becoming a Republican. Snowwolf to me is a man with a bit of integrity with right-wing opinions diametrically opposed to mine, but he reads and is interested in debating from his point of view--which is fine--but there's no need for someone like me to continuously say I disagree. Nothing could be more obvious. We both understand that, but I only respond if I think it might be useful to 'our community' if I can call us that. And for the pleasure of debating when I think the logic has gone off the tracks. The typical Republican talking points don't affect people here.
But, when so-called progressives put out stuff that seems wrong, or aimed at the wrong target, I feel that those sorts of things really do damage, and I've dealt with that for such a long time on the left. The worst ennemies of the pragmatic lets-get-something-done left, are the super radical left who crap on everything from a holier-than-thou (more-left-than-thou, if you will) perspective. They really do damage because they convince other progressives to leave behind realistic progressive action where you can achieve something, however little it might be, for basically a soap box to pontificate about how awful all the non-super radicals really are, and how they're all sell-outs, and part of the problem, blah, blah, blah.
So those people at this point of the game, are crapping on the Dems and Obama with gusto and the only possible result can be...4 more years of fascist Bush/Cheney/Rove-type administration.
In other words, what I consider to be confused, self-flattering, holier-then-thou leftoids can really do damage. Typical Republicans who come to a site like this to debate from the typical Republican perspective have zero effect. Exactly the same as if I was to go to a right-wing site and start to spew my socialist/atheist viewpoint! As if any of them are going to pay any attention to me other than to throw obscenities at me.
And another group here that is very dangerous and likely causes some damage are the Rovian agents pretending to be hard-leftists who support and promote Nader. Some Nader fans are obviously sincere, but a lot are Rovian a......s. They insult the Dems and Obama from the left to drive a wedge between overly idealistic progressives and the Dems, to make them vote for Nader, which is a vote for McCain, obviously. If this election is the squeaker that I figure, a fairly low number of votes (relatively) for Nader could hand it to McCain.
It's such an obvious, cheap, and easy ploy for Rove. And typical leftists are extremely vulnerable to being swayed by this you're-not-progressive-enough guilt-trip. Leftists are typically extremely proud of having a better analysis than everybody else, and being more conscientious than the average--its a basic part of our vanity. In my opinion, growing up means in part to tame that ego, and make sense of life, and work to accomplish whatever positive you can, and to limit the damage wherever you can. If people can work effectively to improve the Dems, or build up a movement to have a more progressive party, more power to you, obviously.
But beating Obama to allow McCain is just as bad as it sounds.
You got me! Heh.
I do have a good explanation though, ....
good things come to those who wait, eh?
Ahhh, you got me back. True that.
Bring America Back !!!! ok, Greenwald's point of contention is if we had a competent investigative adversarial press corps==which we DO NOT, they still would not be as rough on Sarah Palin, as they have been with, say Cheney !
Moreover, it has been announced that Charlie Gibson will have the honor of the first mano-a-mano interview with Mrs Palin. She has brought a great big bounce in the polls, a bunch of excitement, and old fashioned respect for her family values which are unassailable==to the McBush campaign.
I don't blame them a bit for not wanting to throw her to the wolves, to the papporatzzi, to the check-out counter scandal sheets. There are only 2 months until the Big Dance. Keep her sequestered, under wraps, don't over-expose her to the so called Press Corps likd Princess Diana. Control her verbiage and teach her how to sing those words to 'Drill, Baby, Drill' and that old standard Beach Boy hit 'BombIran, BombIran, BombIran'..
Guys like Greenwald are just trying to koosey Palin out onto the sidewalk,
where maybe they can get a crack at 'er !
And, regarding McBush & McPalin==if they do get into the White House, do not
expect info, files, data, answers to flow any more freely than Cheney!! That's the precedent Bush & Cheney have set, and Congress let them get away with it all the way !! Refusal of documents,, emails, testimony, torture details.
Sarah Palin for VP was an ingenious move by the Repubbys; it has the O-Team
frustrated, backpeddling, and really Desperate coming down the home stretch !
The O-Team has made every campaign mistake known to modern politics==except the Denver Rock Concert was great==but when it comes to the Inaugural Ball, the Big 'O' should've been dancin with Gov Karen Sebelious, Kansas.
There was a time when there actually were reporters on mainsteam corporate media TV (as it always has been that, going back in the day) when a journalist like Edward R. Morrow could bring down a Joseph McCarthy. Rather brought down Nixon to an extent, but couldn't with Bush because Rove baited him.
Rachel Maddow would probably ask tough questions of Palin, but she won't get within ten miles of her for an interview!
The idea that Murrow singlehandedly "brought down" McCarthy is more legend than fact. What McCarthy represented was really a purge of the Left in the US. By 1954, that purge had largely been completed, so McCarthy himself wasn't really necessary anymore, from the viewpoint of those whose interests he'd served. By that time, the Army-McCarthy Hearings had gotten underway -- this was a conflict that McCarthy couldn't hope to win. The Hearings were televised live for several months, & McCarthy was seen by millions, being widely perceived as a bully & a liar.
So, what finished McCarthy was a combination of things -- the Murrow show was only one of them. (The famous show took place just before the Army-McCarthy hearings.) The hearings were more important than what Murrow did, & the most important thing was probably the fact that the purge had already been completed.
About time someone wrote about the joke of the controlled media has become. So glad I watch CBC, Tonight on CBC newsworld is WTC building 7. Passinate eye is the program that tells the truth and many of its shows are banned in the US because of that very reason. Last nights show took 911 apart at the BS it was. Nice to see a national TV station that is in every part of the country tell the truth
Two poor elderly Russian gents are walking down a Moscow boulevard, amazed at the changes in their country since the Cold War. "You know what's terrible, Sergei?" asks the first. "Everything Pravda told us about Communism was a lie!" "You're right, Igor, but you know what's worse? Everything they told us about Capitalism was the truth."
Well Put - Thank you.
LOL. Excellent. Thanks for that. I was in Russia in 1979 and met lots of people on both sides of the fense. This fellow I met who was totally anti-communist (so was I, being a democratic socialist) made this offhand remark that made me howl with laughter. In a thick Russian accent: "With communist party propaganda, you can never tell what will happen yesterday".
Something else that is funny in a different way, Condoleezza Rice wrote her Phd thesis on the Soviet military and got ripped to shreds for it. (She even sent a letter of apology!) What she had done was use Communist party propaganda as fact. HAHAHAHAHA. What a simpleton.
Love that one, too. The Russian people, having been abused by Czars and Commissars since they can remember, tend to be very cynical about their government. Too bad more Americans don't approach officialdom and the media with the same questioning attitude.
I can believe that about Condi, who was supposed to be a Russian "expert". [Years ago when I pointed out on the NYT BBS that Condi was entirely in over her head as a National Security Advisor who admitted she had never heard of al-Qaeda until 9/12, I was accused of being sexist and racist, so hold your applause.] I have a friend who was in the CIA Russian section for years. In the run-up to the Iraq incursion, he was adamant that Saddam had WMD. When I asked why he thought so, he replied the biggest proof we had was that Saddam himself said he had them. I pointed out that he didn't believe virtually anything else Saddam said, so why believe he's telling the truth about WMD? Naturally, I did not get an answer.
Right. That's one of the things about Condi, of course, we all tend to go easy on her because she has two things on which some people can jump on opponents accusing them of 'isms'. But she is a joke, really. She doesn't have an oil tanker named after her for no reason.
In August 2001 when the CIA or whoever sent her/Bush that report : "Bin Laden determined to attack continental US" or something such, she/they kept on vacationing and shopping, basically totally ignoring it. Trying to rationalize their neglect and stupidity after the horrible events of 9/11, she said something to the effect: "It's not like it was specific or anything". Oh...okay, I see what she's saying; there was no memo from Osama, copy to the UN Sec. Gen, with dates, times, etc., making a bit easier to deal with this thing.
About the CIA believing Sadam!!!! Isn't that the richest possible. We spend what, $100 billion a year on intelligence? (like the military, there is so much that even good honest researchers can't trace, that the sum is likely scary). And we're going to simply take his word!! When a 30-second basic analysis by a high-school student can yield the reality. Saddam attacked his big powerful mortal enemy to the east, Iran, with US help and that tough former empire of more than twice the population of Iraq fought him back and ruined him. He had the deepest possible vested interest in convincing Iran that he was armed and dangerous. He was shit-scared that Iran would know he was a toothless tiger, and totally vulnerable. He put out all kinds of false info about his WMDs for the most obvious f..king reasons. And the dimbulbs at the CIA took him at his word!!!!?????
According to my CIA pal, Clinton's "gutting" of intelligence funding ruined any chance those geniuses would have had of connecting the dots on the 9/11 threat. Of course, Richard Clarke says he and even the idiot Tenet were running around "with their hair on fire" trying to get Bush/Cheney/Condi to pay attention to al-Qaeda. Cheney, put in charge of counter-terrorism by Bush his first week in office, did not hold a single counter-terrorism meeting until after 9/11. Of course, he did find the time to expose the ID of a CIA operative when her husband pointed out his WMD lies. These are the people that would keep us safe.
This is an excellent exposition containing a lot of truth, but misses one important point: It does not talk about those to whom propaganda is targeted.
Intelligent people don’t fall for propaganda. A small minority of the population, including almost all posters on CD and other bloggs did not fall for the Bush regime propaganda.Those who fell for Bush regime propaganda must have had one or more of the following qualities:
They were plain stupid and gullible. They irretrievably lacked common sense. They were misinformed, uninformed, careless, and didn’t give a damn or bother to find out the truth. They were so set in their beliefs, such as the rapture crowd, that refused to accept the truth, or they were suffering from diminished cognitive complexity. I don’t know, maybe they had sawdust for brain.
Whether some people like this comment or not, that is a true picture of the majority of the citizen of the greatest “democracy” on earth. You don’t have to take my words for it, as the numbers in the article prove my point.
That is what pisses me off big time about these people. The truth is available to them, and they have more freedom to search it, but they don’t. They deserve worse than Bush or McBomb, and they'll get it.
I agree to this extent - the truth of facts is out there and available to all who wish to find it. To that degree, ignorance is a choice.
We are faced now with a culture that only wishes to be immediately satisfied and only one's particular view to be valued - regardless of how one arrives at their particular view and how many are hurt and/or marginalized in the process. Most people "think" through a selfish emotional process with little regard to actual thought toward higher ideals such as the "common good." Today the prevalent sentiment is - get as much as you can as quick as you can and figure out how to justify it.
The problem is, how do we change the culture so that "being informed" is desirable and defining success as a human being or a civilisation, at least in part, is based on a higher order of what most believe now are irrelevant intangibles.
How do we do that as a culture?
As long as our current collective heart is locked into an umempathetic stance we all will continue to suffer.
We are all the victims of the dynamic that seems to run the whole world and it is truly heartbreaking and will be the end to us if something doesn't change. Blaming the victims never works, and on some level we are all truly the victim.
So:
How do we get the Democrats and the Republicans to see this and change? How do we get NBC and CBS to see this and change? How do we get ATT and Halibuton to see this and change? How do get ourselves and our neighbors to see this and change?
Man, you sure miss the point. "They were misinformed", you claim. Exactly. How can citizens make good choices and be informed if the press is rotten. It's fine for a lot of 'us' here who spend a huge amount of time reading from different sources, etc. Not everybody can do that, for all kinds of reasons. In any society, at any time.
Democracy can't work if the press is rotten and the citizenry need to have superior research skills to find out what the f..k is going on.
"...diminished cognitive complexity..."!!?? I'll bet that must hurt a lot...when you turn your head a certain way...???
Dropping ridiculous, pretentious, 50-cent words does not make you intelligent, or 'cognitively complex'. Nor does it impress many people, I'm willing to bet.
Your attitude is too elitist and self-flattering.
I really respect an attitude that places emphasis on the common speech of less than two syllables. It is equally important that diction be strengthened with a very simple sentence structure. It will certainly fulfill the requirements for effective propaganda and, at the same time reduce the need for writers of short stories, novels, poetry, etc. Hell, the ability to articulate a complex concept will become totally unnecessary. This will reduce the value of education, research, sciences, philosophy, critical thinking,et al.
This will eliminate the unpleasantness of being educated, being accused of elitist behavior, of pretension, snottiness, arrogance, and self-flattering. Excellent.
Then we won't concern ourselves with the moronic writing of self-appointed thought police, illiterate, self-righteous, authoritarian, false 'prophets' of 'democracy.'
There are people who think that there are those among us who should remain obscure. There is no freedom from the belittling thought common to democracy. But it is like religion, it interferes with my civil rights to be free FROM and OF it.
"There are people who think that there are those among us who should remain obscure".
Some are plenty obscure and it would be better if they were clearer and less pretentious.
"There is no freedom from the belittling thought common to democracy".
It's clear that some don't believe in democracy. It's clear what the vast majority of us think of them.
People can write and think as fancy and pretentious and confused as they wish, but blaming the victims with a holier-than-thou, insulting attitude takes us back, and not forward...and encourages a response.
Do you understand projection? "...writing of self-appointed thought police...". Criticism of elitist, insulting judgements always seem to bring out projections about "thought police".
In a democracy, Saila is perfectly free (even encouraged) to say what he/she feels. But harsh criticism of the victims of a profoundly corrupted media, makes some of us take offence, and respond. Then self-appointed word spewers like you come out swinging with your obvious projection about 'thought police'. I don't want to police anything, except to point out to Saila that some fantastic people close to me are part of the people he/she insults with gusto. I return fire. Who the hell are you to bleat at me with your confused authoritarian silliness. So you don't believe in democracy. You fancy yourself a self-appointed member of the vanguard of the proletariat?
"diminished cognitive complexity" is meaningless, pretentious psycho-babble. Nobody who thinks about it doubts that the average American has been dumbed down by television, etc. That kind of language by somebody who relishes insulting those who aren't quite as swift as he/she is, is not contributing positively to the debate.
Hey dude, I didn’t claim to be intelligent, although I’m smart enough not to attack the messenger, but the message.
You may now dig yourself out of the majority I was talking about and include yourself in the minority, if it makes you feel better.
Don't blame the voters. Fix the party that keeps pandering to the rightwing out of silly and pathetic fears first.
My comments were obviously meant to include people like you and me who read a lot and are aware of how things are really done. It doesn't take a lot of real-life experience to know that lots of people can't do this (for a variety of reasons), and 300 million Americans shouldn't have to be like you and me (and most of the bloggers on a site like this) to know what's going on and be able to vote reasonably as a result. Lots of people (in any society) would only be able to understand the propaganda that the Bush/Cheney crowd feeds them if there are experts out there explaining it--the press.
My point is that you're being hard on people who have to depend on a competent press to know what's going on. I think you're blaming the victim. You're saying that everybody should be like you and read a lot, etc., and be able to see through tons of propaganda and lousy, cowardly media coverage. It's not realistic (and shouldn't be necessary) that citizens need to 'research' deeper than the press to know what's going on.
It would be nice but it's not going to happen. But...we sure can do things to improve the media.
YES. Now begin talking/writing about how to fight it, get around it, over the compliant and fearful press. Start with the independent media. The blogs are at work. The rest of us could use some "handbook", (I don't mean the standard "write your tv stations and newspapers") Quick. (It's nice Mr.G, to know you read the comments.)
Sanda - In answer to your question, you can get around it if you want. You start where many of us are starting - with your personal homepage. Then put up video commercials of your own making showing the lies for what they hard with cold, clear proof in your communities.
Go after John McCain, Sarah Palin, and anyone else you think is lying as they run for office - local, state, and federal. Make sure you have your facts right, though, or you will be called on what you put up, guaranteed.
Then start having parties - not tupperware, but parties where you and your guests discuss politics and issues, like homelessness, joblessness, education,national security, food security and sustainability in your community (could your community survive on its own in a national emergency?). Encourage them to have similar parties with friends and co-workers. Make sure you have your facts, and be sure you control the level of argument (you do not want a brawl, after all, or hsving the other neighbors calling the police).
Create groups who can go out and go door-to-door to register voters and to talk to them. Make sure that you take facts with you as you do this - not about any particular candidate, but about issues, especially those where the government and the Republicans are lying, just as the Obama people are doing.
See if you can organize a community rally for free government, and then film it for You-Tube.
Have meetings in your home for friends and neighbors about the issues and educate each other on these matters so that you can have an informed electorate in your community. Encourage your local schools to hold Government Days where parents and children can come together to understand the issues facing our country today from all points of view.
These are things that you can do Sanda, and it takes effort and it will often be frustrating, but you can do it, as can any free citizen of this country. It is time to reclaim our country and our Constitution, and to make the Republicans accountable for their lies and gutting of our rights!
A wide variety. Good answer,djnoll. Will Greenwald build on that? Which have you done? Other people? Thanks.
Is anyone else scratching their head over this article.
Let me get this straight.
Glen wants to unveil the big bad secret that there is propaganda in our Democratic society?
Hmmm. In a free society there are people trying to convince other people that they should believe in what they believe? OMG! OMG! The sky is falling, free people are doing what is their right to do in a democratic society and other people are freely choosing to either reject or embrace their efforts. OMG!
I declare this article propaganda against propaganda.
Will anyone go to jail?
In your attempt to be cleverer-than-thou, you've exposed that you missed the whole point of the article. Of course there is propaganda and that's not at all what the article is about. The article explains that: 1) the press should dig to get at the facts and reality covered up by propaganda; 2) they don't; and 3) they have the illusion that they do, to make things even worse.
He quotes the Times Jay Carney ("That's propaganda. In a democratic society, it rarely works for long".) and proves that he's completely wrong, that propaganda does in fact work IF the press is not doing its job--which it isn't. The result is that a frighteningly high percentage of Americans believe the (often clumsy) propaganda of the Bush/Cheney gang and are therefore deeply confused about reality. A functionning press would correct that. The facts are easy to find and communicate, but the will is missing.
Nothing more normal than to stretch the facts a bit in your CV. A perspective employer should check to make sure you're telling the truth. Nothing more normal than to exaggerate your achievements, etc., in your press release. The job of the media is not to be a stenographer and repeat that, but to actually check it out to make sure it corresponds with the facts, reality. Propaganda can only work if the press doesn't.
You missed his whole point.
Have you ever worked in the media getreal?
No.
But Palin has - as a sports reporter.
The article is excellent. Your problem with it is that you don't understand it.
Glenn is pointing out, among other things, that the US corporate media doesn't even come close to performing its supposed function -- such as asking the hard questions that need to be asked.
This is clearly an important matter. Why you don't realize this, no one else can know. (You probably don't know, either.)
Here's a helpful hint for you: one of your mental mistakes is that you toss around concepts like "democratic society" (that's a small 'd', incidentally) and "free society" far too easily. The US has neither of these things. That you so uncritically swallow the notion that we do, tells a great deal about you.
Ok Rich. To understand your point we have to clear up a few unspoken beliefs we may differ upon.
If people are given freedom does that automatically mean they will act free?
If people are enslaved, does that mean they will automatically act like slaves?
Just because Americans collectively do not act like they live in a democracy does not mean they don't.
I just don't have the background to see things as simply as you seem to or I am still just not experienced enough.
But I come from a family that works with their brains. ;)
You have to learn from history and be able to deduce and somewhat predict. Give it some time. You'll find out. Don't let celebrity media ruin you.
Rich...let me ask again, Frederick may be right and I wasn't clear, how do you see the Republicans proceeding against Obama/Biden and the Democrats?
Thomas -- while the Dems have this tendency to make poor use of their opponents' many vulnerabilities, the Republicans are the opposite: they make terrific use of fewer vulnerabilities. Even if the R's have to make it up out of whole cloth, they always manage to devise pretty effective attacks. Just think of what the Swiftboaters did to Kerry in 2004.
I never liked Kerry, for the same reasons I don't like Obama. But I never would have dreamed that the Republicans would be able to take his years of Vietnam service, & his service medals -- and actually use them as a weapon AGAINST Kerry! If you would have told me before the 2004 Conventions that the R's were going to try to get away with attacks like that (remember them ridiculing Kerry's Purple Hearts with Band-aids?), I just never would have believed they'd be successful with it. But they were! // The R's are fearsomely skilled at attacks -- based on lies, or otherwise.
This time around, they will certainly make maximum use of any opportunities they're given. And Obama just gave them a big one the other night, in his interview with O'Reilly. The media has been badgering Obama for months to "admit he was wrong about the surge." And he finally gave in and admitted it. This could easily be used in a commercial with a tag line, "Obama was against the surge before he was for it." They could call that "typical Democrat flip-flopping" -- and they'd be right. They could similarly exploit Obama's flip-flop on FISA, since he was "against it before he voted for it."
They could also exploit certain differences between Obama and Biden on Iraq, since Biden was for it from the start, while Obama was somewhat critical of it, before the invasion.
The R's could also use every single criticism that Hillary used against Obama -- that he's "elitist," etc. And all the stuff that Palin threw at him the other night will be repeated many times in the next 8 weeks. The Palin speech was like a roadmap of how they'll try to go after him.
Thanks for the insight. I need to think all this stuff over!
I'm sure they will use Ayers, but could they stay away from Wright, Father Pfgler (?) and Black Liberation Theology because of Hagee and some possible stuff coming out about Palin's minister?
Repugnantins don't attack Dems' vulnerabilities; they attack their strengths. That's the whole Karl Rove method. Kerry was a genuine war hero, according to most Americans opinion on that subject. He went to war, he did good work, took some chances under fire, got hit, and was decorated for it. Most Americans see that as a hero.
Bush got his daddy to arrange for him to avoid going. So, obviously, Kerry had a huge advantage over little Bushy-boy on this issue. Rove's way couldn't be clearer: attack him on his strength. Hence, the Swift-boat attacks with lies, etc., to make people doubt that he really was a hero.
Karl Rove's method is as nasty as it is effective, but it's not to go after their weaknesses (of course they throw that in the mix as well, because all they do is attack). But Rove's 'innovation', if you will, is to go after people's strength.
Obama is very bright and eloquent. He did great work in a low-paying community organizer job, while he could have raked it in on Wall Street. What are they attacking? That he's an elitist (turning his brilliance at Harvard, etc. into a negative). That he's a bull-shitter because he's so eloquent. That he did lazy, useless work, making a negative out of his very positive public service.
Rove and the Repugs attack opponents' strengths.
"Rove and the Repugs attack opponents' strengths."
You mean they first turn them into "weaknesses", then attack. A strength is harder to attack but a weakness isn't.
Couldn't be more obvious. The domestic situation stinks to high heaven, and the Dems want to talk about that. The Repugs have been in office for the last while, so they want to avoid the subject and claim that nasty Putin, etc. (national security) is the issue. They will continue to attack Obama (Dems) as big city elitists and latte sissies who won't defend Amerka. They desperately want to make 'character' the issue. Hence, POW, small-town Gov. with great family values (!?) who deeply loves her Jesus, and hunts just like everybody (!?).
Leno asked McCain how many houses he had (jokingly, because that's the nature of the show, and McCain had flubbed the question the day before). McCain got all serious and bleated how for 5 years in Hanoi, he had no house, no table, no chair...bleat, bleat...for most of his alloted time.
It's probably true that most people favor entertainment over the truth or other more serious, pertinent discussion. Modern attention spans are short and most people are busy with the machinery of everyday life. The republican party knows this very well; they structure their approach accordingly, with their customary low-level tactics. It's all just theater, though not very entertaining at all.
So it is that the MSM just give the people what they want. As long as the audience stays tuned, the situation remains the same.
The world is changing rapidly, whirling its way around the rather blind and stationary US—and there are forces far more powerful than mere politicians of any stripe. Nature has the upper hand.
So they will continue, these forces against nature. It is so difficult to fight ignorance, especially on its own level. So many words have been written in the cause of what's right. So many have protested in the same vein. And far too many have died in vain.
Yet there are today powerful forces for good, the likes of which have never before existed on Earth.
www.uspeacegovernment.org
Physicists are underpaid, underemployed, ostracized and ignored on a daily basis.
This pretend president of a parallel universe is an imposter. He can't even name his own universe. It has to be a plagerism, a commercial icon of a revered failed state.
This is the end of times, the end of creative license to steal icons!
I need an attitude adjustment.
Where's my fuckin' wrench? I left it here not three minutes ago. Mmmmm, sigh.
It was in the refrigerator, next to the eggs and a moldy copy of 'High Times.'
Dogpoop, why don't you just write your pseudo poetry somewhere else? Lots of flaky idiots elsewhere will appreciate your droppings.
Democracy gave us the right to choose, not the right choice.
But for citizens to make sensible choices, they need to know the facts and understand reality. We depend on the media for that like we depend on the mechanic to fix our car. If the media doesn't do its job, citizens are vulnerable to the propaganda of those with the big bucks and a deep vested interest in the population not understanding that (for example) their product is harmful. If the press does not effectively expose the lies and exaggerations of the propaganda, how can the average citizen know the facts and choose intelligently?
and you think this equation you have come up with is healthy, or prudent, or natural for that matter?
'Equation' I've come up with..!!? It's not an 'equation', it's a straightforward obvious requirement, the second most basic aspect of democracy--the 1st being that everybody of age has the right to vote. I no more come up with it than I came up with the Lord's Prayer.
An effective free press is absolutely necessary for the citizenry to make informed choices. All the freedom in the world doesn't allow people to vote for their best interest if reality, the facts are obscured by the self-serving propaganda of the ruling class, (with their oodles of money) if a subservient corporate press acts as a stenographer to the corporate/government elite.
How is the average Joe or Mary in Boston or Tucson supposed to know if Saddam has WMD? The press can find out easily enough, but if they only repeat unquestioningly what the Bush/Cheney gang puts out, how are people to know? A democracy that requires citizens to be better informed and better researchers than the press is not a democracy at all.
Leea,
I will agree with you on this one. Plato was very effective in educating. A sophist's greatest enemy is clear, concise thought that exposes false logic with the same type of question.
heh, I thought I just might have had something there, and his response plus your input leaves me closer to thinking I did indeed.
Without proper education, the right choices cannot be made.
Without knowledge of the self, education will never be worthwhile.
http://www.stressfreeschools.org/
Let's not degenerate into dreamy, self-flattering psycho-babble. It would be nice if everybody was smart, cool, self-actualized, and didn't have bad breath. But lets start by concentrating on encouraging a press that comes at least close to letting us know what is going on out there. First, the functionning press. Then self help for everyone!
Absolutely!'Proper education' is the backbone of any Nation/State composed of so many people, with so many opinions and expertise we need to regulate, profit and gain tax-payer subsidies, from self-knowledge.
Everybody else has...
Add to this shit-list once again Mr. Anderson Cooper (friend of Frosty the Snowman John Gibson who dyes his hair more toward "gravitas" each week); Cooper who gave us "McCain Revealed" the other night---i.e., a complete laundry list of every heart-on-his-sleeve dumbass thing McCain ever wanted us to believe about him. Yeah, a "maverick" with Bush 90% of the time (his own words) and a "maverick" who thought it was patriotic to bomb Vietnam....Then there's George Will of course going absolutely unchallenged on "Meet The Schmucks" (Press) when he says that McCain is one of those "reticent" veterans like those of WWII and "never talks about his war experiences" etc.!!!WTF!!!! These narcissistic clowns are going to carry McCain's sorry ass clear to November, all the while ignoring the MILLIONS of citizens behind Nader's 6-8% in the polls.....SWINE...
America do yourself a favor and turn off the TV and radio punditry and politely defer from answering any and all polling by phone or in person. Then make a list of the issues that are important to you. My list includes:
Single payer healthcare
Withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Repeal of The USA Patriot Act
Repeal of the Military Comissions Act
Repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act
Dissolution of the Department of Homeland Security
Reenactment of the Glass-Stegal Act
Tax on all capital gains from non-residential real estate
Raising the social security tax withdrawal level above $80,000
Taxing all stock and securities transactions with a double premium on all commodity transactions.
Reducing the Pentagon budget by 10% for every year into the forseeable future.
Then ask your congressional or senatorial candidates where they stand on these issues. None of them regardless of whether they are Republican or Democratic will have a straight answer for you but the exercise does two things--it keeps them from setting the agenda and it educates others that there just might be some things more important than Sarah Palin's bra size, John McCain's military record, Joe Biden's gaffes, or Barak Obama's skin color.
Poet
Your list is my list. I'll get on it.
Great points, great list. I couldn't agree more, but realistically people are not going to turn off their TVs and they shouldn't have to. The media can be improved so that what people hear on TV is lot closer to reality that what is the case now. If real political change depends on the 'average' American turning into an effective political researching radical...!!??
But encouraging sane living, healthy curiosity, intelligent reading, etc. is all great and your list should be memorized by all of us here. (I've started already.)
Thanks
The way you destroy a beast is to starve it.
The "beast" in this case is not TV per se, but its commerical sponsership (and I include all those "underwriter" announcements on "public" (which is increasingly
"corporate and foundation underwritten" TV and NPR radio as well)
Howard Beale's wonderful soliloquies were right in the movie "Network" the primary purpose of our communications media (including magazines and daily newspapers)is not to propaganzize but rather to present the largest number of eyes, ears and minds to the sponsers to give them the chance to "sell" them something.
This is why the content is so devoid of any significant meaning (it is also the reason why business just loves authoritarian dictatorships of any stripe like ij China) becasue the purpose of business is to make a sale and unpredictability, controversy (other than the contrived type loike "reality" TV or priofessional wrestling) just does not present the open receptive, easily entranced and highly suggestive audinece needed to sell stuff and keep our "consumer" culture going.
They (the underwriters or sponsers) are like the Borg from the Startrek TV series because their mantra is "you will all be assimilated, resistance is futile".
Poet
You are on the right side and have your priorities straight...but I believe in putting my real name behind my opinions, and it seems to me radically inconsistent with the principles that inform your priorities to hide behind a screen name.
Sam Abrams, Rochester NY
mas.smarba@gmail.com
I'd sign up for everything on that list but the last. Reduction yes, but I wouldn't want to make the mistakes made before again.
Great list that I have had for a long time. Thomas, would you please clue me in what mistakes you are referring to?
Already done a long time ago. Thank you for reminding others though.
It's been almost ten years no tevealision for me Frederick, you?
tevealision ?
play on word, television.
Got it. To tell you the truth, I only watch on the occasion here and there but not a whole lot. I haven't been off completely but it's low enough. Sometimes, I'm curious to see how they've changed after a while. Usually disappointing but I can understand where they're coming from so not too surprised.
Okay.
A multi-millionaire talking to another muti-millioniare about yet more multi-millionaires running for office. My impressions of US media. (MSM?) Who are they speaking for? Or about? Are the polling results listed in this article with regards to Iraq correct? One more question and I will leave you all alone. Did any of you ever believe the lies you were told with regard to Iraq? (directed to those who post on this site) I have many friends and relatives in the United States and if I recall correctly not one of them bought into the negative narrative presented by your government and amplified by your so called mainstream media.
I didn't buy it at all. Especially the part where they showed those grainy satellite photos and tried to tell us they were mobile chemical/biological weapons labs. The tactic of using that on national TV seemed suspect. In fact I cringed when I saw that and knew instinctively that they were lying.
No, I didn't buy the Iraq story at all... none of it.
I don't know who the MSM speaks for but CD must like them since they post MSM articles all the time. CD is posting an article by Frank Rich today. He's a writer employed by the MSM New York Times.
I attended a wonderful speech by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. a few days ago and he brought up the issue of the corporate controlled media. The solution is to make the government bring back the Fairness Doctrine, that Reagan got rid of. How to do it? Eh...anyone on here happen to be a lawyer? :-)
The Fairness Doctrine (FD) is wildly over-rated as a tool for keeping the media honest. The US media has ALWAYS stunk, long before Reagan ever came on the scene. Some great examples of this are the post-WWI Red Scare, the post WWII McCarthy Era, the Cold War itself, the Reagan years themselves (the FD wasn't finally killed until the Daddy Bush years), Vietnam, -- and ironically, the JFK assassination.
In all these periods, the corporate media performed abysmally. It's basically always been lies & propaganda. Americans are too brainwashed to realize this, except for the fraction of a percent that's read serious leftist writers like Chomsky.
The problem isn't the FD or lack of FD. Media concentration matters more than a toothless rule like the FD, & both parties have collaborated in loosening the rules governing media concentration.
The problem has to do with the nature of capitalism itself. Though Americans are brainwashed into believing they have a "free press," the truth is that the US media is just as full of lies as Pravda ever was -- and the lies are even more dangerous, because their delivery mechanism is more subtle. At least in the USSR, readers were well aware that the press was formally an agency of the state. In the USA, the press superficially appears to be "free," but the overall results are in many ways just as uniform as in any formally totalitarian state.
Ever heard of framing? George Lakoff (you can find him on google) has plenty more's to say about it. Losing freedom is bad enough but as Lakoff points out, losing the very idea of freedom is the worst that could happen. Something that's not really free but dubbed as "free" such as "free" trade is a perfect example. Or lying about "defending" America's freedoms by shoving the Big Brother (mislabelled "Patriot") Acts of 2001 and 2003 down America's throats. Well, you get the idea.
I was under the impression that the Fairness Doctrine restricted ownership of media, by corporations, but I honestly haven't yet had the time to research it..I'm too busy with my last semester of college. These days I pretty much get all of my news from online sources, like CD, NRDC, DN, and NYT.
The Kennedys support Obama. RFK would probably support Obama.
CD does not support Dems or Obama.
The 'Murdoch Media' are simply fulfilling their capitalistic functions.
They produce revenue for their owners.
Media owned by corporations is not going to harshly interrrogate corporate candidates.
Where is the profit in that?
"Ours becomes more browbeaten, more passive, more eager to please." And much, much wealthier, the reward for choosing to be nothing more than a Voice For The State.
But remember this: there are plenty of very rich Dems who could easily finance real news reporting operations from a variety of angles, but they do not. And the Dems already in office could easily blackmail Big Corp Media - do the right thing or pay the price if blue wins. But they won't. Because it's one, big, happy family that openly doesn't give a flying f**k about anyone earning less than, say, half-a-mil per year.
We're on our own. Get active, or practice saying "Yes, President McCain."
Karita Hummer
The fourth Estate, i.e., Mainstream Media, has utterly failed our democracy. There is little free press around these days, as they are so controlled by Corporate conglomerates. The Press serves the Plutocracy today. They did nothing but give Bush and his company of Pretenders a free pass, from the "selection" by the Supreme Court, through all the other electoral atrocities and thefts in the last eight years, through Constitutional Law violations. You name it, Press criticism has been most muted at best.
Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA
Karita Hummer
The fourth Estate, i.e., Mainstream Media, has utterly failed our democracy. There is little free press around these days, as they are so controlled by Corporate conglomerates. The Press serves the Plutocracy today. They did nothing but give Bush and his company of Pretenders a free pass, from the "selection" by the Supreme Court, through all the other electoral atrocities and thefts in the last eight years, through Constitutional Law violations. You nsme it, their criticismhas been most muted at best.
Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA
"...The ideological extremism and growing ethical questions that define Sarah Palin -- and especially the discredited, rejected core beliefs of John McCain -- means that the McCain campaign should have much to worry about in this election. Having Sarah Palin face the mighty, scary American press corps certainly isn't one of them..."
- Greenwald is dead right in both of these sentences.
Let's consider the first sentence more carefully. The McCain/Palin campaign stands on shaky ground for many, many reasons. Greenwald alludes to some of them here, & the Frank Rich article posted on CD today names more of them.
Since the MSM is not going to make the McCain camp face any of the really hard questions, as Greenwald correctly predicts, the only other force that even has a chance of doing so is the Obama campaign.
In 2004, the Kerry campaign COULD HAVE used the non-existence of WMD, or the Abu Ghraib torture scandals, against Bush as campaign issues. But the Kerryites decided to use neither issue, because (being typical Democrats) they feared taking any position that could possibly be construed as criticizing the US military.
This same kind of unprincipled cowardice will determine which of the McCain-Palin ticket's many vulnerabilities will be brought to public attention by the Dems. For instance, Palin is a hardcore Dominionist, a "warrior for Jesus" type, who believes US wars are "holy wars." One can predict that the Democrats will not use this as a campaign issue. It's too explosive. They never made much of Bush's connections to the theocratic fascists; so they won't touch this, either (even though Palin is far worse than Bush, in this respect). // Palin has also tried to ban books in Alaska libraries, which you might think would be a vulnerability. But this would tie in too closely to her religious beliefs. So the Dems won't touch that, either.
The Dems might go after Palin for her ethics violations. They might go after her for the earmarks stuff, or the flip flop on the "Bridge to Nowhere." That's because those issues don't have truly hot content. It's relatively minor stuff; the Dems themselves have done much worse.
Looking at the top of the ticket, what aspects of McCain will they go after? His Keating Five involvement? His across-the-board support for Bush policies? Again, a realistic prediction is that they'll use almost none of this stuff, because they too have given across-the-board support for Bush policies. The Keating Five stuff is already 20 years old. They won't use that, either. I bet the most we'll hear from the Dems on McCain is the line from Obama's Denver acceptance speech, that "Sen McCain has voted with George W Bush 90% of the time." We'll hear this line -- but with no specifics, since the Dems also mostly voted with Bush.
It will be fascinating to see which of the many possible issues the Dems will try to use against McCain-Palin. The odds are that as remarkably vulnerable as McCain-Palin really are, they'll be no more asked hard questions by the Dems, than by the MSM.
She can be associated with an organization that wants to break up the country!! What's more unpatriotic than that? She has supported the separation of Alaska from the US. Isn't that plenty? Country first? Love of America? Hello?lizard
It will be interesting to see if the Dems use that -- that thing about her (& her hubby's) association with the Alaska Independence Party. I agree that it could be used in a way that might be very damaging to Palin. Let's see if the Dems use it.
My guess is that they won't use it. They won't attack the husband because he's not the candidate. She denies having been a member of the AIP, but she's apparently lying about that. Nonetheless, the Dems might be frightened of attacking her "patriotism." Or they'll be frightened of accusing her of lying. The R's could turn around and call it "the politics of personal destruction, against this fine young woman," etc etc.
(Remember, the Dems never attacked GW Bush for going AWOL from the Texas Air Guard. The evidence that he'd gone AWOL was very strong -- not 100%, but probably 97 or so %. And that was enough to frighten them off. The evidence that Palin was an AIP member is probably not 100% either.)
It is an interesting possible avenue of attack, though.
You make some good points RichM, but once again it seems your "blame democrats first" attitude gets in the way of your reasoning. If you watched the convention on CSPAN (gavel to gavel, with no interruptions by pundits) you could see the D's being VERY critical of the R's, over and over again. If you watch on networks, the critique is totally muted. You can say it as loudly and clearly as possible, and if it gets no coverage---it goes unheard!
1) In the next 8 weeks, we'll all see whether the Dem campaign goes after the incredible vulnerabilities of McCain/Palin in a serious way, or not.
2) Re "If you watched the convention on CSPAN ... you could see the D's being VERY critical of the R's"
- No, not really. There are different levels of criticism. D's are willing to "criticize" R's in a limited way -- ie, for things like mistakes, incompetence, misjudgement, mismanagement, etc. But they NEVER accuse the R's of their biggest crimes -- which they themselves are fully supportive of. For example, the war in Iraq is itself a "crime" -- not a "mistake," or an endeavor which was "poorly managed." No Democrat is willing to call it a crime. It's not a matter of whether you watch it on CSPAN or FoxNews -- no Democrat will call a US war a "crime," regardless of whether it's Vietnam, or Iraq.
Similarly, the torture issue. On his website, Obama says he's "against torture." But the Dems have not made this a campaign issue. They haven't done so in the last 4 years, & they won't start now. The entire Dem primary season never even mentioned torture, the PATRIOT Act, the MCA, the nonexistent WMD, the level of military spending, the stolen election of 2000, etc etc. The D's don't attack the central features of Republican crimes -- only the periphery.
3) Re my "blame democrats first" attitude -- Both parties serve ruling class interests. There are only very modest differences in the way that each party performs this function. In the mind of a Democratic voter, these modest differences assume an absurdly exaggerated importance. In reality (and I know you don't understand this), one of the main functions of the Dem Party is protecting the Republican Party, and lending a sheen of legitimacy to the 2-party system. The 2 parties work together to ensure that the ruling class always wins, and that no one else is even allowed in the competition for power.
The DP performs essential services for the RP. They're joined at the hip. Anyone taken in by the appearance of their being "rivals" simply doesn't understand how the system works.
RichM,
Your pre-emptive attacks on readers in your final paragraphing, I fail to call 'conclusions,' invalidating by general statements of 'doesn't understand,' are not supported by any substantive evidence to support your opinions, except the obvious, known, previously documented observations. These observations do not support any singular conclusion. In actuality, the observations give rise to many possibilities, interpretations of what is seen.
Especially when seen from a distance.
"Both parties serve ruling class interests. There are only very modest differences in the way that each party performs this function. In the mind of a Democratic voter, these modest differences assume an absurdly exaggerated importance. In reality (and I know you don't understand this), one of the main functions of the Dem Party is protecting the Republican Party, and lending a sheen of legitimacy to the 2-party system. The 2 parties work together to ensure that the ruling class always wins, and that no one else is even allowed in the competition for power."
Yes they serve ruling class interests---that's money and money's what the parties need.
But,
Very modest differences? Do you seriously believe we would've gone to war with Iraq with Gore in office? I doubt if 9/11 would've even happened if it wasn't for either the pure negligence or the real complicity or the Bush cabal. So, what followed from that: Patriot Acts 1&2, MCA, Guantanamo, torture, Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the usual crap from the right-wing like a worse Supreme Court,, more authoritarianism, less science and Gov't regulation...
Absurd exaggeration? Really?
Protection? Your saying that the Democrats secretly wanted all the above and knew they couldn't do it themselves, so they let the R's steal the election and then sat back and gave them cover.
Your right, I don't understand this...
I see your point---I shall ponder it...
Nice analysis!
How about Obama Biden? How does that look?
RichM just did that, DUH ! Pay attention and reread RichM's post again !
Duh...Rich was talking about the Dem's sdtrategy against McCain/Palin, I was asking what he see's in the same way in relationship to Obam/ Biden.
Sometimes I don't make myself clear enough.
Ok, my apologies. You nailed me. As for how RichM sees Obama/Biden, the Democrats already did the dirty work for the Republicans, or at least the Far Right/Corporatist ones (note, there are a lot of truly moderate and fed up Republicans even in my state of South Carolina who can't stand the war in Iraq or the economy and are even going to the point of being liberal. Imagine liberal Republicans that used to exist coming back. Well, ok, it's a long ways perhaps but you get my point). The Democrats don't vote for the people's interests, more often than not, which basically leaves them vulnerable to silly culture attacks. Of course, these days, even on the culture front, neither party looks that much different. Since these two candidacies have become nearly identical, I'm not really sure how RichM would put it. However, we can read his other comments on this post and other topics on this site and might be able to sketch and idea as to what he might say. Interesting and challenging. :-)
" there are a lot of truly moderate and fed up Republicans even in my state of South Carolina who can't stand the war in Iraq or the economy and are even going to the point of being liberal. Imagine liberal Republicans that used to exist coming back. Well, ok, it's a long ways perhaps but you get my point)."
Its not that great a stretch. There are a lot of Republicans in Texas (that I know) that feel the same way. Many hate the war and detest Bush. Frankly I don't know where they find all the people that give him even the low rating he has.
I do apoligize once again for letting him out of the state in the first place.
Oh, not to worry. Bush or no Bush, the Democrats have been this way in Washington, most noticably since the Reagan days. The Republicans, during Clinton's first two years in office, proved that even a minority can clamp down on the majority as they did to Hillary's healthcare plan in the Senate even though it passed in the House. Even in the 1960s, when the Democrats had a veto-proof majority in the Senate, LBJ had to beg for Republicans to support the civil Rights Act as the Dixiecrats were filibustering it as much as they could. History has obviously shown that there are seats that will stay Republican and seats that will stay Democrat no matter what. The Democrats, as RichM has pointed out, have yet to learn how to make do and make the best of what they got. If all they want to do is keep inventing excuses by telling us shit like "Congress may be Democrat but we need a Democrat in the White House", then all they want is power for personal ambitions and not for the public interest. George Lakoff, himself, made it clear that it takes framing the message to win over even a chunk of otherwise opponents. Yes, I still do believe that there are Republicans who will put down their corporate interests and actually fight for the public good only if the Democrats stand up for what they claim to believe in and frame it well.
Another Republican bimbo on Blitzer this morning complained that Obama was the most liberal Senator of all. That's good enough for me to vote for him.
But it's a lie. Feingold or Kennedy are more like it.lizard
PLEASE check the voting records...the "most liberal senator" is something the GOP trots out every year!They said it about Gore and Kerry too. Obaam voted for the FISA Amendment, Biden voted FOR the Bankruptcy Bill (his sons works for MBNA),and he voted to keep funding the wars. There are alot of senators much more "liberal", including the above, but, also Brown, Sanders, Boxer, and plenty of Rep. They just take a small slice of issues (conservatives do) and add them up. Since Obama has a very lean voting record (he has not been there that long, and he has been running for president most of the time).I would have liked to see what legislation he would have sponsored--but we didnt get a chance.That is the only value of experience.
Glenn is spot on here. Keep in mind that if the American public, in general, is not capable of seeing, or willing to see, through the propaganda, and will not seek the truth, then we will continue to be "governed" by corporations and their political minions. It's all about turning on the lights, and that responsibility falls on each and every one of us. Looking to the MSM to serve the people's interest in illumination is silly. Much of this discussion misses the fact that where journalism in general, and the MSM in particular, were once seen to earnestly serve the public's need for information, this is clearly no longer the case. MSM serves corporate power and corporate power needs a dumbed-down, dependent public. Snapping the American people out of their somnambulance is not the job of journalists alone - it is all of our job.
I agree with you , and do NOT see the majority of Americans as "incapable" of seeing through propaganda.If so many of the former middle class werent' so busy trying to "produce more" (just to keep a job), work 24/7, and terrified that their family would end up out on the street (ie If we had a functioning social safety net)they would have alot more time to look into the issues that are being ignored by the MSM.
With due respect, I would just point out that no one is inherently incapable, but to the extent people allow their conditions to define them, they limit their own access to sources of the truth. I'm a sub-middle-class, single empty-nester, struggling to generate a working wage in the great Pacific Northwest (sans health insurance), so I'm quite familiar with limitations. The point is to recognize that if we accept external conditions as OUR limitations, then we cannot progress toward the truth and I submit that nothing is more important.
I certainly would not disagree with that.
"Who are these great, aggressive journalists who are going to question her in a meaningfully adversarial way in order to expose the falsehoods behind the image that is being created around her? "
The Palin-McCain campaign shows its foundational support... From a Seattle Times article posted today which is drawn partially from documents found in a National Archives warehouse in Seattle, and provides a little detail for the disaffected who insist upon "a woman, any woman... never mind the issues, just give us a woman":
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008163431_palin070.html
Rocky the Lying Squirrel and Bullwinkle Kilmia Moose for President!
The current sad state of American journalism is the result of the WASP corporate elite learning from history. The Robber Baron era was undone to a great extent by "muck raking" journalists. Said muckrakers were able to write and publish because of the fierce competition in the newspaper trade (during that time, New York city had 30 newspapers, for example). A cursory look at the news media ownership picture now as opposed to the Gilded Age, and the difference is the extent of consolidation to the point of near monopoly that currently exists. Whereas competition forced owners to publish muckrakers or be ignored previously, virtual non-enforcement of anti-trust law by a colluding Federal government has given the American public the corporate crud that is passed off as news now.
"Probitas laudatur et alget" Juvenal
the_idle_wretch
money talks, bullshit walks. That was so in Athens et al ad infinitum.
we are just the current example. But we all seem to enjoy ourselves.
nothing is more important.
Criticizing the McCain campaign for refusing to allow reporters to question Sarah Palin, Time's Jay Carney writes:
Political operatives love to talk about circumventing the media and other co-called "elites" -- i.e., independent specialists, observers and thinkers. The operatives convince themselves they can take their candidate's message directly to the people -- on their terms, without all that poking and prodding and skepticism. That's propaganda. In a democratic society, it rarely works for long.
When you read this kind of thing, especially from a prominent organ of the MSM, you know it was written in 1983 or earlier. This is now 1984 and has been since 1968 when Nixon became president and dressed the White House guard in white Napoleonic uniforms and black leather shakos. From then until today the tide of de facto dictatorship and authoritarianism has spread like the Black Death deep into our national character. And the rats carrying the disease are called Repimplicans.
Besides the right Achilles' Heel of the corporate media's (CM) obsequiousness and bias toward power, my guess is that the continued coverage of Palin will develop in accordance with their left Achilles' Heel: their collective pathological "bully" personality.
Let's say that the infotainwhores DO become "alienated", i.e. pissed off, at Palin because of her initial refusal to dance to their tune. This may generate the kind of cliquish "gaming" from the CM to which Al Gore was subjected even before the 2000 campaign ripened.
As Bob Somerby has made a career of howling, this process is indeed scurrilous and immoral-- reporters, columnists, and pundits collectively deciding to cruelly, even sadistically put down one candidate while fawning over another. Just because they can, or because they need to amuse themselves because "substance" is so boring to them. No high school clique of Heathers is more accomplished at this vile practice.
BUT, let's say that instead of reaching a critical mass or threshold in which the public at large buys into a Goresque Palin putdown, there are indications that a significant bloc of voters remains sympathetic and supportive of Palin, and views her as UNFAIRLY maligned by an elitist CM.
THEN, I predict, we'll see the dynamic of the schoolyard bully when a BIGGER bully shows up, OR when the bully finds that (s)he's not getting the positive regard and sycophantic attention and applause (s)he expected. The bully will break and cave in, and suddenly begin taking a sweeter and more conciliatory tone. Not universally, perhaps, but I guarantee that the tough Received Wisdom condeming Palin as cowardly or incompetent will readily shift to admiration, perhaps grudging at first, that she is "tough", "unflappable", "her own person", etc.
Regardless of her actual qualifications and competence, if Palin stands up to the first growls of disdain, and doesn't either Show Fear or superciliously affect to be Above it All, as Democratic targets are wont to do, the "alienated" CM will soon retract their bitchy little fangs and curl up at her feet.
The point is to move the percentages of people who don't understand the propoganda and the weird conservative/liberal media biases (conservative on foreign issues, liberal on domestic issues, in a very general sense). It's always about moving more people to a greater appreciation and understanding of progressive values. Yes, it's infuriating that it is such a slow process, but that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air in total despair.
btw, I looked at the state by state polling data. If there were no Republican shennanigans, stealing of votes, voter suppression: Obama would eke out a win; with the forementioned tricks, McCain will eke out a win. It's going to be very very close. Of the twelve toss-up states (New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Montana) 6 will go for McCain for a total of 91 electoral college votes to add to his base of 174; 6 will go for Obama for 66 electoral votes - who has a base of 207 electoral college votes. This would mean:
McCain: 265
Obama: 273
(is the extra 3 Washington, D.C.?)
For some time now, we have been expecting a news reader to become president. Sarah may be the one, and without so much as even a single press conference between her "nomination" and election--just more of the teleprompter performances mixed in with "town hall meetings" before carefully screened adoring idiot fundamentalist republican crowds. Ain't democracy sweet?
I think you've missed the whole point of the article. The press is not at all aggressive, so Palin does not need to fear 'facing the press'. The Repugs are going to keep her away from the press to build up the anticipation, as Greenwald explains, and when she does sit down for an interview with some non-journalist like Larry King, she'll hit them out of the park one after the other. She's a tough, experienced politician and she'll say what she wants and they won't challenge.
For instance, she was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. There are obviously records of that, things she said in the press, etc. They could spend 5 min. on that and read her some of the things she said at the time and make her look like the liar that she is. Won't happen. She'll claim she's an anti-lobbyist reformer, she'll say it with confidence and skill, and good old Larry (or whoever) will simply move on to the next softball question.
The closest they will come to controversial questions will be to mention that there have been 'claims in the press' of this of that (that she has no experience in internation relations, for instance). She'll have a polished answer that seems to make sense to people who know little about the subject, and the follow-up question that would expose the fluffiness of her answer just won't happen. (Assuming Larry King and "reporters" of his ilk knew enough about geo-politics to question her effectively...a real stretch.)
Just like McCain answers everything with his POW experience, she'll answer everything with references to being from a small town where the 'real' people live, that she's a wonderful mother in a wonderful family, and she sure loves her Jesus. On top of not challenging her in a meaningful way, the 'press reports' the next day will claim that she 'performed' well. Of course.
Americans love that processed cheese and she knows just how to ladle it out. She can't wait to get at the 'press'.
Let's draft Ralph Nader into a debate with these clowns.
Unless the press is forced to allow Nader into the debate atmosphere we are at
the gates of hell. The Bush&Co taking over the Mortgage industry this morning
should be explained as contrary to the "Free Trade" , "The new World Order",
and all those other fabricated Nafta deals that has destroyed our industrial base.
Time for Abama to speak up about our failed economy...What will he do about it?
The national news is propaganda. Ignore it.
Not good enough Stone. You and I know to ignore it. Maybe 20% of Americans know it's propaganda, but what about the other 80% who swallow it?
I know Madcow. I don't believe that we can change the media. What we can change is the culture. Those who are not tuned in will be left behind. Once left behind they will be more likely to be inquisitive and to change themselves. I think it's a much more effective path than attempting to pound concepts into closed minds. It's also much more enjoyable inventing the future with like minded people absent the drag of inattentive or closed minds.
Glenn's right on, and thanks to him for shinning light on this. This is such an important question in the right-wing slide into fascism. I want solutions! Amy Goodman's great, Indymedia is wonderful, but they get a tiny viewership who already see beyond the lies. What about the rest of Americans. They're being spoon-fed little morsels of crap, and told it's journalism---and they believe it. And Glenn's right about the follow-up questioning during these so called "interviews". They spout some lie or spin to a softball question and the interviewer moves on---the lie is out there---That's propaganda! What do we do????
Are you speaking of journalists in general or of the ownership and management of media outlets?
Ownership and management set the tone for the journalists to follow. An objective reporter can go out and report honestly, but if the story doesn't air, then the objective reporter will slant the next story---and the next... until it does air...
Thanks!
I say, bring back the Fairness Doctrine. (We'll never do it with Chairman Kevin Martin, who continuosly ignores the wil of the people)Also, stop de-funding PBS (make it more like BBC--not perfect, but it sure beats FOX and MSNBC!). I cringe everytime they have a Boeing or Lookheed Martin commercial , and , then follow it with a program about wounded veterans.
Wouldn't be so keen to praise the virtues of the BBC. During the RNC, they had next to no coverage of the demonstrations, zero coverage of the preemptive arrest of activists and maximum praise for all things McCain/Palin.
The venerable corporation has further lost it's way since Dr. D. Kelly's 'suicide' caving in to the immense pressure put on to it by Blair's acolytes. Afraid of it's own shadow, these days it wouldn't say boo to a moose.
But it's still leagues ahead of Fox/CNN/et al.
I just said that they were not perfect
Ah Hah!
"A properly functioning press corps would become more adversarial and aggressive when treated with such contempt by the GOP. Ours becomes more browbeaten, more passive, more eager to please."
Thats just what the Democrats do. Now I understand the assertion that the media is liberal.
Just because you're a coward, doesn't make you liberal. The press is NOT liberal.
Like most right-wing fascist, you avoid the issue, and assert a falsehood--that's cowardly, and look at you.
Yeah, I agree "The [MSM] is NOT liberal".
I disagree however, that being critical of the Democrats makes me a right-wing fascist.
Sorry I hurt your feelings.
That's OK, sorry I called you a right-wing fascist...
Obama's not standing up to the rightwing media. Just look at the latest event where Obama showed up on the Bill O'LIEly show. Obama or Mccain, I fear that the worst of the rightwing agenda has yet to come and it's only going to get worse. Sorry.
The Republicans are just as sexist as the Democrats. As for the media, they have always been pro-rightwing ever since 1980 or at least obviously so since that year. Mccain has been "shielded" by the media for years already and that was never going to change. Forget about Palin and let's get the FUCK back to focusing on the issues that truly matter. We all can keep digging up past records about Mccain/Palin or Obama/Biden but at a time when this country is FAILING MISERABLY and GOING DOWN THE TOILET IN FLAMES, the last thing this country needs to hear about are more anti-Obama, anti-Palin shit. Neither party is going to help you by the way. They're going to keep FUCKING you for the next 4 years as if 8 weren't enough. And you Hillary whiners need to shut the FUCK up and move on. Like Palin, she's no different from Mccain or Obama. A vote for Mccain/Palin is a vote for Obama/Biden and vice-versa !
Very few people. I think , would vote for McCain, just for palin. (Would alot of you vote for Biden? By himself?) I was amazed as the sexist nature of, not only the cable news, but in the newspaper, the music media, on peole t-shirts, everything! I totally expected it from the Right. Whether you like Hillary or Palin or Pelosi is irrelevent. I DID expect better from the Left. Call me naive. I am NOT trying to be confrontational (havent we done enough of that this season), but, it appears that many think that it is just fine to insult people as to their sex, age (which is almost never a choice) or class, or, even disability, although race is pretty much off limits (I am speaking of teh Left now)Race should be off limits. I knew there was sexism But the total misogyny that came from the Left (female journalists being the worst examples) was quite startling to me. It s NOT helpful , folks.I am NOT sticking up for Palin (everyone is so on edge on the Left, I feel I must qualify everything I say--they will rip us to shreds if we dont stop this!!). I waited to hear her speakk, and now, I can detest her for the person that she is.
Well, you're correct about the Left letting out-of-control type feminism go mainstream. That started in the 1960s, believe it or not, at about the same time the country needed to put an end to racism, at least the blatant type anyway. I'm neither a male chauvenist or a feminist at large. I believe the equal opportunities for both genders, be it women getting equal pay or men getting equal opportunities to wear what they want without getting persecuted in public. Well, you get the idea.
Comments re percentage of americans who believed/still believe iraq has/had WMDs.
No where is it ever stated an over-whelming majority of black americans never bought this WMD crap, that they knew it was a lie from the git-go. Black Americans know that through fear and war mongering the corporate media/govt can sell our white brother and sisters anything.
juniflip
The probably did not pol by race. Do you think? I dont know--I'm white and I was on street corners and at the WPAFB (Air Base) getting beer cans thrown at me, as we were invading Iraq. Just thought of another factor--they probably did polling on land lines. ( I have only a land line)
Don't know how they polled -- don't watch or listen to corporate press -- it's al l propaganda. GG is right on point about the MC campaign introduction of the new product: SP. And further the MC campaign has dared the corporate press to serious interrogate her.
That's why I take the MSM's surveys with a grain of salt