Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- What If All the World’s Debt Just Went Away
- Bolivia's Morales Calls for New Era of 'Peace and Unity' to Break Greed of Capitalism
- Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'Mr. President, I am Disappointed'
- Gun Lobby Speaks: We Need More Guns, Especially in Schools
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- Bolivia's Morales Calls for New Era of 'Peace and Unity' to Break Greed of Capitalism
- What If All the World’s Debt Just Went Away
- Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'Mr. President, I am Disappointed'
- 8 Deficit Reducers That Are More Ethical—And More Effective—Than the 'Chained CPI'
Popular content
Today's Top News
US News Media Fails America, Again
Watching Glenn Beck of Fox News rant about “progressive fascism” – and
muse about armed insurrection – or listening to mainstream pundits
prattle on about Barack Obama as the “most polarizing President ever,”
it is hard to escape the conclusion that today’s U.S. news media
represents a danger to the Republic.
By and large, the Washington press corps
continues to function within a paradigm set in the 1980s, mostly
bending to the American Right, especially to its perceived power to
destroy mainstream journalistic careers and to grease the way toward
lucrative jobs for those who play ball.
The parameters set by this intimidated (or bought-off) news media, in turn, influence how far Washington politicians feel they can go on issues, like health-care reform or environmental initiatives, or how risky they believe it might be to pull back from George W. Bush's "war on terror" policies.
Democratic hesitancy on these matters then enflames the Left, which expresses its outrage through its own small media, reprising the old theme that there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between Democrats and Republicans - a reaction that further weakens chances for any meaningful reform.
This vicious cycle has repeated itself again and again since the Reagan era, when the Right built up its intimidating media apparatus - a vertically integrated machine which now reaches from newspapers, magazines and books to radio, TV and the Internet. The Right accompanied its media apparatus with attack groups to go after troublesome mainstream journalists.
Meanwhile, the American Left never took media seriously, putting what money it had mostly into "organizing" or into direct humanitarian giving. Underscoring the Left's fecklessness about media, progressives have concentrated their relatively few media outlets in San Francisco, 3,000 miles away - and three hours behind - the news centers of Washington and New York.
By contrast, the Right grasped the importance of "information warfare" in a modern media age and targeted its heaviest firepower on the frontlines of that war - mostly the political battlefields of Washington - thus magnifying the influence of right-wing ideas on policymakers.
One consequence of this media imbalance is that Republicans feel they can pretty much say whatever they want - no matter how provocative or even crazy - while Democrats must be far more circumspect, knowing that any comment might be twisted into an effective attack point against them.
So, while criticism of Republicans presidents - from Ronald Reagan to the two Bushes - had to be tempered for fear of counterattacks, almost anything could be said against a Democratic president, Bill Clinton or now Barack Obama, who is repeatedly labeled a "socialist" and, according to Beck, a "fascist" for pressuring hapless GM chief executive Rick Wagoner to resign.
The Clinton Wars
The smearing of President Clinton started during his first days in office as the right-wing news media and the mainstream press pursued, essentially in tandem, "scandals" such as his Whitewater real-estate deal, the Travel Office firings and salacious accusations from Arkansas state troopers.
Through talk radio and mailed-out videos, the Right also disseminated accusations that Clinton was responsible for "murders" in Arkansas and Washington. These hateful suspicions about Clinton spread across the country, carried by the voices of Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy as well as via videos hawked by Religious Right leader Jerry Falwell.
While not accepting the "murder" tales, mainstream publications, like the Washington Post and the New York Times, often took the lead in pushing or exaggerating Clinton financial "scandals." Facing these attacks, Clinton sought some safety by tacking to the Right, which prompted many on the American Left to turn on him.
The stage was set for the Republican "revolution" of 1994, which put the GOP in charge of Congress. Only in the latter days of the Clinton administration, as the Republicans pushed for his ouster through impeachment, did a handful of small media outlets, including Consortiumnews.com and Salon.com, recast the war on Clinton as a new-age coup d'etat.
Yet, despite the evidence of that, the major American news media mocked Hillary Clinton when she complained about a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
After Clinton survived impeachment, the national press corps transferred its hostility toward Vice President Al Gore in Campaign 2000 , ridiculing him as a serial exaggerator and liar, even when that required twisting his words. [For details, see our book Neck Deep.]
Then, when George W. Bush wrested the White House away from Gore with the help of five Republican partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court, the drumbeat of hostility toward the American President suddenly disappeared, replaced by a new consensus about the need for unity. The 9/11 attacks deepened that sentiment, putting Bush almost beyond the reach of normal criticism.
Again, the right-wing media and the mainstream press moved almost in lockstep. The deferential tone toward Bush could be found not just on Fox News or right-wing talk radio, but in the Washington Post and (to a lesser degree) the New York Times - and on CNN and MSNBC. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "America's Matrix."]
To some foreigners, the U.S. news media's early coverage of the Iraq War had the feel of what might be expected in a totalitarian state.
"There have been times, living in America of late, when it seemed I was back in the Communist Moscow I left a dozen years ago," wrote Rupert Cornwell in the London-based Independent. "Switch to cable TV and reporters breathlessly relay the latest wisdom from the usual unnamed ‘senior administration officials,' keeping us on the straight and narrow. Everyone, it seems, is on-side and on-message. Just like it used to be when the hammer and sickle flew over the Kremlin." [Independent, April 23, 2003]
Bush's Slide
Bush skeptics were essentially not tolerated in most of the U.S. news media, and journalists who dared produce critical pieces could expect severe career consequences, such as the four CBS producers fired for a segment on how Bush skipped his National Guard duty, a true story that made the mistake of using some memos that had not been fully vetted.
Only after real events intervened - especially the bloody insurgency in Iraq and the ghastly flooding of New Orleans - did the mainstream U.S. press corps begin to tolerate a more skeptical view of Bush. However, the news personalities who had come to dominate the industry by then had cut their teeth in an era of bashing Democrats (Clinton/Gore) and fawning over Republicans (Reagan and the two Bushes).
With Barack Obama as President, these "news" personalities almost reflexively returned to the Clinton-Gore paradigm, feeling the freedom - indeed the pressure - to be tough on the White House.
Though MSNBC does offer a few shows hosted by liberals and there are a few other liberal voices here and there, the national media remains weighted heavily to the right and center-right.
For every Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow or Paul Krugman or Frank Rich, there are dozens of Larry Kudlows, Sean Hannitys, Bill O'Reillys, Joe Scarboroughs and Charles Krauthammers who take openly right-wing or neoconservative positions - or the likes of Lou Dobbs, John King and Wolf Blitzer, who reflect Republican-oriented or neocon views out of personal commitment or careerist caution.
While the right-wing media denounces Obama as a "socialist" and Republican activists are organizing "tea parties" to protest taxes, the mainstream media continues to follow the old dynamic of framing political issues in ways most favorable to Republicans and least sympathetic to Democrats.
On CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, in an interview with Gen. Ray Odierno, host John King pushed a favorite media myth about President Bush's successful "surge" in Iraq. King never mentioned that many factors in the declining Iraqi violence predated or were unrelated to Bush's dispatch of additional troops, nor did King note the contradiction about Bush's supposed "success" and Odierno's warning that he may have to urge more delays in withdrawing U.S. troops.
‘Polarizing' Obama
The commentariat class also has continued to frame the Republican hatred of Obama as Obama's fault, describing his "failure" to achieve a more bipartisan Washington or - in its latest formulation - calling Obama "the most polarizing President ever."
It might seem counterintuitive to call a President with approval ratings in the 60 percentiles "polarizing" - when that term was not applied to George W. Bush with his numbers half that of Obama's. But this notion has arisen because Republicans have turned harshly against Obama, while Democrats and Independents have remained supportive.
This gap of about 60 points between Democratic approval and Republican disapproval is called the largest in the modern era. (Bush presumably was less "polarizing" because his Republican numbers slumped along with his approval from Democrats and Independents.)
What is rarely acknowledged is that the Republican Party has both shrunk in size and retreated toward its hard-line "base," meaning that the "polarization gap" could simply reflect the fact that a smaller, more extreme Republican Party hates Obama, while other presidents faced a larger, more moderate opposition party.
Rather, according to the Washington pundit class, this gap is Obama's fault, much as he was blamed for "failing" to attract Republican votes for his stimulus bill and his budget. Rarely do the pundits lay the blame on the Republicans who have taken a position of near unanimous opposition to Obama, much as they did toward Clinton 16 years ago.
Instead of seeing a pattern - that Republicans may hope to torpedo Obama's presidency and reclaim congressional control , as they did in 1993-94 - the Washington press corps describes the Republicans as holding firm to their small-government principles and the Democrats as refusing to give due consideration to GOP alternatives.
Already a new conventional wisdom is taking shape, that "polarizing" Obama would be wrong to use the "reconciliation" process to enact health-care and environmental programs by majority vote, that he should instead water them down and seek enough Republican votes to overcome GOP filibusters in the Senate, which require 60 votes to stop.
To get enough Republican votes on health care would almost surely mean eliminating a public alternative that would compete with private insurers, and on the environment, cap-and-trade plans for curbing carbon emissions would have to be shelved.
But that is the course that the pundit class generally favors, while demanding that Obama and the Democrats, not the Republicans, take the necessary steps toward cooperation.
"It will continue to behoove Obama to woo Republican help - no matter how tough the odds," wrote Washington Post columnist David Broder on Sunday. "Presidents who hope to achieve great things cannot for long rely on using their congressional majorities to muscle things through."
But if Obama takes the advice of Broder and other pundits and dilutes his proposals to make them acceptable to Republicans, the President will surely draw the wrath of the Democratic "base," which will accuse him of selling out. The vicious cycle will have rotated once again.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
78 Comments so far
Show AllI agree with most of Parrys comments except for his defense of the Corporate Democrats. His argument there simply will not fly. The Corporate Democrats know that they have said nothing to move the contry in a different direction from the Republicans over the last 30 years. They know that they can blame the media and make a million excuses.
The fact remains that they will NOT SPEAK OUT IN FAVOR OF POLICIES THAT BEGIN WITH 70% MAJORITY SUPPORT. They are bought and paid for period. To deny this is denial that simply has lead to an eternity of lesser of two evilism that has given us a Mute Morman Mummy as majority leader to oppose Bush and the Corporations. There is just too much evidence. The democrats ARE THE CORPORATIONS.
===Please read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, or people will remain thinking that the Presidents Chosen by Wolf Blitzer will change everything, and we-- as a species will devlove into quivering lime Jello, and not even cold quiverin
"The Corporate Democrats know that they have said nothing to move the contry in a different direction from the Republicans over the last 30 years."
Bill Clinton inherited the biggest deficit in U.S. history and turned it into the biggest surplus in U.S. history.
Sounds different to me.
Good point, Dave.
And Clinton gave us so much more: NAFTA, GATT, the end of Glass-Stegall.
That's different all right.
The neocons control media to the extent that they can define things the way they want. Labelling Obama a facist because he fired the GM CEO is a revisionist definition of fascism.
Had the neocons labelled Obama a fascist because he unconditionally handed over trillions of taxpayer dollars to the perpetrators of the current depression, and because he didn't fire bank CEOs, Ben Bernanke and other perpetrators, I would agree with the neocons in labelling Obama a fascist.
I hear you, it is too bad that very few people understand the terms "fascist" "neo-fascist" "socialist" "communist" "liberal" etc. These terms are mis-used daily by pundits, journalists and even so-called experts.
The corporate Dems include every sitting member with the exception of Kucinich. Hardly a revelation.
They also said Bill Clinton was "polarizing."
Bill Clinton was tied with FDR as most popular President of the 20th Century.
So "polarizing" must be Republicanese for "popular."
Suggested alternative headline:
"US Citizens Unable to Grasp that Media Millionaires Put Class Interests First."
...or "The Media is as Far Left as the Rich White Guys Who Own It."
Or: "Vast majority of US Public fails to see that they live in the most propagandized society in the developed world"
Or: "The US news media - because Enquiring minds want to know."
Bill Clinton is a guy who could littigate eleven cammels through a rusty needle eye. So why couldnt he defend a real health care plan at a time when National health care STARTED WITH around 70% support. Yes there was a fierce corporate backlash BUT CLINTON AND HILLARY DID NOTHING TO RESPOND TO IT. They had the Bully Pulpit, the best add campaign in america, but did nothing with it. This was at the very beginning of his term.
Then he passes NAFTA IN face of massive opposition from the dem base and unanimous Repug support. He nixes the peaced divident from the end of the Cold War and does mouth to mouth on the Star Wars giveaway to billionaire defense contractors at a time when there was no big enemy and the Star Wars tests had a lower batting average than the Chicago Cubs.
He helped spread non-Union labor to the rest of the Country with weak labor laws. He lowered the income tax on top earners. He dereculated Wall Street enabling our current disaster. He spoke blindly of the virtues of free trade.
Bill Clinton was pure wolf in pajamas.
The whole Hillary Right wing conspiracy theme came only when they were under attack and was used to fool the center and liberals with the idea of false opposites. How can anyone fall for this anymore. The Clinton man Rahm Emanuel continues their tradition today by DELIBERATLY RECRUITING PRO WAR DEMS TO GO AGAINST ANTI WAR DEMS IN THE DEM PRIMARIES GOOGLE BOOK OF RAHM COUNTERPUNCH ON THAT.
Please read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, or people will remain thinking that the Presidents Chosen by Wolf Blitzer will change everything, and we-- as a species will devlove into quivering lime Jello, and not even cold quiverin
Parry's point is the power of the conservative politico/press/economic triumvirate. It couldn't exist if it weren't for the ignorance of most Americans concerning the very system that controls their lives. Nothing will change until this nation gets as serious about educating our youth as it is about mindless entertainment and the glorification of violence. Someone once said, "Fascism hates intelligence." Those simple three words are perhaps the most profound statement I have ever read when aligned with the need for improved public education. The tyrants don't want us to think - thinking is anathema to their ends. And, of course, their 'ends' have little if anything to do with the common good in a society and culture that is dominated by the evolving reality of malignant capitalism. The system itself does not have to be debilitating and destructive, only when it is allowed to be controlled by sociopaths and miscreants does it become destructive. that is our situation today. The "Right", as Parry points out, is free to voice any stupidity (noun form - sorry) they wish because they are bullies, and the electorate is too uninformed and apathetic to call their bluff. Ever wonder why the Repugs chose Joe the Plumber to be a national spokesman for them? He is actually quite reflective of the general strain of American thinkers. All emotion - no contemplative facilities to assess truth from fiction, reality from demagoguery.
"It will continue to behoove Obama to woo Republican help - no matter how tough the odds," wrote Washington Post columnist David Broder on Sunday. "Presidents who hope to achieve great things cannot for long rely on using their congressional majorities to muscle things through."
Bush proved otherwise.
Odoco is right on the money, as is Parry's piece. For a democracy to function optimally, you would want its voters to be healthy and well educated. That is not what the powers that be prioritize here. We as a society are dumbed down and stressed out. Hope will only get us so far, the real work lies ahead.
Joe in Gainesville
Robert Parry does a fine job of translating the big picture of how the mainstream US media has morphed away from even the pretense of journalism into becoming a right wing propaganda megaphone over the last thirty years. But I take issue with a few details in his otherwise sound analysis, primarily this:
"When George W. Bush wrested the White House away from Gore with the help of five Republican partisans on the Supreme Court, the [media] drumbeat of criticism of the US President suddenly ceased, replaced by a new consensus about the need for unity. The 9/11 attacks deepened that sentiment....."
True, the breaking news event of large, hostile street protests against Little George on his coronation day were effectively spiked down the old memory hole (until three years later Michael Moore provided a moment of historical clarity in the opening scenes of his movie Farenheit 911). And it is certainly also true that in the very early weeks of the transition, George W. enjoyed the traditional honeymoon period with the beltway press corps.
But I distinctly remember that, at least by the early summer of 2001, there was plenty of fair and balanced coverage depicting the Bushie neo-cons as out of touch Cold War reactionaries abroad, and culture clash provacateurs at home. Patrick Leahy and the Senate Democrats got Jim Jeffords to flip. By the end of August, George had retreated from Washington into relative seclusion in Crawford, openly derided and exposed as a bumbling lightweight, clearly in way over his head, all hat and no real cattle.
The 9/11 attacks did not "deepen" anybody's sentiments about the need for bipartisan unity. The collapse of the WTC and Bush's bullhorn moment amidst the rubble created that popularity juggernaut out of thin air. George W. Bush's political fortunes and the GOP's right wing policy agenda was instantly and magically resurrected. The Democrats rolled over instantly, begging to be allowed to sing in the choir. And the rest (as they say) is history.
Again, Michael Moore's footage of My Pet Goat preserves that moment in time for us, like a fly in amber.
Where the hell was the President of the United States while the Pentagon command headquarters was aflame? Who was really in charge, while Air Force One was zig-zagging around Dixie? My personal fears at that moment was that there was either a coup or a well coordinated, foreign-based sneak attack underway, and here the nation was, saddled with a feckless imbecile as Commander-in-Chief, in a moment of great peril.
Small wonder that the country heaved a reflexive, collective sigh of relief when Little George finally appeared briefly on national TV from the Oval Office that night, ashen and shaken and babbling an incoherent mixed message. At least his fly was zipped.
The mainstream media does indeed wield enormous institutional power within a two-party, image conscious political system. And Parry is correct that as presently constituted, the message tilts constantly away from the left towards the right. The fourth estate's arrogant boast that "We can make you, and we can break you" has a lot of truth behind it.
But it was not a vast right wing media conspiracy that propelled George W. Bush to the pinnacle of his popularity as President. Whether by fluke or false flag, it was external events, and the narrative spin placed upon 911, that enabled Little George to rise up and be born again.
Bill from Saginaw
And where is the AMERICAN MSM at this moment, when an American newspaper has reported this........?? ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT NANO PARTICLES OF THERMITE/THERMATE WERE PRESENT IN THE DUST AT GROUND ZERO...presented on a major TV network in Denmark.....
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705295677,00.html
You don't really believe the MSM would report anything like that, do you?
That would not fit into the narrative.
Pretty soon, they will not be able to ignore it any longer...too many citizens are catching on.....Resignation is a death throe. Never give up!
There is also an Infowars article by Paul Watson about a book release tomorrow, pertinent to the 9-11 controversy. The book is "The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9-11". The book is the work of John Farmer, senior counsel to the 9-11 Commission and covers information that the government at some level CONSPIRED to lie to the American people about what really happened on 9-11.
http://www.infowars.com/911-commission-counsel-government-agreed-to-lie-about-911/
Thanks for the link to the very good article at Deseret News (nano particles of thermite/thermate present at 9-11 ground zero). Keep up the work to get the information on this latest study before the public. There is also an article by Clare Swinney (Uncensored Magazine) at Infowars.com entitled "Danish Scientist on TV: Nano-Thermite Behind Collapse of WTC Buildings on 9/11, Not Planes". With the article is a video of the TV interview with Professor Neils Harrit of Copenhagen University. He is one of the nine scientists, including Dr. Steven Jones, collaborating on this latest study of explosives used in the WTC.
http://www.infowars.com/danish-scientist-on-tv-nano-thermite-behind-collapse-of-wtc-buildings-on-911-not-planes/
Thanks for the excellent posts. Yes facism loves ignorance,racism and economic stress positions.
You know the drill, so-called leftist media:
Yap all you want about your version of progressive crap so long as it doesn't hurt long-time financial interests of US boss class.
In particular, you are invited to yap a lot about distractive degenerate sex crap.
Now get back to work, slaves.
The Corporate Media has been, for a while now, a deadly enemy of democracy. Yet where are the protests? We are long, long overdue for mass protests, civil disobiedient actions, and targeted direct actions against their offices, studios and transmitters.
Let's face reality and the truth and go from there...the vast majority of Americans are indifferent, mesmerized, arrogant and cowards. Look what we allowed for the last eight years...lies, the stripping of our rights, illegal invasion of two sovereign nations, rendition, torture....and still we sit...and still we sit.
Not to mention fat, lazy, stupid and totally un-curious. The situation is now so out-of-hand, it's like the folks who hire me to "de-clutter" their homes (and lives.) At some point, the shit piled up so high, they just gave up and learned to live with it, no matter how angry and depressed it made them feel.
Notice over the last few days the Dems efforts to cork-up the far right loony-rants with lots of happy talk about how the economy is already "recovering?" (Que: "Do You Believe In Magic?")
Yes, but still, there are activist orgainzations in most major cities that regularly organize protests over quite a few things - the wars, palestine, lebanon healthcare, impeach Bush, etc. But no anti-corporte media protest as far as I know.
I know that one problem is that protests need media exposure. In the runup to the Iraq War, our local activism center was able to fairly good coverage from the local newspapers and a couple TV stations. Demonstrations at the media outlet themselves would surely leasd to concerted memory-holing on the part of the media - or maybe not. Surely civil disobiedient actions - blocking doors and preventing the journalists from getting to their desks, would be hard to ignore.
Not so.
The vast majority of Americans are over-worked, stressed-out, sleep deprived, in debt, struggling to educate their kids, terrified about their health, just trying to get by.
These issues that are discussed here are too esoteric and too academic to the lives of most Americans.
There has been a definite shift to the right in American politics and it's reflected in American media.
The American people are not stupid. They have awakened. The backlash will come.
In my town the police have tazed and sent dogs after elederly ladies.
Peaceful protests still get tazed, pepper sprayed and dog-attacked. The press then reports that the protstors wer violent. I've seen it over and over again. Remember that nowadays, any kind of passive disruption or economic activity is "violent".
The myth of an "impartial and neutral" press is mostly a 20th Century invention that hardly went beyond a cursory mention in Journalism 101 classes. If one merely peruses the newspapers of the Robber Baron era (which mainly served as the mouthpiece of the likes of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Frick, etc.), one will find a strong resemblance to what the corporate press is spewing today. The one encouraging difference is the availability of alternative sources of news on the Internet (though the caution, "Consider the source," applies). Also encouraging is the mass defection of audience away from "traditional" news sources, leaving them with a viewership demographic profile that is advertising poison: shrinking and graying.
The piece was quite right to point out that progressive news sources (which by fiat, are almost entirely internet based) need to be based out of where the relevant news emanates.
Excellent historical reminder and perspective, NateW. The Robber Baron era was also the age of great muckracking investigative reporting. The Fourth Estate bullshit about "impartial and neutral" journalism (inevitably based squarely in the middle of the partisan spectrum) was pretty much a post-World War II media phenomenon. For a good number of years, Walter Lippman was a legitimate power broker insider within the political establishment, simultaneously with his role as a pundit. Cronkite was perhaps the last daily news television journalist.
Like McLuan said, the medium is the message.
Bill from Saginaw
The muckrakers were able to do their thing because of one huge difference in the mass media of the 19th Century as opposed to today: diffused ownership (at one point, there were 30 newspapers in New York city alone). Thus the inevitable pressures of competition forced owners to go to the muckraking route (it also gave them the side benefit of harming their competitors). That is why concentration of ownership in media is so dangerous, as it inevitably stifles muckraking.
It should also be noted that muckraking appeared late in the Robber Baron era, after the abuses of the Trusts had become commonplace.
We already had that in the old days. At one time, in Pittsburgh, the socialists, anarchists, and every group in-between had their own newspaper.
I have even heard reports that one can faind a far more newspapers with a much wider range of opinion in Tehran than you can find in any US city thesedays.
Whenever I'm at Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc., I always take copies of Mother Jones, Z Magazine, In These Times, and any other "lefty" magazine and place them over Time, Newsweek, Weekly Standard, and any other "mainstream" or "righty" magazine. I once found Mother Jones at the local supermarket and placed a copy over every one of the gossip rags at the checkout line.
Many years ago, I used to leave little slips of paper in stores and mall saying, "commondreams.org"
Foxy News Headline IF THEY REPORTED THIS STORY: LIBERAL U.S. NEWS MEDIA FAILS AMERICA,AGAIN.
We need to kill the myth of the "Clinton Surplus". It always implies that Bush got a debt free country. Only Andrew Jackson, the seventh president, had a debt free country. Jackson didn't inherit it, he made it happen by selling public land to private parties. Clinton reduced spending in his final years, many programs went underfunded, and the country's disadvantaged were in worse shape than when he took office. The Federal Government still mandated programs but the burden for paying for them was shifted to the States. That in turn caused a ripple effect within the states who in turn passed it to counties and cities to fund programs that had once been paid for by Federal tax dollars. That in part explains why so many local governments are in dire straits financially.
Congress authorized a budget that Clinton chose not to fully implement, thus a surplus of money. The media fails to mention the distinction between no national debt and the so called surplus money.
Fascinating comment, Observor. I have been working in county government since 2001. Everyday, I see exactly the thing you are talking about. There is a constant panic about "budgets" even in good years. One important revenue source for counties is property taxes, thus high assessments are are valued, thus absurdly high real estate prices are supported, thus most buyers are excluded from the market, thus banks begin offering ARMs, no-interest loans and other transparently bogus credit "products", add low-interest rates and thus...the housing bubble and finally, TA-DA! The collapse of the world economic system.
In the midst of this, bailout recipient Goldman Sachs is reporting high earnings this quarter, while the rest of us watch our retirement evaporate.
Maybe the proper way to address our "leaders" is "Thank you sir. I'll have another..."
Glenn Beck, or at least what he represents (psychosis mixed with Lawrence Welkism, bar stool weeping and vigorous dreams of widespread homicide) needs to be watched closely for he is the future of the Republican party which now needs a name change to The Travis Bickle/Buford Pusser party. David Broder, the Wally Cox of Warshington journalism, the skinny ubergeek of well bred collaborators, may, any day now, embrace the Beckian world view: Kill 'Em All!
As an additional note on topic, not many of us gray haired types are buying the media junk any more either. Although we were drug kicking and screaming into the electronic age, we are here now and aren't going back. Many don't watch any cable news and most have given up on broadcast news outlets like NBC, CBS,ABC etc. Once creditability and truth has been compromised you tend to look some where else for the facts. In certainly isn't in the MSM.
The larger context is (if I may over-simplify) The Communications Industry has been de-regulated, market consolodation then followed, the mega-corporate interests that have increased their grip on the media and especially TV (where unfortunately most people get their "news") are put forth and other interests are largely omitted or spun. If civil society or the public sector cannot intervene, nothing can stop the "mainstream media" from telling outright lies and descending into demagoguery and diversionary hate filled messages to distract the massess from the class warfare that is being waged on them. In short, the United States is the most heavily propagandized nation in the developed world. Living abroad has only underlined that claim for me 100 fold. Now that I have returned to the USA, I told Comcast to shove it.
Remember how the "Liberal Media" never reminded us that Bush did not include his war spending in the budget but instead used "emergency appropriations" to hide the real cost to the people. Sort of the way we could not see the coffins brought back, so there must not have been many fatalities.
Obama has pledged not to use tricks to disguise his budget, but do not expect him to receive any credit for that, as the MSM will find plenty of examples of how he is not keeping his promise to the people. They know where their money comes from, and report the news accordingly. Sadly, Congress does the same thing as big money usually gets it`s way.
Too many people think a few lying loudmouths are giving us the real story of what is actually going on. Some are just not interested in checking out the news for themselves, so believe the loudest chatter. Also. many like to repeat wild tales about others because that is the level they are living in. Thankfully, enough people finally used their heads enough to elect Obama, now if they will stick with him for awhile and give him a chance.
leftist/11:56am - i want you on my team.
and mr. parry, you've pretty much summed it up.
we are indeed a sorry lot when the likes of glenn beck not only are granted the airwaves but are allowed to dominate in prime time. instead of something like i see stupid, the american sheople get to watch, on that idiot box, fat people trying to lose weight and dance shows with "stars" and, for the most part, total and complete and absolute nonsense. and, of course, glenn beck.
and instead of the rest of the planet showing how dumb america is, they seemingly have crawled on board the stupid wagon. just watch, if you can, shows in a foreign country and see how their slant is so influenced by our own media.
until we take away the media's star-studded personality syndrome and expose them for the cheap infected whores that they all are, nothing will change.
I have great respect for Robert Parry but it would be a refreshing change to have people like him acknowledge the rich critical analysis of the US media. The Mainstream Media (MSM) is not there to be the "4th Estate" defending democracy, as is intimated by Parry and many others.
Corporate media serves corporate interests, period.
The "Business Party" (term coined by C.Wright Mills 50 years ago) a.k.a. the Democrats and Republicans, serves the corporate class. The corporate state serves corporate power. The problem is that most Americans, including too many of those ostensibly on the left, are under the illusion that our Media serves the interest of democracy, by providing "objective", "balanced" information that we need to know to live in a "free society". Democracy, would be far better served if the American people recognized the Mainstream Media for what it truly is - corporate propaganda - and stop consuming it.
The following list of classic books on the American media was taken from Paul Street's article called the "Mind Managers", (an article about Herbert Schiller's book of the same name from 1973), see http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21084:
Ben Bagdikian's Media Monopoly (1983/1997); Michael Parenti, Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media (1986); Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988/2002); Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies (1989); Noam Chomsky, Letters From Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda (1990/2004); Noam Chomsky What Uncle Sam Really Wants (1992); Robert W. McChesney Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy (1997); Robert McChesney, Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times (2000); Robert McChesney and John Nichols, It's the Media Stupid (2000); Alex Carey, Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty (Urbana, IL: 1997); and Howard Friel and Richard Falk, The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports U.S. Foreign Policy (2004 ).
Excellent points, thanks for the reference list and link.
I seem to remember Amy Goodman and Glenn Greenwald addressing this to an extent in their interview a couple of weeks ago with Bill Moyers
Nice list. Of course Herman and Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" is a classic that should be read in every school.
The term "Manufacturing Consent" itself was from Edward Bernays - the father of modern PR and mass media back in the 1920's. He believed that an informed public was the biggest threat to elite control of society. He believed that the engineering of opinion in a mannner that keeps the public thinking that they are the ones still freely forming opinions, was necessary to mainitan "democracy" as he called it. The term he used for this was "necessary illusions".
There are a million ideas, but without intention and action, they go no where. When you or someone comes up with an idea on how to get our butts away from the computer and into the streets...let me know...I'll be right here. And please do not think for one minute that those who invented and implemented the internet did not realize what they were doing...psyops in every sense of the word. Every pressure cooker has an outlet...and that's exactly what this was planned to do...let off steam....
It may be that once a re-investigation of 9/11 is started and the truth of the "false flag" demolition is revealed, our fellow citizens will rise to the occasion....but, I'm not holding my breath. Plausible deniability...it's pandemic!
Once upon a time cigarettes were thought to improve your life, your attractiveness, reduce stress, etc etc. The MSM was instrumental in this. Because of grassroots, medical and legal activism, now we know or should know, that cigarettes are poison. The same is true of the MSM. It's poisoning your mind.
RE: Turn off the TV and then what?
Then a whole new world opens up to you. I belong to a neighborhood peace and justice group that, among other activities, put on educational fora in a local church on issues of war, peace and yes, corporate media. We have been doing this for 5+ years. It started with a small group of neighbors meeting in a living room.
We are indoctrinated from early on to buy into the corporate worldview. The feeling of helplessness is part of that indoctrination. We need to find ways to break free of that conditioning. Education is key. Above I describe one idea. "Then what" is really only limited to your imagination. Integrate your activism into something you already like to do. It can be a lot of fun too. I have made some of my best friends this way.
Before I got active, I was aware of what was going on and of course I would get very angry. All that negative energy and frustration was not healthy for me. When I started doing something, it provided a constructive outlet. I became a much nicer person to be around.
I am also an older student. You might seek out like minded people among your fellow students. At larger universities there will likely be student organizations sympathetic to your views that you could plug into. However, a neighborhood group might represent more people of your own age group. If you are clear with yourself and others, you can "design" your activism to fit whatever amount of free time you have. Good luck!
Education and awareness is a necessary first step; the next is collective action. We have a big dilemma: how can one moblilize collective action if the education and awareness are in short supply, given the misinformation monopoly of the MSM?. The larger public are unaware of what many here take as common knowledge. A classic vicious cycle.
If history is any guide, material conditions will have to deteriorate further for a critical mass of people; then perhaps the masses will take to the streets.