The significance of the interview lies as much in what it says about the American occupation of Iraq as it what it illustrates about the American media. In the American media's discussions of Iraq, when are the perspectives expressed here about our ongoing occupation -- views extremely common among Iraqis of all types and grounded in clear, indisputable facts -- ever heard by the average American news consumer? The answer is: "virtually never."
I wish I could scream this from the rooftops, but posting in this blog is the closest thing I can do right now. The reason our country has taken so long to realize the disaster of this war is because the media is only airing one side of the debate. The reason I hear some of my coworkers talk about defending ourselves from the terrorists as justification for the war, and saying so confidently, is because the media is only airing one side of the debate. The reason that we were able to be lied to in order to go in, that no Presidential candidates will discuss impeachment, that Pelosi took it off the table, that we can't seem to remember the simple tenets of the Fourth Amendment on FISA and Real ID, and that we accept NSA monitoring and a Surveillance State and no-knock warrants is because the media is only airing one side of the debate.
Political dissent was the point of the Fourth Amendment. That is really what the dangers of warrantless wiretapping are. But I would argue that as previous suppressive regimes have proven, it is much easier to suppress the will to dissent and get away with it, and the easiest way to do that is by controlling what the public hears and reads. In China, they are not subtle about this - they censor what can be seen and political dissent is punished. We, in America, rightfully would rail against such obvious tactics. However, when the media presents one side of an issue with minor differences, but presents it as a real debate about the issue, we can be satisfied that we have heard all sides before figuring out our answer. Our dissent-welcoming American minds are kept fat and happy when fed this junk food debate, the cake being fed to us by the Marie Antoinettes behind the corporate-controlled media because they cannot afford the political ramifications of giving us the bread.
It is ideological Newspeak. If we have the "right" and "left" set for us, then no position outside that narrow gap can even be thought. And you know what? It works. A presidential candidate like Dennis Kucinich, whose distinctly non-radical views (gay marriage, impeachment, single-payer health care, etc.) more closely fit with the progressives than any other candidate, is dismissed by both the right and left and a fringe candidate. Conservatives didn't bother attacking him, just dismissing him as the "loony left" with a wave of their hands, comfortable in the knowledge that Democrats and the press would do it for them. And we did. Not that, given this environment, it was wrong - I supported Obama back in July because I thought his leadership and coalition-building would actually do more good for the progressive agenda overall, but I agreed in principle more closely with Kucinich. I just thought he'd never be able to accomplish what he said anyway, because it was outside the incredibly narrow allowed range of views in this country's public discourse.
The problems of the media are not restricted to only airing one side of the debate. But rather, through lack of independence, and a desire for power that has completely reversed the traditional adversarial roles and killed investigative journalism, they shape the election to benefit a candidate that will be good to them. In his March 10th post, Greenwald writes that Tucker Carlson accidentally revealed the role of the American media:
A journalist should never do anything that "hurts" the powerful, otherwise the powerful won't give access to the press any longer. Presumably, the press should only do things that please the powerful so that the powerful keep talking to the press, so that the press in turn can keep pleasing the powerful, in an endless, symbiotic, mutually beneficial cycle.
Between that sick media desire for power, and a desire for ratings, we have all our election coverage. The reason that most people seem to think that primary election is close is because the media is telling them that. The reason that most people now believe the general election should be close is that the media is telling them that. No one in the MSM questions the expertise John McCain has "in the bank", even though they know they give McCain a free ride.
This is not new. We all know we have significant problems with voting security - electronic voting and Diebold, for example (another debate that is lacking in the MSM). Bush was handed the Presidency in 2000, and there is certainly evidence to suggest that the 2004 election was stolen in Ohio. There were whisperings about a stolen election in Ohio immediately after the election. The thing is, none of that matters if the media moves the vote to get their candidate! Kerry conceded very early, and the reason he did so was pretty clear - Bush had won the popular vote! Much as they are doing with this election, the media shaped the last two by repeating the good things about the Republican's image (cowboy, guy you could have a beer with), and smears about Gore (boring, "invented the internet" - something he never said) and Kerry (flip-flopper, Swift Boat lies - which I still hear repeated by some people to this day). The media shaped that election and gave us four more years of Bush. They certainly gave Bush the popular vote in 2004, and in so doing, lost us the ability to challenge the outcome.
A couple days ago, I saw this piece by Howell Raines, (via Andrew Sullivan) on the potential future of the New York Times. Soon after, I started really worrying about our society's access to uncorrupted information. Raines says:
As a reader, I believe a Murdoch takeover of our last independent national newspaper would be a disaster for the trustworthy reporting on which our civic life depends.
The destruction of the New York Times' credibility has two problems associated with it. For one, as Raines discusses, it is the most widely circulated paper in the country, and the last news source with a national subscriber base and no corporate control. It is independent, and it has a very trustworthy reputation. To lose that would be a dagger in the heart of the journalism institution. We would have no hold left in the fight against propaganda, and the job of disseminating the truth would all rest on the thousands of tiny shoulders of the blogosphere. The second, related problem is perhaps more devastating. Hundreds of thousands of people across the country will not realize. Oh, they'll read about the sale of the New York Times, and I'm sure CNN would report it, but what are the chances the Times or CNN also talks about the lasting effect on the credibility that its sale to a hedge fund or say, Time Warner, or even Murdoch himself has?
As Greenwald's evidence that I referenced in the beginning of this post makes clear, this would really be only the last straw in a media that is already so corrupt that it still cannot afford us a true debate on something that has already killed 4,000 Americans and at the very least 89,000 Iraqis (a study in 2006 said over 655,000). We already have a media hijacked for propaganda. So what can we do about it? What will prevent us from thinking we were always at war with Eastasia? Well, blogs, Google, and YouTube. Citizen journalism. We already have the tools to find out what's really happening. As this election is making clear, the MSM is trailing behind the blogs in getting information, but eventually they do. YouTube has very much changed what we're willing to swallow wholesale.
The real difficulty in disseminating truth lies in the reality that most people out there do not read blogs. Television news and print journalism are not going to go away for a long time, if ever. A great many people like their news fed to them passively, so I don't think the blogging community will overtake the MSM completely any time soon. Also, there are a great many blogs with no editors - some will be heard, some say truly inane things, and some will just be lost in the shuffle. Only our readers' willingness to fact-check gives us credibility. If the MSM were somehow just replaced by blogs everyone would go deaf with the noise. We need some sort of hybrid of the two.
Here's an idea: The government could establish a national Ombudsman department, under either the FCC or DOJ, with subpoena power. Hopefully they could be independent, just as we hope in the future the DOJ will also be. The department's first task would obviously be checking on the government's behind the scenes connections to the media and finding ways to sever them. More generally, they'd be checking that national media outlets were living up to some journalistic standard, and would perhaps air a 30 or 60 second report on each news program with their most current accuracy rating and breakdowns of how their news reporting time is spent. Maybe the report could include a "breakthrough score" to indicate how well the station does on investigative journalism - to bring that back into style.
With enough media outlets to choose from, this could actually be a sort of free-market, competition-based media solution. The news stations would stop telling us what we want to see, and instead, we choose to watch the stations that we want to watch, complete with ratings and reminders about how accurate and relevant they are. The stations will be forced to tailor their content to compete. Right now, there is not enough competition in the media to make this work, and people are forced to watch or read something. But that's where the blogs come in. Television and internet are converging, and soon the playing field between the MSM and the blogs may be leveled. To help that goal, along with the creation of the national Ombudsman, if it is possible to lower the barrier to entry further to allow blogs to catch up to the MSM in production capability, that will foster the competition needed to hold the news accountable. Maybe, for example, the government could create low-interest loans to start a new national news station, and limit what the distributors could charge for a good news station (remember, there are ratings now). I'm sure this is not the perfect solution, but maybe between the Ombudsman and competition, or some other method, we can fix the MSM, and make sure that we are not lied into an unnecessary war again.
No comments:
Post a Comment