CommonPrejudice

From the hypocritical ...

to the sublime.

Yesterday:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that Cuba shouldn't be allowed to rejoin the Organization of American States until it makes political reforms, releases political prisoners and respects human rights.

This is not meant to simply point out the obvious hypocrisy. This is meant to absolutely mock the ridiculousness of the United States lecturing a country on human rights violations.

... Other prisoners include a farmer who had put mines on his land to kill his neighbour, with who he had a long-standing family dispute, and an Afghan who had bombs in his house to fish in the river. They were people like Dilawar, a taxi driver detained in 2002 who had nothing to do with the Taleban and who died after four days of beatings from US soldiers.

Yeah, Hillary. Other countries will surely take your comments to heart. Right after following the Somalian model of constitutional government.

I believe the U.S. will the last to realize it, but the vast majority of the world doesn't give a damn what they think about human rights violations. Certainly not as long as the previous head of state and admitted war criminal walks free.

So, to those in the U.S. government and media worried about human rights violations abroad I suggest you focus on cleaning up your own house and shut the hell up.

Private vs Public Media

Continuing with the general theme of public versus private media I want to address the issue today from a somewhat different perspective. While many Americans critiquing media in the United States take as a starting point that solutions to dwindling resources and the fragmentation of audiences must be arrived at within the confines of a private media paradigm, in Venezuela the prevailing powers are moving towards a state-owned media. And many in Venezuela and elsewhere aren't too happy about it.

... Es un error apreciar la actual ofensiva del Estado rojillo en contra de la libertad de prensa sólo en los términos de un conflicto entre su jefatura y los dueños de los medios de comunicación. La cosa va mucho más allá, porque de lo que se trata es de restringir al máximo posible el derecho que tienen los venezolanos a expresar libremente sus pensamientos, ideas y opiniones.

[Is is a mistake to think of the current offensive of the "red" government against freedom of the press only in terms of the conflict between its head and the owners of the mdeia. It goes much beyond that, as what it is about is limiting to maximum possible the right of the venezuelans to express freely their thoughts, ideas and opinions. [my translation]]

In order to avoid the hugely partisan situation in Venezuela I want to keep this post as theoretical as possible. Of course it's possible that the media in any country, after being taken out of private hands, becomes nothing more than a tool for the government to advance its ideological objectives. Obviously. But look what is clearly implied here.

If Venezuelans are being limited in their "free expression of their thoughts, ideas and opinions" is the writer not arguing that this situation previously existed?  Now I don't want to go into the details of individual private media operations in Venezuela or elsewhere but it is a truism that private media represent private interests and more often than not, private interests solely interested in profit and/or power.

Why would anyone assume that those interests can be pursued while at the same allowing anyone to freely express their thoughts, ideas and opinions? If theres a  TV station that receives huge sums of advertising dollars from a giant multinational - oh let's just say.... Monsanto .... yet the reporters from that station discover that, say, Monsanto is using drugs in cows, that, say, drastically increase the toxicity of the cow's milk and pose a serious health hazard to humans, whose side is that station going to come down on, Monsanto's or the reporters (i.e. the public)? Whose side do you think?

Now a note on being "free to express your opinion. This does not mean that you will be thrown in jail in you say something the government doesn't like. Of course that happens in places but the United States, a very privatized society abundant with highly idealistic platitudes concerning their so-called democracy and the right to speak freely, it is about what you can say that will be taken as "serious" political discussion. And whether you'll be invited back to say it again. (Or as in the Monsanto case the real story will simply never see the air)

This is where great limitations on what you are "free" to say occur. As Chomsky pointed out many years ago - and Greenwald continues to expound on - there are a great many things you can not say if you expect to be taken seriously by the powers that dominate the mainstream media in the U.S.

Of course the most obvious and appalling example was the run-up to the Iraq war. The only mainstream media figure that questioned the prevailing orthodoxy that Saddam had to be removed or the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud - Phil Donahue at MSNBC - was quickly silenced. Two years after the war started around 60% of the American people still thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11. How can one not consider such travesties when addressing issues of private and public media?

In the end there were a great deal of private interests involved in lying to the American people in the lead up to the war, so many it still isn't clear which particular one was predominant. But the point is these private interests had no concern that the citizenry would be misinformed. They wanted what they wanted and would do whatever it took to get it. Is that any more a democratic way to organize media in society than direct government propaganda?

 The opinion writer continues:

En otras palabras, el problema central no es que fulano o mengana sean propietarios de tal o cual medio de comunicación. Eso es secundario. Lo primario es que esos medios no sigan siendo un vehículo para que los venezolanos se enteren de las noticias que contrastan abiertamente la realidad cotidiana con la prédica triunfalista de Miraflores.

[In other words, the main problems isn't that "Smith" or "Jones" is the owner of this or that media group. That is secondary. First is that the media don't continue being a vehicle so that Venezuelans hear about the news that clearly contradicts their daily reality with the triumphant preaching from the Government house.]

Of course it matters - and it absolutely is not secondary - who owns or controls the media in a society. Propaganda can be private or conducted by state. I don't believe that statement is particularly controversial. But for those Venezuelans who believe that concerning themselves with who owns and the runs the media is only secondary, there are a million dead innocent Iraqis that if they could, would dispute that. (Not to mention that in a highly capitalistic society it isn't the "Smiths" or "Jones" who own the media, it is the most powerful sectors of that society who do)

No one who truly desires the kind of independent, skeptical and competent media that democracy needs in order to call itself such can favor the propaganda of a government nor a dominant private interest. The specific point I'm making here, however, is that those who feel that in their country government propaganda has put in risk the "free expression" of the citizens of their country are simply deluded if they believe the Murdochs and Ciusneros of the world do any better.

Next up I want to talk about some generally democratic ways of organizing media in a society.

Public Funding of Media

Once again the entire staff of Commonprejudice has relocated. In this new environment I'm sure we'll have lots to say.

In time I would like to begin a series of posts on democracy eventually leading to a film project. Today let's start with a basic observation.

With many newspapers struggling and/or failing wise commentators fret over the loss of resources only big media can providem resource which are essential to break stories that small independent bloggers or news groups could never do.

At Balloon Juice DougJ highlights the problems of the Baltimore Sun -  huge layoffs of staff and its investigative team of reporters being reduced from four to one among them. He correctly notes how many people don't realize the importance of preserving the type of investigative journalism that smaller organizations could never afford to undertake. And he is led to conclude:

... And I’d feel more confident about the papers not all disappearing if their advocates could come up with better better business models than this one. [Note: the "one" Doug refers to is astoundingly silly proposal by two lawyers which Kos capably deals with]

Now I'm not about to rail against the very concept of private media but one thing about this comment strikes me as particularly American; the instinctive search for better "business models" when discussing  issues that clearly relate to a public good, and in this case an issue fundamental to functioning of democracy itself.

If we are confined to coming up with better business models in an attempt to ensure the type of journalism that democracy needs is carried out then we have already lost the battle. Something as basic to a democracy as maintaining the public reasonably informed can not be left to the whims of the market and precariousness of an operation that can only survive if it is profitable. Without accurate information democracy has no chance. And as media become more fragmented and infotainment dominates mainstream television if American society hopes to retain some semblance of its democratic tradition public funding of media will have to be considered. Eventually there will be no other choice.

The role of media in a 21st century democracy is an issue I will continue to explore.