CommonPrejudice

Mindless...

Wow, is Dana Milbank ever an arrogant, foolish little prick.

(hopefully soon i'll be resuming my semi-regular posting.Involved in another project at the moment)

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.

George Will Channels His Inner Les Nessman

I'm sure someone else has made the connection but George Will's column today (via Political Animal) is too funny. It's the old dungarees versus the suits with Daniel Akst and Will reprising the roles of Herb Tarlek and Les Nessman.

Akst and Will:

...Writer Daniel Akst has noticed and has had a constructive conniption. He should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He has earned it by identifying an obnoxious misuse of freedom. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he has denounced denim, summoning Americans to soul-searching and repentance about the plague of that ubiquitous fabric, which is symptomatic of deep disorders in the national psyche....

... "Ours would be much more so if supposed grown-ups would heed St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and St. Barack's inaugural sermon to the Americans, by putting away childish things, starting with denim."

Herb and Les

Herb: The whole world is in revolution. And not just here. But not just here. Everywhere. Any you know is at war? It's the dungarees versus the suits, Les. The whole world is in two armed camps. Over here we have the dungarees and over here  the suits. Remember the riots in the 60's? The dungarees versus the suits. And Watergate. Those guys arrested were wearing dungarees and who suffered for it?
Les: The suits!
Herb: Exactly.
Les: There were issues Herb.
Herb: The issues.. The issues, Les, were a smokescreen.When a son disobeys his father, what's he wearing?
Les: The son? ... Dungarees!
Herb: And what's the father got on?
Les: Probably a suit.
Herb: Do you see what I mean Les?
Les: Yeah!
Herb: And what's worse?
Les: What?
Herb: The fathers are beginning to wear dungarees too!
Les: That's right.
Herb: And so are the mothers.
Les: It's just like the Bodysnatchers.

Tom Selleck is an Idiot

Just heard Tom Selleck on CNN note how "Obama didn't get a mandate from the left-wing of the Democratic Party," implying that this is how Obama is running his government.

Really. So which of Obama's policies have come from the Feingold wing? Universal healthcare? Pulling out of Iraq immediately? Not going into Afghanistan? Trials for war criminals? The end of telecom immunity? Bank nationalization? Higher taxes for the most wealthy (there were no new taxes, Obama just let Bush's preposterous tax cuts expire). Raising the minimum wage? Change to the bankruptcy law? Change to the welfare?

Obama is a centrist....even worse, an American centrist, which in Canada would put him squarely in the middle of the Conservative Party.

Of course, with Blitzer giving the interview there was absolutely zero chance that Selleck's statement would be challenged.

The whole notion is a ridiculous republican talking point that can only exist because the mainstream media have only the most passing familiarity with what their role is in a democracy as well as the fact that, politically speaking, the United States is a very conservative country.

(btw Unlike some of those on the right, I don't deny Selleck - because he's famous - the right to opine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Problem is you just can't make shit up)

Public policy and mainstream journalism

I'd like to second what Atrios said yesterday and express my amazement when major journalists claim they have little influence on public policy. It really is equivalent to arguing that mainstream media has no influence on public opinion. It's nonsensical.

Actor Ben Affleck said the following last week regarding Newsweek, their cover story awhile back on Treasure Secretary "King" Henry Paulson and the effect of that on public opinion and, consequently, the financial bailout legislation:

“Newsweek, I feel like, is basically culpable for the first [$350 billion],” Affleck said. “They did like this hagiography on Paulson. Did you read that?"

He continued: “They did that and they made it very difficult—it was one of many factors that made it difficult for people to say, [inaud] hold on a second, what is the difference between now and a week from now? Why can’t we examine this more closely? Can we talk about this? Why is it that we can’t have more transparency in this piece of legislation?”

“It’s the same kind of fear and demagoging that was used to authorize the Iraq War, was resurrected to authorize a piece of legislation which then squandered a lot of our tax dollars—tax dollars, in fact, that we don’t have,”

Of course naming Newsweek alone as culpable for the first part of the bailout package is a little over the top. Nevertheless his point is a very good one. In fact, it would really take a fool to question whether magazines like Newsweek play a profound role in the nature and content of public debate. Not ironically Newsweek also plays the role of this fool.

First neophyte journalist Kurt Soller tries to get smarmy by coming up with ten other problems - such as global warming and the Hudson river plane crash - that Newsweek is also responsible for. What's embarrassing is that, by missing the point of Affleck's critique by so much, the "joke" is not funny after naming just one problem yet he continues on for nine more. Then he precedes to say in a follow-up post

...Journalism criticism is one thing, but accusing us of actually influencing the economic bailout package? That's ludicrous thinking ...

The cliche is that they don't make the news, they just report the news. But that has little to do with reality. Quite obviously people base their opinions and their politics on what they see and hear in newspapers, magazines, and television (ie. the mainstream media). And until the last few years when the internet and blogging began to change that, TV stations like CNN, newspapers like the New York TImes and magazines like Newsweek were the prime sources for the vast majority (along with the extremely conservative talk radio shows). Daniel Gross, the author of the original "King" Henry cover story said this:

...Besides, “would that a Newsweek cover story mattered so much that it could sway policy and move markets,” says Gross. “

To parse the media side of the equation down to one story from one magazine versus "policy" and "markets" again demonstrates how clueless these journalists are in terms of their understanding of both the influence their magazine and others of their stature have on public opinion and public policy and the role it must have in any functioning democracy. With fawning articles like Gross's "the right man at the right time" 'King' Paulson article and CNN Moneyline/Fortune magazine's Paulson to the Rescue piece Paulson had much more free reign to implement whatever he wanted. And the consequences are clear. Noone knows who exactly has that 350$ billion that Paulson gave out and what they are doing with it. Maybe if the media had done fewer adoring 'cover pieces' on personalities and had spent more time questioning administration and mainstream rationale for giving out such huge sums of money without clear accountability or transparency there'd wouldn't be this problem.

That said, given the high self regard many mainstream journalists hold themselves, especially among the millionaire pundit crew, I sometimes wonder whether this contention that they are not significantly influential on public opinion as more than a bit disingenuous and self-serving.

You see, if they acknowledged that their endless focus on triviality and silly scandals, their failure to question leadership and investigate very serious crimes, and their pursuit of fame and money at the expense of principle was actually  a prime factor in allowing a criminal regime like the Bush administration to operate virtually unchecked, then maybe the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq would start to get to their consciences.

Kristol out at NYTimes

Bill Kristol, as most will know by now, is out at the NYTimes. A more incompetent hack one would be hard pressed to find. In his last column he states.

Over the next three decades, it was modern conservatism, led at the crucial moment by Ronald Reagan, that assumed the task of defending liberty with strength and confidence.

For old times' sake , and just so we never forget.

....The contras' brutality earned them a wide notoriety. They regularly destroyed health centers, schools, agricultural cooperatives, and community centers-symbols of the Sandinistas' social programs in rural areas. People caught in these assaults were often tortured and killed in the most gruesome ways. One example, reported by The Guardian of London, suffices. In the words of a survivor of a raid in Jinotega province, which borders on Honduras:

"Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."

Americas Watch, the human-rights organization, concluded that "the contras systematically engage in violent abuses ... so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war."

-----------

I'm a contra, too  -Ronald Reagan

See ya, Bill.

Serious Journalism

Serious journalism rule number 27: Now .... now... it's perfectly fine to point to what a bad president Bush has been, but you always must "balance" that with a shot at the crazy leftist bloggers who went too far. Here's Cathy Young, at RealClearPolitics to show us how it's done.

....Bush can be legitimately accused of these and other sins. But he has also been battered with charges of which he can be acquitted now, without waiting for history's judgment....

First: For all the cries of jackbooted fascism, Bush never tried to gut American democracy. Yes, some curbs on the rights of terror suspects posed the risk of an innocent person facing a harrowing ordeal - which is bad enough. But there is not a shred of evidence that security-related measures expanding government powers have been used to suppress or punish dissent. (A couple of years ago, left-wing blogs leaped at claims that a Princeton law professor ended up on a no-fly list because of his public criticisms of the Bush administration - but the story was quickly debunked.)...

From the left wing blog CNN (August 21,  2007)

The Pentagon's counterintelligence office is shutting down a database that contained information gathered within the United States, including intelligence about Iraq war protesters...

From the left wing blog NBC

Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?
Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ‘suspicious’ domestic groups

... WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period....

And there was that thing in Minnesota a few months back. Glenn Greenwald:

...So here we have a massive assault led by Federal Government law enforcement agencies on left-wing dissidents and protesters who have committed no acts of violence or illegality whatsoever, preceded by months-long espionage efforts to track what they do. And as extraordinary as that conduct is, more extraordinary is the fact that they have received virtually no attention from the national media and little outcry from anyone. And it's not difficult to see why. As the recent "overhaul" of the 30-year-old FISA law illustrated -- preceded by the endless expansion of surveillance state powers, justified first by the War on Drugs and then the War on Terror -- we've essentially decided that we want our Government to spy on us without limits. There is literally no police power that the state can exercise that will cause much protest from the political and media class and, therefore, from the citizenry....

And so it goes.

Always Highly Enjoyable

Nothing like a Matt Taibbi column on Thomas Friedman to start off the week.

This is Friedman’s life: He flies around the world, eats pricey lunches with other rich people and draws conclusions about the future of humanity by looking out his hotel window and counting the Applebee’s signs...

... So, yes, Friedman is suddenly an environmentalist of sorts.

What the fuck else is he going to be? All the other ideas he spent the last ten years humping have been blown to hell. Color me unimpressed that he scrounged one more thing to sell out of the smoldering, discredited wreck that should be his career; that he had the good sense to quickly reinvent himself before angry Gods remembered to dash his brains out with a lightning bolt. But better late than never, I suppose. Or as Friedman might say, “Better two cell phones than a fish in your zipper.”

Win?

Is there a more ridiculous perspective than those who argue that the U.S. must "win" in Iraq? This has been going on for years and I'd just like to know what they could possibly "win" and how will they know when they "won" it.

Of course those who argue this are usually known for such pearls of wisdom as: (h/t K. Silverstein)

...the critics had “limited experience in the Middle East” and that this led them to “reach the naive conclusion that an invasion of Iraq will cause America to be loathed in the Middle East, rather than respected.”

I'll never stop being mystified as to how these people retain any credibility whatsoever.