Results tagged “media” from Subversive Soapbox

Hi, my name is Bob, and I’m a gratefully-recovering CNN-addict.

Hi, Bob.

I really wanted to name this post: wtf is wrong with the US media, part III, but I thought it was getting stale.  I just really can’t think of anything else to say.

First of all, two of the top stories on cnn.com are about sick/dead celebrities’ children.  Yes, it’s sad that your son has just been diagnosed with some rare disease/has died .  Thousands of people die every day, but we don’t hear about them. Thousands die because of American and foreign corporations that are raping the earth, but we don’t hear about them.  Thousands of Iraqi civilians have died in the war, but we don’t hear about them.  I still do not understand why celebrities are considered news.  Perhaps the only time a celebrity should be in the news would be a headline reading: “Madonna Receives Nobel Prize for Physics Due to Discovery of Quantuum Worm Holes in Deep Space”.  You know, something significant.   

Second of all, I was reading this article that was waxing poetic about the possibilities of politics in 2009.  Part of it discussed the deflation of the Republican party, which is of importance since it is now the opposition party.  And then, then the article states: If the Republican Party is not effective, does the national media become the opposition voice?

The nation media has COMPLETELY CEASED to have the ability to become the opposition voice!  When the current administration was banging the war drums, the media rolled over and served as a megaphone for the Beltway.  During the entire primary and election season, the media parroted and sound-clipped the trail, but didn’t do any significant vetting or provide citizens with coverage of any third party candidates.  The media has ceased to be the ‘fourth estate’, and no longer can be used as a tool to keep other branches of government in check.  “Does the national media become the opposition voice?” Dream on, CNN.  If you think you are capable of becoming a true voice of opposition, I’m capable of growing a second head.  Seriously.  How can they even delude themselves?  The nation media is stuck in the entertainment business, when they should be in the journalism business.

And, me, like Bob, can’t stop going to these sites and watching/listening these shows. Does it make me a more educated soapboxer, or is it the worst thing I could possibly be doing?  

I was watching this interview of Utah Phillips, late folk singer/activist.  He was interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! If you get a chance, do check out that interview; Utah Phillips is fun to listen to.  Here’s what he said in response to a question about the media.

UTAH PHILLIPS: “Let’s see, you started out with what media has done to people. You know that better than I do. That’s why you do what you do. See, you’re doing an alternative media. And if we play our cards right and have enough time, then pretty soon it won’t be alternative media anymore. But then, we have a thorough understanding—don’t we, Amy—that they fight with money and we fight with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time. So we’ll just be patient, and you do your work, and I’ll do mine, and we’ll catch up and overtake them.

It’s a damn shame, though, that we have to be alternative. But then, we’re in a capitalist environment, we’re in a capitalist system that’s built on—that’s built on the least commendable features of the human psyche, greed and envy, rather than the best. We in community radio, in pirate radio, in alternative music distribution, we reach for the best in people, you know, we don’t—not lowest common denominators. And we are building a new world within the shell of the old.

I don’t feel pessimistic about that at all. There’s simply too many good people right here in this room, too many good people on the street, close to the street, doing too many good things for me to afford the luxury of being pessimistic. I’m going to—I’ll tell people that tonight, damn it. I’m glad it came up. If I look at the world from the top down, from FOX, God help me, or CNN or—there ought to be a CNN-Anon to wean people from that idiocy. If I look at it from the top down, I get seriously depressed. The world’s going to hell in a wheelbarrow. But if I walk out the door, turn all that off, and go with the people, whatever town I’m in, who are doing the real work down at the street level, like I say, there’s too many good people doing too many good things for me to let myself be pessimistic about that. I’m hopeful, can’t live without hope. Can you?”

So I logged onto CNN.com in the middle of the night, and switched over to the "international" addition.  Did you know that Japan is in a recession, too?  I'm always shocked (well not really) at the difference between US news and international news.  No wonder we're all so ignorant over here, when our news headlines are dominated by regurgitated garbage, and other nations get real news.  Even on CNN.com!  CNN is an American news network.  There is no reason that the headlines for the international scene shouldn't be the same thing that you see when you click on CNN.com!  Like they just know that they can spoon feed us garbage.

I had the great luck to be in downtown Chicago the night that Sen. Barack Obama was widely and fairly elected to the office of the President of the United States, which is probably the crappiest job anyone could accept at this moment in time. For that, I offer my congratulations and condolences.

There was an air of energy, especially as the news was good. People were smiling, waving flags, pallin' around with tourists (ha. ha.). Some people got messages on their cell phones (I must have gotten 20), while others excitedly asked complete strangers what the electoral college count was. All the cops were out, streets were blocked, and from where I was enjoying a cocktail on the 96^th floor of the John Hancock building above the twilight, Chicago was beautiful.

I, of course, didn't vote this election. To be honest, I was one of the undecided. I felt that both of the candidates had their good and bad points. I think that McCain is not as Bush-like as he was made out to be, but shot himself in the foot when he chose Palin for a running mate. I think that Obama is not as socialist as he was made out to be, but I had a few contentions with him as well.

I'm feeling increasingly discontent with a two-party system that pretends to be dichotomous but is actually centrist. Neither of the two major parties fits my ideals with any kind of accuracy, so I'm growing weary of these red/blue choices and conservative/liberal ideologies. But, thankfully, this two year election is finally over. I have to admit that I'm feeling a little empty. A little on the fringe of the excitement that radiated like a doppler from Grant Park last night.

I am still overwhelmed by how excited people were. People were crying. In my short history, I don't remember anyone crying for the election of a President in a good way. People were literally hopping up and down. People were screaming and they were hugging their friends and family.

A part of me was very skeptical of this reaction. Like the wallflower in the corner of a party that doesn't quite fit in with the scene. I think it's very wonderful that Obama is our first black and only minority president. I can't believe we've been stuck with middle-aged WASPs since Washington (excluding Kennedy, who I guess was a WASC). I hope that his nomination to the presidency will add to the dialogue and healing of racial barriers in this country. I think it's wonderful that George W. Bush will finally be going back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, to cut wheat or eat beef jerky or whatever he does. Who wouldn't jump for joy at the fact that a man who has supported and bred one failed policy after another, who really should have never been elected once, let alone twice, will finally be moving out of the White House. (Please, Mr. Bush, stay away from politics. And no lectures or books, either.)

Now, here comes my very large "however."

I am very concerned that this excitement places the entire American voting population (highest ever) in a very precarious position. Excitement like this creates high expectations, mandates, and hopes. And we, as a public, cannot expect one man and his administration to alone solve our problems. I do not want the energized electorate to become discouraged when change does not come quickly. The American voters tend to have short memories, and shorter patience. Please give President Obama a chance. He is cursed with what may be the worst handover in the history of this nation.

I am very concerned that our government will remain highly partisan, divisive, and bound by our false R/D dichotomy (for more on my feelings on this, please see my previous post, "where's my think tank?"). The downfall and party backlash of the Republicans, if you'll remember, happened when the Republicans held a majority in all branches of the government. This is exactly what our forefathers did not want to happen.

I am very concerned that the two-party system will continue to restrict the flow of ideas, policy, and social activism that is needed in modern times. Consider this quote from a recurring third-party candidate, Ralph Nader. "It would be a three-way race if I'd been in the debates," Nader said Tuesday in an interview. If the networks and newspapers had covered him, he said, his poll numbers would have gone up and the Commission on Presidential Debates would have had to include him. "We documented the two-party dictatorship, we've won ballot access and we've educated a lot of people about what politics should be about," he said. Nader was on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia (this material was borrowed from this article).

I'm not saying you have to vote for third-party candidates just because they are third party candidates. But please stop ignoring politicians that don't have an 'R' or 'D' behind their name. Hell, maybe Barack Obama doesn't really deserve the D behind his name, and did it out of a necessity to win.

Here's a dream I wrote about a month ago:

I met Barack Obama in my dream last night!  I really liked him, and we were at some charity fundraiser. Oddly, there weren't a lot of people there.  I really was conflicted on who to vote for, being that my views aren't represented by either major party.  I didn't get a chance to ask him my question, but I saw my political science teacher from high school and told him to ask Obama this: "If you get elected, what processes or policies will you change to ensure that third party candidates can legitimately and seriously run for political office?" 

I hope that Obama will help do that.  That's the change I'm looking for. 

I hate the way people throw around the phrase "Big Brother is Watching You" like it's the only thing to come out of George Orwell's 1984.  While certainly significant, it's a bit like relying on the Cliff's Notes version of what's important.  Although I might repeat the phase myself in front of the security camera in the elevator, I understand that Orwell intended to warn people through his dystopic novel that Big Brother does a little bit more than voyeurism.  I intend to write a multiple-part series on themes from the novel.

 

There are three slogans of the totalitarian party outlined  in the book.  

WAR IS PEACE.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I'll start with the last one.

Big Brother and his party did more than watch.  They controlled people.  Manipulated every aspect of their waking life, and monitored their dreaming ones. The very thought of revolt or dissent was a crime punishable by death.  Although we're not quite to that point in the United States, it is increasingly difficult for citizens to contemplate civil disobedience.

The appendix of 1984 is a document outlining the principles of Newspeak.  Essentially, the goal of Newspeak is to eliminate all 'unnecessary' words from the English language, redacting volume by volume until the dictionary is whittled down to a a volume with barely 100 pages.  The ability to categorize things as "bad" will be eliminated by replacing it with "ungood".  The people wouldn't even be able to talk about something in a pejorative manner (and by the way, the word 'pejorative' would be gone, too).  

To borrow an idea from psychology, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that the ability of our mind to think about things is dictated by our knowledge of the language we use to conceptualize our thinking.  All abstract ideas rest in our mind due to the ability to use language to define them.  So the ideas of justice, freedom, and liberty, are dependent on our ability to explain them through language.  They are intangibles that require a more in-depth vocabulary in order to understand, communicate, and advance our ideas. 

In Newspeak, these complex words are stripped from language, so the very idea of a revolution, or injustice, or oppression are struck from the collective dialoge.  People wouldn't be able to even think about being revolutionaries. 

Luckily for the powers that be, they don't have to spend hours of labor and generations of patience to force language out of style.  There are other methods of controlling people that render them equally incapable of thinking about a revolution.  

Filling people's days with slavery to a corporate state, to consumerism, and a meaningless media machine that does little more than act as a megaphone for the oppressors.  That is how they have stripped people's abilities to think about true democracy.  To revolt against the slavery.  To rise above the squalor of everyday drivel to engage in the things that truly count.

When they try to flood the world with truncated words and meaningless garbage, fill your mind with your own lexicon.  Don't let them dictate your thoughts.

LANGUAGE IS STRENGTH.

You know what bothers me?  You never hear about truly liberal political think tanks.  All you ever hear about are these big Republican think tanks that are creating language and foreign policy that allows the media and government to dupe everyone into war. 

Even the liberal think tanks aren't all that liberal.  That's the problem with the media.  They've got people thinking that CNN is "liberal" and that the Democratic party is "liberal".  NO! The media is not liberal.  It's extremely centrist.  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not liberal.  They are centrists. 

 
The two-party system is an illusion.  It's an illusion of polarity, and an illusion of choice.  In America, it's not left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative.  It's some moderately centrist folks against some less moderately centrist folks.  There is no choice, and only an illusion of opposition.

This is where I fall:

I want a leftist, libertarian think tank.

I want a political system that isn't a hotbed for people who claim to be "liberal" or "conservative" who are really just centrists all day long.  The American people deserve true choices.  True choices among a slew of political candidates.

Here's Ireland's political landscape. 

Wow.  Amazing.  More than two major parties.

I'm moving to Ireland and building my think tank there.

Images courtesy of politicalcompass.org.

For the powers that be, our ignorance is their bliss.  It is easier to hoodwink American citizens if they have no idea what is going on, and if they don't know how to engage in democracy.  I'm not sure who the "powers that be" are, but I'm pretty certain that we can say that it is a group of politicians, corporate interests, and the media.

 
Consider a statement that Hillary Clinton made earlier on the campaign trail.  She essentially said that citizens should hold her accountable to promises that she is making during her campaign.  If they don't see her doing what she has promised, that they are to hold her accountable.

[The crowd cheers.]

Wait a second.  Does anyone actually know how to hold a president accountable for promises made on the campaign trail?  Does anyone actually know how executive accountability works in this country? For that matter, does anyone actually know how the national budget is created? How a bill is passed? How legislation is vetoed? Overturned?

Not really.

The average American citizen doesn't know much about how the government was created, how it functions, and how to engage in the democratic process.  For most people, this ignorance is cultivated early on.  Consider this: in the county that I live in, high school students only need 1/2 of a credit in American Government.  When I was in high school, I was only required to take one nine-week course in American government. (I was fourteen, and my only memory of that class was writing an essay on "The Missing Piece" by Shel Silverstein.) By my own volition, I took advanced classes in American History, Political Science, and American Government. I'm so glad that I did.

The only way to ensure a democracy as intended by the founding fathers is to make sure that people understand the procedures of the government.  When left to the discretion of the individual voter, most citizens will not learn the rights and responsibilities guaranteed by their citizenship.  The less we engage in our democracy, the less control we will have over the processes that dictate our lives.  We must start educating our children, and ourselves.  Knowledge is power, and we must not grow up in institutionalized ignorance.  To combat the brainwashing media, the lying politicians, and the powerful corporations, we must give ourselves and future generations the tools necessary to truly hold the government accountable.    

"People should not fear their government.  The government should fear its people." - V for Vendetta

I really can't stop listening to Fox News Radio.  Yes, it leaves me feeling a little ill, but I think it's important to figure out how the 'right' is doing such a fabulous job of brainwashing citizens.

People who listen to talk radio are, on average, more politically involved than most citizens.  They like to be informed, and are rather knowledgeable of current events.  Unfortunately, they don't actually report on current events on Fox News.  They typically take a single talking point and repeat it over...and over...and over...and over.  For the past three months, they have been talking about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I'm done listening to that.  Apparently they have been talking about this for a while.

I really recommend watching the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. In the documentary, they show how a memo is sent out each day to everyone in the Fox world as a topic for the day.  Then, the "journalists" and "reporters" repeat this idea over...and over...and over...and over.  This is not reporting.  This is repetition. What is worse, other media stations, papers, and broadcasts will eventually pick up this "talking point" and do the same thing, to a lesser extent.  A prime example of this was the Jeremiah Wright story.  Eventually, other networks picked this up and it became mainstream news.  In theory, this isn't completely bad.  I believe that it's important that anyone aspiring president should be vetted for the company that he/she keeps.  In the end, we were left with a nice speech on racism in America, and some people have reopened dialogue on this topic. 

Other media networks do this sometimes, too.  They will latch on to a topic until they finally convince people through repetition, rather than persuasion. However, other news outlets don't have the type of clout that the Fox spin machine does.  Here is the list of assets owned by News Corporation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation. The sun never sets on the Fox empire.

This is not journalism.  This is a noise machine.  This is not holding politicians accountable.  This is finding something negative about a candidate or a candidate's affiliations and spinning until you're blue in the face.  If our current president's pastor had made any inflammatory remarks like the Rev. Wright did, Fox would not be repeating it months on end.  If this election cycle wasn't already infused with racial tensions, Fox would not be capitalizing on these events. This is not journalism.

Dissonance. The clash of two opposing sounds, which generally results in auditory cacophony. When this idea is applied to matters of the mind, it is loosely defined as two diametrically opposing ideas being processed by the brain, which generally results in cognitive discomfort.  For the sanity of the thinker, one of these ideas is summarily dismissed. It is a result of the mind's inability to process two pieces of information that are in direct opposition to one another.

In a simple example, we have been taught from an early age that two plus two equals four.  If you are told instead that two plus two actually equals five, your brain will reject it.  The brain does not allow for this contradiction [George Orwell demonstrates changing this learned fact through the use of torture, but we'll save that topic for another day].

We have been taught from an early age that the American government is honest, reasonable, and just.  From the pledge of allegiance every morning before our math lesson, to the middle school history lessons in which we learned we are granted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have been taught that the government is for and by the people. 

Cognitive dissonance says we will reject those thoughts that create a clash of ideas in the brain. Despite isolated articles or news stories about a corrupt government, many Americans do not independently inform their perception of the Republic. Most accounts that are in opposition to our ideas of our democracy are swept aside.  The mind is a powerful thing, and our brains will even go so far as to build imaginary bridges that explain the factual disconnect. 

I was speaking with a friend about the events of September 11.  As shereadschomsky alludes to previous blog post, the investigation itself was gossamer thin (see The Commission: The Uncensored History of The 9/11 Investigation by Philip Shenon).  Evidence is withheld to this day, and much of the facts reported by the Commission have been proven false. 

I was telling my friend about some of the inconsistencies of the events of that day.  As an example, most plane crashes of airliners leave a significant amount of debris, none of which was present in the crash in Shanksville, PA (the crash site of United Flight 93).  This evidence (or lack thereof) would indicate an alternative explanation than that provided by the government.  The physical evidence lends itself to the alternative explanation of the shooting down of the plane.  But the account of the renegade passengers and their subsequent takeover of the controls was what the media presented as fact: no real criminal investigation was carried out to arrive at these conclusions.  Available data was presented to support these claims.

I'm not arguing for the veracity of these accounts, but offer them as an example of the power of cognitive dissonance.  My friend said that she distinctly remembers seeing a plane in the picture of the PA crash site.  She has a doctorate, so she has been trained to systematically extrapolate meaning from the available data.  She thanked me for enlightening her.  Right or wrong, she realized that she had never thought to question whether or not a plane was visible at the crash site.  Her mind had always pictured a plane clearly in the field.* 

Nearly every single entity of the mainstream media has become a government megaphone, rather than a questioning body that was created to ensure a formidable democracy.  The cognitive dissonance that results when we hear anything different from "official accounts" can be overwhelming, because you have been conditioned think the media cheerleaders are actually journalists and, thus, investigators for the truth.  It's not "we report, you decide," but "we report, you believe."  In order to uncover the truth about our democracy, we must stop dismissing alternative news. We must keep our minds open to more than one message.

*Please let me know if you find a picture of a plane at the crash site.  I would like to see it myself.