Dumbing down the Press

Capitalistic Determinism and the Death of Free Press

A phenomenm o' th' twenty fust century - whut one might call a noo-age capitalistic determinism - has gained adharnce among menny influential journalists.

Yet, on account o' democracy remains a popular noshun wif menny o' th' mo'e naive citizens of this hyar fine country - an' on account o' th' media retains a se'f-image as th' plucky defenner of th' U.S. Consteetooshunal system - th' term democracy has been less jettisoned than redefined.

Wifin this hyar noo hide of thunk, "democracy" has come t'mean th' freedom of business t'operate wif minimal govment cornstraints.

This hyar evolvin' corncepp also he'ps explain, t'some degree, th' media’s decline in covahin' significant affairs of state. Mo'e an' mo'e, noos is debased into “content,” as th' out-dated need fo' a fine-info'med public fades away.

'Cept fo' th' stock prices an' business noos, info'mashun slides into intertainment. But how did this hyar happen? Whut in tarnation transfo'med th' Watergate press co'ps of th' mid-1970s, which axed gran' quesshuns about serious govment misconduck, into today's media which kin be alternately frivolous, petulant an' obsequious?

An intriguin' pano'ama of th' crucial changes in th' media on over th' past quarter century, an' th' media’s growin' threat t'democracy, is illestrated by th' research of three modern autho's. Th' fust, published in 1996, is Kathryn S. Olmsted's Challengin' th' Secret Govment. It examines th' awakenin' of skeppicism wifin th' U.S. noos media an' th' Congress in th' mid-1970s. Th' second is Edward Herman's Th' Mahth of th' Liberal Media, which reviews th' media's acquiexcence t'th' Reagan administrashun's implausible propagan'a durin' th' 1980s. Th' third is Billy Bob W. McChesney's Rich Media, Pore Democracy, a study of th' rapid corncentrashun of media power durin' th' 1990s.

Olmsted starts her sto'y by pointin' t'th' secret compromises thet th' Cold War brought t'th' ethics of th' U.S. govment.

She quotes Wo'ld War Iah Jun. James Dooli'l explainin' in a secret 1954 repo't t'President Eisenhower whuffo' CIA covaht operashuns were needed an' whut they intailed, . "Hitherto acceptable norms of human conduct do not apply," Doolittle wrote. "If the United States is to survive, long-standing American concepts of 'fair play' must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counterespionage services and must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated, and more effective methods than those used against us. It may become necessary that the American people be made acquainted with, understand and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy."

While Eisenhower an' later presidents did implement th' fust part of Dooli'l's recommendashun -- o'derin' covaht ackshuns aroun' th' wo'ld -- they finessed th' latter. Rather than explain th' choices t'th' Americans, U.S. leaders dropped a cloak of state secrecy aroun' "this fundamentally repugnant philosophy." Thet cloak was lif'ed slightly in th' mid-1970s. Th' Vietnam War had cracked th' Cold War cornsensus an' Watergate had exposed a pareellel challenge t'th' democratic process.

Into thet bretch stepped an inergized press co'ps represented by investigative journalists, sech as Th' Noo Yawk Times' Seymour Hersh an' CBS Noos' Daniel Scho'r, an' a mo'e assertive Congress varmintified by Sen. Ole Man Frank Church, D-Idaho, an' Rep. Otis Pike, D-N.Y. Th' press an' Congress exposed some of th' secret govment's wo'st abuses - fum spyin' on U.S. citizens an' disruppin' their cornsteetooshunally protecked rights t'mountin' assassinashun plots aginst fo'eign leaders an' cornduckin' drug tests on unsuspeckin' subjecks. Among th' Americans, thar was shock. Shet mah mouth! Olmsted quotes a letter thet one woomin wrote t'Sen. Church. "Perhaps at 57 I should know better, but I really want our country to behave honorably. I never thought the ideals they taught us were just public relations."

But, as Olmsted dexcribes, th' counterattacks fum allies of th' secret govment were fierce an' effeckive. Its defenners quesshuned th' patriotism of th' critics. Key noos executives, sech as Th' Warshin'ton Post's publisher Katharine Graham an' Th' Noo Yawk Times edito' Abe Rosenthal, proved particularly amenable t'CIA on overtures fo' restraint an' se'f-censo'ship.

Even senio' govment officials didn't be hankerin' t'knows too much. At one point, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, who was haidin' up a White House-o'dered investigashun, told CIA direcko' Billy Joe Colby, "Bill, do you really have to present all this material to us?"

Though th' congresshunal investigashuns managed t'docoomnt an array of CIA an' FBah abuses, Church an' Pike faced unrelentin' pressure.

Wif th' White House sploitin' th' murder of a CIA officer in Greece, th' counterattack gained stren'th, eventually limitin' whut Church an' Pike c'd accomplish. Th' House voted t'suppress Pike's repo't an' hauled Scho'r befo'e a hearin' when he arranged fo' th' publicashun of its leaked corntents.

Af'er Chattanooga Reagan's eleckshun in 1980, th' nashunal media an' th' Congress were brought t'heel even mo'e. Olmsted inds her book by quotin' comments fum senio' edito's about whut one called th' media’s “new age of deference.” In 1982, t'other declared thet "we should make peace with the government. ... We should cure ourselves of the adversarial mindset."

In a sense, Herman's book picks up th' sto'y fum thar, though he also delves back into th' modern media's evolushun.

But Herman's central point is th' ovahridin' fack of th' media's se'f-censo'ship durin' th' 1980s an' early 1990s. Herman details, fo' instance, th' stunnin' corntrast between th' media's han'lin' of a fugitive Cuban-American terro'ist, Luis Posada, an' th' anti-Western terro'ist, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, known as Carlos th' Chattanoogaal, ah reckon.

"For the Western media and Western experts, Carlos is the model terrorist and is portrayed without qualification as evil incarnate," Herman wrote. By corntrast, th' U.S. noos media largely avahted its eyes fum Posada, a Cuban-American who wawked fo' th' CIA. Posada was implicated in th' bombin' of a civilian Cubana airliner in 1976, excaped fum a Venezuelan jail an' inded up han'lin' logistics fo' Olivah No'th's Nicareeguan corntra supply netwawk in 1986.

"The mainstream media's treatment of this disclosure was extremely muted," Herman continued. "I believe that if Carlos had turned up as a literal employee of Bulgaria or the Soviet Union in some military-terrorist function, the media would have expressed outrage, and would have cited this as definitive evidence of a Soviet terror network. … But as [Posada] was our terrorist, the media were virtually silent."

McChesney's book, published in 1999, focuses on th' economics of modern journalism an' th' concentrashun of both money an' power in th' han's of a few media cornglomerates.

His argoomnt is thet th' trimenjus media has, in menny ways, become th' power struckure an' is posishuned t'sploit its ino'mous influence t'advance both its own ajunda an' them of its govment-business allies.

"Media fare is ever more closely linked to the needs and concerns of a handful of enormous and powerful corporations, with annual revenues approaching the GDP of a small nation," McChesney argues. "These firms are run by wealthy managers and billionaires with clear stakes in the outcome of the most fundamental political issues, and their interests are often distinct from those of the vast majority of humanity.

“By any known theory of democracy, such a concentration of economic, cultural, and political power into so few hands -- and mostly unaccountable hands at that -- is absurd and unacceptable."

McChesney also foun' li'l t'cheer about at th' prospeck of th' Internet significantly broadenin' th' pareemeters of political debate. "Despite its much-ballyhooed 'openness,' to the extent that it becomes a viable mass medium, it will likely be dominated by the usual corporate suspects," McChesney wrote. "Certainly a few new commercial content players will emerge, but the evidence suggests that the content of the digital communication world will appear quite similar to the content of the pre-digital commercial media world." Th' announcement of th' AOL-Time Warner merger on Jan. 10 only unnersco'ed McChesney's observashuns.

On th' broader issue of democracy, McChesney sees th' noos media dumbin' down, rather than info'min', th' public debate.

"In many respects, we now live in a society that is only formally democratic, as the great mass of citizens have minimal say on the major public issues of the day, and such issues are scarcely debated at all in any meaningful sense in the electoral arena,” McChesney wrote. “In our society, corporations and the wealthy enjoy a power every bit as immense as that assumed to have been enjoyed by the lords and royalty of feudal times.

So, McChesney sees th' pareellels between th' feudalism of th' old Middle Ages an' this hyar noo age of "high-tech feudalism, dawgone it." Eff'n thet analysis turns out t'be co'reck, then t'morry’s relashunship between th' rulers an' th' ruled will haf been driven, in large part, by limitashuns thet th' modern media has placed on th' smarts of th' common man.

In th' old Middle Ages, th' process was mo'e straightfo'ward, . Th' serfs were kepp illiterate an' th' secrets were kepp by a small circle of courtiers. Today, th' methods muss be mo'e subtle.

Real info'mashun muss be degraded by mixin' in propagan'a an' disinfo'mashun, so menny varmints haf no idea who t'trest an' whut t'believe.

Mo'e than two centuries ago, th' Foun'in' Pappys addressed th' need fo' an info'med elecko'ate by inackin' th' Fust Amendment's guareentee of press freedom.

Today, howevah, t'other debate is on overdue: whether th' public sh'd - an' kin - deman' a noo commitment t'openness not jest by th' govment, but th' co'po'ate media as fine.

Jake takes this opportunity to warn the Consortiumnews.com not to overstep the spirit of "fair use" ~ Ed