Wednesday, September 9, 2020

When Journalism Becomes Corrupt Boosterism

Forget about Joe Biden's promise to restore The Soul of America - whatever the heck that even is. How about restoring the heart, soul and purpose of journalism, a/k/a The Fourth Estate?

Granted, "afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted" was always more or less the aspirational motto of American journalism.  As Edward Bernays noted nearly a century ago in his seminal Propaganda, at least one quarter of all the front page articles in the New York Times were unabashed corporate or government propaganda. Still, the line between the news pages and opinion pages was almost always taken seriously, If you wanted to sneak a point of view into a straight news story, then you had to go about it stealthily, through the discreet use of innuendo, or the occasional omission of a salient fact.


Not so in the Age of Trump, when reporters double as #Resistance Fighters in the interests of careerist justice. And with only eight weeks to go in this sad, scary and ridiculously close presidential contest between a carnival barker of a mob boss and a mediocre career politician teetering on the edge of dementia, the line between reporting and punditry has been erased right off the journalistic ethics map.


It is no longer enough to dispassionately expose Trump's serial crime spree. It is incumbent upon the increasingly consolidated corporate media to also become the unabashed boosters of the #resistant Democratic Party, which itself might be better described as a coalition of corporate and military/security state interests whose sole agenda is the return to the same neoliberal status quo which produced Trump in the first place.


Fox News, which for decades had been the de facto propaganda arm of the Republican Party, now finds itself in the uncomfortable position of criticizing its erstwhile biggest fan, Donald Trump, himself now reduced to manically re-tweeting various right-wing websites and dark web conspiracy groups.


The turn of the "liberal" media to outright party boosterism took off like a shot last week with the obviously orchestrated Atlantic scoop that Trump had been overheard, a couple of years ago, disrespecting the military by calling dead soldiers "losers" and "suckers". The only shocking thing about this belated reportage is the amount of time it took for four anonymous sources to become shocked and appalled enough to spill the beans to The Atlantic, or alternatively, for the magazine itself to become shocked and appalled enough to finally publish them. It's as though they were hoarding the Big Reveal, that Trump is a clear and present danger to national security, for the sole purpose of winning an election. 


The owner of The Atlantic just happens to be billionaire Democratic mega-donor Laurene Powell Jobs, whose Emerson Collective think tank is headed by former Obama Education Secretary and school privateer Arne Duncan. Her editor and the author of the Trump story is neoconservative pundit Jeffrey Goldberg, who proved his own boosterism bona fides years ago by cheerleading George W.Bush's invasion of Iraq. If you point out these facts, or if you notice that within hours of the article's publication, the Democratic Party was already running slick TV ads expressing shock and outrage about Trump's remarks, or that Joe Biden already had a major speech written on the subject, complete with the inevitable comparison between Trump's spurious bone spurs and the noble military service of the late Beau Biden, then you are in danger of being exposed either as a Russian operative or loony conspiracy theorist.


 You are not, however, in any danger of being exposed as a closet Republican. That is because the Democratic Party has embraced with open arms such "moderate" Republicans as unindicted former Michigan governor and Flint water-poisoner Rick Snyder while relegating Bernie Sanders supporters ("purists") to the dust with a whole chorus line of high-kicking designer jackboots.


You are hereby on strict notice. With only eight weeks to go in The Race, ask not what Joe Biden can do for you. Ask instead what you can do for the Biden-Soul of Your Country.


That's a tall order for sure, especially if you've lost your job and your health insurance and you might be kicked out of your rented digs once all those eviction moratoriums conveniently expire right after the election.


So why not forget about your own fear and trepidation as you are being pressured to declare publicly that yes, you will hold your nose and vote for Joe Biden. Wallow instead in the high-minded fear and trepidation that your financial and intellectual superiors are also wallowing in. They are, deep within their credentialed souls of America, veddy veddy afraid. They're just like you!


"Our Democracy Is Deeply Imperiled," is the top news story in Wednesday's Guardian, and it is tailor-made to get you gripping your nose in a frenzy of highly motivated fear, relying as it does on the "ominous forebodings" of five "leading figures in the non-partisan (my bold) world of democracy reform and civil rights."


Notwithstanding that with the exception of the head of the NAACP, which does not endorse candidates, The Guardian's "non-partisan" sources all have close or even direct  ties to the Democratic Party. Vanita Gupta, CEO of the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights, is a former Obama administration official. Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice is a former Bill Clinton speechwriter. K. Sabeel Rahman, currently CEO of the Demos think tank, hails from the oligarch-funded New America Foundation, which is led by former Clinton State Department official Anne- Marie Slaughter.


And then there's Deirdre Schifeling, the founder and director of "Democracy For All 2021."


"A few years ago," credulously writes Guardian chief US correspondent Ed Pilkington, "she came to the realization that there was a growing disconnect between the will of the American people and their political representation in federal and state governments."


Would it be indelicate or even treasonous of me to surmise that Schifeling arrived at her Eureka moment as miraculously late as The Atlantic came to its own shocked realization that Trump doesn't care about dead soldiers - because her paycheck depends upon her not realizing that this reality existed even when Joe Biden was vice president?


Democracy For All is a project of the dark money SuperPAC called the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which also paid the PR firm of Anita Dunn, Biden's deputy campaign director, the whopping sum of $3,2 million for its own "consulting work" in 2018.


This is chump change next to the $140 million furnished by Sixteen Thirty's anonymous donors to other "left-leaning" organizations and political campaigns in that mid-term election year, which ushered in a hyped-up "Blue Wave" of centrist Dems, many of whom hail from the military and the CIA.


As Politico reported about Sixteen Thirty last November:

The spending was fueled by massive anonymous donations, including one gift totaling $51.7 million. That single donation was more than the group had ever raised before in an entire year before President Donald Trump was elected. Most of the group's funders are likely to remain a mystery because federal law does not require "social welfare"-focused nonprofits to reveal their donors.
The group's 2018 fundraising surpassed any amount ever raised by a left-leaning political nonprofit, according to experts, who pointed to the Koch network and the Crossroads network as rare right-leaning groups that posted bigger yearly fundraising totals at the height of their powers.
This is the kind of operation that The Guardian's Ed Pilkington actually casts as being in "the world of democracy reform and civil rights." It kind of makes you think that their definition of democracy reform is simply getting rid of it, and that civil rights are plutocratic rights, and plutocratic rights are civil rights.

Not for nothing, moreover, are the Democrats moaning about "fake news" and Russian interference in said democracy. As the Center for Responsive Politics reported recently, Sixteen Thirty also funds numerous party-aligned news sites which dishonestly pose as local independent journalism outlets.


Democracy For All 2021, which depends entirely upon dark oligarchic money for its very existence, nonetheless brags on its website, without a hint of irony, that it wants to "ensure transparency for all political spending."


It's no surprise that Democracy For All's idea of an anti-Trump health care platform is restricted to reproductive rights. Forget about polls showing that the majority of Americans support Medicare For All. Because 70 percent of Americans also support the be-all and end-all of Roe v Wade! 


If you demand both, then you're apparently asking for way too much. You have to pragmatically pick the battles that are so carefully selected for you by the credentialed Knowledge Class.

Pilkington explains:
Yet Schifeling found herself spending more and more of her time defending Planned Parenthood against the aggressive attacks of a small minority of extremist anti-abortion politicians. Despite the settled nature of the law, and the clear progressive bent of public opinion, women were finding it increasingly difficult in practice to secure their reproductive rights.
 She reached a reluctant and unhappy conclusion: “Our government is not able to represent the will of the people.”
Since then, Schifeling and her peers have been looking at the causes of this dysfunction and searching for solutions.
Schifeling has not yet come to the reluctant realization that affording guaranteed single payer health care to all citizens in the middle of a pandemic is among the obvious solutions for this dysfunction. We wouldn't want Democracy For All (Wealthy Socially Liberal People) to explode, or for their lifestyles to fundamentally change, would we?

It's their constant searching that really counts, right along the complicity of the churnalists operating right out there in the open as oligarchy-boosters. 


They don't call it the Media-Political Complex for nothing.


11 comments:


  1. The Class War was decided thousands of years ago, before either side had access to the toolkit of theory and vocabulary to describe what was going on. Currently, the sides are about 80% underclass and 20% overlords (composed of the superrich and their hired bosses and technicians) –– not 99% vs 1% as starkly cute as those numbers look on the page. With few exceptions, journalists of our day have thrown their lot in with the overlords as one more collaborator group among the many guilds serving the superrich.

    A few talented militants, who might easily earn a good living on the other side, opt to stay among the underclass. Eloquent protests by teachers, economists and writers have filled the air, but rarely does much change on the ground. Revolutions and uprisings, opposed to the ancient victory of the rich, turn out to be nasty, brutish and short. Any golden day that might accidentally emerge from such a revolution is enjoyed by a handful of generations, no more. For the 80% time slides back into the historical constant of lords and serfs. Authentic reformers, whether theorists or activists, live lives of frustration and end up on a cross, literally or figuratively.

    Our lucky generation’s golden day began to sunset decades ago. The Old Order is upon us. We seem to be having difficulty accepting a return to the way of the world.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Maybe the U.S. would function better if it broke up into regional nation-states. Already some states have been working together in the face of the incompetent federal response to the pandemic. Maybe it would be easier to have functioning democracy on a smaller scale like that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Pilger wrote this in his essay on Julian Assange.

    I thought of you, Karen, and others I read - when I read it. It is a tribute to journalists who aren't for sale and who will speak truth to power through the blogosphere.

    "Freedom of the press now rests with the honourable few: the exceptions, the dissidents on the internet who belong to no club, who are neither rich nor laden with Pulitzers, but produce fine, disobedient, moral journalism - those like Julian Assange."

    ReplyDelete
  4. If Corporate journalism was a contradiction of terms, what is Hedge fund journalism?
    Whatever, I know it is not journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Useful Idiots: Donald Trump and the Bob Woodward Bombshell
    Plus, filmmaker Juan Passarelli on the Julian Assange trial —
    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-bob-woodward-useful-idiots-taibbi-1058434/
    Sept. 11. 2020 ~ by Reed Dunlea & Daniel Halperin

    In this week’s quarantine episode of our Useful Idiots podcast, hosts Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper are joined by Juan Passarelli, a documentary filmmaker who recently released The War on Journalism: The Case of Julian Assange.

    “This is a case of a publisher who acquired very important material that showed war crimes, showed torture, showed widespread corruption on the biggest levels of government, and that created a repercussion,” says Passarelli, who breaks down the issues around Assange’s indictment.

    Passarelli also discusses the condition of Assange after being detained in the U.K., and the United Nations’ claim that Assange was arbitrarily detained. “They are torturing him to make an example out of him,” says Passarelli, who also pontificates on why Trump has been aggressive in pursuing Assange’s extradition. “This is not a new position for Trump. I think he is also extremely opportunistic, and decided to play along with leaks that were favorable to him at the time.”

    x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

    175 Years in a U.S. Prison? Extradition Trial of WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Begins in London —
    https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/9/julian_assange_extradition_hearing_jennifer_robinson
    Sept. 9, 2020
    As the long-awaited extradition hearing for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gets underway in London, his legal adviser, Jennifer Robinson, says the case could set a chilling precedent for press freedoms around the world. “He faces 175 years in prison for doing his job as a journalist and a publisher. That’s why this case is so dangerous,” says Robinson. Assange faces numerous charges, including under the U.S. Espionage Act, related to the release of diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks that revealed war crimes committed by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He faces a possible life sentence if he is extradited to the U.S.

    x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

    The Stalinist Trial of Julian Assange —
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/09/07/the-stalinist-trial-of-julian-assange/
    Sept. 7, 2020 ~ by John Pilger

    x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

    ReplyDelete

  6. For an English journalist’s detailed report on day 8 about key legal issues and a sampling of back-and-forth exchanges between prosecution and defense attorneys questioning expert witnesses who testified in defense of Assange, see this site:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-8/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do you actually think passing medicare for all would be the easiest way to ensure access to abortion? You really can't envision abortion being used in the fight against medicare for all? Wow. That woman is right. We are ruled by a tyranny of the minority. The senate is a big part of this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What has happened?
    To this:
    https://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/2020/09/lies-damned-lies-and-paul-krugmans.html

    I started to reply with this:
    Oh Karen, I marvel at your deft and deserved skewering of the insufferably smug Krugman.

    Then an interruption had me put that into my draft file to finish later.

    But now, to that site, this appears:
    "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."

    I sure hope all is well.
    Please let us know.



    ReplyDelete
  9. Erik et al,

    Google has saddled all Blogger users with a horrible new interface which is specifically designed for mobile devices and not for clunky old desktops like mine. So when I wrote a test post and went to delete I accidentally erased the Krugman one because the page unexpectedly jumped. Sorry about that!

    Everything is fine otherwise, besides the tech issues. If future posts look strange it's because of the system which of course is what they all say! Hope to get back to what passes for normal sooner rather than later.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Karen:

    Considering that Blogger is a subsidiary of Google (with a tendency to preserve info), are you sure your Krugman post is actually gone forever, not sitting in some delete or trash folder from which it can be recovered?
    Alternatively, perhaps contact the NSA, they should be able to provide you with a copy!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joker,

    Once it's gone it's gone apparently.

    I can probably rework it from memory at some later date, but frankly, is Krugman even worth the effort? His ability to piss me off has for the most part evaporated. He is not worth the mental or emotional energy. Shooting him in a barrel is a lot like him shooting his diseased GOP fish in a barrel.

    A Krugman column generator would be similar to those David Brooks and Tom Friedman column generator parody sites. All a standard Krugman column needs is the insertion of "Republicans" and "vile" and :"um, actually," and "oh, and" at frequent intervals and before you know it, you have your 800 biweekly words.

    That is pretty much why I have largely abandoned writing Krugman critiques, they all started sounding the same after awhile, like a Krugman critique generator, using the same tired phrase "shooting diseased GOP fish in a barrel" with frequent bursts of "partisan hack," "neoliberal shill," and of course, "snob."

    ReplyDelete