|
The Paradise Perspective: Commentary from a Free and Compassionate Alternate Reality Volume 2, Number 5 The Unmasking of the Corporate Media by Glen Allport Exclusive to STR January
28, 2008 -
1 - This
is the year the corrupt corporate media loses what little credibility it
still has. Not
that the Old Media deserved much trust or respect in the past; it has
always been, with rare exceptions, a way for rich white men (and a few
other rich people) to mold public opinion in whatever manner they desired,
which typically meant "whatever manner would make them the most
money." For example, newspapers (and then radio and then television)
have historically been cheerleaders
for war (link is to video of Rupert Murdoch saying that his media
outlets have "basically supported the Bush policy" on the war; 1
min 33 sec), and as the highly-decorated General Smedley Butler told us, War
is a Racket – the most profitable government make-work program ever.
Stephen Kinzer's excellent Overthrow:
America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq includes many
examples of news organizations clamoring for invasion and war, often using
the most repugnant jingoism
and racism in the process. Because
the money at stake from war and other ventures is far greater than the
money to be made from increased news readership or viewership – even
assuming honest and reasonably fair reporting would create
such an increase – market forces that usually push for quality products
are simply overpowered by the oceans of money to be made from getting the
public on board with the war train, or to get the public to accept other
government action that improves the corporate bottom line at the expense
of the common man. Corporate ownership
of all forms of major media – including ownership by persons and
groups that also have interests in other areas, such as weapons
manufacturing – has a long history and, unhappily, the
problem is getting worse, not better. An
example (and a disclosure): I own stock in General Electric, which in turn
owns
NBC. GE also has interests in large-scale security
systems and related products for government,
military, and the private sector, including narcotics
detection gear, video
surveillance, and various products for government
and corporate-owned prisons; oil
and gas (from oil sands to LNG production); health
care; business
and consumer
finance – and many other things; GE is a huge
conglomerate. Is
there any chance that NBC feels pressured to support government policies
that make it easier for not only broadcast
media but for all of GE's
interests to make money? Nah.
Probably not. But
the flagrant (if only partial) blackout
of news about Ron Paul from this corporation, right from the start of
Paul's campaign, makes one wonder. And how often do you see NBC pushing to
end the failed and vicious War on Drugs (or even just portraying drug
war victims AS the victims they are), or to bring the troops home from
our 700+ bases
overseas, or to end our violent occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan,
or to reduce taxes or eliminate the Federal
Reserve (both of which supply the government with wealth taken from
the public by force, and without which most of our wars and our Empire
itself would be impossible) or to do anything
that might cause a loss of revenue for General Electric? Frankly, until
Ron Paul began his run for president in early 2007, I rarely heard such
ideas on any of the major
networks. Of course, I may have missed such pro-liberty commentary and
"bias" when it was aired. That
isn't to say there is never any pro-freedom material on television; among
the rare exceptions to the pro-coercion norm is John Stossel of ABC, who
has been a mostly-libertarian voice for years. Here is Stossel's
interview with Dr. Ron Paul, which – tellingly and shamefully – ABC
decided not to air. At least they're letting us read the interview on
the web. In
light of GE's financial interests, it was particularly gallant of NBC's Tonight
Show host Jay Leno to interview
Dr. Ron Paul (video, 6 min 3 sec; excellent) the night after the
infamous FOX debate earlier this month from which Paul was excluded (FOX
is not owned by GE). Leno made it clear he was incensed at the blatant
lack of fairness shown to Dr. Paul by FOX. Paul
was invited to the recent MSNBC
debate, but, as usual, got the fewest
questions and the least airtime of all the candidates. Still, when he
was allowed to speak, Paul made the other candidates look like the
economically-illiterate, war-mongering, big-government stooges they are; here's
a link to Paul's responses (10 min 25 sec). No wonder Paul is persona non grata to the power elite. Exposure
on The Tonight Show, in
nationally-televised debates, and in other major venues has given Dr. Paul
a chance to bring libertarian ideas to millions who have not heard them
before. Millions saw Leno's interview with Dr. Paul (Leno's average
viewership lately has been 7.2
million – plus those watching the interview on the web, week after
week). In comparison, the readership at pro-liberty websites is so small
as to be invisible – and I'd guess that this small group mostly consists
of people who are ALREADY libertarian. If you want to see large numbers of newbies
waking up to the importance of freedom, consider supporting
Dr. Paul. As an abolitionist regarding forcible government, I don't
agree with Paul's every position – but then I'd probably say the same
thing about you and your
positions. At this point, we are so far from freedom that bemoaning Paul's
support for the Constitution is both silly and counterproductive; unless
we begin educating people about the benefits
of freedom and the dangers of
government coercion – exactly what Paul's campaign is doing – we
have zero chance to create a
free society, be it minarchist or voluntaryist. -
2 - Some
believe it would be better to let the system collapse rather than move it
back in the direction of small-government semi-freedom. To them I say: Are
you insane? Have you looked into Russia
lately? The Soviet collapse may not have given the country much freedom
– Putin is, after all, an ex-KGB man – but at least Me
neither. Anyone
expecting a systemic collapse to bring freedom or prosperity expects the
unlikely – which makes our situation all the more ominous, because a
collapse at some level is
clearly beginning in Either
way, there is at least one
bright spot in such a breakdown: People will learn of yet another way the
corporate media has misled them. -
3 - Ironically,
the huge audience commanded by the corporate media – an audience that is
steadily diminishing but
still quite large – is a factor in the rapid decay of that same media's
influence and credibility. Millions are noticing the bias, the dirty
tricks (against Edwards and Kucinich as well as Dr. Paul), the bizarre
promotion of pro-war, pro-coercion, anti-freedom candidates like Rudy and
Hillary and Obama and McCain. Since the start of the presidential race
last year, Rudy "freedom
is about authority" Guiliani has been treated as the front
runner; Americans have now seen Rudy
lose to Ron Paul four times out of five, often by sizable margins. Yet
Paul is still treated as an oddball, a kook, a long-shot that no
intelligent person believes has anything to offer. (Yeah, why would people
actually want their freedom back? Why would they want a sound foundation
for economic prosperity instead of the central
banking / fiat currency disaster we have now, and which has failed every time it has been tried throughout history? Why would Americans
want an end to constant war and the trillion-dollar tax drain to pay for
foreign bases and intervention? Why would anyone want to stop putting
terminal cancer patients in prison for using pot? Really: What sort of
idiot would want freedom, compassion, and prosperity?) By
now, six
of the original GOP field have dropped out, leaving five, and of those
five Paul is in many ways the strongest. Yet the anti-freedom candidates
are the only ones we are
supposed to believe have any chance to win – and the constant insults,
slights, and omissions in the media in regards to Dr. Paul are clearly
designed to reinforce that propaganda. The
propaganda is working, to some extent – propaganda always has some
effect – but I sense a race in progress between the corporate media's
desire to keep the idea of freedom
from getting loose in the world again, versus the spreading awareness
among the public that the corporate media absolutely cannot
be trusted. Clearly, the internet is on the side of the angels here, but
will the net remain free enough, long enough, to make a difference? As I said in my New Year's Eve column: "2008 will be a year to remember." The Paradise Perspective will return on February 11. Glen Allport is the author of The Paradise Paradigm: On Creating A World of Compassion, Freedom, and Prosperity and maintains paradise-paradigm.net. This is one in a series of columns on the human condition.
|
