Am I the only one who doesn’t care about the imminent interment of Michael Jackson? I’ve been wondering this all week, followed closely by the observation that, in this brave, new century the News Media is utterly clueless about what people care about. They are anachronistic constructs of a by-gone era doomed to follow the Edsel. I will not miss them.
Micheal and Farrah aren’t the only ones that died this week. So, too, did the Old Media. Not a tear is shed.
Today’s New York Times has what may be the most important article you will read this year:
Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
It’s a Long piece; 11 internet-sized pages. Do yourself and your loved ones a favor by reading the whole thing. Understand the heights of cynicism and depths of arrogance of our Military/Industrial Complex. Understand how this machinery is in control of our government, our media, and our lives. Finally, understand that we need to do something about this.
Read it and weep.
UPDATE:
My hero Glenn Greenwald bends the pointing finger of the NY Times inward to point out media duplicity in which even the Times themselves partook. Atta boy!
ABC News reports today that a Pentagon report that found no direct link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida is being suppressed. Plans to announce the report via press release are canceled. It wont be emailed to the media, nor is it a available online. the Pentagon will gladly mail the report on a CD to an “interested parties” requesting the information.
Speaking of suppression, the media has spent 3 days airing a certain governors soiled laundry instead of reporting a much more important event: the resignation of Admiral William J. Fallon, the military commander of US Middle East operations who hinted that he would resign if the government continued to push for war with Iran. Others have noted the media’s disinterest the good Admirals retirement. Or perhaps the Blaring Spitzer Story (no link, you already know…) is a smokescreen?
I’m not into conspiracy theories, most assume an incredible amount of coordination and secrecy. Most coincidences like this are a product of disparate forces working independently in close proximity. That said, I get worried at the pervasiveness of the pattern, wherein a monumental occurrence is foreshadowed in the Media by stories of - shall we say - Total Bimbosity.
Now Admiral Fallon steps down to little fanfare, and he will be just as quietly replaced by a more acquiescent soldier. Just as the General who opposed the surge quit to be replaced by General David Petraus. Even the ABC News story will be swept under a rock by tomorrow. We don’t need further proof of our National Gullibility.
But none of that is NEWS. It doesn’t have any sex in it. Or murder, or violence… or Missing Blonde Women…or Psychotic Celebrities… or…
Move Along. There’s nothing to see here.
My Buddha nature is in remission today. I’m bitter and despondent regarding my blog, the news and most everything else. As a result, the following is an unedited rant. You have been warned.
WTF!?! STFU!!! Whew! I feel better. The state of the nation SUCKS these days. I cannot believe we’ve fallen so far from grace as a country, a people and a culture. It’s disgusting. From the outrageous claims of a rogue Vice President to cronyism and incompetence in government offices, from belated oversight committees trying to sort out truth to political appointees committing perjury when not suffering from selective amnesia, the sorry state of our nations is abysmal.
So what do the news editors offer us? Paris Hilton and Anne Coulter. These two women should NOT be in the news. One is an anorexic, ugly, bleached blonde and spoiled brat drug addict, who would be dead of an overdose in a back alley if not for the privileges afforded by vast wealth. A non-wealthy, non-white person of similar age, childishness and physique would never be paid such attention. Who cares? How is the travails of a immature bimbo newsworthy?
And the other… Anne Coulter is an attention whore. I mean that literally. She will say anything to make money. There are no depths too deep. She makes money being outrageous, controversial, adversarial and hateful. She cannot possibly believe all she spouts; anyone who truly harbored that much sociopathic bile would have shot up a Burger King long ago. She’s a charlatan. The only reason she gets air time is to bolster media’s capacity to sell advertisements. Controversy sells. Outrage sells. Sensationalism sells. Anne Coulter should be ignored. By reacting as Elizabeth Edwards has, by caller her out in prime time, we feed the beast credentials. That’s the worst thing to do. Given that Coulter’s words helped raise cash for the Edward’s campaign, it’s clear political motivations abound on both sides of the issue.
What does this say about a culture that so worships the dollar we will condone any insanity to feed the Demon of Economy. Willow faux-blondes acting out will grab eyeballs for the media to shove adverts at. Money is the core of Ms. Coulter’s behavior; greed. Money is the root of Paris’ problems; unearned affluence. Money is the mechanism by which media outlets force feed un-newsworthy antics to us instead of handling the truly important stories.
But then, Money is behind all of those, too. The Iraq war, unarguably the biggest problem in our world today, is only a business deal. It’s just another phase in American global economic imperialism. But, that’s not newsworthy; that’s not even "news."
The news cycle for the Virginia Tech tragedy is about to wind down. What has been said is all that can be said - if in indeed, it was of value at all. To mark the end of the cycle, Charles Krauthammer, as syndicated in the Chicago Tribune bemoans the politicizing of the event.
It is inevitable, I suppose, that advocates of one social policy or another will try to use the Virginia Tech massacre for their advantage. But it is simply dismaying that a serious presidential candidate should use it as the ideo- logical frame for his set-piece issues.
He then goes on to attack Barack Obama’s reaction while campaigning in Milwaukee. Barack reportedly spoke about violence in our society, expressing a need "to reflect a little bit more broadly on the degree to which we do accept violence in various forms." The other forms included references of Don Imus’ slander, among other things.
Then Charles sums up his complaint:
This whole exercise in defining violence down to include shock-jock taunts and outsourcing would normally be mere intellectual slovenliness. Doing so in the shadow of the murder of 32 innocents still unburied is tasteless, bordering on the sacrilegious.
Perhaps in the spirit of Obama’s much-heralded post-ideological politics we can agree to observe a decent interval of respectful silence before turning ineffable evil and unfathomable grief into political fodder.
Political fodder. It seems acceptable for him and his ilk to lambaste tragedy 24/7 for a whole week to sell news copy. That’s just fine, somehow. Let’s make money dissing the political fodder, while ignoring the week-long news hound feeding frenzy on the same subject.
I wonder how much money was made selling stories about the Crimes of Mr. Cho. How much money did you make selling this story, Chuck?
No doubt Left Blogistan is roaring today about this Karl Rove Rap Video. Who pays for the annual bash between government officials and the media? Not the taxpayers, I hope.
It’s shameless, really. Doesn’t anyone on the hill know there’s A WAR GOING ON? Drunken revelry has it’s place, but not when US troops are being slaughtered for a lie perpetrated by the partying drunks.
I’m disgusted. I need to wash my mind out with lye… Excuse me for a bit.
Like an ace up the proverbial sleeve, the warmongers trot out a troika of sweeping confessions yesterday by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others, from which we are to infer that all the president’s men are making progress against the terrorists. Make no mistake, it’s juicy reading.
"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan,"
And the media is responding with expected Pavlovian zeal.
I can’t help wondering about the timing. That this would come forth from prisoners held and tortured for years by our compassionate nation is suspect. Exactly what the White House needs after weeks of hearing about Michael Reese Hospital and US Attorneys. Can we say "manipulating the news cycle?"
Am I getting (even more) jaded or are things really that obvious? Don’t answer that; it’s rhetorical.
I’ve been wondering lately about Barack Obama’s decision. Will he or won’t he run for president. The Washington Post seems to be smoothing the red carpet for him with a summary of Barack’s experience. I guess that’s the danger of entering the national political circus looking like and undergrad. People will question your leadership credentials in way they, well, haven’t lately with anyone else.
The real question is this: Is America ready for a black presidential candidate? Let’s leave aside the possibility, however remote is may be today, of a black president. Can the guy bring all his charisma to bear to overcome covert and overt expressions of racism?
Is the money there? Black leaders and white uber-liberals will turn our en masse, but that’s the race thingy again.
Will he have mass appeal? I’m sure he’ll have Chicago and Illinois in his pocket, assuming the Domcratic Party wants to join the festivities. But hat about - again the race issue - the deep south? The Christian Conservatives? Hey, I’m not calling the CC racists, but I cannot recall them backing a non-Caucasian for any post, ever. If I’m wrong, comment.
Then there’s my concern, posted here, about some nutjob doing a Bobby Kennedy on the guy. ‘Nuff said.
Regardless on anyone’s views, Obama is the quintessential Media Darling: eloquent, photogenic, dynamic. He’s still fresh enough to be a pseudo-outsider in regards to the beltway, thereby affording him underdog status. A lot of attention is going to be focused on how much money he can or cannot gather, whose pitching in, and how it compares to the war chests of Hillary, McCain or Edwards - whoever, really.
The Media is going to focus on the man, not his words. Their going to show the cult of personality, not the issues on the minds of Americans. All fluff, no substance: Obamathon 2007. Get your tee-shirt.
Truth is subjective. We believe what we want to believe and ignore or deny the rest. Political scientists know this. Governments can, to a large degree, shape truth for many reasons. Joseph Goebbels knew this; Carl Rove knows this.
But media has changed in the intervening years. Goebbels didn’t have to deal with the anarchy of the Internet. As a medium, the Internet has the audacity of providing information without filters, submitted from anywhere and anyone, without regard of outside entities, business or political constraints, or political correctness. The Internet is literally the voice of the people, characteristic of mob mentality, and subject to misinformation and misinterpretation. So dynamic in its manifestations it is difficult to study; by the time academics formulate a experiment, the nature of the medium has evolved. Nonetheless, citizens turn to the ‘Net in increasing numbers precisely because it is unfiltered. It’s rawness is its’ virtue.
This poses problems with entities vested toward governance. As any spin doctor knows, the control of information is vital to maintaining status quo in governmental structures. The Internet subverts attempts at control in accelerated fashion, worrying the ruling elite and challenging ponderous institutional structures with its plasticity.
As governments try to counteract the flow of uncensored information and fail, tactics become desperate. Witness the increased need for Internet watchdog groups. The Committee to Protect Journalists notes that a growing number of jailed journalists have come from the online sphere. According to an AP report, nearly one third of incarcerated journalists have been jailed due to their online activities.
The bulk of Internet journalists in jail - 49 in total - shows that "authoritarian states are becoming more determined to control the Internet," said Joel Simon, the New York-based group’s executive director.
"It wasn’t so long ago that people were talking about the Internet as a new medium that could never be controlled," he said. "The reality is that governments are now recognizing they need to control the Internet to control information."
Other noteworthy imprisoned Internet journalists include U.S. video blogger Joshua Wolf, who refused to give a grand jury his footage of a 2005 protest against a G-8 economic summit, and China’s Shi Tao, who is serving a 10-year sentence for posting online instructions by the government on how to cover the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.
Please note the reference to "authoritarian governments" preceding a paragraph linking the US and China. Lets all ponder that together…
If jailing people fails to deter the dissemination of raw facts by unaffiliated bathrobe journalists or the braver corporate variety, expect government to begin to regulate Internet activity with the goal of suppressing certain embarrassing news.
Truth is clearly objective on the Internet. An adage for the age might be: One Man’s Truth is Another Man’s Spin. Look to who doing the spinning and ask yourself "Whom do they serve?" Personally, I’d rather be served by the likes of Joshua Wolf than Karl Rove. What say you?
All these sudden terror plots being discovered - five months before an election the republicans are fretting over. First the Chicago Seven, more "Aspirational that Operational," now this.
A friend once pointed out to me that, back on the days of Columbine the media was buzzing with the story and school shooting incidents peaked sharply. Now, with the constant barrage of "terror-this and terror-that," the loony bin is again being fed ideas.
This works in favor of the incumbents, who are desperate to hold into their crumbling voter base, staring doe-like into the glare of manufactured fear. So: more tales of heinous plots please, Mr. Editor, we’ve got an election to win. Oh, and spin something about American Al-Qaeda, while your at it, so our constituents can get really paranoid.
"Well, I’ve got nothing against the press/ They wouldn’t print it if it wasn’t true…"