Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald were recently on GRITtv with Laura Flanders to discuss the failures of US corporate media to hold political leaders to account. They expose the corrupt mindset of beltway journalists that proclaims it their job to simply report what the powerful say, with little challenge, in order to maintain insider access.
Watch the full discussion below:
From outrage about ACORN to the recent so-called controversy over school children singing songs about President Obama, right wing media (and politicians) in America are certainly the most hypocritical, dishonest and hyperbolic people in the country. And rather than seeing this truism expressed and exposed on mainstream news networks, we instead see The Daily Show with Jon Stewart doing the real work of journalism. Watch the clip:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| America: Target America | ||||
|
||||
Project Censored has released its latest top 25 stories of 2008-09 that you won’t find in mainstream media. Project Censored is a media research group affiliated with Sonoma State University’s Sociology of Media and Sociology of Censorship classes and other independent groups. According to its website:
Project Censored’s principle objective is training of SSU students in media research and First Amendment issues and the advocacy for, and protection of, free press rights in the United States. Project Censored has trained over 1,500 students in investigative research in the past three decades.
Through a partnership of faculty, students, and the community, Project Censored conducts research on important national news stories that are underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by the US corporate media. Each year, Project Censored publishes a ranking of the top 25 most censored nationally important news stories in the yearbook, Censored: Media Democracy in Action, which is released in September. Recent Censored books have been published in Spanish, Italian and Arabic.[....]
In our view, the only valid justification for declining a news story is that in a medium limited by time and space, another news story was simply more important to the people of the community, whether local, national or international. While admittedly a subjective process, it is nonetheless, a process to be undertaken by the news people themselves (the investigative journalists and editors), NOT by the managers and CEOs of their “parent company.” No professional journalist or researcher should ever have to face the destruction of his or her career (or life) simply because they wanted to tell the truth. While no two people will always agree on what story is more important than another, a system where the working reporters and editors run the newsroom would at least provide a fertile environment for debate, dissent and critical thinking.
The growth of independent media and journalism in recent years shows that people throughout the world yearn to hold not only their leaders accountable, but their media sources as well. For that reason, the Project Censored research program continues, in its small way, to support and highlight those who tell the truth about the powerful (no matter the consequences) and are relentless in their quest to hold Big Media accountable for their decisions.
If you care about these issues, then Project Censored is certainly an organization that deserves our support.
Here’s a list of the top 25 stories of 2008-09 not mentioned by the mainstream media:
It’s funny how certain sections of the American public, with the help of mainstream media of course, are now so outraged by the actions of a handful of ACORN employees that Congress is now bravely cutting off all funding for this already underfunded, inconsequential organization. Yet the recent — nearly invisible — actions in Kabul by morons working for the private military contractor ArmorGroup, being paid far greater sums of American taxpayer dollars than anything dreamed of by ACORN, have been dismissed by the same media as little more than the exploits of silly boys letting off a little steam. Sure a few will be fired, but have a look for yourself:
Let’s put the whole issue into perspective. ACORN, a non-profit, grass-roots organization that represents poor Americans has received a mere $53 million in federal funds since 1994, while these douchbag contractors from ArmorGroup are the recipients of a $189 million 5-year contract to defend the US embassy in Kabul. That comes to $3.5 million a year for ACORN as opposed to nearly $38 million per year for ArmorGroup. Where’s the outrage? Barely a peep is heard.
One of the more obvious problems stemming from the government’s need for contractors like ArmorGroup — a relatively minor player in the realm of private military contractors — is that, given the US government’s commitment to the military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon must rely on these sorts of for-profit corporations to fulfil the work and procedures once handled by the US military.
It’s so bad that actions like those pictured above must go un-addressed. There’s little the Pentagon can do, even though they have had multiple problems with ArmorGroup. The New York Times recently discussed this issue:
The troubles with the ArmorGroup contract, and the State Department’s frustrated dealings with the company over two years and through two administrations, illustrate how the government has become dependent on the private security companies that work in war zones, and has struggled to manage companies that themselves are sometimes loosely run and do not always play by the government’s rules.
With a stretched military, the government relies on the security companies themselves to vet, train, and discipline the guards, all at the lowest cost.
“It’s expensive for the State Department to withdraw a contract from one company, rebid the project and award it to a new one,” said Janet Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who represents one of the ArmorGroup whistleblowers. “So businesses know that once they get a contract, State may ding them around a little bit, but it’s not going to fire them.”
The perils of this reliance were most graphically illustrated in Iraq in 2007, when security guards from another contractor, Blackwater, were involved in shootings that left 17 civilians dead on a Baghdad street. But interviews and documents show that the ArmorGroup affair, in its mundane, unsavory details, offers perhaps a more representative look inside the troubled relationship between contractors and the government in war zones.
Writing at the Huffington Post, media reform campaigner Timothy Karr has a great article on what really scares rightwing TV and radio fearmongers like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Lou Dobbs: greater localism and diversity in media. Karr exposes their self-serving lies with a healthy dose of reality — which has a well-known liberal bias — pointing out, “The central mandate of the Federal Communications Commission — as enshrined in the Communications Act of 1934 — is to promote localism, diversity and competition in the media. This same principle of localism has been a rallying cry for several generations of true conservatives.”
He continues:
Broadcasters get hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies and the right to use our airwaves in exchange for a basic commitment to be responsive to the interests of local communities.
Moreover, the Supreme Court recognized that “safeguarding the public’s right to receive a diversity of views and information over the airwaves is … an integral component of the FCC’s mission.”
Sadly, the FCC has failed to live up to this standard. And what mainstream media’s fear-merchants are most afraid of is not censorship, but an FCC that actually does its job — creating more opportunities for people like you and me to participate in media.
We don’t have that now. Washington bureaucrats have allowed powerful media corporations to control the public airwaves and dominate local cable networks. We have reached a nadir where the free press that Thomas Jefferson hoped would open “all the avenues to truth” has devolved into a media system that’s a megaphone for the few. Read on…
Truer, more obvious words couldn’t have been spoken. The only way to break the current dominance of these paranoid, faux-populist douchebags is to demand the FCC regulate the public (i.e., our) airwaves by honoring its founding principles of diversity and localism.
Well I guess someone had to say it. In the chorus of blaming the internet and economic stagnation on what can only be seen as the downfall of modern newspapers, very few in the mainstream have pointed to the quality of the newspapers themselves as being ultimately responsible. David Sirota has recently done that:
The most preventable tragedy was the deterioration of quality. Downsized local publications were all but forced to rely on more national content, but that content didn’t have to become so vapid.
Beltway scribes didn’t have to miss the Iraq war lies or the predictive signs of the Wall Street meltdown. Election correspondents weren’t compelled to devote four times the coverage to the tactical insignifica of campaigns than to candidates’ positions and records, as the Project for Excellence in Journalism found. Business reporters didn’t need to give corporate spokespeople twice the space in articles as they did workers and unions, as a Center for American Progress report documents. National editors weren’t obligated to focus on “elevat(ing) the most banal doings” in the White House to “breaking news,” as the New York Times recently noted.
Here is yet another classic media critique by The Daily Show, this time they take on Rick Santelli and CNBC:
For a more in depth analysis of the segment see Ryan Chittum’s blog at Columbia Journalism Review. Chittum admits that the clips used by Stewart are selective, but there is still an important aspect to overall critical assessment of CNBC business reporting:
[W]hat makes this [segment] so interesting is what Stewart does to pierce the CNBC bubble on several different things that make the network so disliked by business journalists generally: Its lack of a line between opinion and reporting (and lack of disclosure about who’s a reporter and who’s not). Its Siamese-twin closeness to Wall Street. Its rah-rah rooting for the stock markets. Its inanity in interviews that too often veers into sycophancy. On the other hand, if there is a discomfort among the business reporters with CNBC, it might be because the network’s bad practices are only extreme manifestations of wider cultural problems in their profession.
This is a short video produced by American News Project, and it powerfully demonstrates the America missed by the debates and overlooked by the corporate media. Thanks to Left I on the News for the link.
Obama points out the tactics and goals of the Republicans during this election: anything but issues.
Get the Flash Player to see this content.
While the mainstream media devote hours of analysis to lipstick-gate, they continue to accept without question the Bush and McCain claim that the surge in Iraq has been a success. One doesn’t have to look far to find example after example of this being put forward as a self-apparent truism. The logic behind the reporting is little more than, “Look, the violence is down, therefore the surge has worked.” Forget the over-arching goal of the surge was to bring about political reconciliation between the conflicting groups in Iraq. In reality, the political situation is worse than ever. As Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress writes:
The greatest myth promoted by Bush in his speech [at the National Defense University] was found in this line: “Political reconciliation is moving forward, and the Iraqi government has passed several major pieces of legislation.” By overstating the meagre steps taken by Iraq’s leaders in barely passing a few relatively insignificant laws in their parliament, Bush’s statement ranks right up there with his 2003 “mission accomplished” speech and vice-president Dick Cheney’s assertion that the insurgency was in its “last throes” in 2005.
Katulis continues:
The surge has frozen into place the accelerated fragmentation that Iraq underwent in 2006 and 2007 and has created disincentives to bridge central divisions between Iraqi factions. Moreover, rather than advancing Iraq’s political transition and facilitating power-sharing deals among Iraq’s factions, the surge has produced an oil revenue-fuelled, Shia-dominated national government with close ties to Iran. This national government shows few signs of seeking to compromise and share meaningful power with other frustrated political factions.
So much for political reconciliation. Rather than furthering steps toward some form of power sharing, the surge has solidified the divisions unleashed by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But McCain, Bush, and the media will inevitably make the case that at least the surge has reduced violence. This is the core of the “surge worked” hypothesis, yet it rests on a basic logical fallacy. Just because Y came after X, it doesn’t follow that X caused Y. Professor Juan Cole recently pointed this out with regards to media commentary on the surge.
The reality is far more complex than this simplistic narrative. An important factor to declining levels of violence was the so-called Sunni Awakening movement in Anbar province in which the US allied with, armed, and paid Sunni insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda. But this began before the surge, and there is no reason to believe this strategy required an increased troop level. Cole agrees:
In al-Anbar Province, among the more violent in Iraq in earlier years, the bribing of former Sunni guerrillas to join US-sponsored Awakening Councils had a big calming effect. This technique could have been used much earlier than 2006, indeed, could have been deployed from 2003, and might have forestalled large numbers of deaths. Condi Rice forbade US military officers from dealing in this way with the Sunnis for fear of alienating US Shiite allies such as Ahmad Chalabi. The technique was independent of the troop escalation. Indeed, it depended on there not being much of a troop escalation in that province. Had large numbers of US soldiers been committed to simply fight the Sunnis or engage in search and destroy missions, they would have stirred up and reinforced the guerrilla movement.
An additional reason for the reduced violence in Iraq has been the unilateral cease-fire of the Mahdi Army ordered by Moqtada al-Sadr. Gen. Patraeus even admits this fact, stating that the “Sadr trend stands for service to the people,” and that he hopes Sadr’s organization will become “constructive partners in the way ahead.” While Patraeus would like to see the cease-fire as a result of the surge, the reality is again more complicated. Cole sees the successful ethnic cleansing of Baghdad – in which it has become a mostly Shiite city with almost no mixed communities and others separated by walls – as an important reason for the Mahdi Army’s cessation of hostilities because this was one of their major aims. As well, their pro-Iranian Shiite rivals, which include the Iraqi state, were becoming much more powerful militarily in relation to Moqtada al-Sadr’s organization.
Ethnic cleansing in Iraq points to a darker aspect of the surge, in which what so many call “success” is the result of brutality and violence. Robert Parry also makes this point:
With the total Iraqi death toll estimated in the hundreds of thousands and many more Iraqis horribly maimed, the society has been deeply traumatized. As tyrants have learned throughout history, at some point violent repression does work.
But this dark side of the “successful surge” is excluded from the U.S. political debate. As during the pre-invasion period, the Washington press corps acts more like Bush’s propagandists than anything close to skeptical journalists.
Instead media commentators waste our time with meaningless questions and speculation about what Barack Obama actually meant when making a comment about lipstick on a pig. Well all I can say, at least there are alternatives to the he-said-she-said style of reporting that passes for journalism and analysis. The following video is a commentary by Aijaz Ahmad from TheRealNews.com. It was originally broadcast following Bush’s State of the Union address in early 2008. Ahmad covers some of the issues I mention above and provides compelling reasons to question much of the conventional wisdom.
