Conservative Media

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post about how the GOP and its complicit enablers in the mainstream media were trying to argue that there is nothing seriously wrong with the economy right now and Americans were simply whiners.

Lost your house? Get over it already, whiner. Can’t afford that medical test you need? Quit your bellyaching. Can’t afford the gasoline to get to work? So what, crybaby? You got it good. Can’t pay for your college tuition or get a college loan? You’re simply in a “mental recession.” Yeah, that’s right. You’re crazy. Vote for John McCain and everything will be just as hunky-dory as it is now.

After the era of propagandist Karl Rove, these Republican talking points initiatives are incredibly transparent to anyone who is paying attention. This time it appears the Orwellian talking points have backfired on some level, but this GOP idea that everything is okay economically for Americans is probably not going away anytime soon. It will surely manifest itself in some other insidious lie during the months leading up to the November election.

Neoconservative ideology has desperately failed this country’s citizens, and the GOP leadership has no way out of that argument, except to lie that things aren’t that bad. In this way, the Republican political operatives hope to continue to appeal to that certain segment of voters who don’t vote based on economic issues.

The most recent example of this particular talking points initiative came when former Republican U.S. Senator Phil Gramm, a McCain surrogate, said Americans were in a “mental recession.” He also said, according to media reports, “"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

McCain supposedly disavowed the remarks, but the Gramm comments give us a good idea where the GOP is headed in terms of its political rhetoric this year.

Obviously, on some level, the Gramm comments echo the standard clichéd “America, love it or leave it” philosophy advanced by narrow-minded nationalists who goosestep in unison to the belief that this country’s government can do no wrong when, in fact, it now sanctions torture, unconstitutional wiretapping of its citizens and an imperial presidency.

In addition, a recent poll by Pew Research Center also concluded that Baby Boomers were a bunch of whiners. The Pew poll shows the fix is in on this particular talking point for the Republicans. The logic of the poll’s results goes like this: Baby Boomers have it better than people who grew up in the Great Depression so they should just shut their mouths. By extension, the logic would seem to be that unless you’re standing in a soup line, you should keep everything the same, i.e. vote for John McCain (wink, wink).

The main question is this: Why would any organization even conduct such a poll right now unless it is to supposedly prove the GOP talking points? But that’s how the political and media system work right now.

The point is not that there isn’t hope and optimism among voters this year. There is. But voters are saying over and over this country needs a major change in direction, and that is one of the major political stories this election year. Obviously, Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, represents change. McCain, in his political essence, is the status quo, Bush redux.

Okies For Obama

Oklahoma has at least one individualized Barack Obama bumper sticker.

Some online entrepreneurs are creating personalized state designs for the Democratic presumptive nominee for president. Here is what they have to say about their initiative:

We have created 18 stickers so far, including one for Oklahoma. Our aim is to really pull out all the stops with the design of the stickers to reflect the enthusiasm Obama inspires, as well as graphically demonstrate the diversity of voices uniting behind his campaign.

You can view the entire collection here. The site promises to donate 22.5 percent of its proceeds to the Obama campaign.

Ignore The Corporate Media

The corporate media’s coverage of the presidential election is as surreal and goofy as ever.

Do not count on getting any information about where the candidates stand on the issues. This election, according to the corporate media, is about innocuous comments made by the candidates’ supporters—not the candidates themselves--that get distorted way out of context. Oh yeah, then there are flag lapel pins and flip-flopping allegations. Here are two major stories the msm continues to ignore:

(1) Barack Obama has generated more genuine political enthusiasm in this country in a generation. He attracts huge, adoring crowds wherever he goes, and his speeches are electrifying a nation. This is truly a change in the political climate in this nation.

(2) All the polls, the results of three recent House elections in which Democrats won and the anecdotal evidence show this country wants a major change in direction in terms of the economy and the Iraq occupation. John McCain, obviously, does not represent change on any scale. If he did represent change, he would severely criticize Imperial President George and argue that GOP must undergo a huge transformation.

The corporate media, which is in a financial death spiral, continues to ignore these two storylines because it desperately wants a McCain presidency. The corporate media has been exposed as complicit enablers of the most corrupt presidential regime in American history. The media bigwigs obviously think a McCain presidency would validate or excuse their own negligence in helping to tear down this country’s democratic structures under the Bush administration.

The task at this point is to ignore the silly chatter and demand the media start covering where the candidates stand on the issues.

Contrary to what you have been reading and hearing the past few days, the entertainer Tim Russert was a towering symbol of everything wrong in the corporate media, someone who lowered the country’s political discourse to the point of inanity.

In the words of former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, Russert was surely one of those “complicit enablers” for the Bush administration, a man who never challenged the establishment, a pundit who allowed liars and manipulators to take over his television show Meet The Press and dupe the American people.

Russert died suddenly Friday after suffering a heart attack. He was 58. His death and career have been discussed and parsed in the media for several days, and he has been lauded and glorified as a great journalist. President George Bush, of course, attended his wake Thursday to honor Russert’s unqualified political support throughout the long, gruesome military occupation years, which included the loss of American credibility worldwide, the suspension of habeas corpus in this country and the illegal torture of prisoners.

This is how it works in the mainstream media under the star system: Russert has to be worshipped because he was a star of stars in a corrupt celebrity media system that now works in conjunction with a corrupt presidential regime to threaten the country’s democratic structures and to ignore the economic interests of ordinary people. The corporate media, with its declining revenues and scandals and right-wing bias, gathers for Russert’s funeral today to celebrate and extend its mediocrity, to express its continued disdain for regular Americans. Russert was their leader, the one Bush could always count on to push his extremist agenda on the world

The truth is Russert should be remembered as an actor, not a journalist, as a spokesperson for the rich and powerful, not a journalist, as someone deeply committed to corporate success, not a journalist. He redefined the word “journalist.” (Does the word even carry meaning anymore?) In the Russert era, we have “infotainers” or “media celebrities,” not journalists. He died as a flack for rich people, and he got rich himself. That is how it works.

Here are the fiction lines circulating about Russert in the msm: He was a man of the people because he grew up in Buffalo. He revolutionized journalism because, well, he actually read quotes from newspapers on his show. He was bipartisan. The trivial nature of these fictions is more telling than the fictions themselves.

Here is the fact check: He was reportedly making more than $5 million a year, and it was well documented that his show lacked gender and ethnic diversity. His technique of confronting his guests with quotes from newspapers was obviously a cover for his lack of critical interviewing skills. He definitely gave the Bush administration a free ride when it came to anything important to the American people, from the Iraq occupation to the economy to basic civil rights, such as habeas corpus.

(So it says right here in this newspaper story, Mr. Russert, that you make $5 million a year. Let me read it for you even though it is up there on the screen. “Industry insiders estimate he—that would be you, Mr. Russert—was earning more than $5 million a year.” Now, do you think you deserve that much money, Mr. Russert? Do you think someone making $5 million a year can relate to ordinary Americans struggling to survive?)

The burning question about Russert remains this: Why did he not ask hard questions of those privileged people ensconced in power? Was it because he, too, was a privileged person ensconced in power? Did his corporate bosses not allow him to ask hard questions? Yet, even given the corporate pressure, here was a person with a powerful forum to challenge authority, and he squandered the opportunity. For what? Money. Fear. Personal anxiety about his self worth. Perhaps, he believed the powerful people who appeared on his show would not actually like him if he asked hard questions.

Here is a partial highlight reel of Russert’s recent career:

On March 16, 2003, Russert allowed Vice President Dick Cheney on Meet The Press to essentially go unchallenged about the ensuing Iraq invasion. This will be remembered as one of the lowest events in American journalism history.

On Sept. 11, 2006 Russert conducted an “extremely superficial interview” with Cheney on Meet The Press. Cheney was essentially allowed to lie about basic facts related to the Iraq invasion and ensuring occupation and thus continue to brainwash the American people.

On May 13, 2007, Russert did not challenge Republican presidential candidate John McCain when the senator argued that the intelligence showed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Russert, on earlier shows of Meet The Press, challenged Democratic candidates for president on this issue.

On May 14, 2007, Media Matters ran an article showing how Meet The Press lacked diversity in gender and ethnicity. In a report issued Feb. 14, 2006, Media Matters “found that Republicans and conservatives have greatly outnumbered Democrats and progressives on Meet the Press in recent years.”

While moderating a Sept. 2007 television debate between the Democratic candidates for president, Russert asked this inane question: "There's been a lot of discussion about the Democrats and the issue of faith and values. I want to ask you a simple question. Senator Obama, what is your favorite Bible verse?" Is this what passes for “Serious Journalism” in this country today?

(The best source for checking out the Russert legacy can be found here at Media Matters, a watchdog group that monitors the corporate media.)

The list goes on and on. There was, for example, Russert's deserved criticism of his relentless and petty attacks on Hillary Clinton when he moderated a recent presidential debate. Was he a misogynist, too? What in the world did he ever do?

Fortunately, a Russert-like media star is probably not possible anymore, or at least one can hope this is the case. Watchdog media outlets, such as Media Matters, and authors and bloggers, such as Glenn Greenwald, are relentlessly exposing the fraudulent architecture of the corporate media on a daily basis, and showing regular Americans how the media system works against their interests at every turn. Fortunately, Russert’s replacement will not get a free ride.

In the end, Russert did as much to destroy the integrity of American journalism as anyone else in recent memory, as much as Judith Miller of The New York Times. So when the mainstream media pundits whine on and on about the mean, cruel blogosphere, remember the $5-million-a-year Russert for what he did not do. He did not seek truth about our contemporary political world. He sold out. It is the old morality tale. Russert sought and found fame and money at the corporate trough, not truth, and this country is worse off because of it.

People will think this is a mean rant, for sure, but Russert’s death does not even begin to register for me when I think about the two young girls, 11 and 13, who were gunned down beside a road in Weleetka, Oklahoma recently. Who will remember these girls as their killer or killers remain free? Tom Brokaw? Chris Matthews? Wolf Blizter?

On yeah, about 50 Iraqi civilians out shopping at a Baghdad market died yesterday in a bombing, just a normal event in that country since the occupation. We will not know their names or one thing about them because the media will not report the information. This is Russert’s legacy.