Corporate Media

Liberal commentators employed by the national corporate media are again falling into the right-wing narrative frames and discourses that have damaged this country’s democratic institutions and brought us perpetual war and economic disaster.

In essence, they are engaging and thus qualifying the bizarre drivel created by supposed unbiased political reporters, who focus on trivial nuances and “mistakes” of campaigns and are apparently bored by the Iraq occupation, the distressed economy and the loss of basic civil liberties. By engaging this drivel, these liberal commentators support established conservative frames about current political conditions no matter which Democratic candidate they support for president.

If John McCain, the Imperial George Bush redux, gets elected in November, then the mainstream media, already under fire by liberals in this country, will slide even deeper into financial chaos. Newspaper circulation continues to decline. Mainstream media revenues continue to sink. One must ask the question repeatedly: Why alienate people who actually read?

Some liberal commentators, such as Frank Rich of the The New York Times can see the larger picture about this election, but many liberal columnists, such as Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Maureen Dowd of The Times, and E.J. Dionne Jr. and Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post, are hurting Democrats when they turn their columns into attacks against presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton or when they parse and wallow in the ridiculous right-wing frames about the candidates. Have they been intellectually and financially compromised by their corporations? Certainly, this is true: People who want change in this country—and the numbers are growing astronomically—need to look elsewhere for a different dialogue about the nation’s problems.

The country has entered its sixth year of a costly and gruesome military occupation, people are losing their jobs and houses as the economy tanks and the current American presidential administration sanctions torture, the suspension of habeas corpus and military propaganda. Americans are fed up, angry and want change. The polls show it. The overwhelming adoring response to the Democratic Party presidential contenders show it. The huge increase in new Democratic Party voter registrations shows it. The anecdotal street evidence shows it. This is the story in the 2008 election so why won’t the liberal pundits engage it on a regular basis when writing about it? Why are they lost in right-wing lala land, in the Limbaughesque distortions, in the nauseating trivia?

One argument is simply they are absorbed by the larger corporate views of their employers. Their employers pay them well to engage the inane political reporting that fills their newspapers and newscasts. These columnists must write about “bitter” and bowling and Bill Clinton’s speeches and Hillary’s supposed campaign staff gaffes in order to support the corporate system that pays them. Whether it is conscious or not, whether they will be honest about it or not, these columnists must honor the exaggerated, hyperventilating media frames—Obama cannot bowl so he will now certainly lose! Hillary shed a tear so she will now certainly lose!—the corporations use each day to turn profits. They want to involve you in their immediate soap opera-like fictional dramas and make-believe nonsense to do one thing and one thing only: Make money.

Here is a piece of the latest snark from legendary Clinton hater Dowd:

Maybe I’ve been reading too many stories about the fad of teenage vampire chick lit, worlds filled with parasitic aliens and demi-human creatures, but there’s something eerie going on in this race.

Hillary grows more and more glowy as Obama grows more and more wan.

Is she draining him of his precious bodily fluids? Leeching his magic? Siphoning off his aura?

Dowd is obviously obsessed and distressed with Clinton, and it is a real shame her editors have allowed her to publish column after column vilifying the candidate. Her last column, though, was a classic Dowd “clever writing” rant on both Clinton and Obama. So Clinton is the emasculator and Obama is the “wan” effeminate. This is from the playbook of the Republican Party. One wonders if Dowd should make her tax returns public so we can see if she is on the GOP dole. (Then again, maybe Dowd does not even qualify as a liberal columnist anymore and should not even be a part of this argument.)

A Krugman column last week argued John McCain’s recent campaign point that Barack Obama is out of touch with working class people:

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

Krugman apparently supports Clinton; he certainly likes her health care policy proposals better than those given by Obama’s camp. But to argue a nonsensical GOP-talking point or to actually create it—now, folks, does Obama really really care about people with “lagging wages”?—only supports the elitist frame Republicans have used on every Democratic presidential contender since at least George McGovern. Krugman, an academic, often qualifies his arguments, and I have a great deal of respect for his work, but recently he has gone on the attack against Obama using right-wing frames. What about McCain’s lack of any coherent proposals about the economy? That is the real story this election year.

Here is Herbert about the long-lost Obama phenomenon and Clinton's "death-ray machine" from a recent column:

You can almost feel the air seeping out of the Obama phenomenon. The candidate and his aides are brainstorming ways to counter the Clinton death-ray machine and regain the momentum. They need to generate some new excitement and enthusiasm, and they need to do it soon.

It is difficult to understand this argument. All the available evidence, from polls to recorded votes to the adoring crowds, show Obama still incites a political enthusiasm we have not seen in a generation. (Clinton attracts large crowds, has good polling numbers as well, and she is not far behind in votes and delegates to Obama.) Herbert is at least implicitly admitting the right-wing frames against Obama have worked. I see no evidence that is the case. This might just be a case in which a liberal pundit has been hoodwinked by the terrible trivialization of political coverage conducted by, among others, his own newspaper’s reporters. Herbert, who has spoken out for the downtrodden in our culture for years, suddenly has lost his edge when it comes to matters that are important when he writes about the presidential election. The "death-ray machine" term supports prevailing right-wing stereotypes about Clinton as well. Why not consistently speak out against McCain’s lack of any economic or health care proposals. Why not write about that week after week? That is the real story.

Here is Robinson’s rant against Clinton last week:

Actually, the better film analogy may be "The Terminator." (Anything but "Rocky" -- or, in the popular Internet video, "Baracky.") Yes, I know it's inappropriate to compare a talented and accomplished woman such as Hillary Clinton with a homicidal cyborg from the future. But it's hard to come up with a better image for the woman's sheer relentlessness. If she ever says "I'll be back" while I'm within earshot, I'm getting out of Dodge.

Clinton has every reason to continue her campaign at this point so why feed into the right-wing stereotypes of her? What purpose is there to do so, except to weaken Democrats in general? What if she gets the nomination? Robinson qualifies his comparison, for sure, but he turns Clinton into just exactly what the right-wing wants you to think about her. The right-wingers love it. Robinson even gives Republicans their specific analogy. They can even say it came from a left-wing media pundit. Why not write about McCain's lack of any real proposal to solve the health care crisis in this country? I guess "homicidal cyborg" Clinton will trump that any day. But still people suffer in this country because of lousy health care.

Here is Dionne recently parsing Obama:

But when Obama falls into the long pauses he is sometimes given to in debate, the wordy answers he periodically offers to questions, or the visible impatience he exhibits toward the less-elevating aspects of politics, he seems far more the law review editor, the professor, the classic good-government guy whose reach to society's hard-pressed is limited.

Once again, Obama is the elitist, the aloof law review editor, who simply cannot relate to real people. Obama, well, he falls into long pauses and, well, he is "wordy." This is from the Karl Rove playbook, the first lesson in GOP 101 ("this country 'don't need no' wordy people as president"), and still Dionne, a seasoned journalist, falls for it. Does Dionne really not see how he is promoting a right-wing view of Obama and Democratic presidential contenders in general?

These are just a few examples, but they are indicative of a consistent, growing pattern. All these liberal writers are publishing columns rooted in right-wing attacks on Democrats. All the above quotes could easily end up on GOP attack material now and after the conventions. This is tragic for our country, which faces serious problems on a historic level. The country's large media outlets should employ liberal columnists who will frame the current political debate in real terms outside the GOP talking points. Perhaps that is impossible because of the complicity between our current corrupt government and the mainstream media.

This will be considered one of the most historic American presidential elections for many obvious reasons. It is a national tragedy and disgrace these famous liberal columnists cannot or will not consistently write about that fact.

(Does Oklahoma have a "bad case of ‘reportitis’”? Check out DocHoc’s commentary this week in the Oklahoma Gazette.”)

This is an abbreviated version of the second and last part of my presentation at the Seventh Annual Conference on Diversity in Communities, Organizations & Nations in Amsterdam. I gave the presentation, launched a new Web site, and showed a short flash movie (this may take a minute or so to download; be sure to turn up your speakers) at the conference on July 4.

Allen Ginsberg’s work gives us a way to understand the frightening implications of a quasi-fascist United States.

So where are the protests in the United States? Where are the huge crowds demanding justice and an end to the immoral and botched occupation of Iraq? Where are the sit-ins and be-ins of Ginsberg’s time?

The answer, of course, is the protest has gone online. Inexpensive, open source code applications have allowed people, whom we now call citizen journalists, to speak up against the government. Judged by historical standards, this New Media renaissance has had a remarkable effect on the culture and is much larger than the widespread protests against the Vietnam War in the 1960s. Fewer people rely on corporate media for news. Newspapers are losing circulation. Its shills, so-called American “journalists” like Bill O’Reilly, most of whom were one hundred percent wrong about the Iraq occupation, are on the defensive. Yet, these imperial journalists still bask in a mythical hubris now countered by a growing protest against their immoral narratives and generic discourses. I hereby declare, and I am proud to do it here in Amsterdam on the Fourth of July, that The New York Times, like all corporate media outlets, is dying. It is an archeology dig that shows its crude celebration of the violent tools and leaders of the Oil Age, which will be a momentary blip in human existence. The newspaper no longer connects to humanity in any meaningful way. As Ginsberg writes, media outlets like The New York Times are the “places where the deepest and most personal sensitivities and confessions of reality are most prohibited, mocked, suppressed.”

So I speak out, and accept the risks, and along the way, I have made connections with people throughout the country and world who also struggle to speak out in hostile situations. We share similar experiences and problems. We share anxiety about our personal futures and anguish about our times. We recognize that we must share our knowledge and experiences, that, in the words of the great poet, W.H. Auden, “We must love one another or die.” Or, perhaps, at the very least, we must learn tolerance and acceptance.

So I come here to Amsterdam to this conference with very pragmatic ideas based on real-life experiences. I also come here with a new Web site that I hope can help people start to speak out in hostile environments, whether that is Archer City, Texas or Beijing, China. I want to share what I know, but I also want to learn from others who are doing the same work.

As I have mentioned, one of the most important New Media developments for promoting democracy is open source code. One of the mottoes of the open source code movement is that you should think of it as “Freedom of speech, no free beer.” Open source code is software that you can download for free and modify for your own purposes as log as you share your advancements with others in the community. Many open source code applications, such as Word Press, Joomla, Drupal, Moodle, and PostNuke, allow you to create interesting and lively Web sites without a lot of computer programming knowledge. Many hosting sites, which are quite inexpensive, simply allow you to click and download applications on server space you purchase. These hosts do not have to be in the same country as the site’s creators. In fact, in some cases, people can post under pseudonyms on international servers just as long as they can get their words outside the country.

The idea here is to create a free, open exchange of ideas outside the parameters of governments, whether it be the quasi-fascists of the Bush administration or a totalitarian government in the Middle East. The idea is to also challenge the relentless structures of the corporate Internet.

Here is a definition of open source culture from Wikipedia, a sometimes maligned but excellent source of information:

“Open source culture refers to creative practices that involve the appropriation and/or free sharing of found or created content. Examples of open source culture include collage, found footage film, music, and appropriation art. Open source as applied to culture defines a culture in which fixations are made generally available. Participants in such an open source culture are able to modify those products, if needed, and redistribute them back into the community or other organizations.”

While open source culture does not represent an all-consuming panacea, it does represent a practical opportunity. Hand-cranked computers based on open source code are now being distributed to Third World countries, for example, and Internet sites using open source code multiply on a daily basis.

Our new site, Greensunshine.org’s primary purpose is to help support diverse voices that will fight against the corporate-military complex that threatens democratic structures worldwide, keeps million of people mired in abject poverty, and systematically destroys the global environment on a daily basis. The site’s founders are especially interested in connecting with those people who want to speak out in hostile environments. They are committed to open source technologies that focus on shared software and community creation.

Greensunshine.org serves as a bridge between the political/content side of activist Web sites to the riches and complications of open source technologies. How can we help you? How might you help us?

See all those pallets piled up on the loading dock
They're just gonna set there till they rot
'Cause there's nothing to ship, nothing to pack
Just busted concrete and rusted tracks
Empty storefronts around the square
There's a needle in the gutter and glass everywhere
You don't come down here 'less you're looking to score
We can't make it here anymore—James McMurtry’s “We Can’t Make It Here”

Thoughts along the armadillo highway . . .

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s obvious escape from the sinking fortunes of the Republican Party and his possible presidential run as an independent candidate created quite a splash in the media, but not one story challenge the basic premise of whether it is good for democracy that a multi-billionaire uses his own money to essentially buy political power. There was much celebratory speculation about how much Bloomberg might personally spend in a presidential bid—$1 billion was mentioned in one article—but no debate about whether it is good for the country that a person can purchase or try to purchase the American presidency. For the record, money has polluted the American political process and threatens the country’s democratic structures. Bloomberg symbolizes how even the American presidency is for sale these days.

Has anyone else noticed the editorial videos starring The Daily Oklahoman’s Ed Kelley begin with an advertisement urging people to go to Colorado. It makes perfect business sense. After watching the somber Kelley drone on about how no one deserves free parking in Bricktown or whatever, one does feel the pull of different climes.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com is writing the sharpest political and media commentary in the nation right now. Greenwald is meticulous and ruthless with facts, sources, and logic. His new book, A Tragic Legacy: How a Good Vs.Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency, is out and making its way up the bestseller lists. It can be ordered here.

So who will step up to run against U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-ExxonMobilChevronTexaco) in the 2008 election? Inhofe is currently raising money for his campaign and stinking up Washington with his certifiable tirades that appeal to a narrowing base of ultra-conservative voters. It appears at this point he has the full support of the established Oklahoma power structure, from the right-wing The Daily Oklahoman to Chesapeake Energy. But that could change. Inhofe could become a major Republican liability in the months to come. Democrats need to get a viable candidate as soon as possible.

Richard Cohen, a Washington Post columnist, actually wrote this paragraph: “With the sentencing of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald has apparently finished his work, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, to make a mountain out of a molehill. At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker -- Richard Armitage of the State Department -- but Libby, convicted in the end of lying. This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.” Note the “it is often best to keep the lights off.” As Glenn Greenwald points out, this one line perfectly summarizes the corporate media these days. Reporters and editors are busy turning off lights so Republican corruption and fascism can flourish. Cohen, who once supported the “case” for the Iraq war, is another example of a dreadfully wrong beltway pundit. Why is he still writing for this influential paper when others who were right about the war and who would always argue for more, not less, light on public officials are marginalized and dismissed?

Greensunshine.org, a site under construction, will help marginalized voices get online. Rooted in the personal experience of its creators, who speak out in a hostile environment and face harassment and threats on a regular basis, the site will serve as a bridge between the content side of activist Web sites and open source code technologies and applications. Can you help? Do you have ideas? Check out the site and contact us with your thoughts.

The basic democratic structures of the United States of America are in jeopardy, and the country teeters on the precipice of fascism. We are a country that now systematically tortures prisoners in a vague so-called “war on terrorism” and both major political parties support it. Only right-wing political speech is given prominent play in the corporate media these days, though the mainstream media still pretends it offers balanced views. We incarcerate more people than any other nation in the country. Some of our prisoners languish for years in dilapidated prisons for simple marijuana possession charges. They are more often than not the victims of jail rape and torture. Despite recent elections that demonstrated the citizens’ desire to stop the Iraq occupation, the president has escalated the country’s involvement in an act of world defiance that has changed the nature of the U.S. presidency forever. The opposition party, elected to a majority based on anti-occupation sentiment, refuses to stand up to President George Bush and the growing corporate-military complex. American elections have been corrupted by right-wing tactics to lower voting by minorities. Only fools trust the official results in some election races throughout the country. The president himself was initially elected in a corrupt election, the results of which showed his opponent had won. Bush has ordered the wiretapping of millions of innocent American and world citizens. Our justice system—the one that incarcerates the most people in the world—is operated by complete political expediency.