The State of "Mainstream" Media
Last night I had to take an impromptu short plane flight due to some family issues (don't feel like elaborating publicly but no worries, it's nothing serious) and had to endure the tedium of sitting at my departure gate watching mainstream news (ABC).
For context, my TV here at home is used solely for watching DVDs/videos/playing games (I can't afford cable or satellite TV and my TV is from way before the digital conversion), and so my current news "diet" has had little to no cable or mainstream network news for a long time now. The few times I do turn back to those news sources I'm always appalled at how soft/fluffy the "news" is, how jingoistic the tone is, and how lazy and uncritical the reportage is.
In the few minutes I spent waiting at the gate, ABC News went on about the Murdoch scandal: not in a deeply illuminating way, but in a stupid, "Wow lol wouldn't it suck if we were British and had to deal with this? Thank gawd we're Amurrikan, oh ho ho" sort of way. Never mind the fact that Murdoch has many interests housed in the US and wields massive influence in US politics and the corporate media system that serves as its megaphone; ABC News would have you believe that this is a Purely British Problem and we're just Lucky, Special Americans ensconced safely in our subdivisions as we watch this overseas trainwreck unfold.
And then after Diane Sawyer reports the death of the Murdoch whistleblower and manages to say that "there are no signs of suspicion surrounding the death" with a straight face and without bothering to follow the story and elaborate further (such as asking/answering basic questions like, "How do they know that?"), ABC News moves on to a fluff piece about the World Cup, about how the Japanese team's win was all the more significant in the wake of the tsunami and nuclear plant disasters.
Now, this had potential to be a good piece, focusing on the skills of the Japanese women who won the Cup for their country, or going into more detail about the plight over in Japan and how all these months later, radiation is STILL leaking, nuclear is still an unsustainable and dangerous form of energy generation, and so much more STILL needs to be done to help those affected by this profound tragedy. Instead, the piece becomes this insanely patronizing sour grapes parade in which the ~special comment~ person opines that because Japan has "been through so much" this year, maybe they just deserved the trophy more and they were fated to win. He said that even though the Americans played perfectly, it was like some "divine force" was guiding fate for the Japanese and it was out of Amurrika's hands. That's right, because instead of using his/her/its time constructively and stopping Japan from experiencing a major environmental (tsunami) and man-made (nuclear plant) disaster in the first place, this Divine Force decided to be a patronizing fuckhole and let those disasters happen just so he could toss the Japanese team a pity victory because his pary was with the victims and he was truley sorry for their lots. It had nothing to do with the fact that the Japanese team were the better team and fucking defeated the US (heaven forbid!); it was all about the fact that the Japanese needed some charity and who better than the amazing, magnanimous US to give it to them.
*
Even better, I then get home to see Mai Waifu Jeremy Scahill actually on MSNBC, talking about Obama's CIA operations in Somalia and his (undeclared) wars around the world that are killing civilians every single day.
What's great is that Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who apart from his coverage of Blackwater has found it hard to get corporate media attention, is actually being given face time on MSNBC more and more regularly these days. What's not so great is that nearly every single fucking pundit in clip I've embedded below tries to spin his story a different way during his most recent appearance on the channel. I mean, the real story here is that, as Scahill points out, Obama has succeeded in normalizing and legitimizing policies that were considered illegal in the extreme only a few years ago as part of the "Bush Doctrine":
So what do the pundits grilling Jeremy do? They ignore that. Instead they run with his offhand comment about the way in which the anti-war movement was abandoned by the Democratic Party as soon as a Democratic president was the one doing the war-making. They say that the REAL story is not what Scahill uncovered, but that Liberal Media Bias is unfairly shielding Obama from criticism that Bush would have gotten for the same actions.
Now, this I don't doubt is true to SOME extent, and Scahill said as much: that many establishment journalists who are left-leaning or Dem-affiliated have faith that when a Democratic President leads the country into wars, they've thought it through more carefully than your typical neocon/Republican and therefore should be allowed to do it (never mind all the glaring evidence pointing to the fact that it's a shit foreign policy move no matter who does it and highly unethical, violent, and imperialistic to boot). HOWEVER, the brilliant minds at MSNBC then start openly lying, complaining that CodePink has been totally silent on Obama's wars and that the New York Times has shielded Obama from this sort of scrutiny despite the fact that they were a strong ally of the anti-war movement during the Bush years.
I just had to lol. I mean, really? Granted, there were/are prominent members of CodePink who went from being fiercely independent to being supportive of Obama and Democrats in 2008 (Medea Benjamin being one of them-which I'm still appalled by because she of all people should have fucking known better than to think a Dem as right-wing as Obama would have turned things around in a significant way), but CodePink is one of the few groups on the left who ABSOLUTELY are still vocally calling for an end to wars and calling out Obama on his bullshit. If you want examples of political action groups that absolutely do function as Obama/Dem Party apologists, cite MoveOn or the HRC or Markos Moulitsas/Daily Kos, but don't fucking cite CodePink. Oh, and calling the NYT an "ally of the anti-war movement" is fucking rich after the way they practically legitimized and acted as a happy cheerleader for the Iraq War and helped to circulate the lies of the Bush Administration. Judith Fucking Miller ring a bell for you, MSNBC? The NYT may or may not be shielding Obama from proper scrutiny, but they definitely did shield the Bush administration and never once has anyone in the NYT ever apologized for the role they played in helping to lead this country to war.
Seriously, how these shit pundits can be paid six-figure incomes to sit on their asses and blatantly LIE and practice revisionist history in order to distract from the real, hard-hitting reportage being brought to them by an actual journalist who knows his shit just enrages me to no end.
Also, in other news, lol at all the comments I've been reading on liberal websites and allegedly progressive Facebook groups proclaiming that they hate 90% of what Obama's done but are gonna vote for him because they're so ~scared~ and ~fearful~ of what will happen if they don't. I suppose his support for the repeal of a Clinton-era gay marriage ban (but no actual support for full federal equality) really calms your ~fears about the expansion of offshore drilling in the wake of the BP spill. I suppose we can't have a Republican in office, lest they bail out corporations with ~scary trillions instead of Obama's much more palatable hundred billions. I suppose a Republican taking our country into multiple wars would be totally scary and wrong and totally not like the multiple wars Obama has engaged us in right now, at times directly counter to public sentiment. Oh but that's right, I totes forgot, once he wins a second term then he's really going to stop cockblocking all of us leftists and will start behaving like an actual leftist without reactionary foreign policy moves and shitty abuses of executive power and civil liberties, amirite? Keep dreaming. @_@
(Granted, voting isn't the totality of a person's civic duty, but as one of links above details, it's precisely the people who will vote this way in 2012 who will be less likely to make noise and be out on the streets during a potential Obama second term protesting his wars, the deaths he's caused, and his unlawful treatment of people abroad and at home.)
Lol anyway because this post is long and ranty and bitter I just wanted to end with a happy comment that I'm really proud of Jeremy: he's gone from a near unknown not five years ago into a widely respected and fiercely independent journalist whom the mainstream press and people in power are starting to pay attention to, not because of but in spite of his constant criticisms of their work and their lies. ♥ Oh, and to keep with the Democracy Now! alumni theme, here's a sexy pic of Sharif Abdel Kouddous for your pleasure:
moar liek Sharif Abdel Couldgetit, amirite~ XDDDDDDDD
For context, my TV here at home is used solely for watching DVDs/videos/playing games (I can't afford cable or satellite TV and my TV is from way before the digital conversion), and so my current news "diet" has had little to no cable or mainstream network news for a long time now. The few times I do turn back to those news sources I'm always appalled at how soft/fluffy the "news" is, how jingoistic the tone is, and how lazy and uncritical the reportage is.
In the few minutes I spent waiting at the gate, ABC News went on about the Murdoch scandal: not in a deeply illuminating way, but in a stupid, "Wow lol wouldn't it suck if we were British and had to deal with this? Thank gawd we're Amurrikan, oh ho ho" sort of way. Never mind the fact that Murdoch has many interests housed in the US and wields massive influence in US politics and the corporate media system that serves as its megaphone; ABC News would have you believe that this is a Purely British Problem and we're just Lucky, Special Americans ensconced safely in our subdivisions as we watch this overseas trainwreck unfold.
And then after Diane Sawyer reports the death of the Murdoch whistleblower and manages to say that "there are no signs of suspicion surrounding the death" with a straight face and without bothering to follow the story and elaborate further (such as asking/answering basic questions like, "How do they know that?"), ABC News moves on to a fluff piece about the World Cup, about how the Japanese team's win was all the more significant in the wake of the tsunami and nuclear plant disasters.
Now, this had potential to be a good piece, focusing on the skills of the Japanese women who won the Cup for their country, or going into more detail about the plight over in Japan and how all these months later, radiation is STILL leaking, nuclear is still an unsustainable and dangerous form of energy generation, and so much more STILL needs to be done to help those affected by this profound tragedy. Instead, the piece becomes this insanely patronizing sour grapes parade in which the ~special comment~ person opines that because Japan has "been through so much" this year, maybe they just deserved the trophy more and they were fated to win. He said that even though the Americans played perfectly, it was like some "divine force" was guiding fate for the Japanese and it was out of Amurrika's hands. That's right, because instead of using his/her/its time constructively and stopping Japan from experiencing a major environmental (tsunami) and man-made (nuclear plant) disaster in the first place, this Divine Force decided to be a patronizing fuckhole and let those disasters happen just so he could toss the Japanese team a pity victory because his pary was with the victims and he was truley sorry for their lots. It had nothing to do with the fact that the Japanese team were the better team and fucking defeated the US (heaven forbid!); it was all about the fact that the Japanese needed some charity and who better than the amazing, magnanimous US to give it to them.
*
Even better, I then get home to see Mai Waifu Jeremy Scahill actually on MSNBC, talking about Obama's CIA operations in Somalia and his (undeclared) wars around the world that are killing civilians every single day.
What's great is that Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who apart from his coverage of Blackwater has found it hard to get corporate media attention, is actually being given face time on MSNBC more and more regularly these days. What's not so great is that nearly every single fucking pundit in clip I've embedded below tries to spin his story a different way during his most recent appearance on the channel. I mean, the real story here is that, as Scahill points out, Obama has succeeded in normalizing and legitimizing policies that were considered illegal in the extreme only a few years ago as part of the "Bush Doctrine":
So what do the pundits grilling Jeremy do? They ignore that. Instead they run with his offhand comment about the way in which the anti-war movement was abandoned by the Democratic Party as soon as a Democratic president was the one doing the war-making. They say that the REAL story is not what Scahill uncovered, but that Liberal Media Bias is unfairly shielding Obama from criticism that Bush would have gotten for the same actions.
Now, this I don't doubt is true to SOME extent, and Scahill said as much: that many establishment journalists who are left-leaning or Dem-affiliated have faith that when a Democratic President leads the country into wars, they've thought it through more carefully than your typical neocon/Republican and therefore should be allowed to do it (never mind all the glaring evidence pointing to the fact that it's a shit foreign policy move no matter who does it and highly unethical, violent, and imperialistic to boot). HOWEVER, the brilliant minds at MSNBC then start openly lying, complaining that CodePink has been totally silent on Obama's wars and that the New York Times has shielded Obama from this sort of scrutiny despite the fact that they were a strong ally of the anti-war movement during the Bush years.
I just had to lol. I mean, really? Granted, there were/are prominent members of CodePink who went from being fiercely independent to being supportive of Obama and Democrats in 2008 (Medea Benjamin being one of them-which I'm still appalled by because she of all people should have fucking known better than to think a Dem as right-wing as Obama would have turned things around in a significant way), but CodePink is one of the few groups on the left who ABSOLUTELY are still vocally calling for an end to wars and calling out Obama on his bullshit. If you want examples of political action groups that absolutely do function as Obama/Dem Party apologists, cite MoveOn or the HRC or Markos Moulitsas/Daily Kos, but don't fucking cite CodePink. Oh, and calling the NYT an "ally of the anti-war movement" is fucking rich after the way they practically legitimized and acted as a happy cheerleader for the Iraq War and helped to circulate the lies of the Bush Administration. Judith Fucking Miller ring a bell for you, MSNBC? The NYT may or may not be shielding Obama from proper scrutiny, but they definitely did shield the Bush administration and never once has anyone in the NYT ever apologized for the role they played in helping to lead this country to war.
Seriously, how these shit pundits can be paid six-figure incomes to sit on their asses and blatantly LIE and practice revisionist history in order to distract from the real, hard-hitting reportage being brought to them by an actual journalist who knows his shit just enrages me to no end.
Also, in other news, lol at all the comments I've been reading on liberal websites and allegedly progressive Facebook groups proclaiming that they hate 90% of what Obama's done but are gonna vote for him because they're so ~scared~ and ~fearful~ of what will happen if they don't. I suppose his support for the repeal of a Clinton-era gay marriage ban (but no actual support for full federal equality) really calms your ~fears about the expansion of offshore drilling in the wake of the BP spill. I suppose we can't have a Republican in office, lest they bail out corporations with ~scary trillions instead of Obama's much more palatable hundred billions. I suppose a Republican taking our country into multiple wars would be totally scary and wrong and totally not like the multiple wars Obama has engaged us in right now, at times directly counter to public sentiment. Oh but that's right, I totes forgot, once he wins a second term then he's really going to stop cockblocking all of us leftists and will start behaving like an actual leftist without reactionary foreign policy moves and shitty abuses of executive power and civil liberties, amirite? Keep dreaming. @_@
(Granted, voting isn't the totality of a person's civic duty, but as one of links above details, it's precisely the people who will vote this way in 2012 who will be less likely to make noise and be out on the streets during a potential Obama second term protesting his wars, the deaths he's caused, and his unlawful treatment of people abroad and at home.)
Lol anyway because this post is long and ranty and bitter I just wanted to end with a happy comment that I'm really proud of Jeremy: he's gone from a near unknown not five years ago into a widely respected and fiercely independent journalist whom the mainstream press and people in power are starting to pay attention to, not because of but in spite of his constant criticisms of their work and their lies. ♥ Oh, and to keep with the Democracy Now! alumni theme, here's a sexy pic of Sharif Abdel Kouddous for your pleasure:
moar liek Sharif Abdel Couldgetit, amirite~ XDDDDDDDD