Klaus wrote:
>
> Yep, Spinal Tap was almost a quarter of a century ago.
>
> Schaeffer has joined the ranks of Robin Williams who hasn't been funny since "Popeye" (1980) and stand-up comedian George Carlin who hasn't been funny since the 1960s.
>
I'm sure this doesn't figure into Klaus' thinking, but a think a lot
of folks are so done with Carlin because he's gotten so dang smart...
(see the article attached below). Everybody please write the author
(his e-mail address is at the end of the article) and tell him that
poll was rigged - we and the rest of the nation wanted more Anna
Nicole Smith, and we will only be satisifed now if they give us full
time nicole lindsey britney and paris news...
Weekend Edition
August 18 / 19, 2007
Anna Beats Bush
Iraq, Iran & the Vanishing Context in American News
By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO
It's no coincidence that the American corporate media is the
wealthiest communication systems in the world, yet also one of the
worst in terms of educating its citizens. Extraordinary riches require
extraordinary efforts to divert public attention from extreme
inequality and the democratic deficit under which Americans suffer.
Despite the abundance of media sources throughout this country,
Americans still endure a staggering ignorance regarding the reality of
U.S. foreign policy. Horrendous media coverage no doubt accounts for
much of this ongoing tragedy. While there may be more information
available today than at any time in history (in light of the rise of
cable news, the Internet, and other technological developments)
quality of that news leaves much to be desired.
News reports today do not provide the public with the context needed
to evaluate the events happening around them in a critical way. This
lack of context is of no surprise to those who understand that media
coverage is designed to indoctrinate and divert attention, rather than
to educate. The prolific comic George Carlin has this insight to share
concerning the American media's commitment to class warfare:
"The real owners [are] the big wealthy business interests that
control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the
politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that
you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have
owners. They own you. They own and control the corporations. They've
long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state
houses, the city halls, the judges. And they own all the big media
companies so they control just about all the news and information you
get to hear. They spend billions every year lobbying to get what they
want. Well we know what they want. They want more for themselves and
less for everyone else. They don't want a population of citizens
capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well
educated people. That's against their interests. They want obedient
workers."
There's an easy enough way to create apathetic, obedient consumers:
simply take away any meaningful content from the media system upon
which they rely. This is perhaps best seen in the mass media's extreme
reliance on junk food and fluff "news," at the expense of real stories
that might have some direct relevance to our lives. A brief survey of
television news coverage puts this reality into better perspective. A
poll done by the Pew Research Center showed that, in the sample period
studied (the week of February 12th, 2007), "While 6% of coverage on
all media sectors (newspapers, network TV, cable TV, radio and the
Internet) was devoted to [Anna Nicole] Smith's death, fully 20% of
cable news focused on this story. At the height of the media's feeding
frenzy (the two day period immediately following Smith's death), 24%
of all coverage and 50% of cable news was devoted to the story." The
effects of such disproportionate coverage did not go unnoticed by
viewers or researchers. When asked who they had heard the most about
in the news, the "most memorable people" listed in the study was Anna
Nicole (recognized by 38% of viewers), followed by George Bush (28%),
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (both 3%), and Nancy Pelosi (1%).
In other words, Anna Nicole Smith had more name recognition than all
of the other highest scoring figures combined. This is particularly
disturbing for those with even a minimal commitment to democracy,
considering that the Anna Nicole story ranked at the very bottom of
the list in terms stories viewers felt were "deserving more of my
time" (only 3% of viewers felt Anna Nicole deserved more of their
time, as opposed to 15% and 12% respectively who felt the Iraq war and
the 2008 campaign deserved more time). Viewers can look forward to a
deluge of celebrity gossip "news" if they tune into the cable news
networks this summer. A brief review of CNN shows that in the 99 days
of summer from early May through early August, viewers could find a
news feature on one of three celebrities (Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton,
and Nicole Richie) on average once every other day. That's a pretty
extraordinary frequency considering the stories covered just three
people.
While cable news may be the worst medium to follow for those who are
interested learning something from the news, this hardly excuses print
news, which has also performed pitifully in terms of publishing
meaningful stories and information. A summary of the following stories
gives us a better picture of how much is missing from print media.
1. Hugo Chavez & Iran
A New York Times story from early August repeated complaints from
Argentinean Jews about Chavez's close ties with their government, in
light of Venezuela's close relationship with Iran. As the story
explained, such complaints come at a particularly sensitive time, in
light of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad'
to "wipe Israel off the map." Of course, Chavez has also been
routinely demonized by American media outlets for his alleged
"totalitarian" and "anti-American" disposition, which is thought to
justify the Bush administration'
and actions against his government and people.
What you won't hear
Such stories consistently and conveniently leave out the fact that 1.
far from an authoritarian, Chavez has been democratically elected
twice by the people of Venezuela in heavily monitored elections. Over
72% of Venezuelans voted in the 2006 election, in which Chavez
received nearly 63% of the vote - over 20% more than Bush received in
2004 when he claimed to have earned the "political capital" of the
American people.
Chavez is quite popular due to his populist disposition and his
commitment to redistributive politics, much to the chagrin of
America's corporate and political elites. 2. Chavez is not
"anti-American,
300 million Americans who inhabit it. Far from being a hate-monger,
Chavez has actually expressed deep admiration and sympathy for the
American people.
It is the Bush administration that originally incited antagonism
toward Chavez, not the other way around. It doesn't take a genius, but
rather access to decent news coverage, to understand why. It is now
known that the Bush administration conspired with Venezuelan military
leaders during a failed 2002 coup that briefly overthrew Chavez, and
ordered for the dissolution of the country's democratically elected
National Assembly, its constitution, and Supreme Court. Chavez was
quickly returned to power, however, after a popular uprising against
the conspirators. Good luck finding such revelations regularly
reported in the American press hysterical anti-Chavez rhetoric plays
much better with American elites who are more concerned with
destroying Venezeula's democracy than preserving it. Of course, one
can only imagine what American reporters would say about Chavez if he
had taken part in a coup aimed at overthrowing the Bush
administration. At the very least, a military invasion and overthrow
against Venezuela would be considered quite legitimate amongst
American media reporters, owners, and editors. The equivalent
prescription that the Bush administration must be overthrown by
Venezuela is considered unthinkable in the minds of America's
politico-media elite. Better to leave such double standards
unaddressed though, as they fail to flatter American political and
economic elites.
2. The Anti-War Movement
An August 7th story in the Chicago Tribune reported on the activities
of anti-war protestors throughout America's heartland. The article
focused on the activities of two protestors, Ashley Casale and Michael
Israel, who are traveling to towns and cities across the country
spreading their message against the occupation of Iraq.
What you won't hear
Don't expect to actually hear anything substantive about why Casale
and Israel are protesting the war those reasons are nowhere to be
found in the Tribune piece. While the story is full of references to
various anti-war banners carried by the protestors reading "Peace,"
"Bring the Troops Home," and "War is not the Answer," there is not a
single coherent argument against the war visible throughout the
1,000-word piece. The lack of a context for understanding anti-war
arguments is not isolated to the Tribune's coverage. A content
analysis of articles printed in 2007 (from January to July) in the New
York Times discussing withdrawal from Iraq reveals a similar pattern.
At a time when the majority of Americans are opposed to the occupation
and favor withdrawal within a year, there are virtually no criticisms
of the war (from quoted sources) reflected in the New York Times
coverage. Criticisms of the occupation as driven by imperialism or a
desire to control Iraqi oil are not mentioned a single time in the
coverage. Neither is the challenge that the U.S. is conducting an
illegal occupation. No source is cited arguing for withdrawal on
grounds condemning U.S. terrorism and American responsibility for the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Majority Iraqi public opposition to the occupation is never mentioned
by a quoted source in a single story either. Concern with excess
American military casualties is also left out of quoted sources
entirely. Even pragmatic assessments that the war is unwinnable or too
costly are not mentioned at all. In fact, the only criticisms that
appear at all amongst quoted sources in 2007 coverage include just one
mention of Iraqi nationalism as a motivating force for rebellion (in a
story on Iraqi political leader Moqtada al-Sadr), and three references
to American public opposition to the war. These four quoted sources
arguing for withdrawal throughout 2007 can hardly be characterized as
fulfilling the requirements of a robust debate over the reasons for
staying in or leaving Iraq.
On the other hand, arguments for the war from quoted sources are well
represented in the New York Times coverage. Sources who oppose
withdrawal are cited regularly arguing that Iraq faces civil war in
light of current conditions or withdrawal (a claim that shows up in
23% of stories). In addition, those who oppose withdrawal cite the
threat of Iraqi terrorists and Iraqi militias/insurgents in 19% and 8%
respectively in the Times articles. Far and away, the largest number
of justifications for remaining in Iraq come from those who reference
the importance of supporting the troops. References to the troops show
up in 51% of all the Times stories. It is perhaps fitting that the
"support the troops" rationale is the most commonly appearing defense
of the war in stories on withdrawal, at least if the point of media
coverage is to deter meaningful public policy debate. The "support the
troops" claim is clearly the most vacuous of all the pro-war
arguments. In-and-of-itself, the claim doesn't constitute a serious
defense of the occupation, considering that both pro and anti-war
critics cite the need to "support the troops" when arguing in favor
of, and in opposition to, withdrawal. Even President Bush has admitted
that both pro-and anti-war advocates support the troops. Such
references, then, can hardly serve as the crux of a substantive
pro-war argument.
3. Iran, the U.S., & the Nuclear "Threat"
Iran's alleged nuclear threat to the United States and its allies has
been a mainstay of American media coverage for at least the last four
years. This is clearly the case when reviewing major media coverage. A
content analysis of the Washington Post's news stories, editorials,
and op-ed coverage of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons shows a pattern
of deception, one-sidedness, and manipulation. A review of over 230
Post news stories, 31 editorials, and 58 op-eds from 2003 through 2007
shows that assertions suggesting Iran may or is developing nuclear
weapons appeared twice as often as claims or assertions that Iran is
not or may not be developing such weapons. The paper's op-eds and
editorials are even more slanted, as 90% of editorials and 93% of
op-eds suggest Iran is developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to o% of
editorials and 16% of op-eds suggesting Iran may not be developing
such weapons. Belligerent rhetoric is also used far more often in
regards to the Iranian "threat" (of which there is no evidence of to
date) than to the far larger U.S. and Israeli military threat to Iran
(which has been announced vocally and shamelessly over and over
throughout the American and Israeli press). Belligerent terms are
applied twice as often in regards to Iranian development of nuclear
weapons. Such terms, portray Iran as a "threat," and discuss the
"fear" invoked by a potentially nuclear armed Iran, as well as the
"danger" of such a development as contrasted with similar references
to a U.S. "threat," to the "fear" of a U.S. or Israeli attack, or the
"danger" both countries pose to Iran.
What you won't hear
While there is plenty of vilification featured throughout the stories
on Iranian WMD, you can forget about reading a level-headed review of
the actual intelligence available discussing whether Iran is actually
developing such weapons. While the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) is referenced in 61% of the Post's editorials and 29% of its
op-eds, the IAEA's actual conclusion that there is "no evidence" Iran
is developing nuclear weapons is referenced in just 1 editorial (3% of
all editorials) and in only 1 op-ed (2% of all op-eds). Similarly, the
IAEA is cited in 73% of all the Post's news stories on Iranian
weapons, despite the fact that the paper tilts by a ratio of 2:1 in
favor of assertions that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. It
appears that the IAEA itself, rather than its actual conclusions, has
propaganda value for U.S. media and political elites.
Don't bother looking for damning evidence implicating the U.S. for
double standards and hypocrisy in dealing with Iran either you won't
find them. References to the fact that it was the U.S. itself that
originally supported Iranian uranium enrichment show up in just 1% of
the Post's news stories, and in just 3% of all op-eds, and none of the
paper's editorials. The same goes for admissions that the United
States is undertaking a similar project of enriching its own uranium
for use in a new generation of American nuclear weapons (the major
distinction, however, is that the U.S. openly admits to its project,
while Iran has admitted to no such program). The very activity that
U.S. leaders are condemning Iran for secretly pursuing is arrogantly
advocated and pursued by the United States (the only country to have
ever used nuclear weapons on civilians), although one wouldn't know
any of this from looking at the coverage. U.S. enrichment of uranium
for use in nuclear weapons receives not a single mention in Post
editorials and op-eds, and receives only fleeting mention in the
paper's news stories.
Similarly, while the global nuclear non-proliferation treaty
(preventing its signatories from developing nuclear weapons) is
mentioned in regards to Iran in 38% of the Post's news stories, 39% of
editorials, and 14% of op-eds, the treaty is not brought up in a
single news story, and appears in only 3% of editorials and 2% of all
op-eds in terms of it its application to the United States. The
conclusion couldn't be more obvious to the astute reader though both
the U.S. and Iran have both signed the agreement, it only
realistically applies to the U.S. International non-proliferation law
is meant only for American enemies: the United States is bound by no
such rules, even when it has ratified them.
Any honest reading of the results above can lead to no other
conclusion: U.S. media coverage has reached appalling levels. Short of
conducting a major research project like one of those undertaken
above, it is very difficult for citizens to acquire the critical
information needed to arrive at realistic assessments of what is going
on in the world. How can citizens make informed decisions regarding
public policy when they are subject to systematically skewed,
propagandistic news coverage?
America's parochial press is not designed to promote debate or to
educate, but rather to repeat the official line. Citizens (outside the
intellectual, political, and business elite) are expected to conform
to the ideal of the apathetic consumers who know little about
international affairs, and care even less. Such ignorance is
encouraged in a mass media more concerned with selling products than
engaging citizens. As Noam Chomsky cogently argues: in a democracy,
"You can no longer control people by violence. You can't just throw
them into a torture chamber. You have to find other means. One means
is propaganda. Another means is rabid consumerism, to try to drive
people into massive consumption. In the United States the economy has
suffered under the neoliberal policies, as has been the case
worldwide, and is maintained to a high extent by consumer spendingFrom
infancy children are deluged by propaganda telling them: buy, buy,
buy, and so onThese are devices to try to control the populations and
ensure that the private tyrannies endure." The American press is not
producing enlightened citizens, but rather alienated consumers.
Whether the public will stand up and rebel against such contempt,
however, is a question yet to be answered.
Anthony DiMaggio is the author of the book, Mass Media, Mass
Propaganda: Examining American News in the "War on Terror"
(forthcoming December 2007). He has taught Middle East Politics and
American Government at Illinois State University. He can be reached at
adimag2@uic.
>
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
