|
This is for those who don't believe that the corporate media is manipulating the entire Presidential Election.
THE SWEET MYTH By David Potvin
That a free press exists....
The incestuous relationship between the GOP and the corporate media serves to subvert democracy by providing the public with narratives that are designed to ensure the desired electoral result. One unified message currently under development posits that former General Wesley Clark is morally and psychologically unfit to be president of the United States. During the last few weeks, the mainstream media has repeatedly libeled Clark as a liar and derided the general for being a pompous egotist whose all-consuming ambition has left him contemptibly out of touch with reality.
It was inevitable that the major broadcast and print outlets would target Clark for the journalistic equivalent of the Rodney King treatment. The arrival of a Democratic military hero on the political scene has created a serious problem for George W. Bush, and therefore has created a serious problem for the multinational communications conglomerates that are dependent on Bush for government largesse.
------------
The presence of General Clark on the Democratic ticket would jeopardize Bush’s political survival. Clark has already proven to be a credible authority on defense matters who is extremely persuasive in placing the blame for the events of September 11, 2001 directly where it belongs – on the commander-in-chief. As Washington political analyst Charlie Cook said just after Clark announced his candidacy, "For the White House, it is particularly important that Clark's credibility be impeached as soon as possible." In order to ensure that Bush maintains the ability to continue to transfer public wealth to the communications industry, America’s corporate media has recently begun the essential task at hand: the destruction of Wesley Clark.
Bill Clinton and Al Gore are men of substance whom the mainstream media could not subdue by reporting facts, so the men were slimed beyond recognition using rumor, innuendo, and outright lies. Clark’s impressive personal and professional background has also left America’s journalists without the necessary ammunition to damage him by telling the truth. That has not proven to be a deterrent. Clark announced his presidential candidacy less than two months ago, but the negative storyline is already forming and will soon dominate the coverage.
The first line of attack against the general is that he is “mentally unfit” to lead America. The Washington Post is initially assuming the lead role in discrediting Clark, and its resident presidential briefing book thief, George F. Will, has labeled Clark “deranged”. Mr. Will contends Clark accused the White House of a conspiracy to knock him off CNN, a charge that Will presents as proof that the general is a lunatic. Clark never actually made any such accusation, but that fact is subservient to the bigger picture: the Post pays Will a lot of money to help shape the national political debate in a way that best enhances the corporation’s bottom line.
That is precisely what the columnist was doing by beginning the process of demonizing Clark. Will’s false allegation was designed to get the media ball rolling on the “Clark Bays At The Moon” storyline, and it worked. His assertion that Clark’s sanity should be an issue has been picked up by Fox News and some of the television pundits. If the 2000 campaign serves as a precedent, they will soon be joined in questioning the general’s mental health by ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the other major media outlets.
Will’s fable has already become a staple of openly Republican talk radio, that sleazy netherworld of fictive ranting which was an accurate leading indicator of the blatantly absurd media attacks launched against Clinton and Gore. The cesspool that is conservative talk radio may be at the low end of the media food chain, but it is vitally important in amplifying storylines. Ominously for Clark, the mantra being chanted on talk radio is: “Some people have voiced concern about the general’s mental stability.”
--------------
The second dimension of the press assault on Clark tars him as being “dishonest”. In a reprise of the smearing of Gore, the Washington Post printed this statement that was syndicated across America: "There are an awful lot of people," said a retired four-star general, "who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later." This is a classic example of using innuendo to assail someone’s honor without the slightest shred of proof. It is not journalism – it is calumny, but that doesn’t matter to the Post, which knows it must alter the truth to enhance the storyline.
One of America’s highest profile journalists is currently straining mightily to popularize the charge that Clark is dishonest. The chief political correspondent of the Washington Post Company’s Newsweek magazine is Howard Fineman, who wrote in September that Clark said he would have become a Republican “if only Karl Rove had returned my calls.” Fineman’s objective, reliable sources for this devastating proof that Clark is a rank opportunist were Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman. Owens is the reactionary Republican governor of Colorado. Holtzman is a former member of Owens’ cabinet.
---------------
This squalor is what passes for journalism in present-day America. It could be dismissed as superhuman incompetence if only the quid pro quo were not so unavoidably obvious: huge taxpayer-subsidized profits for the media giants in exchange for Republican control of what Americans get to see and hear. Such expediency is a perversion of the system Madison and Jefferson had in mind when they insisted a free press must thrive in order to maintain the well-informed electorate that is essential to a properly functioning democracy.
For all practical purposes, freedom of the press in America is a comforting myth. The vast majority of citizens make political decisions based on false information received from corporate news organizations that are loath to report anything that alienates the Republicans who control the industry’s future. Raging against this corporate amorality by calling it cowardice misses the essential point: it is commerce. Corporations ultimately do not care about politics or journalism – they care about money.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
