Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

[flintlock]

From a speech delivered by Democratic pollster Patrick Caddell

I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not. You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody. Which is exactly what they should be. They were unrelenting. Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...medium=twitter

[vt]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

We need investigative journalists that go after the truth, no matter what political party it affects.

[reggie]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

The media propaganda system is so much more complicated than what's portrayed. Here's just a couple of concepts, regarding techniques of manipulation, for consideration...

Recuperation, in the sociological sense, is the process by which politically radical ideas and images are twisted, co-opted, absorbed, defused, incorporated, annexed and commodified within media culture and bourgeois society, and thus become interpreted through a neutralized, innocuous or more socially conventional perspective.

More broadly, it may refer to the cultural appropriation of any subversive works or ideas by mainstrem and official culture. It is the opposite of détournement, in which images and other cultural artifacts are appropriated from mainstream sources and repurposed with radical intentions.

The concept in political philosophy of recuperation was first proposed by members of the Situationist International. The term conveys a negative connotation (so that an individual who recuperates may also be described as "selling out") because recuperation generally bears the intentional consequence (whether perceived or not) of fundamentally altering the meanings behind radical ideas due to their appropriation or being co-opted into the dominant discourse.


A détournement is a technique developed in the 1950s by the Letterist International, and consist in "turning expressions of the capitalist system and its media culture against itself," like turning slogans and logos against the advertisers or the political status quo. Détournement was prominently used to set up subversive political pranks, an influential tactic called situationist prank that was reprised by the punk movement in the late 1970s and inspired the culture jamming movement in the late 1980s.

In general it can be defined as a variation on a previous media work, in which the newly created one has a meaning that is antagonistic or antithetical to the original. The original media work that is détourned must be somewhat familiar to the target audience, so that it can appreciate the opposition of the new message. The artist or commentator making the variation can reuse only some of the characteristic elements of the originating work. The term "détournement" is borrowed from the French, the original language of the Situationist International publications. A similar term more familiar to English speakers would be "turnabout" or "derailment".

Détournement is similar to satirical parody, but employs more direct reuse or faithful mimicry of the original works rather than constructing a new work which merely alludes strongly to the original. It may be contrasted with recuperation, in which originally subversive works and ideas are themselves appropriated by mainstream media.

One could view detournement as forming the opposite side of the coin to 'recuperation' (where radical ideas and images become safe and commodified), in that images produced by the spectacle get altered and subverted so that rather than supporting the status quo, their meaning becomes changed in order to put across a more radical or oppositional message.

The concept of détournement has had a popular influence amongst contemporary radicals, and the technique can be seen in action in the present day when looking at the work of Culture Jammers including the Cacophony Society, Billboard Liberation Front, Occupy Movements and Adbusters, whose 'subvertisements' 'detourn' Nike adverts, for example. In this case, the original advertisement's imagery is altered in order to draw attention to said company's policy of shifting their production base to cheap-labour third-world 'free trade zones'. However, the line between 'recuperation' and 'détournement' can become thin (or at least very fuzzy) at times, as Naomi Klein points out in her book No Logo. Here she details how corporations such as Nike, Pepsi or Diesel have approached Culture Jammers and Adbusters and offered them lucrative contracts in return for partaking in 'ironic' promotional campaigns. She points out further irony by drawing attention to merchandising produced in order to promote Adbusters' Buy Nothing Day, an example of the recuperation of détournement if ever there was one.

Klein's arguments about irony reifying rather than breaking down power structures are echoed by Slavoj Žižek. Žižek argues that the kind of distance opened up by detournement is the condition of possibility for ideology to operate: by attacking and distancing oneself from the sign-systems of capital, the subject creates a fantasy of transgression that "covers up" his/her actual complicity with capitalism as an overarching system.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

Adbusters.org is worth checking out every once in a while.

Eric Hobsbawm at 94...

http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters/hobsbawm.html

[cobben]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

We need investigative journalist that go after the truth, no matter what political party it affects.

Eh, are you living in some sort of blue-eyed parallel universe?

3 Time Emmy Award Winning CNN Journalist: Mainstream Media Takes Money from FOREIGN Dictators to Run Flattering Propaganda

. . .

At the same time that Lyon was risking her life to do on-the-ground reporting in Bahrain, another CNN journalist was filming a paid propaganda piece on how the Bahraini leaders are a bunch of friendly pro-democracy reformers.


That's right ... the Bahraini government paid CNN to do what was literally an infomercial for that brutal regime and pretend it was real journalism.


Lyon says that China and many other foreign, authoritarian regimes also pay CNN and other mainstream networks to run flattering propaganda pieces.

We are grateful for Ms. Lyon's exposé of this revolting practice ... especially because real reporting is treated as terrorism by the American government.

[don]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

Adbusters.org is worth checking out every once in a while.

Eric Hobsbawm at 94...

http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters/hobsbawm.html

Thanks for posting - Hobsbawm is one of the best. His 4 volume history is indispensible.

[don]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

Ralph knows . . . and still believes

Rigging the Presidential Debates

by RALPH NADER

The three upcoming so-called presidential debates (actually parallel interviews) between Obama and Romney show the pathetic mainstream campaign press for what it is – a mass of ditto heads desperately awaiting gaffes or some visual irregularity by any of the candidates. The press certainly does not demand elementary material from the candidates such as the secret debate contract negotiated by the Obama and Romney campaigns that controls the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), the campaigns’ corporate offspring.

A similar secret contract between George W. Bush and John Kerry in 2004, obtained by George Farah, executive director of Open Debates (www.opendebates.org) showed just how the two Parties rig the debate process. Both Parties agreed that they would: (1) not request any additional debates, (2) not appear at any other debate or adversarial forum with any other presidential or vice presidential candidate, and (3) not accept any television or radio air time offers that involve a debate format. Were this deal to be between two corporations, they could be prosecuted for criminal violation of the antitrust laws.

This year voters are not allowed to know about the current backroom fix between Obama and Romney.

Farah revealed more. The Bush/Kerry closeout of the voters and the media extended to their agreeing not to ask each other direct questions but only rhetorical questions, and to clear any questions from the audience by their chosen moderator prior to the debates. Of course third party candidates are excluded. In 2000 and 2004, national polls showed majorities wanting me in the debates – the only way non-billionaires could reach tens of millions of voters – but the captive CPD and their compliant director, Janet Brown, created other exclusionary barriers.

Nothing seems to motivate the mainstream campaign press into challenging the two Party duopoly, its definition of important questions, or the rancid corporate sponsorship of the debates down to the hospitality parties the corporatists hold at the debate locations in Colorado, New York and Florida this October. The reporters must like the free wine and food.

Nor did the supine press inform the voters of recent written requests by numerous organizations in the Pittsburgh, District of Columbia and Portland, Oregon regions inviting the presidential candidates to debate in these areas (http://nader.org/2012/09/18/ralph-na...ential-debate/). Heaven forbid that the people strive to shape the presidential debate process and weaken the duopoly’s grip. Imagine a democratic process.

Substantively, the supine press applies its own rules. Rule One is to avoid pressing questions that extend the public’s agenda beyond what the two major candidates are wrangling over. So if they don’t debate pulling back from unauthorized wars, invasions, incursions or other important foreign policy moves they are not asked. Rule Two is to ignore what major civic groups or groups with credible track records propose for the candidates to address. So Obama and Romney are not pressed by the press to expressly respond to many important issues including: what they would do on law enforcement against corporate crime, fraud and abuse, whether they favor a $10 minimum wage that catches up to 1968, inflation adjusted, for thirty million workers, or on their positions on either a Wall Street speculation tax that can raise big money or even a carbon tax.

Union organizing rights, workers’ health and safety, and a variety of important consumer protections are scarcely on the press table even when their own colleagues often report on these timely subjects.

When a matter is super-timely and they can interview the nation’s foremost expert on the politics of presidential debates – George Farah, author of No Debate – the major media is not interested. They have rejected his op-eds. Apart from local radio shows, he cannot get on national public radio, public TV or the commercial networks. It is not for lack of space and time being devoted to the Presidential campaigns.

I know Farah. He worked for me over a decade ago, right out of Princeton before going to Harvard Law School. He is an interviewers’ dream –speaks crisply, cogently and convincingly.

Maybe reporters should be given “curiosity training sessions” about what the public needs and wants to know but that the candidates are not interested in discussing.

Maybe columnists should work with the people on the ground instead of just working off clips and dealing with political flaks who restrict access to the candidates. Some columnists could benefit from a sabbatical for self-renewal.

Maybe editors and producers should expand beyond the usual “talking heads” and give the many important outside voices and movements some deserved coverage.

Our country needs a better performance by the major media that is stuck in routines, ruts and stagnant self-censorship from the national to the local levels. This is especially true of the concentrated television industry that uses our public airwaves, free of charge.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer and author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us! He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

Thanks for posting - Hobsbawm is one of the best. His 4 volume history is indispensible.

I'm really worried that when paperback editions of things like The Age of Capital: 1848-1875 dry up, there will be no ebook editions.

Talk about a conspiracy.

[don]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

I'm really worried that when paperback editions of things like The Age of Capital: 1848-1875 dry up, there will be no ebook editions.

Talk about a conspiracy.

An old fear from years ago - the digitalizing of knowledge is a splendid opportunity for censorship by omission, a skill the MSM is well versed in.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

I too am uncomfortable with all the archives in the world being instantly revisable.
All the old thinking tossed in a landfill, only new stuff that is digital.

[don]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

The press certainly does not demand elementary material from the candidates such as the secret debate contract negotiated by the Obama and Romney campaigns that controls the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), the campaigns’ corporate offspring.

A similar secret contract between George W. Bush and John Kerry in 2004, obtained by George Farah, executive director of Open Debates (www.opendebates.org) showed just how the two Parties rig the debate process. Both Parties agreed that they would: (1) not request any additional debates, (2) not appear at any other debate or adversarial forum with any other presidential or vice presidential candidate, and (3) not accept any television or radio air time offers that involve a debate format. Were this deal to be between two corporations, they could be prosecuted for criminal violation of the antitrust laws.

This year voters are not allowed to know about the current backroom fix between Obama and Romney.

Farah revealed more. The Bush/Kerry closeout of the voters and the media extended to their agreeing not to ask each other direct questions but only rhetorical questions, and to clear any questions from the audience by their chosen moderator prior to the debates. Of course third party candidates are excluded. In 2000 and 2004, national polls showed majorities wanting me in the debates – the only way non-billionaires could reach tens of millions of voters – but the captive CPD and their compliant director, Janet Brown, created other exclusionary barriers.

did my fellow 'tuipers know this . . . is it old newz

[cjppjc]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

did my fellow 'tuipers know this . . . is it old newz

I think the shock value did not meet the iTulip standard.

[lektrode]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

did my fellow 'tuipers know this . . . is it old newz

no, but it sure sheds some light on the whole scam known as 'election season'
and thanks for that!

[don]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

Ralph is way too 'old school' - fer chrissakes, he's a believer in the system while seeing its mendacity up close and personal.

[lektrode]

Re: Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

but dont you think he's at least _trying_ to fix it?
vs 'going along to get along' like the vast majority of the rest of em...
again - why methinks without term limits for congress, there will be NO change coming any time soon (at least not before they run out of borrowing capacity...)