When it's time to excuse from the den of discourse certain "rogue" entities within the Mainstream Mafia, how do you do it?
Hugo Chavez has a way, and I believe our leaders would do well to follow suit, but I'm afraid, however, that they're either too cowardly, too rogue, or in too deep to do so. It seems that, in the area of media reform, Democracy-inaction is much safer and much more profitable than Democracy-in-action (at least here in the U.S., where the relationship between the government, corporations and media elite is an incestuous ménage à trois — so bad that one can not honestly tell, or tear, one apart from another). Hugo Chavez, however, isn't looking for the safe way out, or the lucrative short path; he's looking to rescue his country and his people from the scourge of social persecution, militant thuggery, cronyism and capitalism-gone-awry. One huge step toward that goal became a lot easier when one of the many Venezuelan versions of Fox News "officially" wore out its welcome, and not a moment too soon.
Steve Lendman provides an informative account of the news coming out of Venezuela [1]:
"Venezuelan TV station Radio Caracas Television's (known as RCTV) VHF Channel 2's operating license expired May 27, and it went off the air because the Chavez government, with ample justification, chose not to renew it. RCTV was the nation's oldest private broadcaster, operating since 1953. It's also had a tainted record of airing Venezuela's most hard right yellow journalism, consistently showing a lack of ethics, integrity or professional standards in how it operated as required by the law it arrogantly flaunted."
Sound familiar?
[...] "This writer explained the dominant corporate media's active role in these events in an extended January, 2007 article titled 'Venezuela's RCTV Acts of Sedition.' It presented conclusive evidence RCTV and the other four corporate-run TV stations violated Venezuela's Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and Television (LSR). That law guarantees freedom of expression without censorship but prohibits, as it should, transmission of messages illegally promoting, apologizing for, or inciting disobedience to the law that includes enlisting public support for the overthrow of a democratically elected president and his government.
"In spite of their lawlessness, the Chavez government treated all five broadcasters gently opting not to prosecute them, but merely refusing to renew one of RCTV's operating licenses (its VHF one) when it expired May 27 (its cable and satellite operations are unaffected) - a mere slap on the wrist for a media enterprise's active role in trying to overthrow the democratically elected Venezuelan president and his government.
". . . if an individual or organization of any kind incited public hostility, violence and anti-government rebellion under Section 2384 of the US code, Title 18, they would be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for up to 20 years for the crime of sedition."
Good thing we don't have that problem in the U.S., eh? As it is, the propaganda we're force-fed comes in the form of pro-Administration ass-kissing:
"Armstrong Williams, the conservative commentator, had been unmasked as a paid administration promoter who received $186,000 from the Education Department to speak favorably about President Bush's No Child Left Behind law in broadcast appearances.
"Around the same time, a spat erupted between the GAO and the White House over whether the government's practice of feeding TV stations prepackaged, ready-to-air news stories that touted administration policies (but did not disclose the government as the source) amounted to 'covert propaganda.' The GAO said that it did. The administration disagreed, saying spreading information about federal programs is part of the agencies' mission, and that the burden of disclosure falls on the TV stations." —The Washington Post [2]
Ah, the great benefits of Democracy and free speech in America, where if you don't mind the risk of being exposed as a government shill, you can make a 6-digit kick-back living by sitting in front of a camera and acting like people don't know that you're a complete fraud. Sure, the viewers will eventually learn that what you're spouting runs totally antithetical to reality, and that the policies you're praising are some of the most dangerous, unconstitutional, spendthrift and fascistic ever conceived, but we live in a quick-fix society where media execs need ratings yesterday, and besides, a man's gotta put bread on the table and his daughter in Yale.
People like Glenn Beck — the CNN "personality" who uses terms like Islamic terrorists, Muslim fanatics, Islamic Caliphate, and the fraudulent "wipe Israel off the map" misquote at almost the same frequency with which he uses the word "I" — know that as long as you repeat the same phrases and assertions over and over; bring people on the show who agree with your baseless viewpoints; and make sure you never face any real opposition, then you never have to be burdened with "the facts". After all, facts don't get ratings; controversy and gossip do, and ratings are what keeps a show on the air and bread on the table and pretty administrative assistants in your office. Don't hate the player; hate the game. "That's just the way it is."
Media blowhards like Beck know that it's no use to even pretend to be fair and ethical. They know it's much easier, much more self-gratifying, and much more profitable to stick to the lowest common denominators, like religious and racial stereotypes, e.g., the unfounded fear of third-world governments wanting to convert-or-kill all infidels and bring about the apocalypse. Beck knows these things because he has years of experience in the game. He knows that as long as you preach from the gut; face no factual opposition to your viewpoint; hand-pick your guests and label them "experts"; and do it all under the indomitable veneer of good ol' state-approved, right-wing American "isms," like Capitalism, patriotism, anti-Islamism, anti-atheism, and anti-pragmatism, then you're sure to succeed as a mainstream political personality in the U.S.
------------------
Hacks like Beck really can't lose, because chances are that even if there aren't a whole lot of people who'll watch his show because they agree with him, he'll be making up for it with the number of folks who will watch just to see what kind of ludicrous baloney he'll say next. That's part of the genius behind the madness in the method. Think about it. People gravitate (sink, really) to a medium at which they can vent their anger, and what better a medium than a jerk on TV spewing falsehoods and Fascist propaganda — enough to make any otherwise rational person want to throw a chair through their screen or do a scathing, half-assed write-up like this one.
"Sure," you ask, "but what about integrity and journalistic ethics?"
Hogwash. One needs not worry about those "ideals". Just ask Glenn. All he needs to do is act like a class clown, throw in a few self-effacing self-jabs, and do all those innocent-looking "who, me?" shoulder shrugs to let the less-discerning of his viewers feel like he's just a regular guy who serendipitously stumbled upon this great gig; so, even if 90% of what he espouses and endorses on his show is sheer fraud and political hackery, it's okay, because he's just some recovering alcoholic with a chemical imbalance and an innocent penchant for fear-mongering. That's all.
Oh yeah. It helps if you intermittently tell your viewers stuff like, "I'm not a journalist," and "I know nothing about this subject, and that's why I brought so-and-so on the program..." Subtle little reminders like that go a long way in successfully portraying one's self in the "who, me?" light. You don't even have to worry that your guests have been discredited and couldn't get a job outside an Israeli propaganda mill/neocon think-tank, as long as you make yourself out to be the dummy of the program. It gives your panel of otherwise bottom-of-the-barrel "experts" an implied element of credibility. See how that works? Ain't Democracy grand? Ain't freedom of speech a hoot?
------------------
It used to be that news disseminators and commentators were held to certain standards, like fact-checking, source credibility, and political balance, but that just got in the way of sensationalistic wolf-crying and made-ready wire reports. These days, journalistic standards are pipe dreams — ideals, at best. In today's world of instant gratification, it's a waste of time to do the simple research required to uncover facts, when you could be spending that time going over the script for that evening's show with your comrades guests. The important thing isn't whether or not their reports and commentary are based in fact, or come from reliable sources; the bottom line is whether or not they made their corporate keepers happy. Remember: Facts don't make ratings; controversy does. Facts don't put bread on the table and keep your Jaguar and your Lexus filled with $4/gal gasoline from Middle Eastern lands our great leaders worked so hard to pillage and occupy.
Dan Rather was raked over the coals for one not-so-Administration-friendly story which turned out to be based on false or ill-conceived evidence. It was the one indelible mark on an otherwise stellar career in journalism; yet he's still being raked over the coals by none other than the likes of Beck and Bill O'Reilly, who, themselves, spew falsehoods and hate on a daily basis, all without any effective recourse. Heck. They're rewarded for the great work[sic] they do; so, it really pays to be on the Administration's side in the game of public discourse here in the good ol' U.S.A.
------------------
In Venezuela, the privately-owned media crossed the ethical and legal lines in their campaign to bring down the government, because the government stood for Democratic values which were at odds with the modus operandi of the Mainstream Mafia in that country. Here in the U.S., it's the government and corporate-owned media who are crossing the ethical and legal lines in order to squash Democracy and dissent, and to disingenuously castigate their political opponents.
In the U.S., it's Democracy as long as it's for the government, or as long as it's favorable to the powers-that-be behind the scenes; so for instance, if GE, Starbucks, and Pepsi are your sponsors — if the CEOs of said monstrosities are your boss's hunting buddies — then you better not run a story about boycotts against, or financial divestments from, corporations who invest in the state of Israel. If you own shares of Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, or Blackwater, or if any of those monstrosities break bread with your corporate masters, then you'd better not make one objective or favorable reference to protests against the war in Iraq, or run a segment on wasteful defense budget spending and rampant cronyism.
On the other hand, if you want to invite bottom-feeding political pundits, evangelical outcasts, CIA has-beens, and self-styled experts on terrorism and end-times prophecies to your show — if you want to have an orgiastic fear-fest of hearsay, conjecture and sheer fabrication for the sake of demonizing anti-neocons, Libertarian Constitutionalists, Muslims, et al. — then good for you: You have the Executive's seal of approval and a collective pat-on-the-back from fellow xenophobic schizophrenics and megalomaniacal war propagandists.
------------------
When operating licenses expire in the U.S., they expire in a country where the line between news and tabloid have been diminished to the point where integrity, fairness, balance and credibility of source are simply "neat" ideals and novel aspirations. In the end, we're left with plenty of "what-ifs". When CNN and FOX need to renew their licenses, we never hear about it, and our government doesn't conduct exhaustive reviews of their operational practices, but what if...
What if we lived in a society where the mainstream media were held accountable?
What if we had leadership in government which held the Mainstream Mafia to strict ethical guidelines for news dissemination?
What if entities in our own government weren't in bed with corporate entities within the Mainstream Mafia?
What if our President used his Executive power and Congress used its Legislative power to make sure the FCC and other pertinent entities held our corporate media to quality journalistic standards and practices?
What if pundit-hacks could no longer get away with planting, propagating, and perpetuating myths, hoaxes and general propaganda, even the kind intended to overpower dissident voices?
What if CNN, FOX, and MSNBC's licenses expired in Venezuela?
Notes:
[1] Steve Lendman: "Venezuela's RCTV: Sine Die and Good Riddance". thepeoplesvoice.org
[2] Christopher Lee: "UPDATE: PREPACKAGED NEWS". washingtonpost.com
-###-
May 30, 2007 © 2007 by DetainThis. Permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media if this credit is attached and the title remains unchanged. DetainThis is a freelance writer and musician. detain_this@myway.com | http://detain-this.blogspot.com | http://www.myspace.com/danholio
