Saturday, October 17, 2009

Propaganda Alert: Wall Street's grip on media.
Or: Access journalism, the elimination of dissent & the recoveryless recovery.

The re-ascendancy of Goldman Sachs, et al., was made possible by US taxpayers -- who weren't, by the way, consulted about it -- having forked-over billions and billions of dollars, in accordance with TARP and related measures, enacted in the moment of crisis (in 'extraordinary circumstances'!!!) as necessary for the very preservation of the United States economy.

And yet, despite the fact that the vast majority of US citizens are getting massively screwed by this state of affairs (and, let's face it, most of us are struggling right now just to make ends meet...it's not just the ultra-poor that are getting screwed, but the middle class), we hear nothing about this fact. It's reported or even so much as mentioned by no prominent media, including the declining 'traditional' press and the massive entertainment organizations that call themselves 'cable news'. And scarcer still is any piece of reporting that points out explicitly the fact that the small cadre of super-wealthy bankers are enriching themselves at the expense of the middle class. (And don't even get me started on the pitiful state of social services for poor people!)

So: why are the media nothing more than stenographers for the banking industry's public relations specialists?

To learn more, have a look at the spirited commentary of Naked Capitalism's Yves Smith: MSM Reporting as Propaganda (No One Minds Our New Financial Lords and Masters Edition).

In this piece, the author grapples with some of the sinister trends in financial news coverage (and in news coverage in general) and tries to sort out what accounts for the fact that the news reporting of the "mainstream" media are not just 'slanted', but -- and this is not hyperbole -- downright dysfunctional. In other words, propaganda. Here's a taste (I have emphasized certain passages using boldface):
Access journalism has created what is in many respects a controlled press. And that matters because people are far more suggestible than most of us wants to admit to ourselves.

Let us start with the cheerleading in the media over Wall Street, and in particular, Goldman earnings. Matt Taibbi, in “Good News on Wall Street Means… What Exactly?,” tells us why this is so distorted:
It’s literally amazing to me that our press corps hasn’t yet managed to draw a distinction between good news on Wall Street for companies like Goldman, and good news in reality.

I watched carefully the reporting of the Dow breaking 10,000 the other day and not anywhere did I see a major news organization include a paragraph of the “On the other hand, so fucking what?” sort, one that might point out that unemployment is still at a staggering high, foreclosures are racing along at a terrifying clip, and real people are struggling more than ever. In fact the dichotomy between the economic health of ordinary people and the traditional “market indicators” is not merely a non-story, it is a sort of taboo — unmentionable in major news coverage.
The press has been on a downslope for at least a decade, as a result of strained budgets and vastly more effective government and business spin control (and it was already pretty good at that, see the BBC series, The Century of the Self, via Google video, for a real eye-opener). I met a reporter who had been overseas for six years, opening an important foreign office for the Wall Street Journal. He was stunned when he came back in 1999 to see how much reporting had changed in his absence. He said it was impossible to get to the bottom of most stories in a normal news cycle because companies had become very sophisticated in controlling their message and access.

I couldn’t tell immediately, but one of my friends remarked in 2000 that the reporting was increasingly reminiscent of what she had grown up with in communist Poland. The state of the US media became evident to me when I lived in Australia during the run-up and the first two years of the Gulf War. I would regularly e-mail people in the States about stories I thought were important and I suspected might not be getting much play in the US. My correspondents were media junkies. 85% of the time, a story that had gotten widespread coverage in Australia appeared not to have been released in the US. And the other 15%, it didn’t get much attention (for instance, buried in the middle of the first section of the New York Times). And remember, Australia was an ally and sent troops to the Iraq. [...]

Please do read the rest.

2 comments:

Laci the Chinese Crested said...

Ever wonder why conservatives dislike things like funding public radio? It's cause they can keep them under reigns through funding. Commercial media is beholden to advertisers and US "public" media to its underwriters.

cft said...

Ever wonder why conservatives dislike things like funding public radio? It's cause they can keep them under reigns through funding. Commercial media is beholden to advertisers and US "public" media to its underwriters.

Yes, I think you're right about that. This problem is especially pronounced in our present epoch of unregulated finance capitalism. The "chopping up" -- in the form of complex derivatives and other "financial services 'products'" -- of investment interests means that ownership itself is already so depersonalized and mystified that the very idea of "holding media accountable" for their shoddiness, cynicism and lack of professional or ethical standards becomes harder for most people to grasp. It begins simply to feel like: That's what "news" is. It's more than a little dismaying...

Combine that with unchecked Gilded Age-style corporate consolidation, cronyism and utter lack of competition (supposedly so beloved by GOP-types!), and the result is cable 'news'-style media, whose orientations are deeply antidemocratic (that is to say, implicitly self-interested and therefore propagandistic, to whatever degree) in two chief respects:

(1) Since maximizing profit for his shareholders is literally the sole objective (and obligation) of any CEO, it follows that any media controlled by his mega-corporation will end up as cheerleaders for the cause of expanding the mega-corporation's economic opportunities (or, by extension, the expansion of opportunities for entire industries in which it has a stake).

(2) Perhaps even more pervasive and pernicious in its impact, this economic landscape is accompanied by the very same "chilling effect" that you hear about in Communist China, etc. Which is to say that there is less and less of any incentive for the press to put its neck out on the line in the interest of telling the unvarnished truth. The imagined negative consequences of doing so could issue from any number of interested parties.

Among other possibilities, these parties might be consist of:

(a) one's own media organization (which stands to lose its much-needed "access" to those in power),

(b) the CEO and/or board of directors of the mega-corporation under whose umbrella your media organization subsists (whose sole obligation, again, is ALWAYS to increase the bottom-line of investors), and

(c) any other big shot located anywhere in the reigning corpora-financial-governmental plutocracy.

(Woops: looks like I was in the mood to rant. My apologies to anyone who's stayed with me the entire time. I wish I had something more to offer than my weird typologies and, uh, bitterness!)

Sincerely,
cft