CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative
Almost makes me feel bad that I'm boycotting the strongest Liberal voice on MSNBC.
But the problem remains: If Greenwald's argument is correct - that the corporate executives, or even "senior producers", were sculpting the news coverage during the build up to the war - there is no reason to think they have changed. Which makes me wonder how Olbermann was able to start a show in such a hostile climate. Perhaps they thought he would tank amidst the cute puppy clips and American Idol interviews. It certainly makes his show seem far less professional.
Olbermann, however, seemed to have pushed through much of the demeaning aspects with his powerful voice. In a way, it turned out to be perfect mirror of the American life. Would it be too much to generalize on behalf the country that most people want to go about their lives with puppies and American Idol? Political ignorance is bliss.
But when called by major events, Americans also expect to be able to exercise their freedom of speech. Moreover, they expect to be heard. Consumed by mythologies of individuals fighting against the machine, what else would we expect out of American? Rosa Park made an individual call - let's ignore the years of political organizing in her past. Cindy Sheehan was just a mother - let's ignore the politicized based that proved her with a network. So American, we might say, demand complancency - better, entertainment. But when it comes time to make the Reverean ride, we all like to think we would harken to the call.
What drives Olbermann's appeal, then, is not the special comments, but their relation to the other stuff - the silly and the exasperated. We know that we will only be subjected to political heaviness when there is need. The rest of the politic* will, at best, merely present the exasperated indifference of liberal mindedness. Of course, I'm not talking about world events like the tsunami or the war. American consume these facts in their own way. But political facts - even the tsunami or war, turned political - are bitter to our tastes.
We are, perhaps, unhealthy in our political skepticism. We don't trust any politic - and we are too quick to make gods or devils out of politicians. It's not that we don't like Moderates. But, pardon my boldness, instead we don't like the imperfect. And one reason seems to be that, in general, we don't like holding people responsible. With politicians either they are perfect or they are out. We don't let them do-what-they-do well, and then hold them responsible for their failings. There is no give and take. Rather we ignore their failings, or else ignore their successes. With our justice, justice is swift and sharp, and we either kill or knight.
We don't get these excesses with other fields. If America respects its political Democracy with absolutes, in other areas of responsibility we pass the buck. And our justice here is "The Market" (or Religion or some sort of Natural force). We can't imagine that a business would survive long running inefficiently - The Market would weed it out. Nor could a business survive not meeting the demands of its customers - Supply and Demand. So we can't imagine that a media outlet would present only half the story - The Market should have cut it's throat. And if there are a few bad-egg corporate executives or senior producers, well certainly something ought to have held them responsible. Right?
* Counting down the number of days since Mission Accomplished, updates of Bush Administration scandals, etc. Not to say that the don't provide interesting factoids. But if you aren't already convinced that these running scandals exist, then you're going to think that this presentation format is over-the-top and uninhibited in it's bias.
Corporate executives continuously suppressed critical reporting of the Government and the war and forced their paid reporters to mimic the administration line. The evidence proving that comes not from media critics or shrill left-wing bloggers but from those who work at these news outlets, including some of their best-known and highest-paid journalists who are attesting to such facts from first-hand knowledge despite its being in their interests not to speak out about such things.
Almost makes me feel bad that I'm boycotting the strongest Liberal voice on MSNBC.
But the problem remains: If Greenwald's argument is correct - that the corporate executives, or even "senior producers", were sculpting the news coverage during the build up to the war - there is no reason to think they have changed. Which makes me wonder how Olbermann was able to start a show in such a hostile climate. Perhaps they thought he would tank amidst the cute puppy clips and American Idol interviews. It certainly makes his show seem far less professional.
Olbermann, however, seemed to have pushed through much of the demeaning aspects with his powerful voice. In a way, it turned out to be perfect mirror of the American life. Would it be too much to generalize on behalf the country that most people want to go about their lives with puppies and American Idol? Political ignorance is bliss.
But when called by major events, Americans also expect to be able to exercise their freedom of speech. Moreover, they expect to be heard. Consumed by mythologies of individuals fighting against the machine, what else would we expect out of American? Rosa Park made an individual call - let's ignore the years of political organizing in her past. Cindy Sheehan was just a mother - let's ignore the politicized based that proved her with a network. So American, we might say, demand complancency - better, entertainment. But when it comes time to make the Reverean ride, we all like to think we would harken to the call.
What drives Olbermann's appeal, then, is not the special comments, but their relation to the other stuff - the silly and the exasperated. We know that we will only be subjected to political heaviness when there is need. The rest of the politic* will, at best, merely present the exasperated indifference of liberal mindedness. Of course, I'm not talking about world events like the tsunami or the war. American consume these facts in their own way. But political facts - even the tsunami or war, turned political - are bitter to our tastes.
We are, perhaps, unhealthy in our political skepticism. We don't trust any politic - and we are too quick to make gods or devils out of politicians. It's not that we don't like Moderates. But, pardon my boldness, instead we don't like the imperfect. And one reason seems to be that, in general, we don't like holding people responsible. With politicians either they are perfect or they are out. We don't let them do-what-they-do well, and then hold them responsible for their failings. There is no give and take. Rather we ignore their failings, or else ignore their successes. With our justice, justice is swift and sharp, and we either kill or knight.
We don't get these excesses with other fields. If America respects its political Democracy with absolutes, in other areas of responsibility we pass the buck. And our justice here is "The Market" (or Religion or some sort of Natural force). We can't imagine that a business would survive long running inefficiently - The Market would weed it out. Nor could a business survive not meeting the demands of its customers - Supply and Demand. So we can't imagine that a media outlet would present only half the story - The Market should have cut it's throat. And if there are a few bad-egg corporate executives or senior producers, well certainly something ought to have held them responsible. Right?
* Counting down the number of days since Mission Accomplished, updates of Bush Administration scandals, etc. Not to say that the don't provide interesting factoids. But if you aren't already convinced that these running scandals exist, then you're going to think that this presentation format is over-the-top and uninhibited in it's bias.
No comments:
Post a Comment