If the Republicans with their
politics of obstruction and destruction gain control of the U.S. Senate after
tomorrow’s mid-term elections, the fault will lie squarely on the news media
that is apparently the slave to corporate America. The media claims that in
allowing bigoted extremists on the right a “fair” hearing without putting such
views in their proper context or under close examination, it is only doing its “duty.”
Far from it. The fallacy of “symmetry”
between Republicans and Democrats in media reporting, especially on CNN, has now
become the primary motor for governmental and societal dysfunction, focusing on
the salacious and sensational while failing to expose the destructive influence
of partisan propaganda from the right—in fact doing whatever it can to spread
it. For many voters, all they know is what they “learn” on television.
Of course we expect “asymmetry”
from Fox News, since it is the mouthpiece of the extreme right. But CNN
pretends to be what Fox News claims to be, but clearly is not: “Fair and
balanced.” In fact it is far from that. It would have the viewer believe that
the failures (and successes) of the opposing parties are “equal.” CNN has long
since lost the ratings “war” for the right-wing fringe to Fox, yet it
apparently believes that the so-called “center” and “undecideds” want to hear
falsehoods that temper the crimes of the right. It basically serves as a
propaganda arm of the Republican Party, refusing to expose its efforts to
disenfranchise voters, deny basic human
rights for the majority of people for partisan political reasons, its refusal
to understand that compromise is necessary when a majority of citizens don’t
even agree with its policy agenda.
In their book It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the
American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism,
Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein claim that it was right-wing politicians
like Newt Gingrich who “discovered” that the media preferred to cover “confrontation”
over “education,” although whether or not Gingrich was “educating” anyone is a
matter of partisan opinion. Certainly confrontation wasn’t exactly unknown in
the halls of Congress; in the lead-up to the Civil War, confrontation could and
often did lead to physical violence over the question of slavery (Southerners
who claim the war was about “states’ rights” always neglect to mention that the
“right” they are talking about was the “right” to own slaves and expand
slavery’s territorial reach).
The book notes that hard-right
Republicans like Gingrich, Rick Santorum, John Boehner and others seized on the
so-called House banking scandal of 1992—in which House members sometimes
overdrew from their pay accounts from an internal House bank—which Gingrich and
company used stirred-up a tsunami and rode the wave of public discontent into
control of the House in 1994 and for next 12 years. The media, seizing on the
discontent for ratings, failed to hammer home the point that not only were
Republicans as well as Democrats guilty, but Gingrich was one of the worst
abusers of the banking “system.” The media allowed Republican hypocrisy free
reign as Gingrich and his cronies successfully diverted all attention away from
their own guilt by their self-serving bombast; it made for good ratings—and their
corporate owners and sponsors approved as well.
With the electorate primed to
view the Democratic majority in Congress as the “problem,” and with the election
of Bill Clinton, it was Gingrich who would begin the process of Republican
obstruction that would be their strategy to block all policy initiatives of
Democratic presidents to come. Clinton recently claimed that Obama had it
“easier” than he did; he may be referring to his own failure to enact
healthcare reform, but in any case in 1994 and in 2008 Republicans hit on the
“strategy” of total obstruction. Mann and Ornstein note that
“In 1992, the electorate, reacting to a poor
economy, brought in a Democratic president for the first time in twelve years,
with continuing Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. This scenario
was ideal for Gingrich, as it allowed him to capitalize on his party’s
frustration at being out of power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue for the
first time in twelve years; he was able to convince his party to vote en masse
against major Clinton initiatives. Gingrich in effect convinced Republicans to
act like a parliamentary minority; even in areas where some GOP members might
have agreed with Democrats or wanted to bar gain with them, they united in
opposition, daring the majority to find votes only from within their own ranks.
When Clinton could not keep the congressional Democrats united, it resulted in
embarrassing and damaging policy delays and, on his signature health-care
reform plan, spectacular failure, along with a deepening sense among voters of
a broken political system. That sense was just what Gingrich and his allies
wanted to cultivate.”
Republicans were advised to use
the vilest “code words” to demean and demonize their Democratic opponents in
1994. Besides political discourse being “broken,” so to was the media’s failure.
Gingrich and the extreme Republican right was “great” theater, and who wanted
to spoil the show if was good for ratings—even if most of it was all lies and
hypocrisy? And what was the result of the media’s utter failure to expose the
extreme right’s agenda?
“Gingrich wanted to establish the
House almost as a parallel government, challenging the president and his policy
initiatives—and his very ability to shape the agenda—at every turn. Believing
that Clinton was soft and would cave to pressure, enabling the House
Republicans to move from winning an election for Congress to taking effective
charge of the government and implementing a sweeping policy revolution, he
confronted Clinton and challenged established policies at every turn”—this was
the de facto result of his so-called
“Contract with America.”
But Clinton held firm on the
budget and debt ceiling confrontation with Gingrich. To avoid further
embarrassment, “Gingrich saw that his overreach and hubris threatened his
majority’s ability to win a second term; he was still popular enough to
convince his colleagues to pivot and work with the president and to have
sufficient accomplishments to mollify voters, even if it meant burnishing
Clinton’s status at the same time.”
Here Clinton was wrong about
having it “easier” than Obama; even when current Speaker of the House John
Boehner sought to work with him, Boehner was repeatedly stymied by his lack of
clout among his own members, especially with the Tea Party and its racial
undercurrents. Since 2010, when voters still unsure about the viability of the
Affordable Care Act, they allowed their fear and the rhetoric of paranoia to
return the Republicans to control of the House. If people knew then what they
know now about the positive effects of ACA, the results may have been far
different; thanks to the media’s increasing inaction and silence on matters of
vital importance to the country, they wouldn’t have learned anyways.
Mann and Ornstein rightly bemoan
the fact that the news media treats the differences between the left and the
right as being “equally culpable” in the nation’s problems. “It is traditional
that those in the American media intent on showing their lack of bias
frequently report to their viewers and readers that both sides are equally
guilty of partisan misbehavior. Journalistic traditions notwithstanding,
reality is very different. The center of gravity within the Republican Party
has shifted sharply to the right. Its legendary moderate legislators in the
House and Senate are virtually extinct. To be sure, a sizable number of Republicans
in Congress are center-right or right-center, rather than right-right. But the
insurgent right wing regularly drowns them out. The post-McGovern Democratic
Party, while losing the bulk of the conservative Dixiecrat contingent, has
retained a more diverse constituency base, and since the Clinton presidency,
has hewed to the center-left, with an emphasis on the center, on issues ranging
from welfare reform to health policy.”
They also quote a thirty year Republican
Congressional staffer who states that Republicans have turned into something
more like an “apocalyptic cult” or “intensely ideological authoritarian (read fascist) parties of 20th
century Europe…Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for
Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a
Republican filibuster…no wonder that Washington is gridlocked…legislating has
now become war minus the shooting…a disciplined minority of totalitarians can
use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.”
This was, of course, the avenue of the Nazis rise to power, and how the Muslim
Brotherhood attempted to seize total power in Egypt.
The staffer also noted that it
was an “understanding” within the party that there was a “method” to the
“madness”—that the Republicans hoped to derail productivity in the Senate so
that voters opinions on that body would be so low that they would “throw the
bums out”—and they would incorrectly view the majority party in the Senate as
the “culprit.” Yet even when the Republicans telegraphing their intentions, the
news media seems incapable of divining their destructiveness and telling voters
the truth. The fact is that if the media dispensed with “fairness” which is
only abused and exploited by extremists on the right and just told the truth,
Republicans would be forced to moderate their extreme, obstructionist ways and
actually consider the value of governing.
What instead is happening is that
“fair and balanced” Fox News—a putrid lie if ever—“makes more profit than the
three network news divisions combined, despite having only 1/10th
the viewership.” How can this be? Because its right-wing slant is valued by the
Big Business and well-funded right-wing PACs with their salacious political
advertisements. Fox News is in effect merely the mouthpiece of corporate
America—as envisioned by an Australian who also happens to be a major pollutant
in the British media, Rupert Murdoch. This “news” network maintains its “loyal
audience of conservatives” by providing them “the same message presented in
different ways by different hosts over and over again”—meaning, of course, they
learn nothing.
CNN, meanwhile, “has tried
multiple business models, but has settled on having regular showdowns pitting
either a bedrock liberal against a bedrock conservative, or a reliable spinner
for Democrats against a Republican viewer. For viewers, this is reinforcement
that the only dialogue in the country is between polarized left and right, and
that the alternative is cynical public relations with no convictions at all.
The new business models and audiences are challenging the old notion that
Americans can share a common set of facts and then debate options.”
With countless media outlets for
“consumers” to choose from, we have seen the proliferation of scandal mongering
from the likes of TMZ and Deadspin being passed off as “news,” and
“traditional” news reporting has count on with the new “reality.” In order to
compete, “all media have become more focused on sensationalism and extremism,
on infotainment over information, and, in the process, the culture has
coarsened. No lie is too extreme to be published, aired, and repeated, with
little or no repercussion for its perpetrator. The audiences that hear them
repeatedly believe the lies…In a fragmented television and radio world of
intense competition for eyeballs and eardrums sensationalism trumps sensible
centrism. The lawmakers who get attention and airtime are the extreme and
outrageous ones…Outrageous comments result in celebrity status, huge
fund-raising advantages, and more media exposure. Mild behavior or political
centrisrn gets no such reward.”
Mann and Ornstein suggest that
there is no actual “center,” that the “centrist” voter is a myth. What this
means is that a third party to force a “fix” dysfunctional government in the
absence of media responsibility is bound to fail. All it would do is syphon off
votes from one candidate; this is why Ralph Nader’s presidential run in 2000
was one of conceited, pompous, self-serving, shortsighted and ultimately
disastrous fantasies—and it prevented what would have been a comfortable
victory for Al Gore and a much different country, perhaps one with a balanced
budget without the disastrous tax, debt, revenue and war policies of the Bush
administration.
Traditional media must stop pretending
that the parties are “equal.” The public must be properly educated on the
meaning and reality of asymmetric guilt in the current governmental dysfunction.
Electing Republicans will only mean that the problems they created will only
become worse. Politician’s lies or
distortions about facts should be emphasized in news stories and not buried in
back pages. It is the media’s duty to “clarify the differences in the party
platforms.”
With the Tea Party continuing to
be a “viable” political movement thanks to being propped up by an ignorant news
media fascinated with their ignorance and destructive purposes, “Voters must
punish extremism and seek to restore & maintain norms,” say Mann and
Ornstein. But how can this be possible if the media refuses to do its duty and
report the truth, rather than be “fair” to both sides which clearly are not
“equal” in their culpability in the breakdown in government?
No comments:
Post a Comment