Focusing on the wrong stories

As mentioned in my previous post, there are many news stories that go unreported, or receive inadequate coverage in comparison to their importance. While the “war on terror” is all the rage, guaranteed to fan the flames of fear and keep us all docile to Big Brother, a more serious threat, global warming, receives woefully inadequate coverage.

While anecdotally, many people sense that something’s seriously whacked with our weather, most prefer not to mention global warming, hoping that it will go away. Friends, let me tell you, whether our media acknowledges it and racks it according to its potential to change life as we know it, or not, we face some serious consequences unless we drastically change our behavior, before it’s too late. Burying our heads in the sand, or tilting at goblins won't cut it, either.

While I don’t qualify as a graybeard, yet (maybe salt ‘n pepper), I’ve lived long enough to know that this winter has been the strangest I’ve experienced in my 44 years on the planet. January days of 50 degree weather and shirtsleeves, people raking leaves rather than shoveling snow and meteorologists verifying that the month's temperatures have been the second-warmest on record for the northeast. Interestingly, this winter of no snow follows last year’s record breaking snowfalls on the Cape and other places. In fact, a map produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows temperatures above average all over the U.S.

Roger Harrabin, an environmental correspondent for the BBC reports that scientists will soon announce that only greenhouse gas emissions can account for the freakish weather that’s been experienced across the globe.

While our president paid lip service to alternative energy in his last state of the union address, he’s rigorously refused to accept any targets set for the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions. Even the British, despite Prime Minister Blair’s call for new technologies, are resistant to force business to drastically reduce their CO2 output.

None of this bodes well for the long-term, war on terror, or not.

Narrowness, rather than bias

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, there is a tendency to blame media bias for the perceived lack of “balanced” coverage coming from mainstream news sources. While I wouldn’t discount bias entirely from the media, I don’t think it plays any significant role in the lack of objective, or even thorough coverage of news stories.

Rather than bias, I think the “narrowness” of the news spectrum is a much bigger factor and one that tends to be lacking from even the more nuanced discussions of the news and/or media coverage of events. By narrowness, I’m talking about the specific framework, which dictates what news stories are acceptable and even, how news is supposed to be covered and disseminated.

In my opinion, the narrowness of the debate reflects more accurately, the subtle and not so subtle indoctrination that all Americans receive, which begins the day we are born. That indoctrination continues throughout school and is reinforced subtly by social norms and expected behavior when we reach adulthood.

As political philosopher, Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote in, Democracy on Trial (1995),

“Education is never outside a world of which politics—how human beings govern and order a way of life in common—is a necessary feature… Education always reflects a society’s views of what is excellent, worthy, and necessary. These reflections are not cast in cement like so many foundational stones; rather, they are refracted and reshaped over time as definitions, meanings and purposes change through democratic contestation. In this sense education is political, but being political is different from being directly and blatantly politicized— being made to serve interests and ends imposed by militant groups.”

If Elshtain is correct, and I would concur that she is, then it is possible to say that like education, the media also reflects a society’s view of what is excellent, worthy, and necessary. Rather than bias, per se, our news is shaped by what society accepts as acceptable. It is this which becomes the foundation of what then is transmitted as “truth.”

In addition to the spectrum of mainstream news being extremely narrow, most Americans receive the majority of their news from their local news affiliates. According to a Pew Research study, conducted in April of 2004, 54 percent of Americans get their news from local affiliates, 34 percent from network news and 38 percent from cable news sources. These percentages show an upward trend from previous polls, particularly related to both local news and cable. Additionally, 42 percent gather their news from their local newspaper and another 40 percent receive their daily updates via radio.

If you’ve spent any time watching local newscasts, this is scary. Not only are these 30 minute segments too brief to cover any stories in-depth, but that 30 minutes is also reduced significantly by commercials. Local newspapers have reduced staffs, receive more AP and other syndicated content and frequently short-change news content with cosmetic redesigns and other surface “improvements.”

Even “serious” news outlets such as NPR and Macneil-Lehrer have a narrow focus when it comes to reporting the news. While both of these sources of news are far superior to ideologically-driven programming coming from Fox, Clear Channel and other right-wing news talk operations, they still limit the stories that they cover.

One media research group that tracks news stories and gathers information about topics that are routinely ignored, is Project Censored, based out of Sonoma State University. By tracking news that is published in independent journals and newsletters, the group then compiles an annual list of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported, or self-censored by the country's major national news media.

For me, studies such as this clearly indicate that rather than purported bias, either liberal or conservative, the real issue on news and accessing truth, as difficult as that may be, comes down to not having others determine what is news, and what isn’t.

Take for instance this story, about Halliburton being awarded the contract to build domestic detention facilities. Track this story. See if your local newspaper picks up a Knight-Ridder feed or one from the AP, if one is available. It will probably be buried in the middle of the paper, on page 6, or 7, under national stories. This is just one example. There are numerous other “real news” stories that Project Censored has links to.

Along with Project Censored, Democracy Now regularly reports on stories that are conveniently omitted from nightly newscasts, local, and even national papers, or end up buried in papers like the New York Times, or the Washington Post.

Keeping track of what’s going on takes work, diligence, and a little bit of skill. Even then, the rapid pace of daily life, the distractions we’re bombarded with from entertainment and sports, as well as social conditioning make being a truth seeker, a difficult vocation.

**In addition to the resources used from Pew and Project Censored, the quote by Jean Bethke Elshtain was gathered from a blog post on PressThink, Jay Rosen's excellent media blog.

A rap for understanding

I know for many liberals, public radio is sacred and above reproach, or criticism. I’ve had too many conversations with so-called progressives that began with an indictment of mainstream news sources, only to be asked, “do you listen to public radio,” as if that solved the problem.

For me, public radio of the NPR variety is a fallback; something I listen to when I can’t find anything else on the dial. I will listen to certain segments of their programming, like Maine Things Considered, although of late, even Maine-based news seems to be lacking anything more than a business-friendly veneer to the stories reported. I do enjoy Terry Gross (one of the best interviewers anywhere, IMHO) and Fresh Air; I wish our own affiliates would carry Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now program.

Yesterday, while driving to an appointment, I caught the type of programming that I wish was the norm, rather than the all-too-infrequent exception. Alternative Radio carried Michael Eric Dyson’s Hip-hop Culture and the Legacy of Tupac Shakur. I had heard an earlier promo for this and made a mental note, mostly out of curiosity, to try to listen in. The busyness of life drove it from my thoughts, but sheer coincidence and time and my car intersected, allowing me to catch most of this 60 minute broadcast.

Let me first say that compared to my knowledge of the history of popular forms of music, such as rock, pop, and even less popular genres like jazz and blues, I know very little about rap or hip-hop. Other than the more political raps that I’ve heard from Public Enemy and Michael Franti, I'd say my knowledge of this musical form is surface, at best.

For someone like me, Dyson’s academic presentation, mixed with his own obvious love of rap and hip-hop, and his keen ability to rap and quote lyric after lyric from the past 20 or so years of hip-hop, was truly amazing. It’s rare to hear this type of programming anywhere except low-power FM and some community-based stations. Dyson’s historical perspective, political understanding and sympathetic treatment of Shakur revealed a totally different character than I’d been conditioned to view him as. It made me realize that I have a lot to learn about this branch music and culture. From Shakur’s roots, informed by Reaganomics and the accompanying poverty he experienced, Dyson’s presentation cast Shakur in a much different light than he was often portrayed by the press and the music industry. Dyson's talk was informative for the honest and refreshing way that he was able to demystify Shakur, who like many performers and cultural icons, ends up misrepresented, most often to cultivate an image, which will then be exploited through marketing.

I never knew that Shakur was deeply influenced by Shakepeare and aspired to be an actor. He was also a voracious reader, who read widely and across disciplines, even though he had dropped out of school. With Dyson deftly deconstructing his lyrics, for the first time, I saw Shakur as not some gansta thug wannabe, a cardboard caricature created by the pop culture machine--but someone who was a human being--a complex and intelligent performer and overtly political in his songwriting, not the

Despite some of my concerns about public radio, it still provides opportunities for alternative viewpoints. Of course, I’d be happy to see more segments like yesterday afternoon’s outstanding hour of programming.

The horse race has begun

It boggles the mind to contemplate, but the 2008 presidential race has officially begun. Well, at least that’s what this morning’s clip on MSNBC informed me. Not surprisingly, the media has already begun running its polls and is already handicapping the race and anointing front-runners. None of this bodes well for anyone remotely concerned about representative government, of, by, and for, the people.

The Field

Just like in 2004, and 2000, and before that, 1996, and before that, 1992…(get the point?), the participants are merely figureheads for those pulling the strings behind the scenes. The talking heads and political pundits will all make sure that we are all given several reasons why we must participate in this exercise in futility. There will be a semblance of intrigue and the show that all is being run legitimately. In the end, the average citizen will once again be the biggest loser.

Here is the up-to-the moment cast of characters that will be revving up their own version of the political dog and pony show. They’ll begin criss-crossing the country and stopping off in places like Iowa and New Hampshire. A few will become buzzworthy and possibly even become the early “upstart” and possible “spoiler."

Republicrats—

John McCain
Rudolph Guiliani
Rick Santorum
Mitt Romney
Bill Frist

Demicans—

Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
Al Gore
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Evan Bayh
Tom Vilsack
Barack Obama

Knighting the front-runners

The pre-emptive front-runners appear to be Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Senator Clinton, has been seen of late, talking tough on foreign policy and doing her damndest to appear presidential, despite the fact that no woman has ever been elected president and despite the fact that this is the 21st century, I wouldn’t wager any money you wouldn’t want to lose on the fairer sex, at least for president. Of course, the Republicans have been yammering about a run by Condelezza Rice, also.

Then, there is John McCain. Everyone’s favorite maverick, despite the fact that he’s never done anything to warrant that label. Even so, pundits and pollsters are already getting hard-ons about McCain’s ability reach the voters who are neither Republican, nor Democrat, but known merely as Independents.

Since it doesn’t matter that McCain isn’t really a maverick, or the anti-candidate, just that the perception is of such things, McCain will be given a free pass to wear the “outsider” mantle for most of the next two years.

The Rest of Us

While it’s probably a bit early for most Americans to give two shits about the 2008 presidential race, there are a couple of things worth taking away from this. First, any real hope for change in the way business is conducted in the corridors of power, is merely fantasy. The U.S., for all of its posturing and lip service paid to the “D-word,” is actually a fascist oligarchy and voting merely gives some legitimacy to the sham foisted upon us every four years.

In defining fascism, Noam Chomsky accurately describes our present system that we are told is democracy. As he writes, “That's what a fascist system traditionally was. It can vary in the way it works, but the ideal state that it aims at is absolutist -- top-down control with the public essentially following orders. Fascism is a term from the political domain, so it doesn't apply strictly to corporations, but if you look at them, power goes strictly top-down, from the board of directors to managers to lower managers and ultimately to the people on the shop floor, typists, etc. There's no flow of power or planning from the bottomup. Ultimate power resides in the hands of investors, owners, banks, etc.

People can disrupt, make suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. People who aren't owners and investors have nothing much to say about it. They can choose to rent their labor to the corporation, or to purchase the commodities or services that it produces, or to find a place in the chain of command, but that's it. That's the totality of their control over the corporation." (Secrets, Lies, and Democracy by Noam Chomsky; Odonian Press, 1994)

For the first time in my life, I’m not going to take part this time. I’m not going to get all caught up in an exercise that disenfranchises the wishes of the majority of the U.S. citizenry. If voting really mattered, then I’m sure that someone would pass a law making it illegal.

When you look at the field being offered at this early stage, there isn’t one person in the lot who could make a difference. Any truly “maverick” or independent candidate would end up eventually excluded from the debates that are orchestrated to give the appearance that real issues are being debated.

Without there being any hope for a truly independent, third party, one that represented the agenda for working-class Americans, the election of 2008 will once more represent politics as usual here in Oceania, I mean, the United States of America.

The solution in Iraq--get out!!

The age-old schism between Sunnis and the Shia majority in Iraq has suddenly found the catalyst needed to cause it to flareup--U.S. occupation of Iraq. Over the past week, tensions have erupted and led to outbreaks of violence and a ramping-up of sectarian concerns.

Raed Jarrar, who blogs at Raed in the Middle, has an excellent post on the looming civil war in Iraq. As he writes at his blog, "the current sectarian tension was handled very efficiently by the Iraqi religious and social leaders working with their elected national government, and that the occupation troops and authorities didn't take any part in "protecting Iraqis from each other", which is the bush administration's number one excuse for keeping the troops in Iraq."

We need to stop vacillating on this issue. We need to bring our troops home now! If we don't we'll be responsible for even greater chaos in a country that we've done nothing but FTU in, from the beginning.