MEDIA POLITICS

The question that does not go away for me is: How did G W Bush become President of the United States, and be charged with making the final decisions he has made, in particular the invasion and occupation of Iraq following the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001? The answer to the simpler question is clearer, and that is: Why did a significant number of Americans believe that Iraq was in some way related to the events of 911? The most obvious answer to that question is that the American Mass Media allowed such a misperception to have currency, and in a First Amendment sense they failed to perform their duty as a watchdog of democracy.

Then I suppose that you might ask: is the problem with the media or the media consumers? I accept that there are inevitably frames and editorial biases, but I suggest the people who rely on television as the primary source for news and information are very susceptible to media manipulation. Writing blog posts and comments is a active process, for example, in which the writer has to construct his thoughts in a way in which reason and sources of information are transparent, which seems to me more in keeping with a principled view of democracy, that is democracy as a practice and way of life. Even, in the highly likely case, or so I like to imagine, nobody reads what I write, I can at least reflect on it, and ideally do so with respect to truth and reason. Any writer in any language, as with any speaker, necessarily respects the dharma of that language, and might in that spirit be gracious enough to edit the less factitious moments that I, for one, am prone.

Currently, Barack Obama is undergoing the policy metamorphosis that accompanies the change from a Primary campaigner to a Presidential campaigner. My impression, enhanced Chris Floyd, is that rather than moving to the centre, he is moving further to the right. Part of his realpolitik must be to shield his campaign against such tactics as employed by the “Swift Boat Veterans” and the concocted “unanimous violence” implicit in the treatment of Jeremiah Wright and more recently the comments of Wesley Clark. In these episodes the television channels became partisan political players, forsaking any role in promoting a informed democratic debate and dialectic. By exercising such power the media corporations, and their associated commercial interests, are players in the political power game. Whatever, might be said about the editorial of The Washington Post on Obama’s “rigid plan to withdraw from Iraq” in which the editorial writer is confident ahead of time what the military commanders on the ground will advise the candidate, they do not get the fact that invasion is a crime by international law.

Glenn Greenwald has some comments that are relevant. After quoting several polls of public opinion, he observes:

How much clearer could that be? The truth is exactly the opposite of what Liasson said. Americans want to withdraw from Iraq in accordance with Obama’s timetable (if not faster) regardless of circumstances “on the ground” — not conditioned on those circumstances. But because that’s not the view Liasson and her establishment colleagues embrace, they just lie and claim that the majority view is the one held only by the “left-wing” fringe, while their own actually fringe view is the one embraced by “the American people” and thus defines the “Center.”

This is the standard propaganda tactic of establishment media stars like Liasson, and she’s hardly unique — in this way or in any other. This is how they manipulate public opinion and coerce political officials to disregard the views of most Americans in favor of the fringe, establishment view. The views of the establishment pundit class are automatically labeled “the Center” even when they’re rejected by majorities of “the American people.” By contrast, views that are actually held by majorities but which the pundit class dislikes are demonized as those of “the Left.” Thus, they argue, political candidates, in order to win elections, must embrace the views of the establishment and reject the view of most Americans. That’s how a candidate “moves to the Center.”

This is the central deceit that causes the war in Iraq to continue despite most Americans’ wanting it to end for quite some time (because “only the Left” wants an end to war while “the Center” wants to say until we win). It’s why crimes committed by the Washington elite go uninvestigated and unpunished (due to the lie that only “the Left” favors investigations and punishment while the Center” opposes investigations). It’s how radical Bush policies such as warrantless eavesdropping, telecom amnesty and torture become the “Center” even when they’re no such thing. This is the central premise of the Beltway class — that any policies they dislike, any attempts to hold them accountable, are necessarily the rantings of “the Left.”

But then again that is just public opinion – proving that the pervasive influence of media bias is limited in everyone’s mind, except the candidates. Then as the current holder of the unique constitutional office that is neither of the legislature or the executive, Vice President R Cheney so accurately said, “So [What]?”

In these cases, democracy has a problem, and it might be better to promote it at home rather than use as rationale for behavior in other people’s countries.