The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Media Page 7 of 9

Always Remember, the NY Times Pushed, Hard, for War in Iraq

The New York Times is beloved by many liberals, but I despise them. Part of my reason is their role in making the Iraq war happen. I was following it in real time and I remember how they pushed administration lies; the headlines of their articles on Iraq were almost always alarmist  and the lead paragraphs were as well. Often enough, the truth would be buried in the equivalent of paragraph twelve.

For those not in the business, here’s the rule: Most people only read the headlines and you lose half of those actually reading past the headline incrementally per paragraph. Maybe the Times numbers are slightly better than that (probably because their headlines are truly atrocious and uninformative), but the rule is broadly true and few people are able to write long-form without losing their readers.

The Times is essentially reactionary. A look at their columnists and who they have chosen to be new columnists makes the point: Ross Douthat, the reactionary Catholic?  David Brooks, master of the inane right wing observation?

I was reminded of this in the last few days by two articles listed at the very top of their daily newsletters:

Saudi Justice, Harsh but Able to Spare the Sword

…Such rulings have prompted comparisons to the Islamic State, which regularly beheads its foes and also claims to apply Shariah law.

But Mr. Yehiya was saved because of checks in the Saudi system on the use of harsh punishments.

and…

Rebukes From White House Risk Buoying Netanyahu

… Israeli analysts are now suggesting that Mr. Obama and his aides might be overplaying their hand, inviting a backlash of sympathy for Mr. Netanyahu, and that they may not have clearly defined what they expected to gain diplomatically by continuing to pressure the Israeli leader.

Certain countries are apologized for because they are US allies.  Remember the orgy of praise for the “cautious reformer” King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia when he died? 

Reading this sort of hagiography of evil men and nations is like taking a swig of sour milk: It induces a gag reflex.

A lot of people think the Times is in some way left wing because they have a lot of excellent long form arts and culture coverage, but they are also the newspaper which knew the US, under Bush II, was spying on its own citizens in a widespread way and buried the story because it might influence the election.

Journalists without any preference for right or left wing, might think that information about what the government is actually doing should influence the election.  They might even think it was their job to reveal such information.  Not the editors at the Times, however.

I suppose I’m slightly unfair to single out the Times; almost all American media is right wing and supine before power. But the NYT is the most important newspaper in the world–a newspaper with reach, power, and influence. A paper with clout enough to make other choices.

Instead it chooses to kneel before power, to be a courtier to power. In so doing, the Times implies to other journalists that their policies reflect actual journalism.

Enjoy the Times long form cultural pieces, by all means.  But remember that they are past masters of propaganda, willing to spew out half-truths that conceal fundamental truths, such as the fact that ISIS is the spawn of Saudi Arabia and operates under a very similar a justice system. They’re also willing to spew outright lies like the idea that King Abdullah is some sort of reformer.

The Times makes the world a more dangerous place by lying. It’s just that simple. Every time journalists lie to millions about the actual state of the world, they degrade those people’s ability to make good decisions about the world, especially good political decisions about voting.  Democracy, which puts power in ordinary people’s hands, requires an informed populace, which requires a media that does not knowingly distort facts or conceal unfortunate truths.

The American media, lead by the New York Times, has failed in that task, grossly, for decades.  The blood of millions stains their hands and when the blame is apportioned for America’s decline, they shall have plenty for which to answer.


If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Media Coverage of Israel’s killing of Palestinians

During Operation Cast Lead, the last time Israel decided to concentrate a large number of war crimes into a short period by kicking the shit out of Gazans despite the fact that Palestinians offer exactly zero real military threat to Israel I wrote a lot about it, and received the strongest pushback of my writing life: rich donors don’t like it when you say bad things about Israel.

Coverage in the US, of Israel, is so slanted that the Washington Post runs with 2 Israeli soldiers dying rather than over 60 civilians being slaughtered.

Simply put, for most news organizations, when Israel goes on a rampage, inflicting massively disproportionate collective punishment (a war crime), you have to make your bones.  Ideally you should cover for Israel: make excuses or slant coverage.  Of course the Post mentions that many more Palestinians are being killed by Israel than vice-versa; and of course the Washington Post will get around to mentioning the number of children killed

But the Washington Post editors know what all news editors know: about half the audience only reads the headlines.  Half of the remaining audience reads only the first paragraph.  If you don’t get around to mentioning inconvenient facts until later, most people will never read them.  You can feel virtuous “we covered that”, while being a propaganda outlet at the same time.

As with a lot of topics, writing about Israeli war crimes endangers your career.  The publishers and editors don’t want to hear; powerful politicians don’t want to read it.  Those who wrote against the Iraq war tended to get demoted or lose their jobs.  It’s not so bad for Israel and Palestine, of course: if you’re the sort of person who might write such articles, you’ll never make it to a position to write those articles.

Oh, to be sure, there are exceptions, and there are more in Britain than in the US.  But they are exceptions.

Writing about Israel and just noting the facts even handedly (starting with the higher casualty numbers, say), if you’re career minded, or just want to be able to feed your family, is a bad move.  It’s just not worth it.

The UK is a Propaganda Society

People cannot make correct decisions if they believe lies:

In May 2013 the reputable polling company ComRes asked a representative sample of the British public the following question: “How many Iraqis, both combatants and civilians, do you think have died as a consequence of the war that began in Iraq in 2003?”

According to 59% of the respondents, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis died as a result of the war.

This is similar to the fact that on the eve of the Iraq war, 70% of Americans thought that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

The information problem, that people believe what they hear repeated, and the way it interacts with our media system is another problem we’re going to have to tackle if we want a long cycle of prosperity after this cycle ends.

Why Jeff Bezos Purchased the Washington Post

Newspapers don’t make much money any more (though in the 90s they made returns in the teens regularly.)  What they do still have, though, is influence and power.  Even though newspapers don’t have the reach television does, they determine the stories of the day—they control the news cycle more than any other part of the media. More than that, newspapers are intelligence bureaus.  Rupert Murdoch, no fool, would spend hours on the phone with beat reporters, picking their brains.

Power leads to money.  Amazon is under what Bezos must consider attack (as in making Amazon pay sales taxes), and he needs influence, power and intelligence in DC.  The Washington Post, at 250 million, is an absolute steal, even if it loses money every day.

(Bezos letter to Washington Post staff.)

Interview on causes for hope, fracking, global warming and the surveillance state

Sound is much better on this one than the last one, and speech from me is clear though there are some issues with the sound from the interviewer.  I think this one is definitely worth a listen.

 

Listen to internet radio with Jay Ackroyd on BlogTalkRadio

I wonder how much Ashley Fantz of CNN gets paid to mislead readers?

Beautiful:

Assange claimed that various institutions and corporations had hit the site with a financial blockage.

Claimed?  It’s not a claim, it’s a fact.  How much it cost Wikileaks might be a claim, but that’s not what Ms. Fantz wrote.

This is one reason why we can’t have good democracies, because reporters mislead the public

What passes for smart on the Greek Debt Crisis

is profoundly stupid and misleading.  Over at Americablog I stumbled across a post written by Kevin Drum on the Greek debt crisis, a post which was also linked to approvingly by Digby.  It is what passes for smart on the left, these days: superficially correct, but riddled with massive assumptions.  Back when blogging was my job, I took out garbage like this regularly, these days I do it rarely, but I’m going to tackle this one because the embedded assumption aren’t just sewage, they are toxic to dealing with the current depression we’re in. Let’s start with the New York Times (I incorrectly attributed this first quote to Kevin Drum, for which I sincerely apologize):

A return to the drachma is unlikely to offer a quick cure for Greece’s ills. Default on the nation’s $500 billion in public debt would become a certainty, depositors would take their money out of local banks and, with a sharp devaluation of as much as 50 percent, inflation would loom. A return to the international credit markets would take years.

It didn’t take years for Argentina when they defaulted.  When Iceland told Europeans to go take a long flying leap of a short pier, it didn’t take them years.  In fact, my best guess is it would take a year, maybe less.  There is too much money chasing far too few returns.  Contrary to the idea that there isn’t enough money in the world, the problem is that there is too much, and it is chasing diminishing returns.  Remember a default isn’t a bankruptcy, in a default Greece says “we aren’t paying this back as scheduled, we’ll pay you back… eventually”.  My suggestion would be to transfer it into 100 year bonds with 1% interest.  If creditors don’t like that they don’t have to take it, they can then try and collect on their credit default swaps, but if they make that claim, the Greek government considers that debt cancelled (you don’t get paid twice.)

Moreover, once Greek returns to the Drachma, it can print money.  At that point it can’t default on any new bond issues as long as they are issued in Drachma. On to Kevin Drum:

Here’s the thing, though: Greek debt is largely held by German banks that made the loans. [See update below.] If Greece has been irresponsible, so were the German banks that happily loaned out the money. So if Greece defaults, the banks go kablooey. But they’re too big to fail, which means the German government would be forced to bail them out. And guess where the bailout money comes from? Tax dollars.

This means that German taxpayers have a bleak choice. They can shovel lots of money to Greece to keep them from defaulting, or they can refuse, and then shovel lots of money into German banks to keep them from collapsing. Either way, German taxpayers are going to foot the bill.

No, no they don’t have to bail out the banks.  Not for the full value of the default (if Greece just said “we won’t pay”, as opposed to “we’ll pay at some point”.)  The banks have shareholders and bondholders.  Those institutions and people take the losses.  Some of them are public (pension funds, etc…) but many of them aren’t.  Let them eat their losses.  The banks go under, you refloat them, but the cost of doing so is far less than paying off all the bad loans, because the private actors have taken their losses and any excess losses, well, they’re just written off.  Same as when you realize cousin Fred ain’t ever paying you back than $100.  It’s gone.  Done.  Over with.

The only reason “all the debts” must be paid off is because the rich demand it.  They don’t want to take their losses. This is what should have been done in the US.  It is what should be done in Europe.  It is what our lords and masters refuse to do at all costs, because the people who own them, or they themselves, or their friends, or their lovers, are the ones who will take the bath.

(on defaulting and going to the Drachma)

But it puts Greece into a death spiral. They can’t pay their debts, so they cut back, which hurts their economy, which makes them even broker, so they cut back some more, rinse and repeat. There’s virtually no hope that they’ll recover anytime in the near future.

According to the IMF, hardly an organization that wants countries to default, the effect on the economy of defaulting is one year of sharp pain, followed (perhaps) by a few years of lesser growth than otherwise.  In other words, not that bad, and no worse than Greece has already suffered.

More Drum:

If Greece exits the euro, it will become terrifyingly obvious that other weak countries might exit too. Portugal, Spain, and Italy are the obvious candidates. Investors, spooked at the thought of their money being stuck in a country that might exit the euro and devalue all its bank deposits, would start huge runs on banks in those countries. The ECB would have to intervene and provide liquidity without limit. It would be a disaster.

Uh huh.  Or those countries could simply slap on currency controls, which experience shows (most recently and clearly in the Asian currency crisis of the 90s), works.  And permanent austerity, which is what France and Germany want to impose on Italy, Greece and Spain (with the apparent cooperation of their political classes, I might add) will erode the value of the bank holdings in time anyway.  Drum’s not exactly wrong, but it’s the other options, which never get mentioned, which matter.

There are economic tools for dealing with these issues.  Capital and currency controls are one of them, the distinction between default (we’ll pay you eventually, as opposed to we’ll never pay you) is another.  The question of who is being bailed out (private investors, in large part) is another.  And bailing out those investors is a political act, their money is their political power.  The current political class, who is complicit with the current monied class, of course wants to bail them out.

All of this is before we even get to the horribly anti-democratic nature of all of this: the repeated refusal of the political class to allow referendums, the complicity of all major political parties in the process (notice there is no party to vote for if you want to default), and so on.

There is no actual democracy in any part of the world which is attached to the Wall Street centered financial system.   Calls can run up to 1000:1 against TARP and it will pass.  Strong majorities can be for or against particular policies and if the elite disagrees, that’s all that matters.  There are no parties to vote for if you are against the current system.

In a sense, this is fair.  Westerners thought that they could have consumer democracy: they didn’t have to participate in it except at election time, when they would vote for parties and platforms paid for and produced by someone other than them.  Coke(tm)/Pepsi(tm) politics – you have a choice, you can choose either Coke or Pepsi!  Politicians aren’t paid by you (their salaries are the least part of their real income) why would you think they care about your concerns?

You don’t pay for politicians or politics.  This is the Facebook rule: if you don’t pay the freight, you aren’t the customer, you are the product.  Politicians compete for the money and favors of the rich, and what they sell is the ability to wrangle you: to pass the austerity bills, to cut the benefits, to privatize the jewels of the public system, to force through the multi-trillion dollar bailouts.  They control government for the benefit of the rich.

And the rich pay all the way down the line.  They control the media, right down to the bottom, to make sure that what is discussed is what they want discussed, in the terms they want it discussed.  That default isn’t that bad: forbidden.  That currency controls mitigate damage in these circumstances: forbidden.  That lenders will lend to defaulting countries almost immediately: forbidden.

I will discuss the pointlessness of media and “popular sentiment” in a post soon.  In the meantime, realize that even the supposed left feeds you intellectual sewage on a regular basis.

Unbelievable disrespect to a black man in Britain

Watch.  Seriously, watch it.

It’s hard to know what to say, because what I’m thinking is unprintable.  Yeah, what a surprise that the riots occurred.  What a surprise.  And cracking down will make it worse, not better.  This isn’t even close to over, and it will never be over while men or women like that interviewer are in any position of influence or power. (h/t Feminist Philosophers.)

Update: a friend points out the social reasons behind the insistence that any explanation is an excuse and that anyone who “excuses” the rioters must be immediately asked if they condone the riots as if explaining is the same thing as condoning.

The insistence on not allowing an explanation reminds me of Obama refusing to “play the blame game” with reference to the Bush administration and the shutting down of discourse around the 9/11 attacks.  Any attempt to actually understand why something happened threaten the official narrative, and might cast blame blame on those in power.  That can’t be allowed, so no explanation is allowed, only condemnation.  (Ian note: Remember all the nonsense about how the 9/11 hijackers were cowards?  They were many bad things, they weren’t cowards.)

Page 7 of 9

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén