There are two kinds of media censorship: direct and self-directed.
In an authoritarian regime, nothing gets published or broadcast without state approval. I watched the inner workings of direct government control of the press during a visit to Turkmenistan. Every magazine and newspaper was run out of the same office. Many were edited by the same people, all wearing the same lapel pins, an image of the country’s then-dictator, Sapamurat “Turkmenbashi” Niyazov.
This didn’t exactly make for a bunch of scintillating reads: the “our harvest rocks” stories were direct heirs of propaganda in the Soviet Union, of which the Turkmen SSR was a remote outpost. But it did offer clarity. The Turkmen people have never suffered from any illusions about the nature of their political system. They knew they weren’t free.
Censorship exists everywhere. In the so-called “free world,” however, political and cultural gatekeepers work to try to fool citizens into thinking that it does not. This morning, on NPR, I took note of an in-house ad in which an employee of the network claimed that it reports “unbiased news.”
There is, of course, no such thing as unbiased reporting or analysis. I’ve been listening to NPR for decades. In stories about foreign policy crises, never once have I heard an interview with a pacifist, someone who is against all military action. Whether it’s about Iran or ISIS, the “debate” is always between two varieties of interventionism: harsh (sanctions, i.e. “containment”) and harsher (bombs). If NPR’s “Marketplace” has ever interviewed a communist about why capitalism sucks and should be replaced, I missed it. Biased? You betcha. Always. Inevitably.
Here in the United States, censorship is usually self-directed. No one from the State Ministry of Propaganda calls The New York Times to tell them what’s fit to print. They make those decisions on their own. But those calls are informed by who those editors are — the elite schools from which they graduated (Columbia Journalism School), their class background (parents rich enough to send them to Columbia J-School), input from their friends and colleagues (other people whose parents are rich enough to send them to Columbia J-School). Who they are determines what makes it into print.
Which is often motivated by a desire not to offend those in power.
Major American media outlets are run by people who believe that they need access to those in power, which is to say government officials and corporate executives, in order to do their jobs. The Los Angeles Times, where I worked until July, fired me, apparently as a favor to the police. You see, I drew cartoons critical of police brutality and incompetence. The cops, understandably, didn’t like that. So they ginned up an excuse — since disproven — for the paper to get rid of me. Now they’re in a pickle. They know they messed up, but if they admit it they’ll hurt their relationship with the LAPD by revoking their favor to them. That might mean, the next time there’s a big O.J.-type crime story, that the LAPD refuses to feed them information.
A cartoonist colleague working in the Midwest tells me that, after he drew an anti-police cartoon, the cops stopped talking to his paper’s reporters. If the paper wants tips from the police, they’ve let his editors know, all they have to do is fire their cartoonist.
America, land of innovation, has now conceived of yet a third kind of media censorship: economic.
Last night, like millions of Americans, I turned on my TV to watch the third Republican presidential debate. Since I only subscribe to the basic cable package, however, I couldn’t get it. It only aired on CNBC, which where I live is on premium cable. (It didn’t livestream online either.)
I pay north of $120 a month for cable TV and broadband Internet access. This makes me a relatively privileged member of the mediarati. But not privileged enough. To watch a political debate — a civic ritual that used to be, and still ought to be, on every TV channel and radio station, free, by law — I would have to bump that up to something closer to $200. This is really, really wrong.
As a result, I — and other political commentators — are reduced to commenting on a debate as seen through the lens of media elites who have those $200 a month to spend.
Many millions of Americans, particularly young people, have “cut the cord” and watch only streamed television and movies. You can’t accuse them of apathy if you won’t let them participate in a presidential campaign.
Here’s how niche CNBC is. Debates sponsored by FoxNews and CNN averaged 24 and 23 million viewers, respectively. (After CNN offered livestreaming, Fox followed suit.) CNBC’s all-time viewing record is 3.9 million, during the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Economic censorship is gross. But, much like the brazenness of censorship under a dictatorship, putting politics behind a paywall serves as an unintentional signifier. The system is not of, by or for you, the people.
It’s the ultimate triumph of pay-to-play electoral politics: democracy without voters.
(Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the new book “Snowden,” the biography of the NSA whistleblower. Want to support independent journalism? You can subscribe to Ted Rall at Beacon.)
COPYRIGHT 2015 TED RALL, DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
24 Comments.
The governing media evaluates candidates’ viability by the amount of money they have available to spend on campaign media ads and, failing this viability test, are eliminated from debates and campaign coverage on that basis.
The governing media knows a candidate cannot win without a media campaign so the message is “Cough up the money or go home”.
Money for ads in the governing media is an implicit endorsement by the CCCP (Central Committee of the Capitalist Party) .
The CCCP will destroy any candidate holding positions contrary to its interests in the same way as the public face of Occupy Wall Street was destroyed. That which cannot be co-opted will be discredited by the governing media.
Doesn’t that leave you with a problem? Trump has money and is capitalist and right-wing. Why don’t the media like him?
The governing media covers him more than any other candidate. What’s to explain?
The media love Trump. They publish something about him, people tune in & see the commercials. (or click on the banner ads, as may be)
The rich people who own the media likewise love Trump. They know that under a Trump administration they’ll pay even less in taxes, and be held accountable less often.
Of course the media owners and executives like that he gets them ratings, but to suggest politicos like him himself is to display a severe detachment from reality. Establishment types of all stripes are terrified of him, determined to convince us all how crazy/evil he is. The number one reason is that if he plays by his own rules, then he isn’t playing by theirs. Off the top of my head, they also dislike his political incorrectness, his lack of adoration for gays, and his belief that America does not need to import yet more low wage laborers. You both should appreciate him for–if nothing else–the fact that he would not be an endless war president. He is concerned with domestic policies. He recently said let Putin fight the terrorists; we don’t need to lead everything.
He’s also anti-torture and pro-weed…
Trump says he is against the TPP, too.
I haven’t been following him. Has he been consistent on this?
That is another of my big issues that he is on the right side of. While I cannot say for certain, I would be more than willing to bet since his major message and focus is stopping Americans from being screwed on immigration and trade policy.
Great column, Ted.
You can’t get into the debate or even watch it without feeding the the media machine’s profits.
The CCCP doesn’t care WHO you vote for as long as they decide who you CAN vote for.
Print media will rarely print stories casting their advertisers in a bad light. What’s wrong with this picture?
I remember a Superbowl early in the Iraq war, some filthy peacenik hippies actually scraped together enough money to buy a commercial slot & wanted to air an anti-war ad. The Superbowl committee vetoed it saying, “It’s too controversial” – but they played several ads for armed forces recruiters – isn’t that the same controversy?
The internet does give us an option, if we would just use it. *Reader* financed news, ala Beacon and others. Of course, the subscribers tend to have their own biases – but at least it removes the third party from the equation.
But with one simple rule you can begin to separate the wheat from the chaff, “Never believe anything until it’s been officially denied”
‘The Superbowl committee vetoed it saying, “It’s too controversial”’
Meaning the pro-war Big Bucks spenders might be offended.
I’m willing to bet NPR has never interviewed anyone explaining why it’s wrong for government to finance media organizations. The biased bastards!
“No one from the State Ministry of Propaganda calls The New York Times to tell them what’s fit to print.”
I seem to remember plenty of times the White House or FBI, etc. call them up and tell them not to run a story. And if the paper ignores them, they angrily “look at their legal options.”
NPR (National Pentagon Radio) receives enough funding from the government to have to be very considerate of its government funders’ interests lest it have to be totally funded by its listeners.
It’s on a very short leash held by the CCCP. See Ted’s column for examples.
NPR also joined in a campaign to stop “pirate radio – small, low-power, FM radio stations – who broadcast without a license from the Federal Communications Commission.” So much for its interest in independent media.
The New York TImes held back a story about George W. Bush going AWOL for fear it might have a negative impact on the 2004 election.
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/27/george-w-bush-was-awol-but-whats-truth-got-to-do-with-it/
Yes, many powerful organizations use government to keep out competition via “licensing.” Yet more government regulation and corruption stifling the free market.
True, Jack.
The Whiskey Rebellion was in response to Hamilton’s scheme to regulate whiskey production so only his associates had a market advantage and big profits.
The pro-business regulators are trying to do the same thing now with cannabis. High entry cost and then high profits to the license holders.
Criticizing regulations in general without looking at their impact is pretty useless. My town has a regulation about water siphon control valves on toilets. I’m sure most people feel good about not having to drink each other’s piss when there is a back flow pressure.
Trump ain’t dumb. He’s already seen the historical precedent, pResidents who go off the reservation get “eliminated (murdered/disgraced into silence).” But he’s still a wild and crazy motherfucker. Ultimately, they’ll love the insider money-man of Trump right up to the point that he does the impermissible, that being the national abandonment of fiat currency. As long as he lets the banksters retain global ownership, he could grow a red-painted toothbrush mustache and adopt the German language and still get a free ride. Just don’t fuck with who really owns the money machine.
The Secret Service is bankster-managed.
DanD
This is why I like you Dan: you know fiat debt is theft and slavery.
That’s an interesting question if you consider that the debates may be influenced or controlled by the respective party committees, and whether the debates are held on non-public access broadcasting venues.
Do you think a political debate hosted on or by a non-public cable network should be required to make the debate available to the general public? I don’t think so. I don’t think that it is anyone’s ‘right’ to see anything for free that is broadcasted on subscription networks – even a debate between political candidates. Even so – the debate itself was available free to stream or download all over the Internet anyway, although delayed. I avoided watching the debate, although I could have, because I knew it was going to be extremely irritating and boring.
After all – once you have decided that all the Repugnantcan candidates are incredible liars and sociopaths, why become so anxious to baste in their assholinity? You can trust that within a short time, all the “highlights” of their master debate will be posted ad-infinitum. Getting upset that it wasn’t broadcast live for free is a bit self-serving and petulant, isn’t it?
How to employ the “Banned-in-Boston-Effect” without anybody ever really having watched all that bullshit anyway ~
This is what’s called “Limited Democracy” … those who will ultimately make the final decision (them vote-counters) observing all the dismal truth before them. While DTRump is the best(?) of a bad lot, with BS or the Clinton with the bigger dick (yeah, I mean Hillary) how’s that much better? Because if it was, then it would remain no contest.
Instead, TRump is the most popular speaker among them all. Clinton sure ain’t crowing about the crowds she’s drawing, because she ain’t.
Just an observation.
DanD
Absence of the people’s right to know the positions of candidates selected by the CCCP, to be voted for by the Electoral College, complements the Constitutional absence of the people’s right to vote for a president.
The Constitution provides no right for the people to vote for president, only the right of the several state governments to select Electoral College members by means of their own choosing.
Remember, the Constitution was written by an assembly formed to facilitate commerce, gone rogue. The Constitution was written, in effect, by the modern day equivalent of a Chamber of Commerce, similar to the secret committee now responsible for authoring the TPP and its degradations of sovereignty.
Hey, Glenn – I could take issue with that description, but I won’t bother (today 😉
The important thing to bear in mind was that is was set up for conditions that no longer apply. No mass media, no instantaneous transmission of data, etc. There was no way for anyone to ‘get to know the candidates’ or even know who they were. No way to reliably count votes from a thousand miles away, etc.
So it made sense to elect representatives (“the same way you select a state governor” and send them off to meet together.
Today, we do have mass media, and we can count the votes securely, reliably, and quickly. The electoral college is an anachronism that we should do away with, and count people’s votes directly. No more ‘battleground states’ no more Florida hanging chads, no more ‘won by popular vote’ etc.
I know your next argument: the fact that we *can* count the votes doesn’t mean that we would, only that it would be possible to do so. Our mass media is owned by the corporatocracy, etc. Those are absolutely correct – but getting rid of the electoral college would at least be a step in the right direction.
@CH
“getting rid of the electoral college would at least be a step in the right direction.”
Agreed.
Now if only the so-called “social contract” advances could keep pace with technological advances.
Oh, hell yeah.
That led me to look up Niven’s Laws specifically for:
“Ethics change with technology”
and was reminded of this little gem:
F × S = k. The product of Freedom and Security is a constant. To gain more freedom of thought and/or action, you must give up some security, and vice versa.
One of Niven’s laws on Wikipedia:
“Never fire a laser at a mirror.”
Hysterical!
F × S = k
so
F=k/S
As the limit of Security approaches infinity, Freedom approaches zero.
Freedom = 0, is death.
Personal Complicity with Personal Freedom approaching 0, is suicide.
Given:
The disestablishment of Constitutional freedoms as necessary to disestablish the Constitution as a suicide pact (by post 9/11 Bush and Obama);
and Snowden’s revelation of Total Information Awareness’s existence (under other names),
Should be interpreted as the Constitution not being a suicide pact neither for the State, nor for the People.
Therefore, Obama:
Pardon Snowden.