Sanctions against Iran are provoking war, not peace.

Glenn Greenwald points out that the severe sanctions against Iran are bringing the U.S. to the brink of war. His article embeds a video featuring Iran expert Vali Nasr, who indicates that President Obama has never yet been serious about negotiating with Iran, and will not likely engage in diplomacy in this election year. The heightened tensions are going to make an "accidental" war with Iran likely. In the meantime, our so-called media is increasingly engaging in "stenographic journalism," sounding the drumbeat for war using techniques that are pathetically predictable.

Continue ReadingSanctions against Iran are provoking war, not peace.

“I watch whatever is on TV.”

I recently overhead a conversation between two women who were discussing television shows. After discussing the particular shows they watched each night of the week, one of them blurted out: "Actually, I watch whatever is on." This attitude concerns me because it risks handing marketers and content providers the keys to one's brain. To the extent that we indiscriminately allow our televisions to stream programing into our homes un-self-critically, the television view of the world risks becoming our view of the world. A salient example these days is that millions of Americans believe that the United States is under constant serious attack by Middle East "terrorists" who have the capacity and desire to destroy America. A constant stream of television programming, including "news" reports, warns us of these "terrorists" without any indication of who these "terrorists" are. The end result is a national nightmare, not a reality, that massively skews our priorities and budgets. As long as the media providers are a diverse group and as long as they vigorously question both the conventional national wisdom and our political leaders, it wouldn't be a terrible strategy to "watch whatever is on." That's not the type of programming that is typically offered, however, and that is the reason for the existence of Free Press. I just happened to receive this save the date card for the next national conference for media reform (April 5-7, 2013 in Denver Colorado), and the message on the front of the card is apropos: The above short message recognizes three critically important ideas: A) the power of the media, B) the danger of a captured media and C) the opportunity we could have if only our media seriously accepted its responsibilities, as envisioned by the founding fathers: Speaking truth to power. It's amazing what passes for "news" these days. There are many good reasons to make sure that our televisions are turned off unless we are consciously seeking particular programming. For more information on the work done by Free Press, search this site for posts from prior media reform conferences, and be careful that you don't slip into watching "whatever is on" TV.

Continue Reading“I watch whatever is on TV.”

NYT public editor tries to get his bearings

Arthur Brisbane, the public editor of the New York Times, asked his readers whether the news reporters should be "truth vigilantes": "I'm looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about." The U.K. Guardian describes the fallout:

Brisbane (who, as public editor, speaks only for himself, not the Times) referred to two recent stories: the claim that Clarence Thomas had "misunderstood" a financial reporting form when he left out key information, and Mitt Romney's assertion that President Obama gives speeches "apologising" for America. Brisbane asked whether news reporters should have the freedom to investigate and respond to those comments. The reaction from readers was swift, voluminous, negative and incredulous. "Is this a joke? THIS IS YOUR JOB." "If the purpose of the NYT is to be an inoffensive container for ad copy, then by all means continue to do nothing more than paraphrase those press releases." "I hope you can help me, Mr Brisbane, because I'm an editor, currently unemployed: is fecklessness now a job requirement?"

Continue ReadingNYT public editor tries to get his bearings

Who will address critically important election issues?

Glenn Greenwald points out that no viable candidate is addressing critically important issues:

The chances that any of these issues will be debated in an Obama/Romney presidential contest are exactly zero. On all of these issues — Endless War, empire, steadfast devotion to the Israeli government, due-process-free assassinations, multiple-nation drone assaults, escalating confrontation with Iran, the secretive, unchecked Surveillance and National Security States, the sadistic and racist Drug War, the full-scale capture of the political process by bankers and oligarchs — Romney is fully supportive of President Obama’s actions (except to the extent he argues they don’t go far enough: and those critiques will almost certainly be modulated once the primary is over, resulting in ever greater convergence between the two).
Greenwald points out that voting for Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney) regarding any of these issues would not be voting for change:
How can you pretend to vehemently oppose the slaughter of foreign civilians, the deprivation of due process, a posture of Endless War, radical secrecy, etc., when the President behind whom you’re faithfully marching is an aggressive advocate and implementer of those very policies?
In a previous column, Greenwald discussed many of Barack Obama's "grave moral and political failings" in these areas. He quotes Matt Taibbi on the expected lack of choice in the upcoming election:
There are obvious, even significant differences between Obama and someone like Mitt Romney, particularly on social issues, but no matter how Obama markets himself this time around, a choice between these two will not in any way represent a choice between “change” and the status quo. This is a choice between two different versions of the status quo, and everyone knows it.
Nonetheless--and this is the point of Greenwald's recent article, progressives who dare to publicly recognize that Ron Paul (despite his many major faults, from a progressive viewpoint) will be excoriated by fellow progressives and accused of being Ron Paul supporters.

Continue ReadingWho will address critically important election issues?