The Illusion of Democracy Revisited
A while back Michael Terry wrote regarding my post of Sunday,
February 27 (below) :
“There will always be enough similarities between two nations to make silly simplistic comparisons like yours. Pretending there aren't serious differences won't make those differences vanish . . . Prejudice is a powerful rationalizer.”
Well, lets review. I said, "Our regional and national media often criticize government institutions [yep, just like ours does]." I also said, “While Putin [Bush] travels around with a contingent of reporters just as Bush [Putin] does, the Kremlin [White House] press pool is a handpicked group of reporters, most of whom work for the state [ the corporations] and the rest selected for their fidelity to the Kremlin's [White House’s] rules of the game. Helpful questions are often planted [No shit!? Just like here!!]. Unwelcome questions are not allowed [No shit!? Just like here!!]. And anyone who gets out of line can get out of the pool [No shit!? Just like here!!]” , and “Television channels air newscasts with fancy graphics but follow scripts approved by the Kremlin [their corporate masters and the political hacks they own].”
I guess that if Fox is fair and balanced, and the “major” networks really ask “hardball” questions, and fawning government-created “news” videos are both “journalism” and “ethical”; and if “reporters” like Jeff Gannon and Armstrong Williams are independant journalists, and Dan Rather wasn’t run off, and Maureen Dowd simply doesn’t merit a White House pass, and Helen Thomas deserved to be attacked for asking the “wrong” questions of the Boy Wonder? Then I guess I’m simplistic, prejudiced, and rationalizing.
The vaunted “freedom of the press” we supposedly have here (as opposed to Russia) is a sham. The best example I know is this: Katherine Graham is lionized as a hero for daring to print the facts of Watergate. She had taken over the Post after her husband’s death and lacked experience. Everyone involved warned her to drop the reporting on Watergate or the paper would be destroyed. Lacking experience, she went ahead.
She said, “What I essentially did was to put one foot in front of the other, shut my eyes and step off the ledge. The surprise was that I landed on my feet.” She dared to tell the truth, and unexpectedly got by with it. If we had “freedom of the press,” who would ever worry about printing the truth about government in one’s newspaper? How could anyone be considered a hero for printing the truth?
Only in the absence of a free press could printing the truth about the government be a dangerous activity undertaken only by heroes.
Finally, if Terry thinks I’m prejudiced in favor of Russia, he’s got it wrong. The comparison is not intended to elevate Russian practice to the “sacred” level of American “freedom,” but to point out to folks blinded by chauvanism that the beam in their neighbor’s eye is in their own as well. It is much easier to see the painful truth in others than in ourselves. It’s those who can’t face up to the pain of self-recognition who turn to simplistic rationalization.
February 27 (below) :
“There will always be enough similarities between two nations to make silly simplistic comparisons like yours. Pretending there aren't serious differences won't make those differences vanish . . . Prejudice is a powerful rationalizer.”
Well, lets review. I said, "Our regional and national media often criticize government institutions [yep, just like ours does]." I also said, “While Putin [Bush] travels around with a contingent of reporters just as Bush [Putin] does, the Kremlin [White House] press pool is a handpicked group of reporters, most of whom work for the state [ the corporations] and the rest selected for their fidelity to the Kremlin's [White House’s] rules of the game. Helpful questions are often planted [No shit!? Just like here!!]. Unwelcome questions are not allowed [No shit!? Just like here!!]. And anyone who gets out of line can get out of the pool [No shit!? Just like here!!]” , and “Television channels air newscasts with fancy graphics but follow scripts approved by the Kremlin [their corporate masters and the political hacks they own].”
I guess that if Fox is fair and balanced, and the “major” networks really ask “hardball” questions, and fawning government-created “news” videos are both “journalism” and “ethical”; and if “reporters” like Jeff Gannon and Armstrong Williams are independant journalists, and Dan Rather wasn’t run off, and Maureen Dowd simply doesn’t merit a White House pass, and Helen Thomas deserved to be attacked for asking the “wrong” questions of the Boy Wonder? Then I guess I’m simplistic, prejudiced, and rationalizing.
The vaunted “freedom of the press” we supposedly have here (as opposed to Russia) is a sham. The best example I know is this: Katherine Graham is lionized as a hero for daring to print the facts of Watergate. She had taken over the Post after her husband’s death and lacked experience. Everyone involved warned her to drop the reporting on Watergate or the paper would be destroyed. Lacking experience, she went ahead.
She said, “What I essentially did was to put one foot in front of the other, shut my eyes and step off the ledge. The surprise was that I landed on my feet.” She dared to tell the truth, and unexpectedly got by with it. If we had “freedom of the press,” who would ever worry about printing the truth about government in one’s newspaper? How could anyone be considered a hero for printing the truth?
Only in the absence of a free press could printing the truth about the government be a dangerous activity undertaken only by heroes.
Finally, if Terry thinks I’m prejudiced in favor of Russia, he’s got it wrong. The comparison is not intended to elevate Russian practice to the “sacred” level of American “freedom,” but to point out to folks blinded by chauvanism that the beam in their neighbor’s eye is in their own as well. It is much easier to see the painful truth in others than in ourselves. It’s those who can’t face up to the pain of self-recognition who turn to simplistic rationalization.
1 Comments:
Great answer, Tom. Has anyone been listening to the stories about the phoney "news" that Bush and his friends are paying for and sending to the media and passing it off as "real" news? Look what they just did last night with Bush flying to Washington to sign the papers to try to get the Florida situation settled. Could it be a diversion tactic? Sondra
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home