Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Media Rants: Censored in 2015

Censored in 2015

From the February 2016 edition of the SCENE 

Since 1976 Sonoma State University’s Project Censored has challenged the news media to meet their First Amendment responsibilities. Annually the Project compiles a volume of news stories "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored in the United States.” Walter Cronkite said that “Project Censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism.”  Bestselling author and activist Naomi Wolf asserts that, “Project Censored is a lifeline to the world’s most urgent and significant stories.” 

Project Censored is famous for its nontraditional definition of censorship, referring to it as “anything that interferes with the free flow of information in a society that purports to have a free press.” They argue that censorship includes not just stories that were never published, but also “those that get such restricted distribution that few in the public are likely to know about them.”

Censored 2016: Media Freedom on the Line (Seven Stories Press) continues the Project’s annual exploration of what a panel of judges determines to be the top 25 most censored stories of the year. The top three are (1) “Half of global wealth owned by the 1 percent,” (2) “Oil industry illegally dumps fracking wastewater,” and (3) “89 percent of Pakistani drone victims not identifiable as militants.” I’d say that #3 is a good answer to the question “why do they hate us?” In fact, just about every story covered by Project Censored is an answer to the question of why there is so much despair and tension in the world. If mainstream media met its responsibility to give the stories proper treatment, we would of course not see an end to despair and tension. But we WOULD see less ignorance and confusion about the causes of trouble in the world, and less ignorance always leads to more positive action on behalf of reform.

Over the years when I have written about Project Censored, some readers have responded by saying that the organization’s approach to censorship seems too conspiratorial. Such readers argue that news media can only cover so much given time and space constraints, and to favor some stories over others probably has more to do with commercial pressures and “giving the audience what it wants” rather than actively “censoring” certain stories. I think there is some legitimacy to that critique; the northeast Wisconsin corporate media wall to wall Packer coverage for 20 to 30 weeks out of the year probably has more to do with a ratings calculation as opposed to news directors willingly dumbing down the audience’s knowledge of critical labor, political, environmental and other challenges facing regional communities.

Sometimes censorship is the simply result of journalistic laziness. My spouse Lori and I recently experienced the consequences of journalistic laziness when she decided to take out nomination papers to run in the April election for Oshkosh Common Council. When she took out the papers in December, she was told by the Oshkosh City Clerk’s office that she needed to obtain 200-400 signatures by January 5th. When I asked my friend and former Oshkosh Mayor Paul Esslinger if he could get some signatures, he pointed out that the requirement was actually 100-200 signatures. Republican Senator Rick Gudex and Republican Representative Jeremy Thiesfeldt were able to get the law changed so as to promote the entry of more candidates in city council races. When Lori showed up to get her 120 signatures certified on January 4th, she was told by the Clerk’s office that the requirement for Oshkosh was still 200-400 signatures; for some unclear reason they believed the law did not apply in a place represented by one of its chief sponsors (Senator Gudex).  Even the members of the Oshkosh Common Council we contacted about the signature requirement were not aware of the law. On the morning of January 5th, the Clerk’s office contacted Lori to say that they called the Government Accountability Board in Madison and that in fact the requirement was 100-200 signatures. Lori will be on the ballot in April. We will never know if potential candidates were deterred from running because they were given inaccurate information.

Sure, the Clerk’s office should know the law. But the real problem in my judgement was that the Gannett press, local television and local radio simply did an awful job of reporting on the impending campaign season and the requirements for running. These are the same media who regularly lament the shortage of candidates.

I would argue that the mass media minimization of the enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign was the most censored national story of 2015. Sanders has spoken to record crowds, raised huge amounts of money from mostly small donations, and completely shifted the Democratic Party primary debate to the left. He also polls well against any Republican nominee. All that, and yet for the New York Times and other establishment media, Sanders is virtually invisible.

OneNew York Times article quoted a senior citizen Trump supporter who said that “This election is the first in my life where we can change what it means to be a Republican.”  Memo to the Times: the same is true for the Democrats this year—your readers would know that if you would stop censoring Bernie’s campaign!

Wednesday, January 06, 2016

The 2015 Tony Awards


The 2015 TONY Awards

By Tony Palmeri

From the January 2016 edition of The SCENE

Every year the Media Rants column awards a “Tony” to media acts worthy of merit. Award criteria are simple: whatever I personally found to be provocative during the year. Don’t like my choices? Write up your own “best of 2015” and post them on a blog or on social media. You can even submit an old fashioned letter to your local newspaper.

The Tony’s for 2015 are divided into subcategories. Drum roll please:

Broken Clock Award: Donald Trump. As is true of most demagogues, Mr. Trump is like a broken clock in that he’s right twice a day. He earns a Tony for two tweets that told the truth about Scott Walker. The first was on July 25: “Scott Walker is a nice guy, but not presidential material. Wisconsin is in turmoil, borrowing to the hilt, and doing poorly in jobs, etc.” The second was on July 27: “When people find out how bad a job Scott Walker has done in WI, they won’t be voting for him. Massive deficit, bad jobs forecast, a mess.”

In less than 300 characters, Trump was able to do what the recall Walker movement, hundreds of thousands of protesters, and the Democratic Party establishment could not: convince the Republican voter base that Walker really has been bad for Wisconsin.
Political Candor Award: Wendy Davis. This Tony goes to former Texas Democratic state Senator Wendy Davis, the Democrats’ unsuccessful candidate for governor in 2014. While running for governor, Ms. Davis supported open-carry of firearms, a position that disappointed her base but took the issue off the table during most of the election season. Recently she wrote an essay for Politico entitled “Why I caved on guns when I ran for governor of Texas” in which she admitted that her posturing probably didn’t get her any votes and ended up wasting a golden opportunity to use her campaign as a bully pulpit to educate citizens on the reality of gun violence.

Wendy Davis should be applauded for her candor. Will other Democrats have the courage to learn from her example? Maybe. Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee for president, is certainly not hiding from her gun control position.

(Above) During her campaign for Texas governor, Wendy Davis posed with a shotgun belonging to the late Democratic governor Ann Richards. 

Best Twitter Shaming: Igor Volsky. Mr. Volsky is Director of Video and Contributing Editor at the political blog ThinkProgress.Org. After a “pro-life” terrorist murdered three people at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, Mr. Volsky noticed that the most common response of Republicans in Congress was to offer “thoughts and prayers” for the victims. Volsky then “twitter shamed” 36 thought and prayer offering politicians by exposing how much money they had received from the National Rifle Association. He found that all 36 of them had “A” ratings from the NRA and had received more than $2.3 million in contributions. “The NRA pays them to only think and pray about gun violence, and not to do anything else about it,” Volsky told MSNBC.

Sensationalism On A Mission: The New York Daily News. For many years, the New York Daily News has been synonymous with tabloid sensationalism, especially with some of its over the top front page headlines and photos. In 2015 the sensationalism went on a mission; a front page cartoon of Donald Trump beheading the Statue of Liberty became an instant classic. More powerfully, the paper called out the CEOs of the four largest gun manufacturers in the US, finally giving citizens a look at the people who profit directly from the nation’s gun carnage.

Editorial of the Year: The Washington Post. The fifth Republican presidential debate, held in December in Las Vegas, featured several hours worth of doom and gloom and fear mongering, leading many to wonder what happened to the Reaganite sense of optimism in the modern GOP. In a powerful editorial, the Washington Post opined that “for Republicans, bigotry is the new normal.”  Telling a sad truth, the editorialists wrote this: “Fear-mongering and raw xenophobia were once the hallmarks of fringe candidates. Today the fringe candidates have stormed center stage, brandishing their zeal and hyperbole and, disturbingly, dragging the mainstream along with them.”

Letter of the Year: In 2009 the city of Oshkosh bought out the city’s lone Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant to make room for a roundabout. Since then Oshkosh’s KFC status has become somewhat of an obsession with Gannett’s Oshkosh Northwestern. In February of 2015 the paper published a front page history of KFC in Oshkosh. Citizen Paula Steger’s letter in response gets a Tony for letter of the year:

Seriously, the lack of a KFC in Oshkosh is the front page news on a Sunday. Furthermore, if people are looking for a chicken dinner in Oshkosh, they have plenty of choices and the dinners are better and cheaper than anything KFC has to offer.

Let me see: Mike's Place on Jackson; Jansen's on Bowen; Mahoney's on Wisconsin; Parnell's on the southside, just to offer a few.

Those more familiar with Oshkosh than I may be able to offer more opportunities. To my knowledge the restaurants offer eat-in dining as well as take-out.

For a newspaper that likes to pat itself on the back as a community cheerleader, you did a great disservice to the local restaurant community by giving free front page advertising to a giant nationwide fast food restaurant.

Tuesday, December 01, 2015

Media Rants: A TV Debate in 1860

A Television Debate in 1860

Media Rants by Tony Palmeri 

from the December 2015 edition of The SCENE 

So far the Republicans have had four nationally televised presidential primary debates, and the Democrats two. Republican debates become competitions to see who can make the wackiest comment of the evening, while Democrats recite a litany of progressive ideas everyone knows they will never really fight for.
Moderators play a prominent role; CNBC’s probing questions at GOP debate #3 prompted the “tough” candidates to act like crybabies and demand “fairer” treatment from less “biased” panelists. As self-serving as the Republican criticism might be, I do wonder if these “debates” are pointless. 

Yes we are probably better off with them than without, but the overemphasis on generating “clash” seems modeled on WWE Smackdown rather than the PBS Newshour.

Imagine Abe Lincoln in these debates. In 1860 there were eight Republicans seeking the party’s nomination: three United States Senators (William Seward, Simon Cameron, Benjamin Wade), one former Senator (William Dayton), one governor (Salmon P. Chase), two former congressmen (Lincoln and Edward Bates), and one Supreme Court Justice (John McLean).

Imagine a televised debate in Chicago, site of that year’s Republican convention. The moderators are three prominent newsmen of the time: Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune, Henry Raymond of the New York Times, and James Gordon Bennett of the New York Herald.

Greeley:  Thanks to all the candidates for being here. If your answers go past 30 seconds, the nonstop sound of a cowbell will drown out your remarks until you cease. Mr. Lincoln we will start with you with a question from Henry Raymond.

Raymond: Mr. Lincoln, your critics point out that in 1840 as an Illinois state legislator you jumped out of the first floor window of the state Capitol to prevent the Democrats from obtaining the quorum necessary to pass a bank bill you didn’t like. Sir, how can the public be certain you won’t flee the White House when Democrats attempt to obstruct your agenda?
Lincoln: Mr. Raymond, I think my actions in the Illinois legislature are not relevant to today. Our Southern states are threatening to secede from the federal union. I suggest that we spend our limited time debating who has the best plan to avert that tragic possibility.

Raymond: Senator Seward, you are the front runner for the Republican nomination going into the Chicago convention. Do you agree with Mr. Lincoln that his past actions are not relevant? 

Seward: Well I’ve never tried to prevent a quorum when I couldn’t win an argument, but let me say directly to Mr. Lincoln: I don’t give a damn about your jumping ability. (APPLAUSE) You simply have not come out strongly enough against the scourge of slavery. 

Lincoln: I am on record as saying that a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half-slave and half-free.

Bennett: Mr. Lincoln, please only speak when you are asked a question. Governor Chase, you have a reputation for working with Democrats, which angers the radical wing of the Republican Party. Why should Republicans support someone perceived as a collaborator?

Chase:  In my time in government I have done more to oppose slavery than any man on this stage. I work with Democrats because I see them as mistaken, not evil. Seeing them as evil will land us in a Civil War. If we nominate Lincoln or Seward, we are saying we want Civil War because no Democrats in the border or southern states, and even many in the north, can even stand being in the same room with them. 

McLean: May I get in this debate?

Greeley: Do you want to say something Justice McLean?

McLean:  Yes. I can work with the other side better than anyone. I’ve worked with Jacksonian Democrats, Whigs, anti-Whigs, Free Soilers, and now Republicans. I’m one of  two judges to dissent in the atrocious Dred Scott v. Sanford case, the decision that sparked talk of Civil War more than anything in our history. We need a judicious mind to see us through these quite injudicious times.

Greeley: Mr. Dayton, as a former Senator what critique to you have of the sitting Senators on this stage?

Dayton: Please remember that I was also, just four short years ago, the first Republican Vice-Presidential candidate. The sitting Senators are doing their best under trying circumstances. I do know that any one of them would be better than the Democratic nominee. (APPLAUSE).

Raymond: Senator Cameron, rumors are swirling around Chicago that your campaign is negotiating a deal with the Lincoln forces to make you Secretary of War in return for your endorsement. Would you like to respond to those rumors?

Cameron: You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media. (APPLAUSE)  

This is not a cage match. Look at the questions : "Abe Lincoln, will you flee the White House?" "William Seward, do you care what Lincoln did twenty years ago?" "William Dayton, would you like to insult the sitting Senators over here?” "Simon Cameron, are you corrupt?”

How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?

(At this point Bates and Wade interrupt):  Here Here!!!  Here Here!!!

The crowd goes wild while Greeley feverishly rings the cowbell. 

Tuesday, November 03, 2015

Media Rants: The Pope Mystifies Mr. Jones

The Pope Mystifies Mr. Jones 

Media Rants 

from the November 2015 edition of the SCENE

Pope Francis’ late September whirlwind tour of the United States put him in the Papal Rock Star category that had been the exclusive domain of Pope John Paul II. Corporate media, conditioned to think of Popes as merely Presidents in groovy outfits, seemed ill equipped to handle Francis’ Jesus-like musings. Surely the media knew what was coming; in his remarkable 2013 apostolic exhortation  EvangeliiGaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”) Francis stated a belief in economic principles not endorsed by the Boards of Directors of our media elite:

*No to an economy of exclusion.
*No to the new idolatry of money.
*No to a financial system which rules rather than serves.
*No to the inequality which spawns violence.

According to Millennial, an online journal for young Catholics, Evangelii Gaudium employs the word "love" 154 times, "joy" 109 times, "the poor" 91 times, "peace" 58 times, "justice" 37 times,” dignity” 23 times,  and "common good" 15 times.

Francis’ June of 2015 encyclical “Laudato Si’” (“Praise be to you”), subtitled “On Care For Our Common Home” issued similar challenges to the elites: “To claim economic freedom . . . while real conditions bar many people from real access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to practice a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute.” He describes a planet that is the victim of “relentless exploitation”  that is in part the result of “the reckless pursuit of profits.”

In rock and roll terms, those are Woodstock Era platitudes. I found myself thinking of two classic rock era songs every time the Pope appeared on American television: “After Forever” by Black Sabbath and Bob Dylan’s “Ballad of a Thin Man.” Whenever right wing pundits pontificated about the Pope and dismissed his call for reigning in capitalist excesses as somehow nothing more than communist polemics, these lines from “After Forever” came to mind:
“Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope - do you think he's a fool?” and “I think it was true it was people like you that crucified Christ.”

National Public Radio’s Bob Garfield, cohost of “On the Media,” perfectly summed up the wingnut reaction to the Pope in  a rant called “The Pope is not a Politician.” After citing hysterical reactions to Francis from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Stuart Varney, Garfield argued cogently that “The problem is that in our hyperpoliticized media culture, nothing in the world is immune from partisanship and polemic.  Not atmospheric crisis.  Not evolution.  Not vaccination. Not economic history.  Not even hunger. What should the leader of the Church talk about then? Deflategate?”

We shouldn’t get too upset about wingnut commentators because they only exist to entertain. Only “true believers” take them seriously. Of much more concern are the mainstream, “moderate” journalists and commentators. These journalistas may or may not be Catholic, but they do belong to what New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen has long called the “Church of the Savvy.” According to Rosen:

“Savviness is what journalists admire in others. Savvy is what they themselves dearly wish to be. (And to be unsavvy is far worse than being wrong.) Savviness—that quality of being shrewd, practical, well-informed, perceptive, ironic, ‘with it,’ and unsentimental in all things political—is, in a sense, their professional religion. They make a cult of it.”

It’s those “savvy” journalists Bob Dylan probably had in mind when he wrote this in “Ballad of a Thin Man”: 

Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?
In the 1980s the “thin men” running Pravda and other Soviet media viewed Pope John Paul II through a Cold War “evil capitalist/benevolent communist “ frame that had little relevance to anyone outside Western and Soviet elites. State controlled journalists refused to see that the “something happening here” was a grassroots rebellion of millions standing up against a totalitarian state that had spent years squashing basic freedoms and squandering wealth on a pointless arms race. Pope John Paul II, originally from Poland, no doubt inspired resistance to Communist authorities, but like any “great leader” the most he could be was a symbol of what was going on at the street level.

Today, the thin men and women running mainstream USA journalism insist on viewing Francis through a partisan Left/Right lens that is meaningless pretty much everywhere on earth except in USA mainstream media. The subtext of almost all the Pope coverage is that Francis is a moderate Republican on social issues (he upholds traditional Catholic dogma on most issues but is less mean spirited about it) and a liberal Democrat on economics. Like their Soviet counterparts a generation ago, these government lapdog media will not or cannot see that the “something happening here” is a global, grassroots resistance to the “New World Order” that emerged in 1989 with the promise of democracy for all and a “peace dividend” but ended up giving the world more inequality, more environmental destruction, and more elite control of the centers of power.

Francis came to America and preached the old fashioned Golden Rule to politicians and a media establishment that are the chief enablers of the new golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. 

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Media Rants: Short Takes

Media Rants 

Short Takes from the October 2015 edition of The SCENE

For October let’s have a few short takes on a bunch of important media action that didn’t seem to get much play in the northeast Wisconsin press.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board Comes to Life:  If you read the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, you know that their editorials can usually be placed somewhere between hollow and horrific on the awfulness scale. That’s why it was such a shocking and pleasant surprise to see the editorialists call out Assembly Speaker Robin Vos’ (R-Rochester) attempt to gut the open records law in the strongest possible terms: “This brazen, cynical move had nothing to do with protecting constituents and everything to do with protecting ambitious career politicians — and the lobbyists, donors and special interests they make deals with behind the scenes.” The paper even called on the Assembly to elect a new Speaker, and for the voters in Vos’ district to begin the search for “a more trustworthy representative.”

LAPD gets a cartoonist fired: Ted Rall is one of the edgiest, provocative editorial cartoonists working today. In May of this year Rall, who since 2009 had been a paid freelancer for the Los Angeles Times, wrote a blog post in which he recounted an event in which he had personally been roughed up by the LAPD in 2001. After the blog appeared, the LAPD actually sent the Times an audio of the 14 year old encounter between Rall and the police, along with Rall’s complaint at the time. Even though any reasonable person could conclude that Rall’s version of events was plausible, the paper fired him. That Rall has a long history of producing cartoons critical of the LAPD, meaning that the cops-in-charge would take advantage of any opportunity to get him removed from his editorial position, does not seem to matter to the management of the Times. As I noted in a previous Media Rants column, cartoonists over here don’t suffer the same fate as the late Charlie Hebdo satirists. Instead, we “kill” our cartoonists in softer ways; like caving in to pressure from a police department that doesn’t like criticism. 

(below:John Mellencamp's "Authority Song." When it comes to cartoonist Ted Rall's battle with the LAPD, the LA Times want to make sure that authority wins again.). 

 Why We Should Fear University, Inc.: There have been lots of good books released over the years about the corporate takeover of academia. Larry Soley’s Leasing the Ivory Tower and Jennifer Washburn’s University,Inc. are my two favorites in the genre. In September an opinion piece appeared in the New York Times that I hope author Fredrik deBoer turns into a full length book. His “Why We ShouldFear University, Inc.” should be read by anyone concerned with the way the modern university is managed; a kind of Stalinist-lite nightmare that often puts idealistic campus activists in the position of thinking that university administrators obsessed with the public image of the campus can somehow be allies in a quest for social justice. As noted by deBoer:

“I wish that committed student activists would recognize that the administrators who run their universities, no matter how convenient a recipient of their appeals, are not their friends. I want these bright, passionate students to remember that the best legacy of student activism lies in shaking up administrators, not in making appeals to them. At its worst, this tendency results in something like collusion between activists and administrators.” 

The Democrats’ “Exclusivity” Clause: Spokespeople for the Democratic National Committee get extremely defensive whenever a suggestion is made that they have rigged the Party nomination process to ensure Hillary Clinton gets the nod. You would think that the best way to defy that suggestion would be to have many debates, right? Wrong. The Party will sanction only six debates, an absurdly low number when considering the fact that only one candidate (i.e. Clinton) has anything close to universal name recognition. Worse and bizarre for a Party that calls itself “Democratic,” the DNC created an “exclusivity clause” saying that “The candidates will be uninvited from subsequent debates if they accept an invitation to anything outside of the six sanctioned debates.”  So that would mean, for example, that if BernieSanders or Martin O’Malley this month accepted an invitation to debate the Green Party’s Jill Stein, they would not be invited to participate in the DNC’s “official” debates. And the Democratic Party wonders why it has been abandoned by so many progressives? 

(below: Phil Och's "Love Me I'm a Liberal." You can bet that it is the Democratic Party "Liberals" who are trying to deny Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, and other candidates a fair shot winning the party's nomination for President.)

God Save Corbyn . . . from the Corporate Media: Britain’s Labour Party recently elected a full-fledged Socialist to lead them, a stunning rebuke of the moderate “New Labour” platform of George W. Bush’s poodle and former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Turns out that Britain’s mainstream media is every bit as hostile to the genuine Left as the USA’s. Corbyn’s election generated hysterical reactions from some quarters about what could happen to the United Kingdom if Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, and even the major British newspapers spent days covering the “issue” of whether or not Corbyn sang “God Save the Queen” at a WW II commemorative event. 
(below. The Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen." Seems like the British and American press only like British politicians who serve as the USA's poodle. Here's hoping the Labour Party's Jeremy Corbyn continues to stand up to the oligarchs.)

Why the Media Love Trump: Is it not ridiculous that the lone billionaire running for President gets the most free media advertising? What more evidence do we need to prove that the American media bias is not liberal or conservative as much as it is corporate? As long as Trump drives ratings, he’ll continue to get the free coverage. That’s pathetic. 

(below: John Fogerty's "Mr. Greed."  The USA corporate media throw Trump in our face for sheer ratings points.  Greed and media don't mix very well, as the round-the-clock Trumpathon is demonstrating all too well.).