Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's big-media guy and thus, many think, conflicted host of CNN's "Reliable Sources," was in a terrible funk yesterday.
It's these "death panels," you see, which his colleagues in mainstream journalism have tried mightily to debunk -- "telling Sarah Palin, in effect, you've got to quit making things up," as Kurtz characterized the showdown -- "but it didn't matter. The story refused to die." The sorry result: Last week, nearly half of all respondents in an NBC News poll believed in the very real possibility of euthanizing Star Chambers with Aunt Bessie in their sights.
Here's a short passage that maybe helps to explain why: "Even when [news organizations] report the facts," wrote Kurtz, "they have had trouble influencing public opinion."
Did you catch that? Even when they report the facts, as though reporting the facts has become some sort of noble, experimental enterprise within the otherwise (ab)normal course of mainstream journalism, for which Kurtz expected, I guess, awe-inspired applause and instant civic snap-to-it-ness.
He delineated his print colleagues' efforts at mythbusting, noting that his own paper "mentioned the phrase [of 'death panel'] 18 times" within 10 days of the former governor's Facebook-planted Pavlovianism, and "the New York Times 16 times." Other "major newspapers," wrote Kurtz, "have been filled with articles examining the nitty-gritty details" of health-care reform, which in themselves, he implied, should have dispelled any public confusion over all this death-panel jazz.
Well, they probably did, for that literate minority that fully reads articles in the New York Times. But what of those other "news organizations" so conscientiously tracked by Kurtz? -- those "network and cable news" organizations that raised by name the specific issue of "death panels," by his count, "at least 154 times" within the same period, a number representing but a negligible fraction of the actual count, since, conceded Kurtz, "many daytime news shows are not transcribed."
There, it was all death panels all day and even more so into the night; a jackhammering, mind-numbing repetition of purportedly mythophobic clarifications (excluding, obviously, the non-news news network of Fox), which Kurtz proudly, gleefully sketched:
"Less than seven hours after Palin posted her charge Aug. 7, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann called it an 'absurd idea' "; then with the sun's rise came "Good Morning America" -- "There is nothing like that anywhere in the pending legislation," noted its correspondent; later on NBC's "Meet the Press" columnist David Brooks labeled the whole story "crazy"; CNN's Jessica Yellin asserted on "State of the Union" that it's "not ... accurate"; and ABC's weekender George Stephanopoulos pointed out that anything even remotely close to a death panel "appear[s] nowhere in the bill."
OK, so that myth was busted. Yet from whence hailed the myth? Why, from NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, (and Fox), of course.
For reasons repugnant to the ghosts of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, each network, and especially the time-freer cable news operations, had pounced on the cyber-ravings of an unemployed pol desperate for national attention; she knew if she tossed a little lunatic bait out there -- and the more lunatic the better -- "they" would lap it up.
In brief, they were correcting a needlessly monstrous narrative which they themselves had created. Had they dismissed Palin's lunacy from the get-go as the unmistakable lunacy it was, no story, and almost certainly no 45 percent of polling respondents later professing a suspicion of government death panels.
That spot of "trouble" that Kurtz mentioned about "influencing public opinion," even when news organizations "report the facts"? Perhaps what Kurtz meant to say, or at any rate should have said, was that news organizations are having trouble un-influencing public opinion, since it was broadcast journalists who reported the non-fact, over and over and ...
This critique aids in elucidating, I think, the seeming rightward shift in the public's political disposition since November. Hell, what am I saying? Since at least 1980.
Pseudoconservative pols know they can always get abundant airtime from the networks (most Americans' principal source of information) by leveling the most irrational, disprovable claims: from Cadillac welfare queens to budget-balancing-through-budget-destruction to the unavoidability of unprovoked wars to death panels. Just fling something out there, boys, and the network newsies will come running, airing that something with unfiltered abandon.
Later, they'll do some fact-checking. But only after the right's mythomaniacal narrative has taken hold deep in the electorate's emotional gray matter. So it's the downhill frolic of Easy Street for the right, but always uphill for the left, struggling to undo the informational damage done.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Sensationalism Sells
Almost like the Sirens song, the outrageous statements of the crazies are nearly too irresistable to turn off with each subsequent soundbite being more ridiculously entertaining than the previous one AND the media knows this. There are nondiscerning, true believers who take the lies as gospel. The major media outlets must filter this nonsense because it is dangerous and divisive which is exactly what the Republican party wants. They want Obama and the Dems to fail at any cost. It is the media's responsibility to put this genie back into Pandora's Box. McCain is now encountering (in town hall meetings) the results of Palin and his outrageous campaign antics of not suppressing the hate and violence seed planting. For national security, networks must stop giving the liars and crazies a forum. They and their puppet masters are concerned only about being elected and getting rid of Dems and Obama. Regarding a previous poster, I thought exactly the same thing about J Scahill and shared it with my wife--he'd better watch his back because his truth speaking is dangerous.
Anyone see Jeremy Scahill
Anyone see Jeremy Scahill call out NBC's Chuck Todd on Real Time w/Bill Maher last Friday? Letters need to flood NBC/MSNBC in support of Scahill's harsh critique of the clubby relationship of our "top" (in terms of cash, if noting else) journalists with the political leadership. Otherwise, I think we've seen the last of him on any network.
Their Lies Are To Distract Us From Real Problems
"Such as?"
"Health care, perpetual wars and bailouts."
"And our response to these lies?"
"Punishment."
"Based on?"
"Countering their narrative with our own narrative."
"How?"
"By way of the Internet, alternative media, word of mouth, MSM where available and mass rallies."
"The narrative being?"
"Something like, 'Listeners and viewers, have you noticed that whenever an important public issue such as health care for all is under consideration, MSM starts feeding you attention-grabbing right wing allegations such as the ridiculous claim that a public option will lead to death panels? Ridiculous because those of us with private health insurance are the ones who now face death panels, not those of us who have Medicare or some other government plan. Of course insurance companies don't call these death panels by their proper name, they label them Referral Committees, whose task it is to decide which of us will and which of us will not get to see a certain specialist or receive a life-saving, albeit, very expensive treatment. So the next time the right-wing tries to scare the bejeebees out of you on the subject of a single payer plan such as Medicare for all, the truth invariably is the opposite of what they say.'"
"But how does that punish the right-wingers?"
"The truth can be painful."
myths
Another elephant, I mean (very large) element of deception is the choice of sound bites. My perception is that anyone who stands up in a meeting and cries or screams about death panels gets a guaranteed ticket into the on-air broadcast. However, anyone who debunks de funk is bo-o-o-o-r-r-r-ing, and lands on the proverbial cutting-room floor. I don't know if this is a directive from corporate management, or if it is driven solely by broadcast (I just can't call them news) personnel. Are they choosing the deathers' comments because they're exciting, because they fit their perception of "the way it is," or is J. Fred Muggs the news director?
Journalism has been corrupted. All that the nation gets is hype.
...working as designed
This is half the story. What's missing is WHY this happens and WHY it won't change.
From the owners' point of view, the system is working fine. The owners own the media, the insurance corporations, the pharaceutical corporations, and just about everything else.
So they WANT these right-wing propagandists to attack anything that's liberal, or that might cut into profits of the companies they own the stock in.
The owners have totally different interests than those of us who work for a living. This explains why we get consistent propaganda from their media, and why they won't change it. From their point of view, the system is working as designed.
This is sometimes called the class struggle. It's a war and most of the working class is totally unaware of it, which is why they're being devastated.
Class war
The class war is over. We lost a long time ago.
We have not yet begun to fight!
Some good news: The eight years of Republican fascism have woken up many thousands of Americans to the right-wing threat.
You can see the change on the blogs over the last year or two. Right-wing propaganda and talking points often went unanswered in past years. Now they're met with facts and refutations from other readers.
A year ago, the average American didn't know what single-payer was. Now there are regular posts from people supporting it.
We have not yet begun to fight!
The "Liberal Mainstream Media"
And yet, the myth persists, even in the minds of many liberals.