Truth Be Told

 

‘Regarding the nature of modern journalism, is it not a fact that the mainstream media manufacture false and misleading narratives, on purpose, to represent the rich and powerful interests they serve, which in turn leads to confusion, injustice and misery for those seeking the truth.’

‘But surely you agree that truth can be created by the repetition of a lie.’

‘While I agree Karl that propaganda is a menacingly effective tool of deception, my question to you is a simple one.  Why would you and your friends choose to lie?’

‘So you’re suggesting I’ve made a poor choice by not looking beyond my own selfish goals and the broader implications of my actions.’

‘Yes.  Divest yourself from illusions, and rediscover your conscious self into a new enlightenment.  This historic task is not a luxury, but a necessity.

‘Well, when you put it that way, I guess I should give it some more thought.’

‘Please do.’

‘Professor Plato, may I ask a question about human nature?’

‘By all means.’

‘How do you know when you’ve lost your humanity?’

‘Simply put, when you lose the capacity to be humane.’

‘Compelling words for all to ponder professor, especially now as the dogs of war are allowed to wander the world fully untethered.  By the way, and no offence, but it’s been over fifteen hundred years.  Truth be told, your beard could use a bit of a trim.’

‘A judicious observation.  But enough of this Karl, let us grab an espresso, my treat.’

‘Lead the way.’

 

 

 

 

What’s the News?

 

While surely not as significant as the topical issue of royal ascent, in the ongoing spirit of consciousness raising I think it’s worth renewing our attention to what Chomsky describes as “two huge shadows that ought to be on everyone’s mind”.

He speaks of course of nuclear and environmental crisis, two ways in which for the first time in our history the species may curtail the possibilities for future survival.  The extent to which we can do anything about these issues depends first on understanding that they do, in fact, exist.

And, oh wait.  I’m sorry, the royals are about to reveal the future king.  This must be more important…

 

Canada Then And Now

When I travelled from Nova Scotia to Columbus Ohio in 1998 to take on my first consulting job, the transition was as much nerve-racking as it was informative.  As someone who always took a hobby like interest in the media, the first reaction I had while watching the morning news from my newly christened corporate apartment was one of acute claustrophobia.  I realized what I was witnessing was not so much news but glossy infotainment, with frequent commercial interruptions for automobiles and lifestyle drugs, the latter presumably designed, in part, to anesthetize the viewer against what they were seeing on their TV screens.  I quickly came to learn that U.S. media quite consciously presented a very narrow framework of understanding about current events that made me feel like my world just got a whole lot smaller.

Around this time I got to chatting with an affable taxi driver about my impressions and he just laughed, agreeing that the news was just stupefyingly surreal.  He then went on to explain how he liked to listen to the CBC on short wave radio whenever he could to find out what was actually happening in the world since there were no local or national alternatives.  All the while I took pride in the belief that at least thoughtful and reliable journalism was still alive and well back home.

Well, that was then and this is now.  What should not have been inevitable inevitably happened.  In Canada both print and television media in recent years has surrendered to the tabloid culture it had for the most part successfully avoided.  It seems to me that the corporatization of the fourth estate in Canada is now a fait accompli, leaving Canadians exposed to and awash in wave after wave of misinformation without the aid of our traditional cultural levees which emphasized respect, respect for dissent, respect for science literacy and respect for rational fact-based discourse.

Take for instance what’s described as Canada’s’ national newspaper, The Globe and Mail.  As the nations’ newspaper of record, one assumes in a multi-party Parliamentary democracy that the many voices of Canadians would be reflected within its pages.

But not only did they go out of their way to officially endorse the current Conservative Government before the last election, many inside their elite stable of writers consistently, with only sparse exception, applaud the CPC on virtually every level despite its history of proroguement, G20 civil rights violations, a failed U.N. bid, contempt of Parliament, robocalls and alleged voting irregularities, the silencing of climate scientists and in general a menacing disregard towards any opposition which attempts to even question the government.  When one of those rare exceptions challenging the merit of government policy does manage to slip through the cracks I just presume the editors were too busy watching Coaches Corner.

As far as televised media is concerned, Canada has now adopted the fashionable approach of style over substance, a form first perfected by the American public relations industry some years ago and on full display in Westerville Ohio in 1998.  True to form, pundits seem eager to tow the party line, each advocating their official positions with their very official sounding talking points.  Deviation from their assigned scripts is not encouraged and mutiny is not tolerated, even in the face of overwhelming evidence contradicting official cant.

To give one example, the loquacious pugilist Rex Murphy has made a point (and a living) of denying climate change and marginalizing environmental issues of any kind since, as he characterizes it, Canadians are not interested in these bogus distractions nor should they be.  But if you survey Canadian media for dialogue on such issues, there is a distinct poverty of discussion.  For people to discuss environmental issues they first have to be honestly informed, for instance, about global warming and the science behind it.  If journalists and editors are unwilling to do it, what is the average Canadian to do?  I suppose they can sit in the dark, uninformed and unaware that there is an environmental disaster headed their way while the people responsible for enlightening them busy themselves with sophistry.

The obvious and practical effect of all this in my opinion is that Canadians are simply not getting the information and analysis they need to create that meaningful framework of understanding about important issues like climate change and, dare I say, our malnourished democratic institutions.  Like our friends to the south, we’re becoming, as one satirist I heard a few years back put it, ‘lost in a hailstorm of nonsense’.

If this trend continues, well, as the celebrated writer John Ralston Saul might say, Canada will have transformed itself from an historically engaged and attentive nation into an unconscious civilization.

 

The Death of Evidence

One usually assumes just as time moves forward, so does democracy, openness and enlightened discourse.  It is a bad assumption.

As the Vancouver Sun reports, we now have scientists from the Council of Canadians having to march on Ottawa to draw attention to the governments’ censorship and marginalization of science education.  I guess mainstream journalists were too busy speculating on the reality of Vancouver housewives, among other pressing issues of comparable importance, to highlight this unprecedented event.

As the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Environment Dr. Scott Findlay describes it: “death of Evidence is a cause for national mourning.”

He goes on to say “…the public hears and sees only information that supports federal government policy or ideology. That’s not evidence, that’s propaganda.”

And to conclude with another flash of clarity, let’s be honest:  Canada’s’ cultural institutions are proceeding to a historic nadir.

‘Move along people, nothing to see here…’

 

Today’s Top Ten People Peeves

 

10.  People who believe the greatest purpose in life should involve the mastering of institutions.  In reality my friend it’s the institutions that end up mastering you, and your conscience.  Just ask any witless politician, off the record of course…

9.  People like Socrates who observed, correctly needless to say, that the unexamined life is not worth living.  On the other hand, it may not have occurred to him until after that first sip of hemlock that the over examined life is a life not fully lived…

8.  People who don’t realize it doesn’t have to be one thing or the other.  It can be, and often is, many things at the same time.  But excuse me professor, what exactly is ‘it’?  Whatever you want it to be.

7.  People like that guy in Chapters that walked up to me and said “Hey, there are a lot of books around here!”  Ah, yeah, it’s a bookstore where books are sold.  It’s where the books live.

6.  People like that guy working as a checkout clerk in my local grocery store who replied to my question “Hey, how are you doing?” with “Not so good bro.  A girl bit me last night and my girlfriend is really mad at me.  Yeah, I got bit good bro!”  Indeed.

5.  People in kayaks overheard saying things like, “Hey, look down in the water, there are fish down there!”  Ah, yeah, that’s where the fish live.

4.  People who think modern journalism encourages fairness by advocating so called objectivity.  Definition:  Where every truth told must be counter balanced with a lie…

Just ask the VSP* on the CBC.

3.  People who sport really expensive watches.  Does that mean your time is more valuable than mine?

2.  People who wouldn’t wish to hear a boxer introduced in the ring thusly:  ‘And in the blue corner we have a fighter with a professional record of 1 win and 13 losses all by way of knockout.’  Now that, if you think about it, would be a fighter worth rooting for.

1.  People who don’t wish to pursue a heterodoxical framework of understanding.  I mean you know, summer is here and we could all use a break from ‘reality’.  Just ask any witless politician, off the record of course…

*Very Serious People (Thanks and credit to Professor Krugman)

 

Raising The Information Ceiling

Without trying to sound dramatic, it’s fair to say that a state that ignores the welfare of its own citizens is a state disinterested in its own long term survival.

Watching the latest debacle between Obama and the current Republican led Congress over the raising of the debt ceiling leaves the viewer with a clear indication in which direction the U.S. is going.  And to avoid any illusions, understand from what position President Obama wishes to govern.  To describe him as liberal or Democratic is to delude oneself into believing what is manifestly untrue.  He is, at best, a Republican.  And worse, as Paul Krugman describes, one who surrenders.

To avoid potential default as well as political blowback from the most extreme and reactionary elements within Congress, they are poised to pass a bill that seeks to massively scale back what’s described as ‘entitlement’ programs like Medicare and other social safety net programs, while at the same time provide significant increases to the country’s already bloated military budget.  Meanwhile, there is no plan within the bill to increase revenues through taxation, as in taxing the wealthiest Americans who already enjoy enormously disproportionate tax benefits ordinary people couldn’t even dream of.

It seems the social contract, such as it is, is yet another casualty of war.

To depict this as a balanced solution to U.S. economic woes, as Obama has, is to admit to swallowing the blue pill.  Since mainstream media, punditry and the current U.S. President live on a steady supply of those blue pills courtesy of the military industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industry and anyone else with eight or more zeros after their name, one must seek analysis elsewhere:

 

Maureen Dowd Confuses Me

Maureen Dowd confuses me.  She is the lauded New York Times reporter whose work I’ve enjoyed in the past.  Most recently, her reaction to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’ grouchy comments against what he coined as the “professional left” in reference to more progressive media outlets like MSNBC has left me a little puzzled.  Note: remember progressive is a relative term…

The main point of her article is to admonish Mr. Gibbs for not having the best temperament when it comes to dealing with the press, despite being an affable person.  She claims he misreads his job by behaving in an adversarial manner towards the journalists he is expected to inform.  I don’t know or care about that.  But along the way towards making her point she rather carelessly backs up the press secretary’s claim that MSNBC (aka the professional left) is so extreme in their opposition to Obama’s policies that they are harming his presidency.  She contrasts this to the GOP and their right-wing media outlets that are so much in lock step, they always help the Republicans when in power.  I think she’s right about that but not because Fox news has excellent journalistic standards.  They are the non plus ultra of propaganda expedients.  Surly by now everyone understands this, including Maureen Dowd.

Here is where my confusion arises.  Is she saying MSNBC should be more like Fox news?  Is she saying MSNBC should carry the president’s water even when he is falling short of public expectation?  She says:

On the Republican side, the crazies often end up helping the Republican leadership. On the Democratic side, the radicals are constantly sniping at Obama, expressing their feelings of betrayal.

But are not the ‘radicals’ as she calls them doing their job?  Is that not the role of the fourth estate to challenge authority and those in charge of public policy?  She goes on:

Fox built up a Republican president; MSNBC is trying to make its reputation by tearing down a Democratic one.

Really?  While not everyone, unfortunately, can rise to the standard of an Amy Goodman, comparing MSNBC to Fox is pure confusion.  If it weren’t for MSNBC during the Bush years there would have been practically zero factual analysis of Bush/Cheney policy.  Many media outlets have conceded since that time that they failed to do their jobs of challenging the government when it was most needed.  The shameful lead up to the Iraq war and the media’s role in selling falsehoods to the public about the reasons for attacking Iraq comes to mind.  But this is the role of media to challenge and inform.  They exist to provide facts and context, not to genuflect to power for the price of admission. 

The fact is Obama’s first term has been about the same as Bush’s second term in regards to policy.  Obama himself has said that since he can’t change the course of American policy all on his own, he must rely on his ‘grass roots’ to push him forward and change public opinion in a progressive direction.  Well, that’s what people have tried to do in the face of considerable push back from the likes of Fox and GOP obstructionists.  Whether Obama actually wishes to proceed in that direction is up for debate.

MSNBC  is not trying to make their reputation by ‘tearing down’ Obama.  They are, for the most part, trying to do their job of information gathering and analysis despite working in a medium that already limits the scope of allowable conversation.  If Robert Gibbs via the President doesn’t like it, perhaps that means they are doing what they’re supposed to do.

Government criticizing media is par for the course but when media comes down on itself for simply doing its job, I guess their job is something they were not meant to do.  But it does makes me wonder where their loyalties lie:  sometimes the price of admission is simply too high.

 

What is Wrong with Modern Journalism?

I am not a journalist, so I don’t understand what their exact mandate as a profession is; although common sense tells me it should probably embody certain characteristics.  What then, if anything, is wrong with modern journalism?  To my mind, they should at least tell the truth.  But what is the truth?  I suppose the truth is what is factually determined drawing on several independent sources of reliable information.

Watching a parody of Sarah Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson, Gibson challenges her factual errors about a particular issue.  Her reply is something like ‘But Charlie, do the American people really care about facts?  I think not.’  Despite the satirical context, I believe this is a true statement.  Satire mirrors our reality.  In Canada, the media functions in much the same way although it could be argued that facts are vetted more than down south, but only by contrast.  In the U.S., media and journalism seem more about ostentatious statements of belief than factual reality.  And not even editorial interpretations of issues, which are of course fine.  Everyone has opinions.  Opinions, however, should at least be informed by facts, no?

Watching CNN, if you must, will lead you to the impression that debate reflects ideology and nothing more.  This isn’t remotely new or shocking, but what is the purpose of media journalism if not to verify the factual veracity of statements made by actors in a debate?  Should journalists not be required to give context that facilitates understanding of issues?  Inventing context is not the same as reporting context.  Since there is a lot of nonsense out there presented as journalism, can we presume that the purpose of modern journalism is something other than to rationally inform?  Well, yes. There is no need to speculate why.  There is no attempt to hide the real motives.  It is simply to entertain and sell products for consumers to consume.  Witness infotainments’ age of ascent.

As news corporations get larger and continue consolidating, it’s simply harder to acquire information not tethered to the business interests they represent.  The state of journalism is aptly characterized in the Bizarro cartoon depicting Karl Rove casually speaking to Plato.  In it, Rove asks  ‘But surely you agree that truth can be created by the repetition of a lie’.  I imagine Plato suspending his answer in favour of a question: ‘But Karl, why would you and your friends choose to be liars?’