President Trump’s bashing of media outlets, such as CNN, paints a false picture. Of course, media stations, save Fox, have responded to the president’s rhetorical assault with the intensity of a leopard stalking its prey, seemingly intent on holding him to account.
CNN, MSNBC, or even Fox are not “fake,” rather the corporate-controlled media, also referred to as the mainstream media (MSM), is best described as just plain biased. Some networks are more neutral than others when dealing with domestic politics, but all are slanted when reporting on international affairs, especially U.S. military actions. The MSM demonstrates a preference for serving power as a means to control public thought, particularly among the professional class. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just the way the institution operates. In August, Bernie Sanders told CNN, “What I think is [that] in the media in general there’s a framework…. For example, I’ve been in politics for a few years. You know what? Not one reporter has ever asked me ‘Bernie, what are you going to do about the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality?’”
Corporate control, advertising revenue, reliance on official government sources, and concision (soundbites) contribute to news programming that ignores inconvenient, elementary truths, resulting in a misinformed or uninformed citizenry. The president’s incessant dismissal of certain media outlets critical of his behavior has, ironically, resulted in a sense of sympathy for the mass media in liberal, or even progressive, circles. Perhaps, some liberals have already forgotten that these are the same stations or papers that marketed the 2003 illegitimate invasion of Iraq, consistently downplayed or ignored atrocities that were inconvenient or irrelevant to Washington’s foreign policy agenda, and silenced anti-war voices. The MSM has displayed a propensity to marvel at the beauty of a U.S. cruise missile attack while ignoring the tragedy that human beings, likely civilians, had been killed at the conclusion of the spectacle. The “agenda setting” media have, almost without exception, walked hand-in-hand with Washington during illegitimate military interventions. In early 2003, Phil Donohue had the highest rated show on MSNBC and represented the only consistent anti-war voice on mainstream television. In February 2003, a month before the invasion, MSNBC fired Donohue.
In the past, as Washington beat the drums of war, the media limited the bounds of debate, ignoring viable paths for peaceful solutions and magnifying official statements that sought conflict. In the Trump era, the MSM has been, for the most part, on a concerted mission to fulfill its function of hunting for false statements and highlighting contradictions; much, but not all, of that commentary is directed at the president’s lack of traditional statesmanship or issues that do not have immediate policy consequences. However, if the Trump administration decided to attempt a regime change war against one of Washington’s perpetually designated adversaries (excluding a country with significant air power), it is a near certainty, given its institutional design and history, that the MSM would fall into lockstep and disseminate Pentagon propaganda, silence critical voices, and ignore viable paths to a peaceful solution. You know what they say about the leopard, it just can’t seem to change its spots.
image: REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson
sad, but true. Be afraid. Be very afraid.