Glenn Greenwald: the merger of journalists and government (dissects the CNN 'debate')

[swag]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/28/cnnn

Over the last month, I've done many television and radio segments about WikiLeaks and what always strikes me is how indistinguishable -- identical -- are the political figures and the journalists. There's just no difference in how they think, what their values and priorities are, how completely they've ingested and how eagerly they recite the same anti-WikiLeaks, "Assange = Saddam" script. So absolute is the WikiLeaks-is-Evil bipartisan orthodoxy among the Beltway political and media class (forever cemented by the joint Biden/McConnell decree that Assange is a "high-tech Terrorist,") that you're viewed as being from another planet if you don't spout it. It's the equivalent of questioning Saddam's WMD stockpile in early 2003.

It's not news that establishment journalists identify with, are merged into, serve as spokespeople for, the political class: that's what makes them establishment journalists. But even knowing that, it's just amazing, to me at least, how so many of these "debates" I've done involving one anti-WikiLeaks political figure and one ostensibly "neutral" journalist -- on MSNBC with The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart and former GOP Congresswoman Susan Molinari, on NPR with The New York Times' John Burns and former Clinton State Department official James Rubin, and last night on CNN with Yellin and Townsend -- entail no daylight at all between the "journalists" and the political figures. They don't even bother any longer with the pretense that they're distinct or play different assigned roles. I'm not complaining here -- Yellin was perfectly fair and gave me ample time -- but merely observing how inseparable are most American journalists from the political officials they "cover."

...

From the start of the WikiLeaks controversy, the most striking aspect for me has been that the ones who are leading the crusade against the transparency brought about by WikiLeaks -- the ones most enraged about the leaks and the subversion of government secrecy -- have been . . . America's intrepid Watchdog journalists. What illustrates how warped our political and media culture is as potently as that? It just never seems to dawn on them -- even when you explain it -- that the transparency and undermining of the secrecy regime against which they are angrily railing is supposed to be . . . what they do.

What an astounding feat to train a nation's journalist class to despise above all else those who shine a light on what the most powerful factions do in the dark and who expose their corruption and deceit, and to have journalists -- of all people -- lead the way in calling for the head of anyone who exposes the secrets of the powerful. Most ruling classes -- from all eras and all cultures -- could only fantasize about having a journalist class that thinks that way, but most political leaders would have to dismiss that fantasy as too extreme, too implausible, to pursue. After all, how could you ever get journalists -- of all people -- to loathe those who bring about transparency and disclosure of secrets? But, with a few noble exceptions, that's exactly the journalist class we have.

. . . more

[Fumesucker]

1. K&R for Glenzilla..

He tells uncomfortable truths.

[denverbill]

2. That's what happens when corporations control the media and the politicians.

Welcome to Fascism! Just stay out of the way of whatever corporations want and you'll be just fine, until they don't need you anymore that is.

[hlthe2b]

3. Really excellent. Everyone should watch his Townsend debate

which illustrates the points made in this article to a "T"///

[struggle4progress]

4. Aggrieved hyperventilation apparently counts as analysis in Greenwald's world

His noisy outrage ("Assange = Saddam"!) unfortunately distracts us from his shoddy thinking

Careful reading of this article exhibits Greenwald's libertarian prejudices: when Greenwald inspects our current difficulties, his first reaction is blame government!. So he imagines, for example, a "government-subservient corporate culture in which these journalists are trained and molded" -- that is, in Greenwald's view the problem with corporate culture is that it is too ready to cooperate with government and to accept the dictates of government. But, of course, this manner of analysis mystifies and inverts the actual state of affairs: we do not have, in this country, a corporate culture which kowtows to government; what we actually have is a small corporate class that attempts to control government and shape government to its own ends, that owns the media and uses it to stupefy and misinform the population, and that hires publicists to do its work

[mudplanet]

7. Shoddy thinking? Libertarian?

"we do not have, in this country, a corporate culture which kowtows to government"?

"If one thinks about it, there's something quite surreal about sitting there listening to a CNN anchor and her fellow CNN employee angrily proclaim that Julian Assange is a "terrorist" and a "criminal" when the CNN employee doing that is . . . . George W. Bush's Homeland Security and Terrorism adviser. Fran Townsend was a high-level national security official for a President who destroyed another nation with an illegal, lie-fueled military attack that killed well over 100,000 innocent people, created a worldwide torture regime, illegally spied on his own citizens without warrants, disappeared people to CIA "black sites," and erected a due-process-free gulag where scores of knowingly innocent people were put in cages for years. Julian Assange never did any of those things, or anything like them. But it's Assange who is the "terrorist" and the "criminal." "

I tend to agree with him.

[struggle4progress]

9. An analysis is useful, if it helps us think clearly about matters, so that we can begin to respond

appropriately. One should distinguish useful analysis from opinions that we merely happen to agree with: replacing discussions about the facts with discussions about whether or not we agree with certain opinions simply does not help us think clearly about our circumstances

If it's important to you, I'm quite willing to say I find most US media coverage surreal -- that ceased to surprise me decades ago: Well, of course that's how the corporate media functions!. But why should anyone really give a flyin fugg about these opinions? Constant opinion-based outrage is not conducive to clear thinking: a shouting match between Greenwald and former Bush-administration shill Townsend, with no fact-checking by the broadcaster, does little to illuminate matters; we get that shouting match between Greenwald and Townsend, with no fact-checking by the broadcaster, precisely because that shouting match cannot help us think clearly

The fact that Greenwald on air opposes Townsend, whom I dislike for her Bush-era shilling, doesn't imply that I must therefore like Greenwald's views: Greenwald was selected as worthy-of-air-time by the same corporate forces that selected Townsend as worthy-of-air-time. We will not see, on air, a careful defense of Assange's (naive) anarchism, nor will we ever see (say) an on-air defense of wikileaks leaks about major corporations or any careful discussion of the power of modern corporations. Greenwald is "acceptable" because he (as a Libertarian) thinks corporations kowtow to governments -- the more realistic view that government kowtows to corporate power will not be regarded as worthy-of-air-time

<edit to clarify garbled last sentence>

[mudplanet]

10. I admit, I tend to like snark. Even if it's only constructive for me.

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. WTF?

In fact, Greenwald has written in the past of the pernicious influence of corporations on government. Your rebuttal is a shoddy attempt to muddy the real point of Greenwald's article. I am quite sure that most DU'ers can easily see that Greenwald's points are valid and able to be seen by anyone that watches these shows about Wikileaks.

Cheers!

[Jim__]

5. Glenn Greenwald is a journalist. There is no place for him in the American media - n/t

[unblock]

6. journalism in america is looking more and more soviet every day.

[underpants]

11. We live in a bubble with "news" read to us by failed actors

as I recently emailed a friend of mine "If I want to get the official story I watch CNN Headline News's Robin Meade. If I am going to be lied to I might as well have it read to me a couple of honkin' double D's"

[Doctor_J]

12. As Michael Parenti observes, the people we see in the employ of CNN

Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, and all of the major newspapers, don't need to be trained any more. Those who don't conform to the hard right-wing ideology are culled from the herd before they get anywhere near a camera, microphone, or columnist's desk. Anyone truly liberal journalists are consigned to the obituary or lifestyle section early in their careers.

[Jefferson23]

13. K&R