Media Rants: On Elections--The Media's Ottinger Effect

On Elections: The Media’s Ottinger Effect

by Tony Palmeri 

From the September 2012 issue of The SCENE 

Though not old enough to vote at the time, the first political campaign I followed closely was Jimmy “I've looked on a lot of women with lust” Carter v. Gerald “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” Ford in 1976. Subsequently I became a bona fide political communication junkie, almost obsessively keeping tabs on local, state, and national elections.

Like most voters I rely on mainstream mass media for information about issues and candidates. I peruse newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and a variety of electronic media sources. The experience is never pleasant, is often maddening, and requires sifting through tons of bull crap to get to anything beneficial. 

What’s frustrating is that before each election cycle, mainstream media always promise to feature reporting and punditry that will be high quality or at least better than the last time. Before the election season commences, the media create an image of themselves that they never quite live up to: the image of the crusading fourth estate debunking candidates’ false claims, forcing serious and wide ranging discussion of vital issues, and being responsive to the real concerns of the electorate.

In failing to live up to an image, mainstream media are much like some politicians. In TheCongress Dictionary, Paul Dickson and Paul Clancy refer to “the phenomenon of not living up to an image” as the “Ottinger effect.”

Representative Richard Ottinger was a liberal New York Democrat who ran for the US Senate in 1970. The Republican in the race, Charles Goodell, was appointed to complete Bobby Kennedy’s term. Soon after being seated, Goodell irked Republicans by speaking and acting much like Kennedy, especially in opposition to the Vietnam War. The New York Conservative Party nominated James Buckley, and with Goodell and Ottinger splitting the liberal vote Buckley won the seat. Ottinger could and should have won the election even with another liberal in the race, but in debates and other public appearances he could not live up to the statesmanlike image promised by his slick TV ads. Texas Governor Rick Perry’s dismal primary campaign for president this year is a good example of the Ottinger effect on the conservative side. 
(below: Watch Rick Perry's campaign ad on "Proven Leadership." Then watch his "Oops" moment at a Republican debate. A classic example of the Ottinger Effect.). 

Like Ottinger and Perry, mass media promise something edgy and different but when it comes time to deliver the goods they are essentially empty suits.  Below are three examples of the mass media election season Ottinger effect.

First, the failure to effectively debunk false claims. False claims are a fact of like in politics; a rigorous watchdog media is really the only way to hold liars accountable. Unfortunately, the mainstream media’s addiction to a mistaken understanding of “balance” creates a “they all do it” mentality that makes the fact check process almost pointless.Factcheck.org and Politifact.com once held great promise as guides to exposing BS in politics, but both sites are now like a  football referee who calls nothing but offsetting penalties justified via convoluted, rambling explanations. 

Second, the lack of wide ranging discussion. We’re in a presidential election year where the major parties and candidates disturbingly agree on a wide range of issues, from austerity to national security. Yet the mass media will not insist on the presence of third party candidates at debates, nor even question the legitimacy of the “Commission” that blocks third party participation. The Green Party’s Jill Stein, the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson, and the Constitution Party’s Virgil Goode, in spite of mainstream media’s only token mention of their names, will all be on the ballot in enough states to technically be able to get enough electoral votes to win the presidency. Additionally, the three of them are the only candidates saying anything substantive about issues. Yet the overwhelming majority of voters will hear nothing about them. More than anything else, mainstream media censorship of ballot qualified third party candidates exposes the incestuous relationship between the major parties and the press.

Third, the failure to be responsive to the real concerns of the electorate. National election coverage especially is now indistinguishable from Entertainment Tonight. In Time Magazine JamesPoniewozik calls 2012 the “Year of the Nontroversy.” He argues that “political news has become full of these trumped up, social media and cable news fanned brouhahas over quotes, anecdotes and associations. We're coming off a decade of war and financial ruin, yet our politics have gone from Israeli settlements to Irish setters, from 9/11 to 7 Eleven.” I’d have given Poniewozik’s column an “A” if he’d pointed out that Time itself long ago established the standard for shallow coverage of campaigns.

Media failure to respond to the real concerns of the electorate is not just a national phenomenon. Talk to anyone who’s ever run for city council or town board and they’ll tell you that voters consistently tell them they are concerned about cracked streets, crime, garbage pick up, removing bird droppings from the parks, snow and ice removal, and other less than sexy issues. But in order for the local media to call someone a “progressive” candidate, he or she has to sign on to some big ticket Chamber of Commerce demand like tax incremental financing or other questionable tax shifting schemes. 

Want to be better informed about elections? You took a great first step by reading this month’s SCENE!

Media Rants: Resist Predatory Paywalls

Resist Predatory Paywalls

Media Rants by Tony Palmeri 

Question: What do American newspapers, colleges and universities, and religious establishments have in common?
Answer: They are all 19^th century institutions addicted to flawed 20^th century corporate business models that undermine their ability to survive meaningfully in the digital 21^st century.

That question and answer occurred to me recently when the Oshkosh Northwestern, the Appleton Post Crescent and most other Gannett Empire print products announced that online readers would have to pay for accessing news content online. The imposition by newspaper corporations of “digital paywalls” is not new; the WallStreet Journal pioneered the payola scheme in 1997. Declining ad and subscriber revenues pushed other papers to play with paywalls, most notably the New York Times. The only surprise about Gannett is that it took them so long to join the paywall ring.

Gannett’s is a “soft” paywall because nonpaying customers get unlimited access to some content as well as a certain number of “free” articles each month before the paywall kicks in. If you’re not a paid digital subscriber, each time you click on illuminating stories like “UFO Over Grand Chute” or “Burger King Betting on Bacon Sundae” (that story was quite  the whopper) you’re  reminded how many articles you have left before being coerced into paying the Gannet Empire Download Duty.

Paywalls are a 20^th century solution to a 21^st century problem. It’s like religious institutions responding to declining church membership by squeezing more money out of the remaining loyal flock. Or colleges and universities responding to dwindling external funding by raising tuition to levels that force some out and others into decades of debt.

How did these cultural institutions, all of which should play primary roles in making America a more just society, get to this crisis point? The answer deals with the flawed manner in which each institution defines its relationship to The Public. I only have enough space to deal with newspapers, but a similar dynamic exists across institutions.

In the 19^th century, American newspapers in the new nation saw The Public as something to “shape.” Newspapers were “propaganda” organs preaching values consistent with the revolutionary ideals of the Founding Fathers. Van Wyck Brooks once wrote that the “American mind” is not shaped by books, but by “newspapers and the Bible.”

The legendary New York World publisher Joseph Pulitzer epitomized the shaping function when he lent the weight of the World to raising money for construction of the Statue of Liberty pedestal. Pulitzer of course saw his actions as a way to promote the paper, but his fixation on getting Americans to support “liberty” made it difficult to think of profit as his major motivator.

Eventually Pulitzer did become primarily business centered. He and the New York Journal’s William Randolph Hearst were dueling innovators skilled at exploiting scandal and sensationalism to grow circulation and enhance advertising revenue. By the early 20^th century, the commercial newspaper business sees The Public not as something to shape but to “seduce.” Advertising rates increase as publishers deliver more readers; the more seductive the content, the more eyes on the page. As media scholar Dallas Smythe argued, 20^th century mass media secured windfall profits by selling audiences to advertisers. To get audiences to play such a subordinate role requires sophisticated seduction.

Digital paywalls are an extension of the 20^th century seduction model. Audiences are made to feel that they are somehow “freeloaders” if they click links without subscribing. By paying up, the audience member is somehow “supporting journalism” even though journalism worthy of the name was sacrificed long ago in the interest of the corporate bottom line. By signing up for a digital subscription to a Gannett paper (or any paper), all you are really doing is improving the media corporation’s chances of raising digital advertising rates.

I’ve heard responses to Gannett’s paywall announcement similar to what blogger Matt Yglesias wrote about the Wall Street Journal paywall: “I read the WSJ sometimes. But it’s going to be a cold day in hell before I voluntarily surrender money to firms controlled by Rupert Murdoch when there are alternatives.”

Ben Bagdikian’s classic The Media Monopoly describes Gannett as “an outstanding contemporary performer of the ancient rite of self serving myths, of committing acts of greed and exploitation but describing them through its own machinery as heroic epics.” If you need to read a Gannett paper, maybe the paywall is the excuse you’ve been waiting for to take that daily walk to the public library. There you can read the paper for FREE.  

Paywalls improve the corporate bottom line in the short term. For newspapers to survive in the long term, a new relationship to The Public is necessary. The new relationship must be one of “service.”  Josiah W. Gitt, late editor of the York, PA Gazette & Daily many years ago articulated a vision for newspapers that transcended shaping and seduction: “A newspaper is a public servant and to be permanently successful must be faithful to the interests of the public it serves. It dare not be selfish. It dare not be mercenary.”

Media corporations are by definition selfish and mercenary. The new relationship can be developed only by independent newspapers not fixated on the bottom line. Want to save journalism? Resist predatory paywalls and contribute instead to independent publications.

The Fourth Deadbeat

Media Rants by Tony Palmeri

From the July 2012 issue of the SCENE

Governments and mainstream media in Western Europe and the United States have always been good at describing their activities in noble terms. Thomas Carlyle long ago saw this in England: “Burke said that there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate, more important far than they all.” The image of Western government and media as “Estates,” soberly and judiciously taking care that the business of the people be done, is an enduring one featured in generations of school textbooks. 

Public relations experts might recognize the “Four Estates” image as part of a brilliant branding campaign. Like polluting corporations pitching “green” public personas, so called representative democracies living in the pocket of the one percent articulate their elite servitude as acting for “the people.” The shortsighted economic policy decisions of the last generation, from corporate free trade agreements to banking deregulation to trickle down taxing, were framed by their supporters as supreme victories for the masses. With victories like those, Citizen Jane and Joe don’t need crushing defeats.

The branding of coopted governmental bodies as peoples’ champions is not a recent phenomenon. Not new too is mainstream media’s refusal to play an effective role in exposing the sham populism of said governments. Yes of course we can all name some conscientious public officials and mainstream media personnel dedicated to telling the truth; but those worthy exceptions invariably face marginalization and thus prove the rotted system is the rule.  

It’s time to rebrand government and mainstream media for the 21^st century. During the lead up to last month’s Father’s Day, I got to thinking that Western governments and the media providing cover have for some time taken on the characteristics of Deadbeat Dads. Deadbeat Dads avoid responsibility, scapegoat others for their own failings, and are often pathological liars. The worst won’t even pay for their kids’ socks absent a court order. Yet if you talk to a deadbeat dad he’ll express undying love for and loyalty towards the very people he hurts the most.

In this era of “austerity” in the US our Three Estates (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) now pontificate about deadbeat policies as if on some kind of grand moral crusade. Remarkably but not surprisingly, the Fourth Deadbeat goes along for the ride.

Let’s explore the deadbeatism of each Estate:

THE DEADBEAT PRESIDENCY: FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society were quite modest social welfare programs by global standards, but reflect rare examples of American presidents expending political capital on the people at large.  Modern presidents spend trillions of dollars on dubious national security adventures and then tell us that we’re spending too much on social programs. Today when presidents dare propose new entitlements (e.g. Bush’s prescription drug expansion of Medicare, Obama’s health care reform), private corporations have to make out like bandits. Dad has to take care of Big Pharma and Big Insurance before meeting his family obligations.

THE DEADBEAT CONGRESS: In Representative Joe Walsh (R-Illinois) the House of Representatives today houses a literal deadbeat dad. Walsh was named a “True Blue” member of Congress by the Family Research Council even though he owed thousands of dollars in back child support. The Congress as a whole elevates deadbeatism to a moral crusade: the leadership blames popular programs like Social Security and Medicare for the budget deficit while giving lip service to reigning in the excesses of the national security state and corporate welfare. Meanwhile, Grover Norquist holds the entire Republican caucus in check with the threat of primary opponents if they support even a half cent in tax increases. Norquist is like the loser girlfriend who gets more attention from the deadbeat dad than his own children.

THE DEADBEAT JUDICIARY: It’s not uncommon for deadbeat dads to surround themselves with friends offering “cover” to support the dad’s irresponsible behaviors. The United States Supreme Court now serves that friend function for the President and Congress. Time was when appointed judges were unpredictable; Earl Warren, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter are three examples of Supreme Court liberals appointed by conservative presidents. No more. The vetting process now removes the independent jurists from appointment consideration. We’re left with a partisan “super legislature” of nine bullish barristers, all appointed for life.*** Conservative columnist George Will recently endorsed a super legislature model for the Supreme Court, arguing that judicial activism is necessary to overturn laws and court decisions he doesn’t like (such as the 1873 Slaughterhouse cases). 

***Chief Justice John Roberts' recent majority opinion upholding the thrust of the Affordable Care Act (i.e. "Obamacare") has been interpreted by many as an affirmation of Roberts' independence. However, a careful reading of his opinion suggests that far from distancing himself from the right leaning judges, his opinion was entirely consistent with the rightward drift of the Court. See Jonathan Adler's "Lose the Battle, Win the War?" for a cogent explanation of the opinion.

THE FOURTH DEADBEAT: The 18^th century Whig Edmund Burke understood that a vigorous press could, through sheer force of giving people the unvarnished truth, provide the spark necessary to overturn corrupt and coopted governments. Commercial media long ago stopped serving that role, choosing to enable rather than challenge the three deadbeats.

The late Australian scholar Alex Carey once wrote that “The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.”  Carey understood the “Fourth Estate” as more myth than fact. Can we somehow reverse course in the 21^st century? Yes, but it will require We The People no longer accepting deadbeat dadism as a governing platform or method of media coverage.

Media Rants: 2112 Recalls The Media

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

2112 Recalls the Media

From the June 2012 edition of The SCENE

On June 5th Wisconsin voters will make history. Will they recall Scott Walker and restore Wisconsin's lost reputation as a laboratoryfor democracy? Or will the forces of wealth and reactionary politics, dividers and conquerors spending millions propping up their point man Mr. Walker, buy another election? We'll soon see.

What will future historians say about Wisconsin’s corporate media Walker era performance? Transport your mind 100 years from now, to the dystopian world imagined in the rock band Rush’s classic “2112” album. In the epic title track, the Priests of the Temple of Syrinx control all information for a dumbed down populace. The song’s protagonist finds and learns to play an old guitar, but is angrily rejected by the Priests.  “Father Brown” (who I imagine looks a bit like Scott Walker) crushes the instrument.

In my version of 2112, the Priests of the Temple reflect fondly on ancient Wisconsin media of 2012, holding it up as a role model of how to discourage human beings from wondering how or why things happen. “The Media Priests of 2012 in Wisconsin told only enough to keep the rabble in line. They were Masters of Manufacturing Consent,” mused Father Brown.

In 2112 the SCENE exists as an underground communique’ for regime opponents. To avoid Temple Priest persecution, SCENE writers hide their identities by using pseudonyms. The 2112 Media Rants column is authored by “Seldes.” Seldes’ Media Rants column of June 2112 recalls the corporate media coverage of the 2012 Wisconsin recall movement:

By 2012 it had become clear that news media should meet three key responsibilities: establish the CONTEXT for public controversies, CALL OUT undemocratic actions of public officials, and take leadership in building a small-d democratic COMMUNITY. In Wisconsin in 2012 during the reign of Temple Priest hero Scott Walker, the corporate media failed spectacularly at all three.

Governor Scott Walker’s union busting Act 10, passed with limited public testimony, was put forth under the pretext of Wisconsin being “broke.” Instead of treating the core contextual issue of whether Wisconsin was “broke” as a question of fact to be resolved by rigorous journalistic investigation, corporate media treated the question as one that could not be reliably answered. Whether Wisconsin was broke was “in the eye of the beholder.”

The same pattern appeared when it came to calling out the undemocratic actions of public officials. Scott Walker remains the most extreme product of the “pay toplay” politics brought to the Badger State by Republican governor Thompson in the 1990s and then reinforced for many years by Republicans and Democrats alike. While occasionally lamenting the corrupting influence of Wisconsin’s broken campaign finance rules, major media failed to connect the dots and establish as FACT the hijacking of Wisconsin’s government by monied interests. The best reporting came from independent, nonpartisan groups.

Case in point: The Center For Media and Democracy (CMD), building on a foundation laid down earlier by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Common Cause, and others, exposed how the hyper corporate American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) exerted excessive public policy influence; ALEC model bills and budget provisions were at the core of the Walker legislative agenda. From 2008-2012 legislative ALEC members received $276,000 in campaign contributions from ALEC corporations, while Walker received $406,000 in the same time period. Corporate media in 2012 insisted on calling themselves government “watchdogs” at the same time leaving it to public interest groups to do meaningful watchdog investigations.

Most disturbing in 2012 concerned the media’s failure to stand up for democratic community values while simultaneously enabling divisive and antidemocratic politics. Governor Walker and his cohorts learned early that no amount of demonizing opponents, hardball politics, or convoluted spin could prod the corporate media bosses into saying “ENOUGH!” Some noteworthy examples:

*UW Madison history professor William Cronon wrote a New York Times opinion piece, “Wisconsin’s Radical Break,” comparing Walker to communist hunter Joe McCarthy (another Temple Priest favorite) in terms of both forgetting good government lessons of neighborliness, decency and mutual respect. Then in response to a Cronon blog post about ALEC, the Wisconsin Republican Party filed an open records request seeking access to his emails; a clear attempt to silence a critic.

*After Wisconsin citizens collected nearly a million signatures to launch recalls against the Governor and Lt. Governor, efforts were made to degrade signers in a disgusting display of antagonism toward basic citizenship rights. Not even theGannett Corporation, a behemoth self portrayed as a champion of First Amendment freedoms, could bring itself to stand up to the bullies and defend the basic right of their own employees to sign a petition.

*A video surfaced showing Governor Walker advocating a “divide and conquer” strategy to turn Wisconsin into a red state. And when he didn’t like the reports of job losses occurring on his watch, 3 weeks before the recall election he came out with a “more accurate” way of measuring job creation that could not be verified until 3 weeks after the election!

Since the reporting on these atrocities upset partisans on all sides, the corporate press concluded they must be doing something right. With 100 years of perspective, we now know conclusively that they did everything wrong, and paved the way for the stupefying Temple Priest Press we are now subject to in 2112.

Media Rants: A Presidential Debate Alternative

A Presidential Debate Alternative                                             

Media Rants by

Tony Palmeri 

from the May 2012 issue of The SCENE 

As a public speaking teacher, I appreciate televised presidential debates. Showing my students just 30 minutes from any one of the current campaign season’s panoply of Republican primary gabfests is a great lesson for them on what NOT to do: don’t pander to your audience, don’t show up unprepared, don’t respond to every question with tired talking points, don’t exaggerate your accomplishments, don’t pathetically pass off your partisan opinions as facts, don’t cheap shot your opponents, and don’t lie with statistics. Even better, don’t lie at all. 

As an American citizen, I despise televised presidential debates. Mainstream journalists don’t even pretend anymore that these tightly scripted affairs offer meaningful public policy clashes. Instead, the events provide opportunities for corporate media anointed “frontrunners” and “serious challengers” to lose that status, generally by getting flustered and/or losing the post-debate spin war. When a serious public policy clash does emerge, the result can be frightening.  Last September’s CNN/Tea Party Republican party debate featured audience members actually cheering the suggestion that an uninsured 30 year old accident victim should just be left to die. Not only was that excruciating to listen to, but it may have been the lowest point ever reached in the history of cable television. 

How to account for the decline of debate? The late media critic Marshall McLuhan famously argued that platform style political debating doesn’t work in the “cool” television medium. Others posit that major political party control of the debates restricts the participation of lesser known candidates who might challenge the stale arguments of the Democrats and Republicans. Add to that the fact that establishment candidates come ready to do nothing but spew poll driven blather and the result is a bizarre state of affairs in which we seem to know less about candidates after the debate. The debates provide few clues as to how a candidate might govern if elected. 

Even if modern debates were more substantive (like Lincoln v. Douglas), the candidate skills showcased really have little to do with the leadership qualities necessary for the 21^st century presidency. Debating is rooted in the idea of the president as a policy leader; an eloquent and wise advocate who artfully sways the Congress to support legislation that might benefit the people.  


The 21^st century president can and should be a policy leader, but that responsibility is dwarfed by the day to day demands of running a massive federal bureaucracy and managing daily crises. A video of George W. Bush being briefed by federal disaster officials shortly before the arrival of Hurricane Katrina revealed how utterly unprepared the president was to manage the crisis. His questions were minimal, and he seemed to think the officials were fishing for a pep talk instead of help in solving the problem of how to coordinate the local, state, and national disaster response teams. 

TV debates give us a slight sense of how a candidate might handle Katrina. But we could construct a televised small group leadership exercise  that would be much more instructive. Here’s my proposal: 


First, the candidate would be placed on a stage with trained actors role playing various cabinet officers. 

Second, the candidate would be presented with a hypothetical scenario. For example: “Tea Party and Occupy Wall St. factions are planning October 3^rd ‘Unite To Take Our Country Back’ rallies in hundreds of US cities. The FBI and Homeland Security have evidence the rallies might lead to mass violence between the factions and against local law enforcement. The FBI and Homeland Security want to formulate strategy with the White House, including the development of clear instructions for law enforcement at the local and state levels.” 

Third, the candidate would run a 60 minute meeting with the cabinet officers he or she thinks most crucial to dealing with such situations. The candidate could raise questions, ask for information, give direction, or anything else he or she might conceivably do if this were a real event. By the end of 60 minutes, the audience should have a good idea of the management style the candidate might bring to the White House. So as to minimize one upmanship, each meeting should be taped outside the presence of other candidates and broadcast at a later date. 

I can imagine many objections to my proposal, including how to ensure candor and whether it’s appropriate to simulate in public what would be private meetings if the candidate were elected president. Those objections are outweighed by the 21^st century requirement of knowing more about potential presidents than their exaggerated resumes and ability to mouth platitudes. 

Herman Cain’s interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board, in which he reveals a total inability to hold a coherent conversation about Libya, I think is a good example of what the debate alternative is aiming for. I’d simply replace the journalists with actors. If you consider the “journalists” that typically host the debates, having them replaced by actors really isn’t that much of a leap. 

Televised presidential debates have degenerated to the point where they should be called “Dancing with the Demagogues.” My alternative is not perfect, but at least it tries to develop a way of determining if a candidate can be trusted to manage the massive power of the modern presidency. 

Media Rants: The Other Media

The Other Media

Media Rants by Tony Palmeri 

from the April 2012 edition of THE SCENE 

In just its fifth year of existence the Fox Cities Book Festival is already arguably Wisconsin’s premier gathering of writers and readers. This year’s April 11-18 event gives us not just great authors, but also an April 13 fundraiser featuring the music of Cory Chisel along with Wisconsin’s first Poet Laureate Ellen Kort and Obvious Dog. See the website for details (www.foxcitiesbookfestival.org).

2012 happens to be the 50^th anniversary of some of the most influential nonfiction books in American history. The year 1962 saw the publication of landmark works in feminism (Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl), philosophy (Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), history (Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns ofAugust), economics (Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom), Americana (John Steinbeck’s Travels With Charley: In Search of America), the environment (Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring) and social justice (Michael Harrington’s The Other America: Poverty in the United States).  Each work in its time inspired passionate discussion; most are still cited in contemporary academic and popular literature.

For political progressives, Silent Spring and The Other America are of special note because each had direct influence on public policy regarding environmental protection and poverty. Rachel Carson’s plea for restraint in chemical treatment of natural resources received a barrage of criticism from apologists for industrial pollution, yet the Kennedy Administration’s Science Advisory Committee assigned Carson and her book high marks. Though efforts to malign and misrepresent Carson never ceased and continue, virtually every positive step to protect the environment over the last 50 years can be linked to Silent Spring. The book literally started the environmental movement.

Harrington’s The Other America represents a rare example since World War II of a left leaning intellectual influencing White House public policy. John F. Kennedy was made aware of Harrington’s work through Dwight Macdonald’s extensive review in The New Yorker (Macdonald later wrote that “Between us, Mike Harrington and I made a difference”), while Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” has roots in The Other America. Johnson’s “Great Society” successes like Medicare, Medicaid, and Head Start would probably not have been passed absent critical public support mobilized in part by exposure to Harrington’s book and press coverage of it. While Harrington advocated substantial government intervention to ameliorate poverty, his major impact was simply to bring attention to the issue.

Poverty in America in 2012 is in some ways worse than 1962, especially in terms of the willingness of our so-called leaders to ignore it. According to the Census Bureau’s new “Supplemental Poverty Measure,” 100 million Americans (1 in 3) are poor or “near poor.” Despite the shocking numbers, neither of the two major political parties has on the table any serious anti-poverty measures; the issue will get scant attention even in this presidential election year. 

How to account for the lack of attention to poverty in America, especially to the idea that government might actually be able to help? Journalist BarbaraEhrenreich argues that the political right and many mainstream Democrats coopted and reframed Harrington’s “culture of poverty” thesis to justify the dismantling of programs designed to help the poor. Harrington biographer Maurice Isserman agrees and notes that during the last two decades of harsh attacks on the poor we’ve had “no Michael Harrington to answer the challenge.”

Douglass MacKinnon, who served as press secretary to former Republican Senator Bob Dole, recently released a memoir about his life growing up in abject poverty. He believes poverty’s not an issue because politicians just don’t care. In a New York Times op-ed he expresses anger at official Washington: “Not one elected official has gotten in touch with me to ask if I might want to discuss poverty, my experience and possible solutions.”

If MacKinnon’s right, leader apathy about poverty is a sad commentary in a country where elected officials pledge to “promote the general Welfare.” But I think there’s more to it than that. When Michael Harrington published his work in 1962, the fact that he had Socialist political leanings was almost irrelevant. Major media of the time opened up space for a serious discussion of poverty, and even conservatives like William F. Buckley gave Harrington’s book a hearing.

But today we rely on The Other Media for news and information. If LBJ and Harrington were around now, the story would be not that the President had read an important book and developed an anti-poverty program centered on it. Rather, the story would be Republicans alleging that the President’s poverty program was influenced by a radical Socialist intent on turning the United States into Europe.

Think I’m exaggerating? Consider 2009 when President Obama appointed Van Jones as Special Advisor for “Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation” at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Jones’ bestselling The Green Collar Economy is as close to a Harrington style social welfare manifesto that a modern president is likely to read. Yet due to The Other Media’s enabling of Obama critics, resulting in a fixation on Jones’ prior political affiliations and statements, the “green economy” ended up receiving little meaningful coverage and no visible public mandate.

Today’s problem is not a shortage of great books or ideas. The problem is a shortage of great media willing to open up space for reasoned discussion of ideas that challenge the status quo.

Tony Palmeri (tony@tonypalmeri.com) is a professor of Communication Studies at UW Oshkosh

Media on Soldier Responsibility: DON"T THINK

Note: This piece was submitted to the SCENE several days before chaos broke out in Afghanistan over the burning of the Koran. Glenn Greenwald provides the appropriate historical context for that chaos. Current events in Afghanistan are tragic, yet completely predictable given not only the history described by Greenwald, but also the courageous report written by Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis (and mostly minimized or censored by American corporate media). That report is discussed in the essay below. -TP

Media on Soldier Responsibility: DON’T THINK

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

from the March 2012 edition of The SCENE

Virtually all mainstream media news producers say they subscribe to a free marketplace of ideas model of free speech. The model says that on controversial issues, the public is best served by being presented with the widest possible range of reporting and commentary. From the clash of diverse views emerges a well-informed citizenry and better public policy.

What news producers say they subscribe to and what actually happens are two radically different things. For most issues the “free marketplace” of ideas features narrow presentations of establishment talking points, with the mainstream media often looking like a Chamber of Commerce newsletter. Engaged citizens find themselves forced to search elsewhere for wider discussions.

Given that the United States has been fighting two wars continuously since 2001, with horrific consequences for thousands of volunteer troops, millions of civilians abroad, and military families at home, you’d think the issue of soldier responsibility might be worth talking about. Yet on that issue the mainstream media rigidly reject the marketplace of ideas model and in the process end up sending the message most destructive to democracy: DON’T THINK.

I have in mind two messages not allowed into the marketplace: Ian Murphy’s “Fuck the Troops” blog post from 2008 and Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis’ recent “Truth, Lies, and Afghanistan” in the Armed Forces Journal. Murphy’s piece, perhaps easy to dismiss because of its George Carlinesque lite cursing and satire, argues that we shouldn’t blindly treat as heroes those who make the choice to fight unheroic wars. Murphy you may recall was the individual who impersonated billionaire Republican king maker David Koch and in that role recorded a conversation with Scott Walker confirming our worst fears about the guv’s contempt for political opponents. The GOP pounced on Murphy’s 2008 blog post in an attempt to deflate the phone recording’s impact and put on the defensive any Democrat caught cavorting with him.

Davis, an Army whistleblower putting his career at risk by speaking out, argues that pretty much everything we’re hearing from the generals about our “successes” in Afghanistan is a lie. For his efforts he could face an investigation by the Pentagon for possible “security violations” along with what looks like a smear campaign possibly coordinated with elements of the mainstream media.

In dramatically different ways Murphy and Davis remind us of the moral obligations of military personnel. Superior officers are obligated to tell the truth and direct subordinates to act lawfully. Subordinates are obligated to disobey unlawful orders. Civilian and uniformed military leaders would prefer we not introduce critical public discussions of the morality of our war engagements, a preference enabled by the corporate media establishment since the end of the Vietnam War.

What should a responsible corporate media do when confronted with controversial war commentary? Unless their goal is to be the capitalist equivalent of Pravda and Xinhua News Agency (official organs of the former Soviet and current Chinese ruling classes) they should at the very least urge citizens to READ and THINK ABOUT the issues raised by Murphy and Davis.

From what I had read and heard about Murphy’s blog post, I thought he was doing nothing more than cheering on the death of American soldiers; one person told me that Murphy “clearly sympathizes with anti-American terrorists.”  Then I actually read the entire piece, and I found this in it:

“As a society, we need to discard our blind deference to military service. There’s nothing admirable about volunteering to murder people. There’s nothing admirable about being rooked by obvious propaganda. There’s nothing admirable about doing what you’re told if what you’re told to do is terrible.”  In my experience, the people who most support statements like that are veterans who understand and appreciate the “new normal” that should have governed the military protocol of all nations after the post-World War II Nuremberg trials. What Murphy seems not to appreciate is the fact that the most principled, patriotic dissent against the Iraq War actually comes from soldiers, a fact that hardly reinforces his picture of “rubes” that “got what they asked for.”

Colonel Davis, who says he will get “nuked” for telling the truth about Afghanistan, seems determined to start a conversation about the war. The mainstream press doggedly refuses to facilitate that conversation. Writes Davis:

“When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid,  graphically, if necessary, in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it . . . our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start.”

Rolling Stone published Davis’ entire report online. So at least one publication supports a marketplace of ideas not just in words, but in deeds.

Media Rants: Censored in 2011, Part 2

Censored in 2011, Part 2
Media Rants
By
Tony Palmeri
Last month I identified half of the top ten censored stories of 2010. They were: (10) Has Bradley Manning been tortured? (9) The “Invented” Peoples’ Nonviolent Political Prisoner, (8) Execution By Secret White House Committee, (7) Delaying Climate Action At Durban, (6) ALEC Exposed? Each story was underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by corporate media in 2010.

And now the top 5.

No. 5: The Presidential Election Campaign. In December of last year Gallup released some fascinating poll results showing that 70% of Americans can’t wait for the presidential election campaign to be over. Many months before the Republicans will even choose a nominee to challenge Barack Obama, only 26% of Americans said they “can’t wait” for the presidential campaigns to begin.
Gallup attributes the lack of enthusiasm toward selecting the leader of the free world to several factors including the length of the campaigns, lack of trust in politicians, and dislike of negative ads. More significant, in my view, is the fact that mainstream media coverage of the presidential campaign features predominantly “horse race” journalism (?) concerned primarily with who’s up, who’s down, and “insider baseball” political strategy. Meaningful, substantive coverage of issues that matter to peoples’ lives and detailed analyses of candidates’ positions on them is marginalized or outright censored in most major media. Under such conditions of journalistic negligence, of course we can’t wait for the campaign to be over.

No. 4: The Death of PolitiFact. The late, great journalistic gadfly I.F. Stone said that "If you want to know about governments, all you have to know is two words, 'governments lie.'" Heirs of Stone were thus thrilled when the fact checking website PolitiFact a few years ago pledged to help citizens sort out truth and lies in public discourse. For obvious reasons, establishment politicians and pundits hated PolitiFact from the day it was launched. Sadly, in 2011 PolitiFact became part of the establishment and lost all credibility.

In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel runs a PolitiFact column. In a bizarre entry, MJS PolitiFact labeled as “false” Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Executive Director Mike McCabe’s claim made at Fighting BobFest that the state’s 2011- 2013 budget includes a "15 percent increase for road construction and yet we’ve got local towns tearing up pavement and putting down gravel because the money is steered to private contractors instead, not to the local road crews that work for the townships and for the county." McCabe’s response (not printed by MJS even though they did run Senator Ron Johnson’s objections to a PoltiFact column about him) adroitly exposed the hack work that went into the MJS column.

Worse, at the national level PolitiFact designated Democrats’ claim that the Republicans voted to end Medicare as the “lie of the year.” Caving in to pressure from the Republican establishment, PolitiFact accepted as true the absurd posturing of politicians like Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan that a vote to privatize Medicare somehow is not a vote to end it.

No. 3: Corporate Taxes and Lobbying. Reporting on the Occupy Wall Street movement usually frames occupiers’ claims regarding corporate privilege and greed as something debatable. We should not be surprised that corporate media have the backs of other corporations, but still it’s shocking how difficult it is for the major media to state the basic facts of our economy. Let’s give the International Business Times some credit for at least summarizing the results of a study by the nonpartisan Public Campaign: “By employing a plethora of tax-dodging techniques, 30 multi-million dollar American corporations expended more money lobbying Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, ultimately spending approximately $400,000 every day, including weekends, during that three-year period to lobby lawmakers and influence political elections.”

No. 2: Mining For Influence. In December Wisconsin’s Assembly Republicans introduced a sweeping bill to streamline mining regulations in the state. Virtually NONE of the mainstream reporting mentioned the special interest dollars flowing to key politicians (including Scott Walker) supporting the bill. As usual, it was left to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign to reveal the influence of out of state mining interests.

No. 1: Was Krugman Right About 9/11? Last year was the 10th anniversary of the horrible 9/11 attacks. In a blog post that led to former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld canceling his New York Times subscription, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman said in part: “What happened after 9/11, and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not, was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.”

Krugman’s post was met with the usual bluster from the Right, and even some on the Left thought Krugman’s timing was bad. But missing in almost all mainstream coverage was an attempt to answer a simple question: was/is Krugman right? Have the last ten really been “years of shame” for our country? To sweep that question under the rug is to allow shameful acts in the name of 9/11 to continue.