It is the best of times, it's the worst of times and if you're like Glen Beck; if you're like nearly every blathering godsmitten idiot in the last few thousand years, it is always the end of times. There are always signs, always comets, always wars and rumors thereof -- earthquakes, storms, floods and droughts. There are always famines and pestilences, always cause to go to the mountaintop to await or dress in purple and take poison for the magic trip to the mother ship. If Jesus said the end times would be during the lives of his followers, it's no contradiction. There are always plenty of editors, redactors and other verbal shell-game operators to redefine and revise the prophecy to suit the game.
Someone smart once said that if we live only in the moment, there is no difference between falling and flying and if we've read Einstein we know that truth is a matter of the frame of reference you occupy. If your idea of "the world" is the Mediterranean, the Roman Empire, the end of it means one thing. If you mean the Universe, a mid 20th century concept of something incomprehensibly larger, the importance of things like coveting your neighbors' ass or eating a Philly cheese steak becomes hard to see or justify as is the importance of anything that concerns a peculiar, transitory trick of chemistry on an infinitesimal dust mote we call life.
But the Grand Wazir of Beckistan said yesterday on his radio show that the Book of Mormon is "really a calendar" and perhaps like the Mayan Calendar, accurately predicts the end of all things. It's a level of rank stupidity that, like the size of the universe itself, utterly defies any attempt at analogy. He told his staff a long time ago, he said yesterday, that if he mentioned that book, it meant "we are at the end." It's the "Story of America" he said, but a story of things that never happened, cities that never were and people who aren't who it says they are and a story written by a charlatan with a demonstrated history of fraud.
But of course although each Plank length of time (tP) the smallest possible interval according to quantum mechanics, is the end of something, it's not likely the end of anything we would notice -- like the end of Glen Beck. It's not likely the end of the US government nor either political party, nor is it yet the moment of the "within 24 hour" predicted whistleblower he talked about earlier this week to an audience whose memory of world begins anew every morning
In a frame of reference where such a length is significant, not only are falling and flying indistinguishable, beginnings and ends are a bit meaningless in a frame that includes weeks and days and hours and indeed, human events. In the frame of reference where the stupid dwell, where anyone would credit anything Beck might utter, a report of cannibalism, although at least as old as the Neanderthalers, is so unique as to mean impending cosmic calamity. The Book of Mormon, like the Bible (only harder to read with a straight face) and many other religious texts inhabit a frame of reference so at odds with the physical universe and its properties and dimensions that talking animals magic fruit and other things and events that never existed abound, can be and always are used to frighten us to the profit of prophets.
"We are living in Biblical Times" Beck tells us; a statement hard to decipher since the last ravings of the Christian versions end sometime in the late first century, but of course there we have another blurry, woozy, foggy and crepuscular magic frame of reference where nothing really has much to do with anything outside of it; where nothing is true and all things are true and words have power. No offense intended to individual Mormons, but the book in question is hardly a calendar unless it be for a universe that never existed, inconsistent with the observable universe and inconsistent internally -- just like the Bible and Quir'an and others which speak of imminent calamities and events and places that are pure fiction.
Pure fiction, just like Becks mysterious 'whistle-blower.' Predictions of the impossible based on things with no significance selected for the purpose. Concepts like the end of time are far beyond science at the moment. We don't know when life will end, but the end of stupidity might just be as far off. There are signs.
Showing posts with label Glenn Beck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Glenn Beck. Show all posts
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Glenn Beck again
"We are going to be greatly divided as a nation in the next ten days
and you are going to witness things in American history that have never
been witnessed before" Said Glenn Beck yesterday
despite his recent claim that his vocal cords no longer worked. I was
hoping that might have been the one true thing ever to escape his mouth.
It's true -- you're going to witness the last half of June, 2013 -- a historical first. I'm pretty sure you're going to witness another spell of embarrassment for Glenn Beck too, not that he'll necessarily notice or acknowledge it. There's a document, he says, that will "take down pretty much the whole power structure, pretty much everything" and he's going to announce it sometime today.
Those who remember back to last April, a set which obviously doesn't include his fans, might speculate that this new revelation will be as spurious and idiotic as his earthshaking revelation of a connection between Saudi Arabia and the Boston Marathon bombing. Is anyone still waiting for an admission of error or a hint of humble retraction?
Of course to those folks who follow Beck in the way people used to mock dancing bears or court jesters, this is nothing new. Students of buffoonery and the charlatans who move their card tables and shells from one corner to the next in search of fresh idiots may not even notice this latest tantrum, but the clock is ticking Mr. Beck and there's not much time before the waitress brings you another plate of crow. Do us a favor -- take a bite.
UPDATE:
Well days have gone by now and no whistles have been blowing and Beck has only some mumbling about immigration which is hardly the stuff of unprecedented division much less something to "take down the power structure."
Do his faithful listeners remember as far back as a day or two or are they just so choked up on each new day's revelation that they don't care about yesterday?
So, want so fries with that crow Glenn? Can I supersize it?
It's true -- you're going to witness the last half of June, 2013 -- a historical first. I'm pretty sure you're going to witness another spell of embarrassment for Glenn Beck too, not that he'll necessarily notice or acknowledge it. There's a document, he says, that will "take down pretty much the whole power structure, pretty much everything" and he's going to announce it sometime today.
Those who remember back to last April, a set which obviously doesn't include his fans, might speculate that this new revelation will be as spurious and idiotic as his earthshaking revelation of a connection between Saudi Arabia and the Boston Marathon bombing. Is anyone still waiting for an admission of error or a hint of humble retraction?
Of course to those folks who follow Beck in the way people used to mock dancing bears or court jesters, this is nothing new. Students of buffoonery and the charlatans who move their card tables and shells from one corner to the next in search of fresh idiots may not even notice this latest tantrum, but the clock is ticking Mr. Beck and there's not much time before the waitress brings you another plate of crow. Do us a favor -- take a bite.
UPDATE:
Well days have gone by now and no whistles have been blowing and Beck has only some mumbling about immigration which is hardly the stuff of unprecedented division much less something to "take down the power structure."
Do his faithful listeners remember as far back as a day or two or are they just so choked up on each new day's revelation that they don't care about yesterday?
So, want so fries with that crow Glenn? Can I supersize it?
Friday, July 8, 2011
A CONTEST OF MADMEN FOR THE PRIMACY OF THE SEWER
By Octopus
If the title of this post caught your attention, you have come to right place. The art of writing an audience-grabbing headline is one of the first lessons learned in Journalism 101 and a convention born in the Gilded Age of the late 19th Century. Yellow journalism is a derisive term that has become synonymous with lurid and sensational headlines, scare- and scandal-mongering, and journalistic misconduct. When discussing the failings of contemporary journalism, the era of the yellow press is likely to be invoked. The criticisms are valid because the features of yellow journalism continue to live and thrive in our modern mass media. Before I continue, perhaps I should give this post a less presupposing title:
Yellow Journalism in the Age of Cable News
Although elusive to definition, most historians agree on the signature traits of yellow journalism:
- Sensational or misleading headlines “that screamed excitement about comparatively unimportant news” (Mott); a “variety of topics reported on the front page, including news of politics, war, international diplomacy, sports, and society” (Campbell);
- A “lavish use of pictures, many of them without significance” (Mott); “bold and experimental layouts … enhanced by the use of color” (Campbell)
- “Imposters and frauds of various kinds” (Mott); “a tendency to rely on anonymous sources, particularly in dispatches of leading reporters” (Campbell);
- A “more or less ostentatious sympathy with the underdog … with campaigns against abuses suffered by the common people” (Mott); “a fearless and efficient instrument for the exposure of public wrongdoing” (Campbell);
- A “hearty indulgence in self-congratulation” (Campbell) to drive circulation and sales, but not necessarily serve the public interest with accurate or newsworthy stories.
Originally coined by Ervin Wardman of the New York Press, the term ‘yellow journalism’ has never explicitly been defined, although popular accounts attribute the term to a comic strip character nicknamed the ‘Yellow Kid’ drawn by cartoonist Richard F. Outcault. Yellow journalism begins with the competitive rivalry between two publishing legends, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst.When Pulitzer bought the New York World in 1883, he introduced provocative headlines, pictures, games, and novelties to attract readers and boost circulation. Although Pulitzer was certainly an ambitious and aggressive newspaper entrepreneur, his motives were not entirely self-serving. Pulitzer also believed in journalism as a civic responsibility whose mission is to improve society. In an era marked by immigration, labor unrest, abuses of power, and injustice, Pulitzer transformed the World into the dominant metropolitan daily of New York City … and the leading voice of social reform.
During his student years at Harvard, William Randolph Hearst read and admired the World. When Hearst inherited the San Francisco Examiner from his father in 1887, he resolved to turn it into a similarly engaging tabloid with editorial and layout innovations borrowed from Pulitzer. The Examiner featured garish headlines, crime stories cast as morality plays, crusades against public corruption, and scantily clad pinups. By 1895 and flushed with success, Hearst set his sights on new markets and acquired a penny paper called the New York Journal.
Virtually overnight, the contest between the World and the Journal devolved into a clash of America’s most famous newspaper titans. In the fierce rough-and-tumble rivalries typical of the Gilded Age, each tried to surpass the other with ever more garish headlines and self-congratulatory boasting. In response to competition from the Journal, Pulitzer dropped the price of the World to a penny to drive Hearst out of business. In retaliation, Hearst raided Pulitzer’s staff including Richard Outcault, creator of the ‘Yellow Kid.’
In short order, yellow journalism spread to Boston, Chicago, Denver, and beyond. The staid establishment tabloids of the era denounced the excesses of the yellow press, as evidenced in this 1906 commentary by Harper’s Weekly:
”We may talk about the perils incident to the concentration of wealth, about the perils flowing from a disregard of fiduciary responsibility, about abuses of privilege, about exploiting the government for private advantage; but all these menaces, great as they are, are nothing compared with the deliberate, persistent, artful, purchased endeavor to pervert and vitiate the public judgment.”Sound familiar? Even in simpler times, critics called attention to the presumed malevolence of media to shape public opinion, a concern still shared a century later. Despite its flamboyant and checkered history, Campbell acknowledges the contributions of a genre that transformed American society and culture:
”It was a lively, provocative, swaggering style of journalism well suited to an innovative and expansive time – a period when the United States first projected its military power beyond the Western Hemisphere in a sustained manner.”All told, yellow journalism has been described as irritating yet irresistible, imaginative yet frivolous, aggressive yet self-indulgent, and activist but arrogant. These historical accounts are useful in understanding it’s contemporary reincarnations. Against this background, perhaps the more pressing questions to ask ourselves are: What has remained the same? What has changed? Should we be concerned?
To find examples of yellow journalism in contemporary media, we need look no further than supermarket tabloids brimming with stories of alien abductions and lurid celebrity gossip. The genre has migrated from print media to the Internet as embodied in these headlines at the Huffington Post:
As yellow journalists dispense ‘frivolities and slush,’ the last signature trait of the genre is impenitence and a stubborn refusal to be held accountable. Rarely, if ever, will yellow journalists acknowledge their errors, excesses, or indiscretions. These survey results sum up the state of contemporary journalism:
According to the Columbia Journalism Review:
- 70% of respondents believe journalists are doing a ‘poor’ job of correcting their mistakes;
- 91% say newsrooms need more honesty and openness in addressing editorial errors;
According to the American Society of Newspaper Editors:
- 40% accuse reporters of hiding their mistakes.
- 73% of respondents are skeptical about the accuracy of news;
- 85% believe newspapers ‘over-dramatize’ stories to grab attention and audience share;
- 59% say newspapers are more motivated by profit than serving the public interest.
Has anything changed from the Gilded Age to the present? Not according to these surveys. Yellow journalism is not some long deceased ancestor from a bygone era but living offspring born of the same DNA; and no cable news channel typifies the genre better than Fox News.
”Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network if the thing that undermines a strong Republican party” (David Frum, March 23, 2010).How ironic! Here is George Bush’s former speechwriter accusing a conservative news network of being the tail that wags the dog. More than a tacit admission of partisan bias, Frum has the temerity to regard Fox News as a dedicated mouthpiece for the Republican Party and the naivety to overlook the prerogatives of independent media operating within the framework of free enterprise. Fox News is far more likely to put commercial self-interest above loyalty, and why should Frum presume otherwise! Furthermore, how does a biased and partisan news network – especially in the employ of powerful interests - better serve the public? According to Howell Rains, former executive editor of the New York Times:
[Fox News] has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalism since World War II … Why has our profession, through its general silence – or only spasmodic protest – helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in it [sic] conclusions and biased in its gestalt?For Howell Rains, the answer lies in economics, in the collapse of print journalism, and steep losses in audience share at CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC. Even Roger Ailes, chief architect of the Fox News stratagem, boasts about seeing himself as a producer of ratings rather than as a journalist, that audience share is his only yardstick.
Night after night on Fox News, under-educated former disc jockeys with scarcely a college course on their resumé expound on every conceivable topic – politics, economics, foreign affairs, energy, religion, and public morality. These bellicose, arrogant, and shameless clowns weave delusional narratives about how government death panels will kill your grandmother, how liberals will seize your guns and property, how a sinister art deco plot will subvert capitalism and corrupt your kids. Their daily fulminations are rife with fabrications, misinformation, and outright lies.Hannity and Beck are modern analogues of the charlatans and fraudsters that once characterized the yellow press. When we catch them in the act of dissembling, they reflexively lash out when criticized, demonize their opponents, or feign innocence by claiming the mantle of entertainment. Perhaps more to the point, they are the ‘yellow kids’ of broadcast journalism. From the Gilded Age to the present, has anything changed?
Media Consolidation
Historians debunk the myth that Hearst had provoked the Spanish-American War. There were thousands of independently owned newspapers with close ties to rural communities, and the vast majority of Americans did not live in population centers served by the yellow press. Thus, no tabloid had the reach or power to influence national opinion (Campbell).
By 1975, however, two-thirds of all independently owned newspapers and one-third of all independently owned TV stations had disappeared. Twenty-two companies now control 70% of national newspaper circulation, and ten companies own broadcast networks that reach 85% of the American public. Five companies dominate the cable news network segment – the same ones that own the top Internet news sites.
What has changed from the Gilded Age to the present? Media consolidation has concentrated far more power among too few players, which now have the means to dominate markets and “pervert and vitiate the public judgment.” Sadly, the latest Nielson ratings confirm this impression. Of the top 30 programs on primetime cable news, Fox occupies the top 10 slots:
By far, Fox News commands the dominant position in the cable news segment, which gives it a powerful platform to push a hard line partisan agenda and move public opinion. If Roger Ailes understands yellow journalism, he also understands his audience - those undiscerning viewers who forgo critical thinking and prefer to have their morality pre-packaged in church pews and their politics shrink-wrapped on the nightly news.
Should we be concerned? You betcha! We have long known how media can be manipulated – by paying journalists to promote a corporate or industry viewpoint, by hiring PR firms to feed stories to the press, by faking news with maliciously edited videotape, by using smear tactics to destroy reputations, by repeating hot-button weasel words to propagate suspicion and fear, by leveraging the powers of government to shape public opinion and sell a war. We understand intuitively how often our news networks have failed in their mission and betrayed our trust.
Furthermore, we understand intuitively that today’s viewers are far less informed – and more willing to be suckered by demagogues and propagandists - than a generation ago. The Center for Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland tested this hypothesis. During a seven-month study, researchers asked news consumers a series of questions about the Iraq War and world opinion of American foreign policy. What they measured: A disturbing pattern of wrong answers, errors, and misconceptions by cable news source:
Surprisingly, differences in party affiliation and educational attainment do not fully account for these results. Among Republicans, those who got their news from cable networks had a 25% higher error rate compared with those who got their news from PBS/NPR. For viewers with a college education, the error rate for cable news consumers averaged 27%, compared with only 10% for patrons of PBS/NPR. Clearly, cable news networks are failing to inform the public, and the worst by far is Fox.
In closing, I leave you with the following quotations:
"You think we have come a long way in terms of race relations in this country, but we keep going backwards. We have become more racist. This was their doing. Breitbart put that together, misrepresenting what I was saying, and Fox carried it" (Shirley Sherrod, July 21, 2010).In his keynote address to the National Conference on Media Reform (November 8, 2003), Bill Moyers warned of a “quasi-official partisan press ideologically linked to … the most powerful interests in the world.” I leave the last word to our friend and colleague at the Swash Zone, Bloggingdino, who recently said (11:31 AM, July 21, 2010):
“I'm reminded of William Shirer's account in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich of just how strongly a non-stop stream of propaganda affected his own judgment … he [Shirer] found it hard to discount completely even the sort of offal that his journalistic instincts told him must be false, mainly because it was coming through vital information channels and being repeated by everyone. Amplification and bad argument from authority, in other words, worked together to create a toxic discursive bubble inside of which an entire nation was forced to live and breathe.”That’s the way it is in 2010. American news journalism has finally fulfilled the ambitions of its progenitors by turning itself into “a contest of madmen for the primacy of the sewer.” Good night and good luck.
References:
ABC News, David Frum on GOP: Now We Work for Fox.
W. Joseph Campbell (2003), Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Legacies, Praeger.
Daily Source, Current Problems in the Media.
Global Issues, Media Manipulation.
Huffington Post, Cable News Ratings: Top 30 Programs In Q2 2010.
Media Matters, Shirley Sherrod: I'm a Victim of Breitbart, Fox 'Racism'.
Frank Luther Mott (1962), American Journalism: A History: 1690-1960, 3d ed., Macmillan.
Bill Moyers, Keynote Address to the National Conference on Media Reform.
Howell Raines, Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Abeckalypse Now
Why would a news organization retain the services of someone who calls their veracity into constant question and may actually cost them money by making advertisers queasy and uncomfortable at the flow of misinformation and distortion and psychodrama?
Well, perhaps one of the ways a chronic failure in the prophecy business covers up an unblemished record of being wrong is to maintain the distraction that theatrical extremists provide. The Fox Faithful aren't likely to reflect as much on such failures when their ears are filled with brand new, fresh and fabricated outrages from their stable of performance artists.
Why, for instance, allow speculation and comparison with our failed attempts at nation building and regime changing so vehemently supported by the GOP News Outlet with spontaneous and indigenous and possibly more successful attempts we had nothing to do with other than supporting the status quo? If Egypt moves toward democracy without and in spite of American economic and military assistance to a dictator, people might become cynical.
So keep them busy with visions of the Apocalypse and associate it with people exercising their endowed right to assemble, to speak out, to petition peacefully. Find a video clip where hazy air, a dirty lens and bright lights create lens flare. If you're a photographer, if you have aging eyes, you know what it is, but if you're a sheep in the Fox Flock, it's an apocalyptic horseman:
You get paid actors to report this idiocy with a straight face. You get Glenn Beck to howl insanely about a Muslim Caliphate to the illiterates who buzz about him like flies. You use everything you can to keep the audience focused on the moment and to make the moment seem perilous. You do anything you can to keep them from remembering that they've been on the wrong side of every prediction, whether dire or deliriously optimistic. If you run out of smoke and mirrors, dust and streetlights, you just make it up.
It's a bit like a Ponzi scheme. You need new lies coming in to cover the old ones, but sooner or later, no matter how gullible the patsies are, it blows up. It becomes an Abeckalypse. And they are gullible. According to a University study, Fox watchers will believe anything and the more they watch, the stupider they get.
Well, perhaps one of the ways a chronic failure in the prophecy business covers up an unblemished record of being wrong is to maintain the distraction that theatrical extremists provide. The Fox Faithful aren't likely to reflect as much on such failures when their ears are filled with brand new, fresh and fabricated outrages from their stable of performance artists.
Why, for instance, allow speculation and comparison with our failed attempts at nation building and regime changing so vehemently supported by the GOP News Outlet with spontaneous and indigenous and possibly more successful attempts we had nothing to do with other than supporting the status quo? If Egypt moves toward democracy without and in spite of American economic and military assistance to a dictator, people might become cynical.
So keep them busy with visions of the Apocalypse and associate it with people exercising their endowed right to assemble, to speak out, to petition peacefully. Find a video clip where hazy air, a dirty lens and bright lights create lens flare. If you're a photographer, if you have aging eyes, you know what it is, but if you're a sheep in the Fox Flock, it's an apocalyptic horseman:
You get paid actors to report this idiocy with a straight face. You get Glenn Beck to howl insanely about a Muslim Caliphate to the illiterates who buzz about him like flies. You use everything you can to keep the audience focused on the moment and to make the moment seem perilous. You do anything you can to keep them from remembering that they've been on the wrong side of every prediction, whether dire or deliriously optimistic. If you run out of smoke and mirrors, dust and streetlights, you just make it up.
It's a bit like a Ponzi scheme. You need new lies coming in to cover the old ones, but sooner or later, no matter how gullible the patsies are, it blows up. It becomes an Abeckalypse. And they are gullible. According to a University study, Fox watchers will believe anything and the more they watch, the stupider they get.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Help Pull the Plug on Glenn Beck
After the shooting rampage in Tucson that left six people dead and thirteen injured, including Congresswoman Giffords, Fox News President Roger Ailes appealed for civility: “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.”
Weeks after Tucson, nothing has changed. If anything, Fox News has turned up the volume on partisan hate speech. Fevered hysteria and conspiratorial fear mongering on national television are not harmless.
How quickly we forget the lessons of history. The bogeymen of 1930s anti-Semitism that morphed into the bogeymen of 1950s McCarthyism has morphed again into the mainstreaming of Glenn Beck Militia Theater. The message is clear: Glenn Beck wants to extort your silence, and anyone who refuses to capitulate will be targeted and stalked:
Glenn Beck, Self-Appointed "Progressive Hunter"
The poisoned atmosphere unleashed by Glenn Beck and Fox News means any citizen - Democrat, Centrist, or Republican - can be slandered in public and targeted for persecution. Beck pitches his messages at unhinged misfits who are most likely to act on impulse, and events have shown that violent rhetoric leads to violent acts. There is no plausible deniability that can remove this blood from Beck’s hands:
It is time to pull the plug on Glenn Beck and serve notice to Fox News that partisan hate speech has no place in a free society. The strongest message you can send is to vote your pocketbook. Write letters to Fox News advertisers; tell them you will no longer patronize their products and services; and keep boycotting sponsors of Fox News until these outrageous partisan witch-hunts have stopped. Removing Glenn Beck from the airwaves will save lives.
Visit the Drop Fox Website Here
Visit the Fox News Boycott Website Here
Visit the Stop Beck Website Here
Endorsements:
Captain Fogg, Sheria, BJ, Octopus, Squatlo, Sue, Nance, TnLib, TomCat, Truth 101, Maleeper, Green Eagle, Kay, Shaw Kenawe, RockyNC.
UPDATE: To help spread this message, I am placing this article in the public domain, which means anyone may use it freely without credit or attribution. If you want a copy of the complete text (including imbedded links and html code), please send a request via email to swashzone@gmail.com. Finally, a note of special recognition to The Legendary Spocko who taught us how to take on Big Media by boycotting their sponsors.
Weeks after Tucson, nothing has changed. If anything, Fox News has turned up the volume on partisan hate speech. Fevered hysteria and conspiratorial fear mongering on national television are not harmless.
How quickly we forget the lessons of history. The bogeymen of 1930s anti-Semitism that morphed into the bogeymen of 1950s McCarthyism has morphed again into the mainstreaming of Glenn Beck Militia Theater. The message is clear: Glenn Beck wants to extort your silence, and anyone who refuses to capitulate will be targeted and stalked:
Glenn Beck, Self-Appointed "Progressive Hunter"
The poisoned atmosphere unleashed by Glenn Beck and Fox News means any citizen - Democrat, Centrist, or Republican - can be slandered in public and targeted for persecution. Beck pitches his messages at unhinged misfits who are most likely to act on impulse, and events have shown that violent rhetoric leads to violent acts. There is no plausible deniability that can remove this blood from Beck’s hands:
Murders, shooting sprees, domestic terrorism, private citizens hiding in fear, infamous intimidations and provocations broadcast on national television - all linked to Glenn Beck - enough is enough! When toxic television threatens public safety, it concerns everyone. Even prominent Republicans are becoming alarmed:
Former Bush speechwriter David Frum:
Former Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner:
National correspondent for The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg:
It is time to pull the plug on Glenn Beck and serve notice to Fox News that partisan hate speech has no place in a free society. The strongest message you can send is to vote your pocketbook. Write letters to Fox News advertisers; tell them you will no longer patronize their products and services; and keep boycotting sponsors of Fox News until these outrageous partisan witch-hunts have stopped. Removing Glenn Beck from the airwaves will save lives.
Visit the Drop Fox Website Here
Visit the Fox News Boycott Website Here
Visit the Stop Beck Website Here
Endorsements:
Captain Fogg, Sheria, BJ, Octopus, Squatlo, Sue, Nance, TnLib, TomCat, Truth 101, Maleeper, Green Eagle, Kay, Shaw Kenawe, RockyNC.
UPDATE: To help spread this message, I am placing this article in the public domain, which means anyone may use it freely without credit or attribution. If you want a copy of the complete text (including imbedded links and html code), please send a request via email to swashzone@gmail.com. Finally, a note of special recognition to The Legendary Spocko who taught us how to take on Big Media by boycotting their sponsors.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Oh Glenn Beck. I Call Bullsh*t.
I first saw this video over on We Are Respectable Negroes:
Wait, wait, wait....let me get this straight. Glenn Beck is claiming the 3/5ths compromise was put in as a ticking time bomb against slavery? Bullsh*t.
The 3/5th's compromise wasn't a f*cking way to abolish slavery. It was a compromise that got the South to sign on to the Constitution by allowing them to retain more political power in the House of Reps and the Electoral College than it otherwise would have had have based on the fact that a large chunk of its population was technically classified as property, not free citizens! If they'd only counted free citizens, the South would have had significantly less political clout. By counting each slave as 3/5th of a person, the South ended up with a larger population of "citizens" than they actually had, as slaves were neither considered citizens nor had the rights of citizens.
I'mma need Glenn Beck to sit down. Preferably in a corner by himself somewhere, so he can think about the stupidity of the sh*t that spews out of his mouth.
Cross-posted from American Black Chick in Europe.
Wait, wait, wait....let me get this straight. Glenn Beck is claiming the 3/5ths compromise was put in as a ticking time bomb against slavery? Bullsh*t.
The 3/5th's compromise wasn't a f*cking way to abolish slavery. It was a compromise that got the South to sign on to the Constitution by allowing them to retain more political power in the House of Reps and the Electoral College than it otherwise would have had have based on the fact that a large chunk of its population was technically classified as property, not free citizens! If they'd only counted free citizens, the South would have had significantly less political clout. By counting each slave as 3/5th of a person, the South ended up with a larger population of "citizens" than they actually had, as slaves were neither considered citizens nor had the rights of citizens.
I'mma need Glenn Beck to sit down. Preferably in a corner by himself somewhere, so he can think about the stupidity of the sh*t that spews out of his mouth.
Cross-posted from American Black Chick in Europe.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
The Unholy Trinity: Beck, O'Donnell, and Palin
A fellow blogger who goes by the handle of Capt. Fogg inspired what began as a comment on his post, Masters of Mendacity, but grew into a post of my own. The Captain's post adroitly dissects the fallacies at the heart of the ongoing proclamations by Palin, O'Donnell, and Beck that feed the clamor from the Tea Party of, "We want our country back." The basic reasoning appears to follow the lines of, "America is a Christian nation, founded by God or at the very least endorsed by God and it (America) must be saved from liberals." One of Palin's latest proclamations is that that the Constitution tells us that our "Unalienable rights" come from God. Christine O'Donnell has declared that the Constitution isn't merely a legal document but a covenant based on divine principles. Glenn Beck appears to have anointed the Constitution to be his Gospel, and himself as the Second Coming.
They aren't just liars, they are flat out wrong. There is no mention of God or unalienable rights in the Constitution; perhaps Palin, et.al. have confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. That document states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
What fascinates me about the language regarding unalienable rights is that Jefferson's concerns weren't about worshipping a particular God but about declaring that there were rights inherent to being human that could not be usurped and that the purpose of government was to protect those rights as opposed to curtailing them or taking them away. I think that his use of the term Creator reflected the broader concept that such rights were natural rights, innate rights that were not given but existed without being conferred or bestowed by any government.
Beck, Palin etc. have chosen to harp on this language as proof that this is a Christian nation. Based on the varied writings of Jefferson, Madison and others, I'm of the opinon that the furtherest thing from their intent was founding a Christian nation. I think that a modern debate on this matter fails to understand the worldview of the founders. These men were readers of Locke, Rousseau,Hobbes, and Aristotle. They struggled with the philosophical concepts of who are we and what is our purpose, not some fight over whose God was better. They actually thought about the purpose of government and concluded that it was to serve the people and that the power of the government came from the consent given by the governed.
It was a revolutionary idea, Certainly the English Monarchy didn't recognize its power as coming from the people but viewed its power as God given and superior to the will of the people. The Declaration took that philosophy on with its bold proclamation about unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. It was an assertion against the then ruling idea that the government decided which rights to grant the people and which ones to deny them. It wasn't a proclamation supporting Christianity but a declaration against tyranny.
As for attributing such language to the Constitution, it just raffirms my belief that most of the people shouting about the Constitution as being a covenant based on divine principles have never read the document with even a modicum of comprehension. The Constitution is a secular document that establishes the practices and laws governing the operation of the government. The Preamble states the purpose of the Constitution clearly and succinctly: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (There are many sites on the Net with info on the Preamble and the rest of the Constitution. I cited to Wikipedia here because it was the best of about a dozen sites that I checked. Up to date, and fully documented.)
Citing the United States Constitution as a religious text makes about as much sense as declaring that my telephone book contains the secrets of the universe.
They aren't just liars, they are flat out wrong. There is no mention of God or unalienable rights in the Constitution; perhaps Palin, et.al. have confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. That document states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
What fascinates me about the language regarding unalienable rights is that Jefferson's concerns weren't about worshipping a particular God but about declaring that there were rights inherent to being human that could not be usurped and that the purpose of government was to protect those rights as opposed to curtailing them or taking them away. I think that his use of the term Creator reflected the broader concept that such rights were natural rights, innate rights that were not given but existed without being conferred or bestowed by any government.
Beck, Palin etc. have chosen to harp on this language as proof that this is a Christian nation. Based on the varied writings of Jefferson, Madison and others, I'm of the opinon that the furtherest thing from their intent was founding a Christian nation. I think that a modern debate on this matter fails to understand the worldview of the founders. These men were readers of Locke, Rousseau,Hobbes, and Aristotle. They struggled with the philosophical concepts of who are we and what is our purpose, not some fight over whose God was better. They actually thought about the purpose of government and concluded that it was to serve the people and that the power of the government came from the consent given by the governed.
It was a revolutionary idea, Certainly the English Monarchy didn't recognize its power as coming from the people but viewed its power as God given and superior to the will of the people. The Declaration took that philosophy on with its bold proclamation about unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. It was an assertion against the then ruling idea that the government decided which rights to grant the people and which ones to deny them. It wasn't a proclamation supporting Christianity but a declaration against tyranny.
As for attributing such language to the Constitution, it just raffirms my belief that most of the people shouting about the Constitution as being a covenant based on divine principles have never read the document with even a modicum of comprehension. The Constitution is a secular document that establishes the practices and laws governing the operation of the government. The Preamble states the purpose of the Constitution clearly and succinctly: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (There are many sites on the Net with info on the Preamble and the rest of the Constitution. I cited to Wikipedia here because it was the best of about a dozen sites that I checked. Up to date, and fully documented.)
Citing the United States Constitution as a religious text makes about as much sense as declaring that my telephone book contains the secrets of the universe.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Tea Partiers Speak and Scare the Pants Off of Me
It all started with Tom T at Two Seeds On a Blog. If he hadn't written such a lucid article called The Myth of the Founding Fathers (HERE), the wing-nut blood pleasure levels wouldn't have shot up to near catastrophic heights. It's odd how intelligent mild mannered reason from one source can cause such anger and near hysteria from another.
Just a few highlights so you can see how Tom T riled up the know-nothings. What a guy.
At this point Tom T provides an intriguing analysis of Glenn Beck, including his psyche, Beck's speech at his Come to Jesus rally on August 28, Palin's cliches, and the Tea Party mythology. The comments are just as absorbing so you have to jump over there (HERE). But not before you read what follows.
Judy T, the other seed on their blog, is understandably upset over some of the hate language that has been sent Tom T's way. She tells us to Listen to the Tea Partiers Speak for Themselves. (HERE) She writes:
I found a video of a young reporter who had been there, circulating through the crowd, interviewing ordinary people, people who had come with friends and family to be part of the huge event. They were eager to talk to the young man, and very enthusiastic about sharing their views.
Proceed with caution. In fact, you might want to brace yourself with a stiff Jack Daniels with no branch water. Maybe even two.
These paranoid folks need some heavy counseling and anger management classes. More importantly, if our education system doesn't improve, these poor ignorant people are going to pass their handicaps on from one generation to the next. This 13 minutes of ignorance boggles my mind and makes me worry for the future of our country.
Just a few highlights so you can see how Tom T riled up the know-nothings. What a guy.
Led by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, Tea Party worshippers of the Founding Fathers want to return to the “good ol’ days” of 1787, when most African-Americans were slaves, many poor whites were indentured servants, and women couldn’t vote. At the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, Native Americans were being slaughtered for their land, and Mexicans who were indigenous to the Southwest and the West coast of what became the----------were included in the genocide. United States
Conservatives have trouble seeking sensible solutions to our present-day problems of poverty, violence, and perpetual war that make rich folks richer while poor people suffer and weapons makers and war profiteers make big bucks while killing and injuring innumerable innocent people. The problems are caused by big moneyed interests with the help of simple minded sycophants like Beck, Sarah Palin and theT ea Partiers. . . . The Tea Partiers believe the mythologized Founding Fathers are more intelligent and moral than anyone today except maybe radical right-wingers like Beck and Palin.
At this point Tom T provides an intriguing analysis of Glenn Beck, including his psyche, Beck's speech at his Come to Jesus rally on August 28, Palin's cliches, and the Tea Party mythology. The comments are just as absorbing so you have to jump over there (HERE). But not before you read what follows.
Judy T, the other seed on their blog, is understandably upset over some of the hate language that has been sent Tom T's way. She tells us to Listen to the Tea Partiers Speak for Themselves. (HERE) She writes:
Tom posted on our blog recently about the Restoring Honor Rally in Washington. It was a controversial post that elicited a lot of angry comments, on our blog and several other places where it had been published or reposted. He was called some really bad names! The commentors said over and over that he was an angry man (that was the nicest thing they said about him).---------
I found a video of a young reporter who had been there, circulating through the crowd, interviewing ordinary people, people who had come with friends and family to be part of the huge event. They were eager to talk to the young man, and very enthusiastic about sharing their views.
Proceed with caution. In fact, you might want to brace yourself with a stiff Jack Daniels with no branch water. Maybe even two.
These paranoid folks need some heavy counseling and anger management classes. More importantly, if our education system doesn't improve, these poor ignorant people are going to pass their handicaps on from one generation to the next. This 13 minutes of ignorance boggles my mind and makes me worry for the future of our country.
Friday, September 3, 2010
KOCHROACHES
A scrapbook by Octopus
A hat tip to Elizabeth for bringing this article to our attention: COVERT OPERATIONS, about the secretive Koch brothers who are the money behind numerous far right wing causes. Highly recommended reading.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Sarah Palin: No Laughing Matter
Of the Obama administration, she says, “They talk down to us. Especially here in the heartland. Oh, man. They think that, if we were just smart enough, we’d be able to understand their policies. And I so want to tell ’em, and I do tell ’em, Oh, we’re plenty smart, oh yeah—we know what’s goin’ on. And we don’t like what’s goin’ on. And we’re not gonna let them tell us to sit down and shut up.” The crowd’s ample applause at these lines swells to something vastly bigger when Palin vows defiantly that “come November, we’re taking our country back!”
The above lines are from an article by author Michael Joseph Gross for Vanity Fair. Gross followed Sarah Palin "...through through four midwestern states, speaking with whomever I could induce to talk under whatever conditions of anonymity they imposed—political strategists, longtime Palin friends and political associates, hotel staff, shopkeepers and hairstylists, and high-school friends of the Palin children. There’s a long and detailed version of what they had to say, but there’s also a short and simple one: anywhere you peel back the skin of Sarah Palin’s life, a sad and moldering strangeness lies beneath."
I just read Gross' article. It's long, but well worth taking the time to peruse.
A lot of us, myself included, have been guilty of dismissing Sarah Palin. We laugh at her gaffes, marvel at the way that she mangles the English language, and deride her for her lack of knowledge on most topics of substance. But here's the deal, Sarah Palin is a very dangerous woman and if we are to neutralize her, the first thing that we have to do is take her seriously.
While we're making fun of Palin, she's methodically increasing her base, travelling through middle America, trash talking the Obama administration, and regularly invoking the name of Jesus. Her base doesn't think that she's stupid; they think that she's one of them, and when you insult her, you insult them.
I'm guilty of it, as are most progressives. The provincial and narrow view of the world expressed by Palin's followers offends me and I express my distaste by asserting that they are devoid of intellectual curiosity, which is just another way for stating that they're stupid. Once you tell people that they're dumb, they just aren't interested in hearing anything else that you have to say.
However, Palin has successfully tapped into the psyche of a lot of Americans, people who identify with her because they buy her assertions that she is one of them. She makes them feel that their view of the world is valid, that their prejudices and narrow belief systems are superior to those of the heathen liberals. Early on she recognized that Obama represents everything that they fear and dislike. When he speaks, they don't always easily follow what he is talking about so they presume that he's speaking some anti-American, anti-Christian code. Palin feeds their fire; she's their leader.
Perhaps Palin's most clever move is the focus on generating the tent revival atmosphere demonstrated at Beck's Restoring Honor rally. Palin has two texts that she regularly cites at her appearances, the Constitution of the United States and the Christian Bible, sometimes interchangeably. Her audiences eat the mishmash of secular law and religious belief as if it were the mythical manna from heaven, secure in their desire to get their country back and the belief that God wants them to have it.
I don't believe Christianity is inherently evil but I do believe that humankind has repeatedly demonstrated our ability to twist the precepts of any belief system to justify the worst aspects of our nature. Misdirected religious fervor soon swells into fanaticism, and history is littered with the horrors perpetrated in the name of religious fanaticism. These people believe that they're on a mission from God and that Palin is their angel of light guiding them to salvation, not just for themselves, but for the entire country. If they have to trample on the Constitution, run undocumented immigrants out of the country by any means necessary, and kill off the liberals in order to enact their vision and get their country back, then so be it.
The saving grace of this country has been that most people who consider themselves to be Christians have never been overly involved in organized proselytizing. There have always been exceptions, but not any significant numbers involved in forcing the word of God on all, just a few souls wandering through neighborhoods and knocking on doors on occasion. However, the Palin/Beck base are a different and dangerous breed, and they have found their prophets in Palin and her acolyte, Glenn Beck.
They are fueled by their fear and discontent; Palin and Beck provide them with answers that fit their view that they have been wronged and that their entire way of life is danger of being destroyed. Every time they hear someone speaking Spanish they fear that the conversation is about them. They deeply resent being unable to understand the conversation, after all, this is their country. So they angrily question, "Why can't these people learn English?" They also provide the answer, "They don't want to learn English!"
The black man in the oval office further confuses and upsets them. He must be up to something nefarious; he can't really be working for the good of all Americans. At the core of the obsession with so-called reverse racism is a subconscious belief that black people must have some desire for retribution. That belief fuels the vitriolic dislike expressed for President Obama and the obsessive beliefs that he is on the side of the terrorists, has plans to destroy the United States, and plans to chuck the Constitution and replace it with a socialist manifesto.
I vehemently disliked most of the policies of the George W. Bush's administration but I can't recall there ever being an assessment by progressives that GWB was intentionally and with malice aforethought attempting to destroy the country. Certainly, there have been accusations that certain actions on the part of past presidents would result in the destruction of the foundational beliefs of this country but never the assertion that the president in question ran for office for the express purpose of destroying America.
At the top of the progressive agenda must be plans to reframe our message to re-engage liberals and progressives prior to the November 2010 elections and to begin to lay the foundation for the 2012 elections. I'm not confident that there is any framing that will sway those who are enraptured of Palin and Beck, and I fear that the Palin/Beck base will continue to grow.
There is a great deal of apathy among progressives and liberals; declarations that Obama has betrayed us abound. Like a petulant child who didn't get everything on his or her Christmas list, far too many of us focus on what remains undone and look past all that has been accomplished. We threaten not to vote in order to teach the Democrats not to take us for granted.
It's time that we start taking Sarah Palin seriously; her base certainly does. If we don't, there may lessons learned in November 2010 and 2012 but we may the ones who are schooled.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Hey Glenn Beck, You Crack Me Up!
A month ago when I read that Glenn Beck planned to host his Restoring Honor rally on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s historic I Have a Dream Speech, I was so ticked off that I could spit nails. Next I heard that the ubiquitous Sarah Palin was scheduled to speak at the rally and my left eye started to twitch uncontrollably. When I learned that Dr. King's niece, Alveda King, also planned to speak at Beck's rally, I feared that my Aunt Dorothy's prophesy was about to be fulfilled and my head was going to explode.
However, there was no spit and no nails, the twitch is nearly gone, and my head is still intact. I temporarily forgot the basic rule for surviving encounters with the madness of those who attempt to rewrite history and reshape truth--never forget to laugh.
Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Dr. King's hapless niece as modern day purveyors of the dream is just laughable. I was eight-years-old when King spoke at the Lincoln Memorial; his speech moved a nation. I know for a fact that Glenn Beck is no Martin Luther King, Jr. He's not even a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Beck is a pompous twit whose hour has come round at last, much like the beast slouching so ominously towards Bethlehem in The Second Coming. History is filled with charismatic charlatans who give winning performances before clueless audiences.
And the audiences...they fervently worship their idols, and the more those of us who see that the emperor has no clothes try to share that revelation, the more firmly entrenched they become in defending their idols from those of us who would dethrone them. Attacking Beck and Palin only elevates them in the eyes of their followers. The rest of us are the enemy.
Look at the language that they use; it's as if we are at war. "Take back our country;" "Restoring Honor;" "I want my country back;" "Defend our Constitution."
So rather than spitting nails, or developing a permanent tic, or having my head explode, I'm going to engage in a bout of laughter at Palin, Beck, and Alveda King trying to assert that Dr. King would have been at their side on August 28. I'm going to recognize that Beckolytes will not be swayed no matter how many times the rest of us try to tell them that their demi-god has feet of clay. When I'm done laughing, I'm going to renew my efforts to work on my local get-out-the-vote campaign. The way I figure it, the only sensible course of action is for those of us who have not drunk the kool-aid to take back our country.
Beck and Palin focus on one line from King's I Have A Dream Speech, the part about being judged by the content of our character not the color of our skin. It's certainly a part of what was said that day, but Dr. King never made pretty speeches solely about pie in the sky dreams; he always grounded his dream in a call for action. The following is also from that speech:
However, there was no spit and no nails, the twitch is nearly gone, and my head is still intact. I temporarily forgot the basic rule for surviving encounters with the madness of those who attempt to rewrite history and reshape truth--never forget to laugh.
Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Dr. King's hapless niece as modern day purveyors of the dream is just laughable. I was eight-years-old when King spoke at the Lincoln Memorial; his speech moved a nation. I know for a fact that Glenn Beck is no Martin Luther King, Jr. He's not even a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Beck is a pompous twit whose hour has come round at last, much like the beast slouching so ominously towards Bethlehem in The Second Coming. History is filled with charismatic charlatans who give winning performances before clueless audiences.
And the audiences...they fervently worship their idols, and the more those of us who see that the emperor has no clothes try to share that revelation, the more firmly entrenched they become in defending their idols from those of us who would dethrone them. Attacking Beck and Palin only elevates them in the eyes of their followers. The rest of us are the enemy.
Look at the language that they use; it's as if we are at war. "Take back our country;" "Restoring Honor;" "I want my country back;" "Defend our Constitution."
So rather than spitting nails, or developing a permanent tic, or having my head explode, I'm going to engage in a bout of laughter at Palin, Beck, and Alveda King trying to assert that Dr. King would have been at their side on August 28. I'm going to recognize that Beckolytes will not be swayed no matter how many times the rest of us try to tell them that their demi-god has feet of clay. When I'm done laughing, I'm going to renew my efforts to work on my local get-out-the-vote campaign. The way I figure it, the only sensible course of action is for those of us who have not drunk the kool-aid to take back our country.
Beck and Palin focus on one line from King's I Have A Dream Speech, the part about being judged by the content of our character not the color of our skin. It's certainly a part of what was said that day, but Dr. King never made pretty speeches solely about pie in the sky dreams; he always grounded his dream in a call for action. The following is also from that speech:
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
A CONTEST OF MADMEN FOR THE PRIMACY OF THE SEWER
By Octopus
If the title of this post caught your attention, you have come to right place. The art of writing an audience-grabbing headline is one of the first lessons learned in Journalism 101 and a convention born in the Gilded Age of the late 19th Century. Yellow journalism is a derisive term that has become synonymous with lurid and sensational headlines, scare- and scandal-mongering, and journalistic misconduct. When discussing the failings of contemporary journalism, the era of the yellow press is likely to be invoked. The criticisms are valid because the features of yellow journalism continue to live and thrive in our modern mass media. Before I continue, perhaps I should give this post a less presupposing title:
Yellow Journalism in the Age of Cable News
Although elusive to definition, most historians agree on the signature traits of yellow journalism:
- Sensational or misleading headlines “that screamed excitement about comparatively unimportant news” (Mott); a “variety of topics reported on the front page, including news of politics, war, international diplomacy, sports, and society” (Campbell);
- A “lavish use of pictures, many of them without significance” (Mott); “bold and experimental layouts … enhanced by the use of color” (Campbell)
- “Imposters and frauds of various kinds” (Mott); “a tendency to rely on anonymous sources, particularly in dispatches of leading reporters” (Campbell);
- A “more or less ostentatious sympathy with the underdog … with campaigns against abuses suffered by the common people” (Mott); “a fearless and efficient instrument for the exposure of public wrongdoing” (Campbell);
- A “hearty indulgence in self-congratulation” (Campbell) to drive circulation and sales, but not necessarily serve the public interest with accurate or newsworthy stories.
Originally coined by Ervin Wardman of the New York Press, the term ‘yellow journalism’ has never explicitly been defined, although popular accounts attribute the term to a comic strip character nicknamed the ‘Yellow Kid’ drawn by cartoonist Richard F. Outcault. Yellow journalism begins with the competitive rivalry between two publishing legends, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst.When Pulitzer bought the New York World in 1883, he introduced provocative headlines, pictures, games, and novelties to attract readers and boost circulation. Although Pulitzer was certainly an ambitious and aggressive newspaper entrepreneur, his motives were not entirely self-serving. Pulitzer also believed in journalism as a civic responsibility whose mission is to improve society. In an era marked by immigration, labor unrest, abuses of power, and injustice, Pulitzer transformed the World into the dominant metropolitan daily of New York City … and the leading voice of social reform.
During his student years at Harvard, William Randolph Hearst read and admired the World. When Hearst inherited the San Francisco Examiner from his father in 1887, he resolved to turn it into a similarly engaging tabloid with editorial and layout innovations borrowed from Pulitzer. The Examiner featured garish headlines, crime stories cast as morality plays, crusades against public corruption, and scantily clad pinups. By 1895 and flushed with success, Hearst set his sights on new markets and acquired a penny paper called the New York Journal.
Virtually overnight, the contest between the World and the Journal devolved into a clash of America’s most famous newspaper titans. In the fierce rough-and-tumble rivalries typical of the Gilded Age, each tried to surpass the other with ever more garish headlines and self-congratulatory boasting. In response to competition from the Journal, Pulitzer dropped the price of the World to a penny to drive Hearst out of business. In retaliation, Hearst raided Pulitzer’s staff including Richard Outcault, creator of the ‘Yellow Kid.’
In short order, yellow journalism spread to Boston, Chicago, Denver, and beyond. The staid establishment tabloids of the era denounced the excesses of the yellow press, as evidenced in this 1906 commentary by Harper’s Weekly:
”We may talk about the perils incident to the concentration of wealth, about the perils flowing from a disregard of fiduciary responsibility, about abuses of privilege, about exploiting the government for private advantage; but all these menaces, great as they are, are nothing compared with the deliberate, persistent, artful, purchased endeavor to pervert and vitiate the public judgment.”Sound familiar? Even in simpler times, critics called attention to the presumed malevolence of media to shape public opinion, a concern still shared a century later. Despite its flamboyant and checkered history, Campbell acknowledges the contributions of a genre that transformed American society and culture:
”It was a lively, provocative, swaggering style of journalism well suited to an innovative and expansive time – a period when the United States first projected its military power beyond the Western Hemisphere in a sustained manner.”All told, yellow journalism has been described as irritating yet irresistible, imaginative yet frivolous, aggressive yet self-indulgent, and activist but arrogant. These historical accounts are useful in understanding it’s contemporary reincarnations. Against this background, perhaps the more pressing questions to ask ourselves are: What has remained the same? What has changed? Should we be concerned?
To find examples of yellow journalism in contemporary media, we need look no further than supermarket tabloids brimming with stories of alien abductions and lurid celebrity gossip. The genre has migrated from print media to the Internet as embodied in these headlines at the Huffington Post:
As yellow journalists dispense ‘frivolities and slush,’ the last signature trait of the genre is impenitence and a stubborn refusal to be held accountable. Rarely, if ever, will yellow journalists acknowledge their errors, excesses, or indiscretions. These survey results sum up the state of contemporary journalism:
According to the Columbia Journalism Review:
- 70% of respondents believe journalists are doing a ‘poor’ job of correcting their mistakes;
- 91% say newsrooms need more honesty and openness in addressing editorial errors;
According to the American Society of Newspaper Editors:
- 40% accuse reporters of hiding their mistakes.
- 73% of respondents are skeptical about the accuracy of news;
- 85% believe newspapers ‘over-dramatize’ stories to grab attention and audience share;
- 59% say newspapers are more motivated by profit than serving the public interest.
Has anything changed from the Gilded Age to the present? Not according to these surveys. Yellow journalism is not some long deceased ancestor from a bygone era but living offspring born of the same DNA; and no cable news channel typifies the genre better than Fox News.
”Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network if the thing that undermines a strong Republican party” (David Frum, March 23, 2010).How ironic! Here is George Bush’s former speechwriter accusing a conservative news network of being the tail that wags the dog. More than a tacit admission of partisan bias, Frum has the temerity to regard Fox News as a dedicated mouthpiece for the Republican Party and the naivety to overlook the prerogatives of independent media operating within the framework of free enterprise. Fox News is far more likely to put commercial self-interest above loyalty, and why should Frum presume otherwise! Furthermore, how does a biased and partisan news network – especially in the employ of powerful interests - better serve the public? According to Howell Rains, former executive editor of the New York Times:
[Fox News] has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalism since World War II … Why has our profession, through its general silence – or only spasmodic protest – helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in it [sic] conclusions and biased in its gestalt?For Howell Rains, the answer lies in economics, in the collapse of print journalism, and steep losses in audience share at CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC. Even Roger Ailes, chief architect of the Fox News stratagem, boasts about seeing himself as a producer of ratings rather than as a journalist, that audience share is his only yardstick.
Night after night on Fox News, under-educated former disc jockeys with scarcely a college course on their resumé expound on every conceivable topic – politics, economics, foreign affairs, energy, religion, and public morality. These bellicose, arrogant, and shameless clowns weave delusional narratives about how government death panels will kill your grandmother, how liberals will seize your guns and property, how a sinister art deco plot will subvert capitalism and corrupt your kids. Their daily fulminations are rife with fabrications, misinformation, and outright lies.Hannity and Beck are modern analogues of the charlatans and fraudsters that once characterized the yellow press. When we catch them in the act of dissembling, they reflexively lash out when criticized, demonize their opponents, or feign innocence by claiming the mantle of entertainment. Perhaps more to the point, they are the ‘yellow kids’ of broadcast journalism. From the Gilded Age to the present, has anything changed?
Media Consolidation
Historians debunk the myth that Hearst had provoked the Spanish-American War. There were thousands of independently owned newspapers with close ties to rural communities, and the vast majority of Americans did not live in population centers served by the yellow press. Thus, no tabloid had the reach or power to influence national opinion (Campbell).
By 1975, however, two-thirds of all independently owned newspapers and one-third of all independently owned TV stations had disappeared. Twenty-two companies now control 70% of national newspaper circulation, and ten companies own broadcast networks that reach 85% of the American public. Five companies dominate the cable news network segment – the same ones that own the top Internet news sites.
What has changed from the Gilded Age to the present? Media consolidation has concentrated far more power among too few players, which now have the means to dominate markets and “pervert and vitiate the public judgment.” Sadly, the latest Nielson ratings confirm this impression. Of the top 30 programs on primetime cable news, Fox occupies the top 10 slots:
By far, Fox News commands the dominant position in the cable news segment, which gives it a powerful platform to push a hard line partisan agenda and move public opinion. If Roger Ailes understands yellow journalism, he also understands his audience - those undiscerning viewers who forgo critical thinking and prefer to have their morality pre-packaged in church pews and their politics shrink-wrapped on the nightly news.
Should we be concerned? You betcha! We have long known how media can be manipulated – by paying journalists to promote a corporate or industry viewpoint, by hiring PR firms to feed stories to the press, by faking news with maliciously edited videotape, by using smear tactics to destroy reputations, by repeating hot-button weasel words to propagate suspicion and fear, by leveraging the powers of government to shape public opinion and sell a war. We understand intuitively how often our news networks have failed in their mission and betrayed our trust.
Furthermore, we understand intuitively that today’s viewers are far less informed – and more willing to be suckered by demagogues and propagandists - than a generation ago. The Center for Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland tested this hypothesis. During a seven-month study, researchers asked news consumers a series of questions about the Iraq War and world opinion of American foreign policy. What they measured: A disturbing pattern of wrong answers, errors, and misconceptions by cable news source:
Surprisingly, differences in party affiliation and educational attainment do not fully account for these results. Among Republicans, those who got their news from cable networks had a 25% higher error rate compared with those who got their news from PBS/NPR. For viewers with a college education, the error rate for cable news consumers averaged 27%, compared with only 10% for patrons of PBS/NPR. Clearly, cable news networks are failing to inform the public, and the worst by far is Fox.
In closing, I leave you with the following quotations:
"You think we have come a long way in terms of race relations in this country, but we keep going backwards. We have become more racist. This was their doing. Breitbart put that together, misrepresenting what I was saying, and Fox carried it" (Shirley Sherrod, July 21, 2010).In his keynote address to the National Conference on Media Reform (November 8, 2003), Bill Moyers warned of a “quasi-official partisan press ideologically linked to … the most powerful interests in the world.” I leave the last word to our friend and colleague at the Swash Zone, Bloggingdino, who recently said (11:31 AM, July 21, 2010):
“I'm reminded of William Shirer's account in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich of just how strongly a non-stop stream of propaganda affected his own judgment … he [Shirer] found it hard to discount completely even the sort of offal that his journalistic instincts told him must be false, mainly because it was coming through vital information channels and being repeated by everyone. Amplification and bad argument from authority, in other words, worked together to create a toxic discursive bubble inside of which an entire nation was forced to live and breathe.”That’s the way it is in 2010. American news journalism has finally fulfilled the ambitions of its progenitors by turning itself into “a contest of madmen for the primacy of the sewer.” Good night and good luck.
References:
ABC News, David Frum on GOP: Now We Work for Fox.
W. Joseph Campbell (2003), Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Legacies, Praeger.
Daily Source, Current Problems in the Media.
Global Issues, Media Manipulation.
Huffington Post, Cable News Ratings: Top 30 Programs In Q2 2010.
Media Matters, Shirley Sherrod: I'm a Victim of Breitbart, Fox 'Racism'.
Frank Luther Mott (1962), American Journalism: A History: 1690-1960, 3d ed., Macmillan.
Bill Moyers, Keynote Address to the National Conference on Media Reform.
Howell Raines, Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)