I think that the last time I bought a "news story" hook line and
sinker was in about the Third grade. It seems that young George
Washington chopped down a Cherry Tree somewhere on the family estate.
When his daddy questioned him, little George stood tall and said,
"Father, I cannot tell a Lie. Popeye did it!"
A later investigation by the British Parliament found George's story
to be an "Alternative Story", and thus began the Revolutionary War.
Seriously, my very last "Perfect Hero", was FDR...then I grew up.
Currently I am very high on Chris Hedges. Would I be shocked if I
learned that he was human? I even forgive him for being an ordained
minister, but it is always possible for us humans to mess up so badly
that our "goodness" is over weighed by our "badness". Now in the case
of Judge Roy of Alabama, the reverse is true, there must be some good
in that man...I'm still looking.
But I'm not going to trash Judge Roy just because he digs 13 year old
girls. Heck, I dug 13 year old girls, too...but then I was 13 myself.
At 14 I dug 14 year old girls, and by 16 I was sweet on 16 year old
Women of the World. True, when I was 25 years old and attending my
first wedding, our flower girl was 8 years old. Many years later I
married for the third and final time, to a woman who could have been
my first flower girl. But by the time we united, we were both full
grown adults, and the union has been working very well for coming up
on 36 years. What I wonder about...but not too much, is what a guy
like Judge Roy sees in a 13 year old girl? Once I became an
adult...maybe 18 or 30, I was drawn to women who were "thinkers".
Sure, I admit that physical appearances helped, but as an adult I
wanted some substance to my relationships, someone I could talk with,
after Sex. But maybe 13 is the level of Judge Roy's mental abilities.
Like with Donald Trump, I can't see Judge Roy rolling over in bed and
asking, "So, what do you think about..."
Hummmm...I think I strayed from the subject, but I do feel better.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/11/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think that FAIR does a really good job of pointing out what the media,
including Democracy Now, sometimes distort in reporting. People do tend to
take certain things for granted, like headlines, especially when there
appears to be a concensus. If we're trying to understand what is going on
around us, it helps to be a bit analytical. Our trusted sources are
fallible. Democracy Now gets reporting on Syria wrong all of the time except
for several years ago when they had the British reporter from The
Independent on. I can't think of his name, but he did reporting from right
there in Syria. They also are accepting the mass media concensus reporting
on Russiagate without having any of the people who have pointed out some of
the inaccuracies in all of that. What I've noticed is that Amy has stayed
away lately, from Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald, although she used to
interview them. She never interviews Max Blumenthal or Ben Norton or Kenneth
Gestola, or some of the other people from FAIR. Maybe she doesn't like
interviewing her competition. Democracy Now is a very expensive enterprise.
She's doing fund raising again and pointing out that they don't get money
from corporations. But they are undoubtedly getting money from some very big
donors. If they weren't, they wouldn't be traveling all over the place to do
stories. So I think that although DN is a lot better than the corporate
media and NPR, it aint what it used to be. It's been tamed.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 7:41 PM
To: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Cc: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; my blog carl jarvis
<carjar82.carls@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Media Downplay Class Warfare as 'GOP
Victory'
Exactly right. Long ago I stopped paying so much attention to the wrongness
of the Mass Media, and turned more and more to those sources who made sense
to me. After all, I do have to have a baseline from which to determine what
makes sense and what does not. Certainly my course of action has drawbacks,
but I feel better.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/11/17, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Leon Trotsky once spoke on the question of bias in the news. Actually,
he was responding to some accusations about his own biases. He said
that if he was a celestial object looking down on the Earth then
perhaps he could observe human affairs dispassionately and make no
judgements.
However, he was not a celestial object. He was a human being involved
in human affairs with, not only his own personal interests, but with
class interests and so, of course he was biased. But it was not only
Trotsky who was biased. Any source of information that involves humans
is going to be biased. There is no way of avoiding it. If you hear
claims of neutrality from any news source you can be pretty sure that
it is a false claim. Instead, look for the biases. Consider the source
and consider the interests of the source. If the source is a profit
making institution and operates in a system that causes it to be
dependent upon the profit system then that should be a very big clue
to what kind of biases it will have right there. Instead of trying to
find unbiased sources try to be aware of what kind of biases you want
your sources to have and seek out those sources.
On 12/11/2017 11:27 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
First, there has never been a neutral media in these United States of
America. What we consider "The Media" is owned by large
corporations, and funded by advertisements from other corporations.
No matter how bland the "news" seems to be,, we must keep in mind
that the Media is the vehicle that Corporate America uses to "push"
their wares upon the rest of America. Whether the Corporate Media
Captains admit it, or even understand it, they instinctively protect
their "Golden Goose".
And the Corporate Media has the center stage, pushing aside such news
sources as Democracy Now, to the background. The Corporate Media not
only refuses to deal with many central issues affecting the well
being of the American working class, but it trashes the efforts of
alternative news sources.
So we have all been "educated" by a biased Corporate Media, and even
defend it as being Fair, or Even Handed. NPR has moved further and
further to the Right of Center in its efforts to "Be Fair", in an
effort to satisfy their growing need for Corporate Support. Our very
public education is shaped by our corporate masters. Our children
are being "steered" toward preparing for the jobs required by the
American Corporate Empire(ACE). Such jobs as military service,
munition factory workers, manufactures of military hardware, law,
business and political training lead the way. Social sciences, Human
resources, nursing and even doctors are far less important to the
Empire's needs.
Those Social services can be purchased from anywhere, if you have
enough money. And our Ruling Oligarchy certainly has plenty...even
though they keep raking in more of our working class wealth.
What our Neutral Corporate Media is not addressing is the fact that
the American Corporate Empire is headed into rough waters and that it
will take all we Americans can produce in order for the ACE to come
out on top. Even if it must sacrifice the American People, and our
Way of Life. The ACE will go as far as it needs in order to win,
because the bottom line is Profit, not People. Not even national
boundaries. The Corporate Media is missing the story of the century,
the end of American Sovereignty, and the rise of the Mega Corporate
States. Unless we manage to blow ourselves to Kingdom Come, this
will be an entirely different World, a World of mass enslavement,
dominated by huge conglomerates. Cold, unfeeling Masters who will
make anything we ever thought we knew about "Total People Control" look
amateurish.
And mark my words, the outcome of the Alabama senatorial race will be
a major sign as to which direction Americans will take. Who will
control our lives? We, the People? Or, They, the Corporate
Conglomerates?
Carl Jarvis
On 12/10/17, > Media Downplay Class Warfare as 'GOP Victory'
By Ben Norton, FAIR
10 December 17
The fallacy of "neutral," "both sides" journalism rings loud and
clear in corporate media reporting on the Republican Party's tax
plan. The GOP bill, passed by the Senate in the early hours of
December 2 and described by major media outlets as a "tax cut," is
in reality an explicit handout to large companies and the ultra-rich
that will actually increase taxes on working-class Americans.
But under the cover of a shallow understanding of "balance,"
corporate media have internalized the outlandish idea that it is
"partisan," and thus not "neutral," to acknowledge the undeniably
destructive effects of particular political policies. These
inconvenient facts are hence not emphasized in news reporting, and
cannot be presented alone without being "balanced"
with
an opposing perspective-even if that contrary view is demonstrably
false.
In the case of the GOP legislation, which will slash the corporate
tax rate and add some $1.4 trillion to the national debt, the
deception took a variety of forms.
The primary distortion, as noted, was portraying the Senate GOP bill
as a massive "tax break." Headlines and reports spoke of "tax cuts"
and "tax breaks" vaguely, without indicating that the breaks were
not for Americans as a whole, but rather for corporations and the
rich.
.Reuters (12/2/17): "Senate Approves Major Tax Cuts in Victory for
Trump"
.New York Times (12/2/17): "Few Hurdles Left, GOP Is Confident Tax
Cuts Will Be Signed This Month"
.USA Today (12/2/17): "Senate Passes Huge Tax Cuts After Last-Minute
Changes; Conference With House Next"
By way of contrast, HuffPost (12/2/17) provided an apt corrective to
the
vagueness: "Senate Passes Massive Tax Cuts for the Rich in Middle of
the Night." While The Atlantic (12/2/17) had a euphemistic main
headline-"Senate Republicans Pass Their Tax Cuts"-the subhead
clarified: "The bill slashes corporate tax rates, but millions of
middle-class families could face tax increases under the $1.47
trillion bill."
The Intercept (12/1/17) stressed further, "The GOP Plan Is the
Biggest Tax Increase in American History, by Far." After noting that
the bill includes some $6 trillion in tax reductions, largely for
corporations and households with annual incomes above $400,000 (i.e.
the 1 Percent), reporter Ryan Grim pointed out:
[The bill] gets referred to as only a $1.5 trillion cut because it
raises
$4.5 trillion in taxes elsewhere. But the key question is who gets a
tax hike and who gets a tax cut. Put simply, the bulk of the tax cut
is going toward the rich, while the tax increases go to everybody
else.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonpartisan think
tank, reported that, "The lowest-earning three-fifths of Americans
would pay more on average in federal taxes, while the top 40 percent
on average would receive a tax cut," with the wealthiest 1 percent
of Americans receiving an average cut of more than $9,000.
The Institute added, "The legislation is described as tax reform but
would cut hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare spending."
The AARP similarly warned that the Senate GOP bill would trigger up
to $25 billion in cuts to Medicare.
It would also add at least $1 trillion to the US federal deficit,
according to Congress' own Joint Committee on Taxation. The
nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model estimate is even higher, at an
additional $1.4 trillion in government debt. This will no doubt be
used to justify massive cuts in social spending, including Social
Security and Medicare, which leading Republicans like House Speaker
Paul Ryan and Sen. Marco Rubio are already promising to go after.
In other words, the Republican tax-deal-for-the-1-percent is nothing
short of class war: The working class will lose even more of the
little wealth that it has, and the capitalist class will reap all
the benefits. The legislation even includes a tax break for owners
of private jets, along with banks and oil companies.
Many reports did highlight some of these deleterious impacts of the
tax plan in the body of the story, but they buried the lead. And the
majority of Americans do not read past the headline.
Depicting a Working-Class Disaster as a 'Victory'
Another way corporate media whitewashed the undeniably destructive
effects of the Republican tax plan is by portraying it primarily as
a "victory"
for
Trump and the GOP:
.Washington Post (12/2/17): "Senate GOP Tax Bill Passes in Major
Victory for Trump, Republicans"
.BBC (12/2/17): "Tax Bill: Trump Victory as Senate Backs Tax Overhaul"
.AOL (12/2/17): "Trump Wins First Major Legislative Victory of
Presidency as Senate Passes Republicans' Tax Reform Bill"
.Guardian (12/4/17): "Markets Rally After Trump's Tax Victory"
It's striking how little this presentation-from "mainstream" media,
supposedly critical of Trump-diverged from that of right-wing
outlets that openly support Trump and the GOP, such as Fox News
("Trump Takes Victory Lap After Senate Passes Tax Bill, Calls It
'Largest Tax Decrease.by Far,'"
12/2/17).
The contradiction was highlighted in a SFGate report (12/2/17) with
a headline focused on political gamesmanship-"Senate Narrowly Passes
GOP Tax Overhaul Bill in Major Victory for Trump"-but a lead that
acknowledged the losses for regular people:
Securing a desperately sought legislative victory for the Trump
presidency, the Senate approved a $1.5 trillion tax overhaul
Saturday morning that provides massive tax cuts to large
corporations and wealthy individuals but could lead to higher tax
bills for millions of Californians.
So why not headline the bill's impact on the vast majority of people?
Why
showcase the Trump victory angle?
ABC News (12/4/17) likewise exhibited these contradictions within
one broadcast. In a segment titled "Tax Bill Seen as Victory by
Trump, GOP,"
the host said, "Right now the bill is pretty unpopular," without
explaining why or providing any further information.
"This is a big legislative win, the most significant one for the
Trump administration thus far, and this is something to take home to
your constituents," declared ABC analyst Meghan McCain. The daughter
of neoconservative Sen. John McCain even referred to the Republican
Party as "we."
It was not until further in the segment that ABC analyst Matthew
Dowd noted, "Seventy percent of the benefits of this tax bill go to
the very wealthy, the top 1 or 2 percent of the country." Refuting
the title of the segment, Dowd added:
This may be a legislative victory, but it's not a political victory.
It's
an
unpopular bill, the most unpopular tax bill ever passed, pushed by
an unpopular president, passed by an unpopular Congress.
More and More Euphemisms
The ubiquitous term "tax reform" (e.g., CNN, 12/2/17; The Hill,
12/4/17; Politico, 12/5/17; CNBC, 12/5/17) has a misleadingly
benevolent connotation-who doesn't like reform?-so long as media
don't ask who benefits and who is harmed. Likewise other headline
language, such as "tax overhaul"
or "revision," that fails to reflect the different impacts of
Republicans'
plan:
.Reuters (12/2/17): "US Senate Approves Republicans' Tax Overhaul"
.CBS (12/2/17): "Tax Bill: Senate Passes Sweeping Tax Overhaul in
Early Morning Vote"
.Wall Street Journal (12/2/17): "Senate Passes Sweeping Revision of
US Tax Code"
With euphemisms like "mixed bag" and "mixed blessings," several
outlets seemed to gesture weakly toward the massive assault on
working-class Americans. Reuters (12/2/17) reported that the "sweeping
tax overhaul"
will
move "Republicans and President Donald Trump a major step closer to
their goal of slashing taxes for businesses and the rich while
offering everyday Americans a mixed bag of changes." The Washington
Post (12/2/17) noted the bill "bestows extensive benefits on
corporate America and the wealthy while delivering mixed blessings
to everybody else."
That "everybody else" is reduced to a subordinate clause perfectly
represents how corporate media's pretense of "balance" barely veils
their reflexive positioning on the side of the rich.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner