6.11.2006

"stunned by the lack of interest"

We once had a lengthy debate on this blog about the media's role in keeping the US ignorant and right-wing. To my and Allan's utter astonishment, a commenter felt that the media has little or nothing to do with it. I can't find the post now, and it's just as well, as I don't want to single out the person who espoused that view. We felt that he simply must be unaware of what the media is like in the US. There seemed no other plausible explanation.

I was reminded of that when I read this in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s article, Was the 2004 Election Stolen?:
The mounting evidence that Republicans employed broad, methodical and illegal tactics in the 2004 election should raise serious alarms among news organizations. But instead of investigating allegations of wrongdoing, the press has simply accepted the result as valid. "We're in a terrible fix," Rep. Conyers told me. "We've got a media that uses its bullhorn in reverse -- to turn down the volume on this outrage rather than turning it up. That's why our citizens are not up in arms."

The lone news anchor who seriously questioned the integrity of the 2004 election was Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. I asked him why he stood against the tide. "I was a sports reporter, so I was used to dealing with numbers," he said. "And the numbers made no sense. Kerry had an insurmountable lead in the exit polls on Election Night -- and then everything flipped." Olbermann believes that his journalistic colleagues fell down on the job. "I was stunned by the lack of interest by investigative reporters," he said. "The Republicans shut down Warren County, allegedly for national security purposes [which has been shown to be a cover story] -- and no one covered it. Shouldn't someone have sent a camera and a few reporters out there?"
In a way, this serves as an addendum to my two posts about the Conspiracy Theory label. There are factors for which no actual conspiracy is necessary. The media's complete "lack of interest" - to quote Keith Olbermann - in this story doesn't mean that each and every outlet was "in on" the conspiracy, merely that looking the other way serves their own agenda. Bland media that doesn't rock the boat is more pleasing to corporate sponsorship, which has a stake in maintaining the status quo. It's also easier and cheaper to refrain from boat-rocking, and it hedges against the possible withholding of access to the courts of power of said boat-rockers.

There have been actual bribes and payoffs - that's been proven - and it's likely that there have been many more that we'll never discover. Many of us are certain the 2004 election was fixed, and the media isn't necessarily to blame for that.

However, the public's ignorance of this treasonous act must be largely laid at the feet of the US media.

11 comments:

David Cho said...

I read bits and pieces of Kennedy's article. If the Dems take Congress, this should be the first on the list of investigation. Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy.

James Redekop said...

Sometimes a conspiracy needs no conspiring; the interests of the parties involved means that things flow a certain way. This is especially common when all the parties have to do is nothing -- not covering this story, not investigating that mess-up.

The vast majority of "conspiracies" are most likely the result of a nasty combination of greed, laziness, and incompetence.

allan said...

David,

It should be, but the Dems haven't said boo about either 2000 or 2004 to date, so I don't expect them to say anything about vote fraud in the future.

Granny said...

24% turnout for the CA primary for my county.

Everything you say about the media is true but the local paper could run banner headlines and no one would notice.

The neocons always vote.

laura k said...

Everything you say about the media is true but the local paper could run banner headlines and no one would notice.

The neocons always vote.


Of course you're right, Granny.

It's a chicken-and-egg thing, isn't it? The govt screws people over, doesn't listen, isn't responsive to voters... so people have less belief that their vote matters or can change anything, so they don't vote... so the govt is even less accountable... so people grow more apathetic, feel more helpless...

Still, I do wonder, would more people vote if they were better informed? If it was easier to get informed?

James Redekop said...

24% turnout for the CA primary for my county.

The neocons always vote.


That's why anti-gay issues were on so many ballots in 2004 -- to get out the bigot vote, which tends to go strongly Republican. These are folks who believe passionately in denying rights to others, whereas everyone else is (overall) pretty comfortable with the status quo, and doesn't see that voting's necessary to maintain that, or else completely disillusioned and convinced that voting can't fix anything.

laura k said...

Access to news has never been easier than it is right now.

That's not true for everyone.

This was the crux of the earlier debate I was referring to. IMO, "access to the news has never been easier" applies to a subset of educated people with time on their hands. Many Americans, increasingly working more and more hours to make ends meet (or not even), raising kids, with all the demands that implies, do not have time to spend hours on the internet educating themselves.

They may not have computers with high-speed connections, or if they do, their kids are using them for school work.

I believe people ought to be able to turn on the TV news and learn what's going on around them. Or pick up a local paper and do the same. But they are able to do neither.

Also, if they attended public schools in the US, chances are high they are utterly ignorant about US history, world events, even how their local govt works, and barely would know what to look for even if they had the time.

laura k said...

Which is not to say I don't agree with Lone Primate's analogy to ancient Rome. It's very apt.

laura k said...

I think you're right in saying it's a lack of interest, but it's not for want of information.

The lack of interest I referred to was specifically about the media. I agree with you about junk food and public apathy, but the mainstream media should be reporting this stuff, and they are not.

barefoot hiker said...

I can see what you're saying about the net. Not everyone does float around on it 24/7. I think depending on the mainstream media was always a mug's game, though. Think of the pressure cigarette companies put on the media in the 50s and car manufacturers on TV news in the 60s. There's never been a time when the news came from corporations before their profit margins... only within comfortable bounds. On the other hand, at least SOME of the American public now has access to sources that aren't principally financed by big corporate interests, and so can point people in the direction of news that otherwise is being swallowed up. There was no such thing as CounterPunch when I was a kid, for instance. I think rather than lamenting something that was pretty much always the case (tell me DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN wasn't wishful corporate thinking literally writ large), we should focus on the fact that in the last decade, we've emerged into a world where so much more is now possible. But it still comes back to the fact that resistence to the truth is ultimately about refusing the evidence when it's presented. This goes back to your other article about conspiracy theories... if it's uncomfortable or disturbing, it's a "conspiracy". So we have the tools now to confront the lies... but if the majority of the people will not see their pretty balloons popped, then Rome's doomed anyway.

laura k said...

True, true, true. True on all counts.