The Columbus Institute of Contemporary Journalism (CICJ) has operated Freepress.org since 2000 and ColumbusFreepress.com was started initially as a separate project to highlight the print newspaper and local content.
ColumbusFreepress.com has been operating as a project of the CICJ for many years and so the sites are now being merged so all content on ColumbusFreepress.com now lives on Freepress.org
The Columbus Freepress is a non-profit funded by donations we need your support to help keep local journalism that isn't afraid to speak truth to power alive.
As the spokesperson for a group that had organized
several peace rallies on and after last February 15, I
was a guest on a local talk radio show a couple of
days after the Iraq war began. Before the show started
the two hosts were extremely friendly, then, once on
the air they went into attack mode. One of the first
questions was roughly, "How can we not invade Iraq
after they killed 3,000 people by blowing up the World
Trade Center?"
The very stupidity of that question and the abrupt
change in tempo caught me off guard. During the first
commercial break the hosts apologized to me. One of
them said he even had an anti-war sticker on his
bumper. They explained they were just expected to do
right-wing talk radio shtick.
Obviously, the ranting and raving style of Rush
Limbaugh and his imitators has proven to be
commercially successful and highly effective in
forwarding the right-wing agenda. The fact that style
of broadcasting has become acceptable to mainstream
America - and to many broadcast personalities who see
it as the proper way to perform their job, speaks
volumes about how entertainment value has replaced
true journalistic intent and how the right-wing has
managed to take control of our mainstream media.
The question that no one seems to be addressing -
and for which I have no clear answer - is how many
writers and broadcast personalities are doing liberal
shtick? Do we have people playing the role of the weak
liberal opponent to the strong conservative
commentator like fall guys in professional wrestling?
Have Michael Moore, Al Franken, and others simply
found a good angle for marketing their comedy, books,
and articles?
Once the line between journalists and entertainers
becomes indistinguishable it becomes hard to trust
anyone, or anything they say - except, of course, for
those who have bought into the reality of the
routines. Street cred has become commercialized.
Two, maybe three, years ago the presenters on CNN
Headline News carved their first pumpkins on air. Not
too long ago Robin Meade, one of their morning
anchors, sang on air. They have added cooking spots
and other network TV-type morning show segments - the
very thing many of us thought we had escaped years ago
by turning to cable news. Now, cable news has adopted
a very similar format to that of network TV: lots of
soft and sensational news, very little actual news.
The thinking must be that the truth just isn't as
entertaining as pop culture, fabrications, happy talk,
and shtick - or as good for promoting, or
cross-promoting, products within news programs.
Shtick, of course, plays to expectations - and that
element takes the current situation to another,
exceptionally grim, level.
On the right we have the Republicans, representing
the interests of big business, extremely rich people,
religious fundamentalists, and the vindictive. On the
left we have the Democrats, representing progressive
ideals and values - oops, that's just the expectations
talking.
The problem with attributing political philosophies
to the two major political parties is that the parties
assume the role that is most likely to get them
elected. The Republicans learned that by appealing to
racism and religious fundamentalism they could carry
the South and many rural areas. The Democratic Party
is an umbrella under which people from both the left
and the right stand. Candidates are chosen by party
leaders for their ability to raise money, not for
their views on the issues or their potential
statesmanship. The goal of both major parties is to
get in power. Since it takes lots of money to get in
power, both parties suck up to those with the most
money: big business and America's most wealthy
individuals. That money buys the contributors favors
from both parties.
If the Democrat Party truly preferred a progressive
agenda, Dennis Kucinich would have already received
every possible endorsement from the party's leaders.
As it is, the party is doing all it can to keep the
slightly left-of-center moderate Howard Dean from
receiving the presidential nomination: they fear he
might be another George McGovern. Yet when it suits
their interests - that of raising money and recruiting
more voters - the party poses as the liberal
alternative. Groups like MoveOn, an organization
formed to prevent the removal of President Clinton
from office by impeachment, now use the credibility
they gained from their anti-war activism to raise
money for Democratic candidates.
Let's not forget that economic inequities continued
to increase under President Clinton, that the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, utility deregulation,
and welfare reform occurred during his administration,
and that Hilary Clinton set back the passing of
national health insurance by years.
Is the lesser of two evils actually what we want?
If progressive thinkers are truly striving for
progressive change, they would not accept an
anybody-but-Bush position. If progressive commentators
and activists truly want to reach the masses, they
would shed radical posturing, epithets, and
vulgarities. They would reach out rather than pander
to alternative expectations. They would not try to be
liberal versions of Rush Limbaugh. Our nation was
established based on the progressive ideals of our
founding fathers - that ideology is the true American
mainstream and should be represented as such.
As long as the progressive message remains
marginalized on the Internet and in tabloids, it can
never inspire the populist movement necessary for
realization. Until people on all sides of the
ideological spectrum see beyond their preconceptions
and expectations, they will remain vulnerable to
political shtick.
Folks, we're Germany in the 1930s. Big business and
government have merged. Our news media is misleading
us with lies in order to forward the agenda of big
business and the privileged. Those who are most
adversely affected by that agenda are being
blind-sided by those lies and by their well-trained
beliefs in the icons and conventions of our society:
the flag, the office of the president, the superior
goodness of our policies, and the promises and
possibilities of the American dream. Our military has
attacked other nations without provocation. Our
president has ignored international laws and
authorized war crimes. Our government is locking
people away without due process simply because of
their ethnicity and suppressing civil liberties in the
name of homeland security. Businesses are exploiting
the human and natural resources of this and other
nations. Quantity of profit has replaced the goal of
quality of life.
These perversions of our nation's identity have no
realistic opposition: no foreign military able to
resist, no domestic political party willing and able
to fight for progressive ideals. It's up to us to make
a stand.