What I Can Say With Certainty
It came without warning like a force of nature, a
tsunami crashing upon the land, sweeping all other concerns away. It was like a
sudden lightning storm in the dark of night, making clear what was previously obscure.
And yet there was a sense of coordination to it, perhaps more like a blitzkrieg
than thunderstorm. One moment everything was in the shadows, the next
everything so clear, so fully certain.
And fear. Although we were oh so very certain of so
much, fear was nevertheless part of the equation. We were both absolutely
certain of many facts while possessing a gaping hole in our knowledge where our
worst fears could reside.
I refer to the revelation of Russian hacking, where in
no time at all the story became the story of stories, driving everything else
from our consciousness. The media only broke from the story to report on Syria,
which only further highlighted the insidious nature of the Russians.
The source of all this certainty and fear, at least
initially, was unnamed. Sometimes this source was an unnamed intelligence
insider, sometimes the source was an anonymous senior congressional staffer.
Here is an example of the typical news article reporting on Russian hacking,
containing many different esteemed sources without names or faces: NBC
News In this case, the source was listed in the title as “U.S.”
This is not journalism, this is not even reporting. This
is simply putting into print press releases sent from government agencies. And
yet they somehow needed three reporters names on the byline: what exactly did
they do?
As far as I’m aware, not a single news agency did any
actual investigation into the matter. They simply reported what was told to
them by government officials, reported the narrative and in the process swallowed
it whole. In the weeks and months that have now followed, never once did I
witness in any mainstream American news outlet any sort of critical questioning
of the official narrative. It was simply accepted as fact.
Never in the history of germs, conspiracy theories, or
cute puppy videos have I ever seen anything spread so quickly, so
authoritatively.
Well, that’s not quite true. I have seen this sort of
behavior on the part of the media before, many times in fact, though the
previous practice has obviously made for perfection. It was
the very likeness of those other examples that made me question the Russian hacking story, even
more than the story’s inherent flaws.
I have seen it played out before, in the build-up to wars. I
have seen it played out when we wished to demonize a country or a government. I
have seen it every time our government is about to do something very bad and
knows it needs to invent justifications for why they are doing it.
Usually such media blitzes are accompanied by
first-hand accounts of babies being killed. Usually words like “genocide” or “WMD”
are used to pepper arguments that are strong on emotion and weak on facts and
logic. But as such typical propaganda tools didn’t seem to apply, we relied on
unflattering pictures of Vladimir Putin to become a focus for our rage. His
very Russianness was enough for us old enough to remember Rocky IV or Rambo III
(you remember, when Rambo went to help the heroic “freedom fighters” in
Afghanistan, those same types who later killed little girls for trying to go to
school, who blew up statues of the Buddha and harbored the likes of Osama Bin
Laden. Those freedom fighters are still alive and well today, fighting our
enemies in Syria as they once did in Afghanistan).
It turns out it’s not the strength of the argument
that counts but the conviction in the voice of those who deliver it and the
frequency of times it is delivered. Cults indoctrinate members by surrounding
them with people repeating the same message while cutting recruits off from
those who might say something different. The Russian Hacking story is a similar
case where the story was everywhere at all times while any voices to the
contrary were made to seem like Russian propagandists or ignorant, racist Trump
supporters.
I suppose that’s why the story caught hold in the more
liberal sections of the population, among those who despised Donald Trump and
could not fathom how Hillary could be likewise despised by anyone with morals
and a brain. Surely Russian hacking is the only possible explanation.
Besides, what if it is true? What if the Russians did
hack our election and managed to get their chosen candidate elected? If this is
the case, then is not all of the fear warranted? Isn’t it only common sense
that the media spend so much time getting to the truth on an issue of such
importance?
Perhaps, but that is not what the media is doing. It
is not attempting to unearth facts and string them logically into different
possible narratives. The media is merely repeating what certain government
agencies are leaking to them. Many, often the ostensibly most “progressive”,
are amplifying it. Funny, but I can no longer recall what Rachel Maddow used to
talk about before the Russian hacking story came along.
In short, the only thing the media has done was to
foster panic and hatred. It has used the Russian hacking story as a focus for
all the hatred Hillary voters are feeling while ignoring all the horrible
things Trump is doing. The Democrats have now become the party of war and
imperialism and they just don’t seem to see anything wrong with that.
Thank God for the deep state. They are the heroes in
this narrative. The cry is that something must be done and the only people who
can possibly get us out of the crisis we’re in are those anonymous,
unaccountable government agents who want what is best for us. We must surrender
thoughts of being in charge of our own government in moments like these, must
relinquish control to the experts who have selflessly prepared their whole
lives for a situation like this. Once the crisis has passed, they will gladly
cede the power they have temporarily taken on as a burden. The only thing you
need concern yourself with now is maintaining a proper amount of fear and helplessness.
That is the argument being given by the deep state.
The media does not merely not question it, it wholeheartedly endorses it. I
have a different take. I believe there is never a good time to panic, there is
never a good time to refrain from critical thinking. One needs to keep one’s
head, especially in a crisis. When a group foregoes reason and abandons
themselves to the herd mentality, that is when things go horribly wrong. That
is when people stampede each other in an attempt to escape a burning building,
it is when economies collapse because of runs on the market. It is the start of
wars.
Human beings should never forsake their higher
faculties in troubling times, nor should the media ask them to. And while we’re
at it, there is never a good time for the media to abandon their central
tenets, their standard operating procedures and their principles. Which brings
me to the point of this post.
In the first two parts of this three-part blog, I
spoke of what I was not sure of, whether Russia hacked or Syria gassed. Now it
is time for me to speak of what I know with certainty: when the government has
an agenda to push—a goal it is intent on achieving—it is then that the illusion
of an independent media dissolves. When called upon, the media abandons its
alleged commitment to objective journalism in favor of channeling the official
line. Of that there can be no doubt. Never have I seen it work otherwise. It
seems to be a universal law that power wins out over principle.
NPR, The New York Times, CNN, etc., they all
capitulated to the official story that had at its source anonymous officials
from private and unaccountable government agencies. They did not do what news
organizations are supposed to do, dig for the truth and corroborate testimony.
There is not a single reason for the failure of the
U.S. media, not a heavy-handed power that is easy to point to. Don Henley made
it all too clear in his song Dirty Laundry just how vapid TV news was in 1982 and
it has rapidly gone downhill since then. Where once news sources made some
pretense of putting truth over profit, now just as in every other field, profit
is the only justification for anything. It would be foolish to believe that the
same media that obsesses about Caytlain Jenner can switch gears when an
important story arises. Talking heads are cheaper than hiring a staff of
investigative journalists, and a whole lot less troublesome.
There are few independent media outlets anymore,
institutions that aren’t funded directly or indirectly by powerful interests.
There are some real investigative journalists still out there but they have
been pushed to the edges. And now those edges are being labelled “fake news” by
those who wouldn’t know news if it bit them. Journalists who practice the
long-established craft are either forced to beg for contributions like Greg Palast,
or have gone to work for RT like Chris Hedges. Do your country a favor and
throw a few bucks in the tin cup of one of the last of the old-time
journalists: Donate
Journalism is dead. What they now call news is
whatever they feel will draw and keep the interest of viewers for their
advertisers. Investigation is expensive, while talking heads from the pentagon
are willing to come in and recite the official position for free. War is
profitable, not only for the weapons manufacturers but for ratings as well.
I can’t tell you if Russia was in any way involved in
the hacking of the 2016 presidential election, nor can I tell you if President
Assad used Sarin gas on his own people. The information is not available to me.
The mainstream media has no interest in or ability to deliver the information citizens
require to make the best decisions for ourselves and our country. Of that I am
quite certain.
No comments:
Post a Comment