Oops, CBS did it again

The venerable institution of journalism known for its deep-digging reports into serious issues known as “60 Minutes” is hardly acknowledging the egg on its face this time around. 

Deja View...

Let’s hit rewind for a second.

 In September 2004, Dan Rather aired a report on “60 Minutes II” that used documents that were supposedly from George W. Bush’s commander in the National Guard. The documents showed that Bush was AWOL from his post – he was accused of “ghosting” his service. 

The authenticity of the documents was called into question – although in the weeks that followed there was no conclusive proof that either substantiated or disproved the documents. Nevertheless, in the wake of the controversial report, CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, four senior executives were asked to resign and anchor Dan Rather was pressured to resign. 

The 2004 report was a big deal. There was a massive shakeup in the personnel involved. CBS issued this apology:

Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.

To summarize, in 2004 CBS cleared house and issued a major apology because they weren’t 100% sure it was accurate. It was not proven to be false or knowingly misleading, but the report was unable to be completely authenticated. And they FIRED EVERYBODY.

 

...All over again

Fast forward to two weeks ago:

“60 Minutes” Benghazi “blockbuster” report had a few problems. The two biggest ones that have attracted the most attention involve CBS’ relationship with their “star” witness, Dylan Davies.

Davies is a British security contractor, which is jargon for sanctioned mercenary, a profession not known for attracting the most upstanding citizens in the first place.  Davies related to CBS an exciting account of terror that featured him climbing walls in fire-lit darkness, knocking out attackers with his rifle-butt and seeing, with his own eyes, the charred body of the deceased Ambassador Stevens. 

It is a tale of high drama, excitement and danger. Davies is the hero who tragically arrives just too late to change the outcome. 

It was also complete bull*&^. 

Davies told his employer AND the FBI that he never even reached the compound. 

Wait...again?

But, that is no reason to let a good story go to waste. In fact, the story was so good, that a CBS-owned company was publishing a book authored by Davies. 

And CBS issued a bare-bones apology that lasted about 90 seconds and didn't answer anything.

Ethics: 0, Sensationalist Bull&^%: 2. 

Wait, there's more...

It gets even worse:

The questions about the veracity of Davies account were known well-before the report aired.

The other “major questions” surrounding the incident had all been either answered or proven inconsequential well before CBS even started their report.

Of course, there is a lot of political interest in the Benghazi attacks -- especially from GOP Congressmen Darrel Issa and Lindsay Graham. Issa has repeatedly attempted to start scurrilous investigations into supposed conspiracies because no one has ever proved an absence of proof of wrongdoing. 

Until someone can pound the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative into Issa’s head, he will keep rabidly spewing conspiracy theories like that crazy uncle that knows there is LSD in the water, the black helicopters are coming to get us, and that vapor trails from airplanes are seeded with mind control drugs.

Graham threatened, again, to hold up appointees and cause the already bumbling legislative branch to grind to a halt over the information in the CBS report.

It does not seem to matter to Graham that the report was blatantly misleading, if not outright false. In his own version of Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc reasoning, Graham is not interested in whether the report was factual or was not factual. The report was.

Apparently, that is enough for this southern gentleman.

Bad PR?

There is, however, a darker side to the story.

Whatever the facts surrounding Davies’ story and the events at Benghazi, they have obscured the fact that CBS bet on the fact that outrage sells. That was more important to CBS—and other news stations at other times—than upholding any journalistic ethic.

 “60 Minutes” is probably being discussed more than it has at any point in the time since the 2004 “Memogate.”

 Only this time, CBS is not abashed about being purveyors of prevarications.  And the Viacom/CBS conglomerate is still making money.

Maybe if there were a way to get people so titillated by the truth, there would be more of it on TV.

Support Our Troops, Sheeple

Cognitive Dissonance and Propaganda

Noam Chomsky is a badass. By which, I mean that he is not afraid to be vocally critical of bullsh#%, and- unlike so many people- he backs his points up with reasons, really good reasons.

One of my favorite criticisms by Chomsky is about the slogan "Support Our Troops":

 [...] the point of public relations slogans like "Support Our Troops" is that they don't mean anything [...] that's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody is going to be against and I suppose everybody will be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. But its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, do you support our policy? And that's the one you're not allowed to talk about.

Chomsky argues, very pointedly, that the slogan has become a thought-terminating cliche: one utters it as a panacea solution and it ends discussion. A thought-terminating cliche quells cognitive dissonance by cutting across a complex argument with a dead-end piece of drivel, often culled from a nugget of folk wisdom.

The point of Chomsky's argument is that these slogans are bandied about by politicians, picked up by news pundits, and generally used to avoid having a reasonable discussion in which one's personal opinions may be challenged.

I used to be a non-conformist, before it was mainstream.

As much as I am a fan of existential angst, when someone drops an "it is what it is" on me, I have trouble continuing the conversation. What is even more annoying, in my opinion, is the use of "sheeple" (sheep-people, implying that sheeple just follow the shepherd of mass consciousness, media control and Big Brother).

What is so annoying about this phrase is that I do truly believe in questioning the "norms." I like to question the status quo and I wonder why people are always so quick to utter a phrase to the effect of "that's not how we used to do" or "back in the good old days." "They don't build these like they used to," is a particularly amusing statement, to which I often think: "what with asbestos and lead paint?"

Dismissing an opposing opinion as belonging to a "sheeple" (sheerson?) is just as thought terminating as a parent justifying their reasoning with "because I said so."

A rant that I recently read using this term:

I disliked hipsters before it was cool. Wait, does that makes me a hipster?

Actually, it has become such a common and popular statement that you could say that its use is in itself a sign of sheeplehood.

Its use shows a narcissistic arrogance, which implies that the person uttering it is the only one to understand an issue, and that anyone who disagrees must be doing so out of mindless indoctrination.

In reality though, such statement proves nothing, kills any serious and nuanced line of conversation, and exposes you as an overbearing douche.

So, next time you want to contribute to a conversation with a piece "folk wisdom," maybe try an original thought instead of something that will have the same effect on a conversation as something dropped from a dog's rear-end.

Or not, whatever. You only live once, ya know.

The Malicious Mouse

The Homogenizer of Worlds and 5 Creepy Original Endings of Fairy Tales

A little noticed anniversary passed on the 25th of October -- an anniversary that marked the hold of corporations on the very culture of our country. The date marks the 15th anniversary of Congress passing the Copyright Extension Trademark Act (CETA) --also known at the time as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act."

CETA extended the length of time that a copyright or trademark could stay in effect. This meant that cultural icon Mickey Mouse remained out of the public domain.

From the Facebook page "Beware of Images":

The terrifying story of a giant mouse that devours all culture. After feasting on the flesh of ABC, ESPN, Miramax, Marvel, Pixar, The Muppets and Lucasfilm, it has become unstoppable. The monster is well known for its Public Domain Massacre of 1998.

A spine-chilling tale of greed and monopolization. Muahahahaha...

 

 

 Victory of the Thief

Well, why is this an issue? After all, Disney operates many modern franchises whose profitability at least somewhat relies on their signature mouse.

Well, first of all, public domain is the reason that your high school could perform Macbeth without having to pay royalties; that the orchestra could play Bach's Fugue in D minor or Beethoven's Fifth without taking money from the football program just to be allowed to play a song.

The second reason that it is a problem that Disney gets to keep "its" characters out of the public domain is because that is where most of Disney's highly profitable animated features originated.

 From the blog, Roar of Wolverine:

Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and many other princess stories, were based on age-old fairy tales that Disney was not required to pay license or royalties for.  Later works would include children’s literature like: “Pinocchio”, “Alice in Wonderland” , “The Jungle Book” (released just one year after Kipling’s copyright expired),– All in the public domain!   Disney didn’t pay a cent for story license, yet reaped many millions.  The “Little Mermaid”, “Beauty and the Beast”, “Aladdin” and all features made under the reign of Michael Eisner, would be from public domain.  Of course, Disney touted “The Lion King” as an original story.  Not!   Besides being an adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” told through a pride of lions, there are way too many similarities between The Lion King and a 1960s Japanese animated series called “Kimba the White Lion”.  Though Disney claims these a coincidence, they would sue anyone else into oblivion if they came half as close to one of their properties.

What's worse is that not only did Disney take the tales and characters from the public domain, but also completely watered down or just plain excised the whole point of most of the stories.

What we refer to fairy tales were more along the lines of cultural fables; they warned children about actual consequences, provided a context for real-world lessons.

What would happen if Disney made a tale of the fable of King Solomon's wisdom (the one where two women approach him, both claiming to be the child's mother and the king tests them to see which one actually cares for the child)? Likely there would be a fairy godmother or the Tinkerbell of the desert guiding a stork with a second child needing a home and both mothers would be happy, the greedy one would be so moved by the gift that she would become a perfect mother, wasp-waisted and all bedecked in princess regalia.

Mickey Mouse - Like Cthulu, a devourer of worlds.

In homage to the Anniversary of CETA and Disney's success telling the world that it will all end "happily ever after-- you don't even need to bother learning any lessons" here are a few of the original plots from my favorite tales (there a actually quite a few variants of each, these are my favorites):

Cinderella:

In one version, Cinderella kills her first stepmother, allowing her father to marry the housekeeper. The housekeeper then brings in her brood of children who proceed to make Cinderella's life miserable. Cinderella is rescued by the Prince who finds her crying. The stepmother knows what Cinderella did to her first stepmother and threatens to expose her, so the now-princess has them all killed. Cinderella lives a long life full of guilt. 

In another version, the stepmother tries to make her stepdaughters fit into the glass slipper. By cutting the first ones toes off, and the second ones heels off (the prince is informed of the duplicity by a bird because he apparently doesn't notice the profuse bleeding in a glass slipper on his own). Enraged by the attempts to deceive him, the Prince has all of the step-family beheaded. 

Rapunzel: 

The "innocent" princess is locked into the tower because she kept trying sneak away with young men. She wasn't running away from an evil stepmother, just trying to be alone for an evening....
When the "prince" sneaks into the tower - and sneaks back out alone. Rapunzel's secret is outed a few months later when she innocently asks why her dress doesn't fit anymore (because her belly is getting bigger).

The moral here: the f-ing you get isn't worth the f-ing you get (or why abstinence only sex-ed doesn't work). 

Sleeping Beauty:

In another warning to young ladies about what men really want, the term "Sleeping Beauty" takes a sinister turn. She isn't awoken by a prince kissing her, but by the twin babies in her stomach. That's right, the evil, old king found the beauty asleep, and well.... I guess technically since he was a king, the babies that woke her up were, in fact, princes.

The Little Mermaid:

Young Ariel could walk on land to visit her prince, but the potion that allowed her walk made walking feel like treading on knives. After she suffers through this to be with her prince charming, she finds out that he is already married. She is told that the only way to reverse the curse of her pain (the walking and the heartache) is to kill the prince. She can't bring herself to kill him, so commits suicide instead. 

Little Red Riding Hood:

Arguably the most disturbing fairy tale ever, the original tale of little red riding hood will change how you view Red Riding Hood Halloween costumes forever.
In most versions of this tale, the young girl is accosted by the wolf. What they don't always mention is that the wolf is a metaphor for a sexual predator (in certain areas, when girls lost their virginity, they were said to have "seen the wolf").

In some versions, she gets away by telling the wolf that she needs to defecate and runs outside (of course, she is naked first, which makes the wolf think she won't be going anywhere).

In other versions, she performs a striptease --even going as far as, shall we say, preparing herself-- and escapes when the wolf gets too worked up.

And in some versions, she is eaten by the wolf -- meaning that if you tell a sexual predator where you are going, there is no happy ending. (And it makes the sexy red riding hood costume very darkly ironic).

These fairy tales are replete with rape, sexual predation, broken promises, and people having to live the consequences of their actions.

How did any child ever benefit from learning about those things? Thankfully, Disney provided us with pumpkins, and reformed, good-at-heart evil stepmothers, and doe-eyed princesses who could triumph against impossible odds, as long as they were skinny and beautiful.

Those are the kinds of morals that should stay out of the public domain.

Note: Many of these tales are precursors to even the "originals" we know from Hans Christian Anderson, Charles Perrault's "Mother Goose Tales," and the Brothers Grimm. They were told in small towns and villages across medieval Europe, hence the many variations. 

You're Freedoming Wrong

More Equal? 

 

 Pennsylvania was the state where both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed. Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell are great symbols of the nation that are both in Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, PA State Representative Rick Saccone (R -39) apparently doesn't understand what that the whole Freedom thing (you know, the Bill of Rights?) doesn't mean that one group gets more freedom while other get less.

Saccone has proposed a mandate requiring state public schools to display the motto "In God We Trust."  He argues that it is to honor the 150th anniversary of the motto being displayed on American coinage. (Interesting that the motto isn't as old as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, isn't it).

In fact, the motto was only added to our paper money in 1957, and it first appeared on our coins during the Civil war. What was so significant about 1957 that prompted Congress to approve putting a religious motto on our currency? It just happened to be the culmination of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. 

The lesson should be that the motto has been used as a mark of solidarity that reassures those fighting against a clearly defined enemy that there are on the side of right. In short, it is propaganda.

Harry Potter vs God

“It's displaying our national motto. So they can have Harry Potter on the walls, zombies and witches on brooms but not the national motto?” Saccone said. “It would just be posted in the building somewhere so the kids know what the story is behind it. It's about teaching history.”

I agree. Let's put it in our schools as a cautionary tale, right next to a display honoring other religious and moral quests --like the Crusades and pogroms throughout history.

"In God We Trust" is the passive-aggressive version of Christians yelling "Die Infidels!" And our schools should certainly teach history that includes what wars have been fought and why, how propaganda has alienated ethnic groups and cast them as a unifying enemy as an excuse for would-be conquerors to exploit the fears of the masses.

As far as I know, Harry Potter has never been used to justify a war or the slaughter of those who believe differently.

The Supreme Court was split on allowing a depiction of the Ten Commandments on federal property. Perhaps we cold take note that children are more impressionable and our public schools are meant to be an open, educational system, not a pulpit where one set of beliefs is treated as "right" while the others are just something students need to learn about.

When religion starts to run a country, it usually means less Freedom. I wonder if Rep. Saccone learned the history of the American colonies and how they were populated groups of persecuted religions?

Public schools do have to teach  students who are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu. And if we ever gave children an excuse to treat them as "wrong," nothing could possibly go wrong.

The 5 Most Pointless Things from the Shutdown Coverage

Now that the doors of the government have reopened and the country can pay its bills -- for a short while at least-- here are my 5 least helpful things from the news coverage.

5. Shutdown Clocks 

 Because it really matters that everyone knows to the second how long it has been since Congress officially stopped working -- unofficially, well it has been quite a bit longer.

4. Did anyone fact-check the "reasons" the some republicans were against increasing the debt ceiling?

There used to be a school of thought that journalism meant telling the truth. Obviously, that isn't the top strength of the politicians. Hence, the idea of the Fourth Estate, another check on the government. Or we can just report whatever they say, but it is true that they did say it.

So if a Congress person says they don't want to raise the debt limit because it adds to the deficit, maybe, just maybe, a news station could mention that it really isn't the case (I'm looking at you CNN and Fox). Even Yahoo got this one right.

3. CNN's "Blame Both Sides" Fail

In an effort not to alienate any viewers from either party CNN tried to slam some democrats for not compromising and letting the shutdown take effect. Here is one problem with that. Here is another. CNN has become the middle child between MSNBC and Fox News. Instead of being non-partisan, CNN is trying to be dual-partisan, which is a fail.

2. Being Stupid or in Congress is News?

Ok, the shutdown drama was good for ratings. I get that. But reporting on people being stupid, just because its related to the shutdown is not how I imagine the media could foster bipartisan debate.
Being upset or outraged when the Federal government shuts down, and national parks close is like bombing McDonald's and then being upset when you can't get a BigMac.

Kudos to Senator Cruz and Sarah Palin who protested the shutdown of memorials after they pushed for the shutdown of the government -- in a crowd of veterans (neither of them were in the military) and someone waving a confederate flag.

Stupidity or false outrage just to get on TV - that's why we have Jerry Springer.

The # 1 reason why the shutdown coverage was pointless:

Nothing got solved, the media soaked up the ratings and rejoiced. And there is a good chance we get to do it all over again in a few months.

Oh, and there were no PandaCams.

So let me extend my thanks for all of the great coverage that really informed me about what really mattered during the shutdown.

C U Next Time we Shutdown!

Chomsky and "Red" America

The government shutdown has stilled the hallways of the Smithsonian and closed memorials and national parks across the country - and the media loves it. Big, elaborate graphics with dire overtones fly in to introduce a news segment on the shutdown, a clock ticks away the seconds in the corner of the screen, letting the viewer know with exactitude how long it has been since the government was opened (it has been a lot longer since the legislative bodies have functioned).

This article in the NY Times discusses how the people consume news in a way that resonates with their own personal beliefs, instead of gaining a big-picture understanding of current events.

This is a great observation, but it needs to go a step further: why doesn't reading or watching or listening to the news provide a comprehensive picture of the world. Why is everything either slanted to the left or the right?

This shutdown, whatever the effect on the general populace, is good business for the media. It doesn't really matter if coverage of the shutdown is accurate, because the news outlets realize that people only want to hear what reinforces their already held beliefs and not be challenged by inconvenient truths.

It's got to be true, I saw it on the news. 

 

The news media is controlled by just a few central, very wealthy, very politically influential corporations - and the news media serves the needs of the for-profit corporation, not the viewership or society in general.

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.

Excerpt from "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.

In other words, the media's job is to make the population behave, not the politicians. The media actually has, at times, a vested interest in not reporting "just the facts and nothing but the facts, ma'am."
 
Why? One of the main reasons that the media works to keep the populace in check and not the other way around is because the media system is concerned with profit.

According to Chomsky (from a compilation of his interview answers):

The major decisions over what happens in the society -- decisions over investment and production and distribution and so on -- are in the hands of a relatively concentrated network of major corporations and conglomerates and investment firms...

They are also the ones who staff the major executive positions in the government. They're the ones who own the media and they're the ones who have to be in a position to make the decisions. They have an overwhelmingly dominant role in the way life happens.

This is propaganda -- not to support a tyrannical autocrat, but to keep the plutocrats happy. To keep the populace tuned in, susceptible to the blandishments of advertisers- that is what the media wants.

  Socialism is the new red. 

One of the most powerful mechanisms in place that supports the propaganda of the media giants is (in dramatic echoing tones): the fear of communism.

It bears repeating that communism is the antithesis of capitalism. Communism is the antithesis of capitalism. (Repeated).

Put another way, communism is bad for profits. Our government has had some very lucrative dealings with dictators over the years. But communism is government dispersing profits, it is others reaping the fruits of your labor (theoretically, you would also be reaping the fruits of their labors, but it never seems to work out like that in our minds).

But, we haven't been worried about the Reds since the fall of the Soviet Union and McCarthy's witch hunt, right?

Except that, the media and their political mouthpieces and their ideologue talking heads don't always call it communism. They call it "entitlements" and "socialism." It doesn't matter that socialism and communism are vastly different. If it can be made to seem like social welfare programs are communist in nature, the inculcated masses will have no choice but to go back to the ideal ways of the benevolent capitalist overlords. Which is what our friend, the creepy, finger-raping Uncle Sam puppet, reminds us - don't let the socialists take our profits.

All hail to the capitalist overlords--or get puppet finger-raped.

Bonus excerpt from "Manufacturing Consent":

The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings:

(I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms;

(2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media;

(3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power;

(4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media;

(5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another.

The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns.

The Optics of Symbology

Following up on last week's post about the failings of "simple" solutions, this week's topic is symbology (or "sssym-bol-ism"-- see clip below) and how symbolic actions offer "simple" solutions.

Many of the headlines in the news this week have a personal irritation because they affect some people who are very close to me--in a very human, personal way that could not be more distant from how the debate is being cast in the media.

I am talking, of course, about the government shutdown. More specifically, I am talking about the fact it solves nothing and changes nothing.

For those who think that the shutdown will get rid of a program that they don't like, they are wrong. The shutdown does not directly affect the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The ACA has been debated for several years, going through the forms of representative democracy (Congress, Senate and Presidential Signature). Then, when challenged, upheld in the Supreme Court.

Thanks to aatp.org for this image

I am not writing about whether or not the ACA or "Obamacare" is good or bad for the nation.

It is a futile gesture. It only provides a symbol. Sure, throwing the boxes of tea into Boston Harbor was a symbolic gesture, but this shutdown is like holding the priest hostage after the wedding is completed and everyone is at the reception.



The Affordable Care Act has been held up as a symbol of President Obama and his democratic party values. The optics of opposing the ACA are very important to some congresspersons.

It has a semiotic value that has nothing to do with the actual wheels and gears that make it work as the law of the land. It is a symbol of government oppression. A symbol of the resentment of a person who believes that their hard work is supporting the indolent takers, the dregs of our society.

And there is a face given to these takers: the poor, those with limited education opportunities, those who have fallen on hard times. They are now a symbol of the "moocher class."

It doesn't really matter if these things are true or provable (or not intended to be factual statements).

The rhetoric of the message is much stronger than facts. 

Actions have become more important for their symbolic value, the semiotic meaning that has been assigned to them, than the actual pragmatic consequences of said actions. The consequences that permeate from any action fade from the public consciousness, dwarfed and obscured by a monumental mythos that has become material monolith.

In other words, the semiotic nature of these actions--the symbology-- means that my sister and children, my niece and nephew, have very little with which to support themselves in one of the most expensive cities in America. As a contractor to the government, my sister will not even be eligible for back pay if approved by Congress.

That is your symbolism right there. A eight year-old and a six-year old whose mother has to make plans for how to feed them in case this shutdown drags on.

Good luck with the symbolic action, I am sure the optics of the real consequences are great.