The Truest Patriot

The media's role in American culture goes as far back as colonial times, when one-sided broadsheets were used to make announcements and encourage trading. Once America officially broke away from England, a vital function of the first independent newspapers was to keep an eye on the newly created American government, to help insure that it never became too powerful or grew outside of the intended control of its citizens. Since then, American media has changed immensely in both form and function. Unfortunately for the American public, the modern media seems to be less and less like a government watchdog and more and more like the government's bitch.

But media bias is nothing new and the history of yellow journalism goes back nearly as far as journalism itself. The few people in the past who have dared to break away from shameless, obsequious government proselytizing have consistently been labelled as traitors, America-haters, or even communists. And in today's world it seems that yellow journalism is more than just the unabashed presentation of biased information as objective truth; it is also the collective fear of those we rely on for information to question anything the United States government says or does.

In the months leading up to the American Revolution and beyond, Thomas Paine published moving and incendiary pamphlets, such as Common Sense, to urge his countrymen to unite against the monarchy. His persuasive propagandizing helped to move America forward toward independence and many of his ideas were later incorporated into the Declaration of Independence. Like those who speak out today through books or films, Paine also used popular forms of media to make his opinions heard by the masses, and to obvious effect.

Near the end of the nineteenth century, the USS Maine exploded in Cuba during the country's struggle for independence from Spain. An oil leak was likely at fault, though the cause for the explosion was never officially discovered. William Randolph Hearst of the New York Journal sent a reporter to Cuba to see what information they could find, but when nothing was found to report, Hearst was not deterred. In search of a story to beat his competitors, Hearst's written response to his correspondents' request for recall was "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." For the next several weeks at least 8 pages a day were devoted to the story. The explosion was attributed to Spanish saboteurs, editorials were written demanding vengeance, and the war-cry of "remember the Maine and to hell with Spain!" was coined. Soon the American public was rallying for a war with Spain over something that had probably never happened, and the Spanish-American war began not long after.

In the 1950s, at the height of McCarthyism, the Hollywood blacklist was one of America's most insidious secrets, keeping talented directors, writers and actors out of work for their political affiliations. Just last year the New York Post published a list of celebrities whose movies, shows and CDs should be boycotted because they publicly opposed the war. ABC broadcast a similar list onscreen around the same time. Tell me anything has changed in the last 50 years, and then tell me why the Dixie Chicks lost radio airplay, or why the Baseball Hall of Fame cancelled an event for the 15th anniversary of the movie Bull Durham. It can't be because Americans truly know what it means to be free.

But the New York Post isn't the only one complying to the government's every whim. Unfailing support for the war and an unwillingness to question government policy, at home or abroad, seems to be a rule of thumb in journalism today, and phrases like "fair and balanced" aren't much more than a glib assurance of something we can no longer really expect. Despite the intent of the Fairness Doctrine, media conglomerates vehemently oppose actual two-sided debate. Critically dependent upon corporations for advertising, and monopolized by an increasingly smaller number of parent organizations, US media has a disturbing tendency to overlook corporate crime (or did until Martha Stewart), and to ignore pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by right-wing pundits, with liberals languishing at stations like Air America or Pacifica.

The newspapers and broadcast news channels today offer us little more than proof through repetition and seem unwilling to dig deeper than psuedo-comforting sound bytes from self-aggrandizing politicians. Instead, we're shown staged images of rallying Iraqis and denied access to the pictures deemed too gruesome or upsetting. Pictures of children blown into pieces by American bombs and pictures of the soldiers themselves, row after row of their coffins draped in American flags. It's little surprise that what results is something these same media outlets term propaganda: Michael Moore.

Moore, in all of his one-sided glory, picks up the slack of the mainstream media, questioning law and policy makers, and filling in the gaps where the traditional media slants, omits or completely ignores. His books and films are undeniably biased, but with most news outlets leaning in the other direction, the American public can almost find even ground. Yet even with both sides opining in our ears, how sure can we really be that we're getting any semblance of the complete picture, much less objective fact? For reliable answers, you have to do the research yourself, and the average American citizen has neither the time nor the inclination to search for the truth. Apprarently, neither does mainstream media.

After all is said and done, who can really be called the truest patriot? And if this is what patriotism means in America today, is it really even something to aspire to at all?

 

Words of the Wise

"Naturally the common people dont want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. Whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is to tell them that they are being attacked, and to denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

~ Hermann Goering

Not Bush, Candidate Superstar

The 2004 presidential election is shaping up to be a close, exciting race, and as the big day draws near I would like to bring your attention to a candidate that I feel is extremely worthy of your vote. His name is Not Bush, and as you might have guessed, he (or she) is running on the Not Republican ticket. Not Bush has the values, ideas and experience that can truly move our country forward in these troubled times.

Not Bush is a decorated war veteran, having proudly fought for the freedoms of his country in one of our many previous wars. His military records are open for your approval and scrutiny, having never been lost, misplaced, or "accidently" destroyed. Not Bush learned much from his wartime experiences, including how important it is to exhaust other, more peaceful, alternatives and to avoid war as much as possible.

Not Bush is an advocate of average people. He has big plans to repeal the current president's tax cuts for the rich and for giant corporations and to help struggling familes get back on their feet. Not Bush would not let corporate America continue to more or less run (ruin) the country. Not Bush is also a big proponent of national heathcare and vows to work so that every American has access to free or low-cost healthcare in the next several years.

Women's rights are very important to Not Bush, who understands that the concept that life begins at conception is one borne from religious beliefs and should therefore not have effect on a woman's right to choose. This is also why Not Bush wants to make it a policy not only not to ban abortion in full, but also to provide free or low cost access to family planning to all women who want or need it. Not Bush also supports stem cell research and all manner of scientific exploration for the benefit of all society. Although Not Bush is a good God-fearing Christian, he realizes that America was built on a foundation of religious freedom (and even freedom from religion) and that, for that reason, laws and governmental policies should never be tied into any religion, even the majority's.

These values have also led him to believe that same-sex marriage is an issue for states to decide and that amending the Constitution specifically to ban this type of union would be not only ridiculous, but also unnecessary. This is because Not Bush believes that the Constitution was written to give rights to Americans, not to take them away.

And speaking of taking away rights, Not Bush is completely against the Patriot Act and all that it has come to represent about the quiet destruction of American civil liberties. While Not Bush agrees that steps must be taken to ensure the safety of all Americans, he knows that the stealthy and methodical stripping away of all of our freedoms and civil rights is not the way to do it. That is why Not Bush would immediately repeal the Patriot Act and restore America to the bastion of freedom that its forefathers once envisioned.

Not Bush would also revoke the strike-first foreign policy that has so greatly damaged our reputation in the eyes of the world as well as work to restore power and actual authority, not to mention the dignity of not being rendered completely useless, back to the UN. In short (or not short, as the case may be), Not Bush would give America back to its citizens, and make it the great country we know it can be.

His (or her) name is Not Bush, and he (or she) wants to be your next president. So go out and vote Not Bush on Election Day!

PS - On the actual ballet, Not Bush's name may be listed as John Kerry. Just . . . FYI.

Words of the Wise

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
 
~Abraham Lincoln
 
 

The Politics of Fear

There is so much to be afraid of these days that sometimes I find it helpful to keep a list. An ongoing war in Iraq, possibilities of nuclear war, widespread terror attacks, road rage, SARS, mad cow disease, and the significant threat of allowing gays the right to marry each other are just a few of the things vying for your attention. With all that's going on, it's hard to know what should scare you more. But fear not, my fellow Americans! For you can always count on the utterly dependable Bush administration to let you know when and what you should fear the most.

For starters, there is the ever-helpful terror alert level to keep you informed on what color your fear should be as you cower in your home behind your plastic sheeting and duct tape. And if that isn't enough, President Bush is committed to making frequent public statements to reassure us all that "Americans are safer" since the United States invaded Iraq. This despite reports from the State Department that worldwide terror has actually increased since the war began. But then, George Bush has never been one to let himself be refuted by irrefutable facts.

But lest you start to feel too reassured, there's always the evening news to scare you back into submission. It is interesting to note how in this election year news that is damaging to the Bush campaign is quickly followed by an increase in the terror alert, or an announcement of al Qaeda's "almost completed" plans to attack the US . . . somewhere . . . at some time . . . in some way.

John Kerry announces Edwards as his running mate, Ken Lay is taken into custody by the FBI, and the 9/11 Panel disputes any actual link between Iraq and al Qaeda, and almost immediately we have Tom Ridge telling us of "a large-scale attack" being planned by al Qaeda, but offering no specific details and no plans to raise the terror alert level. But let us take this opportunity to remind you to vote for President Bush in four months, because he is both committed and able to keep you safe from attack. Not like that John Kerry who wants to leave you to the mercy of that . . . guy, that al Qaeda guy . . . what was his name again?

September 11th threw the country into a panic, as we realized for the first time since Pearl Harbor just how vulnerable we really are. That despite being the world's leading superpower, we are not invincible. Within months this heightened fear had brought us the Patriot Act, and with next to no opposition, the biggest setback to the Constitution in US history was put into effect. If it was ever true that the terrorists "hate our freedom," they have less and less to hate with each passing day.

Decisions made out of fear have a disturbingly ubiquitous and deleterious place in our nation's history. Sweeping, unfounded panic during the Salem witch trials, before we were even a nation to ourselves, resulted in the deaths of no less than 20 innocent people. In the 1950s Senator McCarthy used the country's intense fear of communism to persecute and, in effect, ruin the lives and careers of any number of American citizens, many times without anything as justifying as actual proof. There are times when fear is overpowering enough to make people overlook even the most atrocious and obvious violations of civil and Constitutional rights.

George Bush and his administration know this and they know that they can exploit the reasonable fears of Americans to push things like the Patriot Act or their own re-election. As Jon Stewart satirized recently on The Daily Show, "basically we want you to be afraid enough that you dont vote for John Kerry. But not so afraid as to not go out and vote for Bush." But Americans should be voting based on who they feel would better lead this country. Fear causes people to overlook important issues, and sound, informed decisions are not those made under duress. Let us take the time before this election to look into the issues, to examine everything that is at stake, and to research the candidates' voting records. Let us cast our votes out of solid, unimpeachable conviction, rather than the fear of thinking for ourselves.