As I write
these words, we are into the third day of a seemingly endless
period of mourning for Tim Russert. While he seemed to be a likable
fellow – in a conventional sort of way – and I can sympathize
with his family, friends, and colleagues over his loss, there
is something telling about the state of journalism in this country
in the way his death is being transformed into a national tragedy.
Here in Hollywood, the demise of even the most prominent of the
prominent stars does not merit the media’s nonstop observance
such as we are witnessing not only from Mr. Russert’s network,
but from others as well.
This endless
electronic eulogy brings to mind the classic observation of Marshall
McLuhan: "the medium is the message." A centrally-directed,
vertically-structured society requires a uniformity of thought
in order to maintain a collective commitment. This requires a
continuing indoctrination in the values and purposes of the ruling
establishment. Government schools exist for the primary purpose
of conditioning young minds in such a viewpoint, a function acknowledged
by the Los Angeles County government when it declared that children
need to be taught "that we are all part of one big social
system" and "must learn to participate effectively in
the system." H.L. Mencken was more to the point, as usual,
when he wrote that the purpose of schools is:
to manufacture
an endless corps of sound Americans. A sound American is simply
one who has put out of his mind all doubts and questionings,
and who accepts instantly, and as incontrovertible gospel, the
whole body of official doctrine of his day, whatever it may
be and no matter how often it may change.
Once children
have passed through the school system, there is the danger that
this conditioned mindset may wither, a threat that the established
order has long employed the media to resist. Learned attitudes
must be constantly reinforced, a function performed by the journalistic
community. Those who were paying attention could see how this
role played out in the propagandizing for the Iraq War as well
as the treatment accorded presidential candidate Ron Paul. Here
is a man whose ideas challenged the very foundations upon which
the corporate-state owners had long maintained their destructive
power over people. The media immediately went into damage control
to prevent members of the public from seeing/hearing any message
contrary to that favored by the political establishment.
If, as McLuhan
observed, "the medium is the message," who are the scriptwriters
of the message? There is a hierarchy of interests at work within
the mainstream media that parallels the state apparatus itself.
Atop this pyramid of power rest the corporate interests who own
not only the political system, but the message machines. Beneath
these owners are to be found the corporate sponsors, whose advertising
and, in some cases (e.g., PBS stations), charitable contributions,
provide the financial backing that keeps the message machines
well-oiled and operating.
The message
machine owners – subdivided into various radio/television networks
and print media who, nonetheless have a shared interest in the
message content – hire the "journalists," commentators,
and others, to write and deliver the agreed-upon script. It is
into this class of people that Tim Russert – along with other
members of the fraternity who now lament his passing – was accepted
by the owners. He was safe for their purposes, not the sort of
person to ask unsettling questions. One major media source referred
to him as "a towering figure in American journalism."
If such words were intended to acknowledge only that Russert was
held in high regard by fellow disseminators of what is to the
interest of the establishment to have the public believe, it is
probably correct. If we are asked to believe, however, that he
represented the kind of critical, journalistic inquiry that troubled
the minds of the powerful, I strongly disagree.
I grew up
with a great affection for what is now dismissed as "muck-raking"
newspapers. Recognizing the inherently dishonest and criminal
nature of all of politics, I admired the journalists who preferred
exposing the muck of the system to the moderns with their unexamined
defense of establishment agendas. Today, however, so much of the
muck of politics is inextricably bound up with the interests of
the corporate order that own the message machines. Tim Russert’s
employer, NBC, is itself owned by General Electric, one of the
largest defense contractors. Shortly after the present war against
Iraq had begun, one of NBC’s reporters, Peter Arnett, publicly
stated that the American military’s "first plan has failed
because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another
plan." While this proved to be a true and accurate statement
– for which one would think a journalist would be rewarded – NBC
fired Arnett.
If the conduct
of a war is highly profitable to a company that happens to be
the owner of a message machine, do you think its owners will tolerate
any expressions of doubt as to the wisdom of that war? Do you
think that the treatment of Arnett – as well as that experienced
by a few elsewhere employed journalists who were fired for daring
to step outside the lines of employer-permitted reporting – sent
a message to Russert and his colleagues? Is it only coincidence
that a lengthy interviewed eulogy of Russert was delivered by
Jack Welch – former chairman of General Electric – on the Fox
News channel – one of the principal propagandists for the Iraq
war? Do you wonder why extensive praise of Russert was offered
by Dick Cheney?
A
few years ago, I listened to a man talking about a New York
Times reporter who had endured great danger in a hostile part
of the world in order to get a story that his paper, for apparent
"policy" reasons, chose not to publish, a decision the
reporter reluctantly accepted. The man speaking of this said "he
[the reporter] will risk his life for a story, but he won’t risk
his job." This is a debate most of us have had with ourselves,
at one time or another, as a result of working for others. Tim
Russert may very well have gone through this calculation as to
whether his self-interest would best be served by the enormous
salaries, political influence, and social prestige associated
with his position at NBC, versus the inner spiritual sense that
drives unfettered truth-telling. I believe I know how I would
answer this question for myself, but I do understand how others
might come to a different conclusion.
It
is representative of the sharp division that exists between establishment,
mainstream media journalists, and those who have opted for the
joy and integrity that accompanies the hard work of digging out
truth. The likes of H.L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock have their
modern counterparts in a number of journalists and commentators
who insist upon working outside the towers and chambers they are
to investigate. Such people would consider it a slur upon a noble
profession to be "embedded" with generals and admirals
or Daddy Warbucks as sources upon which to depend for their writings.
Just a few of such people include (in alphabetical order) Becky
Akers, Jim Bovard, Alexander Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Amy Goodman,
Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Seymour Hersh, Bob Higgs, Chalmers
Johnson, Karen Kwiatkowski, John Pilger, Justin Raimondo, Paul
Craig Roberts, and Lew Rockwell. Please let me know the next time
you see any of these persons interviewed on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN,
Fox News, or elsewhere in the mainstream media!
At a time
when newspapers and weekly news magazines are experiencing major
circulation declines, and television news is losing viewers –
all to the benefit of more free, open, and responsive Internet
reporting the mainstream media is struggling for its very existence.
There may be a metaphorical message in the untimely death of television
news’ most visible personage. Like those who gather to celebrate
the life and death of a friend, perhaps the mainstream media is
using the memory of Tim Russert to celebrate its own life, which
seems now to be in a terminal state.