Chomsky: What makes the mainstream media mainstream? (part one)

What follows are detailed notes of a talk Chomsky gave at the Z Media Institute in June 1997. The talk was called what makes the mainstream media mainstream?

The media readily lends itself to being studied. The evidence of what is and is not being reported, the focus of what is reported, what is ignored or suppressed, etc, can be analysed every day by looking at the press itself.

Studying the media - or any institution

Ask questions about its internal structure. How does it relate to other systems of power and authority? Internal records (memo's, letters, that sort of thing) from leading figures in the instituion can be highly revealing, valuable tools for understanding how the institution works.

Institutions should be studied as a scientist would study a complex molecule. You make a hypothesis about its nature and then see how it holds up under scrutiny. In the case of the media, make a hypothesis about what the media product will look like. How does the hypothesis hold up?

What do you find?

There are different media that do different things, such as entertainment/Hollywood, soap operas, newspapers, and so on.

One sector of the media is the "elite media". This is the "agenda-setting" media, the large media institutions with the vast resources. The New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, for example.

So you have a news editor in Dayton, Ohio, who doesn't have the resources "to figure out what the news is"; who has to fill the quarter page he devotes to non-local stories and diverting his audience. Well, he puts there what the New York Times says he should. Local papers do not have the resources to do much else. They do not have 'foreign correspondants" littered around the world.

If you get out of line and start producing stories that the elite or agenda-setting media doesn't approve of, you'll soon hear about it. (Chomsky cites a recent San Jose Mercury News incident as a dramatic example of this.) If you try to break the mold, you simply won't last long. All of which is an understandable reflection of the obvious power tructures of corporations. They are tyrannical institutions.

"The real mass media are basically trying to divert people."

Let them do something else - watch sports, soap operas, etc - keep them occupied while we run the show, while we take care of the serious stuff and make the big decisions.

Who are the elite, agenda setting media?

Take the New York Times and CBS. They are major, highly profitable corporations. Most are either linked to or owned outright by much bigger corporations, for instance General Electric, Westinghouse, etc. They are way up in the power structure of an extremely tyrannical private economy, an economy that is hierachical, controlled from above.

Universities

The media are a doctrinal system, a sytem based on a body or set of principles, on dogma. The media interact closely with universities. A reporter writing about, for instance, Southeast Asia or Africa, is supposed to go to a big university and find an expert to tell him what to write; or to foundations such as the Brookings Institute or the American Enterprise Institute. These corporate funded foundations are very similar to the media.

"Universities are not independent institutions."

"There may be independent people scattered around in them, but that's true of the media as well." In fact that's generally true of corporations and of fascist states.

Universities are dependent on outside sources of support: from private wealth, big corporations, and from government, which is so closely linked with corporate power you can barely distinguish them.

People who don't accept this structure, and internalize it, are likely to be weeded out anywhere from kindergarden up. Conformity and obedience are rewarded, people who think independently are not. They are often marginalised, isolated.

[Part two will follow.]

The BBC: "a mouthpiece for establishment views"

"Media commentators have been quick to point out that the communal door linking BBC, government and business executives has been turning for a very long time."

~

Thanks to a recommendation I was recently introduced to the website medialens, a 'UK-based media-watch project which offers authoritative criticism of media bias and censorship'.

Whilst I'm new to the site I was particularly interested in the following article by David Edwards, one of two medialens editors:

New Chairman confirms the BBC as a mouth-piece for establishment views (September 2001)

The new chairman at the time was Gavyn Davies. Whilst the BBC would have us believe they are an impartial organisation without corporate bias, Davies CV tells a different story. In 1997 Davies was touted as the next governor of the Bank of England. He was former chief economist for Goldman Sachs. He has a wealth of over £150million. Davies and Greg Dyke (BBC director general at the time) are both New Labour supporters and have given money to the party. Davies wife ran Gordon Brown's office. Their children were pageboy and bridesmaid at Gordon Brown's wedding. Blair has stayed in Davies holiday home.

Edwards also notes that Sir Christopher Bland, outgoing BBC chairman at the time, went on to become chairman of British Telecom.

In other words, it would be hard to find anyone more biased in favour of both government and corporate interests. As Chomsky might say, to expect otherwise of Davies would take some kind of miracle.

According to Edwards such bias can be found throughout the BBC's history, right up to the point of its inception:

"The BBC was founded by Lord Reith in 1922 and immediately used as a propaganda weapon for the Baldwin government during the General Strike, when it became known by workers as the "British Falsehood Corporation". During the strike, no representative of organized labour was allowed to broadcast on the BBC; the Leader of the Opposition, Ramsay McDonald, was also banned."

It's an insightful article. I was talking to someone recently about this. We're told that the BBC is perceived around the world as some kind of beacon for truth. That it's free from corporate and governmental bias, "because of the unique way the BBC is funded." It's content and the credentials of its chairmen tell quite the opposite story. The BBC is obviously biased and we have little reason to expect it not to be.

"The idea that the "non-corporate" BBC somehow counterbalances the corporate media is made absurd by the fact that, on issue after issue - global warming, sanctions against Iraq, the bombing of Serbia, Western support of Indonesia, inaction over East Timor, the history of US and British support of Third World tyrants - all promote near-identical establishment views."

Television and the media: the almighty inventors of false realities.

"I know the secret of making the average American believe anything I want him to. Just let me control television...You put somemthing on television and it becomes reality. If the [real] world contradicts the images [on television], people start trying to change the world to make it look like the images [on television]." (Hal Becker)

"They must find it difficult: those who have taken authority as truth rather than truth as the authority." (Gerald Massey)

"If it is not in the media it did not happen. If it did not happen but is in the media we believe it has happenned." (Charles T Tait)

FILM: Money as Debt

"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled."
John K Galbraith (Canadian economist, 1908-2006)

If you're like me you've probably never asked yourself how banks 'create' money. Similarly you probably didn't realise that 'creating' money was something banks did. Well, they do.

~

Everytime you take out a loan from a bank it 'creates' money. It does so by simply writing the money into existence in your account. The bank stakes little when it does this. It literally creates the money out of thin air. Yet you, who must labour to pay back the loan, plus the interest, may lose your car, your house, or whatever else it was you used to back the loan if you cannot keep up the payments.

Can it really be that simple? Yes, it really is. The common and understandable fallacy is to think that banks lend money which they already have in their possession. They don't. They create money in the form of debt. Money is debt. Indeed if there was no debt, there would be no money for anyone to spend. 'If this is news to you', the film notes, 'you are not alone'.

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented...If you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.”
(Sir Josiah Stamp Director, Bank of England 1928-1941, reputed to be the 2nd richest man in Britain at the time)

Money as Debt is a clear and insightful 47min animated film about money, debt and our quite ludicrous banking system. It was made by Canadian artist Paul Grignon. It explains how our banking system came to be what it is today; how each and every one of us are in one way or another enslaved by it; how the 'central banking system' is doomed ultimately to collapse (its design makes this inevitable); and the film also offers some real solutions for change.

For more information about the film including a full transcript, references, endorsements and a wealth of quotes, see the Money as Debt website. Watch the film below or on google here.

On the eighth day God created the banker

In the beginning there was - a goldsmith. The paper and coins that we call money today originated from receipts written by the goldsmith for gold that people deposited in his vault. Crucially the paper recepits written by the goldsmith were not 'money' and were not thought of as 'money'. The money was the gold. The paper was just that, paper, a receipt.

One day the goldsmith had an idea. He realised that since he was the only one who knew what was in his vaults he could write out paper receipts for gold that he didn't actually have. Since he made interest on gold deposited in his vaults, this new scheme would allow him to earn interest on entirely ficticous gold. Meet the banker.

Fiat currency

'Fiat' means by 'official sanction' or decree. So 'fiat currency' is money created by the sanction of government.

Fractional reserve requirements

In the past the total amount of currency in existence was limited to the total amount of gold in existence (or whatever physical stuff was used to back the currency). As such, in order for more money to be created, more gold had to be mined. However since our currency is not backed by gold - or indeed anything at all - the only real limit to the amount of money in circulation is the amount of debt that can be created by banks. Fractional reserve requirements are a somewhat arbitrary limit set by government on how much debt or money banks can create.

~

For example, on a fractional reserve requirement of 9 to 1 a bank with an initial deposit of £1,111 can make a loan of £10,000. This £10,000 is brand new money, brand new debt. Today - as a result of lobbying by banks - fractional reserve requirements of 20 and 30 to 1 are not uncommon.

~

Time lag

~

It's only the time lag between the moment when debt (or money) is created and the time when it must be repaid that keeps the shortage of money from catching up and bankrupting the entire system.

~

"One thing to realize about our fractional reserve banking system is that, like a child’s game of musical chairs, as long as the music is playing, there are no losers."

(Andrew Gause, Monetary Historian)

~

Other quotes

"I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that banks can and do create money...And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people"
(Reginald McKenna, former Chairman of the Board, Midlands Bank of England)

“Thus, our national circulating medium is now at the mercy of loan transactions of banks, which lend, not money, but promises to supply money they do not possess.”
(Irving Fisher, economist and author)

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
(Mayer Amschel Rothschild, International Banker)

"Everyone sub-consciously knows banks do not lend money. When you draw on your savings account, the bank doesn't tell you you can't do this because it has lent the money to somebody else."
(Mark Mansfield)

“Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal, that there is no human relation between master and slave.”
(Leo Tolstoy)

“None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
(Goethe)

"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws...Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognised as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile."
(William Lyon Mackenzie King)

9/11 Truth Movement: Karen Johnson at Arizona State Senate

On 10 Jone 2008 Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson called on the Arizona Senate to endorse a new and independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Johnson spoke of the inadequacy of the official 9/11 investigations which failed to reveal the full truth of the largest terrorist attacks on US soil in the country's history. Johnson paid specific attention to the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory that the three WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were each brought down by controlled demolition and not, as the official investigations claim, fire and damage from the airplane impacts.

In attendence was Blair Gadsby, a professor of religious studies who has been on hunger strike for over two weeks outside John McCain's office, demanding that McCain look at new evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks.

BBC's Pro-Israeli Bias by Stephen Lendman

Whilst the main focus of Lendman's article is the BBC's pro-Israeli bias, his overall analysis of the BBC at the begginning of the article seems accurate to me. Pro-government, pro-big business; "a propoganda system for elite interests". Whilst here and there it is possible to find honest investigative reporting on the BBC (for instance Panorama's recent Daylight Robbery by Jane Corbin), such instances are rare.

And Lendman is right to note how little difference there is between the BBC and its Anglo-American corporate counterparts. To my eyes their content seems largely indistinguishable, cetainly in terms of reporting about corporate and governmental corruption. Take (again) the BBC's Daylight Robbery, an incisive television piece about corporate financial corruption in Iraq. The film estimates that some $23billion is unaccounted for, stolen or missing from the massive corporate contracts awarded by the US government to the multinational corporations. It picks out the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown Root (KBR) as a major benificiary of the missing billions.

Whilst such journalism should be applauded and its like encouraged, we may equally ask the BBC why there was no headline story about it on their website (my search showed there was no accompanying story at all)? Or why such war-profiteering does not make the nightly news when over 1.1million people have today been killed in the cause of the making of those billions?

Global Research, June 13, 2008.

'In its near 86 year history, BBC has a long, unbroken and dubious distinction. Today it's little different from its corporate-run counterparts in America, Britain and throughout the world. In fact, on its tailored for a US BBC America audience, what passes for news matches stride for stride what people here see every day - mind-numbing commercialism, shoddy reporting, pseudo-journalism, celebrity and sports features, and other diverting and distracting non-news that should embarrass correspondents and presenters delivering it. It offends viewers and treats them like mushrooms - well-watered, in the dark, and uninformed about the most important world and national issues affecting their lives and welfare.

That's the idea, of course, and has been since BBC's inception. John Reith was its founder and first general manager. Reassuring the powerful, he set the standard adhered to thereafter: "(You) know (you) can trust us not to be really impartial." BBC never was and never is.

Impartiality has no place on BBC nor does its claim about "honesty, integrity, (and being) free from political influence and commercial pressure." How can it? Its Director-General, Executive Board Chairman, BBC Trust Chairman and senior managers are government-appointed and charged with a singular task - to function as a "propaganda system for elite interests." On all vital issues - war and peace, state and corporate corruption, human rights, social justice, or coverage of the Middle East's longest and most intractable conflict, Westminster and the establishment rest easy. They know BBC is "reliable" - pro-government, pro-business and dismissive of the public trust it disdains. Now more than ever.

This article covers one example among many - BBC's distorted, one-sided support for Israel and its antipathy toward Palestinians. In this respect, it's fully in step with its American and European counterparts - Israeli interests matter; Palestinian ones don't; as long as that holds, conflict resolution is impossible. Therein lies the problem. With its reputation, world reach, and influence, BBC's coverage exacerbates it...'

FILM: Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism [notes]

These are some of the notes I took whilst watching the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism (on freedocumentaries). Much of the film consists of testimony from former FOX insiders. Some were only willing to speak on condition of anonimity.

TRAILER

STATISTICS

Murdoch's Empire

9 satellite television networks
100 cable channels
175 newspapers
40 book imprints
40 television stations
1 fim studio

Murdoch's Audience

280 million: US television networks
300 million: Asia satellite networks
300 million: homes receiving his cable channels
28 million: read his magazines

Total Audience

4.7 billion people (can that really be true?)

NOTES

FOX News Channel was established in 1996. Roger Ailes, FOX CEO and chairman, said FOX's aim was to "restore objectivity" in the news. And to do "fine, balanced journalism". [Really, that's what he said.] He was formerly a media strategist in the presidential campaigns of Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr.

Murdoch was and is fanatically pro-Reagan. Reagan's birthday is treated by FOX like a religious festival, a holy day, with wall to wall coverage devoted to the great man...

Former employees speak of a kind of surveilled Stalinist system within FOX, a system where everyone is constantly monitored and in fear of saying the wrong thing.

Every morning FOX employees receive a list of what to report, how to report it, and a list of what to ignore or repress. If you don't tow the line you lose your job. A 23rd March 2004 FOX memo stated (on the 9/11 Commission) "don't turn this into Watergate".

The streaming banners and graphics are consciously designed to subvert the audience into accepting neo-conservative, pro-right ideas.

FOX is a Republican party political broadcast that runs 24/7. Nothing more.

A former employee spoke of how the "news flash" was used when the Columbine shootings occured, but then it soon started to be used for meanigless stories about celebrity and cultural trivia.

"Some people say..."

Opinions can't be disproved. "Some people say..." is a tool which allows the reporter or presenter to promote any political perspective he or she likes. It allows for lies to be peddled as truth. Everything is permissable.

FOX's devotion to Christianity compells them to run stories that ask such deep and searching questions as, "Why is Jesus so popular?"

Fear is the most economic and reliable weapon in the propoganda tool box. Make them afraid. Make them very afraid.

"Fair & Balanced"

A FOX slogan. Fair and balanced. But what law compells the media to report in a 'fair and balanced' way? It's a law called the "fairness doctrine". The fairness doctrine legally prevents the US media from reporting with undue bias...

Well, it used to. The "fairness doctrine" was abolished under Ronald Reagan. FOX and every other corporate news organisation in the US can legally say pretty much whatever the hell they like. So they do. End of story.

[You can see why Murdoch is so pro-Reagan. Reagan as good as gave Murdoch the keys to his Empire.]

The economy "is in great shape"

FOX default position. Bush has been great for the economy. Everything is just great.

Iraq "is in great shape"

FOX default position. The war has been great for Iraq. Everything is just great.