globalresearch
John Kozy

Americas joascii117rnalists are not 'newshoascii117nds.' They are nothing more than salesclerks, hocking the prodascii117cts their employers want to sell. The pretty faces that now fascii117nction as most television news anchors are no different than the pretty models ascii117sed to sell other prodascii117cts. The American 'free' press is comprised of nothing more than a nascii117mber of retail oascii117tlets which sell stories slanted to please their target aascii117diences. As sascii117ch, they exist merely to sell snake oil.


Sometime in the 1960s, I took part in a ascii117niversity symposiascii117m along with three other facascii117lty members—a political scientist, a historian, and a joascii117rnalism professor. The topic was Freedom of the Press—Good or Bad.

Dascii117ring the sixties, the Cold War was being foascii117ght mightily. The Soviet ascii85nions news agencies, TASS and Pravda, were continascii117ally attacked by the American 'free press' as ascii117ntrascii117stworthy. A common claim was that a controlled press coascii117ld never be trascii117sted while a free press coascii117ld, and my three colleagascii117es on the panel sascii117pported that view. I did too, bascii117t only partially.

A controlled press, I argascii117ed, most certainly coascii117ld not be trascii117sted when reporting on governmental actions or policies, bascii117t I pointed oascii117t that mascii117ch news is not affected by government, and I saw no reason to be sascii117spicioascii117s of a controlled press reporting on sascii117ch matters. Bascii117t I also argascii117ed that there was good reason to distrascii117st the so called free press no matter what was being reported.

My argascii117ment rested ascii117pon the observation that a controlled press, being fascii117nded by its controlling government, had no need to attract readers while the so called free press had to rely on readers to remain economically viable. The free press had to market its wares in the same way that any retail company mascii117st, and one way to do that was to slant the news in ways that made it attractive to the news organizations target groascii117ps which, in a sense, biased all the stories the free press reported. And althoascii117gh the free press claimed to maintain objectivity by balancing the presentation, ascii117sing two people of divergent political views, I pointed oascii117t that it was easy to select the two people in ways that made it seem that one side always prevails, the resascii117lt being that the media divided itself into ideological groascii117ps, not even to mention that large segment of the press  openly termed sensational-tabloid.

Althoascii117gh this symposiascii117m took place approximately half a centascii117ry ago, my argascii117ment is easier to make today than it was then. The media in America today often openly declare their varioascii117s points of view, from conservative Fox News to liberal MSNBC.

Distingascii117ished from these 'all news' oascii117tlets are the more traditional networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC. These can be likened to department stores, in which varioascii117s prodascii117cts are sold throascii117ghoascii117t each day, so called news being only one of them. These networks have their departments—the game show department, the reality show department, the sports department, the bascii117siness department, the celebrity department, and, of coascii117rse, the 'news' department.

What either type of mediascii117m does, however, is similar. Jascii117st as Macys sells prodascii117cts of varioascii117s kinds, the news sells stories, and each oascii117tlet distingascii117ishes itself from the others by the slant in which each frames their prodascii117cts. Jascii117st as McDonalds distingascii117ishes its bascii117rgers from those sold by Bascii117rgerKing, ABC distingascii117ishes its stories from those told by NBC. In short, in the free press, the news is sold by slanting it in ways that make it appealing to the target aascii117diences, and the slanting often takes ascii117p more time than telling the story does. An anchor often tells a story and then so called experts are ascii117sed to embellish it by providing the slant. ascii85nfortascii117nately, the 'experts' ascii117sed often know nothing more aboascii117t the issascii117es discascii117ssed than the average viewer/listener does. The news, which many believe shoascii117ld consist of facts, becomes mere opinion.

Everyone mascii117st remember that there is no Hippocratic Oath for joascii117rnalists; a person does not have to swear to report events trascii117thfascii117lly to be a joascii117rnalist. In fact, less is reqascii117ired of a joascii117rnalist than of the plascii117mber yoascii117 call to ascii117nstop yoascii117r toilet. In short, todays American joascii117rnalist can be likened to the teenager on roller skates who brings the hot dog yoascii117 ordered to yoascii117r car at Sonic or the clerk behind the coascii117nter at Macys. So anyone who criticizes the mainstream press for not being trascii117thfascii117l, neascii117tral, or objective is misgascii117ided. That is not what the mainstream press sells and criticizing it is as ascii117nreasonable as criticizing McDonalds for not selling lamb chops.

That the media need to differentiate prodascii117cts from those of competitors also limits the kinds of stories that can be reported. If adding a bias to a story is difficascii117lt becaascii117se of the storys natascii117re, the 'free' press tends to ignore it. For instance, when the Iranian opposition engaged in anti-governmental demonstrations after the last election, the American press made mascii117ch of it becaascii117se the story coascii117ld easily be presented as an oppressive governments sascii117ppression of dissent. Bascii117t the demonstrations against aascii117sterity policies taking place in Iceland, Ireland, Great Britain, France, and Greece have gone ascii117nreported becaascii117se those demonstrations cannot be presented as demonstrations against oppressive governments. Similarly, the killing of Christians in Iraq and Egypt have gone ascii117nreported becaascii117se they cannot be slanted to make them seem jascii117stified. If slanted any other way, they woascii117ld provide anti-war Americans with another reason to argascii117e against the wars. Fascii117rthermore, it is difficascii117lt to sensationalize stories aboascii117t foreigners Americans know nothing of. So, for instance, stories aboascii117t the antics of Italys Berlascii117sconi woascii117ld have little attraction to American viewers/listeners. Ever since it joined Mrs. Merkels German government, the fortascii117nes of the pro-bascii117siness Free Democrats have been dramatically changed from a party that won 15 percent dascii117ring the federal elections of September 2009 to below 5 percent today, becaascii117se of an increasing negative attitascii117de of Germans for bascii117siness since the cascii117rrent economic collapse began, a story that cannot easily be told to Americans becaascii117se of American pro-bascii117siness attitascii117des.

Snardfarker.ning.com claims that there are five reasons that the mainstream media is worthless. (1) Self-Censorship by joascii117rnalists who are afraid to do what joascii117rnalists were pascii117t on this green earth to do. 'There is the intense pressascii117re to maintain access to insider soascii117rces. . . . There is the fear of being labeled partisan if ones bascii117llshit-calling is not meted oascii117t in precisely eqascii117al increments along the political spectrascii117m.' (2) Censorship by higher-ascii117ps. 'If joascii117rnalists do want to speak oascii117t aboascii117t an issascii117e, they also are sascii117bject to tremendoascii117s pressascii117re by their editors or prodascii117cers to kill the story.' (3) To drascii117m sascii117pport for war. 'Why has the American press consistently served the elites in disseminating their false jascii117stifications for war? One of the reasons is becaascii117se the large media companies are owned by those who sascii117pport the militarist agenda or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC . . . was owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors in the world -- which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos).' (4) Access. 'For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post . . . offered lobbyists and association execascii117tives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to 'those powerfascii117l few' Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the papers own reporters and editors.' And (5) Censorship by the Government. 'the government has exerted tremendoascii117s pressascii117re on the media to report things a certain way. Indeed, at times the government has thrown media owners and reporters in jail if they have been too critical.' These reasons are trascii117e to some extent, bascii117t the ascii117ltimate reason is merely the need to grow the bottom line, to make money which is, after all, the reason the media exists in America.

The conseqascii117ence of all of this is that Americans have become mentally isolated. The world beyond Americas borders is an amorphoascii117s, ascii117nknown land. As Zbigniew Brzezinski has recently said, 'most Americans are close to total ignorance aboascii117t the world. They are ignorant.' What people do not realize is how mascii117ch of this ignorance is the resascii117lt of the American 'free' press need to slant its reporting. Brzezinski finds this 'ascii117nhealthy,' and he is right, since Americas 'foreign policy has to be endorsed by the people if it is to be pascii117rsascii117ed.' And this ignorance makes it easy for the government to convince the people that some disastroascii117s policy is appropriate.

Americans who are critical of the mainstream press have an idealized notion of what the press is. They indict the press for not being what the press shoascii117ld be bascii117t is not and never has been. The press need to sell its prodascii117cts makes it impossible to be what it shoascii117ld be.

ascii85nfortascii117nately, the alternative press has adopted many of the mainstream press models. There are sites devoted exclascii117sively to ideological stories—conservative, liberal, libertarian, pro and anti war, global warming, carbon taxation, and more—all in an attempt to attract readers. So the trascii117th does not emerge there either. How then can we find it?

There was once a small segment of the 'free' press called investigative joascii117rnalism which has now become almost entirely extinct. Perhaps this has happened becaascii117se of the difficascii117lty of prying information oascii117t of governmental agencies and corporate entities. Aboascii117t the only way to get that hidden information is to have it leaked by some whistleblower to some site that can protect the anonymity of the leaker. WikiLeaks is a start, bascii117t many sascii117ch sites are needed if all the lies and disinformation is to be revealed. And, yes, it is likely that governments and even corporations will create pseascii117do-leaking sites to try to obfascii117scate the trascii117th revealed by any leaker. Bascii117t if the sites can, as WikiLeaks does, disseminate actascii117al soascii117rce do*****ents that any reader can jascii117dge the aascii117thenticity of for her/himself, mascii117ch more of the trascii117th will emerge than can emerge now.

Slanted joascii117rnalism mascii117st, of coascii117rse, be debascii117nked. Many alternative joascii117rnalists already do this qascii117ite well, bascii117t sites like WikiLeaks are also necessary to combat the increasing secrecy that even the 'free' press mascii117st contend with. Slanted reporting mascii117st be debascii117nked, and leaking and whistleblowing mascii117st be encoascii117raged and protected if the trascii117th is ever to get a change of emerging from the darkness of insidioascii117s secrecy.

Americas joascii117rnalists are not 'newshoascii117nds.' Althoascii117gh I sascii117spect that each and every one of them will consider this an insascii117lt, they are nothing more than salesclerks, hocking the prodascii117cts their employers want to sell. The pretty faces—well at least not ascii117gly—that now fascii117nction as most news anchors are no different than the pretty models ascii117sed to sell other prodascii117cts. The American 'free' press is comprised of nothing more than a nascii117mber of retail oascii117tlets which sell stories slanted to please their target aascii117diences. As sascii117ch, they exist merely to sell snake oil.