Mainstream Media Critics Call For “Truth with Consequences”

The “Truth Emergency Movement” (http://www.truthemergency.us/ ) held its first national strategy summit in Santa Cruz, California Jan. 25-27, 2008. Over three hundred whistleblowers, investigative and citizen journalists, bloggers, and independent media providers braved stormy weather to discuss decentralized, critical, and alternative models for the creation and distribution of suppressed news.I drove from Sacramento and represented three alternative media venues that I write for: “Because People Matter,” the “OB Rag,” and the “media Left network.” The conference lasted three days. Undoubtedly, the room was filled with people like me who are sick and tired of the sensationalist pabulum and propaganda fed to us from the mainstream media.

The “Publicizing Truths with Consequences” conference defined itself as “seeking to discover in this moment of Constitutional crisis, ecological peril and widening war, ways in which top investigative journalists, whistleblowers and independent media activists can transform the way Americans perceive and defend their world.”

It won’t be easy. Critics face a highly administered system based on ignorance, fear, censorship, deeply entrenched propaganda practices, and an increasingly authoritarian institutional synthesis of the corporate world, the established media, the two party political system, and the military machine. Endless war is just one consequence. Many of the participants expressed concern that our democracy will not survive the decade. Some maintained that it is already a thing of the past.

For many Americans an issue is not real, doesn’t exist, until they see it in the newspapers or on TV. We do not really know what we know because what we know is often what is depicted in the mainstream news through a distorted lens that fails to tell us what is real. We seldom get “real news.” Because the mainstream news both defines and limits what is considered respectable political discourse, we in the alternative media have to create new critical means to interrogate the official story.

The conference had several speakers. People were asked to participate in different affinity groups. The conference featured an impressive roster of journalists, publishers and documentary filmmakers such as Academy Award-winning documentarian Barbara Trent who received an Oscar in 1992 for The Panama Deception. Other speakers included peace activist Cindy Sheehan, rebel journalist Danny Schector (founder of “the Media-Channel”), and former Congresswoman and Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney.
Attendees also heard a disembodied message from Dennis Kucinich who was essentially banned from the Presidential debates once the primaries started.

Below is a statement from two of the conference organizers, Professor Peter Phillips of CSU Sonoma State’s “Project Censored,” and David Kubiac , formerly of “9/11 truth.org.”

Truth Emergency US

By Peter Phillips and David Kubiak

Many economists now doubt that government measures can prevent a major recession given the severe slump in the housing market, the subprime mortgage crisis, growing unemployment, declining consumer spending, and record high oil prices. Even harder times for working people are undoubtedly at hand, yet mainstream corporate media continues to lavish more attention on the Super Bowl and celebrity misadventures than measures to protect Americans from grave personal economic harm. We are spun, mislead, propagandized and amused to death by our media conglomerates and as a result the US has become the best entertained and least informed society in the world.

There is a literal truth emergency in the United States, not only regarding distant wars, torture camps, and doctored intelligence, but also around issues that most intimately impact our lives at home. For example, few Americans know that there has been a thirty-five year decline in real wages for most workers in the country, while the top 10% now enjoy unparalleled wealth with strikingly low tax burdens.

George Seldes once said, “Journalism’s job is not impartial ‘balanced’ reporting. Journalism’s job is to tell the people what is really going on.” Michael Moore’s top-grossing movie Sicko is one example of telling the people what is really going on. Health care activists know that US health insurance is an extremely large and obscenely lucrative industry with the top nine companies “earning” $93 billion in profits in 2006 alone. The health-care industry represents the country’s third-largest economic sector, trailing only energy and retail among the 1,000 largest US firms.

Nevertheless, 16%of Americans still have no health insurance whatsoever and that number will not soon decline, as insurance costs continue to rise two to three times faster than inflation. The consequences are immediate and tragic. Unpaid medical bills are now the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the country, and the Institute of Medicine estimates that nearly eighteen thousand Americans die prematurely each year because they lack coverage and access to adequate care.

US private health care services differ markedly from other industrialized countries where single payer systems provide everyone with medical care as a basic human right. Unfortunately, objective media coverage and comparisons of single-payer public health care with our current profit-driven corporate system are almost non-existent at this time. To protect their bloated bottom lines, private insurance companies and HMOs invest heavily in lobbyists and corporate-friendly political candidates that promote their “indispensable” role in any future health care reforms. Besides their insider political influence, these firms deploy massive advertising budgets to discourage media investigations of the economic interests shaping our health policies today

Tens of thousands of American engaged in various social justice issues constantly witness how corporate media marginalize, denigrate or simply ignore their concerns. Activist groups working on issues like 9/11 truth, election fraud, impeachment, war propaganda, civil liberties/torture, and many corporate-caused environmental crises have been systematically excluded from mainstream news and the national conversation leading to a genuine truth emergency in the country as a whole.

Now, however, a growing number of activists are finally saying “enough!” and joining forces to address this truth emergency by developing new journalistic systems and practices of their own. They are working to reveal the common corporate denominators behind the diverse crises we face and to develop networks of trustworthy news sources that tell the people what is really going on. These activists know we need a journalism that moves beyond forensic inquiries into particular crimes and atrocities, and exposes wider patterns of corruption, propaganda and illicit political control to rouse the nation to reject a malignant corporate status quo.

This Truth Emergency Movement held its first national strategy summit in Santa Cruz, California Jan. 25-27, 2008. Organizers gathered key media constituencies to devise coherent decentralized models for distribution of suppressed news, synergistic truth-telling, and collaborative strategies to disclose, legitimize and popularize deeper historical narratives on power and inequality in the US. In sum this truth movement is seeking to discover in this moment of Constitutional crisis, ecological peril and widening war, ways in which top investigative journalists, whistleblowers and independent media activists can transform the way Americans perceive and defend their world.

Reflections on Super Tornado Tuesday

As both the Clinton and Obama campaigns were placing their spin on the voting results of Super Tuesday, unusually strong EF-4 tornadoes were churning violently through southern states leaving over fifty people dead and hundreds of homes torn to shreds. Let’s hope that the destructive and extremely rare February storms were not an omen of turbulent times to come.

McCain appears to have clinched the Republican nomination, although many argue that his support is “soft.” Yet, for the first time in years, it appears that the American conservative movement will not pick the Republican candidate. McCain is a moderate conservative, not part of the “values crowd.” It is still unlikely that Huckabee or Romney will catch him, in spite of the lamentations from the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh that McCain is a “liberal” and needs to be “stopped.”

The support for Huckabee and Romney reflects some fragmentation in sectors of the Republican Party, splits that may be very deep. It is questionable whether McCain can unite them. However, Republican pundits claim that a Clinton candidacy would unite all elements of the party because her husband was so hated. She earned their ire by talking about the right wing conspiracy that was trying to take down her husband. A kind of sexism blaming the wife for the husband’s perceived faults and reducing her to his shadow, will likely spew from the well oiled Republican propaganda machine at Fox News.

With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama essentially tied after Super Tuesday, it appears that the Democrats have a neck to neck race that may go down to the wire. Clinton won 8 states, including New York and California, while Obama was victorious in 13. At the end of the day the delegate count was almost even, with representatives from each camp claiming a small advantage.

There were surprises that stirred up the political winds. It appears many voters made up their minds at the last minute. Clinton won Massachusetts in spite of Kerry and Kennedy’s strong endorsements of Obama. Race and gender played a role. Clinton got support from women, Latinos, and the elderly.

Obama lost California, but made it significantly closer than pre-election polls had predicted. Obama excelled in states where caucuses determined the outcome. Obama got more support from blacks, the young, white males, and from voters with a higher income, or what some commentators referred to as “the Starbucks crowd.” The momentum seen in Obama’s campaign has been called an “insurgent campaign,” and some are predicting that he will pull ahead in the next two weeks. Supporters believe his superior oratory skills will trump the Republican’s power in the media.

There is a danger here for Democrats. Without a historic compromise at the end, the Democratic contest, the contest could implode into a bitter fight and split the Democratic party, especially if the contest is decided at the last minute by the “super delegates,” which represent 20 % of the total delegates. This means that the nomination could be decided by party insiders. Some Democrats still hope that Al Gore will step in at the last minute, but this is also highly unlikely and would create a different set of troubles.

Many have commented on the rarity of this race - a woman and a black man of mixed descent competing to the end for the top political office in the nation, and being legitimate contenders at the same time. A victory for either would be historic in its own right, a story for the history books. A joint ticket, however, is highly unlikely given the wounds that have already been opened, even though such a ticket would be a sure winner. It is hard to see either candidate accepting a subordinate VP position.

The momentum seems to be with Obama who more than doubled Clinton’s fundraising totals in January. Clinton is now loaning campaign money (5 million) from her own pocket, and this is not a good sign. Some are predicting Obama will soon receive the endorsements of Gore and Edwards to boost his chances of creating some separation..

Obama supporters claim that the Democrats have a better chance of winning because he opposed the unpopular Iraq War from the beginning, whereas Clinton showed poor judgment when she voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. John Mc Cain supported it outright . Clinton eventually changed her tune when she became aware of the strong anti-war position of rank and file Democrats and most Americans. John McCain, who has never seen a war he didn’t like, has spoken of winning, even if takes a hundred year U.S. occupation of Iraq.

What happens in Iraq and the economy could very well determine who wins the Presidential contest. A Democratic victory is not assured, even though at this stage it appears likely. One certainty of Campaign 2008 is that the Democratic nominee can expect a full-scale barrage of vicious Republican attacks. You can tune in to Fox News to watch them. And don’t be surprised if the name Karl Rove pops up once again!

Whatever happens, it remains to be seen whether the Presidential victor will stop the horrid war in Iraq. We all have a responsibility to protest if they don’t.

The 2008 Elections and The Peace Movement

Recent surveys show that American voters have a critical view of how things are going in the country, and that they are confident that the next American President will have the power to change much of what is wrong. Voters begin this election year with a grim assessment of the status quo. Roughly three-fourths say the country is on “the wrong track.” Some say the Democrats don’t have the spine to improve things. In my view, progressives have to push the Democrats to end the war, restore our civil liberties, particularly the right of “habeas corpus,” and to protect our environment.

In short, even if the Democrats win, the progressive peace movement needs to continue to “bear witness” to the crimes that our government, the CIA, and the Pentagonians are committing in foreign lands against people that have never harmed or attacked America. We must continue to protest, to act outside the electoral process, to stand up for our rights, speak our conscience, defend human rights, even if our so called “leaders” can’t.

Yet, I agree with those progressives who argue the need to strategically vote “democratic” in the elections - just to get some room to maneuver. The American unions, and most civil rights and environmental groups, consider it imperative to get the Democrats elected and in the White House, and they are certainly a part of progressive America. They may be right, given the lack of any genuine practical alternatives.

We need to vote for the Democratic nominee and get the neo-cons and the Republicans out of the White House. I know, I know - we have all heard this sorry story before, we have all been betrayed before, and the historical record of the party over the last few decades makes us nauseous.

Yet, I will still compromise and vote Democratic just because I fear what another Republican victory would do for the Supreme Court, and frankly, for the American people and the world. There is some evidence of division and stirrings of rebellion at the elite levels of the American ruling class, including among the intelligence agencies and the military, regarding the course being followed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the future course to be pursued with regard to Iran.

A Critical Historical Juncture For Americans

Tom Hayden, in THE NATION, writes that progressives and peace movement should vote Democratic in the next Presidential election to stop the further consolidation of power on the Right. I agree for many of the reasons cited below. I know that some will call me a “sell out” for compromising with the two party “duopoley” and for voting Democrat rather than voting for a Green candidate or a Peace and Freedom Party Candidate. In my view, we are at a critical historical juncture in American history. We cannot let the country move further to the political Right, or allow the Republican Party to remain in power. The pendulum needs to swing the other way just enough to give progressives more air to breath, more hope, and more freedom to speak.

Frankly, what has already occurred is historic, something I never thought I would see in my lifetime - that we have a woman and a black man of mixed decent as the two leading contenders for the Democratic Party Presidential nominations. All the other candidates have dropped out! More amazing is the pronounced support for Barack Obama among the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, represented by the recent rousing endorsements by John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy. Who would have, could have, predicted this?

Both Democratic candidates are intelligent and qualified to be President. Hillary Clinton has stirred the hopes of millions of women who would love to see a strong and intelligent female President sitting in the White House. Her victory would be historic. Barack Obama has charisma, and has attracted large numbers young and black people, while showing us that he can attract white voters and female voters as well. His message of hope and change seems to have tapped into the boiling well of frustration disturbing the American people. It is still an open question whether this type of frustration will translate into a Democratic victory against the pro-war John McCain, who will most likely be the Republican candidate in spite of Rush Limbo’s blustery squeals and protestations..

The tide of the “conservative revolution” that placed a clique of neo-con ideologues and warmongers in the White House has ebbed significantly as a result of a failing economy exacerbated by the costly debacle in Iraq. The Republican Party is facing a serious credibility crisis, and the polls and surveys show very low ratings for Bush and Cheney. I have personally talked with Republicans who are so disgusted with the Bush administration that they will vote Democratic in the next election. Independents are also leaning heavily on the Democratic side of the ledger.

Of course, anything can happen between now and next Fall, and none of us has a crystal ball. . Another terrorist attack could place the ball right back in the Republicans hands, although a terror attack in Spain had the opposite effect. We have no guarantee that the Democratic candidate would win.

What The Democrats Would Likely Do

Yet, the Democrats could potentially control both the Congress and the White House. If they win the elections by a big enough margin, they could begin to undo some of the damages that the Bush administration imposed on the American people. Of course the Republicans would squawk and resist and try to mobilize opposition. And it wouldn’t be easy -the Democrats would inherit a jittery economy on the verge of recession and an America suffering from a serious housing and financial crisis and two counter-insurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, they have some responsibility for both wars.

What else are the Democrats likely to do? They would raise taxes to provide more support to poor and desperate Americans. They could pass legislation in support of universal child health care, a first step toward universal health care, and pay for it through an increased progressive tax base that takes a greater amount of money from the rich. They would likely create a more favorable balance in the Supreme Court through the appointment process. They would protect Roe vs. Wade. They would restore “habeas corpus” rights and other civil liberties that were removed by Bush. These are not insignificant possibilities.

The Democrats certainly would be more supportive of the unions and the right of American workers to make a living wage. This is why most unions are saying it is essential that the Democrats win. They would be somewhat better on the environment and would most likely join the rest of the world in fighting global warming. Finally, there would be much pressure on them from the American people to end the war in Iraq, although here they will face resistance from the Republican Party, establishment bureaucracies like the Pentagon and the CIA, as well as the privately organized Right.

The Critics View: “Repugs and Dimocrats!”

However, I understand the resistance of those cynics who say “no,” who refuse to compromise and vote Democrat, or even participate in the electoral system. The wars go on and on, and a shameless bipartisan Congress keeps funding them. Little wonder, they say, that the American people have so little respect for Congress today.

The critics also say the Democrats have failed us in as much as they have refused to use the tools (like impeachment) available to them to prevent this country from degenerating into a hyper-militaristic and paranoid “fortress America” with fewer civil liberties. I would agree that the trend of reaction and regression has been very strong. Yet, we cannot afford to fail to reverse the reactionary trend, and we must do what we can to change this country for the better. And at this juncture in history, that means to vote Democratic.

Recently, I saw a cartoon poking fun at “the Repugs and Dimocrats.” I laughed. Nader is at least partly right when he claims the two party system is corrupt and compromised by money from the corporate establishment. Journals like COUNTERPUNCH, and many on the Left, believe that both parties are war parties, and that neither is capable of defending the Constitution or the genuine long term interests of the American people. In fact, COUNTERPUNCH argues that there is not “a dimes worth of difference” between them. I disagree , for the reasons cited above.

“Vote Democrat,” the critics mock, “that’s the same old recycled BS that we on the left are sold every Presidential election year.” Then we are invariably betrayed. And the wars go on and on, the environment disintegrates, and the gap between rich and poor grows exponentially.

In spite of my decision the vote Democratic, I would agree up to a point with those who maintain that the current two party system has increasingly been dysfunctional. Both parties have responsibility for the imperial overstretch that currently characterizes the American Empire. It may even be true is that the American political system as it is structurally organized cannot adequately address the serious problems we face, and needs serious transformation before the government becomes “a failed state.” We have a legitimacy crisis which is also a political crisis in America, and the possibility of two stolen elections testify to that.

With the critics, I agree that Ralph Nader did NOT cost the Democrats the election in 2000, a line promoted by the Democratic Party to absolve itself of responsibility. The election campaign in 2004 was poorly run, actually emphasizing John Kerry’s military service in Vietnam, a strategy that obviously backfired. Bush was selected by the Supreme Court and has been sitting in the white house ever since.

Many in the Democratic party also went along timidly with the rigged election, supported the invasion of Afghanistan, voted for the use of force in Iraq, voted for the “Patriot Act,” and voted over and over again to fund the war of aggression in Iraq, and refused to impeach Bush, etc., etc, And it is true that during the past decade the Democrats have been stumbling over themselves to show us that they worship the military as much as the Republicans. In fact, their behavior during the last decade has been abominable, and they have increasingly acted like Republicans embracing the deep structure of militarism and imperialism that is so dominant in our society and culture.

Like the critics, I am truly sick of it! Sick of the endless wars, the endless sell outs, the surrendering of our civil liberties, and the endless privatization of health care, education, and even warfare. So I don’t wonder why people are skeptical and cynical, or why Congress has such a low approval rating. Still, it is important that we thoroughly repudiate the Republicans in a landslide.

While I recommend that people vote for the Democratic nominee, I know that inevitably progressives and peace activists will once again be disappointed. Some will be further radicalized if there is no real change. We must stay active and hope that we can build a social movement that can change America. Right now, however, we desperately need air and room to breathe.