JUAN WILLIAMS, MEDIA MORONS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Juan Williams: Shouldn't have had the job in the first place.

National Public Radio (NPR) has fired political "analyst" Juan Williams. Let the storm in the wrong tea cup begin.

Among other things, Williams works for NPR and the FOX network.

Already there is much huffing and puffing about so-called "liberals" being too touchy and "conservatives" being too insensitive. And if you see someone on a plane in "full Muslim garb," as Williams put it on that disgusting freak-fest called The O'Reilly Factor on FOX, well, of course you're going to be nervous!

The mass media love to miss the point, keep us all arguing and getting upset, and maintain the status quo, rather than getting any real information and demanding true democracy. Here's my take.


PEOPLE WITH COMMON SENSE NEED NOT APPLY

Williams did not scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater -- or "Bomb!" on a crowded airplane -- and so he has a First Amendment right to say pretty much as he pleases. HOWEVER, it is way past time that we insisted on having journalists who really are ANALYSTS and don't spout simplistic crap and get well paid for it.

And that's a long line of so-called journalists we're talking about.

Mr. Williams argument that, hey, lot's of people think the same thing when they see a Muslim on a plane is a schoolyard-level argument.

To begin with, he's making an ASSERTION, not providing evidence -- unless he can prove he's psychic. But let's run with his assertion for now.

Even if some folks do feel some concern about seeing a Muslim in full "garb" on a plane because they've been brainwashed by a mass media machine that doesn't educate us as it blusters along in a bid to win advertisers, at least they have the sense not to say it out loud. Something in them recognizes that it is an irrational fear.

They know that "Muslim" rarely means "terrorist." That people have freedom of religion in this country. And, to make even the crudest of arguments, they know that terrorists usually just wear plain clothes when doing what they do.

As several other commentators have now pointed out, Williams' Muslim assertion has direct parallels with our stereotyping of blacks in this country. You simply cannot cite particular incidents to generalize about an entire race, creed, religion, etc. -- and we have to start insisting on that. Ask a college student: They teach the limitations of generalization in Logic 101 and statistics classes.

If other nations were to do that, guess what, NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHTS MINDS WOULD WANT TO BE AROUND AMERICANS! I mean, our government/corporations have invaded more nations than Britney Spears. But you and I didn't give the order. See what I mean?


IT'S UP TO US

Really, we need to look at ourselves. Our government, our media, our education system. And we as individual citizens need to speak out. The French put us to shame in this regard: which is why our government/corporations want us to hate them.

We get too much of our "education" from biased media talking heads who don't bother to explain what Islam is and the diversity within it -- among many other things they don't explain in their rush to be conservative, keep things as they are, and to win advertisers.

If you want to throw fuel on the extremist fire, just keep insulting religions.

Why don't we get the best minds in the country interviewed on FOX (and not cut them off every 30 seconds) and elsewhere? And yes, I'm talking about people like Noam Chomsky who I have mentioned in this blog before.

At day's end, the real issue is not whether Juan Williams had a right to say what he did. The real issue is whether we want simpletons and people with cynical agendas holding positions where their views are heard by millions of people.

I vote "no" on that one.

Take care,
Adrian Zupp

FOOTNOTE: I didn't want to make this post about NPR but I will say that I am not a complete fan. They have corporate connections that have biased their reporting at times and they are less "open" than many people think. Noam Chomsky talks about that fact in this YouTube clip.

IF YOU FOUND THIS BLOG POST INTERESTING I invite you to take a look at THE FIRST AMENDMENT BELONGS TO YOU.

FOX NEWS: SCUM NEVER SLEEPS, IT JUST BLOCKS FEEDBACK

The real fanatics of this world never cease to amaze me.

I have just been visiting various websites to see their Columbus Day coverage and posting my comments along with the address to my own Columbus blog post. (People obviously care because the traffic to my post shot up immediately.)

Then I went to the Fox News site and got exactly what I expected: bigotry and lies.

At the Fox site I found a story called "Let's Take Back Columbus Day" by one Thomas A. Bowden.

Now, one would think that such a title would be reserved for the indigenous peoples of this country. But no, Mr. Bowden thinks that the white guys have copped the grim deal over the whole Columbus Day thing.

Bowden makes a red-white-and-blue hurrah for Western Civilization. We didn't invent slavery or warfare (his word for genocide), he argues! Well, whether we did or not, we don't have to celebrate such things, mkay? Oh, and along the way, we kind of did PERFECT those things, as the lead warmonger nation on earth.

[I particularly "liked" this nugget: "By demonstrating how wealth can be created in abundance rather than stolen by armed force, America and the West supplied a moral alternative to the bloody tribal warfare of past eras." Hmm. Well, yes we supplied an alternative, but it was called "Total War" and I'm not sure how moral it is.]

Bowden's argument has more holes than the economy and is another disgusting example of Fox's unending propagandistic, revisionist swill. Anti-intellectualism and anti-humanitarianism at their most lurid. It's one ugly pitch.

But here's the kicker: Comments for the October 8 story were closed. I couldn't add my comment! Huh? What's the problem? Is the Fox tech boy out at a Columbus Day parade somewhere?

If this is such an important story, why can't we bloody comment on it?

That's your mass media, ladies and gentlemen.

In the name of fairness, (well, somebody has to be), I am including the link to Bowden's moronic, racist rant HERE.

Now, if you'll forgive me, I have to go and be sick.

Take care and bring all liars to heel,
Adrian Zupp

IF THIS BLOG WAS OF INTEREST TO YOU you might like to check out my original Columbus Day piece SHOULDN'T WE CELEBRATE CHARLES MANSON TOO?

TV -- PT. 2: WHY TV MATTERS

In his classic book "1984", George Orwell wrote: He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.

There is, today, a larger truth that Orwell could not have guessed at in the pre-TV days in which he was writing: Those who control the electronic media, control everything.


OWNERS AND LIARS

And that's why I'm blogging about TV. That's where, sadly, most people get their information from: commercial (and even public) stations with owners/advertisers/donors/CEOs determining their agendas.

Information of any real import, that comes from your TV (or newspaper or radio or commercial Internet site), is very rarely pure and objective. There are too many important people with a lot of money at stake who have an interest in what we-the-people do and don't know.

And these people own the media. Or they are in the same class of power elites. And the last thing they need is the truth about corporate welfare or Afghan babies being blown to pieces or how they (i.e. the elites) craft the news stirring up the masses and upsetting the gravy train.

When you think about it, you don't have to be an atom-splitter to see that this all makes perfect sense.


OPTIONS? WHAT OPTIONS?

And ask yourself this: Why, with so many news "options" (CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox, New York Times, Washington Post etc. etc. etc.), do all these outlets run pretty much the same stories in pretty much the same way?

There are a few answers:

1/ The mass media is owned by a relatively small number of corporations.

2/ Many news services feed off the same sources.

3/ All of these outlets make their big money by selling advertising space (profit motive = self-censorship).

4/ And above all, the status quo, the way things ARE, is what makes the elites the elites. So they aren't going to change anything about what kind of stuff they report or how they report it. Apart from the odd story here and there to give them the look of legitimacy or "balance."

So, really, you don't have much in the way of options -- or alternative points of view -- at all.


CHECK OUT CHOMSKY    

The expert in this field is Noam Chomsky. Take a look at his books on the media. And a classic resource is the documentary about Chomsky and his life of analyzing the media "Manufacturing Consent". (You can watch it online here.

Your TV delivers propaganda. Through news, commercials, and subtle messages and stereotypes in virtually every show you watch. And when it isn't doing that, it is dumbing us down and encouraging us to "veg out" and just not think. Again, that's what the folks in control want: If we think, we might start trying to change things.

Technically speaking, the airwaves belong to us -- public property! -- but they have been stolen by corporations. That's a fact. We should send the bastards a bill.

The Internet is an alternative means of mass communication that has great potential: but the corporations are trying to narrow our access there too. I will be writing on that another time.


WHAT CAN WE DO?

The "big idea" behind "House On Fire" is that if we are to make the world a truly better place for everyone, we need to change the structure of society: how things are owned and run, and by whom. We need to change the institutions, including the mass media. Yes, it's a very big notion, but not impossible. First, we all need to get better educated and better motivated.

-- Watch less TV. You'll feel better for it.

-- Make your voice heard about the censorship of the news and the garbage that you are being served up. (Write to the stations, newspaper editors, politicians.)

-- Don't let your kids get indoctrinated by Ronald McDonald or Coca Cola or the idea that "sex sells," or that cute-n-innocent Katie Courac or, for that matter, Rupert bloody Murdoch. Limit their TV time and monitor what they watch and TEACH THEM what you learn about TV.

-- Look for genuine, objective, non-profit sources of news like the excellent DemocracyNow.org (recorded daily in New York City).

-- Comment on Internet message boards.

-- Surf the Net for sites and organizations such as FAIR that are critical of the mass media .

CONCLUSION

Think of it this way: You wouldn't let a stranger -- someone with a sketchy background and questionable motives -- into your house. Well, every time you turn on your TV, that's exactly what you're doing.

And the TV execs know how to get you to smile while they make themselves at home.

If that's not adding insult to injury I don't know what is.

Take care and kill your TV,
Adrian Zupp

IF YOU LIKED THIS POST you might like to read TV -- PT.1: GETTING A GRIP ON REALITY or THE IDIOT CULTURE.

NOTES FROM DOWN UNDER -- PART 2

My brother has always been able to make me laugh but this time he was able to do it without trying.

We were at a petrol station outside of Sydney. I'd just bought something to eat as he was heading in to the cashier area to pay. I thought he'd used plastic at the pump.

"You're paying now?" I asked.

"Yeah."

"But you already got the petrol, right?"

"Yeah."

"The honor system?!"

That's right about when I cracked up.

Living in Las Vegas, I have about as much chance of pumping-then-paying as I do of beating one of the casinos into submission at the blackjack table. Ain't gonna happen.

And so it is that Australia is still a little bit, happily, behind the times.

But let's talk some Aussie politics.

Australia has a federal election this weekend. Following the lead-up while I was Down Under was simultaneously interesting, annoying and, to an extent, heartening.

Let's get this bit out of the way: The two party leaders vying to be Prime Minister are about as inspiring as a sea urchin. And that might be a bit "dirty" on sea urchins. The candidates are very average in the intelligence department, transparently rat cunning, evasive on specifics, and just bloody hard to listen to. They are, in short, true politicians.

They make promises and run through the "important issues," but make no effort to articulate HOW they will do what they say they are going to or WHERE the money will come from. And we all know damn well that they aren't going to be doing that stuff anyway. For example, the Liberal Party (conservative) leader, Tony Abbott, who is running to oust the incumbent Julia Gillard, is a proud Doubting Thomas about all this global warming stuff. Yep, a real genius who probably has mates in the petroleum industry.

So the pols in Australia have some commonalities with their U.S. counterparts; but they're not quite as vicious and evil and, frankly, don't have the same opportunities to be.

But one difference I did note about politics in Australia was in some of the media coverage.

One journalist on the government-run ABC TV station, Kerry O'Brien (pictured), has been dishing it up to the pollies for years. He totally exposed Abbott as an inept house plant with direct, meaningful questions. And Gillard was left to twist in the wind with parries like: "Yes, but you didn't answer my question!" It was like heaven to my ears after 15 years of the knuckleheads at Fox and CNN et al. And it shows why it's important to take media out of the hands of private owners.

(Visit the webpage for O'Brien's show "The 7:30 Report" here:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/)

And while the commercial channels were softer, Abbott and Gillard and co. definitely had to work harder for their biscuits than Obama ever has or ever will. Heaven forbid a "mainstream" American journalist should dare point out that, good gracious, the president-of-great-promise is, well, a liar. Or that his arithmetic on the "withdrawal" from Iraq doesn't really add up to a withdrawal at all. Five minutes with Kerry O'Brien would be very telling indeed.

Another Aussie TV station, SBS, was started 30 or so years ago -- again by the government -- to cover all the multicultural bases. So it offers news that really is international and films that you won't see on the English-speaking channels (not to mention excellent soccer coverage).

George Negus, another veteran Aussie TV journalist, hosts a show called "Dateline" on SBS. But unlike its American namesake, this program will actually show you deformed babies in Iraq so you can't just mindlessly eat your burger and fries and not think about the consequences of what your government does in the name of its "interests."

I urge you to visit http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/600687/n/Iraq-s-Deadly-Legacy and watch Negus' report "Iraq's Deadly Legacy."

Here is the lead-in to the segment. It will give you some idea of the difference between between what is reported within the United States and what is reported elsewhere:

"It is seven years since the invasion of Baghdad and only now is the US withdrawing its forces from Iraq, but the Iraqi people themselves, meanwhile, are having to deal with what appears to be a more immediate and devastating legacy from the war - stories are now emerging of increased deformities in the country's newborn babies as well as a dramatic rise in the number of children with cancer. Dateline's Walkley Award-winning reporter Fouad Hady, an Iraqi-Australian, went back home to investigate. As you know, Dateline always warns it’s viewers when they are about to show images or sequences that they think you might find upsetting. Well, George Negus had a long look at Fouad's piece and it's definitely upsetting - confronting, in fact. Nevertheless, he urges you to stick with it. It says a lot about the ethical dilemma of modern armed conflicts like Iraq."

There is a long way to go to get all the ducks lined up and quacking in Australia but, like Europe and, well, just about anywhere that isn't America (or some other totalitarian regime), you do get some real news. In the States there's much more mass media, and much less news.

And the real news always reminds me of some bare truths. Especially when I see all those suffering children and the way the U.S. buries that kind of information. And the main truth that hits me is this: If you believe there is a God, you can believe that He is very pissed off with what we've done on this planet.

Not the happiest of thoughts but it's not too late to dig in and change things. If you really care.

Onward,
Adrian Zupp

NEWS FLASH: MCDONALD'S IS PROUD TO LET GAYS EAT ITS CRAPPY FOOD

There's a media/Internet swirl going on about the new McDonald's commercial in France that has a gay theme.

I'm for complete and unequivocal acceptance of all nationalities, creeds, faiths, genders, sexual orientations etc. But I am very leery when corporations start making a buck off of it.

First it was green washing, now it is "gay washing."

If the ads help promote acceptance then I am happy for that as an unintended outcome. But it wasn't McDonald's goal. The company where I work, Harrah's Entertainment, is on the same bandwagon. There's something unashamedly cynical about it all, if you ask me.

Of course, a certain Fox talking head (I hate using his name) couldn't wait to jump all over this. More ratings for him. Better chance of getting a fatter contract next time for spewing his bilious nonsense.

He wondered on air, to millions or people who have nothing better to do than watch his personality disorders on the tube every evening, whether McDonald's might go one step further and air an Al Qaeda commercial. I posted the following response on a Care2 message board (see URL below). It sums up my thoughts on the TV "commentator" in question and the McDonald's ad.

By the way, although I am more than happy to denigrate the right wing hatemongers who clog the airwaves, we should always regard them as dangerous. Until our society is more broadly skeptical and analytical, we cannot dismiss these jerks lightly. These snakes know how to slither into any cracks.

Here's what I wrote:

"O'Reilly is such a spotlight pig he is usually best ignored. An undercurrent here that worries me is that corporations are 'gay washing.' They care about money, not people. Everybody should feel comfortable everywhere. But if McDonald's ran a cost-benefit analysis and found that homophobic commercials brought in more cash, they'd be looking for a 'tasteful' way to do that. I want acceptance of everyone. But we shouldn't take it on any terms."

We're all in this world together. The things we have in common are what matter. Our differences just make things more interesting.

Take care,
Adrian Zupp

*Care2 URL for McDonald's advert:
http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/bill-oreilly-gay-mcdonalds-ads-whats-next-ads-for-al-qaeda/