Fri, 17 December 2010
Never before has this program, Two Beers With Steve, had a guest who was as far into the Mainstream Media Culture as Jeff Cohen has been. Jeff Cohens bio reads like a guest on the McLaughlin Group, not this ol' shabby program... but please, nobody tell Jeff. I thoroughly enjoyed interviewing Jeff Cohen and I also thoroughly enjoyed his book Cable News Confidential (2006). Even though people have made the criticism of Jeff Cohen that he is a typical left-wing liberal I think his book and his rhetoric go beyond the two-party paradigm to expose something larger; corporate control. He speaks as though he has no mainstream media career to protect anymore and that may be true since he has established himself firmly in the alternative media system. This show was a departure from traditional topics but still is fascinating and worth a double-listen. Take care and let me know what you think about this topic... I'd be interested in knowing.
Comments[9]
|
-
Steve, I'm a trial attorney of the local government variety so I tend to drop off the radar for certain periods. That being said, I couldn't agree with you more regarding the media's backing of the "warfare" state. The media seems to endorse the notion that the United States has a right and duty to function as "Team American World Police." I'm at a loss as to the reasons for this so I will watch your suggested film, "Why we fight." Due to my occupation, I know a little something about producing quality evidence and vetting facts to present truthful arguments. Accordingly, Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations in justification of a pending invasion of Iraq was a turning point in my life and my trust in both the federal government and the mainstream media. Recall how after 9/11/01, the Bush administration immediately began making the Iraq connection. The media salivated and seemed to accept the government case as gospel. Powell's speech was something far more sinister than misleading propaganda. It was a calculated attempt to manipulate and mislead the United Nations and the American public. The mainstream media largely presented a chorus of approval and prepared its journalists to "embed" with military units. When my wife questioned the connection between Iraq and 911, I recited elements of Powell's speech back to her as if I were an anchor on the NBC nightly news. Years later, I have now come to realize that nearly every argument I repeated in support of war was based on manipulated evidence and information that had already been vetted and declared untrue by numerous intelligence agencies. To me, Powell's speech is the single, most prolific example of government deception in American history. That moment in time makes Watergate look about as significant as a traffic infraction and the media was complicit by failing to challenge, question and refute false arguments. Like a lemming, I recall repeating the WMD mantra as I applauded the build up to war. If a man can be impeached for lying about a stained dress, then what should be the punishment for conspiring to present a fabricated case for war to the entire world? Reporters no longer question, verify facts and think critically. Accordingly, anything coming out of the mainstream media such as "global warming"... no, I mean "climate change" should be studied by the consumer with caution. Grass roots internet productions like "Two Beers With Steve" present a new opportunity for people to reflect on points of view that both evaluate and challenge the propaganda churned out by the mainstream media.
-
Steve, I think what is being missed here is that the media isn't "liberal" or "conservative" but statist. To back up my assertion please take note of the media reaction to the protests of the TSA around Thanksgiving and, more recently, to the Wikileaks situation. The calls to "shut up and do as you're told" at the airports and for the death of Julian Assange came from right, left and center of the established media. These events have unmasked the media for what they really are. As far as I'm concerned I know what side they are on...and it's not mine. As for your guest, I may not agree with his politics but I can appreciate his perspective. Thanks for continuing to share this guilty pleasure of yours.
-
Steve, I think what is being missed here is that the media isn't "liberal" or "conservative" but statist. To back up my assertion please take note of the media reaction to the protests of the TSA around Thanksgiving and, more recently, to the Wikileaks situation. The calls to "shut up and do as you're told" at the airports and for the death of Julian Assange came from right, left and center of the established media. These events have unmasked the media for what they really are. As far as I'm concerned I know what side they are on...and it's not mine. As for your guest, I may not agree with his politics but I can appreciate his perspective. Thanks for continuing to share this guilty pleasure of yours.
-
Bill, I agree with you on that point, the media is certainly slanted towards liberal and progressive ideals on social issues. But I think he is correct about the 'liberal' medias stance on the warfare state, the corporatocracy, the fact that corporate interests are served over the interests of consumers, our foreign policy, and globalization. I don't think a corporation cares about our opinions on abortion and gays in the military because it doesn't serve their interests to take a stance. Now, on the toipic of war with Iran they have multiple interests and the media coverage will be slanted towards invasion. I don't think we want war with Iran but we certainly have a motivation to be at war with Iran. Watch the film 'Why we fight' to get a better explanation of this motivation. A good recent example of corporate and government interests interfering with popular media is the Wikileaks investigation. I rarely watch mainstream media but the slant towards more government secrecy and jailing/executing Assange is quite high. The opposite argument that we adapt a more open/less secretive government is not even being entertained. But alas, I don't watch all that much mainstream stuff so I could be wrong. But my general opinion is the argument isn't taking place. Thanks Bill, I was wondering why I hadn't heard from you in a while, Steve
-
Steve, An interesting conversation. However, as an avid consumer of print, internet, and television news, there is no doubt in my mind that those in the field of journalism are largely liberal as classically defined. I trend conservative on some issues and liberal (well, libertarian) on others. I truly enjoy NPR but hear the liberal, almost effeminate undertones of the hosts. Print media leaders such as the New York and LA Times can be counted on puyblishing stories sympathetic to liberal candidates, endorsing gay marriage and other socially progressive issues. When you look at the blowhard Rush Limbaugh and the commentators of Fox News, you are largely seeing hosts that developed outside of the field of journalism. Rush, for example, does not have a college degree. They have grass roots support. They are not products of the liberal media culture. Instead they are the beneficiaries of the demand they service. That's my opinion. Thanks for another interesting guest.
-
Chris, You certainly know more about the Printing Press than I do but I am currently learning more on the topic. I recently reserved the book Gutenbergs Galaxy by Marshall McLuhan at the library that speaks more on the subject. Much of what you said I have only just learned and I was trying to include that newly learned material into my podcast and may have mis-spoke... but only slightly I think. If you listen again I tried to correct myself... but this information of the medieval printing press and its impact are fairly new to me. Anyway, thanks for listening and could you suggest a good information source (video, podcast, book) that would be of value to me? The best I found was McLuhans book. Steve
-
Hey Steve -- I wanted to give a quick comment on something from your Jeff Cohen interview. You mentioned that the impact of the printing press was in the Progressive Era. I think you're wildly off base on this, and that you don't give full credit to the more immediate impacts of the Printing Press on transforming late medieval Europe. First, it completely undermined the stranglehold that the Catholic Church had on Northern and Northwestern Europe. Second, it produced an explosion of literacy throughout Western Europe -- which in turn planted the seeds of the entire Age of Reason (Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment). Third, the rapid spread of information and the rationalism that this engendered helped to undermine the attitudes of absolutism under the Divine Right of Kings throughout much of the Western world. Will the internet prove to be as completely transformative? It remains to be seen. The Printing Press was a highly decentralized technology that allowed for diffuse control over information. The internet, by comparison, relies upon highly centralized technology and means of production/control. I think that the recent WikiLeaks saga is case study no. 1 of what happens when the ends of the internet-- decentralizing capacity of open information -- comes into open conflict with the centralized institutions that control the means of the internet. Which side will win in this is still very much up for debate.... Anyway, thanks for providing another thought-provoking show that challenges the assumptions of your listeners -- no matter how much some of them may not want to have those assumptions challenged. ;-)
-
I encourage you to listen to the enitre interview, there is much to be learned from Jeff Cohen. If I could give a suggestion for you based on the last sentence you wrote I would encourage you to download the podcasts being put out by Stefan Molyneux. HIs work is almost at fever pitch as he leads up to FreedomFest. Beware your bias' (whatever they are) will be seriously contested. Steve-O
-
I started downloading your podcasts because I like your take on finance. But I could take about 10 minutes of this Cohen fool. People like him should emigrate to a country where they have the media and government he wants, and quit trying to destroy the USA with incremental socialism.
Post your comment:
