RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
North Dakota Wants the $38 Million It Wasted Policing the Pipeline Protests Back Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49295"><span class="small">Nick Martin, Splinter</span></a>   
Sunday, 21 July 2019 08:18

Martin writes: "On Thursday, North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem sued the United States government for $38 million in funds to recoup the taxpayer money the state poured into policing Indigenous protesters over the site of the Dakota Access Pipeline. If only the state hadn't wasted its money giving the construction companies all that free protection."

Pipeline protests in North Dakota. (photo: AP)
Pipeline protests in North Dakota. (photo: AP)


North Dakota Wants the $38 Million It Wasted Policing the Pipeline Protests Back

By Nick Martin, Splinter

21 July 19

 

n Thursday, North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem sued the United States government for $38 million in funds to recoup the taxpayer money the state poured into policing Indigenous protesters over the site of the Dakota Access Pipeline. If only the state hadn’t wasted its money giving the construction companies all that free protection.

According to the Billings Gazette, the lawsuit is the second attempt by Stenehjem to have the feds foot the bill. The Gazette reported Stenehjem argued in an administrative request filed in July that the Army Corps of Engineers was responsible for allowing the protestors onto (stolen) federal land, and thus the federal government is responsible for footing the bill the state’s local police forces racked up. (It is extremely important to remember that the Department of Justice already gave North Dakota a $10 million grant, in addition to the much more suspect, damning $15 million the state was paid by—wait for it—pipeline developer Energy Transfer.)

If you can get through it without cracking up, I encourage you to read the argument—offered by a white man, claiming that “dangerous” Native people trespassed on American land—that is supposedly going to convince the federal government to hand over $38 million.

“Those organized protests, launched from large makeshift encampments illegally located on federal lands, involved frequent outbreaks of dangerous, unsanitary, and sometimes life-threatening activities,” Stenehjam wrote, per the Gazette.

As another one of my colleagues already pointed out: Who, exactly, told you to fight the protestors in the first place, North Dakota?

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Denies Being at North Carolina Rally Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Saturday, 20 July 2019 12:39

Borowitz writes: "Donald J. Trump attempted to further distance himself from a racist chant shouted at a North Carolina campaign rally earlier this week by denying that he had attended the rally."

Supporters of President Donald Trump at a rally in Greenville, N.C., on Wednesday. (photo: Zach Gibson/Getty Images)
Supporters of President Donald Trump at a rally in Greenville, N.C., on Wednesday. (photo: Zach Gibson/Getty Images)


Trump Denies Being at North Carolina Rally

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

20 July 19

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


onald J. Trump attempted to further distance himself from a racist chant shouted at a North Carolina campaign rally earlier this week by denying that he had attended the rally.

“I wasn’t there,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. “If I had been there, you can be sure I would have done everything I could to stop them from chanting.”

Trump said that he was furious that thousands of people had apparently assembled in North Carolina to chant racist things when he was nowhere near the rally and thus totally incapable of intervening.

“It’s the kind of thing I would have been disgusted by if I had been there to hear it,” he said. “Unfortunately, I wasn’t there.”

On Capitol Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham lashed out at reporters for persistently claiming that Trump had, in fact, attended the rally. “If he says he wasn’t there, then, damn it, he wasn’t there,” a visibly furious Graham said. “How do you people sleep at night?”

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Guatemala: Finding a Voice in Indigenous Community Radio Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51200"><span class="small">Jared Olson, NACLA</span></a>   
Saturday, 20 July 2019 12:39

Olson writes: "Beneath the antennas is a metal-plated door. Behind that, in a sparse room with a paint-chipped table and a sprawling tangle of wires, sits Osmar Miranda, a radio operator."

Osmar Miranda, a radio operator for Radio San José. (photo: Jared Olson/NACLA)
Osmar Miranda, a radio operator for Radio San José. (photo: Jared Olson/NACLA)


Guatemala: Finding a Voice in Indigenous Community Radio

By Jared Olson, NACLA

20 July 19


Despite government opposition, community radio stations help Indigenous communities in Guatemala share their stories.

rom a pasty blue building behind a crumbling church in a Guatemalan highland village, a contortion of antennas stands raised against the sky.

Beneath the antennas is a metal-plated door. Behind that, in a sparse room with a paint-chipped table and a sprawling tangle of wires, sits Osmar Miranda, a radio operator. Adjusting the black knobs on a control board, he takes off his headphones and explains how Radio San José—one of the Central American country’s so-called “pirate radio” stations—offers its poor Mayan population one of the few ways to get their voices heard on the airwaves.

“Here in Guatemala,” says Miranda, “the role of the radios comunitarias (community radio stations) has been to give space to the poorest communities so that the people can express what they want—you know, ‘I want to speak, I want to say what I feel.’ You can’t do that in commercial radio.”

As he speaks, a man behind him is recounting, on-air, how his prison stint brought him to God, opening his eyes to the reality of social injustice. The day’s subsequent programs will discuss issues of political consciousness, alcoholism, addiction, and ecological crises, interspersed with periodic renditions of Marimba—Guatemala’s national music.

Radio San José is part of Asociación Mujb’ab’l Yol (“Mujb’ab’l Yol” means “Meeting of Ideas” in the Mam Maya language), a network of radios comunitarias that spans six departments, or states, in Guatemala’s mountainous southwest, where the majority of the population is Indigenous Maya. Despite constituting 40 percent of this Central American country’s population, Guatemala’s Indigenous peoples are rarely represented in their country’s media.

Radios comunitarias—local, volunteer-run, Indigenous-language radio stations—have worked to fill this media void, working to represent and stand up for Guatemala’s largest, but often silenced, minority. The government refuses to legalize them on the grounds that they “use unused frequencies.” Critics contest that this is legal chicanery, a pretext wielded to punish them for their real, unspoken crime: having created a platform for the voices of Indigenous people, the bête noire of the Guatemalan government.

Guatemala’s Indigenous people have long experienced persecution. They were forced into indentured servitude on coffee plantations in the early 1900s. They suffered a genocide at the hands of the military in the 1980s. And now, they’re being forced off their lands and assassinated in rising numbers as they resist the intrusion of transnational corporations into their territories.

Radios comunitarias like those in Asociación Mujb’ab’l Yol are comprised of socially conscious programming, presented in both Spanish and Indigenous languages, with content designed to raise awareness of political issues in marginalized Indigenous communities. By pricing time-slots, or unused sections of the day’s broadcast, at far lower rates than corporate radio stations, they encourage underfunded community organizations to get their voices heard on the airwaves, stimulating grassroots political conversations at the local level.

It’s all part of an ambitious mission: to reconstruct Guatemala’s moribund democracy from below. “Rebuilding,” as Alberto Tino Recinos, a social activist, former guerrilla, and founder of Mujb’ab’l Yol says, “the social fabric that was broken during the civil war.”

Borne out of Conflict

The social fabric Recinos refers to was destroyed during the civil war that wracked Guatemala from 1960 to 1996, a conflict that saw a scorched-earth genocide against Indigenous people from 1981 to 1983, killing roughly 100,000 people in a conflict that already consumed a quarter million lives.

The war’s myriad effects fed directly into the country’s current miasma of gang violence and political corruption. The former “death squads” that murdered thousands of social activists coalesced with traumatized, teenaged war refugees who’d escaped to the U.S., only to be deported back to Guatemala. Together, they created gangs like MS-13 that now terrorize Central American communities. And the enormity of the killings themselves—626 villages were wiped out entirely by the military during the war—terrified people so much that remaining silent in the face of injustice became a survival strategy, fostering a culture of impunity in which crimes almost always go unreported, unchallenged, and unpunished.

Today, many fear Guatemala is backsliding into deeper political corruption in the run-up to its August 11 runoff presidential elections. They come after the controversial expulsion of a UN-backed anti-corruption commission and a rising spate of assassinations of Indigenous activists.  

Amidst this chaotic political climate, radios comunitarias struggle to keep the voices of Indigenous people heard in the national conversation.

“Radios comunitarias speak in the language of the population,” says Roelio Fuentes, the founder of Radio San Jose. “If a radio comunitaria is in a region where a Mayan language is spoken, they do a lot of their programs in that language. They aren’t transnational (corporate) radios, nor radios that come from the capital, nor those that come to graze over our people’s culture. But the radios comunitarias faithfully express the feelings and beliefs of the community—in their own language.”

The members of radios comunitarias themselves don’t refer to their organizations as “pirate radios.” That epithet originated from the Guatemalan government, which through legal trickery has kept small radios representing Indigenous people suspended in a state of illegality. As a result, they’ve yet to be formally recognized—and therefore protected—under the law.

In the 1996 Peace Accords that ended Guatemala’s civil war, one of the key concessions made by the government was the right of Indigenous peoples to have their own means of communication. But in the years since, many have accused the government of reneging on this promise by finding loopholes in their lack of legal formalization. The Indigenous people’s advocacy group Cultural Survival calls it a “legal grey area” to criminalize and shut down radios comunitarias when politically expedient.

“Right now, we have a lot of fear of persecution,” says Felix Cabrera, the leader of Radio Concepcion, another community radio enmeshed with Mujb’ab’l Yol. “State authorities always tried to persecute radio journalists. They criminalize us. There isn’t a law that explicitly protects people’s right to express themselves.”

Illegality, or Racism?

Many say that government hostility towards Indigenous radio stations can be traced back to the centuries-old-racism directed towards Indigenous people. Guatemala remains extremely unequal, and the pervasive divide between Ladinos (white Guatemalans with little Indigenous blood) and Mayan masses still results in Indigenous peoples being regarded as unworthy of participating in the national conversation.

“The radios comunitarias have been very persecuted by the government, especially by purely political interests—or, by the monopoly, or oligopoly, if you will,” says Fuentes.

Evelyn Blanck, a journalist and activist with Asociación Centro Civitas, a Guatemala-based organization promoting democratic values, says that one of the loopholes used by the government to criminalize radios comunitarias is to accuse them of tapping into unused radio frequencies.

“They use a legal code to say that they (the radios comunitarias) are stealing a frequency,” Blanck says. “But a frequency cannot be stolen. And they do this to criminalize the radios and take their equipment away.”

That exact scenario transpired in February 2014, when state security forces raided Radio San Jose and stripped it clean of nearly everything—including the lone operator working the station that day. The raid on the station, a crumbling building in the village of San Jose, in the mountainous San Marcos department, was unannounced. Many say it was an attack not only on a local radio station but on radios comunitarias as a whole.

The pretext used to justify the raid was that the radio station was “inciting violence” and “not paying taxes,” despite the government’s refusal to legalize it. But many suspect it was meant to send a message of intimidation to radios comunitarias that amplify the voices of Indigenous peoples.

“A mountain of police came here,” says Miranda. “Twelve patrols, six men each. The public minister came soon behind them. They arrived, and the young man who was here unfortunately left the door open. So they were able to get in, seized all the equipment, the transmitters, everything. They left the room clean and took the operator away.”

After a month of despairing over their inability to free the radio operator—imprisoned but uncharged—the citizens of San José took matters into their own hands, kidnapping two police officers and sparking a showdown between the community and law enforcers.

A commission between three officials—a representative from COCODE, a government rural development agency, an assistant mayor from San José, and a member of the church—was set up to de-escalate the crisis. In the end, it was agreed that, in exchange for the release of the officers and a payment of 10,000 quetzales (1,300 U.S.) from the community to compensate for psychological damage, the radio operator would be released without any further arrests.

“There had to be a negotiation,” Roelio Fuentes says. “When they would give us the young man, we’d give them the officers. Then a judge came. But he deceived us. He was more in favor of the police. And in the end, we had to give back the hostages.”

Money and the Airwaves

State repression is only one of the challenges facing radios comunitarias. Far more pervasive is financial marginalization that sees them consistently bereft of the funds that are so desperately needed to continue their operations.

Far more well-financed are the commercial radio stations, which stand as a counterpoint to radios comunitarias and which dominate the Guatemalan media landscape.  The majority of these are foreign-owned corporate enterprises operating solely in Spanish, a fact largely incongruous with the vast spread of different languages spoken in the country. They rarely, if ever, engage with issues pertaining to Indigenous people and the prices for purchasing on-air time-slots are so prohibitively high that the poor are all but censored from getting their voices heard.

“There is a deeply undemocratic media in Guatemala,” says Sanjay Jolly, a doctoral researcher, freelance journalist, and a former volunteer with the radios associated with Mujb’ab’l Yol. “For a country rife with social conflict, to have a media like that is a serious impediment to constructing a serious democracy.”

“The whole media system isn’t regulated,” says Blanck. “So historically, the media in Guatemala has favored the private sector—those with money.”

A large percentage of Guatemalan media is produced outside of the country, in Miami and Mexico City. “It’s practically no secret today,” says Recinos, “that the owner of 26 radio stations in Guatemala is this Mexican, (Remigio) Angel Gonzalez.” Recinos says Gonzalez also owns four TV channels, and claims his objective is “boxing Indigenous people out from their own means of communication.”

Gonzalez is a Miami-based Mexican businessman who owns the media-conglomerate Albavision, which runs 114 radio and 35 TV stations throughout Latin America. His wealth was estimated to top $10 billion in 2010 and his family has been mired in financial corruption scandals. According to a 2001 report in Journalism Studies, Gonzalez—referred to as a media “caudillo” (or “strongman” in English) in Central America—oversees journalistic organizations in Guatemala and Nicaragua that “squeeze out voices opposed to the government” and “create an atmosphere that undercuts the development of democracy.”

When reached for comment, representatives from Albavision declined to discuss the issue of radios comunitarias.

War for the airwaves

Not only do commercial radio stations convey messages that are foreign to the realities of poor Indigenous Guatemalans, they often times deliberately attack radios comunitarias on their programs, accusing them of embodying criminality and subversion.

“On the commercial radios stations they’re always talking about how people from the radios comunitarias—which they call illegal radios—are corrupt, and even try to compare radio operators with narcotraffickers (drug cartels),” says Blanck.

Activists involved with radios comunitarias have fought since 2009 for the legal recognition they’ve so long been lacking. “We’re in the process, through the initiative of Law 4087 that we have in Congress, so that we can legally recognize the category of radios comunitarias as a right for Indigenous peoples,” says Recinos.

“There are very organized interests against the passage of 4087,” says Jolly. “There’s a deeply organized right-wing against all Indigenous society in Guatemala. There are very particular alignments of economic and ideological interests that have a real investment in the silencing of Indigenous communities.”

By facilitating investigative journalism that can spark conversations about local politics, radios comunitarias play a crucial role. But there are inherent dangers, not only in Guatemala but throughout Latin America as a whole.

Case in point: In early May in Oaxaca, Mexico, Telesforo Santiago Enriquez, the founder of the Indigenous radio comunitaria Estéreo Cafetal, was assassinated when unknown armed men ambushed him in his car. Santiago Enriquez was also a professor of Indigenous studies, as well as a known defender of Indigenous culture.

Seeing themselves for the first time

Radios comunitarias are known for hosting youth programs which bring in poor Indigenous teenagers to teach them the ropes of radio journalism, often times giving them the opportunity to voice their own concerns on-air. And in an era when cultural identity among minorities is increasingly valued, these programs allow Indigenous youths to finally see themselves represented in the media.

“These kids are really invisible,” says Jolly. “You don’t see any Indigenous kids on TV, you don’t see any in advertising. Almost no media outlet speaks their language. And they’ve come up in a culture of real violence—of state violence, drug violence, mass migration to the north. So, these kids really discover their voice for the first time through community radio.”

“Young people have talked a lot about the problems of alcoholism, of drug addiction, of interfamilial violence,” says Recinos of the youth programs. “Young people are tackling these subjects. And I believe that all of this will help contribute to the humanization of our society, through radios comunitarias.”

Carrying on the Struggle

Many of the operators in Mujb’ab’l Yol and other similar Indigenous radio networks are former guerrillas who once fought against the Guatemalan government. For them, the impulses that animated their decision to join the armed struggle have translated into their current roles with radios comunitarias, fighting for social justice for Indigenous peoples and against government impunity.

Recinos, who started the radios comunitarias of Mujb’ab’l Yol, is one of those ex-combatants. After his father was murdered by a government death squad in 1982, and after he’d believed his mother perished in one of the many massacres in the genocide, he spent 13 years as a militant in the URNG, fighting to protect his people from government-slaughter and to realize the dream of an unrealized revolution.

During that time, he helped create La Voz Popular (The Popular Voice), a guerrilla-run radio station located on the Tajumulco Volcano, a 14,000 ft. peak—Guatemala’s highest—in the country’s rugged southwestern sierras. Broadcasting from the Volcano’s cold, windblown, pine-forested flanks, and bombarded constantly with artillery and Napalm, he fought hard in La Voz Popular to circulate narratives about Indigenous people that would otherwise  be suppressed under military rule.

After the war ended, Recinos—depressed, despondent, sinking into alcoholism—took up the struggle for Indigenous rights once more by  using  the skills he’d learned as a radio operator for the guerrillas to found Mujb’ab’l Yol in 1998.

Even after all the years of bloodshed, Recinos still retains a glint of youthful idealism in his eyes. He speaks from the headquarters for Mujb’ab’l Yol, a crumbling concrete structure in a village on the outskirts of Guatemala’s second largest city, Quetzaltenango, an amoeba of urban sprawl in a hazy mountain valley. He says he doesn’t regret the social situation in which Guatemala finds itself. He believes the greatest prospects for social justice lay not in the thwarted dreams of the past, but in the potential that radios comunitarias offer in the present.

Recinos smiles warmly, gesturing to the memorabilia of radios comunitarias scattered around him. “For me, today,” he says, “this microphone is more dangerous than the gun I had on the mountain.”

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Rich Are Committing Crimes Against Nature Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46703"><span class="small">Meagan Day, Jacobin</span></a>   
Saturday, 20 July 2019 12:39

Day writes: "Mansions, superyachts, luxury cars, and private jets produce more carbon emissions than whole countries. Researchers are calling it 'green crime.'"

Researchers estimate that there are about three hundred superyachts in operation around the world. (photo: YH)
Researchers estimate that there are about three hundred superyachts in operation around the world. (photo: YH)


The Rich Are Committing Crimes Against Nature

By Meagan Day, Jacobin

20 July 19


Mansions, superyachts, luxury cars, and private jets produce more carbon emissions than whole countries. Researchers are calling it “green crime.”

esla makes a battery-powered product called a Powerwall that pairs with solar panels to meet your home energy needs. This “must-have item for any truly green home” goes for over five thousand dollars. Most people can’t afford that up front, so even though solar may save money and help the planet in the long run, use of the Powerwall is restricted to people with cash to burn.

If your understanding of sustainable consumption were limited to just this example, you’d come away thinking that rich people must be a much more eco-friendly bunch than poor people. But you’d be missing the forest for the trees. While the wealthy have an ever more dazzling array of green consumer products at their fingertips, the impact of those gadgets is nothing compared to the overall ecological destruction wrought by luxury consumption habits.

A new paper called “Measuring the Ecological Impact of the Wealthy: Excessive Consumption, Ecological Disorganization, Green Crime, and Justice,” published by researchers Michael J. Lynch, Michael A. Long, Paul B. Stretesky, and Kimberly L. Barrett, takes a long hard look at the role of the rich’s consumption habits in destabilizing the climate.

The researchers contend that when a person has vastly more money than they need to live, “acquiring property and consuming excessively become marks of distinction, and to earn those marks, the leisure class must consume.” This leads the rich to buy, build, and operate things like superyachts, super homes, luxury cars, and private jets. It would take an awful lot of Powerwalls to offset the damage done by the proliferation of these luxury consumables.

The researchers estimate that there are about three hundred superyachts in operation around the world. A person has to have individual wealth upward of $30 million in order to afford even the smallest one; the upper price is close to $1 billion. These things guzzle oil and spew pollution. Tally it up, and the world’s superyacht fleet uses over thirty-two million gallons of oil and produces 627 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year — all of it for the personal enjoyment of the extremely rich. The world’s superyachts consume and pollute more than entire nations.

Super homes, which the researchers define as homes greater than twenty-five thousand square feet, are similarly devastating for the environment. The average square footage of these homes is closer to forty thousand, and their average price is just under $28 million. The researchers couldn’t calculate the entire ecological footprint of these homes, so they just stuck with the impacts of wood sourcing, assuming it was all of standard wood stock (of course, many luxury homes use hard-to-source exotic materials, too).

The average home, they concluded, requires harvesting twenty trees, while a super home requires 380 trees. An average home results in 74,880 pounds of carbon sequestration loss, while a super home results in a loss of 1,422,720 pounds. The carbon footprint of super homes is astronomical — all so the rich can have some extra space to roam around in. The fact that a few of them now boast Powerwalls hardly puts the mind at ease.

Tesla doesn’t just make the Powerwall; it also, of course, makes luxury electric cars. But rich people have been buying expensive cars since long before Tesla’s rollout, and while a pricey electric car is becoming something of a status symbol in select circles, so far the vast majority of the wealthy are sticking with gasoline cars: as long as it costs a fortune and looks like it, sustainability is of little importance. These cars come with all sorts of gadgets and features, far beyond what is necessary for driving, and they tend to be larger than average cars. Their size and their frequent use of uncommon materials makes them far less sustainable to build, and their carbon footprints are larger, too.

The researchers focused solely on the efficiency of luxury cars, comparing them to popular cars that sell for a fraction of the price. They found that the latter category were over 60 percent more fuel efficient than luxury vehicles. “Compared to top 10 selling vehicles,” the researchers concluded, “a luxury vehicle produces, on average, 373.98 more pounds of CO2 emissions per 1,000 miles traveled.”

High-income groups also drive twice as many miles annually as low-income groups. The rich could certainly get by with a Hyundai Sonata or a Nissan Altima, but their desire to be seen driving a Jaguar or a Bentley means more pollution for everyone.

And, finally, there are private jets. There are only about fifteen thousand of them registered in the United States. The entire fleet is in operation a total of 17 million hours per year, burning roughly 345 gallons an hour. Jet fuel produces twenty-one pounds of carbon emissions per gallon. That means that the carbon footprint of the United States’ private jet fleet is about fifty-six tons per year. The entire nation of Burundi produces less than half the carbon emissions than the US elite does with its private jets alone — to say nothing of their luxury cars, their super homes, and their superyachts.

These rich people belong to the capitalist class, which means that together they own the vast majority of the world’s productive assets. Their luxury consumption habits constitute only a fraction of their contribution to the destabilization of the planet. They own mines and factories and fossil fuel companies, and banks that invest in harmful extractive practices, and shipping operations that guzzle more fuel than they could ever dream as individuals. Their consumption habits are only the tip of the iceberg.

Still, it’s astonishing that they can get away with all this conspicuous consumption without anyone batting an eyelash. As the seas rise, the temperatures soar, and the weather becomes more erratic and violent, these same elites will migrate to safe places — or, if worse comes to worst, retreat to doomsday bunkers — and be spared the worst effects of the chaos they’ve sown.

At the very least, the researchers conclude, society should develop policies to curb the conspicuous consumption of the rich. Perhaps building a home so big it requires the razing of a small forest should be considered a form of “green crime.”

In the end, however, there will be no true resolution to the climate crisis without a fundamental alteration in the economy. As long as we produce for profit — not for public well-being and the common good — the earth will be a casualty in the pursuit of money, and the poor will suffer.

“As a result of the inherent contradiction between capitalism and nature,” observed the researchers in a prior publication, “the capitalist system must be seen as a crime against nature.” And for this crime, the only real justice is socialism.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: CNN's Debate Lottery Draw Is a New Low in Campaign Media Print
Saturday, 20 July 2019 10:51

Taibbi writes: "Cable news coverage of politics has hit a new low. The next new low will probably be next week, but still. CNN's NBA-style debate lottery Thursday night degraded us all."

It's like a draft lottery, except the winner gets top pick of the nukes. (photo: Josh Haner/NYT)
It's like a draft lottery, except the winner gets top pick of the nukes. (photo: Josh Haner/NYT)


CNN's Debate Lottery Draw Is a New Low in Campaign Media

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

20 July 19


If you cover elections like reality shows, you will get reality stars as leaders

able news coverage of politics has hit a new low. The next new low will probably be next week, but still. CNN’s NBA-style debate lottery Thursday night degraded us all.

“The Leader” held a special segment for the randomized determination of the order for Democratic Party presidential debates on July 30 and 31. They gave the show a snappy marketing title: “The Draw” – and had half the network doing promos and commentary. Anderson Cooper probably woke up this morning wanting a long shower.

After “The Draw,” the network had even had panels doing post-draft analyses. Talking heads gushed over the first night’s lineup (two “progressive champions” in Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren going head to head!) and raved over the potentially ugly Joe Biden-Kamala Harris rematch on night two (Biden’s camp felt Harris “crossed a personal line” in the first debate!). By night’s end, I lost count of the number of March Madness selection show clichés the network stole from CBS for the event.

The actual “draw” was like a “Best Of” collage sports programming ideas. Just before the actual determination of the order, they threw up graphics showing mini-portraits of each of the contestants, while Wolf Blitzer read off their names. This is basically the “Deion Sanders – The U” intro from Monday Night Football.

Then they had Brianna Kellar standing over a two crates: a “presidential candidate box” and a “debate night” date box. She then put in “name tags” in box one, and dates in box two, with cards “face side down” and “multiple camera views” to make sure – no cheating!

Everything about this setup, right down to the solid cards that make a clacking noise when shuffled, is like the NBA draft lottery show, although there are no cutaways to the candidates to see facial reactions (yet). There were also clear elements of The Price is Right in the randomized game elements and goofy name tags. All that was missing was Anderson Cooper shouting, “A new car!”

No one on CNN should be allowed to complain about Donald Trump again. If you have a billion-dollar communications business that dumbs down politics for money, you can’t turn around later and cry about having a dumb president.

TV has been working to turn politics into an upbeat, bankable product like sports, game shows, or reality programming for a while now. It’s why the sets for cable TV election-night coverage are indistinguishable from Sunday NFL Countdown, and debate coverage is always littered with boxing metaphors (“Fight Nights Past: Best Debate Knockout Lines” reads this CNN story!).

A live debate-lineup selection lottery is a dramatic step, however. It’s possible CNN was motivated in this direction by the MSNBC/Univision coverage of the first debate, which was basically a sports show disguised as earnest news coverage of a political party committing live-TV suicide by having too many bickering primary candidates.

Check out Chris Matthews hyping that last debate in this Hardball segment.  The Chryon read, STARTING LINEUPS. Matthews sounded like Vince McMahon teasing Wrestlemania or Mr. T predicting “Pain!” before a fight with Rocky:

“I predict we’re going to see candidates square off with more of the swipes they’ve already been taking at each other,” said Matthews. He went on to underline would Elizabeth Warren would “spar” with Amy Klobuchar, how Bernie Sanders would go “head to head” with John Hickenlooper (“Hickenlooper going after [Bernie] for his socialism!”), followed by Pete Buttigieg “going after” Joe Biden.

“Who do you think is going to be the one to take the first shot at somebody else?” quipped Matthews.

Who cares what the argument is about? We just need somebody to take a shot at “somebody else.” In this sense the fungal overgrowth of the Democratic field is a huge boon for the business. More contestants, more carnage! It’s only a matter of time before they give the candidates weapons and chainmail and have Michael Buffer introducing (“In this corner, carrying a halberd, the Duke of Delaware – Joe (The Gaffe) Biden…”).

Coverage of the Miami debate highlighted the most electric “moments” from the show, with the Harris-Biden feud winning the most plaudits (“Harris Shotguns Joe Sixpack” pronounced Maureen Dowd). In TV terms, it was saucy stuff, scoring all-time highs for a Democratic debate – a tough act for CNN to follow.

CNN seems thrilled there will be a Harris-Biden “rematch,” although the network hyped other matchups, including Chris Cuomo’s awkward meanderings about whether Cory Booker “makes a play for Harris’s lane” (“Because only one of those two has a chance to get the ticket,” he says), or if Biden would bounce back from his “weak” and “defensive” performance in Miami.

Issues are rarely mentioned in pre- or postgame analyses. These shows are entirely about the combat/performative aspect of politics, which makes sense, because that’s what sells, or what networks think will sell.

If you put debates on C-Span with no commentary, audiences would still watch. The exchanges would be much more useful to society. But this would defeat the purpose of the exercise: to make money for ratings-gobbling psychopaths like former CBS exec Les Moonves.

It’s astonishing that media executives don’t see (or care to see) how dumbed down programming changes the political reality they’re covering. Turn politics into a sports/reality show, and what you’ll get, pretty quick, are sports performers.

I saw this phenomenon start to come into view ages ago. Candidates aren’t stupid. They know they need coverage to win, so they’re sensitive to what media is looking for. If staffers hear reporters whispering that the candidate is boring, the campaign starts cooking up stunts. I was around when John Kerry was being ripped as “wooden.” Before long he was tossing footballs on the tarmac and rolling oranges up the aisle during takeoffs.

Beating on candidates for insufficient aggression is a constant. Barack Obama was criticized for having “passed on openings to attack” Mitt Romney in a debate, so he “came out swinging” the next time. To fight Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham put his phone in a blender, while Rand Paul shot up stacks of the tax code (using “an array of weapons,” Chris Matthews noted with cheer).

Commercial media is fantastic at creating entertainment programming. Give people with brains and creativity and energy a lot of money, and they will eventually make cool stuff, from sex-and-dragons epics like Game of Thrones to Chappelle’s Show to the Super Bowl. They’re even capable of making smart programming about serious political issues, like The Wire.

But put commercial media executives who have to make a certain profit number on the job of covering politics, and they can’t help but make a mess of it. As citizens, most people want peace and stability. As media consumers, they want confrontation, violence, and endless reels of idiots falling into mud puddles or wanking farm animals. Is it really such a surprise our politics are as dumb as they are?

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 Next > End >>

Page 821 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN