Propaganda, Filler And Fodder: How The News Doesn't Work

They say a free press is the cornerstone of any democracy. But since there's nothing free about our press, and very little that's democratic about our government-for-hire, America's house of democratic illusions is only held up by those naïve enough to still believe the fairy tale, and those too apathetic to do anything about it (which, if we're honest, is most of us).

George Bush is certainly under no illusions about the role of the media in our pseudo-democracy. After a speech intended to welcome journalists to the new White House briefing room in July 2007, a photographer took a now infamous snap of the president's speech. The man charged with maintaining what should be the greatest democracy in the world had taken a black pen to his own neatly typed address, and, after the phrase "a free press is", had scrubbed out the words "one of the cornerstones of." But then, as he wages wars in the name of democracy abroad, he's waged another cold war on democracy at home, which has been aided and abetted by the very cornerstone our "democracy" is supposed to rely on.

But if you won't pay 50 cents per day for a newspaper, $29 a year to support an independent online news service such a Salon.com, or $50 a year to fund news on PBS or NPR, then don't blame the press for the current fix we're in. It's a matter of value. What do we value more, the news, or the cars and burgers sold in between the news? If it's the former, we should economize on the latter and be prepared to pay for quality journalism.

Like any other commodity, with news you get what you pay for. Purveyors of infotainment, such as Fox "News", which comedian Lee Camp succinctly called out live on air last week for being a "parade of propaganda" and a "festival of ignorance," serves no higher purpose than to provide fodder to keep viewers tuned-in for the advertisements. Like any other mainstream news outlet owned by one of the big media conglomerates, Fox News serves its parent company's bottom line, and is under no illusions that its purpose is to provide a check and balance to curtail the activities of a runaway government.

While pumping billions into an ill-advised war overseas, Bush is trying to cut off the lifeblood of those that report on it with an independent voice at home. His proposed federal budget would cut more than half of the funds allocated to public broadcasters in 2009 and 2010. And with the New York and Los Angeles Times both announcing three-figure job cuts in the past month, don't be expecting their much maligned journalists to have the time to come up with as much original thought or news as they have in the past. With less staff but the same column inches to fill, many of our once grand newspapers are being reduced to nothing more than printed blogs, reprinting the same recycled news, press releases and wire stories by the inch, and commenting on the commentary of others in place of the time consuming task of researching their own fresh news and opinion.

Ask yourself why the word "divisive" ubiquitously sits next to Hillary's name, as does "change" next to Obama's. In truth either world could equally apply to both. But these clichés have become ingrained in our culture thanks to a media that doesn't have the time, money or inclination to find the news, but merely reports on the same "news" briefings and press releases, representing the often unchecked facts and quotes they contain as news.

If you want to arrest entropy you need to put more energy into a system. Write to your congressman or woman and demand that they fight the PBS budget cuts. Consider where you should get your news from (the BBC is a great place to start), rather than reaching for the remote or reading whatever's on your homepage out of habit. Refuse to be another Faux News viewer or clicker. Don't let these masqueraders make money off you. And don't just take the news as read, but consider where a story is really coming from, who's promoting it, and, most importantly, why?