The Hunt for Red October

“The New Communists”
Scanned by blogger Andrew Potter for Macleans.ca

This image was a full-page ad in September 23rd’s New York Times paid for by Bill Perkins, a Houston-based venture capitalist, who’s obviously disgusted with the government’s plan to bailout Wall Street. As can be seen, it shows Bush, Bernanke and Paulson erecting an American flag (mimicking the iconic American WWII photograph by Joe Rosenthal called “Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima”) with a hammer and the sickle and inscribed with “Big Insurance,” “Detroit Auto” and “Wall St. Banks.” In the background you see the tombstones of “Private Enterprise” and “Capitalism.” The message is clear. To some, the bailout is nothing short of financial socialism, and Bush, Bernake and Paulson are the New Communists.

This is a widely held opinion. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky) has called the bailout "economic socialism and “un-American." Martin Schram’s column "The September Surprise shows Bush to be a socialist” says Bush will be remembered as a president who “brought socialism to the citadel of capitalism -- Wall Street.” Every column by Cliff Kincaid, editor of the right wing Accuracy in the Media Report, invokes socialism: Socialist “Bailout” Could Spark Collapse (9/29), Will Conservatives Embrace Socialism? (9/27/), Senator Bunning Blasts “Financial Socialism” (9/24).

Interestingly, most of these critiques don’t actually explain why the bailout could be a bad idea. They operate under the assumption that Americans will stay true to Red Scare logic: “If the bailout looks like financial socialism and everything socialist is bad, the bailout must be bad.” Last time I checked, China’s economy wasn’t doing too badly. I wasn’t around during the Red Scare; can someone tell me what’s wrong with financial socialism?

According to Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model in their book Manufacturing Consent, the ideology of “anti-communism” prevails in the news media. While looking at the coverage of the bailout, does this still apply?

The criticisms of the bailout that invokes socialism is coming from free market freaks on the right who want the bill to fail on principle. This opinion is by no means mainstream. Sen. Jim Bunning’s quotes are buried in the tail-end of NY Times hard news stories. The mainstream, as demonstrated by the stand taken by the two presidential candidates, supports the bill as a necessary evil.

If the anti-communism filter still prevails, the criticism would be front and center. The mainstream media's support of the bailout support is evidence of another of Chomsky's filters, the corporate ownership of the mainstream media. Of course they're going to side with the institutions that sign their paychecks, they're not going to wish destitution on their parents.

But I’d bet in a country with healthy, vigorous, independent media outlets, the bailout would have been openly opposed on the editorial pages of all ideological slants: by those on the far left, eager to see what happens when Capitalism is left to its own devices, and those on the far right, who want to keep the free market intact at all costs.

The Predictability in Presidential Post-Debate Analysis

After Friday’s debate between the two presidential candidates, I wasn't sure what to make of it. I thought it was a fairly even performance, both candidates had their "gotcha!" moments. I wondered what the broadcast media would make of it, so I flipped back and forth between the post-debate coverage of MSNBC, CNN and Fox News.

The structure of the coverage was remarkably similar: First the "anchors" gave a fairly mindless regurgitation of the "dramatic moments" and biggest bones of contention. Then they checked in with the spokespeople from each campaign, who both claimed that the debate was a real momentum shifter in their candidate’s direction.

On CNN, Wolf Blitzer muttered something interesting under his breath. While introducing an Obama spokesman, he said something to the affect of “And here’s so-and-so from the Obama campaign. I wonder who they think won.” This offhand sarcastic remark got me thinking. Why would you put someone on the air when you know exactly what they have to say to keep their job? What’s the journalistic value of a sound bite like that? Who cares what the ultra-partisan spin-doctors think? They're not expressing an opinion.The anchor might as well say, “The Obama and McCain camps both think their candidate won.” That takes care of it.

After the spokespeople performed, it was time for the network commentators to duke it out. Maybe it was naive of me, but I was really expecting an intellectually honest discussion to help me make sense of the remarkably even debate. But no such thing happened. It was like campaign spokespeople all over again: the conservative commentators on MSNBC claimed McCain "won" and gushed about how well he showed his experience and his "real life" examples. The liberal commentators said they thought McCain under-performed and Obama "won" citing the attention he paid to the middle class.

Where’s the intellectual honesty? This isn't amateur boxing event with judges tallying points after each question. Listening to the commentators was like listening to fans of rival sports teams yell at each other. Everyone stayed steadfast in their ideological groove. There was no analysis whatsoever, I was pissed.

Debates aren't for people who have already decided who "won" before it even begins; they're really for undecided and swing voters. I think journalists often forget that, especially in this polarizing election like this one. Journalists, anchors and even commentators should be decoders, not cheerleaders. It's fine to have an opinion as to won did better in the debate, but be intellectually honest about it! Provide a public service instead of servicing each candidate publicly on television.