Jake Sexton is a skeptical nihilist recently experiencing bouts
of optimism. But surely continued interaction with his fellow man
will return him to his normal state of brooding, swearing and
frightening small children.
By Jake Sexton
Daily Bruin Columnist
I stopped watching and reading the news five or six years ago
out of sheer disgust. I don’t trust their coverage, and I choose to
be uninformed rather than misinformed. The wisdom of this decision
remains to be seen.
It scares me that most people seem to form the backbone of their
world view based on the information (or "infotainment") they
receive from the major news media. Now, if news reports were
detailed, expansive, unbiased and occasionally unfriendly, then
this might be a valid way to perceive the world. But they’re
not.
(begin interlude)
Perhaps I should pause to introduce myself here.
My name is Jake Sexton. I am here to: (a) objectively inform;
(b) raise important, yet rarely discussed issues for thought and
discussion; (c) tear apart your pathetic little belief structures
and expose you for the sniveling little creature you really are;
(d) amuse myself; (e) spin straw into gold.
(end interlude)
News is essentially shit for three main reasons.
First of all, news is business. It is a means with which to grab
advertising revenue. Nothing more. To maximize advertising revenue,
they must maximize their audience. And since their audience would
much rather be entertained than informed, they wisely choose to
focus their coverage on pop events and pop issues.
Several items will always make the news. When President
so-and-so speaks or moves in public, it will nearly always be
broadcast in some fashion, as will be various celebrity
entanglements and embarrassments (Michael Jackson, Hugh Grant, you
get the idea).
Impressive visual footage is usually broadcast as well. Planes
crash everyday, but if some fool with a camcorder manages to get
the fireball on tape, it’s suddenly the top story. And the
prevalent trend in entertainment news these days is the soap opera
stories, the continuing sordid sagas: O.J. Bobbit Simpson Menendez
Harding, etc. Personally, I feel that these stories get more
attention due to the fact that they are all morality tales, but I
won’t go into that.
Of course, you must also make sure not to ever offend your
sponsors, or else you would lose their business. The evening news
may make mention of an ill-made car (although the media now face
greater economic threats when they turn negative press against a
powerful company), but they would never have a story that claimed
that cars were the greatest threat to the environment. ABC taped an
expose about the tobacco industry, including the ways that U.S.
tobacco is being forced upon small Asian countries due to American
economic clout, but the project was nixed due to pressure by the
network’s sponsors (the text of that documentary is available in
Mother Jones, in the May/June 1996 issue).
Second, news can be used as a cultural-manipulation tool by its
owners. Roughly eight corporations control 80 percent of the mass
media in the United States. Television, radio, movies, newspapers,
record labels, magazines, etc. Ponder this for a minute. This is an
amazing consolidation of control of information systems.
Corporations use these channels of information to benefit
themselves and their interests. I don’t mean giving the CEO his own
fishing show on ESPN; I mean attempting to further their own
economic, political and social ends through these means.
And, as most mega-rich folks are conservative, a philosophy
which benefits those with money, they generally further
conservative agendas while also attempting to maintain the status
quo to make for a peaceful market.
Let’s suppose you were the head of a large corporation whose
only goal was to make big heaps o’ cash. Your corporation happens
to own several media companies: newspapers, TV stations, etc.
Realizing the power of mass media, you might begin to form large
plans. You want the people to be complacent consumers. Portray the
state of the nation as so complex that the common man couldn’t
possibly change things. Leave the problems up to the "experts."
Consumption is a way of life. Keep the public entertained and
sedate with your videopiate. You also have to cover your own tracks
so that the public doesn’t turn against the real power-brokers of
the nation: mega-rich CEOs like yourself. Problems with
unemployment and poverty? Blame the poor! It’s their own fault;
they’re just not trying hard enough. They’re pilfering hard-earned
cash from hard-working Americans in the form of welfare. But make
sure to never mention the corporate welfare: big-time tax breaks,
government subsidies, over-inflated government contracts. Blame
Washington corruption on individual politicians and lobbyists,
neglecting to mention that the politicians and lobbyists are both
funded by your money.
I realize that all this sounds vaguely like some paranoid
conspiracy theory, but I think it’s fairly intuitive. If you’re
trying to find out why society is the way it is, look at who has
power and who benefits by the current structures. You might gain
some insight.
The third bit deals with relationships between corporate-owned
press and the government.
If your hypothetical corporation wants to stay on the
government’s good side, make sure you tell everyone the story that
the government wants the people to hear.
If you tell the wrong stories, suddenly your reporters are not
invited to press conferences and your money-making news show
suffers (it’s also more cost-efficient to simply parrot a White
House press release than to actually do research). So you have to
follow the party line: we’re not invading Iraq because of oil,
we’re invading in the name of international justice! We’re not
sending soldiers to Somalia to stop the Somalis from nationalizing
their oil industry and thereby ousting the U.S. oil companies
there, we’re going over there to feed the hungry.
It’s amazing how well the privately owned media serve the
government as though they were an official Ministry of
Propaganda.
And yes, Alanis, I see the irony of writing an anti-news column
in a newspaper.
Now I beg your indulgence for a moment. It is quite easy for me
to throw my tirades at you to accept, deny or ignore. But I’d
prefer discourse and dialogue to statement and monologue.
I invite each and every one of you, even you professors, to
e-mail me and begin a discussion of the issues I write about, or,
indeed, any issues at all.
Don’t just blindly accept or reject what I say; call me on it,
ask me about it (I could give you a hell of a lot more detail than
I have room for here), or even do your own research. Perhaps I’m
right and perhaps I’m not, but either way, we could both learn from
each other. Send me your objections, contrary evidence, questions,
thoughts, death threats, etc.
that’s
Or you can write to the Viewpoint address and maybe get
published to boot. I certainly hope to hear from you.
Today’s recommended reading: "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam
Chomsky and Edward Herman, and "The Media Monopoly" by Ben
Bagdikian.
"We now return to the illusion of news, already in progress
…"