I’m often asked how I keep up with the news. Obviously, I avoid the unhinged rightwing outlets pushing misinformation, disinformation, and poisonous lies.
But I’ve also grown a bit wary of the mainstream media –- the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and other dominant outlets — not because they peddle “fake news” (their reporting is usually first-rate) but because of three more subtle biases.
First, they often favor the status quo. Mainstream journalists wanting to appear serious about public policy rip into progressives for the costs of their proposals, but never ask self-styled “moderates” how they plan to cope with the costs of doing nothing or doing too little about the same problems.
A Green New Deal might be expensive but doing nothing about the climate crisis will almost certainly cost far more. Medicare for All will cost a lot, but the price of doing nothing about America’s cruel and dysfunctional healthcare system will soon be in the stratosphere.
Second, the mainstream media often fail to report critical public choices. Any day now, the Senate will approve giving $768 billion to the military for this fiscal year. That’s billions more than the Pentagon sought. It’s about four times the size of Biden’s Build Back Better bill, which would come to around $175 billion a year. But where’s the reporting on the effects of this spending on the national debt, or on inflation, or whether it’s even necessary?
Third, the mainstream media indulge in false equivalences — claiming that certain Republican and Democratic lawmakers are emerging as “troublemakers” within their parties or that extremists “on both sides” are “radicalizing each other”.
These reports equate Republican lawmakers who are actively promoting Donald Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen with Democratic lawmakers who are fighting to protect voting rights. Well, I’m sorry. These are not equivalent. Trump’s big lie is a direct challenge to American democracy.
In the looming fight over whether to preserve the Senate filibuster, the mainstream media gives equal weight to both sides’ claims that the other side’s position is radical. But ask yourself which is more radical – abolishing the filibuster to save American democracy or destroying American democracy to save the filibuster?
You see, the old labels “left” versus “right” are fast becoming outdated. Today, it’s democracy versus oligarchy. Equating them is misleading and dangerous.
Why doesn’t the mainstream media see this? Not just because of its dependence on corporate money. I think the source of the bias is more subtle.
Top editors and reporters, usually based in New York and Washington, want to be accepted into the circles of the powerful – not only for sources of news but also because such acceptance is psychologically seductive. It confers a degree of success. But once accepted, they can’t help but begin to see the world through the eyes of the powerful.
I follow the mainstream media, but I don’t limit myself to it. And I don’t rely on it to educate the public about bold, progressive ideas that would make America and the world fairer and stronger.
I read the Guardian, the American Prospect (which, full disclosure, I helped found thirty years ago), Mother Jones, and The Atlantic. I follow several blogs (Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo, for example). I listen to the always thoughtful Democracy Now. And I subscribe to a few newsletters (I hope you like this one and spread word of it).
But even with news sources I trust, I still ask myself: how are choices being framed? What’s being left out? What big underlying issues are being assumed away or obscured?
When our democracy is under assault from so many directions, I think we need to educate and re-educate ourselves (and our children) about how to learn what’s really going on — how to absorb the news critically. Isn’t this a minimal responsibility of democratic citizenship?
What do you think?
I'm in total agreement with you on this, Professor (I usually agree with everything you write, so I don't know if that counts).
There are some other sources with superb investigative reporting, and some are surprising. There's The Nation, old and durable, hard-hitting and true; and the occasional block-buster articles in The New Yorker, very old indeed, for good reason, and great reading overall.
I'd include Vanity Fair - not just for women, you know - which often has extremely readable articles that get behind the news to the people and issues that are or should be newsworthy. And there's even Rolling Stone, which generally has two hard-hitting political articles every issue, hard-hitting and well-written. I suspect these two publications got into publishing smart investigative political articles with the advent of crazy right-wing nutcases in our political arena.
As for The New York Times and the Washington Post, whoever writes their headlines is an idiot, going for tabloid gotcha appeal. Their articles, with "leftists" being anyone who wants decent pay and working conditions, readily available health and all that stuff that actually helps people, and "moderates", which to them means either conservative Democrats or the very few Republicans who have a soul and an inkling of caring about anyone other than themselves. And of course the non-factual right-wing columnists. Into the dustbin with those two rags!
I just donated to The Guardian yesterday, with my hundred bucks going in a very small way to help keep them solvent and reporting. What a good feeling! And I mustn't forget the daily Florida Phoenix, what journalism ought to be, which is part of nonprofit The States Newsroom, which has issues for many states - perhaps yours is included, so look them up; you won't be sorry you did. I start my day with the Phoenix.
There may be others out there, but these will get you past the BS of mass media. Thank goodness for that!
Glad you donated to the Guardian, Porter. I should spend more time reading Rolling Stone.
Rolling Stone has been publishing excellent investigative pieces practically since its founding in Nov, '67. The Viet-era 'Pitiful Helpless Giant' is the one I remember. I've barely been aware of it--and no longer interested, as it lost its youthful fire when Jann moved it to New York and became establishment--as something that used to be everywhere is now hard to find: the newsstand. The closest such is in the nearest Walgreen's. Alas, it carries domestic fluff magazines--sewing, housekeeping, jam-jarring--but nothing newsworthy. Fortunately, my town (Berkeley) does have a first-rate library system with plenty of periodicals, and other insistent sources of alternate coverage.
Still, I appreciate the sources suggestions listed by one and all. We need to know where to go for information and inspiration ..
The next time I go to Walgreen's for my Friday no-longer-credible SF Chronicle, I will ask the manager to add the above titles to the magazine selection. You could do the same, wherever periodicals are sold. (I buy it for the Saturday! crosswords ..)
Well Said ! ! !
Thanks for the clue about The States Newsroom . . . that model of publicly funded nonprofit journalism seems to me to be the most powerful chance we have to reinvigorate the media. Hadn't heard of them!
Hope they can get to all of the states and territories, and also start down the list of major county capitals too . . .
Many popular liberal broadcast figures repeatedly cite local newspapers as their sources, and in many ways the engine that drives their ability to present pointed and arch commentary on our times. They all say, 'subscribe!' and good for them for that. But local news has been under attack for decades, and the next phase is not at all clear to me.
-- best luck to US, b.rad
Brad - there's no charge to receive the States Newroom's daily news updates, and you can click to go from there to their main state page - assuming they cover your state. Then you get to like it so much you start donating to them, all tax-deductible.
Ha, this is an old post, so maybe it's safe to comment. Perhaps I'll just be talking to myself here, I hope, lol.
Forgive my trying to describe my situation: I didn't study English in college. Barely, in high school. But I earned a perfect score on the GRE writing exam, finished a Berkeley professional editing course with an A grade, was called a "brilliant writer" by a best-selling author. . .
No bragging rights, though, because I've never figured out how to put whatever odd literary ability I may have to sufficiently meaningful use.
I'm not a perfect copy editor. I do developmental editing. I'm best at ghostwriting, sounding like other people. I guess I hear the nuances that make them unique and reveal their meaning.
For example: once upon a time, I was granted an audience with a sought-after, fashionable, investment advisor, a darling of those in the Connecticut know. After five minutes of listening to him, I literally ran screaming into the night. My friends were appalled. I was "ungrateful." I was "nuts."
Within the year, the man was wearing stripes in a Federal "pen" a la Bernie Madoff.
I try to explain myself here to say: Often, now, I can't read or listen to the news outlets that I used to, within reason, trust. I can't listen to most politicians.
I don't frighten easily. For 36 years, I worked as an international airline pilot, flying jumbo jets across the Pole and around the globe. Engine fire, all in a day's work. But listening to a newscaster now, I'm afraid. I'm afraid that we, the U.S., may have fatally lost our way, with the media helping to degrade our compass.
But I subscribed here. It sounds right. Not loud enough, though. Not enough people reading and listening; not unless your subscribers include at least everyone who voted for Trump.
I wish I knew how to do something--explain to a few million people how to hear propaganda as propaganda. But, to my horror, I don't know even how to rescue my two closest, formerly sane friends from having lost their minds.
Again, apologies. But
I do want to say: I, too, agree with what you write here about media. You've got a platform, an audience; that's priceless. Please write louder, so that more people hear.
Thank you for sharing the wisdom and for persisting.
I agree with you about the need for what Robert says to reach a wider audience, but as he said the mainstream media, owned by oligarchs, will not pick up on these writings and report on them. They want this kind of discourse buried. A well informed and educated public cannot be manipulated or hoodwinked by the liars and peddlers of misinformation. We can copy links to here and use social media to share them.
Beautifully said. ❤️
Once upon a time, in television's formative years, there was a component called News, where we shared what was mostly a common set of facts, shared by newscasters like Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley and others, over a very limited number of networks.
Enter the mass expansion of networks, media types, corporate mergers touching all the points that touch every aspect of our daily lives, including corporate lobbyists and Citizens United, and news is gone replaced by 'entertainment', a common set of facts is gone (or very difficult to piece together), replaced by alternative facts. It's a mess, and another place where following the money gives some worthwhile perspective every once in awhile.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/futureofmedia/index-us-mainstream-media-ownership
Do we stand a chance??
Robert, you and your efforts are SO appreciated. Thank you!
Mark, I too remember Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley. I even remember Edward R. Murrow. The news divisions of NBC and CBS in particular were truly independent. They had integrity and they earned the public's trust. They did hard-hitting investigative reporting (anyone remember CBS's extraordinary expose of farm workers?) and they exposed rotten politicians (Murrow on Joe McCarthy). It's tempting for an old coot like me to look back on those times and say they were better. No, I think they were different. Today we have many other options, some of them superb. The real problem today is that the mainstream media and its news divisions are in the business of making big money, and Wall Street isn't willing to be patient with any of its investments.
I'm not saying they were better, and I agree that there are several worthwhile sources today...many more than 'back then'.
But it all comes back now to big money, and small money. How many clicks, and how many touch points each major mainstream has, ultimately in our pockets.
With so many sources, media inputs, and societal demands, and no corresponding change in available time to dedicate, it's no wonder so many seem to know (or care) so little about what's really going on.
Today, staying informed takes more time it seems, and the stakes are higher with each passing day.
'And that's the way it was...'
Yes, Edward R. Murrow, always beginning with "This, is the news." and always ending with "Good night, and good luck." in his deep and grave sonorous voice when I as a boy heard him in the '50s. Everything he said rang true to me.
I, too, remember Cronkite and the others and often pine for them! It was a different time. No internet to feed us continual "news" and from all over the world. And I totally agree w/ your very last sentence. It's always about the $$$$$ isn't it? :(
I've been waiting for someone to voice this concern. Thank you so much! I LOVE the Atlantic and the Guardian. I try to watch the PBS Newshour - if not live, online the next day. And I really like Washington Week on Friday nights. I love what SubStack has done in encouraging authors to interact directly with their readers. I follow several of them, including you. I haven't watched Democracy Now in quite a while. Think I'll go back to them.
PBS is an interesting paradox. I have huge respect for Judy Woodruff and several of the other reporters, editors, and hosts. But I'm also aware that they have to toe the line because their so-called "public" directors have on occasion directly or indirectly limited what producers can do or what they can explore.
IMO the weekend version of the PBS news "hour" (on weekends it's only 30 minutes) with Hari Srinivasan is superior to the weekday version. I wish Woodruff would retire. Although coverage of climate on the news hour has improved a bit very recently, the weekday news hour ignored it for months on end. And now, way too much deference to the inflation hawks' argument on Build Back Better but little discussion of the bill's benefits.
Wow! The places we can get independent, unbiased news is truly shrinking. So sad!! And dangerous!
Yes, from our legacy sources. We will have to look further afield like not only The Guardian and the ones mentioned but The Christian Science Monitor, too!
I try to subscribe to these non MSM outlets as well as organizations focused on climate and other issues.
You're right. I wanted them to do more on the African American and minority problems and issues, and they still don't do enough!! But, no news, on tv , paper and online still don't cover the Whole picture and don't want to because they might lose viewers!!
The NewsHour is covering Black issues nonstop. This is not good either. It will drive independents away. They should have coverage, absolutely. But not one or two precious segments every day!
I don’t like far left coverage either. I’ll check out your recommendations. I like moderate, balanced coverage.
I could not agree more with every single point you make about MM. It is the reason, I too, have turned to YOU and your newsletter, along with others, including those you mentioned and a few more. I stopped watching CNN and MSNBC and PBS when they all treated Bernie like you know what and marginalized him and even ridiculed him. Even Rachel showed her bias against him. They are better than Fox, which is a bar way too low.
Sally, you're reminding me that the treatment Bernie got in the 2008 and then again in 2016 pushed me into my current skepticism. Also, of course, the way the New York Times and other mainstream outlets went along with Bush's insane "weapons of mass destruction" story leading up to the Iraq War. Never forget Judith Miller of the Times.
I remember my disbelief at the success of Bush’s and Cheney’s lies - my utter astonishment and anger! It’s just all gone downhill from there in terms of lies and corruption in our government. My question to you, Dr.Reich, is how do you keep on keeping on? I mean how are keeping the faith - in our better angels?? I’m so very disheartened.
I am sorry Sally, but we need to go back to Nixon, Powell, & Reagan for the real dumpster fire that is the republican party. Read the Powell Memo for the blueprint that has become the American party politics.
Thanks . . . I have been reading Rachel Maddow's 'Drift' among my books list, but I have to put it down frequently because it reanimates the Reagan monstrosity that included many outright campaign lies, reminiscent of recent times, and so many more lies leading to his election in 1980. Then it just continued and grew, with the killing of hundreds of Marines in Beirut through ignorance and carelessness and hubris -- or calculated? -- and then causing many pointless deaths in the insane invasion of Grenada . . . which of course boosted Reagan's sway over Congress and polls. ( Wait, what? Yes, blueprint for the future . . . ) It just goes on, with his bullheaded explosion of the 'defense' budget, the inane 'star wars' projects, and more, leading to a tripling of the national debt. HW added another factor, for a total of 4X debt increase from 1981 to 1993. Twelve long years. ( Anybody been complaining about debt increases recently? Oh, who? When? . . . ) Congress has to make it happen, yes, but we know how this works. The Iran Contra deals alone, perverted, illegal, immoral, contrary to every public claim, should have kicked his ass to the curb forever, with his whole cohort, San Quentin or bust. Guess what?
Trying to finish that book, and others . . . -- b.rad
Remember G.W. Bush's 'New World Order!
Pull out a dollar bill and find the Latin motto "Novus Ordo Seclorum." If you don't do Latin, it translates "New Order of the Ages." Draw your own conclusions on who and what Bush was "dog whistling," and where he got the idea in the first place.
Scull and bones society secrets, no doubt.
Yep! He was a member. I wonder what "The Hellfire Club" is doin' with itself, these days!
The 'Hellfire club' ? maybe making missiles.
Exactly!
"...we need to educate and re-educate ourselves (and our children) about how to learn what’s really going on — how to absorb the news critically. Isn’t this a minimal responsibility of democratic citizenship?"
All forms of media need to be challenged and questioned by vocal, confident, thoughtful people.
One step to helping kids truly absorb the news is to put newspapers - a variety of hard copies - in the hands of every student. Physical ownership. Begin a practice of reading that everyone can see and authentically practice.
As a teacher, I brought newspapers to school all the time. One day a student asked "Where can I get one of those?" He wasn't kidding.
The computer is an increasingly omnipresent, seductive management tool not only for teachers but also for parents. At its best, a screen can be deft in ferreting information and sparking thought. At its worst, a screen can take possession of its user, turning the adolescent's classroom or bedroom into a mind-numbing holding tank.
Adults who trust that young kids can read effectively online are at best naïve, at worst lazy. In turning kids loose on screens, we're throwing young, unfocused minds into lairs of distraction.
If the objective is to develop an informed, balanced, humane, socially graceful citizen, then the mentor needs to encourage deep-dive engagement through close and wide-ranging reading of print media followed by face to face discussions that elicit a range of perspectives and opinions.
We tend to shy away from aggressive discourse, and that's unfortunate. We should be developing rich discussion skills - aggressive in the best sense of the word - and hard-fought conflict resolution right now in every classroom.
It's beautiful to see students pull out texts to support and prove their points. It's beautiful, too, to see a strong young man secure enough in his own self-worth concede "that's a fair point" in a discussion. It's not weakness to have a thought that is flawed but it's weak to refuse to recognise and acknowledge it. That requires modelling from a strong and confident mentor willing to invite thoughtful argument, even if directed at that mentor.
Our children are daily being sucked into distractions on screens they didn't seek and don't really desire. Unfortunately, we're allowing technology and our own asocial practices freedom to rewire them. In the process, rich reading, deep questioning and thinking, extensive discourse, and our collective humanity are lost.
Bravo!
Perhaps a little too little and a little too late, in the past couple of days I've heard Manchin & Sinema referred to as "conservative Democrats" rather than "moderate Democrats." It appears even the mainstream starting to catch-on that those clowns are DINOs. That's not to contradict Mr Reich's observation in any way. I'm just sayin'.
Spot on DZK!!
We have made zero policy changes related to media and the organizations themselves have made no meaningful structural changes since they, through fear, lazy journalism, obsession with profits and access, etc., led us to invade and destroy Iraq. It's a war crime. It's unforgivable. The horrors we caused are incalculable and indescribable.
Buuuut, ya know, I guess things happen, and some outlets sort of maybe apologized, so our country moved on, because acknowledging what we did and why would pierce the veil of America as star-spangled purveyor of good and other fantasies we tell ourselves so that we can ignore any type of civic responsibility and go about our day consuming and ignoring the consequences of our actions.
We, the public, have been failed over and over again by mainstream press, but we refuse to sufficiently mobilize to address it. Elected officials benefit from the limited debate and predictable narratives of the media, to say nothing of their ability to go on and spew nonsense with no fear of real questions or challenges to blatant lies or hypocrisy.
One of the main takeaways from COVID is that our failure to address the corruption and failure of mainstream media outlets is now a danger to the entire species. A country this powerful cannot allow itself to be so easily swayed or misinformed, yet that is what happens over and over again. If we don't make this a major focus of every progressive organization, I believe we are heading toward a future where climate change ravages the planet while the press and networks refuse to show the real fallout, allow corporations to greenwash their role, provide ample time for politicians who deny that the mass death and planetary destruction are even happening, and of course, after every 4-minute surface-level exchange, break to tell us the reason our marriage isn't working is because we're using the wrong shampoo.
we are living in the age of 1984. There has been many times I went back to find a story to collect facts from and the story or articles have been altered of the whole story has been "taken down" and is no longer available.
that is why I often prefer a hard copy. We should get a receipt on paper for our votes, too, like in other countries.
Thanks! And very kind of you to ask, but nope. I do have to say that it's quite nice to have a place to direct angry rants about injustice where you can also find interesting comments and articulate responses. This has proven to be much more pleasant than most discussion forums, where my statements on things like the absence of proof that trickle-down has worked anywhere at any time are met with MAGA-memes and deeply inappropriate requests for me to go self-copulate and admit I'm a "libtard."
And the Aldening and vanishing of local newspapers is yet another problem. Here in Colorado I supported and read the Colorado Independent and the Colorado Sun, which (with some other local indie efforts) are now folded together into a group I still read and support.
And from an end-of-year Mother Jones editorial column: https://www.motherjones.com/media/2021/12/war-on-democracy-media/?keycode=71CEC01%7CP1CEC01
So, why not legally establish the cost of the Build Back Better Act as either $175 billion per year OR 25% of the defense budget, whichever amount is smaller? Language like this would certainly help me put the cost of the Build Back Better Act in perspective--and might even help a couple of reluctant Democratic senators understand the importance of their voting for it.
Never occurred to me, something like that. I like it.
I trust NPR,PBS, NY Times & W Post to report the empirical facts of current events. I may also use FactCheck & Snopes to verify. But I make my own value judgments about the reported news, using my understanding of science, moral philosophy & Christian theology. I often stand on the shoulders of columnists/contributors such as Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, Robert Reich, Heather Cox Richardson, Bishop William Barber, & Fareed Zakaria. I respect their knowledge & wisdom.
Mister Reich, I could not agree more strongly with your analyses. We Americans, have been way to complacent about taking care of our precious democracy. would be oligarchs are always on a prowl and we have enough of historic evidence from around the world to show us what we can expect when they succeed. Please do continue with your columns and education of our citizenry. (You are by far my favorite analyst of human order and societies).
I might call your attention, Mr Kotar, to some domestic historic evidence: We all know about the Civil War, but how about the "Wall Street Putsch/Business Plot" of 1933 directed against FDR and the New Deal. The McCormack-Dickstein Committee (which unfortunately degenerated into the House Committee on Un-American Activities) examined the allegations of a coup, declaring that there was indeed some evidence of such a scheme by Wall Street elites, anti-communists and fascist sympathizers. Even though the findings were declared by Congress to be “alarmingly true,” no charges were ever laid against anyone involved; just like the present foot-dragging investigations of congress into the Trump-inspired insurrection of 6 January 2021. Nancy Pelosi said publicly that Trump should have been arrested on the spot.
As it is said, each failed insurrection is simply a rehearsal for the next one--unless there are serious consequences for the perpetrators. Jeff Davis at least spent two years in a federal pen. The Business Plot instigators got zip. General Smedley Butler, USMC, who was supposed to lead the coup w/ an army (using the American Legion as his recruiting ground) blew the whistle on the industrialists, bankers and plutocrats behind the plot who had pledged $3 million to buy weapons--but of course no legal consequences ever befell the plotters--they were all too rich and/or influential (Prescott Bush, General Motors, Chase Bank, Maxwell House, Dupont, among others who were "allegedly" involved.) Once the seat of power was theirs, the plotters would install an ultra-nationalist, business-friendly regime modeled after Mussolini’s Italy. Sound familiar? Jingoism and profits: always the issues. First the Civil War, 1861 (160 yrs ago); then the Business Plot, 1933 (88 yrs ago); and lately, 6 Jan. 2021(one year ago). It almost looks like a mathematical progression--and with the midterm elections imminent we may be approaching a mathematical singularity, a political epiphany.
The Young Turks (TYT) also report about what you were writing. The corporate news hardly ever have a progressive on. I sometimes send an email to a news outlet when I am especially angry. I don't think there is a group that lets one sign a petition or tells us to send an email to the media outlets, letting them know how biased they are and what their propaganda is about, or is there?
Spot on regarding the “status quo”. The coverage has been very disappointing, they seem to miss the point too much, have the “emergency switch on 24/7”, red breaking news banners scrolling something obvious that is news to no one. It is no longer my main source of information
Always such a blessing to read your posts and benefit from your wisdom. My sources are kqed, deutche welle (dw.com), and increasing less cnn. I also much appreciate your posts and another blogger, Heather Cox. Love kqed radio since its financed through membership and its intelligent reporting and educational information. I love DW because it provides a European and international perspective, and is funded by German taxpayers, not advertising or ratings. I find their reporting objective and professional. I used to like cnn but it has become dependent on reporting political theater for attracting viewers and indirectly advertising revenues. I love and appreciate your reporting because it’s educational content and your motivation is clearly driven by love of country and reasoning, values I share. I love Heather Cox, a historian, for connecting current events to our historic context. I also read the daily New York times feed. I pretty much have disengaged from social media for sources of information for obvious reasons. That’s a lot of time to keep up with current events, but necessary to be an informed citizen and voter. I will keep your information source in mind.
Dr. Heather Cox Richardson ("Letters From an American") has written tirelessly of historical parallels leading up to comparison between the aftermath of the Civil War and our current problems. Professor Reich and Dr. Richardson are among my favorite political analysts. I've given up on any reasonably sane political analysis from either NYT or the WaPo.
I will also recommend the NY Times podcast, "The Daily".
I think you are spot on
An excellent analysis, it needs to be said louder and more often.
CSPAN is the gold standard of unbiased and reliable information. I watched Bob Dole's funeral on it. No talking head BS commentary, just a view of what was happening!
Agree totally. Judging by the comments to NYT and WaPo articles, many readers of those publications feel the same. The mainstream media seems to equate some Democrats' progressive positions on policy with some Republicans' outlandish, almost criminal behavior. I would add PBS Newshour and NPR to the list of mainstream news outlets that exhibit subtle bias. I remember listening to an NPR segment about climate change several years ago. At the time, 90% of climate scientists agreed that climate change is real and caused by human activity. Yet, in what I suppose was an effort to be neutral and balanced, NPR interviewed two scientists, one who was part of the 90% and the other who was one of the 10% of deniers, and treated their positions as equally valid, conveying an impression that the divide was 50-50. It seems to me that Newshour's Judy Woodruff, in her interviews of members of Congress, challenges Republicans less than she challenges Democrats.
But, as you said, the mainstream outlets do report actual news, and they have published some spectacular in-depth investigative reports, so I put my annoyance aside and keep reading/listening.
The division between the economic and thus political interests of the majority of the people, who only have their labor to sell to make a living, and the oligarchs who own the capital and wealth of the country and allocate that capital to production for their own profit, is THE division in society.
The biggest problem we have with ending the rule of capital is that the middle and upper income levels of the working class, the intellectuals reading your blog, the workers who have moved beyond living paycheck to paycheck and have some security, think their interests and those of the capitalists are the same.
This false consciousness permeates our society.
Ask yourself why a carnival barker like Trump who got things done for the real estate industry in NYC by bribing politicians, appeals to declassed middle income workers. He is obviously completely self interested. Cares nothing about anyone but himself. But as our form of capitalism crumbles and denies middle income workers what the system once told them was their American birthright all we have from intellectuals is more bourgeois thinking.
The problem is right there.
That's why the 2008 meltdown was such a shock for me. It opened my mind to that fact that Wall Street, the Republican Administration with the help of many of those in the Democratic Party, and unregulated capitalists would take us all down. I vowed not to be fooled again.
Your points in this communication are all excellent! The past 40+ years we as Americans have seen an evolution of information to digest. Especially now with social media. CNN vs Fox. Saturday Night Live and The View vs Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. (How I wish for the days of Johnny Carson!) Mainstream Media and Hollywood have come together. Most hard working middle class Americans only have time to read headlines. As the baby boomers have retired they have more time to read and watch mainstream media. Majority of citizens agree everything is fed to us is "propaganda" now. Many citizens voted for Trump because they are sick of "career politicians". Government/Politics/Hollywood/Mainstream Media/Education/Social Media will need to change and evolve as we move into the future. If not we will destroy our great country. I believe in the American Spirit. I see it every single day. Our government is so big now it is stuck in mud. No matter who is the President our country will continue to move forward because good people are doing great things! It starts in our local communities. Get involved!
All true - but if we lose mainstream media aren’t we at greater risk of losing democracy? Isn’t there a way to correct course? I think Trump and all the autocratic-minded would just love to see us abandon wapo, nyt, and the like which makes me queasy. Aren’t you playing into their hands?
Mainstream Media.. well I guess Fox News is mainstream? Get up early retired guy here. Watch CNN , MSNBC, and turn on Fox just to see what nonsense they are spewing today. Well they started the 5:00 a.m. broadcast with 8 Democratic states have issued mask mandates. The Fox news hosts, say why? There is no reason for it the omincron strain is weak. The only reason is the Democrats want to get control of you, and why do the people obey follow these mask mandates they are of no use. Well folks after all the deaths and strain on our health system the past almost 2 years this Fox News thing is still to this day claiming the vaccines and mask mandates are just a way for Democrats to control you. Kind of like what? No comparison to anything.. the end
Murdoch’s contempt for working people writ large. I keep waiting for Biden to call this Republican behavior out.
So I guess the question is, why does Fox have such a strict vaccine and mask mandate for their company?
Because they stand for freedom? ];-)>
Same as Heinrich Himmler did?
I'm taking that as rhetorical?
This is one of my favorite forum topics to date! I am a news watcher and seek good information that lets me know what is happening in our country with our leaders and representatives and the world in general. I must sift through it all and sometimes feel confused and even depressed. It helps to define the problems and get a clearer perspective.
I honestly think the rt wing news take-over is the most dangerous thing to have happened in the US. This is how the MAGA crowd was seduced. It’s all they listen to! It’s all some of them have!
Like you, I research the authors of articles and use multi sources, including the Guardian as a foreign perspective.
We should not have to research for the trustworthy news. Prof Reich did make some good suggestions in the article.
People have to hear the truth before this country can move forward. It is exhausting.
What do you think about every Facebook post dealing with a politicized issue coming with an icon that indicates what credible sources like Mother Jones think about it (credible, partially true, unrated, misleading, mostly false, false)? Click on the icon and learn what those credible sources have to say on that subject. How about the same thing on links returned by a Google search? This can be achieved with a browser plugin on the front end, and a combination of AI and human curators on the back end. As a former VP of Engineering for several software companies, I can tell you that this is feasible. There are a few different ways it could be funded, from a pure donation model, to collaboration with existing organizations such as MoveOn and Inequality Media, or by user subscriptions.
I would also like options to remove Fox News from the choice selection in my car. When we get cable, I would love an option NOT to have it listed on my screen. We all know it is not news but sheer propaganda for the rt. I also understand that it is a choice for some, I just want to be able to leave it out of my packaged choices.
There have been attempts to aggregate news sources on the internet as you have described but that hasn’t succeeded yet in displacing media industry news sources. Substack is an attempt to put journalists in direct contact with their readers without big brother over their shoulder. Aggregating these journalists into what amounts to a new publication means moving to your own server and partnering with progressive technologists. Such a cooperative is possible but it requires capital and a trust in technology which is sorely lacking in progressive leadership circles.
PS The Mercers know how to do it but Bernie, not so
I am not talking about any form of aggregation. I mean to annotate the posting one sees on Facebook, or the results one sees from Google, and it can be done without their cooperation. That way, it is there the moment you see the "information".
As always, Robert Reich's analysis and argument provide a clear and compelling perspective.
I think that the general public have become very weary of all of these back and forth efforts that our political system seems to wallow in. NOTHING EVER CHANGES! That is all I ever hear from family, friends and people I don't even know. "They get your hopes up one day about the possibility of "Medcare For All" and then the bomb hits the ground and you have to realize after Years and Years of hoping and praying that the people in charge promise HOPE but only deliver Nothing, EVER!!! It is not surprising to me that most people don't even want to talk about, much less have anything to do with the world of politics. The general public already knows that we have a totally unfunctional political system. And they also know that the only system we have to "DEPEND ON" is at war all of the time with each other. "NOTHING EVER CHANGES" is getting very old to hear all of the time. The only news we get on the media level never seems to project any good news anymore. We are getting tired of Promises that are never kept. The system gives child care help, or extra money one day, and then it is taken away without any reasons given. The idea of helping the Working Class is repugnant to our government. So this is the way I see our public situation on a daily basis. It has been like this for more years than I can even remember. Do you think it is a good or healthy thing to keep on giving the people in need false hope FOREVER??? I DON'T THINK SO!!!
Democracy Now is the only news I watch these days... besides getting it from certain late night comedy shows. Helps me keep sane and focused.
I disagree with the sentiment that there is a huge difference between how the democratic and republican parties operate, but I need more coffee before attempting to comment.
NPR has a LOT of amazing news to offer also. Oh—one other thought: on the “left” big news media side you have MSNBC and CNN, but really only one, Fox, on the other side (other right-wing channels aren’t major news media). Similarly, there’s The Washington Post and The New York Times but only Wall Street Journal on the other side. (This is kind of a stretch. And Wall Street Journal news can be more fact-based and is high quality reporting still I guess.) Maybe part of the imbalance is “our” media is forced to compete to win over readers and for recognition of excellence, whereas the monopoly phenomenon really is (or at least was) true of Fox. Sorry this is terribly worded, I hope it makes sense. It’s late…🙏🏻
I love the alternatives you have listed as I have pretty much stopped watching MSNBC at this point because they are beating a very dead horse every night as are ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN. You can see where I get my information and in the future I will be using your venues. Thank you.
Thank you, Patricia, for your thoughtful approach to the news media.
Robert, could you please explain the Powell Memorandum to the readers less than 45yrs old. I think most of them have never heard of it.
Hawkeye (is this a wink to Pierce?), thanks for bringing this up. I just read up on it on Wikipedia. As I've said before and will say again, I love this newsletter because I am being constantly exposed to new things, helping me understand how we got to where we are today. BTW I'm 62, and had never heard of it but it does explain a lot of things for me, and also reinforces how vitally important it is to keep political operatives off our Supreme Court.
My complaints about mainstream media mirror yours. My concern, bordering on dread, is that the American public consumes the worst of the worst - Fox News, TV network evening news, always commentary and chatter rather than facts. The universal coverage of Biden and his administration is warped, negative. We seldom see or hear the president himself unless he looks tired. We seldom hear about his administration's excellent performance. with the economy and the pandemic But we do hear that he is responsible for runaway inflation, product shortages, the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Always negative. Why this media group think?
Maybe we should show the film from the fall of Saigon. Richard Nixon was in charge of that and things went so smoothly there. And we didn't leave any military hardware behind did we. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek)
Noam Chomsky has written several books elucidating why we should not trust the mainstream media. They do have an agenda which is anti common citizen. Sounds like we agree with trump! That prospect scares me. The big media outlets do support the power elites and the reason is very clear, they pay the bills. Money equates with power because of the power to influence and to propagate propaganda. What’s to be done? Well, we have a proliferation of independent opinions due to the internet. The problem is we do not know if they are legitimate.
I am glad some one besides me knows who knows who Noam Chomsky is. I remember him from the Vietnam era. I especially love his "Requiem for the American Dream". It is a very thoughtful insight into America.
What about MSNBC. They seem to do a good job?
MSNBC is a typical news outlet. The so called "News" does not change much from one day to the next. You could watch any channel once a month and still know everythig that is really important to know.
I disagree. MSNBC goes after republicans and their machinations and lies. That is not your typical news channel.
Here Here! The media is owned/served by corporations, much of what is heard, read or seen is part of their agenda! interesting to note your sources of news/information, I concur, but have still witnessed a corporate spin nearly everywhere.
It appears that either wealth, or government (Operation Mockingbird), still control the narrative…
Just goes to show, once you use a secret weapon, >it's no longer a secret!<
Thanks for sharing information on media sources that you follow. I will be following them too.
There is something all too familiar when we cannot trust the programs we watch read the news ,watch social media of our choice, due to nefarious biased opinions.
In a democracy of course there are various , opinions . That is the point of a democracy but now there is such vitriol.
We seem to have forgotten that we are ONE country with the goal hopefully of becoming a more perfect union. I know LOL.
We do not seem to be in control..TV is so biased does not off both side of the issue.
Compassion for the underpriviliged. 6 % of fArica is vaccinated....6!
There is never talk of moral issues, religion is a dirty word while homosexuality , is a common thing to see on TV. Oh no I mentioned a bad word is that homosexuality or God ?
I am for compassion, helping your fellow man whether in Vermont or Africa.
Freedom of choice , free sexual preference.
And I have mentioned many times here America has lost its soul.
It feels to me we the peolple matter less..polls serve the orgainization taking the poll.
Congress could care less what the polls say...that is the people.
And again and again, I ask Mr Reich with all due respect and you never answer.
Where is the FBI, CIA, NSA who you know damn well know everything well in advance stand by and let democracy disintregrate. Where and why was the Natl Guard not in on Jan 6th.
And on and on it goes..but at least you give us this venue..it gives the appearance of caring.
Why should religion have a positive spin in the news? There are many crimes that are committed by religious.. Oklahoma bombing -McVey, 911-Islamic, Catholic Church paying billions in restitution for rape. Those are reportable news stories. Other than that religion doesn’t belong in the news. There are no verifiable facts there and it has no place in our secular government, except preventing the way the fundamentalist constantly try to shove it into public schools etc. Should we report good news about Islamic religion? Buddhist? We a multi-religion country and 24% Report having no religion.
Hey same sex marriage.. so dangerous oh my God... but the gun manufactures can churn out thousands and thousands of AR-15 assault weapons... stay strong..
I agree with you professor! and follow/read pretty much what you do. Most the magazines you read tend to do much more thorough deep diving. MSM has fallen into sensationalistic / doom & gloom headlines, continual subjective (thoughtless - or is it??) adjectives and uncalled for, misleading branding of people, positions & issues. I am not looking to them for their "opinions". I just want the facts! Why can they not be more professional? Go deeper? Ask hard questions -- until they get answers? STICK TO THE FACTS and ELIMINATE ALL ADJECTIVES. And why DON'T they focus on the bigger issues such as those you highlight? They are also beginning to sound all alike. It's frustrating!
Must research as many news organizations newspapers like LA Times and local periodicals
I was just helping my granddaughter with an essay she had to write for an undergraduate college English class. The assignment was to take two articles (from those the professor selected) to synthesize and critique so as to draw the student’s own conclusions about their effectiveness at communicating the subject matter. To my surprise, but not without some real struggle, she managed to tease apart the information and to see both the missing parts and the biased messages. I applaud this kind of teaching! Hooray for critical thinking and our smart, forward thinking young adults!
Your line in this piece:
“You see, the old labels “left” versus “right” are fast becoming outdated. Today, it’s democracy versus oligarchy. Equating them is misleading and dangerous.”
…is very important. I urge you to drum it into everyone’s heads. It is a concise answer to the oft-repeated question “Why do they vote against their own interests?”
We need to teach critical thinking in our schools-- maybe a new course that includes how to determine if a news source can be trusted.
Mainstream media cater to the short attention spans of the average American. What people want, and what sells, are sound bites and entertainment. Doing justice to complicated and controversial public policy issues would require long, in-depth analytical reporting, but only policy wonks and intellectuals will put the time and energy into reading such serious material. (Professor Reich obviously knows this at some level, and cleverly finds ways to graphically outline complicated policy issues using visual, cartoon drawing techniques. Most journalists are not trained in and do not possess such artistic skills.) Average Americans are a simple people, looking for uncomplicated, blunt answers to life’s difficult issues. Hence the extraordinary level of faith among Americans, in contrast to Europeans, who are raised within more sophisticated cultures that value education, and admire intellect, critical thinking, and questioning authority.
You make many, many good points, especially that NY and DC produce the dominant news stream every day. Factor in the collapse of the economic model for news production, which has been declining since the 1980s. Without strong local and regional news outlets to feed NY and DC, there is an absence of perspectives. Add to that the number of seasoned journalists who have left the business because they lost their jobs or couldn’t support a family on a meager salary. (Look up Dean Singleton, who bought small papers, fired staff, broke unions.) Compound that with the existing “eyeballs” metric for generating revenue to produce news. We have gone from Walter Cronkite to Buzzfeed.
I agree with you Robert. The Mainstream Media covers and writes about the key concerns of most Americans. They get feedback and comments and those drive them to cover the most popular topics. I think the planet is very small and if we plan to live here for a while we need to think and share ideas on world order and making the planet a safe and health place for all of us, including the planet.
Thanks, Robert, I watch as many of your videos as I can and share them. I've noticed a trend in people completely eschewing all corporate owned media, and in my experience, this leaves them open to dangerous propaganda and conspiracy theories. Here you mention some reliable progressive news sources. That is quite valuable, and I intend to check out the ones I don't already subscribe to. I follow the WaPo and NYT, the Atlantic and the Guardian, but I don't take it as 'Gospel'. I consider it critically. I follow Thom Hartmann and will look into Talking Points Memo and American Prospect. I have trouble with Democracy Now! because I get a bit too worked up when I watch. I'm a bit sensitive. Thanks again for the service and education you do. Bless you. You've helped keep me sane over the past 5 yrs.
I’m a relative newcomer to the US, and definitely on here. One of the things I noted when I arrived here in the US was that the news outlets are very parochial. Even in a large city the news would have lots of feel good items and very few, if any, items that might be upsetting. I put it down to who owns the outlets. The capitalists, oligarchs, and career politicians want a pliable populous, they want happy people. The Roman emperors would hold a ‘games’ whenever there was a sense that the proletariat were getting antsy, our oligarchs do similar things by hyping up sporting events and flooding the media with stories about the events to distract, plus hard news does not sell advertising space. I get my news from the Guardian, the BBC, and occasionally NYT.
Thank you for articulating what I have been thinking for a long, long time.
I am increasingly unhappy with television news reporting - the catch lines, the baiting, the attempt to come across as devil's advocates. I appreciate some of the recommendations made on the blog and reader's comment.
I agree, popular news sources can very easily persuade you to believe they are giving the full truth while also being bias. This strategy can make it hard to fully believe anything you see on the news. It can be difficult to get your daily news from any news source because you have to go through the extra work of finding out how true the information is.
Honestly I agree with almost all of his points. Mainstream media will almost always be biased because the people at the top of the corporate food chain have their own motives that don’t just involve giving people the news. Also it’s my own personal belief that most journalists or pundits don’t care about the actual messages they are sending, rather the paycheck they get at the end of the day. When money is the motive sometimes the whole truth goes out the window, like we would all say the stuff Tucker Carlson does for millions of dollars. Speaking of money, I have always had the question of why the media doesn’t really question the government's military budget. The amount of money we have recklessly spent in places like Afghanistan (just to pull out about as efficiently as the Amish do) could’ve gone to things like healthcare or repaying student loan debt, but here we are. I mean the U.S. government spent 6.8 trillion in 2021 (USA), the build back better plan’s cost varies from 3 trillion in a decade to 4.8 trillion in a decade. Even on the higher end of the spectrum, $480 million is a lot of money, not really for the U.S. government though. Also the whole debt fear mongering by the media is just kind of silly, for a country with the GDP of the United States taking on debt is not the end of the world, very far from it actually. It’s a similar situation you see a lot with inflation where the media freaks everybody out by showing the gas prices 30 years ago as to indicate bad things to come. When in reality it’s a much bigger issue if prices aren’t increasing steadily for an economy, debt nor inflation are bad things for an economy (until you get to the extremes for both of them), but the media constantly uses them as the boogeyman. It should really just be a fact of life for everybody at this point to take the mainstream media with a pinch of salt (or a whole bucket of salt with some news outlets).
Works cited:
USA, . “State of the US Federal Budget and National Debt: 2022 State of the Union Facts.” USAFacts, 15 Feb. 2022, https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/budget/.
This was definitely worth the read, thank you. I liked the notion of not limiting news to just mainstream media, is a real smart idea, I think especially when it regards finding news on important issues the mainstream media is not. This article gave me something to think about more in the future when looking at news sources, even ones I consider trustworthy, and thinking more critically about the information they are presenting.
Thank you. I don't know how you stay as sane as you are but you ought to bottle the recipe.
I'm seeing FB posts from something called National Memo, I think. They seem legit. Anyone know more about it?
Years before the Trump political era, I wrote a widely (and perhaps deservedly) ignored article about problems with the mainstream media. Here are a few items from it:
“[Media scholar] Robert McChesney explains that the ‘general rule in professional journalism is this: If the elite, the upper 2 or 3 percent of society who control most of the capital and rule the largest institutions, agree on an issue then it is off-limits to journalistic scrutiny.’”
“Even after the reasons for the [Iraq] war were indisputably revealed to be false, the corporate media was slow to let the public know. In 2005 John Kerry complained that when the presidential election was held in November 2004, 77% of the people who voted for George W. Bush thought weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq and Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.”
“Laurie Garrett, one of the nation’s most highly respected reporters, said when she quit the news field in 2005: ‘All across America news organizations have been devoured by massive corporations – and allegiance to stockholders, the drive for higher share prices, and push for larger dividend returns trumps everything that the grunts in the newsrooms consider their missions’ She added: ‘This is terrible for democracy.’”
“As for journalists who persist in trying to report on matters the government and corporate establishment don’t want exposed, they can end up retaliated against, slandered, fired, blacklisted, and labeled as ‘radioactive’ (which means ‘unemployable’).”
“Because of the corporate media’s many failings to serve the public interest, Congressman Dennis Kucinich made several proposals for substantial structural changes to the media during his campaign for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. He wanted to make the media much more responsive to societal needs and less driven by profits.
“But the corporate media ignored his proposals. Instead, it provided extensive coverage about the more than 80 women who wanted to date him after he mentioned he was a bachelor.”
https://humanismbyjoe.co/the-corporate-news-medias-dereliction-of-duty/
I recommend The Brainwashing of My Dad documentary to everyone. It’s a great primer re right wing media and basically fun to watch, tho dense with information.
I carry our current situation further back to the advent of cable. Americans were just not prepared to deal with 24/7 programming and the insertion of less palatable content. The years since, what was it the early 80s, have been crazy for America even before Fox in 1996. I was totally repelled by Rosanne Barr’s show. She made it ok to be deplorable.
I hope that we are going through a drawn out learning curve but will eventually be smarter consumers. We need to be.
There’s nothing more important to our way of life -to freedom and justice - than the preservation of our democracy. I will be sharing this article with my many FB friends and encouraging them to read it as I encourage you to do the same.
Brass Parachutes: The Problem of the Pentagon Revolving Door
Pentagon officials captured by the contractors they oversee is skewing our spending priorities and foreign policy.
https://www.pogo.org/report/2018/11/brass-parachutes/
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
Pentagon imbeds defense contractors in media as “message force multipliers”
All governments manipulate the media to garner favorable news coverage and spin the flow of information to put their actions in a positive light. But in a story in Sunday’s NY Times (April 20, 2008) entitled “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” David Barstow describes a concerted effort by the Bush Administration who used ostensibly objective military analysts to spread propaganda and dupe the American public in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance in Iraq. It turns out that those “independent military experts” consisted of “more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants.”
https://freegovinfo.info/node/1812/
This Is How the Biggest Arms Manufacturers Steer Millions to Influence US Policy
Five of the nation's biggest defense contractors -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Technologies and General Dynamics -- spent a combined $60 million in 2020 to influence policy, according to a new report from the Center for Responsive Politics.
The paper, "Capitalizing on conflict: How defense contractors and foreign nations lobby for arms sales," details how a network of lobbyists and donors steered $285 million in campaign contributions and $2.5 billion in lobbying spending over the last two decades, as well as hiring more than 200 lobbyists who previously worked in government.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/07/how-biggest-arms-manufacturers-steer-millions-influence-us-policy.html
The meshing of the corporate media and the military-industrial complex
https://miscellanynews.org/2021/05/13/opinions/the-improper-meshing-of-the-corporate-media-and-the-military-industrial-complex/
"Manipulating the Masses: The Roots of the Modern Government Propaganda Machine"
Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of American Propaganda (LSU Press, 2020), exploring the Great War origins of one of the most profound and enduring threats to American democracy: the systematic production and dissemination of propaganda to advance administration aims. Through its Committee on Public Information (CPI) the United States government exercised unprecedented power to shape the views and attitudes of the citizens it was supposed to serve. Nothing like it had existed before, and it would be dismantled at the end of the war. But the CPI endured as a “blueprint” for the Information State that exists today - in times of peace as well as times of war.
https://youtu.be/zZPwxyZCo9M
“It is a commonplace that ‘you can’t keep secrets in Washington’ or ‘in a democracy’…. These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public.” - Daniel Ellsburg
How Media Manipulates Public Opinion in
Case of Wars
https://www.wjrr.org/download_data/WJRR0704016.pdf
CIA gave faulty information to media in order to mislead public on torture
Senate report also details how CIA also competed with FBI over which agency would receive more credit in the media for its accomplishments.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-false-information-journalists-mislead-public-senate-report
Why do so many US intelligence chiefs become media pundits?
Retiring from being in charge of intelligence, counter-intelligence and counterterrorism to working as mainstream news commentators, this has become an established career path in the US; now you can rest assured of the objectivity and independence of the world’s greatest democratic free press
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3138630/why-do-so-many-us-intelligence-chiefs-become-media-pundits
Confession from the profession: ‘Presstitutes’ in the service of the CIA
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/confession-from-the-profession-presstitutes-in-the-service-of-the-cia/
OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD:
https://schoolhistory.co.uk/notes/operation-mockingbird/
"This Russia-Afghanistan Story is Western Disinformation"
All Western mass media outlets are now shrieking about the story The New York Times first reported, citing zero evidence and naming zero sources, claiming intelligence says Russia paid out bounties to Taliban-linked fighters in Afghanistan for attacking the occupying forces of the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan. As of this writing, and probably forevermore, there have still been zero intelligence sources named and zero evidence provided for this claim.
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/06/29/this-russia-afghanistan-story-is-western-disinformation/
The CIA Used To Infiltrate The Media. Now The CIA Is The Media.
Back in the good old days, when things were more innocent and simple, the psychopathic Central Intelligence Agency had to covertly infiltrate the news media to manipulate the information Americans were consuming about their nation and the world. Nowadays, there is no meaningful separation between the news media and the CIA at all.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald just highlighted an interesting point about the reporting by The New York Times on the so-called "Bountygate" story the outlet broke in June of last year about the Russian government trying to pay Taliban-linked fighters to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan.
"One of the NYT reporters who originally broke the Russia bounty story (originally attributed to unnamed 'intelligence officials') say today that it was a CIA claim," Greenwald tweeted. "So media outlets - again - repeated CIA stories with no questioning: congrats to all."
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2104/S00073/the-cia-used-to-infiltrate-the-media-now-the-cia-is-the-media.htm
It is unsettling how often most mainstream media outlets advance the agenda of the narrative put forth by the CIA and other portions of the national security state. Most of the press circulated the narrative that the CIA‐orchestrated coups in Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s were spontaneous democratic uprisings. More recently, the news media disseminated allegations that Saddam Hussein had a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Nearly all that information came from Iraqi exiles that the CIA supplied to “friendly” journalists, including New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Perhaps most striking, major media outlets, especially the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC, have avidly joined the national security state’s campaign to demonize Russia. Those media heavyweights enthusiastically promoted the false narrative about collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election. Even worse, they parroted the CIA’s unsupported, far‐fetched allegation that Moscow had paid the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-national-security-state-manipulates-news-media
■ The New York Times. The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.
https://joebidenreview.com/2021/12/26/the-cia-and-the-media-by-carl-bernstein/
A December 26, 1977, investigative report in the New York Times described the scope of the CIA’s global campaign to influence opinion through media manipulation. “In its persistent efforts to shape world opinion, the C.I.A. has been able to call upon” an extensive network “of newspapers, news services, magazines, publishing houses, broadcasting stations and other entities over which it has at various limes had some control. A decade ago, when the agency’s communications empire was at its peak, [it] embraced more than 500 news and public information organizations and individuals. According to one CIA official, they ranged in importance ‘from Radio Free Europe to a third‐string guy in Quito who could get something in the local paper.’” The CIA funded those foreign “journalistic assets” generously.
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propaganda-network-built-by-the-cia-a-worldwide-network.html
Robert, I told you the media works hand in hand with pro-war officials and agencies, including the CIA. Says who? Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein investigated and spilled the beans on CIA manipulation of the media to foment war. These are hard, cold facts Robert:
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.
https://joebidenreview.com/2021/12/26/the-cia-and-the-media-by-carl-bernstein/
THE CIA AND THE MEDIA - BY CARL BERNSTEIN
How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up
After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.
In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.
Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.
The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception for the following principal reasons:
The use of journalists has been among the most productive means of intelligence‑gathering employed by the CIA. Although the Agency has cut back sharply on the use of reporters since 1973 primarily as a result of pressure from the media), some journalist‑operatives are still posted abroad.
■ Further investigation into the matter, CIA officials say, would inevitably reveal a series of embarrassing relationships in the 1950s and 1960s with some of the most powerful organizations and individuals in American journalism.
Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.
The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements.
The Agency’s special relationships with the so‑called “majors” in publishing and broadcasting enabled the CIA to post some of its most valuable operatives abroad without exposure for more than two decades. In most instances, Agency files show, officials at the highest levels of the CIA usually director or deputy director) dealt personally with a single designated individual in the top management of the cooperating news organization. The aid furnished often took two forms: providing jobs and credentials “journalistic cover” in Agency parlance) for CIA operatives about to be posted in foreign capitals; and lending the Agency the undercover services of reporters already on staff, including some of the best‑known correspondents in the business.
In the field, journalists were used to help recruit and handle foreigners as agents; to acquire and evaluate information, and to plant false information with officials of foreign governments. Many signed secrecy agreements, pledging never to divulge anything about their dealings with the Agency; some signed employment contracts., some were assigned case officers and treated with. unusual deference. Others had less structured relationships with the Agency, even though they performed similar tasks: they were briefed by CIA personnel before trips abroad, debriefed afterward, and used as intermediaries with foreign agents. Appropriately, the CIA uses the term “reporting” to describe much of what cooperating journalists did for the Agency. “We would ask them, ‘Will you do us a favor?’”.said a senior CIA official. “‘We understand you’re going to be in Yugoslavia. Have they paved all the streets? Where did you see planes? Were there any signs of military presence? How many Soviets did you see? If you happen to meet a Soviet, get his name and spell it right .... Can you set up a meeting for is? Or relay a message?’” Many CIA officials regarded these helpful journalists as operatives; the journalists tended to see themselves as trusted friends of the Agency who performed occasional favors—usually without pay—in the national interest.
“I’m proud they asked me and proud to have done it,” said Joseph Alsop who, like his late brother, columnist Stewart Alsop, undertook clandestine tasks for the Agency. “The notion that a newspaperman doesn’t have a duty to his country is perfect balls.”
The degree of collaboration frequently has reached stunning levels. During the early decades of the Cold War, some journalists even became outright CIA assets. Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein’s January 1977, 25,000-word article in Rolling Stone was an extraordinarily detailed account of cooperation between the CIA and members of the press, and it provided key insights into that relationship. In some cases, the “journalists” were actually full‐time CIA employees masquerading as members of the Fourth Estate, but Bernstein also confirmed that some 400 bona fide American journalists had secretly carried out assignments for the ClA during the previous 25 years. He noted that “journalists provided a full range of clandestine services — from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‐betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs.”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-national-security-state-manipulates-news-media
"How the National Security State Manipulates the News Media"
The American people, who count on the news profession to provide them with accurate, independent information about foreign affairs, are the ultimate victims.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-national-security-state-manipulates-news-media
I dare you to read this:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/ciasuseofjournal00unit.pdf
The media is part of the pro-war group which keeps America pointed towards constant war.
American media can't quit the forever war
https://theweek.com/politics/1003969/american-media-cant-quit-the-forever-war
To your final question: OH, HELL YES!!
As long as corporations exist, mainstream media will be negatively affected. It seems Republicans rely more on Fox, claiming larger distribution but carefully refraining from a claim of objectivity. Truth doesn't seem to be a relevant factor, but skillfully distorted and twisted. I remember Edward Murrow , Huntley and Brinkley and Cronkite. Those were the days of honest non-partisan reporting. Back then our politicians were respected and trusted statesmen
Thank you I appreciate your observations and opinions Mary Page. Encinitas,Ca
I appreciated your timely article just before I head home to my fairly right-wing family for the holidays. I would like to believe I am open to multiple views and reading/listening to varied sources is helping me to be reasonable. (If that makes any sense.) As another reader wrote "It's late."! Happy Holidays to all!
I meant top state that I appreciate the different resources you provided, some of which I know about and others I did not think about! Thank you!
Robert, all of main Street media need their bucks for corporate money. CNN posts ads from Facebook that are nothing more than trying to look at green deal is hell. It disappoints me that the bottom line is money
Nailed it! Thanks for this!!
Question to Professor Reich—what do you make of the reporting of NPR and its attached TV stations and websites?
I'm sitting in my office on the Central Coast of New South Wales Australia and reading your newsletter. Excellent reading, by the way and I'm glad to have subscribed.
This morning on my walk I listened to the excellent "Pod Save America" podcast.
Watching from afar I find it increasingly troublesome that Democracy in the U.S is in such a dangerous and precarious state.
Although I am not directly affected and my interest in U.S politics is merely a hobby I can't help but fear for the worst for the mid terms and the 2024 Presidential campaign.
Is the mainstream media giving too much of a pass to the Republicans and their crazy ideas or is it just that we have a clarity of vision that comes from being 10,000 miles away?
As always (to me!), your insights are appreciated-- glad to see that some of the same media sources I trust are ones you recommend. Please keep up the great posts!
By the current standard set by the mainstream news media, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and LBJ would all be considered left wing extremists. FDR in fact saved the country during the Great Depression.
I am definitely in agreement that the mainstream media has important flaws, and I agree with you that they want "acceptance in the right DC and NYC circles, which is most unhelpful. I also completely agree with your concerns about the false equivalence issue (which has very much compromised their reporting of the Trump era). I also think they have a bias towards sensationalism. Chris Cuomo's CNN program was Exhibit A for that, and he should have never been hired all other issues aside. Your perspective that they are biased towards the status quo is fascinating. 5 minutes ago I heard an MSNBC reporter argue that Trump will never be prosecuted for his Jan 6 behavior (clearly criminal behavior in my view) because "Washington doesn't want the disruption". I wondered to myself if it was really the legislators that don't want the disruption, or if they was actually the reporter's view masquerading as "what Washington thinks". Not to pile on, but as someone with career long experience in healthcare data they are also pretty bad a reporting on public health in a clear way.
Excellent inquiry! Thanks! -- and now a few caveats.
I too have grown wary of the mainstream media (MM), but long since, and more than a bit.
As for their more subtle biases, 1) yes, the MM do often favor the status quo, essentially because they're invested in it, subject to our common cultural afflictions, including the three evils of American society identified by MLK: racism (more broadly bigotry of any kind), economic exploitation (predatory capitalism), and militarism (at home and abroad); 2) yes, the MM do often fail to report critical public choices, typically as a consequence of point #1, their investment in and favor for the status quo, and their subjection to our common cultural afflictions; and 3) yes, the MM do often indulge in false equivalences, also typically as a consequence of point #1 as just mentioned.
As for why the mainstream media do not see that "Today, it’s democracy versus oligarchy", to say that it's "Not just because of its dependence on corporate money" seems problematical to me on two grounds: first, I prefer to identify this money as "big money", including the big money from individuals as well as from corporations; and second, I question this "not just" conclusion because I think the "more subtle" explanation that the MM "want to be accepted into the circles of the powerful" essentially admits that such acceptance is just an aspect of their dependence on big money, and because I'm afraid that by shifting our emphasis from big money to "the powerful" we run a grave risk of distracting ourselves from the plain truth that big money is at the heart of the matter. Sure there are powerful people, but as well paid representatives of the oligarchy, which in America is to say the plutocracy, they serve big money.
As I heard Bob Dylan sing it at the March on Washington in 1963, each of us apart from the oligarchs is "Only a Pawn in Their Game", and it seems to me that framing this issue this way in terms of big money is essential for communicating across our partisan political divide. In short, I think saying clearly and repeatedly that the oligarchs are screwing all the rest of us (let alone themselves) is something that everyone can understand.
As Michael Lerner says, money is our bottom line, and we need to recognize this explicitly and adopt a new bottom line, as in love and justice, or maybe more tangibly, as in service to all life on Earth.
Part of the the problem, or maybe the whole problem, is that the media are all giant corporations just like all the other politico/economic powers in the U.S. and they are inherently conservative. How many Fortune 500 corporate CEOs are Democrats? And who benefits from electoral campaigns? The media! They make billions off of political campaign ads, especially national and state political cycles--and maybe even local. What is the actual function of any corporation? It's to make money--not to further political goals unless they can profit from them. Milton Friedman said so for which he won a Nobel Prize!: Maximize returns to shareholders. And who sets the corporate agenda? The CEOs and major shareholders.
I've opined that Amerikan election campaigns are like corporate proxy votes: The guy with the most shares (read $$) sets the corporate agenda (read national agenda) and corporations are "guys"; our historically conservative (read corrupt) SCOTUS judges have said so--starting with Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), Santa Clara county v. So. Pacific RR Co. (1886), Minneapolis & St. Louis RR Co. v. Beckworth (1889), First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., (2014)--one bad precedent after another established by a corrupt SCOTUS--based on a previous corrupt SCOTUS precedent--based on a previous corrupt SCOTUS precedent--based on, etc.... for the past 202 years! The same thing applies to gun regulation: one deadly precedent after another for decades--and precedent is the basis of Anglo-American common law.
Even Ayn Rand (the darling of the conservatives (until they realized she was a pro-abortion atheist, a libertine and a immigrant) said on “judicial precedent”—
“… once a bad precedent is set, or an indefensible law is introduced, it is moral—particularly for the Supreme Court—to repeal it.” [Lecture, “Censorship: Local and Express”, Ford Hall Forum, Boston, 1973].
Historically how many such precedents have been revisited, much less overturned?
I've sometimes thought
Democracy Now on PBS may be a good alternative to NBC
I agree, but am deeply frustrated. We “Leftys” seem to have zero impact on news media or the Congress. What can we do that has any measurable effect?
Ask Joe Hill!
Have not read any of his books. What do you suppose he would say?
David, you've got a treat ahead of you! Joe Hill was an organizer for the Wobblies, the International Workers of the World, framed and executed for murder in 1915 by the Copper bosses in Colorado. Here's the famous slogan adapted from his somewhat longer line, and recommended by me to you:
"Don't mourn -- organize!"
Look him up on Wikipedia, and hear the poem written for him, turned into a song sung by the likes of Paul Robeson, Pete Seeger, and Joan Baez.
I’m a member of the modern IWW union. I know about
“that” Joe Hill. There is a current author with that nom de plume. Two different people. The first Joe Hill was a socialist hero and martyr.
I also read the ones you and others mentioned. It keeps me well-rounded! I also look at Fox News, when I can keep from getting angry at what they state!! I try, professor, I try!!
I would also suggest the PBS News Hour. I listen to them everyday, not bad most of the time!
The bad news is that Trump has set up a media company to compete with the MM and social media. The good news is that he has hired an incompetent, Rep. Devin Nunes, to run it.
All that the social media is good for is giving out personal opinion information that is driven by political programing depending which party you are following. And for the most part, the news doesn't change much from one day to the next. People have to realize that all news presented is driven by which political leadership the network is trying to boost up for their own political beliefs too. Any way you want to look at the social media, it never changes from one day to the next. There is nothing NEW about the daily NEWS.
What are your thoughts towards The Young Turks (TYT)?
I trust Mad. It doesn't take advertising, and has no particular slant, choosing to just watch the world it sees go by ..
Alfred E. Newman MAD? :-)
Yep. Of course, its limitation is that it deals in straight comedy, i.e., nothing in human folly really changes ..
What is "Mad"?
I agree and thank you for sharing your sources!
I agree completely with Dr. Reich and follow many of the same news sources. I encourage others who are not following the sources like the Daily Kos and Democracy Now to consider doing so as a matter of gaining more personal control of information. These are not-for-profit organizations that we should support. This news letter is another example of a valuable source of information outside the mainstream media we should support. Control of information is a pillar of power. We are in a power struggle between democracy and oligarchy and the democracy side desperately need to develop more independent sources of information.
On peut toujours améliorer ses talents de travail !
To what skills do you refer, and how would you suggest improving?
There is also Truthout, which has some great reporting. I keep trying to get my family members who are deep in the MAGA trenches, to PLEASE watch(they refuse to read) CNN one hour for each hour they watch FOX, so they can then make a decision on what reality is. They simply refuse. Then our conversation degrades, and we hang up. How can we beat the reich-wing propaganda?
By following and outing the big money oligarchs for screwing all the rest of us.
This is the most important challenge to our democracy. Bias is one thing but lies can be fact checked and should have been addressed years ago. When the republican far right bought out all of our major news conglomerates, it should have been addressed. This is the danger of ignoring monopolistic control.
It is a very good idea to list news sources that do the best job of fact checking and report news that isn’t in major news. For example, none of the major news networks reported the violence against Native nations during pipeline protest over water rights etc.
FreeSpeech tv (also accessible through youtube.com) is a good source.-DemocracyNow is on FS tv. But they don’t have the reach that the giant media stations do.
I stopped subscribing to The Atlantic when I got sick of all the right wing claptrap they were publishing. I would definitely not include that in any list of trusted media.
As a possible explanation here, perhaps it's mainstream news catering to its target audience, rather than attempting to cultivate its audience, as does FOX. From that perspective, a more subtle appearance of the "echo chamber" effect becomes clear. Opinion polls become relevant in creating that echo chamber. Perhaps, mainstream's polls that track views and demographics of their target audience are creating a feed-back loop between their target audience's views and the way mainstream reports news reflecting their target audience's bias? The music business employs >exactly< that kind of principle. Musicians play the music their target audience buys.
Just a speculation based on a little understanding of how that kind of thing works - no claim to authority. It's just my confounded attempt to make sense of what's increasingly looking to me like a collective mental illness. Maybe it's just something in the water they drink from plastic bottles! (Tap water seems to be less popular these days! I use a heavy-duty whole-house water filter instead!)
Here's a thought. In current times, perhaps the new follows the audience rather than the other way around as in times past. Pay special attention to Mr Borgamann's comment above.
Upon reflection, FOX is probably following the same business model, but serving the audience it's chosen to serve - the "punk rock" of news networks.
That's really unfair to punk rock. Fox is the slimy bottom of the dumpsters where I suspect their reporters hang out at night.
Point taken! ];-)>
May I suggest that >confirmation bias< sells the news ‽
Good point, DZK.
What is your honest opinion of NPR?
I listen to NPR when I can, and I trust their coverage. Some of it is brilliant. But again, it's not so much the accuracy of coverage we need to worry about as it is what's not being covered and how choices are presented.
NPR is my primary news source with a little CBS thrown in on Sundays. Most news is frankly disheartening and I can only take so much of it before it starts having negative effects on me. The chase for ratings and sensationalism turns me right off, thankfully there is very little of that on NPR compared to the others. Thanks for being a beacon of sanity in these troubled times.
EVERY source of news has it own set of biases, including this wonderful newsletter! I try to cope by watching and reading from a wide variety of sources with a focus on their reputation for reliable and accurate information I recommend the BBC and The Economist magazine as excellent sources of news. I do watch Fox News periodically, even Tucker Carlson. Not all the information they provide is BS, and they do cover stories that you won't find in the New York Times.
As a postscript, most of the people in my area are unable to hear NPR and have never heard of the news sources mentioned by Mr. Reich. They get their news from the 3 right wing talk radio stations broadcasting 24/7/365.
Where do you live that a variety of news sources aren’t available?
To clarify, I am referring mainly to magazines like the Atlantic and NPR, not mainstream news
A rural area outside of Lynchburg, VA. A very "red" part of Virginia.
You're right. The motives of DC editors are tribal, and the only good news is their motives are often in conflict - scoop the world vs. don't be ostracized. Being ostracized as a DC political reporter or editor means you don't get the information you need to do your job.
Something that bothers me is the varying levels of pure dramatic performance in media news. How much are ratings determined by sheer performance, as opposed to the distilled essence. That is where there happens to actually be some legitimate point.
I totally agree with the idea that mainstream media's biases in framing the news are not only due to the support of corporate advertising money. It is only human that when gaining access as a journalist (?) to those in power, you may end up relating to them and their worldview. And you don't want to lose that access. Fortunately, some editorial boards have more guts than that and do not compromise their journalistic integrity to be the first one to deliver sound bites from Washington. Bill Clinton revoked Democracy Now!'s access to the White House after he was triggered by Amy Goodman about the massacres taking place while he was visiting East Timor. So what?
Mistrust and distrust among our people and institutions is real and damaging to our Democracy…I prefer to think of many mainstream media outlets as slanted…it’s the human condition and we should be cognizant of this…Alternatively, Fox News, One America and their ilk dispense lies and misinform purposely…I’m more concerned with the disappearance of local newspapers as people receive blips and bytes of news through social media- at the national/ international level…rebuilding trust in people and our institutions begins with local news outlets…
You realize - of course - that would be considered "un-American," though, don't you? That old hustle goes waaaaaaaaay back!
I think the real challenge, Nunna, is to hone your critical-thinking skills when absorbing "news," without becoming paralyzed with too many questions or suspicions.
The media are master propagandists! We must look at them as just that and nothing more! If we understand where the media are coming from we may be less influenced but still subconsciously influenced! We have to know what is happening but that lends the media the ear to propagandize even there.
The issues at CNN are multitudinous, not just originating with the likes of brother Cuomo, and should never be the one single news source one turns to. Indeed, as RR makes clear in this piece, multiple varied sources is best.