Market Tyranny

[Michael Martin]

Considering positions of power and powerlessness, we often see these issues on a personal level, not just hero-worship and cults of personality, but also indignation and outrage at the beggar or even at the "representative" of particular policies. In this discussion I hope to expand on this treatment and to approach what all too often gets buried in this ready-made perspective--this TV dinner of opinion, namely; the structures and mechanisms which make it possible, even necessary, for decisions that benefit privilege and punish poverty to be made with straight faces. (I am reminded of a story about a lost civilization where rulers could not pass each other in the halls of power without cracking up in ridicule for the populace. They soon learned to not meet eyes).
What can be said once it is recognized that serious analysis has been replaced with groups of inter-changeable, hyped-up, self-important personalities obsessed with celebrity and sensation? For one thing it can be further recognized that this trend is not limited to journalism and politics but is also increasingly dominant in economics, art, education, and the cult of the "winner" generally. The fact that literature itself is in deep trouble is evidenced by the concentration of publishers which cannot help but further homogenize opinion.
News stories become a disconnected flurry and frenzy of gossip, fashion, and sports along with one disaster superstory after another. And with no beginning or end, no historical connections or context, these institutional distractions become more absurd with their effects serving to further depoliticize those with the most urgent interests in the very issues that don't get dealt with. Often when a response seems unavoidable the "experts" sincerely explain that the public would be bored with stories that would begin to fulfill these commentators' journalistic, let alone democratic, function to analyze instead of mindlessly entertain.
In his superb 1999 book, On Television, Pierre Bourdieu reminds us that "given [journalists']...lack of time, and especially the lack of interest and information (research and documentation are usually confined to reading articles that have appered in the press), they cannot do what would be necessary to make events (say, an outbreak of violence in a high school) really understandable..."
Admitting that many journalists must resort to a sort of self-censorship, fearing for their jobs, what then is this phenomenon's source or cause? Largely it is ownership and advertising largesse. Hyper-consumerism and pro-business/anti-labor bias play no small part. Mostly though, a kind of conforming competition prevails, "competition" being more of a technical than tactical term. "Legitimacy," like "class," is a term that carries heavy taboo and is effectively eliminated from serious discourse in the mainstream. Comparing mass media's picture (prepared for mass consumption) against the opinions presented in the business press (meant to inform those who matter) concerning economic realities is an extremely revealing and useful exercise.
Capitalism demands that profits be privatized while the costs and risks are socialized. It is widely understood that capitalist institutions are designed to maximize profits. They are not, however, inevitable or even organic. Again, Bourdieu hits the nail on the head explaining that finger-pointing only goes so far before it reveals itself impotent. Instead we should, for all sides, "seek liberation from the grip of these mechanisms through conscious effort, and build a program for concerned action by artists, writers, scholars, and journalists..." because global resistance against the tyranny of the market is more possible every day while the myths of neo-liberalism's miracles are revealed more painfully every day. The ceded postmodernist and "...anyone who thinks otherwise has simply surrendered to a populist version of one of the most perverse forms of academic pedantry."

Quotes are from:
Bourdieu, Pierre (1999) On Television. New York: New Press.

[Anita Davison]

OK Michael, I'm in, where's the coffee? I think I need some after that introduction - I understood about 70% of it: as for
(I am reminded of a story about a lost civilation where rulers could not pass each other in the halls of power without cracking up in ridicule for the populace. They soon learned to not meet eyes).
Lost! that's a perfect description of Tony Blair's Government isn't it? I can picture them sitting in their freebie Bahamanaian Hotels on their tenth fact-finding tour this year with their pitcher of Margaritas and sniggering, "Guess what we got past the Lords this week boys-identity cards! We'll break the news about the silicon chip implants in the necks of all newborns in a year or two...."

[Michael Martin]

Thanks Anita! I couldn't have asked for a better, more spot-on, response! It is a good sign that this essay's first comment is positive and informed. One never knows what to expect--especially (I assume) in the US where there is such a disconnect between favored songs, stances, and slogans, i.e, "home of the brave!" and actual behavior. We have a culture completely seduced by power (legitimate or not) and folks line up to side with the bully and kick the defenseless in the teeth, quite, as satisfaction is sure and swift. Cowardice and contempt for democracy is the order of the day. However, things are indeed changing for the better. Thanks to the simpleton arrogance and unaccountable imperialism, people are deciding that it doesn't matter if this administration is "serious," it is criminal beyond tolerance and, thanks to the internet, "economic" is not the only flavor of globalization in the offing. Thank you very much for commenting, Peace!

[Anita Davison]

Found you again Michael (I lost the direct link so came in via your e-mail invitation) - and I’m glad my response wasn’t OTT!

Your article epitomises what I heard someone say a little while ago: ‘Where have all the real Statesmen gone?’ Since Truman, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Churchill, Thatcher (and she was one – you may not agree with what she said, but she had strong principles and she stuck to them) –what we have now are ‘Celebrities’ who employ PR companies and ‘image coaches’, whose ambition seems to be to make as much money as they can during their tenure and retire with a large pension – and not trip over themselves in the media.

What does it say about the man as well as the politician - when our PM takes time out of his schedule to have a media lunch with an Asian actress who had a racist remark said about her on Big Brother – when he has consistently refused to meet the wives and mothers of those soldiers killed in the Gulf, claiming a ‘heavy schedule’?

The worst thing is, we are all becoming complacent about who we let run our world. We used to shake our heads over banana republics whose presidents lived like kings, yet now we just shrug when our PM’s wife earns £100k for an after dinner speech – Nothing that woman says is worth that – a woman who gets ‘accidentally’ pregnant in her forties, while our health service is spending millions trying to make teenage girls act responsibly.

Q - What’s the difference between pigs and politicians?
A – The pigs know when to get their noses out of the trough

And who voted for Gordon Brown as Prime Minister? Since when did our democracy become a closed shop where they changed horses without consulting us? Isn’t that what ballot boxes are for?

OK rant over, it does look very aggressive when written down like this – sorry - but I don’t usually say it all at once!

[Michael Martin]

Anita, one built-in problem with the whole PR-powered information sources is that if one simply repeats received notions (preferably self-congratulatory jingoisms these days) most people just applaud and one's empty platitudes will be happily piled atop the already steaming pile. If, on the other hand, one carries out some independent research and employs some critical analysis and reason, one is met with sour silence. One is, this time, expected to offer a lot of evidence and then to offer it between two advertisements. Well, this so-called "concision" is really only part of the US media where, as you pointed out, the public relations industry is king. US Linguist/philosopher Noam Chomsky shows this vey clearly in several books, from Necessary Illusions to Manufacturing Consent (with Edward Herman) and, more accessibly, several DVDs chiefly Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. I cannot tell you how highly I recommend this latter. Keep in mind that Chomsky revolutionized the field of linguistics by the age of 30 and, in fact, the field is separated into BC (before Chomsky) and AD (after his discoveries). He is the top cited living human being and gets plenty of press (indeed he is recipient of many prizes including the Kyoto Prize, Japan's eqivalent to the Nobel, for basic sciences) in Europe, Asia, Autralia, etc. In his homeland, however, the listening and viewing public is treated to the genius blatherings of power-whores like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and on and on, ad nauseum. Again, our media are beholden to the interests of advertisers who have no interest in or reason to actually inform. This, most dastardly, might just interfere with the "buying mood." Thanks again Anita. It is so inspiring to know I'm not writing into the wilderning. Lastly, there are wonderful growing networks of people uniting internationally behind such alien ideas as human rights and human dignity and they're doing it outside the hogwash marinade. Have a great weekend my friend, Michael.

[Anita Davison]

I think we scared everybody!

[Michael Martin]

Not to worry, there's no shortage of the comforting piece. It's always there on billboards, TV, periodicals, newspapers, etc. What was once the 'public sphere' and 'commons' is now the commercial landscape from "football stadium Inc." to "McNews." I guess it can get a bit disconcerting, after a lifetime of divorce from nature, to be reminded that so much of our 'world' is a social construction in loyalty to some very explicit interests. Canadian writer Kalle Lasn suggests that the PR and advertising industries have been carrying out the biggest psychological experiments on whole populations since the end of WWI. Far-fetched maybe, but it's surprising that people, parents for instance, aren't more aware that the airwaves are de facto public property but are being manipulated to exploit the "nag factor" and that product recognition is embedded in infants as early as 8 to 10 months , literally! So one has to wonder what it is, exactly, that causes discomfort when favored truths are challenged. It's not out of concern for protecting the corporate media, they have armies of lawyers at their back. It can't be because it is seditious, the US was founded on challenging illegitimate authority. Who knows? One thing that is plain is that unfamiliar ideas become less threatening once one does some fact-checking on one's own. If I or Joe Sixpack writes a pack of lies, the Congressional and Public records are open and largely de-classified thus my scribblings are easily proved correct or incorrect. The problem is, we are so impressed with power that we would never do fact-checking against the owners of, say, Faux News. Nope, only (if at all) against the independent sources who are easily demolished. I just think that if people would try to engage at least as much as they consume, they would be less shifty-eyed and we and our children would be less awash in indefensible tripe. Alas, as a consolation, the corporate media are safe and sound. Challenge to their disingenuousness is only a threat to their audiences for some reason, hmmm?
As an aside, there is a fantastic new history of these very issues. It is called "Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality." It is by Ewen & Ewen (couple Elizabeth and Stuart), New York: Seven Stories Press (2007). It is well worth peeking at, even online. One will be glad they did. Besides, Young and the Restless will still be there, I've no doubt.
OK, I'm glad to hear from you Anita, and I'm glad we can share ideas as ideas sort of just sit there looking silly unless they're shared. Peace, and enjoy your weekend, Michael.

[Sandy Knauer]

We need an underground media?

[Michael Martin]

We have underground media but it's what's called 'independent' media. Advertiser-free. This puts commercial media at an unimaginable advantage, as independent media must rely on subscribers, donations, and generous contributors. I would start with Z Magazine, or go to www.Zmag.org

[Lex Bumm]

Mind if I poke my head into this? I'm new, and this is one of my pet peeves.
As a species, we are mostly followers. Which would be useful in a tribal society, but loses it's usefulness in our modern society. Inside, we're still sheep, and need to be directed to do (and think) what our leaders have decided they want us to do. We haven't yet developed a self direction mode.
Most of us are terrible leaders, even if we attempt to try doing so. The big problem is, we are also really bad at choosing who will lead. We seem to have all devoped different ideas of what we want in a leader, then comprimise on the one who can be elected! Is this smart? Why do we continue down this path of choosing the less objectionable people instead of the most effective leaders?
I have placed my hope in our evolution, but I'm afraid that's going too slowly to save us.
Lex