That mistress of understated political discourse, Sarah Palin, has now produced a smooth talking to camera statement in which she attempts to turn the criticism of the kind of inflamatory language used by herself and others of like mind against her critics by invoking the term 'blood libel'. In doing so, she seems to me to demonstrate precisely the kind of distorted and hectoring language for which she is being so justly criticised. The tone of American political debate produced by the right wing is well and truly off the scale as far as many observers outside American are concerned. Even in Australian political debate, notorious for its robustness, there is little to match the extremism so common in American political discourse.
Without harking back to a prelapsarian golden age of politeness and even deference in public discourse, I think it's possible to discern a ratcheting up (or down, depending on your perspective) in the range of violent language used in American political debate. This is nothing to do with robust discussion and argument, but has a lot to do with stoking up emotion and confirming allegiance to an extreme position.
When, within weeks of 9/11, I was in the USA working with a group of people from the former Soviet bloc, I was both struck and dismayed by the quality of discussion on mainstream US TV. One day in a coffee break, we discussed what we were witnessing on TV, and one member of the group expressed a widely agreed thought: 'It is propaganda'. And this was a group of people who had, until quite recently, spent their lives deconstructing propaganda so they certainly knew propaganda when they met it!
The American media are, thanks to the dismantling of regulatory controls, under no obligation to present a balanced viewpoint on any issue. This has given a carte blanche to the purveyors of propaganda -- of either political extreme -- only, of course, it is right wing interests who largely control the media. So, that guardian of free speech and open political debate, Rupert Murdoch, is secure in his business as well as political interests in running Fox News, whose trademark slogan, 'Fair & Balanced', is evidently taken at face value by an alarmingly high percentage of viewers. (In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News, and only 37% distrusting it -- source Wikipedia).
In effect, strange political/celebrity creatures like Mrs Palin have access to and support from a major source of propaganda masquerading as news. At its most extreme, these right wing forums not only purvey propaganda, but do so using language and expressing attitudes which contribute both to a coarsening of political discourse and to a normalizing of extreme views and forms of expression. No doubt, Mrs Palin is correct to claim that the Tuscon murderer was not persuaded to carry out his shooting by such language and views, but equally, Mrs Palin cannot simply accuse her critics as promoters of a blood libel. The accusation is as obscene as it is spurious. But I doubt that the viewers of Fox news will think so.
Meanwhile, the boss of Barclays bank was faced with some pretty robust questioning when he appeared before the Treasury select committee. Unlike the Royal Bank of Scotland and several other banks, Barclays wasn't bailed out by the taxpayer in the big bank meltdown, so Mr Diamond felt entitled both to his £8million bonus and to adopting a pretty bare faced rebuttal of the criticism levelled at him for taking such a huge bonus.
What is reprehensible is not merely that he is being awarded (or awarding himself) such a bonus. It is. rather that, as was pointed out by a financial expert on this morning's 'Today Programme', neither Mr Diamond nor his over compensated team have done much to secure shareholder value for Barclays shareholders. I checked out the evidence: on 14 January 2000, Barclays shares opened at 398, and ten years later, on 31 December 2010, closed at 361.65, with huge fluctuations in between, but mostly in the past several years, trading at less than the opening value in January 2000. So, what is Mr Diamond getting a bonus for? It's time for a revolt by Barclays shareholders (many of whom are insurance companies and pension funds).
So, in both banking and right wing politics there is a level of deceit and self interest which is truly staggering. Not so much 'blood libel' as 'bloody libel' and barefaced greed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The American media are, thanks to the dismantling of regulatory controls, under no obligation to present a balanced viewpoint on any issue. This has given a carte blanche to the purveyors of propaganda -- of either political extreme -- only, of course, it is right wing interests who largely control the media." - Not true.
ReplyDeleteI live in the United States. The three major television networks: ABC, CBS and NBC all are liberal news outlets, as are two of the three cable news networks - CNN and MSNBC. Syndicated talk radio's right leaning talk shows get better ratings (more listeners) than their leftward competition. The print media is led by the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times. All three are liberal. No other print media has any dominance in getting out the news like these three. I believe the news in the United States is framed from a leftward viewpoint. Anything that disagrees with the left is labeled as being extreme. I believe in this country, the majority of the propaganda is liberal and it is being delivered as being centrist news.