Monday, December 05, 2016

Why is the media on the left?


Why is the media on the left?
Why the contempt for workers?

This ASIA TIMES piece by Reuven Brenner rings a lot of bells.
If either mainstream media, academics or Facebook groupies were not so isolated within their mutual admiration societies, perhaps, just perhaps, they might have stumbled on the following information (that Arnold Beichman summarized back in early 1970s, in a piece titled “The American Worker Is a ‘Honky’”), and raise some questions about origins of their casual dismissal of the “working class”:

I spent the first fourteen years of my life under communism. When my parents got out in 1962, I realized to my utter astonishment that much of academia was on the left, praising communism, rationalizing increased centralization of powers under a variety of jfargons. Even the US was not immune to these ideas, and that the left and academia despised workers who wanted routine lives, rather than revolutions.

Before the 1960s, those wanting to become journalists started as copy-boys (“copy-persons”?), moved up to newsroom jobs, and eventually became reporters and editors.
All this came to my mind during the last few weeks, both with Fidel Castro’s death and when Mrs. Clinton made casual reference labeling roughly fifty percent of her opponent’s voters “deplorables.” Although she later apologized, her adoring crowd did not boo her at all when she first uttered the word, the mainstream media neither. Parts of the crowd, many students among them have either been demonstrating or crying their hearts out on the laps of Mamma Universities, the latter indulging them with puppies, play-dohs, coloring books, postponing exams and “feel your pain” safe places. And these students indulged in this nonsense shamelessly while their not-subsidized age group was showing up at work and was being taxed.

How did much of the mainstream media turn so blind? And where does their contempt for workers come from, that using the term “deplorable” did not even instantly raise eyebrows?

The answer I found for the first question was the following: Academia expanded suddenly and rapidly after 1958 when the US passed the National Defense Education Act (provoked by the launch of the Sputnik). The government threw money indiscriminately at universities, where “social studies,” “humanities,” “journalism” and even the second and third rate (and below) undergrad business schools became major, accidental beneficiaries (predictably maths and engineering expanded far less). These faculties grew significantly, while drastically lowering the selection of both students and faculty.

It is nice to be subsidized revolutionaries. But even “leftover” Bernie Sanders must have noticed that his initial calls for “Revolution!” frightened a bit his crowds and he toned down his rhetoric. Later, he and Hillary just promised to get rid of students’ debts. Yes, why not tax the already hard working kids of that age group even more, and give demonstrating students more puppies and coloring books?

It did not take long for this vast majority of heavily subsidized, expanded academia, detached from any non-paper-shuffling experience, to rationalize and exaggerate their importance. They had to: subsidies, as taxes, must be legitimized in countries where people vote on budgets. So academics rationalized their “songs” — like in the Aesop Fable about the grasshoppers and the hard working ants, the former singing and hopping when times were good, and dismissing the hard-working ants bearing ears of corn to their nests.

The changes in journalism happened since the early 1960s and are related to these 1958, rashly-decided subsidies. Before the 1960s, those wanting to become journalists started as copy-boys (“copy-persons”?), moved up to newsroom jobs, and eventually became reporters and editors. They gained experience through such apprenticeship, mentored by older generations of seasoned journalists – many at the time still shaped by WWII and its aftermath. Journalism was a “trade” to be learned through experience and was not what it subsequently became: an updated version of the fable’s sing-and-dance grasshoppers.


Larry Sinclair's Case

BROCK v. SINCLAIR                                    

My posts on Larry Sinclair go back to Sep 15, 2008, so there was a lively discussion that, surprise, the Obama media simple ignored.  Now, suddenly, I find Where has this video been for the last 8 years?

Sinclair's is the most specific, and documented case I think I've ever seen.  It is documentation that Barry Obama, in 1980, was not only a heroin drug dealer, but on more than one occasion was fellated by Larry Sinclair. 

Had this been about John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Donald Trump, imagine the media reaction.  Had this story been properly covered, there is no way Brock would have been nominated, let alone elected.  Water over the dam, but another example of how Media have betrayed us long before today.