You may only read this site if you've purchased Our Kampf from Amazon or Powell's or me
• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show

"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket

"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming

April 18, 2008

I Agree With National Review And Noam Chomsky

Kevin O. Williamson of National Review recently critiqued something I posted at Mother Jones about the new "Newseum" in Washington. Interestingly, I largely agree with Williamson. However, I suspect he doesn't know he was largely agreeing with Noam Chomsky.

Here's National Review:

Mother Jones is having a characteristic conniption over a seven-minute video about liberal bias in the media being shown at the Newseum in Washington:
So the message, while shallow, is clear: the media is liberal, and any critique that it may have a corporate or conservative bias is so ridiculous it doesn't even need to be voiced. (Juan Williams says journalists should be careful not to produce a story so it "fits an idea that may have come from you or from your news editor or your managing editor." Intriguingly, the U.S. media seems to have no owners or advertisers.

This is nonsense concentrate. What's interesting, though, is the implicit belief that a "corporate bias" (whatever that may be) is related to, or synonymous with, a "conservative bias"...even sillier is the tired trope, evergreen on the left, that corporations and their executives are particularly conservative, and that Wall Street in particular is a citadel of conservatism. This simply is not the case, as anybody with even a passing familiarity with that world knows. Wall Street barons are, for the most part, rich Manhattan cosmopolitan who have no time for such conservative fixtures as the religious right, the Second Amendment, or, in many cases, free enterprise...

Big Business often adores regulation, because it raises the cost of entry into the market and suffocates scrappy but undercapitalized competitors. You think the steel industry, agribusiness, or banks want an economy that is more free, more capitalist, and more competitive than the one we have? You think Boeing wants a smaller, leaner federal government? Their actions suggest otherwise...

The executive suites may not be quite as uniformly left-Democratic as the editorial offices, but they're not exactly the Provo Chamber of Commerce, either.

And here's Noam Chomsky:

BARSAMIAN: PBS [the Public Broadcasting Service] is sometimes called "the Petroleum Broadcasting Service."

CHOMSKY: That's just another reflection of the interests and power of a highly class-conscious business system that's always fighting an intense class war...

I don't see why we should have had any long-term hopes for something different. Commercially run radio is going to have certain purposes -- namely, the ones determined by people who own and control it.

As I mentioned earlier, they don't want decision-makers and participants; they want a passive, obedient population of consumers and political spectators -- a community of people who are so atomized and isolated that they can't put together their limited resources and become an independent, powerful force that will chip away at concentrated power...

BARSAMIAN: Both PBS and NPR [National Public Radio] frequently come under attack for being left-wing.

CHOMSKY: That's an interesting sort of critique. In fact, PBS and NPR are elite institutions, reflecting by and large the points of view and interests of wealthy professionals who are very close to business circles, including corporate executives. But they happen to be liberal by certain criteria.

That is, if you took a poll among corporate executives on matters like, say, abortion rights, I presume their responses would be what's called liberal. I suspect the same would be true on lots of social issues, like civil rights and freedom of speech. They tend not to be fundamentalist, born-again Christians, for example, and they might tend to be more opposed to the death penalty than the general population. I'm sure you'll find plenty of private wealth and corporate power backing the American Civil Liberties Union.

Since those are aspects of the social order from which they gain, they tend to support them. By these criteria, the people who dominate the country tend to be liberal, and that reflects itself in an institution like PBS.

So if Kevin Williamson wants to say the media has a "Corporate Executive and Investor Bias," then we have found common ground.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Posted at April 18, 2008 05:41 PM
Comments

It's funny, but before this moment, if I had had to guess the foremost bastion of populist conservatism, I might not have picked the National Review.

Posted by: Save the Oocytes at April 19, 2008 04:22 AM

"It's funny, but before this moment, if I had had to guess the foremost bastion of populist conservatism, I might not have picked the National Review."

Well, I hope this hasn't changed your mind. If Williamson is indeed an honest man and pursues his thoughts to their logical conclusion then I expect his career with NR shall be very slight.

I think what this illustrates more than anything is just how vacuous the term "conservative" is, at least when it's used to signify something other than what it literally means, which is, to conserve the existing social order.

Posted by: Mark at April 19, 2008 12:47 PM

It was a joke!

Posted by: StO at April 19, 2008 04:58 PM

See, that's exactly right. The media no more has a "conservative" bias than it has a "liberal" bias - they have a bias to serving the profit-making ends of media corporations, which might very well make them liberal in the sense wingnuts use the term ("Porn! Gay sitcoms! Violent videogames!") because "Family Values" don't sell. Of course, that makes 'em liberal in the sense everyone outside America uses the term as well, as they champion a laissez faire approach to the market, albeit situationally.

Top-Gun-miltarism, us-and-themism, law-and-orderism and other right-wing faves get pushed because they make for more compelling, primary-colours coverage. It doesn't help that much of the media play to their own perception of their audience (still, that's the audience they've chosen for themselves) as right-wingers, or, to be exact, insular, ignorant, xenophobic hicks. If I was a right-winger myself, I'd think I'd find pandering informed by that kind of steretype pretty insulting. (Of course, the supposedly most "liberal" of the So-Called Liberal Media have their own style of pandering - you ever noticed how the rightwing pundits who get columns in pwog broadsheets tend to be easily refutable cretins? God forbid some-one who might shake up the perceptions of their nice middle-class readership would get a look-in; a non-cretinous rightie, perhaps, or an actual leftist.)

And then, if preaching socialism made money, they'd do that in a second. Or they already do, if you include the Pentagon-socialism that funds the arms manufacturers that own a number of the big networks.

Posted by: RobWeaver at April 20, 2008 08:55 PM

What I think he wouldn't accept is that whilst the executives are not mainstream conservatives, and many or most accept socially liberal positions, they benefit in terms of power through the belief system, legal disposition and legal favors of mainstream conservatism in a way they do not from popular liberalism. There are, however, also things that can more easily be achieved during a period of ascendant liberalism (establishment of non-distributive and anti-distributive regulation in the guise of locally distributive, for instance).

I would suggest that in the large majority of cases, the centralised, centralising, hierarchical, paternal, authoritarian nature of corporations is more compatible with conservatism. The legal mandate of money-first in corporate decision making is not exactly incompatible, either, whilst it jars with popular liberalism.

This is why wingnuts like to pretend there's a big conspiracy of liberals: they find it hard to conceive of non-hierarchical allocation of power. That said, power is so distributed in "liberal" institutions such as the Democratic party and I fear there is a slide towards it in newer institutions such as the Daily Kos, but these tendencies go against the political ideas of the majority of the left. A desire for redistribution is less compatible with authoritarianism than a desire for affinity with concentrated power.

Posted by: me at April 21, 2008 07:40 AM

"concentrated power."
should be
"concentrated righteous power."

Posted by: me at April 21, 2008 07:44 AM

I suggest, as a labor-saving device in discussions of this nature, the handy acronym MICFiC

M ilitary
I ndustrial
C ongressional
Fi nancial
C orporate Media Complex

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. at April 21, 2008 07:46 PM