You’ve probably noticed that we live in a society where some people have a great deal of power, and most people have very little. And that this works out well for the few and not so well for the many.
This plays out in the political realm with the few using their power to support candidates who would maintain that power. In the past, we knew very little about these transactions, because the powerful also owned and/or funded almost all the outlets we got our information from. As a result, those outlets told us very little about which candidates were beholden to whose interests. When they did talk about candidates’ funding, such reports were inconspicuously placed and seldom amplified via commentary—thereby ensuring that few people outside the donor class were aware of who was doing the donating.
A funny thing happened in the 21st century: The development of digital technologies made it much cheaper to create and distribute information, via email, blogs, podcasts and social media. Though these technologies were largely developed by for-profit corporations for their own profit-seeking ends, they also enabled horizontal communication on a scale never before possible.
And this ability allows us to have conversations about politics that we’ve always needed and never have had until now. Part of the point of these conversations is that we can talk about the candidates we want to talk about, rather than the candidates corporate media have decided we should talk about. And another benefit of these conversations is that we can talk about the hitherto hidden transactions that would determine which candidates were “viable” and “electable.”
These discussions of candidates’ financial and policy histories can look like negativity—because it’s seldom good news when a line can be drawn between where politicians get their resources and how they do their jobs. But the possibility of picking nominees based on who can best serve the interests of voters rather than donors is really one of the most positive developments in modern politics.
Good points about more media sources (primarily electronic) enabling wider communication about substantial political issues. However, in my admittedly subjective opinion, that in itself doesn’t really seem to have a significant political effect for several reasons 1.) people can still ignore uncomfortable facts/POVs on electronic platforms as easily as on older mediums, 2.) there is so MUCH choice that it’s like the proverbial “trying to drink from a firehouse” that the politically ‘neutral’ / independent individual can be truly overwhelmed. Also, a lot of the habit-forming stuff (video games, non- political media, etc) can often successfully complete and displace more serious info, 3.) people can more easily find self-reinforcing info and limit themselves to that. I tend to believe that there’s maybe 10 or 20% of the US public (myself included) who search-out and find the kind of info that FAIR and similar websites offer, and I suspect that was the same before the Internet. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that political opinions change very often, and it normally takes a dramatic/traumatic event along with media reinforcement to accomplish that.
I’ve been receiving your daily emails for a while, and I am so grateful for the work you and Janine are doing. This is the first time I have visited your website, and I’m happy to discover that Counterspin is available here as well as on KPTZ Port Townsend.
While I agree with you that “the possibility of picking nominees based on who can best serve the interests of voters rather than donors is really one of the most positive developments in modern politics,” the number of sites and journalists offering information that is well researched and factual are few. FAIR is a breath of fresh air!
I continue to look for a candidate who will stand against the corporate capitalists to address the 2 issues that concern me the most – the survival of all forms of life on planet earth and peace within the United states and with every other country on planet Earth. In my mind, these issues are intertwined, and major party candidates do not appear to understand how they are interwoven in the very fabric of our lives: 1) Fossil fuels and their long list of derivative man-made products that include pesticides and plastics are polluting the air, water, soil, and everything that is raised or grown for food, thus poisoning our bodies and causing the deaths of people in the US over decades; 2) Perpetual undeclared wars since the end of World War II to ensure access to fossil fuels and other necessary resources to build the weapons and machines of war are destroying infrastructure, polluting the air, water, and soil and killing millions of people around the world.
The rise of both Trump and the Democratic left confirms this, I think. While new media allows the circulation of lies to people previously protected by the corporate news outlets (while not protecting them from big, establishment lies), it also allows voters to see the truths of when they’re being swindled – leading to a backlash against corporate mainstream candidates who serve the interests of the wealthy – a huge part of the (misguided) support for Trump and the lack of support for Clinton.
Good points. But it is worth looking a bit deeper at how these points connect to the recent “fake news” meme and the (now well-documented) blacklisting and censorship of the sorts of “digital technologies” referred to. See Slavoj Zizek, “Fake News: How to Watch the News, Episode 03” (RT, 3/21/2019), Andre Damon, “Evidence of Google Blacklisting of Left and Progressive Sites Continues to Mount” (WSWS, 8/8/2017), Jonathan Cook, “Google’s new search engine bias is no accident” (9/30/2017), Andre Damon, “Facebook Security Officer: Not All Speech Is ‘Created Equal’” (WSWS, 6/5/2018), Michael Schulson, “Facebook’s power is to sort what people see and to screen information. That’s basically what Google does, too” (Salon, 4/5/2015), “Facebook Wants You to Know if You’re Getting Your News From the Wrong Government” (FAIR, 3/1/2019), John Steppling, “Liar, Liar” (CounterPunch, 11/21/2018), “Wikipedia – A Tool of the Ruling Elite” (RT “On Contact” 10/20/2018).
As Rob Urie suggested (“Why ‘Russian Meddling’ is a Trojan Horse” CounterPunch, 2/9/2018), “A political Left with a brain would be busy thinking through strategy for when the internet becomes completely unusable for organizing and communication. The unifying factor in the initial ‘fake news’ purge was criticism of Hillary Clinton. Print media, a once viable alternative, has been all but destroyed by the move to the internet. This capability needs to be rebuilt.” See also Rob Urie, “Russia and the Democrats” (CounterPunch, 3/27/2019).
Dependence on “digital technologies” that are still under the control of the same class as “old” media is looking increasingly futile.