Photo illustrating the Christian Science Monitor story on public disillusion with elections.
At FAIR, we always say the primary measure of media in an election is not how fair they are to this or that candidate, but how fair they are to the people—all of the people who are affected by the outcome of this particular process, such as it is, and need to see how it functions in relation to them and their needs and concerns. The people are the story—and how well they are represented by a process that’s ostensibly intended to do that.
That corporate media don’t see things that way is indicated by the resounding uninterest with which they greeted a poll from the Associated Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The mid-May survey of more than a thousand registered voters found fully 90 percent lack confidence in the country’s political system. Forty percent describe it as “seriously broken.” Seventy percent—equal proportions of Democrats and Republicans—say they are “frustrated” by the 2016 election; 55 percent describe themselves as “helpless.” Only 17 percent think the Democratic Party is open to new ideas, while 10 percent say that of Republicans. Seven in 10 think primaries and caucuses ought to be open. And 1 in 4 say they have hardly any confidence their vote will be counted! I want to underscore that these are registered voters—in other words, the ones who haven’t become totally disaffected.
Published by AP, the survey could hardly have been made more easily available to the press, but what pick-up occurred was in your Crystal Lake, Illinois, Northwest Heralds and your Davenport, Iowa Quad-City Timeses—not that there’s anything wrong with them, but the Denver Post (5/31/16) and the Christian Science Monitor (5/31/16) seemed to be the only “big” outlets interested in a pretty darn newsworthy set of findings.
Media’s pretense is that they’re reflecting the political pulse of the US public while they’re focused overwhelmingly on elections that majorities are unhappy with. It’s like looking for your keys under the lamppost—not because that’s where you lost them, but because the light’s better there.
Ralph Nader speaking at the Breaking Through Power conference (image: Real News)
And, by the way, while the most popular word people used to describe their feelings about the 2016 election was “frustrated,” the second most popular was “interested.” It’s that combination of frustration and interest that’s been drawing people together—at events like Breaking Through Power, the multi-day conference hosted recently by Ralph Nader, aimed at mobilizing civic organizations. Media crickets.
Last month, hundreds of people marched from the Liberty Bell to Capitol Hill in a protest called Democracy Spring, aimed at ending big money’s power over politics and ensuring voting rights. That, too, fell into a corporate media abyss.
And, of course, Black Lives Matter activists continue calling for real redress on life-and-death issues of state violence that are the key “political” fact of their lives—while most media have lost interest, flummoxed by the movement’s refusal to channel its concerns into the mechanisms of electoral politics that 90 percent of voters say are inadequate.
It’s hard not to figure that elite media prefer to just talk among themselves about what the public thinks and wants and deserves from the political process—without having to actually listen to them.
Janine Jackson is the program director of FAIR, and the producer and host of CounterSpin.
We suffer from their attention deficit disorder
Yes we the people remember for the people by the people and of the people well that only gives us two picks that represent us the woman that’s running that’s for us is Dr Jill Stein and the man that’s for us is Bernie Sanders! they talk about details for the American workers and our safety and health,our planet all important things and they are intelligent unlike the Trump who talks like a five year old with a silver spoon in his mouth that has always had everything he wanted, come on we know he is pro establishment he is for the corporations,big money wars and to pollute our planet has no respect for anyone is the worst presidential candidate I have ever seen in my life and I am 58 years old.
Maybe this post will be deleted by the moderator.
But we – ans FAIR – have been peacefully complaining about the corporate media for a major part of my lifetime (I will turn 60 in a a couple weeks). Isn’t it time for militant, disruptive direct action – armed if necessary – against the offices of every major broadsheet and TV network, hacking attacks on all their websites – all of it accompanied by a published manifesto – internet – print – dropped from aircraft – explaining our grievances and objectives?
Please don’t moderate. Your argument is being heard and thought of. Maybe a lot… But counterviolence doesn’t work, at least has never worked in history (as far as I know) and only led to bloody war and dictatorship.
Personally, I believe what Howard Zinn in his essay, on getting along, is saying is true.
See: http://howardzinn.org/on-getting-along/
Never despair, there will always be a struggle (with fullfilment in joining the struggle that can be worthwhile), and multiply the number of people of whom you think that are fighting for the same cause as you by at least a thousand (which are all your potential friends). This struggle, of course, is something that corporate media will not advertise since they do not have a self-destruct button. Most important: remember that power structures are fragile and can be overtrown with… salt (Gandhi’s way; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March)
It sure worked in Nicaragua, East Timor, Vietnam, Philippines, Ireland, and a little further back, the British American Colonies and no doubt lots of other places. Do you really think that oppressive dictators will leave on their own?
Gandhi only succeeded because there was plenty of Indian armed resistance too.
At very least, physical destruction of the adversaries resources is needed. I do not consider the damage of inanimate materials to b e “violence”.
At very least, blockages and occupations of media outlets is needed similar to Gandhi’s blockages of salt and textile facilities.
As usual an excellent FAIR text and what’s more, it’s author remembers that the word ‘media’ is plural (the single being medium) and therefore media ‘are – do’ and not ‘is – does’.
With all due (and great) respect for other FAIR publicists, they seem to have forgotten and could learn from this … :-).
This is yet another manifestation of the greatest failing of political reporting in the US: Nearly all of it is written from the point of view of various political insiders describing what’s going on outside of the Beltway, rather than from the point of view of citizens trying to examine the doings of their elected officials. This, of course, is exactly backwards from what reporting would be valuable to the general public, who would benefit greatly from reporting that looked at the actual policy changes going on from the point of view of an interested citizen.
It’s not like that kind of reporting can’t generate a following. But something is dreadfully wrong when John Oliver’s “Last Week Tonight” can do more about these kinds of stories than any of the major news organizations can muster. We desperately need more intellectual heirs to I.F. Stone.