Interview with Abby Martin of Media Roots on Left/Right Paradigm by Media Roots
MEDIA ROOTS- Doug Mckenty from KZYX’s Thursday Morning Report conducts an hour interview with Bay Area artist and community activist Abby Martin of Media Roots, where she reports from “outside party lines”. They discuss the false left/right paradigm, the electability of non establishment candidates, the renaissance of citizen journalism, censorship in the corporate press and 9/11.
nAU0uX ejexrekgnaud
A few years ago I’d have to pay someone for this inforatmion.
Thank you for this interview, Abby.
(Although, I’d caution against Ron Paul. I appreciate Ron Paul’s technical ability to expose establishment fallacies, such as with the Federal Reserve, monetary policy, and other issues. But, ultimately, such Libertarians seem clever, almost Machiavellian, variations of Republican conservatism. To name a few examples, according to Mother Jones, Ron Paul opposes: social spending, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; opposes anti-trust legislation; opposes immigrant rights to emergency health care; opposes an EPA working in the public interest and denies man-made climate change; and would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
But I do appreciate this discussion, particularly about the false left/right paradigm promulgated by a handful of corporations controlling virtually the whole of U.S. mass media. This is what some of us have called the good cop/bad cop routine of our two-party dictatorship for years (and you did as well in this interview).
It’s almost as if that’s the entry level of politics, viewing Democrats as the good cop and Republicans as the bad cop. Once people dig deeper, the next common step seems to be when one becomes aware of corruption regarding the Democratic Party. But this then ensnares many in lesser-of-two evils defeatism.
Some of my friends, astute folks without degrees or intelligent professionals with Ph.D.s, say, ‘well, I just can’t imagine an alternative candidate getting elected.’ Of course not, I say, not with that attitude. The alternatives we prefer will never get elected until we fight for them, through long-term active and sustained involvement year-round, not just during election years, pursuing media democracy, electoral reform, opening up the debates, and so on. (And I don’t believe we need to confine ourselves to the local level in electoral politics as Greens will have us believe, especially because the federal level has such a massive impact on national discourse.)
Much of the so-called “liberal establishment” seems oddly uncritical of the Democratic Party and many controversial issues pertaining to deep politics. Well, we know that after the Second Red Scare witch-hunts in the U.S., spear-headed by McCarthy, most of the radicals, particularly the CPUSA, went underground, were marginalised, or went into the Democratic Party. So, we know that many of the radical elements that should be challenging the mutually affirming and corporate-driven two-party system seem to be of the opinion that the only way to impact policies and legislation is by joining the Democratic Party. But this seems a doomed approach, as the DP leadership is always beholden to corporate interests. For example, we saw the so-called “People’s Budget” shot down earlier this year. Similarly, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is, apparently, the largest caucus within the Democratic caucus with something like 83 declared members, which ostensibly works to advance progressive policies. And it certainly outnumbers the so-called “Tea Party” faction within the Republican Party. Yet, corporate-driven politics rules within both of these parties. And whether Republicans or Democrats control the House or Senate, corporate-driven policies invariably succeed. Thus, the notion of progressive or radical influence reforming the Democratic Party from within seems a doomed approach. It seems common sense that the people must reject the two-party system and demand principled, grass-roots alternatives. And media outlets, citizen journalists, analysts, all, must either empirically contextualise this reality or refute it.
It seems necessary to expose both corporate political parties for the ethically bankrupt entities that they are at every turn when there are connections to be made with every story of the day. And from an empirical perspective, it seems critical analysis necessitates contextualising alternatives for popular consideration. Otherwise, how else are we to awaken one another to the Edward Bernays-style social conditioning which manipulates the masses to accept the false left/right paradigm? If we are to analyse, why avoid the role of electoral politics or the two-party system? It seems news reporting, citizen journalism, and media analysis must always include alternatives to establishment paradigms for people to consider, even around electoral politics, and even at the federal level.
Again, thank you for this frank and honest discussion. We need more of this kind of common-sense truth-telling on the airwaves.
It all boils down to manipulation through the media–not necessarily news, but more importantly entertainment and advertising. Television would have been a novelty had it not been a powerful tool that could sway people emotionally. It’s primary function is not to inform; it is a means of pacification and indoctrination. It’s no coincidence that the U.S. is the most overweight and ignorant nation in the world. The populace has been bombarded with messages of consumerism and self-gratification; and they’ve lapped it up, content to embrace “the dream” that’s really a nightmare. Meanwhile, they stay ignorant about what’s really happening to them.