Internal Enemies


By: Eddie Clements

Walter Duranty reported on the Soviet Union for the New York Times in the 1920’s and 1930’s, for which he was granted a Pulitzer Prize. The reports he sent back were so bad, about 2003 a movement was afoot to rescind the Prize. Even the Times acknowledged his dispatches were shown to be inaccurate; Duranty may have simply accepted what he was told by the Soviets without independent investigation.

It should be noted “independent investigation” was a daunting task, if not impossible, in Joseph Stalin’s Russia. But this is not to make excuses for the guy. Evidently, the Times was willing to accept his reports though there must have been plenty of evidence to the contrary of Duranty’s favorable stories, and that is the point.

While listening to the latest from El Rushbo, who was saying there must be plenty of people here and elsewhere who greet with glee the current economic troubles capitalism is experiencing, a thought occurred about the U.S. mainstream media. They are described by many as “in the tank” for Illinois Senator and Democrat nominee Barack Obama. But why so monolithic, the steadfast commitment to the same line? Generally people act in their own interest, so what is the MSM interest? The thought occurs it is quite dark and evil.

Surely William Ayers, the presidential campaign of Obama, the Socialist Party in the U.S., some members of Congress, and others here are more than happy to see evidence of the “failure of capitalism.” To them and others, this is an opportunity to be seized upon. This is the first time in our history a genuine socialist has a good chance to become president and institute “the kind of change we need”, now obviously code words for replacement of capitalism with socialism. Such change would mean an end to the nation we know, and would take a generation or more to undo.

Since the overthrow of the Romanoff dynasty and subsequent rise of the Soviet Union, then, we have seen interest in this country for what they were accomplishing. Today (and maybe then) we might describe this as “nation building”. Such a large nation must be dealt with somehow, even though it was obvious early on that our economic system was diametrically opposed to theirs.

The point is this. TV anchors and reporters, television news shows, print reporters, and contributing writers all tend to be college educated and higher salaried than most Americans. They gain access to celebrities and people in power structures, who may in turn use them for their own purposes, but the relationships are symbiotic. The reporters in turn gain prestige and recognition within their own circles and high public profiles.

They like that. And they want to keep it. The free market has not been kind to a MSM increasingly seen as out of touch with average Americans. So now, faced with falling revenues, staffs in these free-enterprise businesses see their privilege slipping away. It has not escaped their notice that socialist systems also employ journalists, who are just as privileged within their own systems. That’s the crux: one hand washes the other. Support the socialist, and your news business, whether print or televised, will not be allowed to fail. The wielders of power will continue to need microphones and cameras, and will be more than happy to reward willing dupes to supply them, as long as the dupes echo the Party line. No more of this messy, unreliable profit-making thing to contend with. THAT’s why the media has always been so enamored of socialist states; they provide news professionals with great, guaranteed jobs. The name of the Party doesn’t matter, it just has to more or less coincide with the press’s worldview.
This did not occur overnight, it has been building since the time of Duranty’s favorable stories from Soviet Russia. It is surely not a spoken plan, but just as surely, these thoughts have been bandied about over a few drinks between reporters after work, when there was a Happy Hour: “I don’t know if I’ll survive these staff cutbacks or not. Now in Russia, they got Izvestia – paid by the state. No money worries there!” Just as surely, socialist states have numerous admirers in the press. For one thing, it appeals to the press’ snobbery. After all, if they are better educated, and they think it’s good, they must be right.

Granted, it all sounds fantastically conspiratorial. Proofreading this, it sounds delusional – “C’mon, Eddie, you had too much to drink – or not enough! Who in their right mind’s gonna buy that?”

The MSM loves that stuff about socialist societies! How else to explain the supplicating stories over Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, to name afew? Universal health care! Full employment! Low crime rates! No homeless people!

Consider this: how did so many self-described liberals/Democrats get hired onto press staffs in the first place? By the MSM’s own count, at which they expressed surprise, didn’t about 89% tend that way? Wouldn’t you tend to hire people of like mind for jobs where concepts are formulated and communicated? Again, doing so is in your self interest, because your job becomes easier, more efficient. You know you can rely on that person to say the right things because you are both on the same page.

There is a low level of diversity of opinion exhibited by most single-entity news sources in the USA, and, from what little I have read, in Europe. All too many sources with wide distribution seem to lean left, and have drifted even farther left over time. While they demand recognition and tolerance of cultural diversity from the public, they cannot abide political diversity within their own ranks. The next step to universal support of one candidate is no great leap. The candidate of choice is the one who will deliver the change they need, change they can believe in, to job security and resulting maintenance of prestige and privilege. Again the MSM shows its intellectual cowardice; prestige and privilege of the rich are the straw men their anointed candidate tilts at to gain the position.

It’s full of such irony. Instead of the farmer hiring the fox to guard the henhouse, the chickens vote for the fox to guard them. The position of leader of the free world will devolve to an individual determined to end political choice and diversity of opinion: your opinion can differ, but will not be considered. An African-American demanding respect for his rights as an individual will try to enact laws subsuming private assets to the state. The constitutional law professor will shred the Constitution.

Treason is defined as making war against the U.S., which would be overthrowing the government by force. If you use the ballot instead of the bullet, it is neither force nor making war. Still, such radical departure from everything the Constitution intended is the very thing a free press is supposed to prevent. Instead, they are facilitating it. And smugly pleased about it.



Eddie Clements
freedomring@live.com

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.