Corporate Media Archives

The Utility of Fear

Don’t buy the myth of fearless journalism. Real dissidents have good reason to be afraid.

Fearlessness. We often hear about the condition in relation to independent media: this journalist is fearless; that outlet produces fearless reporting. Fearlessness is our mandate; fearlessness depends upon your donation. It’s a strong claim, but not especially flattering as self-description, being the kind of adjective best left to disinterested parties. What does it really mean, though? Is it an empty branding device or does it signify indispensable contributions to public discourse?

It Ain’t Merit

Reactionary pundits are infuriating, but we should reserve much of our anger for the media that generate their fame.

A recent Intercept article about Mohamad Tawhidi, the so-called “imam of peace,” a rightwing, Zionist, Islamophobic Shia cleric (no, seriously), sheds light on his rapid emergence as a media darling:

Tawhidi’s public career began, as he recently told “intellectual dark web” star Dave Rubin, when he “was discovered” by a producer for a tabloid news show on Australia’s Channel 7. “I got a call from Channel 7,” Tawhidi told Rubin, “and apparently they Googled ‘imam,’ ‘Adelaide,’ ‘Muslim,’ just to get a comment.”

He speaks with pride where shame is appropriate:

“So they came in wanting a three-minute comment on a certain issue and I gave them a 30-minute talk about the Muslim community,” Tawhidi continued, “and the director gets in touch with me and [said], ‘We can do a lot with what you’re saying.’”

Ripping the Headlines

What do corporate media headlines tell us about ruling class agendas? As always, Palestine provides an answer.

Headlines are critical and often decisive elements of any news cycle. They inhabit a specific rhetorical genre—being a kind of art, as well—one reason why most publications don’t allow contributors the honor of writing them. They can be tantalizingly vague, purposefully misleading, or notoriously sensational (looking at you, Salon). But, like any textual phenomenon, they’re never neutral. Even headlines that aim to be functional omit infinite possibilities; editors select certain words over others, limit description according to ideological need, and influence a reader’s focus. (These conventions aren’t inherently bad, but they preclude objectivity.)

Absence and Dissent

No amount of charm or persuasiveness will compel reactionaries to forfeit the advantages they derive from racism.

Not a week passes without a new petition appearing in my inbox or Facebook feed urging solidarity with a scholar facing employer recrimination or harassment from rightwing culture warriors. (“Harassment” doesn’t get at the racist, sexist, and homophobic vitriol that victims of these campaigns endure.) The uptick in rightwing bullying many suspected would accompany a Trump presidency has come to fruition.

Certain patterns define these harassment campaigns. Republican operatives prowl social media for provocative comments, with the help of professional snitches and everyday informants (even if your posts are private, they are vulnerable to public consumption—watch your friends list closely). Those operatives then repurpose the quotes with the aim of inflaming white anxieties. The controversies almost always originate in social media, though op-ed pieces and conference programs also come in for scrutiny.

The ABCs of US and Israeli Propaganda

The main function of US and Israeli propaganda is to affirm the disposability of colonized people. Dissent, then, isn’t merely a pastime, but the foundation of existential clarity and economic relief.

US and Israeli propaganda diverge according to circumstance, but they share basic characteristics (and modes of delivery). It’s easy to get sucked into the fantasy that we can make reporting and commentary more even-handed, but the propaganda model precludes that possibility. The model is dynamic; capitalism is the only ideology it absolutely preserves. Everything else is contingent on the needs of power. If at any point the economic and political elite need new narratives, corporate media will make the changes.

What to do about Corporate Media

Should leftists pursue access to corporate media? Only if they’re willing to accept rejection.

If you consider yourself a leftist, corporate media are your enemy. I don’t use the term “enemy” to sound melodramatic. Nor do I use it hyperbolically. I’m thinking about its denotation as a person or entity whose interests are anathema to your own. If you are not of the elite (culturally, politically, or economically), or don’t long to join the club, then hostility exists between you as a consumer of news and those who deliver the product, even if you don’t always see it. In fact, corporate media view you with bald contempt. You needn’t return the favor (though it won’t hurt to try), but it’s wise to understand that the industry is beyond redemption (by its nature) and does its best to keep you disempowered.