Ok, so we are almost half way through the first year of the Obama administration and I think enough time has passed to be able to make some observations about what has happened so far just by looking at how the mainstream news media has reported on “Change We Can Believe.”
For the first 100 days of the new administration I was tracking the coverage in the Grand Rapids Press and I could see no fundamental differences in how the reporting was done from both the local and national reporters. Politics was still viewed through a bi-partisan lens with limited perspectives and almost no verification of the claims made by those in office.
One example is how the news reported on the recent health care proposal from the Obama administration. The coverage has presented the new Obama plan as a radical reform of the existing health care policy, when in fact it is only a mild adjustment of a system that is still dictated by HMOs, insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. For great information and analysis on this issue go to the website of the Physicians for a National Health Program.
In mid-June Democratic lawmakers overwhelming voted for the $106 billion war-funding bill that passed in the House. In fact, on just about every major issue that people care about the new administration has demonstrated that it differs little from the Bush administration. For some excellent non-partisan analysis of the policy positions that the new administration has taken read Paul Street’s columns on ZNet and while you are at it, check out his excellent book that was published just months before the election entitled, “Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics.”
It is true that there are mild policy reforms with the new administration, but the only major difference is the style and rhetoric of the Obama administration. Of course, it is more pleasant to the ears to hear the President give speeches, but if we are serious about real change we cannot be content with having a president who just speaks in complete sentences.
One tool that we so desperately need if we are to avoid being seduced by the promises of “Change,” is a vibrant, investigative and independent news media. We need a news media that serves the public interest and holds power accountable and you will rarely find that in mainstream news. We have to stop believing that CNN and MSNBC are independent news entities just because they don’t sound as ridiculous as FOX News. The reality is that when it comes to investigating power and government policies the there is little difference. We need to seek out sources that are outside of the framework of “official news.”
So, here are some recommendations for news sources that I think would be useful to look at along side of the mainstream sources. Democracy Now! offers some of the best weekday news analysis within the US. There is also GRITtv with Laura Flanders if you are looking for a daily news show that is in a TV format. Other daily sources of online news and analysis are CounterPunch, ZNet, Dissident Voice, PR Watch, Open Secrets, Rebel Reports, Common Dreams, Black Commentator, Black Agenda Report and the Center for Public Integrity.
I also try to provide regular news analysis on this site but also look at commercial media in our weekly Media Bite segments. In addition, we need more people to make their own media, not only to provide more perspectives, but to provide a counter-narrative to the dominant messages that are so pervasive in the corporate media.
If you want to make media or participate in media analysis contact Jeff Smith at jsmith@griid.org.
In this week’s Media Bites we take a look at a commercial for and clips from the new movie Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. In many ways the film is a 2-hour commercial for GM with numerous scenes that feature GM vehicles. This is quite ironic considering the current US Government/taxpayer bailout of the auto giant. We direct people looking for independent information on the GM bailout and resources on the use of Product Placement in films.
In this week’s addition of Media Bites we look at a recent commercial from IBM that promotes their “smart planet” image. IBM is trying to position themselves as the makers of life enhancing products. The reality is that IBM has a history of collaborating with the Nazis, polluting communities where they have factories and a major layoff of workers in recent months.
On Thursday, June 18 GRIID had the opportunity to interview Kathy Kelly, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Non-Violence. Kathy recently returned from Pakistan where she spoke with refugees who have been displaced by the US bombing campaigns that are being conducted by US Predator Drones. We talked about what she learned for the refugees and what the implications of US policy are for this escalating war of the Obama administration. Click here to watch the interview.
Kathy also spoke to about 40 people at Trinity United Methodist Church that evening. The event was hosted by the Brunch & Revolution, which is organizing around the US wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to become involved you can contact them at brunchandrevolution@gmail.com.<
(Editor’s Note: This is the first is a series of news analysis pieces that will look at the Grand Rapids Press coverage of the US occupation/war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This new GRIID study began on May 26 and will continue through the end of August. This article begins with analysis of the GR Press story and then includes the article at the bottom. Note that the text that is bold is the portion of the original story that was omitted in the GR Press version.)
This Associated Press story ran on page 2 of the GR Press on Wednesday, June 17. The headline points readers to the Senate vote, even though the story is about the House vote on a $106 billion piece of legislation that is primarily for the funding of the US occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At one point the article reads, “Democratic leaders pushing the bill on behalf of the Obama administration had to overcome an unusual alliance.” This is an inaccurate statement, since there was no alliance between anti-war Democrats and the Republicans who voted against it. The Democrats who voted against the bill did so because they were opposed to the continual funding of the US occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but most Republicans voted against it for very different reasons, as was noted by independent journalist Jeremy Scahill is a recent article.
The article also states, “President Obama has argued that it is crucial to winding down operations in Iraq while boosting personnel and fighting power in Afghanistan.” While it is true that the US has increased troop strength in Afghanistan, the idea that the US is “winding down operations in Iraq” is still very debatable.
In a recent interview, author and writer Anthony Arnove said, “although Barack Obama promised he would have all troops out by 2012, the ground is being laid for troops to stay in Iraq for years and years to come. The army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, said that the Pentagon was making preparations to keep troops in Iraq until the year 2019.”
Also, it should noted that the only Congress person cited in the original story was omitted from the Press version as well as the comment about the Obama administration’s removal of a provision in an earlier draft of the bill which would have allowed for the release of torture photos.
Lastly, it should be mentioned that there are no independent voices in this story, none from anti-war sectors, military families, Iraqis, nor Afghanis, all of which will be directly impacted by the increase of war funding for US operations in both countries.
GR Press article – Senators to tackle war funding bill
War-funding legislation survived a fierce partisan battle in the House on Tuesday, a major step in providing commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan the money they would need for military operations in the coming months.
The $106 billion measure, in addition to about $80 billion for military operations, provides for an array of other spending priorities, including $7.7 billion to respond to the flu pandemic and more than $10 billion in development and security aid for Pakistan and Iraq, as well as countries such as Mexico and the nation of Georgia.
Democratic leaders pushing the bill on behalf of the Obama administration had to overcome an unusual alliance. Anti-war Democrats opposed continued war spending and Republicans condemned $5 billion in the measure to secure a $108 billion U.S. line of credit to the International Monetary Fund for loans to poor countries.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, contended that Democrats were endangering troops by shifting money to create room for a “global bailout loan program.”
The vote was 226-202, with five Republicans voting for the bill and 32 Democrats against it.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., unsuccessfully appealed to Republicans for support, saying 80 percent of the package still went to the troops. “Stand up for them,” he said.
The Senate could move as early as this week on the legislation, which includes $1 billion to fund government rebates for consumers who trade in their old vehicles for more fuel-efficient models.
The Pentagon has said that without the bill, the Army could start running out of war funds as early as July. President Obama has argued that it is crucial to winding down operations in Iraq while boosting personnel and fighting power in Afghanistan.
Republicans also objected to a decision by House-Senate negotiators to remove a provision prohibiting the release of photos depicting U.S. troops abusing detainees. It was taken out, “at the demands of the fringe left,” said House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Obama, in negotiating the removal of the provision, guaranteed that he would stop the release of such photos.
In this week’s Media Bites we look at a new Toyota commercial featuring their hybrid car, the Prius. The commercial is a highly stylized form of greenwashing, since the commercial makes the claim that the car is in harmony with man and nature. We deconstruct this ad and direct people to a recent report from the National Labor Committee that looks at how workers are treated in Toyota factories in several countries.
On Tuesday, June 9 the Grand Rapids Press ran a story on the front page of the “Your Life” section of the paper that was essentially a promotional piece for the new Sonic restaurant.
The story, entitled “Trendy & Tasty,” was written as a set of talking points about why eating at Sonic is such a good choice. The article tells you how to request music from the Sonic radio system, why it is fun to watch the servers on roller-skates, the best times to go there, and the fact that the shakes use real bananas. That the Press writer included the comment about real bananas being used was no doubt supposed to impress readers, even though it is really an indictment of the commercial food system, which is dominated by artificial foods.
It is not surprising that the GR Press chose to promote a chain restaurant in one of their news columns, but it is unacceptable that this passes as journalism. It would be a useful exercise to write the editors of the “Your Life” section of the Press and ask them how they can justify running such a story. The e-mail address is yourlife@grpress.com.
In this week’s Media Bites we look at a new commercial from the candy company Topps. This ad uses “extreme” language about using the product, but says nothing about its lack of any nutritional content. The commercial also excludes adults, a common technique in children’s advertising.
In this week’s Media Bites we look at two recent General Mills commercials. In both of these ads the company is promoting free cash cards that come with their products. We ask the question what is motivating the company to give away from money and why entice kids with these cash cards?
“The people who make art their business are mostly imposters.” Pablo Picasso
Ok, so it has been more than a month since Rick DeVos made his big surprise announcement about the world’s largest art competition, known as ArtPrize. Thus announcement resulted in lots of response that ranged from exuberance to outrage. The blog-o-sphere was hopping with commentary and lots of conversations were had throughout the community. What follows are seven points I’d like to make about ArtPrize and its significance in this community.
First, did you notice all the hype and near reverence from the local news media about this announcement? For days we were all teased by stories about the “big surprise” and once the announcement was made it was as if the Pope was coming to Grand Rapids. Imagine, any hard working person who has a great idea getting that kind of press coverage. I can see it now, “local activists take a stand against global warming.” Oh, wait…..that’s not news. How about, “Amway is a green business.” Yep, now that is news!
Second, the ArtPrize announcement came with the statement that this project would revitalize the art community in West Michigan. Anyone who knows artists in this community should be outraged at such a statement. It is my observation that in the past 10-15 years there has been a tremendous amount of artwork done in this community by people who are committed to improving the community. Think about the work done in the past decade to use empty, forgotten spaces for art by the Free Radical efforts. How many young people in this community have been turned on to art and self-expression from the projects organized by Art Works? The bold new work by Latino/a artists and the quiet dedication of artists like George Bayard. Numerous artists have volunteered their work and talent to making Grand Rapids a better place. To claim that ArtPrize would revitalize art in this community is an insult to the hard work of countless artists who have given so much.
Third, are we all supposed to jump at the chance to win money? I have spoken with several artists who say they will participate in ArtPrize because they could use the money. Fair enough, but winning the $250,000 is not really a solution. It’s sort of like winning the lottery, it’s all about chance. Why can’t we use this opportunity to talk about why most artists are not valued in this society and this economy? Giving away cash prizes does not help artists, it just perpetuates the idea that “great” art is worth lots of money and to be enjoyed by people who can afford to buy it.
Fourth, by telling artists that you can win $250,000 or any of the other smaller cash prices, you are telling artists to make something that is motivated by money. I always thought art was a form of self-expression, a medium for people to articulate feelings, ideas and opinions about beauty, tragedy, liberation and oppression. How does setting out to make art with the goal of winning a large cash prize inspire honest art?
Fifth, that the money is coming from a member of the DeVos family should be reason enough for us to reconsider our participation in such an event. Now, I don’t know Rick DeVos, and frankly, I don’t care to know him. No matter what his intentions are, the DeVos family has made its money by taking advantage of working people for decades. Amway is based upon a pyramid scheme and anyone wanted to explore what this has meant should read Stephen Butterfield’s book Amway: The Cult of Free Enterprise.
Sixth, we should all recognize that the DeVos family has used its money and political power over the years to support lots of repressive policies. They have been some of the largest donors to the Republican Party, have financed anti-choice campaigns, the privatization of public education, anti-gay campaigns, anti-union campaigns, and provided funds to brutal military groups in Nicaragua and Mozambique. (See Russ Bellant’s books Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party and The Religious Right in Michigan Politics) Locally, the DeVos family has also used their power and wealthy to buy lots of downtown property, determine the outcome of local city planning, and influence policy by being involved in the Downtown Development Authority and Grand Action.
Having someone from the DeVos family dynasty head up ArtPrize for me is in part a PR stunt, but mostly it’s just good for business. Any effort to “develop” the downtown area or bring people to that part of town benefits the DeVos family by generating revenue and potentially increasing their property value. In many ways I see ArtPrize as a logical extension of the gentrification of downtown Grand Rapids that primarily benefits a small sector of this community.
Lastly, I wanted to say that I think that ArtPrize does provide us with an opportunity to have serious conversations about the role of art in public life. We should use this event to talk about city politics, economic inequality and share the stories about what local artists have done to breathe life into neighborhoods and inspire change.
ArtPrize tells us that this event is very democratic because anyone can vote. But when you have a rigged system or in this case an event in which the community has had no say in its development, then how can that be democratic? Instead of giving cash prizes to a handful of artists, why not figure out ways to support and nurture art that is transformative, art that is self-expressive, art and artists that are not for sale.
Jeff Smith does art in his garden. You can reach him at jsmith@griid.org
