War Funding Coverage Full of Omissions
(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.
Media Bites – Toyota Prius
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.
When Journalism Becomes Advertising
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.
Media Bites – Juicy Drop Pop
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.
Media Bites – General Mills
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 Subversion of Art
“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
Media Bites – Alcohol & Men
In this week’s Media Bites we look at two recent alcohol commercials, both of which are seen through the eyes of men. The Dos Equis commercial features the “Most Interesting Man in the World,” while the Captain Morgan commercial features a group of men attempting to pick up women in a bar. In both instances, alcohol is a vehicle for men to get women, but the reality is that alcohol is common in most cases of sexual assault.
Media Bites – Burger King
In this week’s Media Bites we look at a new Burger King commercial that is promoting the new Star Trek movie. We discuss the food that that is being sold and then look at the web promotion on both the Burger King site and the Star trek movie site to show the levels of cross promotion between the film and Burger King products.
Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood
The Media Education Foundation has produced some fabulous documentaries in the past and Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood is just the latest of well-produced and thought provoking films.
As someone who has taught media literacy for years I have witnessed how the advertising and media entertainment industry has increased the intensity of how they target children. I say target, because that is the language that they use when talking about children. Here is what James McNeal, the man who wrote the fist book on targeting kids has to say:
“Kids are the most unsophisticated of all consumers; they have the least and therefore want the most. Consequently, they are in a perfect position to be taken.”
Targeting of children through advertising and entertainment media has become so sophisticated and so pervasive that most often we don’t even notice it. Well, after watching this documentary, you will not only notice the techniques that media companies use in targeting children, you will have a good framework for understanding why they do it.
One excellent point that Consuming Kids points out is that when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) deregulated children’s TV at the end of the Carter years it had a huge impact on how media companies could direct their attention towards younger audiences. First, it allowed products to be turned into children’s TV shows. Before the FTC decision, toys were an outcome of programs like Saturday morning cartoons. With the deregulation of the industry, now media companies and toy manufactures could create TV shows that were based upon products, thus turning the TV show into a 30-minute commercial.
The other aspect of this documentary that struck me was the discussion around how this hyper-commercialism impacts children. Consuming Kids provides plenty of examples and experts on what the long-term affects of targeting kids with messages that promote the idea that you are valued by what you consume.
In many ways the film is a critique of Capitalism, although it never states that directly. I say this because the idea that humans, whether they are children or adults, are nothing more than consumers is fundamentally a Capitalist notion.
Consuming Kids in some ways is too much to take in, but is an excellent tool for not only generating discussion, but getting all of us to think seriously at how the media functions in a capitalist system and what we can do to defend our children and ourselves against the images and messages we are constantly bombarded with.
For people who live in the West Michigan area, there is an opportunity to view a public screening of this documentary. The newly formed group Stop Targeting Our Kids (STOK) will be hosting a public screening on Wednesday, May 20 at 7pm in the Applied Technology Center at the Grand Rapids Community College. For more information contact STOK at stokaction@gmail.com.
Media Bites – Sprite
In this week’s Media Bites we look at two recent Sprite commercials. Both commercials are targeting a youth audience, both are basketball settings and both use hip music. While Sprite is attempting to position their beverage as a “thirst quenching drink” we point out that high fructose corn syrup beverages will not hydrate the human body.
