Written with your customary excellence. And with the key point at the end, "concentrated wealth and genuine democracy are fundamentally at odds, in our campaign finance, in our governance, and yes, in our media."
It might be interesting to note what the cost/benefit relationship, in dollar terms, is between these huge campaign finance donations and the return they provide. In relative terms, to the billionaire class, they're practically nothing. But our politicians, whatever their ideological inclinations, have to function in the real world, to pay expenses in absolute dollars. So until or unless we can get rid of Citizens United, this situation is going to persist, to the detriment of the vast majority of our population.
Thanks for the link, Vickie. I'd heard about the proposed amendment but hadn't looked at it in detail, largely because it's so hard to get an amendment passed. But the drafters are right. Because of Citizens United, just passing a law won't pass this Court. So it might be necessary to go this route. But if a blue tsunami hits next year, SCOTUS reform might make it possible to get a law limiting campaign contributions to pass muster. The whole business is going to take years, however.
On a completely different note, I saw your link to the Bulwark article, which I had also read. It's useful as an administrative framework, but doesn't address the practical problem, which will be getting some officer high enough up in the chain of command to say "No, this is an illegal order."
. . ." concentrated wealth and genuine democracy are fundamentally at odds." I watched the big corporate media fawn over Trump in '16 giving him millions in free advertising, (I wanna think) believing it was reporting on a clown show. All that news kept the NBC fiction of The Apprentice (as fake as Trump himself) alive and propelled him to the WH. Why they continue to sane wash his gibberish and gloss over his attempted fascist takeover with an SS that is traumatizing innocent people in this country can only be attributed to $$$$$$ protecting $$$$$$ (a different version of Epstein). When the average person stops aspiring to be part of that billionaire circle, and chooses to merely fight for things like healthcare a living wage and owning a home, and votes for ah honest person who promises to deliver on those basics, things might change.
P.S. You point out " . . .it is The Washington Post that duly reports this historic concentration of wealth and power, noting its own proprietor among the VIPs. The irony is almost operatic: a billionaire-owned paper bearing witness to the dawn of an American oligarchy in which its owner has a literal front-row seat." Your writing is operatic, and I'm glad I have season ticket to your shows!
This is a brilliant piece and we have a very similar situation in the UK, often including the same cast of villains, as the Peter Thiel's and Tech Oligarchs of this world will be the only beneficiaries of a trade deal between Britain and the US when what we should be doing is taking a (maple) leaf out Canada's book, standing up to fascism and rejoining the European Customs Union IMMEDIATELY. If anything, a corrupt and toxic relationship between corporate media and political power has existed far longer in the UK with feeble traditions of investigative journalism further intimidated by weaponised defamation laws. But the Tech Oligarchs are now in the mix both sides of the Atlantic and legacy news platforms (as you call them) are increasingly dependent on this "tyranny of the algorithm" as I describe in my own Substack Post, THE NEW RULES OF THE MANUFACTURE OF CONSENT, based on my research through the Media Reform Coalition. In the US, both the NEW YORK TIMES (Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers) and WASHINGTON POST (Watergate) have proud traditions of investigative journalism which are now being eroded by corporate ownership but can't be eradicated overnight. Bezos says that he won't interfere in editorial content, which is exactly what Murdoch said when he bought the London TIMES and FOX in the 1980s and for a couple of years he didn't to secure the audience base. Then, BANG. The important article in THE POST on how Tech Oligarchs in particular have bought both our news and what passes for our democracy may even be a last hurrah, prompting Bezos into action at the same time that Trump is suing the BBC for doing its job. Ben Bradley must be turning in his grave right now. What we need is publicly owned and funded media governed not by state or financial interests but self governing trusts.
I think this is what Ralph Nader and Russell Mokhiber are referring to in The Capitol Hill Citizen with the tag line "Democracy dies in broad daylight."
LFAA (Letters from an American) had a link to this post a couple days ago (I'm behind on my reading!) It sure is interesting regarding the whole "28-point plan for peace in Ukraine"!! If you have time, its a very informational read!
This is great. I think the paper has shifted to not allowing the writer’s voices that made that paper what they are. That statement they made about Journalism was just head scratching. Like talking about opinion. Then you see what happened to Karen.
LFAA (Letters from an American) had a link to this post a couple days ago (I'm behind on my reading!) It sure is interesting regarding the whole "28-point plan for peace in Ukraine"!! If you have time, its a very informational read!
Written with your customary excellence. And with the key point at the end, "concentrated wealth and genuine democracy are fundamentally at odds, in our campaign finance, in our governance, and yes, in our media."
It might be interesting to note what the cost/benefit relationship, in dollar terms, is between these huge campaign finance donations and the return they provide. In relative terms, to the billionaire class, they're practically nothing. But our politicians, whatever their ideological inclinations, have to function in the real world, to pay expenses in absolute dollars. So until or unless we can get rid of Citizens United, this situation is going to persist, to the detriment of the vast majority of our population.
Robert Reich just wrote a substack article on getting rid of Citizens United by using State law. States regulate the powers of companies
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sen-schiff-reps-neguse-mcgovern-and-lee-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/
Thanks for the link, Vickie. I'd heard about the proposed amendment but hadn't looked at it in detail, largely because it's so hard to get an amendment passed. But the drafters are right. Because of Citizens United, just passing a law won't pass this Court. So it might be necessary to go this route. But if a blue tsunami hits next year, SCOTUS reform might make it possible to get a law limiting campaign contributions to pass muster. The whole business is going to take years, however.
On a completely different note, I saw your link to the Bulwark article, which I had also read. It's useful as an administrative framework, but doesn't address the practical problem, which will be getting some officer high enough up in the chain of command to say "No, this is an illegal order."
. . ." concentrated wealth and genuine democracy are fundamentally at odds." I watched the big corporate media fawn over Trump in '16 giving him millions in free advertising, (I wanna think) believing it was reporting on a clown show. All that news kept the NBC fiction of The Apprentice (as fake as Trump himself) alive and propelled him to the WH. Why they continue to sane wash his gibberish and gloss over his attempted fascist takeover with an SS that is traumatizing innocent people in this country can only be attributed to $$$$$$ protecting $$$$$$ (a different version of Epstein). When the average person stops aspiring to be part of that billionaire circle, and chooses to merely fight for things like healthcare a living wage and owning a home, and votes for ah honest person who promises to deliver on those basics, things might change.
P.S. You point out " . . .it is The Washington Post that duly reports this historic concentration of wealth and power, noting its own proprietor among the VIPs. The irony is almost operatic: a billionaire-owned paper bearing witness to the dawn of an American oligarchy in which its owner has a literal front-row seat." Your writing is operatic, and I'm glad I have season ticket to your shows!
“Can we trust billionaire-owned media to fully hold billionaires accountable?”
I think we know the answer to that question.
This is a brilliant piece and we have a very similar situation in the UK, often including the same cast of villains, as the Peter Thiel's and Tech Oligarchs of this world will be the only beneficiaries of a trade deal between Britain and the US when what we should be doing is taking a (maple) leaf out Canada's book, standing up to fascism and rejoining the European Customs Union IMMEDIATELY. If anything, a corrupt and toxic relationship between corporate media and political power has existed far longer in the UK with feeble traditions of investigative journalism further intimidated by weaponised defamation laws. But the Tech Oligarchs are now in the mix both sides of the Atlantic and legacy news platforms (as you call them) are increasingly dependent on this "tyranny of the algorithm" as I describe in my own Substack Post, THE NEW RULES OF THE MANUFACTURE OF CONSENT, based on my research through the Media Reform Coalition. In the US, both the NEW YORK TIMES (Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers) and WASHINGTON POST (Watergate) have proud traditions of investigative journalism which are now being eroded by corporate ownership but can't be eradicated overnight. Bezos says that he won't interfere in editorial content, which is exactly what Murdoch said when he bought the London TIMES and FOX in the 1980s and for a couple of years he didn't to secure the audience base. Then, BANG. The important article in THE POST on how Tech Oligarchs in particular have bought both our news and what passes for our democracy may even be a last hurrah, prompting Bezos into action at the same time that Trump is suing the BBC for doing its job. Ben Bradley must be turning in his grave right now. What we need is publicly owned and funded media governed not by state or financial interests but self governing trusts.
Thank you for sharing some of the similarities between the two countries.
You're welcome Ana Maria and I'm sure there are other examples worldwide.
I think this is what Ralph Nader and Russell Mokhiber are referring to in The Capitol Hill Citizen with the tag line "Democracy dies in broad daylight."
If you don’t know these two, I’m trying to fix you up! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNxGVt7Z3A0
They are great! Seemingly opposite but not!
Wouldn't you love to see a Youtube of Heather and Xplisset!
Yes I would - another good podcast is Corbin Trent's.
LFAA (Letters from an American) had a link to this post a couple days ago (I'm behind on my reading!) It sure is interesting regarding the whole "28-point plan for peace in Ukraine"!! If you have time, its a very informational read!
https://macspaunday.substack.com/p/he-got-this-from-k
This is great. I think the paper has shifted to not allowing the writer’s voices that made that paper what they are. That statement they made about Journalism was just head scratching. Like talking about opinion. Then you see what happened to Karen.
LFAA (Letters from an American) had a link to this post a couple days ago (I'm behind on my reading!) It sure is interesting regarding the whole "28-point plan for peace in Ukraine"!! If you have time, its a very informational read!
https://macspaunday.substack.com/p/he-got-this-from-k