Musings On "Media Musings"

In my city there is a weekly newspaper called the Shepherd Express, which I often read because its free and its everywhere. It’s a good source for finding out what’s going on around town. It is also very leftist.

The Shepherd has a columnist named Dave Berkman, a crusty old self-hating Jew. I despise most of Berkman’s views and I can’t stand his stupid column, Media Musings, so every week I’m going to rip it apart—starting now:

Fundamentalists & Darwin Plus, “Yeah, you—you fascist”

• It’s called “Social Darwinism”—the theological variant on Darwin’s thesis of “survival of the fittest” advanced by Western Tory political parties since the late 19th century. Those who enjoy wealth and power do so because God, in His infinite wisdom, chose them for success—which means the rest of us have been deemed unworthy. Thus, for government to use its powers to tax the wealthy is an inherent violation of the Lord’s moral code.What’s ironic is that this belief is today accepted by large numbers of fundamentalists—many financially unsuccessful—for whom anything smacking of Darwin would, you’d think, be anathema. But it was a major reason why so many supported W.’s call for a tax system that eases any “burden” inflicted on the wealthy as merely advancing God’s will.

This is complete and total poppycock! First of all, I’ve never met anybody who seriously believes in Social Darwinism, nor I have I ever read any articles supporting the theory in any respected conservative publications. Have you, dear reader? I didn’t think so. Yet Berkman would have us believe these views are popularly held among conservatives.

Secondly, I’ve never heard anybody argue against increasing taxes for the wealthy by citing the “Lord’s moral code.” Berkman is merely sliming as a [Christian] religious fundamentalist anybody opposed to raising taxes on the wealthy. My point is not to argue whether the rich should be taxed more or not; I just find Berkman’s arguments and tactics repugnant.

Interestingly, it was an opposing view that was held by the fundamentalist and political champion of the working class, William Jennings Bryan. He saw Darwinism as corrupt, for two reasons: First, it contradicted the immutable word of God as revealed in The Book of Genesis. Second, its applications in social thought served to denigrate the most noble of His creatures, those who toiled for a living.

Oh, so religion isn't all bad, Dave?

• And while on matters religious, the Journal Sentinel’s resident medievalist, Patrick McIlheran, is now insisting there’s no freedom from religion. Governments should post the Ten Commandments—thereby commanding, as the first of those mandates proclaims, that we must all believe in God. But Patrick, me lad, what business is it of government to tell us what we should believe? You have a right to your superstitions. Just don’t use my taxes to impose them on the rest of us.

Here I agree with Berkman because I strongly believe in the separation of religion and state. At the same time, I appreciate that our great society was founded on certain values that have a basis in Judeo-Christian civilization. As such, I think it is important to have an appreciattion for *why* our country is the way it is—and a big reason is because of the Ten Commandments and Judeo-Christian moral codes. Although I am opposed to government buildings posting the Ten Commandments, I don’t share Berkman’s sense of portentous glee about seeing them removed.

• Those on the left have a proclivity for labeling folks they strongly disagree with as “fascists.” But when it comes to the Bush administration, are we that far off?Here’s the definition of fascism formulated by Italian scholar Emilio Gentile: “A mass movement, that combines different classes, but is prevalently of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy.” And, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, it’s a “system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.” Former Columbia University history professor Robert Paxton insists the Bushies merit such a descriptor because of their fondness for “demonization of an enemy—which is both outside and inside … [as well as for insisting] we can’t afford the luxury of all our freedoms in order to save our community from this emergency created by the enemy … [and for] a unilateralist foreign policy [along with] the belief that a great nation cannot be bound by international treaties.” Isn’t it far more dangerous to avoid such a descriptor to define what we’re faced with than to employ it?

Yes, Dave, those on the left DO have a proclivity for labeling folks they strongly disagree with as “fascists.,” as you admittedly just did. As a Jew—albeit a self-hating one—I would think you'd be a bit more sensitive about using that term. The Nazis were fascists. Need I recount their crimes? To compare the Bushies to fascists is utterly contemptible. Shame on you.

• Speaking of fascism, I’ve never understood the acclaim accorded the “Best Picture” Oscar-nominated film Network. Anchor Howard Beale’s call for viewers to open their window and scream, “I’m not going to take it anymore,” was a paean to fascist populism. (Think about it: What it most resembles is the constant railing by the Rush/Charlie/Mark-types against the “liberal, elitist media.”)

First of all, how Berkman can relate the “I’m not going to take it anymore” line from Network to a "paean to fascist populism" is beyond me. Secondly, I don’t think that line was the reason the movie was accorded the “Best Picture” Oscar nomination. It happens to be a great movie, almost clairvoyant in it’s depiction of some of the media ownership issues that we face today. For Berkman to ignore all of that—not to mention the great acting and unforgettable lines and soliloquies—and to reduce this great movie as a “paean to fascist populism” is simply, uh, RETARDED.

• WUWM, realizing the guffaws of laughter it set off in its on-air job-posting announcements in which it identified itself as “an equal opportunity” hirer, now obscures this claim by referring to itself as an “AA, EEO employer.” But do one in a hundred have any idea what those five letters mean? (For the 99 who don’t, it’s “Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity.”)

Who cares if anybody knows what that means? Besides, if a company institutes affirmative action employment procedures, it isn’t really an equal opportunity employer. Affirmative action is inherently discriminatory because it affords preferential treatment to non-white minorities. This is not a value judgment about affirmative action—it’s just a fact.

• Has any broadcast journalist who spent all day covering the London bombings, when 37 were originally reported dead, stopped to consider this was fewer than the civilians killed on many days in Iraq—tragedies which might, at best, rate a short lead story? And then there are the daily deaths of three thousand African children—which are never reported!

This is a perfect example of willful ignorance. Berkman knows the tired and true rules of journalism and what makes things newsworthy for certain audiences. For one, an item is newsworthy if it is out of the ordinary. In this case, the suicide bombings in London were quite out of the ordinary. Unfortunately civilians being killed in Iraq—the vast majority killed by Sunni-Arab terrorists—is nothing new, and so it receives less coverage. Nevertheless, these deaths are reported, but obviously not as in-depth as the out of the ordinary bombings in London. The media gives much less coverage to the suicide bombings in Israel compared to those in London, but Berkman doesn’t complain about that. Oh yeah, I almost forgot—he hates Israel. The point, however, is that terrorism against Israelis is an unfortunately frequent phenomenon, and so it merits less coverage than terror in London.

I agree with Berkman about the dearth of coverage on Africa—especially the genocide in Darfur. I’m not arguing that I agree with how the media determines what is newsworthy—I just understand it. What annoys me about Berkman is that he acts as if there is some sort of conspiracy involved, a manifestation of our big heartless capitalist society, when he knows its just the nature of the media beast. It's the same the world over. You think Arabs give more coverage to a natural disaster in Iowa than in Damascus?

• Another case in point about the relative value of human lives: Think there’s a newsroom where you’ll hear, “There’s a fat, balding 45-year-old guy gone missing. Let’s gear up for some 24/7 coverage”?

I see Berkman’s point, but again I fault him for playing dumb about the nature of the media. It is unfortunate that missing black kids get less media attention than missing telegenic white kids.

• What’s this idiocy the media are uncritically accepting about how when Karl Rove merely referred to “Joe Wilson’s wife” rather than using her name, he didn’t identify her. Is Wilson a bigamist?

• “We’re told, incredibly, that [New York Times reporter Judith Miller, jailed for refusing to reveal a confidential source] is sleeping on the floor because a bunk in the [D.C.] jail couldn’t be found for her,” stated an incredulous Bob Schieffer on the CBS nightly news. So, Bob, it’s incredible that a journalist is forced to sleep on a jail floor—but apparently OK if it’s, say, a black hooker picked up at 7th & “Eye.”

I don’t think Schieffer said it was okay for a black hooker to sleep on a jail floor. He was reporting on the story at hand, which was about Judith Miller.

• Will fear of administration charges of lacking patriotism lead to uncritical media acceptance of Bush’s insistence that the London bombings prove we’re right about “fighting terrorism in Iraq,” or will they question, as MSNBC’s courageous Keith Olbermann did the day of the attacks, whether the war has increased terrorist recruitment and made us less safe?

Well, Olbermann did question Bush’s insistence, so I guess you have your answer.

• Time for my annual query: Anyone, other than maybe the Journal Sentinel’s Gary D’Amato, remember who won last year’s GMO (or whatever they’re now calling it)?

I don’t know, probably some wealthy, white, rightwing religious Republican who never works and instead plays golf all day long at exclusive country clubs.

Dave Berkman is a retired UWM mass communications professor and the host of “Media Talk,” 5 p.m. Fridays on WHAD/90.7FM.