Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
When I was young I would religiously watch the Sunday morning news shows, especially NB
C’s Meet the Press. Beginning in 1947, MTP is the longest running show in television history. While the other networks had comparable shows, clearly MTP with its longevity was seen as the show of record.
“The show’s format consists of an extended one-on-one interview with the host and is sometimes followed by a roundtable discussion or one-on-two interview with figures in adversarial positions, either Congress members from opposite sides of the aisle or political commentators. The show expanded to 60 minutes starting with the September 20, 1992 broadcast” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Press#Moderators
Face the Nation, premiering in 1954 is considered to be the other Sunday morning News show of record. FTN’s format is:
“The moderator interviews newsmakers on the latest issues and delivers a short topical commentary at the end of the broadcast. The program broadcasts from Washington, D.C. Guests include government leaders, politicians, and international figures in the news. CBS News correspondents and other contributors engage the guests in a roundtable discussion focusing on current topics.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_the_Nation
What all of these shows have in common is that they are repeatedly populated by the same people, whether politicians, journalists, economists or political operators. This link gives the background of the truth of Sunday morning “journalism”. http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=Sunday+Morning+Talk+Shows&x=9&y=6 The casts rarely change and in all but the rarest of cases these guests make up what could be called our nation’s “Pundit Class”. They are seen as the “Serious People”, who lead America’s national debate on vital issues. I’ve been a “political junkie” since the age of ten. For many years I was misled into believing that these “Serious People” were really my intellectual betters when it came to public affairs and that political discussion must only exist within the ground rules of debate established by our “Pundit Class”. Beginning with the murder of JFK and in the ensuing disillusionment of the Sixties I’ve come to see that not only is this “Pundit Class” inherently corrupt, but only a rare few can barely be called intellectually informative. This group is in reality the paid propagandists of the elite 1% that rule this country and their main task is to limit the scope of our national debate.
In the last two weeks one of the most heard and most esteemed members of the Pundit Class, Fareed Zakaria, has been suspended from Time Magazine and CNN due to the discovery of plagiarism in one of his columns. Zacharia is also a Yale University Trustee and there is talk that his removal from that august position is under consideration. I’ve never particularly cared for Mr. Zakaria, but I was surprised by his plagiarism, more so by the fact he admitted it so readily and so abjectly. An article in the Huffington Post provided an explanation of Mr. Zakaria’s actions with a surprising explanation that I hadn’t expected and yet one that in retrospect makes perfect sense.
On 8/12/12 Eric Zeusse, an investigative historian, posted an article titled: “Fareed Zakaria Is Bitten by His Own Tale: How He Helped Create the System That Bit Him Back”. He began the article in this manner and in doing so exposed me to an idea that frankly hadn’t occurred to me.
“When Fareed Zakaria was suspended on Friday from Time and CNN, for plagiarism, this wasn’t merely justice, it was poetic justice: it rhymed. What it rhymed with was his own lifelong devotion to the global economic star system that he, as a born aristocrat in India, who has always been loyal to the aristocracy, inherited and has always helped to advance, at the expense of the public in every nation. He was suspended because, as a born aristocrat, who is a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and many other of the global aristocracy’s primary organizations, he is so well-connected that his writing-commissions are more than any one person can possibly handle, and he consequently cannot possibly actually write all that is attributed to him. He certainly cannot research it all.”
In my naivete it I never thought of the possibility that someone like Mr. Zacharia might not write all, or even most of his material. I wasn’t aware of his aristocratic background, nor of his close connection to some of the secretive groups that shape global policy. I always just saw him as a “middle-of-the-road” pundit, with whom I disagreed on many things. As Mr. Zeusse goes on to explain:
“Like many “writing” stars, he has a staff perform much of the research and maybe even actual writing for him, and many in his situation are actually more editors than they are writers; but, regardless, he cannot let the public know that this is the way things are, because this is simply the way that the star system works in the “writing” fields, and because the public is supposed to think that these stars in the writing fields are writers, more than editors.
And, it’s a very profitable system for such stars. As Paul Starobin said, headlining “Money Talks,” in the March 2012 Columbia Journalism Review, Zakaria’s speaking fee is $75,000, and “he has been retained for speeches by numerous financial firms, including Baker Capital, Catterton Partners, Dreihaus Capital Management, ING, Merrill Lynch, Oak Investment Partners, Charles Schwab, and T. Rowe Price.”
So, he’s clearly a very busy man, with a considerable staff; he can’t possibly do everything himself.
But he needs to appear as if he does. He needs to present everything “he” does, as “his.”
The last two sentences above ring true and explain why Zakaria is so willing to perform mea culpa, take his suspensions and hope that this will blow over quickly. To admit the possible truth that someone writing for him had actually plagiarized would expose the fact that this “World Class Pundit and Author”, was merely a “front man” representing his privileged class. If this is true of Zakaria, who else of these “serious journalistic stars” is also doing the same thing and more importantly how are they shaping the political debate?
“Fareed Zakaria knows the way it works. So, he cannot afford to admit when he is being credited with the work of his employees. Far less damaging to him is to admit that he has done plagiarism himself, as he has admitted in this particular case — regardless whether it’s true.
If Zakaria didn’t actually do this plagiarism, could he very well announce to the world “I didn’t do it; I didn’t even research or write the article”? No. Romney and the Republicans say that the “job creators” at the top are the engine of the economy, and the aristocracy need to maintain this myth. It’s very important to them — that they are the stars, and that the people who might be the actual creators who work for them are not.
Zakaria wouldn’t want to burst the bubble atop which he is floating. To people in his situation, it’s a bubble of money, and it’s theirs. They don’t want to share it any more than they absolutely have to. (They despise labor unions for that very reason.) And their employees are very dependent upon them, so no one will talk about it — not the stars, not their workers.”
To make Eric Zeusse’s premise even more interesting we have this report on 8/16/12, “Fareed Zakaria Cleared By Time, CNN In Plagiarism Investigation”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/fareed-zakaria-time-columns-review_n_1792081.html .
“We have completed a thorough review of each of Fareed Zakaria’s columns for TIME, and we are entirely satisfied that the language in question in his recent column was an unintentional error and an isolated incident for which he has apologized. We look forward to having Fareed’s thoughtful and important voice back in the magazine with his next column in the issue that comes out on September 7.”
Since Zakaria originally admitted he had made “A terrible mistake” it is heartening to see that his “mistake” was only an isolated incident. I think back to graduate schools papers I’ve written and wonder how I would have fared if I had “made a terrible mistake” in them through plagiarism. Would an investigation of my “isolated incident” and remorse have allowed me to continue in school? However, protecting Mr. Zakaria, one of the chosen, is not only important for his sake, but for the sake of these “News Entities” that rely so heavily on the “connected” pundit class to provide their“cogent” analysis of major issues.
How many other “Pundits” acting as the “serious” people are setting the parameters of the national debate through their appearances on Sunday Morning talk shows, News Channels, the PBS News Hour and it appears as paid guest speakers at supposedly meaningful conferences and conventions? The person who first came to mind as I read this article on Zakaria was Thomas Friedman. Friedman is a son of privilege who married into a billionaire family. He has been a champion of “Globalization”, which to me has always meant unbridled support for the multinational Corporatocracy. He also seems to me to be a very childish writer in that his use of analogies to draw global conclusions is inept to the point of comedy. During my illness my daughter bought me a copy of “Friedman’s “The World is Flat” and in reading it I was blown away by how flimsy a narrative it was for someone so respected as a pundit, who gets so much air time and respect as a serious commentator on global issues. As it was put in his Wikipedia Article:
“A number of critics have taken issue with Friedman’s views, as well as aspects of his writing style. Critics deride his penchant for excessive optimism, a consistently flawed analytical approach, and a habit of trotting out unexamined truisms to support his opinions.”
“Some critics have derided Friedman’s idiosyncratic prose style, with its tendency to use mixed metaphors and analogies”.
“Similarly, journalist Matt Taibbi has said of Friedman’s writing that, “Friedman came up with lines so hilarious you couldn’t make them up even if you were trying – and when you tried to actually picture the ‘illustrative’ figures of speech he offered to explain himself, what you often ended up with was pure physical comedy of the Buster Keaton/Three Stooges school, with whole nations and peoples slipping and falling on the misplaced banana peels of his literary endeavors.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman
While I have no proof of it, I would speculate that Friedman too has people writing much of his stuff and that his journalism is more of the editorial kind. However, what is obvious and known about Friedman is that he is a pundit star, ranking with, or possibly above Zakaria in the firmament of “Serious People” who frame our national debate and dominate our national media. This is really nothing new in our country. In the past the “serious people” were the likes of Walter Lippman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann Scotty Reston, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Reston . These past pundits and “cold warriors”, share a commonality with Zakaria and Friedman, in that they all serve(d) the interests of the Corporate and Monied Elite that run this country from behind the scenes. Indeed, I’m sure that you the reader could expand this very small list of those who are deemed acceptable to lead the “serious” discussion of our national/international issues.
I assert that the entire Liberal versus Conservative debate in this country is but a smokescreen that distracts us from the one most vital issue. Our nation and indeed the world is and has been controlled by an Elite representing those with most money and power. Their first allegiance is to themselves, their class and to the belief that they alone are fit to rule us all. Call it what you will, but to me it is the continuation of feudalism in modern guise. Just as in feudalism there were “Courtiers” who gladly did the bidding of their “Royal Masters”, in order to enrich their own lives. Most of the “Courtiers” were either born to, or became part of the elite, while maintaining the pretense of speaking for the benefit of all humanity.
If we the people are ever to cast off the control of those who would leash us for their benefit, we must learn to think for ourselves and critically examine the opinions of those who are represented to us as “serious people”. Unfortunately, this remains a highly individual task because we are surrounded by experts, who in reality are propagandists purveying non-existent mythology to keep us in the thrall of the Elite. Disdain the pundits for their message is false. Become your own pundit and most especially view the world through an iconoclastic perspective. Despite their degrees, their travels, experiences and accolades, few are really that perceptive since they have been co-opted and anointed as members of a Priesthood of Power, blinding them to what real life for most of us is about.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Noam Chomsky describes this form of virtual censorship in “Manufacturing Consent.” The book is every bit as timely today as it was when the book was published in 1988.
TonyC,
Comment from a late arrival.
Someone here taught me the name of that factor.
HAMDU.
According to that source hamdu thrives best if it is
reinforced by deeds or words each day.
Is that an explanation of many comments posted here?
Ie the drive behind them?
I buy the rest of your comment. As usual. But never guaranteed of course.
Shano.
Yes, they do have the staff but I really wonder what gives a person the drive and the ability to manage such affairs.
Certainly this would be liberating to have such tools, and to concerntrate on what a person truly enjoys. Though it can’t be always easy.
Wow, Dorgan was against the bail out too! thanks Elaine M.
Darren: they hire people to take care of the mundane work of houses, meals, laundry, scheduling, communications, et al. yes, they all have a small staff to accomplish this.
shano,
Excellent article!
Now which infraction is more damaging to the Nation – Plagiarism or Wienerism ???
In reading this article, I had somewhat of a related thought. That is, how do individuals manage to maintain so many obligations?
A few individuals manage to teach at university, write several columns for various publications, engage in lectures or speaking arrangements, maintain a family, be on boards of directors and so forth.
It is this skill that to me seems to be the difference between success and self actualization.
Thoughts?
Byron Dorgan statement during the US Senate’s repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act. “I think we will look back in 10 years’ time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010”.
Dorgan was one of only 8 senators who voted “No” on the deregulation bill (the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act) in 1999.
He also said this about derivatives: “We are moving towards greater risk. We must do something to address the regulation of hedge funds and especially derivatives in this country, $33 trillion, a substantial amount of it held by the 25 largest banks in this country, a substantial amount being traded in proprietary accounts of those banks. That kind of risk overhanging the financial institutions of this country one day, with a thud, will wake everyone up.”
Dorgan was right on both counts…..as we now know with certainty.
Gene,
You are right. Those actual historical facts can be such a pain in the butt.
Mike S, an excellent and insightful posting, If more people really understood the nature of the punditry we are daily exposed to our politics might be far different. Shano’s excellent comment “Thank you Bill Clinton for media consolidation. it makes it so much easier to stay on message!” points to one method of returning actual debate and journalism to our country.
I don’t watch the Sunday shows and consider John Stewart the best political commentator practicing the art. The ‘same old’, ‘same old’ that kills me about news and opinion TV was perfectly contextualized and explained by your article. Thanks.
Those pesky facts just keep getting in some people’s way . . .
Brob,
“you ought to read a history of the law. The one I read was quite interesting and the author’s premise was the Rockefellers wanted to make the Morgans pay more to do business. They used the depression as a cover.”
I have read much about the Glass-Steagall act.
Here’s a little history for you:
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT
James Lardner
November 10, 2009
http://www.demos.org/publication/brief-history-glass-steagall-act
Excerpt:
Ten years ago last November, a Republican-led Congress and a Democratic White House rolled out the red carpet for a new age of global, “full service,” too-big-to-fail financial institutions. The move repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, a set of reforms responsible for the longest crisis-free period in U.S. financial history. At the time, industry lobbyists argued that this modern experiment in deregulation would bring greater stability and competitiveness to the financial services industry. Today, it is clear that they were wrong—and spectacularly so. Competition is suffering from high concentration and anti-competitive subsidies to the biggest institutions, and the system has been radically destabilized by unregulated activities, costing taxpayers nearly $19.3 trillion1 in bailouts and subsidies. As Washington debates the best way to prevent future crises, it is helpful to understand how public policy helped bring about the current one.
What Glass-Steagall Was
Officially known as the Banking Act of 1933, it was one of the landmark pieces of legislation associated with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. The measure established the concept of deposit insurance and set up the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to provide it. Glass-Steagall2 also erected a firewall between commercial banks, which take deposits and make loans, and investment banks, which organize the sale of bonds and stocks.
The Road to Glass-Steagall
Between 1929 and 1933, more than 4,000 U.S. banks had closed permanently, saddling depositors with close to $400 million in losses. In March 1933, President Roosevelt had been forced to shut down the entire banking system for four days. The law at the time allowed banks to traffic freely in securities. A congressional investigation led by a firebrand prosecutor named Ferdinand Pecora unearthed massive evidence of recklessness, cronyism, and fraud both in the use of depositor funds and in the promotion of securities for sale to the public. A top executive of Chase National Bank (ancestor of today’s JPMorgan Chase) had enriched himself by short-selling his company’s shares during the stock market crash. National City Bank (now Citibank) had taken a heap of failed loans to Latin American governments, packaged them as securities, and unloaded them on unsuspecting investors.3
Banking and securities underwriting made for a poisonous combination, many people concluded. The Glass-Steagall Act accordingly gave banks a year to decide: they could get out of the securities business, and enjoy the benefits of deposit insurance and access to the low-interest credit of the Federal Reserve; or they could be investment banks and brokerage houses, forego those privileges.
What The Law Wrought
Glass-Steagall’s goal was to lay a new foundation of integrity and stability for America’s banks. It worked. Financial panics had been regular and devastating occurrences since before the Civil War. No more. While individual banks continued to fail occasionally, their depositors escaped largely unscathed. Trust in the stock and bond markets also grew; for investors around the world, the U.S. financial system seemed to set a high standard of transparency and reliability.
Building on the apparent success of 1930s banking and securities regulation, Congress decided to establish a Glass-Steagall-style wall between banking and insurance. Under the Bank Holding Act of 1956, banks were permitted to sell insurance, but not to underwrite it. (Had that rule remained in force down to the present day, AIG would have been unable to weave banks into its web of toxic credit derivatives, which are structured as insurance contracts.)
How Quickly We Forget
By the early 1980s, anti-regulation advocates had won sway in Washington. With steady weakening of the financial regulatory structure came a new period of crisis and volatility that began with the Savings and Loan crisis4 and has yet to end. In the spring of 1987, the Federal Reserve Board voted 3-2 to let banks engage in a range of securities underwriting activities. One of the dissenting votes was cast by Fed chairman Paul Volcker, who feared (among other things) that banks would again seek to profit from lucrative loan securitization opportunities.5
His successor, Alan Greenspan, had more faith in the self-correcting machinery of unfettered markets. During the presidency of George H.W. Bush, Greenspan and Treasury Secretary James Baker took steps that weakened Glass-Steagall by, for example, letting banks underwrite municipal bonds on the premise that they were safe by definition. In 1991, the administration called on Congress to repeal the law outright. Although a bill to that effect was voted down in the House of Representatives that year, the anti-Glass-Steagall movement was clearly gaining steam.6
lottakatz:
The Glass Steagall Act is a regulation which controls how business is done. That is a little different than a law against murder.
And laws are already on the books for theft and fraud.
Do you know the history of the Glass Steagall Act? Did you know that prior to its passage banks selling securities were 4 times less likely to fail? If that is true why was it even needed?
An abundance of information doesnt mean much if it isnt correct.
The laws are already there to punish theft and fraud and have been for many years, you dont need special rules you just need to prosecute some people for theft and fraud.
Chris Hayes, Sat & Sun …MSNBC 8am-10am give him a look.
Tom Friedman prior to 2001 was to me an incredible shiny light in his explanations of middle east conditions. He has a published book from this period. From Beirut to Jerusalem is the one I read. I am not a scholar, but I found this to be a most informative book.
. IMO it was after 9/11 that he sold out.
He made 100% wrong predictions for 4 years after !!!! anyone remember that? The expert ( well deserved in 2000) became a pundit stooge,… I guess the pay was good, and research was not as important.
…. Anyways I respected his columns in the NYT tremendously, then I began thinking he was full of it. Almost as if he was listening to other peoples observations, then talking to selected individuals and writing pap for his paycheck. IMO he was a heck of a journalist at one time.
Bron, to chime in, because the proper laws and regulations do protect people. “Their Laws” to benefit ‘them’ need replacing. If the law against murder was repealed here in St. Louis the wise thing to do isn’t give up and wear a sign that says “WTF, Just Kill Me”, it’s to get the law reinstated. You know this, your question is disingenuous. Nice try for a blawg where the audience would be more low-information though. 🙂
Think of the Glass in Glass-Steagall like the glass between the baby and the lion:
Elaine:
you ought to read a history of the law. The one I read was quite interesting and the author’s premise was the Rockefellers wanted to make the Morgans pay more to do business. They used the depression as a cover.
And that law worked well until it was chipped away at over the years and then finally repealed.
eLAINE:
i am just a small guy as well, but you can make money in the market if you dont gamble and dont buy mutual funds unless you really know how they make money. I have a fairly simple strategy, quality stocks which pay a dividend. It isnt sexy but it works.
My personal opinion is that Glass Steagall was political expediency. The sponsors of the bill were not all that thrilled with it. It is, in my opinion, the banking equivalent of the Patriot Act. It was passed in the middle of a crisis because the congress had to do something.
Bron,
The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in1999. The stock market is stacked against people like me. There has been no transparency with regard to financial products like Credit Default Swaps. We have banks that are too big too fail. We have had no real reform to change the way things were done on Wall Street that led to the financial meltdown.