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
Did anybody see excerpts from Assange’s speech in USA media? Shano had an RT from youtube.
He is right about the banks and the crimes of the bankers. I like many of his guests and Stacey picks interesting stories to report sometimes, they try to be funny.
But he is wack, yea. Anyone who chose to work on Wall Street is wacky. I hate to listen to him too much, when he goes on about the trillions in the shadow banking system & derivatives and high speed computer trading it just gets depressing……just knowing the mechanics of it.
Krugman (who I also like sometimes) would never dare engaged Max Keiser in public, too dangerous, anything could happen. I would like to see Max debate Krugman. Now that would be pay per view tv
Shano
God, I hate Max Keiser. (But I love Paul Krugman.) He (Max) often has some prof on from Missouri that I also can’t stand. The guy from Missouri says that Obama wants to depress salaries and GDP by 10% or something crazy. and engages in long discussions about “saving” Latvia. I haven’t been able to determine what Krugman thinks of either one of them. I can JUST barely manage to balance my checkbook. Anybody else have any thoughts on Keiser?
Bron,
What are the beliefs that I espouse? That climate change is real? That I believe our society should have social safety nets? That we should support public education? That we should be egalitarian? That wealthy Americans who can well afford to pay their income taxes should pay them? That the working poor may need a helping hand from government at times? That I’m anti-war? That I’d prefer to have my tax dollars go to pay for education and social programs instead of endless wars and subsidies to corporations? That our political system has been corrupted? That I don’t believe that public money should pay students’ tuition to private and religious schools? Should I go on?
What are the beliefs that you espouse?
Bron, the difference is this- we can source out facts in reality. the GOP and radical right wing just make stuff up and repeat that message over and over until people believe it. We call it the echo chamber.
Soros is not getting richer by the political actions he takes. Nor is Buffet or Bill Gates. That is the difference between these ultra rich and the Kochs and Waltons.
The money they spend in politics makes them richer. it is an investment in obscuring the truth so people will let them have their way and profit from it while others are hurt by these actions.
For example, reducing anti pollution regulations profit the Kochs, while they damage the health of many and destroy the environment we all rely on for life, and completing this destructive cycle society pays the bills for the sickness and destruction caused by Koch.
That von Mises refused to account for these costs too, and you think that is fine, is ignorance of reality. You like these hidden profits for some reason? the only people who do are the ultra rich who make massive profits from ignoring them.
shano:
“Of course, ideologues cannot rebut anyone who may have a valid point that does not support their flawed thinking.”
And you arent an ideologue? That is the thing that kills me, you and Gene and Elaine are every bit the ideologues you claim me to be. You source from partisan left wing sites which take money from left wing billionaires who are trying to influence the dialog every bit as hard as right wing billionaires but those sites are OK because they espouse the beliefs you hold.
Gene,
I hate it when you are wishy washy! 🙂
Bron,
Considering that you advocate a magical thinking school of thought vis a vis the Austrian School? There is little more amusing than being called ignorant by the delusional. Get back to me when you follow economic principles grounded in reality instead of von Mises unscientific rationalizations for greed (and ergo selfishness) being good. Oh, that’s right, every argument in favor of your beloved Austrian School you (or others) have ever floated in this forum has been quite handily dismantled by myself and many others like a poorly manufactured and designed child’s toy. The Austrian “School”, I’ll say it again, is a political polemic pretending to be actual economics and that polemic is a cheap rationalization for unbridled greed. Sorry if that conflicts with the conformation it falsely provides for your Randian world view. Cognitive dissonance is most uncomfortable, but you should be used to it by now.
@Idealist: Need I say more?
Yes. You must explain the principle of how such a ruler became a ruler in the first place, because that is where the real psychological mystery lies. Rationally speaking, why didn’t his principle (strike off the heads of those that dare stand out) apply to him?
Why doesn’t it still? Surely the king is not the fittest, strongest, swiftest warrior in the land anymore, that honor belongs to a 25-28 year old young buck. What holds that warrior back? If it is the guards of the king, what in the psychology of the guards compels them to risk their lives to protect (or even obey) a cruel and arbitrary king, that kills the bright and bold with such disdain, just to protect his power? What in the psychology of his people lets them accept such cruelty in a king, to allow him the privilege of immunity from murder for his own selfish interest?
There is much to be said about the irrationality of accepting such an elite psychopath as one’s king and ruler, and even holding such people in reverence and accepting their immunity to laws that apply to one’s self.
That was the point of my post, to point out that there is much remaining to be understood, in both ourselves and in others, that such irrationality has persisted for 10,000 years or more.
I believe that like our occasional angry impulses to violence, that irrational “deferential posture” is a very negative feature of human nature, it is an impulse we should strive to control and suppress, but before we will ever do that we must first recognize it as a bad emotion that leads to endless trouble.
If we are to believe Dredd, or for that matter the practice of breeding, we must give some weight to 10,000 years of selection and external pressure on us as a population.
Herodotus tells the tale of the ancient ruler who received an emissary from another king, asking his principles of ruling his people.
The king took him out into a ripening wheat field and walking through it struck off the heads of wheat that stuck up. He confirmed his principle also in words.
Need I say more?
TonyC and Malisha,
Nobody asked me, but here is my answer. Occured while reading TónyC’s comment.
We have to go back to animals. One very basic decision by them is when conflicts emerge to use the least damaging way to exhibit their opposition, ie threats before physical conflict. Seen most often in rutting competitions.
The second point is that the “cost” of repairing the body from damage received in combat must be much less than the prize to be won. Ie the success in procreation versus the cost of dying.
Rutting conflicts often end in death of aged bulls, to give one example.
Now sexual or procreation are not the only “desireables” in the panoply needed by us. Thus its guidance in others than males who compete on females.
And from that we can go into the “competition vs cooperation” discussion that rages even today, I believe.
@Malisha: Tony C, does this look like the same phenomenon you were describing?
The phenomenon I am describing applies to women, children, men, gays, soldiers, artists, anybody. It is a phenomenon of human psychology.
It is probably best seen as an unavoidable slippery slope of sorts. First, realize we are drawn to belong to tribes; that is human nature, and why we have circles of friends at all.
But tribes have leaders, because some people are just better at friendly persuasion than others. Also human nature. Leadership is useful, but the slippery slope is when leadership morphs into command, when persuasion becomes orders, when negotiated policy becomes decrees from on high.
I do not know why it is true, or what survival value it has (at least that is not coming to mind as I write), but it is true: We humans have a distinct tendency to elevate leadership to near worship of infallibility. It is why rock star performers (who are exploiting many subconscious cues of rebellious leadership) have groupies. It is why movie stars, sports stars and other celebrities are not laughed off the stage when they tell you what to buy or how to vote, even if they are complete dummies.
Why in the world would anybody believe Michael Jordan’s endorsement of underwear meant anything at all?
It isn’t logical, but the answer is because he is seen as a leader and virtually infallible.
The phenomenon I am talking about is a slippery slope. Specifically we can defer to leadership when we might have done things differently or even disagree (a reasonable thing to do in order to avoid a complete deadlock of everybody insisting upon their own way). But we can slip from rational deference into blind, unquestioning trust and a belief that a leader is in special, elite class, somehow better than us and deserving of privilege and reverence.
It does not have anything to do with gender or race or age. It occurs in any group of any age, leaders will emerge and people will defer to them. If the group lasts long enough, the leaders may become revered and obeyed without question, and (if the leader demands it) wealthier and more privileged than their followers, and few people will think twice about whether leaders deserve that privileged treatment or not.
It is a very deep irrationality built into us, and it may have some survival value, but if it does I do not know what it is. However, in the modern world, I think deference to and near worship of authority and “leaders” is responsible for the majority of our problems.
ElaineM.,
Why would they do otherwise? Philanthropy?
Just shooting at dead fish. Not at you.
Or was it just trying to get Bron to understand?
Just anticipating Bron’s answer. Answer not expected.
Bron,
“You cannot believe anything from any think tank then, liberal or conservative because the funding is all from people with a particular ideology whether it be the Kochs or George Soros.”
It is best to check one’s sources of information and to seek out a number of different sources. One should also check to find out if the moneyed people who are providing the think tanks’ funding are doing it with the express purpose of pushing agendas that will benefit them or their businesses/corporations in some way.
Shano,
Appreciate that.
Don’t throw bad money after bad money to extinguish a debt fire.
Don’t expect interest on your bank deposits if you don’t realize they will loan it out for at least 20 imess at double your rate.
The rest was kind of interesting too. Gotta go look things up: fiat banking for instance. Where can I get in on that? And how can I get to make inside deals like Ryan? Smart man. And Bernanke was his advisor too.
And they get to make the rules these guys in Congress?
Bron, Max Keiser has his own web site. RT picks him up sometimes, but he is a free entity. And he was a free entity long before RT picked up his show.
So, you refuse to address his points about all you fake Libertarians and the mistakes in analysis made by von Mises?
Of course, ideologues cannot rebut anyone who may have a valid point that does not support their flawed thinking. In my opinion, the biggest mistake vonMises makes is leaving out external costs. This causes most of his theories to fail to support reality.
Ideas are nice, but they must be verified by reality.
Tony C.,
Good advice from both famous Steves!
shano:
RT? come on they are a bunch of left wing partisan hacks. Like Fox News except with far fewer viewers. How can you trust them with the truth?
Gene H:
you might want to read a little bit more about economics.
The only “critical” thinkers who “see” right through free markets are those who do not like free markets.
By this time I would think you would be hesitant to make a statement like this:
” They are unpopular because any critical thinker sees through their shoddy work and sloppy thought quite easily.”
It really shows how ignorant you truly are concerning economics. There are hundreds if not thousands of economists who think free markets are a good thing and that gold is a good form of money.
You cannot believe anything from any think tank then, liberal or conservative because the funding is all from people with a particular ideology whether it be the Kochs or George Soros.
Come on.