Glenn Greenwald: Tucker Carlson unintentionally reveals the role of the American press

[babylonsister]

Glenn Greenwald
Saturday March 8, 2008 06:41 EST
Tucker Carlson unintentionally reveals the role of the American press

(updated below - Update II)



The most interesting part of the controversy over Obama advisor Samantha Power's referring to Hillary Clinton as a "monster" -- one might say the only interesting part -- is that immediately after Power said it, she tried to proclaim that it was "off the record." Here was Power's exact quote:

She is a monster, too –- that is off the record –- she is stooping to anything.

But the reporter who was interviewing her, Britain's Gerri Peev of The Scotsman, printed the comment anyway -- as she should have, because Peev had never agreed that any parts of the interview would be "off the record," and nobody has the right to demand unilaterally, and after the fact, that journalists keep their embarrassing remarks a secret.

It's extremely likely, though, that had Power been speaking to a typical reporter from the American establishment media, her request to keep her comments a secret would have been honored. In one of the ultimate paradoxes, for American journalists -- whose role in theory is to expose the secrets of the powerful -- secrecy is actually their central religious tenet, especially when it comes to dealing with the most powerful. Protecting, rather than exposing, the secrets of the powerful is the fuel of American journalism. That's how they maintain their access to and good relations with those in power.

snip//

She regretted it. She probably acted with integrity. It's not for me to decide one way or the other whether she did the right thing. But I did not go out and try to end her career.

Credit to Tucker Carlson for being so (unintentionally) candid about the lowly, subservient role of the American press with regard to "the relationship between the press and the powerful." A journalist should never do anything that "hurts" the powerful, otherwise the powerful won't give access to the press any longer. Presumably, the press should only do things that please the powerful so that the powerful keep talking to the press, so that the press in turn can keep pleasing the powerful, in an endless, symbiotic, mutually beneficial cycle. Rarely does someone who plays the role of a "journalist" on TV so candidly describe their real function.

more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opi...

[mmonk]

1. Not really.

[Avalux]

2. Sad state of affairs, isn't it?

Edwards was shut out and they've tried to do the same with Obama; his sheer popularity has forced them to cover him.

"I am persuaded that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors, and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787

[thepurpose]

3. You know Glenn is making damn sure he never makes it on the talking head programs.

Tucker of course has his own show.

[Atman]

4. Ol Mornin' Joe Scab made some similarly surprising admissions on Real Time

Just last night Joe Scarbarough, one of Tuckers partners in crime at MSNBC, was a panelist on Real Time with Bill Maher...Bill even teased him about the "evening Joe" coming out when he said something critical about Hillary, and he admitted that in the morning the producers and the editors pretty much tell them what the tenor of the day's news should be based upon whose campaign called and complained the loudest. Hillary was doing well now because she's been relentless about calling the networks and complaining about every little negative thing they say about her, and Scab admits that it makes the editors change the direction of the coverage.



.

[babylonsister]

5. Saw that; pathetic, isn't it. I did appreciate his candor. nt

[Democrat 4 Ever]

10. Watch the replay of Real Time. Dead Intern Joe said BOTH

have supporters call and complain about their coverage. He did not single out the Clinton campaign. He repeatedly said both campaigns have people call and complain over the least "little" thing. You made it sound like the Clinton are getting good coverage because the networks are only afraid of her and her supporters.

Of course, Dead Intern Joe wouldn't admit that he pimps for any and all rethug candidates over a Democratic no matter how terrible the rethug for three dang hours every Monday thru Friday. He just whines about the Democratic supporters calling in and demanding the truth and fair coverage from the networks. What a novel idea.

And Dead Intern Joe got extremely pissed toward the end of that show when he found he didn't control the microphones, the guests, the show or the audience. He was quite frustrated in the end trying to toe the party line.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. There are lots of differences between Brittain and the U.S.,

Folks in Brittain don't care as much as Americans if their candidates commit adultery, they are totally NOT interested in who has an abortion, and they are more aware of REAL issues (for example, funds that go into public education, public health and public transportation, as opposed to bullshit like abortion) which affect their daily lives. Americans are almost completely unaware of what's going on, and politicians here lie through their @$$es to the people.

Another thing, if you've ever watched Parliament, you'll notice that fights break out and insults are bandied about freely. That's not permitted in our Congress. They immediately recess. I have seen plenty of times any Prime Minister speak in Parliament, and be booed wildly, insulted, jeered and yelled at, etc. When have you EVER seen the Congress here do that to a president? The reps that dare do that would be carried out and probably ARRESTED.

WHY DOES THE U.S. HAVE SO FEW FREEDOMS? THIS COUNTRY EMBARRASSES ME WITH ITS LACK OF FREEDOMS!

So, how in earth's name do you expect journalists to tell the truth when even Reps and Senators in Congress can't yell, "FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!" at the president without being carried out??? There's something seriously wrong with this country and I don't even know how it can be fixed.

[depakid]

8. The same is true in Australia

Question time is brutal (sometimes almost comical) and journalists pull no punches.

Kerry O'Brien and Tony Jones of ABC would NEVER be allowed on TV in the states. They'd have been fired long ago for their persistence in getting through the bullshit.

As to your question about how it can be fixed -it cannot. The corporate media is part of the ruling class- the propaganda organs of those who milk Americans dry- and they'll never give up that power.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. So then how did your media not turn out to be as corrupt and unwilling to

take to task the ruling class and politicians?

Interesting how many countries have a free media that really serves the people. Ours is garbage.

[depakid]

13. Might be part and parcel to the Westminister parliamentary system

where the leaders face each other over a table -and ask each other questions that the reporters in the gallery then put on the news every night....

It's much harder to conceal things in a system like that, as opposed to what passes for legislation in the US House and Senate- which is generally a snore a thon.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. Wonder what kind of system we got? Thank you for the info about the Westminster system

I'm going to look it up.

[depakid]

16. My Aussie girlfriend made these comments -I thought they were illuminating:

I think US culture is at fault - there is way to much cow-towing to "authority" there.

Here, as you know, we don't respect anyone, and those in power are automatically under suspicion, so good journos see it as there job to bring the mighty down. (Sometimes this can go too far too - they will be confrontationalist and aggressive in interviews when there is no need to be).

But overall, our system provides better accountability. I note that idiot was going on about what an important person Obama's adviser was. There is no way she would have been considered important here at all. Just a staffer of a pollie. So what?

[Richard Steele]

7. K&R

[DeepModem Mom]

9. K&R

[barbtries]

12. terrific link

oh that america had some real journalists like those seen at the link.

thank you

[KoKo]

14. The British Press RIPS their Candidates...sneering and jeering ...but in this

case it seems that the Scotsman's press person got caught up in AMERICAN MEDIA RIGHTS...where she wasn't supposed to report "Hillary/MONSTER" because it seem to violate some American "protocol that the Press should honor "SECRECTS." Whatever...

I thought it was a small, puny and manufactured Flub Up...but I don't care for either Clinton or Obama...so what the hell do I care about some Scottish Reporter who is making a name for herself over this small flap?