Have the news media been corrupted and diminished?

It’s a crucial move for aspiring despots. They can fill the street with troops and terrify vulnerable people, but in order to dominate and control facts, news, thoughts and opinions, i.e., reality, they must shut down the rambunctious Fourth Estate.

Has Trump succeeded at this? He has sued members of the Fourth Estate, threatened, demanded, bullied and screamed loudly. Is the Fourth Estate shivering in its boots? Have any newspapers or TV networks given up reporting the actual news or warped the news to praise Trump and his doings? Have they banned critical opinions from their pages?

And when they seem to accede to Trump demands, do they kill the news about acceding to Trump’s demands? Do they sue any other journal or individual who critically reports the news about such accession?

Short answer: no. (Long answer is…no.)

I learned how to read newspapers when I was in high school. It was the most glorious lesson I’ve ever had and I apply it daily. I read my two local newspapers, the New York Times and the Daily News and articles in The New Yorker and Harper’s.

Then I head to my major social medium, Bluesky, where I get a precis and sometimes a full read of the news in other papers and journals.

Which ones? Below is a partial list — in no particular order — of the specific media I saw in one hour on Bluesky. Each one provided me with news, factual news, critical news. News that reported freely about the rabid absurdities and potential criminality of our current federal government administration. If there was a minced word, I didn’t spot it.

The partial list:

ProPublica, Mother Jones, Raw Story, NPR, The Guardian, Washington Post, Democracy Docket, CNN, Al Jazeera, Freedom of the Press Foundation, The New Republic, The New Yorker, Wired, Axios, The Intercept, L.A. Times, Forbes, The Kyiv Independent, Bloomberg News, Mississippi Free Press, Politico, The Economist, The Associated Press, Hell Gate (NYC), PBS News, Newsweek, Liberal Currents, The Conversation, Minnesota Star Tribune, Irish Star, Decrypt, Reuters, Prism, The Hill Times (Canadian), The Mirror (UK), Dublin Inquirer, The Salt Lake Tribune, Global Voices, Euronews, The Nation, The Toronto Star, QueerAF, The Colorado Sun, Manchester Evening News (UK), The Wall Street Journal, The Triibe, RNS (“covering the world of religion”), Arkansas Advocate, NBC News, Salt Lake Tribune, Cascadia Daily News, Business Insider, Sky News, The Tennessee Holler, The Bulwark, Rolling Stone, The Chicago Tribune, The Times and Sunday Times (UK), The Trace (gun violence), The 51st (D.C.), Bolts (courts), The Onion…

…and photos and videos of cats and dogs. And gamboling baby goats.

Then I shift to individuals I follow and get their opinions about the news. My experts are journalists, lawyers, scientists, wits, economists, politicians, pundits, professors, political cartoonists and fellow citizens. Several of them put themselves in harm’s way by watching Fox News and telling us what’s going on there. (I hope someone is giving them hazard pay as well as free Pepto Bismol and Immodium.)

The theme among my fellow citizens over the last week has been, “Is he dead yet?” They’ve got a lot to say about Trump and they don’t sound scared of him.

Finally, there are all the people who, unlike me, have cells phone with cameras and who are all over the country and in immigration courts documenting and transmitting the activities of Trump’s masked police-state thugs. I see those on Bluesky, too.

So is Trump succeeding in his desire to be the Compleat Totalitarian by killing the real news? A better question: Is he dead yet?

Posted in Corruption, Culture, Fascism, Government, How I Learned The Facts of Life, Immigration, Journalism, Lawyers, News media, police violence, Propaganda, The Facts of Life, Trumpism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Have the news media been corrupted and diminished?

What happened when I put “total” back in “totalitarianism”

Feeling a bit foolish. When I came to the section on totalitarianism in my world history tome, I had to smack myself on the head. I’d never actually considered that the primary word in totalitarianism was “total.”

Right now we’re afflicted with a constant series of radical, destructive and one-sided pseudo-governmental actions, and a deluge of political terminology to describe it. Autocracy is one word; fascism is the current fave term. Dictatorship, tyranny, chaos…I could pull others out of the political lexicon but the one I’d paid little attention to is the ultimate horror in governments, the system all tyrants aspire to: totalitarianism.

How did we get here? Here are excerpts from A History of the Modern World, 3rd edition (1965), laying out how “totalitarianism” came about:

Totalitarianism, as distinct from mere dictatorship…was no historic freak…The state was an institution that had continuously acquired new powers ever since the Middle Ages; step by step, since feudal times, it had assumed jurisdiction over law courts and men at arms, imposed taxes, regulated churches, guided economic policy, operated school systems, and devised schemes of public welfare.

The state, i.e., We The People. So, the authors are saying, the states’ purviews have, to the benefit of most of its citizens, widened and deepened as they challenged tyranny as a governing force. In doing so, they loosened the bonds tyranny had wrapped around the people.

Yay for us! But, as we who live in a democratic republic know very well, a democratic fence is metaphorical rather than metallic. Tyrants can creep in through the holes our form of constitutional government left behind as a tacit acknowledgment of and appreciation for the intelligence, acumen and rationality of citizens in a democracy.

Anyway, the holes have been invisible to most of us until someone slinks through one. When that happens, we urge Congress to seal it up with a law.

The twentieth-century totalitarian state, mammoth and monolithic, claiming an absolute domination over every department of life, now carried this old development of state sovereignty to a new extreme.

This new philosophy [totalitarianism] drew heavily upon a historic nationalism which it greatly exaggerated…

I want to point out that we Americans don’t genuinely have a historic nationalism to exaggerate, despite centuries of attempted historical revisions and the current wanna-be’s efforts to elevate white supremacy onto that throne.

Even science was a product of specific societies: there was a “Nazi science” which was bound to differ in its conclusions from democratic, bourgeois, Western, or “Jewish” science…All art, too–music, painting, poetry, fiction, architecture, sculpture–was good art in so far as it expressed the society of nationality in which it grew.

Whoops, there go the National Institutes of Health! And the CDC! And the Kennedy Center! And the Smithsonian! And libraries! And andandand…

The totalitarian regimes did not simply declare…that peoples’ ideas were shaped by environment. They set about shaping them actively. Propaganda became a principal branch of government…Now, like all else, it became “total.” Propaganda was monopolized by the state, and it demanded faith in a whole view of life and in every detail of this co-ordinated whole. Formerly the control of books and newspapers had been mainly negative…Now, in totalitarian countries, control of the press became frighteningly positive. The government manufactured thought. It manipulated opinion. It re-wrote history.

Well, maybe on Fox News and in the New York Post, but every day I read two newspapers which, despite loud criticism over their wording in headlines, are giving me the facts of the whole story, even when they don’t stud them with the sort of pejorative terminology critics are demanding. And I read journals, too, other newspapers, newspapers from all over this country and the world.

The very idea of truth evaporated. No norm of human utterance remained except political expediency–the wishes and self-interest of the men in power…People came to accept, and even to believe, the most extravagant statements when they were endlessly repeated, year and year. Barred from all independent sources of information, having no means by which any official allegation could be tested, the peoples of totalitarian countries became increasingly in fact, and not merely in sociological theory, incapable of the use of reason.

Hey, look at me, sitting at my keyboard using my reason to write this. If one person, i.e., me, still has reason, there must be millions more who have it.

So after I post this, I’m going to compose a list of the news sources which I see virtually every day, the ones that give me “the very idea of truth.” Because, if there are so many sources offering facts (the term I prefer to “truth,” which is so filmy and exudes the scent of religion) without fearing government shut-down, then I believe what we’re living under is not totalitarianism. It is a mock-up of fascistic totalitarianism.

On Bluesky yesterday, the profoundly intelligent Jamelle Bouie remarked upon a photo of a small group of National Guardsmen walking in D.C., toward a government building with that absurdly awful huge banner of Trump’s face (his mug shot, I believe) and an American flag.

Here’s what Bouie wrote:

[I] find this image so fascinating. [I]t is both a literal example of authoritarianism but also a second-hand reproduction of the aesthetics of other authoritarian states. [I]t’s like a simulacra of authoritarianism whose purpose is to attempt to make the simulacra real.

Isn’t that perfect? Aren’t you smacking your head and saying, “Yes! That’s exactly what we’re living through: simulacra of the type of government Trump aspires to!”

P.S. Here’s an excellent definition of simulacra from some dictionary Perplexity referred me to: “Simulacra are copies or representations of things that either no longer have an original, have become disconnected from their source, or may never have had an original at all.”

In short, we’re viewing the elementary school performances of Donald Trump.

Posted in Culture, Fascism, Government, Journalism, MAGA, News media, Propaganda, Racism, The Facts of Life, Trumpism, voting and voting rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What happened when I put “total” back in “totalitarianism”

Who is this awful guy?

[His] headquarters was shaped to his needs and personality, made up of men whose principal qualification was fidelity and who were united by little else than their determination to “protect” [him] against adversaries real and imagined…As a rule…”[he] did not select the brightest, most capable, and most promising [people] to serve under him.”

…”[I]t is frequently (and largely truthfully) said that they share several characteristics–each carries a chip on both shoulders, is highly and sometimes childishly sensitive, and is convinced that [the boss] is the greatest man who ever lived,” not to be judged as an ordinary mortal…but as if he existed in some perfect idealistic vacuum.” Anyone who refused to accept the concept of a flawless [boss] was an enemy; “everyone in the world is either ‘for’ or ‘against’ the [boss].

He had the need to disturb the universe, which is a great gift, but too often he ended by disturbing other people, whose needs and achievements he seemed not to recognize. He had no generosity in sharing the stage of history, no easiness in the presence of other actors. Always there was the inability to leave history alone: the record must be rewritten–at whatever cost to truth–until there was only one major figure, one guiding genius, one hero. He had the hunger that can never be satisfied: always to have been right, always perfect, always admired. There is a hollowness here, a lack of centrality, of commitment and conviction beyond the self that could have redeemed what is otherwise empty posturing. As a human being he was a shell of tarnished magnificence, a false giant attended by real pygmies.

Took my breath away, this character analysis, both because of the eloquent passion with which it is written and because the man Eric Larrabee is referring to in Commander in Chief could be the one we’re forced to stare at every day of this horror.

Larrabee was describing Douglas MacArthur, whom F.D.R. called one of the two most dangerous men in the country. (The other was Louisiana’s Huey Long.)

MacArthur lied, exaggerated events and claimed victories hard-won by other people as his own. So once again, I’m tempted to believe that everything that is happening has happened before.

I forget to note the final exchange Roosevelt had with his luncheon companions on that day, months before he became president: “We must tame these fellows,” said Roosevelt, “and make them useful to us.”

Posted in Government, Indicting Trump, Journalism, political campaigns, Politics, The Facts of Life, Trumpism, War | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Who is this awful guy?