That’s what drives politics and the smearing of independent media as purveyors of “disinformation” — protecting and preserving the privileges of the privileged.
The U.S. Supreme Court building. (Joe Lauria)
In his 1971 opinion in the Pentagon Papers case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote:
“In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government.”
One can hardly imagine anyone sitting on today’s U.S. Supreme Court writing such an opinion. Even more troubling is the news media having turned its back on its mission. Today they almost always serve the governors — not the governed.
The question is why.
Consolidation of media ownership has increased obedience of desperate journalists; entertainment divisions have taken over news departments; and careerist reporters and editors live vicariously through the power of those they cover, rejecting the press’ unique power to hold those officials to account.
It comes down ultimately to privileges. Men go to war to protect, preserve and further their privilege. Taxpayers’ money enhances the privileged through their wars, instead of spending public money on the public. And the corporate press vicariously cheers them on for a residual material betterment and increase in status.
Millions of lives erased in war for privilege.
The abdication of the mainstream media of their constitutional responsibility to serve the governed and not the governors has left a void filled since that Supreme Court decision by a new phenomenon: independent media published on a technology unknown in 1971.
Independent media, such as Consortium News, is committed to serving the governed and not the governors.
And because of that the governors and their media serving them want to destroy independent media, such as the recent, moronic hit piece against the Grayzone by a once serious newspaper, The Washington Post, and numerous moves (ProporNot, NewsGuard, Hamilton Dashboard, PayPal) against Consortium News.
If you are amongst the governed, please contribute whatever you can to CN today so we can continue to serve you instead of the governors. Thank you.
Please Donate to the
Spring Fund Drive!
The lamestream media doesn’t “serve the governors”, it serves the soulless corporation that owns it. This body without a soul has also purchased control of both major political parties. The corporate media & the governors (government) both answer to the same master – is it any wonder their message is unified & consistent in protecting the true rulers?
For a confidence trickster, the first step of a con is to get the mark to stop listening to advice from the people they should trust, and instead to trust only the trickster. If the confidence trickster can get them to stop listening to, as an example, family members who care about them, but to instead only listen and trust the trickster.
This can at times be the most difficult portion of a con, in that you have to convince the mark not to trust the people they already trust. But, once it is accomplished, the trickster can then easily manipulate the mark into giving what is truly valuable to the trickster …. and frequently to have the mark smiling when they give away all that is valuable.
If only 5,000 taxpayers refused to pay their taxes in defiance of a government out of touch with the people, it would cause a stampede to the exit by many more, and that would put the powers that be on notice and would probably bring down the house of cards of privilege
It isn’t the first time I state that what is urgently needed is a WORLD-WIDE social revolution…with guillotines and all.
I would think that one needs to be very careful about calling for anything like guillotines. Are you certain about that? Do we really want to bring about another Reign of Terror? I think it is all too easy to become just like those we despise and wish to overthrow.
Would it be worse that Wall Street’s Reign of Terror, which apparently includes Genocide and World War III?
And if you think Genocide Joe only kills abroad …. I believe that Genocide Joe holds the World Record for Dead Americans in the First Three Years of a Presidential Term. Its not publicized, for obvious reasons in an election year, but if you check the stats for total dead Americans a year you’ll find Genocide Joe has tied Genocide Don’s single year record in both of his first two years. In Year 3, Genocide Joe brought the American death rate down just enough that the stat for Life Expectancy is no longer falling, but Joe still killed a lot of Americans, at a rate that may have been “historic” itself were it not for the three previous record setting years.
Can you survive four more years?
Almost all the people of Paris did survive the Reign of Terror. It was a very dangerous time to be a politician, but it was not a genocide. It was definitely not Armageddon.
In America, since we’ve been forced-fed British history, we of course adopt the term of the British Propagandists of that era … The Reign of Terror. One can almost see the headline on a London tabloid.
A thought occurs to me since I write this from the land of the Navajo Nation. The “Reign of Terror” looks a lot like “White Man’s Justice” in these parts. Except, the settlers who came to steal this land were not mechanically educated enough for a device with falling blades, so instead it was a wave of hanging necks from ropes in ‘lynchings’. Considering that there were a lot of these, across both the “South” and the “West” in the wake of America’s first Civil War, once could almost describe that particular American Century as also a “Reign of Terror”. With, BTW, a traditional Democrat organization known as the KKK deeply involved in its home region.
Don’t forget, the British hate democracy and any notion of rule by the people. The British openly fought against every popular revolt against rule by the elite and privileged. This particular propaganda term comes from the French Revolt, which was after the Brits had fought a war against American Liberty and before Royal Boots were on the ground in Russia to fight the people there. Even to this day, the British still believe that at least symbolically, the right to power and to rule all others derives from the @$$ of King Chucky. And the London tabloids still print lurid propaganda headlines.
This is such an important truth. This is not a time to be silent if you are a person of conscience. Too many people allow just enough empire-corporate propaganda to……take away their most important convictions. So the vast majority of citizens don’t show up and choose to believe the convenient lies that make excuses for history and imperialism. They are wilfully ignorant. Consortium News is a clarion call to join the global struggle, the world majority, the oppressed, the colonised, the dehumanised, the captured, imprisoned, bombed and then forgotten. Many thank yous to the staff and contributors of Consortium News. May we live in a post Western colonisation-U.S. imperialism world. May the truthful and just narrative of history prevail. Keep the seeds alive!
Could it be any clearer? We have to replace capitalism with a more humane and sustainable economic system. To neglect to do so is suicide.
Still not clear enough for too many….
Main stream media’s “smearing of independent media as purveyors of ‘disinformation’ ” is a hysterical attempt “to protect and preserve”
its doggedly-fulfilled, well- established, existential purpose: unassailable monopoly on genuine disinformation. This, of course, includes mis-information and non-information the other components of the propaganda family package.
well said! “unassailable monopoly on genuine disinformation”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Economic inequality raises the power of every bribe against the rewards of honest work, against the value of all authentic favors, against the power of every personal relationship.
What has made “independent media” truly independent has been its diversity of voice. Voices from all perspectives, not the prevailing “pro and con” providing more than the binary way most issues are addressed. A while back, I began reading CN because it provided a thoughtful alternative to the main stream narratives. As time has marched on, it appears all CN contributors have coalesced around a single point of view. While CN itself may be an alternative to the main stream, it too, has now adopted a point of view much the way the The New York Times has, albeit a contrary one (in most cases). If I want to read what a rogue state Israel is, I come here. If I want the contrary view, I know here that lives. We can pretty much predict that on any issue. Independent means more than “Not Corporate.” I think it means inviting views contrary to the daily drum beat. At least it should.
If not publishing articles that say Israel has a right to defend itself, or Julian Assange is a rapist who endangered the lives of informants and hacked government computers or that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked” or that America has a right to bomb its way to world domination pretending it is spreading democracy means we are shutting out “contrary” views, then we plead guilty. We don’t publish lies just to appear “balanced.” We defy anyone however to put us into an ideological camp. We belong to no party, group or faction. ” Independent means more than ‘Not Corporate.'” In what way are we not independent? We depend only contributions from our readers.
Love what you say. Thanks for what you do.
You seem to be confused, at the very least. Perhaps you’re not ready for CN. What is this “single point of view” which CN contributors have “coalesced” around? Surely you can name this single habit of mind.
Objectivity never meant pretending that every point of view is correct or apt to be correct. Freedom of speech does not mean that every outlet must be forced to publish every point of view.
I judge that “single point of view” as reality and I find it very refreshing. The “anti-reality” contrarian view is to be found in multiple other sources. Personally, there’s a website I go to, very occasionally, because I see an article on CN or scheerpost, that originated there so therefore I infer they could be a trusted source. I find it very disturbing to see “the alternative side” when it’s opposite of reality. I dare say the publishers are doing as you advise. It diminishes my trust in the veracity of everything I read there.