I've argued for some time that the real bias in the media is not left or right per say. It is pro Wall Street. And never has this bias been more transparent than with the coverage of Jim Webb's response to the State of the Union address.
My interest in the way the establishment media would react to Webb's speech began somewhere around the time he said "fairly" in the same sentence with "globalization" and "international marketplace." By the time he got to "robber barons" and "corporate influence", I was speechlessly stumbling for my laptop.
You see, there are just some things one does not say in proper company. Much less in a national address. And Jim Webb said a few of them.
Recently, to explain the devotion and commitment working class Americans once had to the Democratic party, Mudcat Saunders described how in the old days, people had two photographs on their living room wall: Jesus and Franklin D Roosevelt. It reminded me of my grandparents, who had lived through the Great Depression, with one exception - they had no photo of Jesus.
So for many of us, it is a sad fact that for a Democratic senator to use the language of class and wealth, and to speak utterances of robber barons and corporate influence, that it should be big news. But big news it was. As I pointed out in an absurd diary claiming that Webb "disappointed", this speech was nothing less than a shot across the bow of the entire establishment. It was rebuke to the Washington Consensus of neoliberal trade policies, class warfare, corporate corruption of our political process, and unchecked greed at the expense of "national wealth." Even the term 'national wealth' conjures up the bygone days of the sense of national purpose that marked the post-Depression era.
And while most, even many in the leftosphere, missed the full significance of Webb's populist appeal, I assure you the barons of Wall Street did not. As I also commented in the absurd diary, Webb should stay out of small planes.
But as significant an event as it was, providing clear indication that the populist uprising largely born out of the netroots and "people powered" movement has reached its way into the echelons of American political power, it received barely a mention in the corporate press.
It was almost funny watching Anderson Cooper's deer in the headlights face after Webb's speech, as he appeared to be receiving instructions from his producer through his earpiece. There's no way to know what he was told, but the way he and his panel completely skipped Webb's speech and resumed talking about Bush as though the Webb speech had never happened seemed just a bit awkward and unnatural.
It wasn't lost on my incredulous companions. "Their speechless", one said referring to Cooper and company. "Nothing to see here, move along", said another.
In the last four days since the speech, I have dedicated a good bit of time to tracking the reporting, or lack thereof, of the populist aspects of Webb's speech. As Devilstower noted yesterday, only a few (3) articles have even mentioned it.
Then, today, we finally get this from the New York Times: 'Looking for the Angry Populists in Suburbia'.
Note how the title editor cleverly frames Webb's speech as a political ploy. Just trying to win middle class voters. Now, the entire thesis of my post is based on the assumption that Webb is sincere. If the Times has information to the contrary, they should present it.
But the real fun happens within. David Leonhardt appears to be covering a different speech than the one Webb gave. He frames it as a Democratic appeal to middle class voters, but wonders how effective it will be since the economy is so rosy:
It was the sort of speech that one might have expected during a deep economic slump. Yet it came instead as most workers have started receiving significant pay increases for the first time in years and as polls show that most Americans think the economy has grown stronger.
This contrast was arguably the most significant part of the speech. As they plan their strategy on Capitol Hill and begin the 2008 presidential campaign, the leaders of the Democratic Party are betting that the temporary swings of the economic cycle no longer have the political power they once did.
Instead, they say, the economic shocks of recent years — technological change, globalization, the decline of labor unions and business icons like Ford Motor Company — have left many swing voters feeling anxious and insecure about the future.
After years of fighting losing battles against tax cuts, Democrats argue that this economic anxiety has altered the political landscape, making swing voters open to a new role for government — a form of what Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois has called "suburban populism."
With issues like energy policy, immigration and health care having gone largely unaddressed in recent years, Democrats see a way to define themselves as the party that can help Americans survive the 21st-century economy.
An unanswered question, though, is whether suburban populism can still have appeal during good economic times.
This is Wall Street sophistry at its finest.
"Swing voters"? Feeling "anxious" and "insecure"?
Notice how he removes the class component and replaces it with political baseball. But Jim Webb wasn't talking about swing voters. He never mentioned swing voters. He was talking about, and for, the 80 plus percent of Americans who are not just feeling anxious and insecure, but are fully aware that they are getting screwed by the new corporate economy.
These are people who can't afford health care, have no savings, are watching their grocery bills triple in 5 years. They are seeing their good jobs replaced with service jobs and their security lost in competition with third world labor.
But with all the ink invested in painting a pollyannic picture of the economy, and deflating Webb's populist call to arms as a cheap, political stunt, Leonhardt completely omits the far more poignant parts of the speech - wealth inequality and corporate influence. For corporate influence is the one subject that must never be discussed.
Webb's speech should have spurred a lively discussion on the issues he raised. But instead is was effectively blacked out. So determined to sweep him under the rug, our Wall Street press even forfeited, to a large extent, the opportunity to champion his forceful and resounding opposition to George Bush's Iraq policy - which is something Wall Street, for the most part, does support.
So this is the situation we find ourselves in in 2007 America: a handful of Wall Street corporocrats, who have so infiltrated our mass media that they can almost make a speech broadcast live to millions of Americans disappear.
How could they do this you may ask? Is it a grand conspiracy? No. They do it with a wink and a nod. Rule number one in becoming a TV personality is you never bite the hand that feeds. And the same goes at the Post, the Times and all the main news outlets.
Everyone knows the game and everyone who values their careers plays along. But Jim Webb, by breaking the rules for one evening, gave us a glimpse in the dugout. A look behind the curtain if you will. That look on Anderson Cooper's face, as they cut back to him following the speech, reminded me of a scene from The Truman Show when Truman has figured out that his whole world is a facade. That illumination is what Jim Webb gave us Tuesday night. An opportunity to see, with blinding clarity, the facade that is the Wall Street owned, corporate controlled, national media.
