America Is a Cabaret, Old Chum

Vhere are Your Troubles Now?

cabaretRed

by Randy Shields

Ladies und gentlemen, willkommen to the Kit Kat Klub in beautiful Los Angeles, California where even za hood has palm trees! As you know, three weeks ago it was windy for two straight days and last week it was overcast and sprinkled briefly but we’ve talked it out, we’ve recovered and we’re ready to party again! Don’t let the sports on the giant plasma screens or the live dancers distract you from this book review. Stop texting for a moment and let me pour you a Tony Montana, a line of Whole Fools gluten-free, organic, totally vegan, absolutely fair-traded Bolivian marching powder. Vhere are your troubles now?

I just finished reading Robert Gellately’s Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany. Published in 2001, the book’s central point, buttressed by diaries and newspaper accounts of the time, is that the German people knew exactly what the Nazis were doing and approved of it. Gellately makes clear that the Nazis were constantly calibrating what they could get away with with the German people and that, in the early years of the dictatorship anyway, dissent sometimes made a difference.

On many pages covering the early years of the dictatorship, one’s mind is constantly jumping back and forth between what the Nazis did and what’s been going on in America, not just since 9/11, but over the past 50 years. As Mark Twain said, history doesn’t repeat but it often rhymes.

Here’s a little stream of consciousness about the Nazis then and America now, inspired by Gellately’s book:

The Germans have the Reichstag fire, America has 9/11. In response, Hitler wraps up Germany with the Enabling Act and the all-purpose Reichstag Fire Decree. In America it’s the ready-made Patriot Act (the FBI wish list considered too reactionary to include in the plenty reactionary crime bills of 1994 and 1996), the Military Commissions Act and the National Defense (sic) Authorization Act. The police become more — to use Gellately’s words — “invasive, arbitrary and murderous.”

Flying down the autobahn or American highways, the signs of fascism are there but sometimes a blur: no left turns, selective terror, collective punishment, scapegoated minorities, the glorification of police and the military (film, television, sporting events.) The ruling class can’t compete intellectually for its collapsing social system so it resorts to the criminalization of dissent. The nation’s sacred founding texts must be abandoned. We’ve just had it confirmed, thanks to Edward Snowden, that the 3rd Amendment has been efficiently shit-canned along with the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th as the NSA’s cerebral storm troopers are now “quartered” in our cell phones and computers.

“America, America show us the sign your children have waited to see…”

What’s that singing about — is it someone’s birthday? God, they look like Boy Scouts. OK, back to the book…

The Nazis don’t avoid the press but use it skillfully with photos of concentration camp inmates exercising and playing sports — think of embedded reporters and the “tropical paradise” with the “three square meals a day” that Gitmo’s defenders tell us about. The Nazis easily win over journalists — in the present, the most vicious critics of government whistleblowers are “journalists” like Jeffrey ToobinDavid Gregory and Bob Schieffer. Gellately: “The press greets Dachau as bringing new hope for the Dachau business world.” An “economic turning point,” Germany’s “most famous place,” exclaims one newspaper. American communities compete for prison construction. We need jobs, we need half the population spying on and guarding the other half. See how America “works”? If it takes millions of people locked up to preserve capitalism, so be it.

Doctors jump wholeheartedly into the Nazi’s torture, euthanasia and genocide and now we have American doctors, psychologists and anthropologists who have assisted torture and indefinite detention. We see people doing anything for a little more comfort, a little more advancement. Hitler had The Triumph of the Will, we have bootlicking propaganda like The Hurt LockerZero Dark Thirty and The Fifth Estate. Of course, staying silent in the face of atrocities is always popular. A little terror goes a long way.

We see Hitler and other Nazi leaders, at the pinnacle of a gigantic murderous enterprise, taking time from their busy days to reverse punishments from judges out in the hinterlands. A purse snatcher is given ten years in prison and it somehow comes to Hitler’s attention and he has the man shot. In America, Rumsfeld makes suggestions about torture techniques on “detainees” and Obama has his Star Chamber terror Tuesday. Obama brags to aides in a new book that’s he’s “really good at killing people.” What’s the sense of being in power if you can’t be powerful and exercise your abominables?

The Nazis constantly legalize their crimes — and citizens, abandoning all critical thinking, go along with whatever is the almighty “law.” “Anyone who wanted to resist,” says Gellately, “was in the difficult position of having to act illegally.” “Inequality before the law was justified in the name of the anti-Communist (me: anti-terrorist) crusade.” “The new regime shifted the scales of justice away from the rights of citizens in favor of the powers of the police…” And Himmler (or is it Feinstein, McCain or Lindsey Graham cracker?) says: “Good citizens have nothing to worry about.”

“The morning will come when the world is mine…”

God, I wish those assholes would sit down and shut up. They’re so rude!

In June of 1934 the German people accept the first mass murder of the dictatorship: not of Communists or “asocials” or Jews but the summary execution of 100 Storm Troopers who were “moving too fast” even for Hitler. Nobody protested. The German people often “lead” the Nazis, keeping the Gestapo and Kripo busy by informing on neighbors, business and romantic rivals and even relatives for jealousy, revenge or financial gain. If you see something, say something, says Homeland Security, a bureaucracy that didn’t exist 12 years ago but now has 230,000 employees and 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition — five hollow-point bullets for every American. Why so many? Maybe they plan on committing wholesale “puppycide” also.

One of the architects of the new Nazi system of “justice,” Dr. Werner Best, says no lawyers should be allowed in court as the usual “procedural forms of the judiciary were totally inapplicable for the struggle against the enemies of the state under the current circumstances.” (“9/11 changed everything!” It got us in touch with our inner Eichmanns!) Dr. Best again: “In its struggle against clever, determined and ruthless enemies… to destroy an enemy whose behavior cannot be predicted (me: those crazy Muslims) — the Gestapo also cannot be bound by the letter of the law.” Reichdefermentmeister Dick Cheney’s dark side soul mate!

“There exists no private sphere anymore,” says Reichminister Hans Frank. Or was that Reichminister Keith Alexander? J. Edgar Hoover sends agent Edmund Patrick Coffey to visit Kripo headquarters in January 1938 and Coffey expresses his “great pleasure” about the Kripo and the rest of the police. This, after years of widely known atrocities. Gellately: “A never-ending series of crime and punishment stories was published during the Nazi era.” Like Mutual of Dick Wolf’s Wild Law and Order Kingdoms which enthrall white viewers with tales of the scary dark-skinned Other?

Journalist William Shirer, on ordinary Germans who saw nothing wrong with the destruction of Poland: “As long as the Germans are successful and do not have to pull in their belts too much, this will not be an unpopular war.” (As long as American troops aren’t getting killed, as long as we’ve got flying killer robots slaughtering brown people and paid for by government money printing… Sure, why not?)

“Tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs to me!”

Shut the fuck up and sit down! You aren’t anybody! Shit doesn’t belong to you! Jesus! Sorry about that. This place just isn’t what it used to be…Hell, let me stand up and sing a song:

Google is IG Farben as Facebook is Siemens as Yahoo is Daimler as Microsoft is Krupp as Apple is BMW and these fascist collaborators past and present are altogether — yeah!

Yeah, I know, I’m tuneless but that doesn’t interfere with my enjoyment of singing. And speaking of Google, executive chairquisling Eric Schmidt is shocked, shocked that spying is going on — spying that the government didn’t let him in on for once! But what he really hates is other nations attempting to protect themselves from the NSA, warning that these governments might ”balkanize” the internet. As for the NSA, Herr Schmidt won’t “pass judgment” on it — instead, it’s the resisters to the NSA and Stasicon Valley who are the problem. He co-wrote a book with a former advisor to Condoleezza Rice – ripped apart by Julian Assange – that’s been praised by more war criminals (Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Madeleine Albright and Michael Hayden) than you can shake a Nuremberg noose at.

Gellately on Nazi surveillance: “Barrington Moore has pointed out that the ‘one prerequisite’ for expressions of disobedience to take place is that there be ‘social and cultural space’ which ‘provides more or less protected enclaves within which dissatisfied or oppressed groups have some room’, so that they can meet and talk and mobilize for action.” The government infiltrated the Occupy movement months before its first event and completely routed it within six months. America’s “freedoms” are bullshit — whenever they are tested, they face swift and spectacular smack downs: union organizing, protesting at political conventions (in cages, out of sight of the conventions), reporting on and documenting cruelty to animals (ag-gag laws, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act), being secure against unreasonable searches, having due process and adequate counsel, or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (years in solitary confinement.) 75% of Americans want Medicare for all — and have for the last five decades — but despite us being so “free,” somehow, we can’t make that happen.

Back to the old-timey Nazis… Heydrich stresses the need to know the whereabouts of “the enemies of the state” in the event of war. The Gestapo begins arresting people in 1941 that they had listed on index cards from as far back as 1935 — nothing, of course, compared to the data storage center in Bluffdale, Utah. “Release of prisoners from protective custody will in general not take place during the war,” says one Nazi functionary, echoing the present day perpetrators of the never-ending war on/of terror. Both Hitler and Himmler “wanted to send anyone who committed three or four crimes to a concentration camp for good.” Four crimes — whoa, Hitler and Himmler were more lenient than 26 American states who lock people up and throw away the keys with three strikes laws! Be proud, America, you’re tougher than Nazis! Gellately: “The ‘community of the people’ and hence police considerations to protect it, took precedence over the rule of law and individual rights.” American fascism update: Blacks and Hispanics in NYC are not part of the “community of the people” so stop and frisk has been perfectly “legal.”

Also interesting are the contrasts between the Nazis and the American ruling class. At one point before the war, things are going so well for the Nazis that Hitler seriously considers disbanding the Gestapo. Is there any level of government in America that would entertain giving up any police power? Hitler also enacts numerous amnesties in the early years of the dictatorship with thousands of people released from incarceration. With the world’s greatest prison gulag, both in absolute numbers and percentage of the population, Barack Obama has pardoned a whopping 39 people in five years. Looking at many of their penny ante crimes, you might say it was “mighty white” of him. Meanwhile, Obama and the fascist edifice that he fronts won’t give the 74-year-old cancer-stricken Lynne Stewart a compassionate release because she dared to defy that edifice and so must be crushed, as Chelsea Manning must be crushed, as truth and justice must be crushed by the immutable moral “rightness” of money, that clinking clanking stinking skanking sound that makes the world go round, as codified in Citizens United and numerous other fascist-friendly Supreme Court decisions.

It might be protested: “We can’t have fascism in America — we don’t have any concentration camps or mass executions.” My answer: We have as many prisons and torturous “Control Units” as the ruling class needs. The ruling class doesn’t need mass executions because the “homeland” is thoroughly pacified and conquered. Instead, America’s obvious fascism is projected beyond its borders — it doesn’t have any borders, really — with 1,000 worldwide military installations, JSOC death squads operating in 75 nations, drones taking the place of armies (as we never really “withdraw”) and no appreciable domestic opposition to any of it. Explain to the parents of Pakistani children blown to bits by our drones or the detainees held for years in black sites without charge or trial that the American people don’t support fascism.

It might be protested: “But Hitler killed six million Jews and others!” Yes — and he was also responsible for 15-20 million civilian deaths in the Soviet Union. America’s leaders, however, spread out the corpses over decades: hundreds of thousands of Koreans, three million Southeast Asians, a million Iraqis, and millions more in proxy wars in Africa (six million alone in the Congo) and Latin America. “Good Americans” tell themselves — if they think of it at all — that the millions of innocents our government kills are “accidents,” “tragic mistakes,” “unavoidable,” and “collateral damage.” We don’t mean to kill millions of innocent people decade after decade — things just go wrong. Unless, of course, we’re playing the sanctions home game with Madeleine “The Price is Right” Albright and 500,000 dead Iraqi children — then we think it’s “worth it.”

It might be protested: “But there is no charismatic leader.” True — the quality of capitalism’s shills is very low and they are widely loathed. And that’s a good thing — witness what the ruling class gets away with when they have silver-tongued dissemblers like Clinton (NAFTA) and Obama (NDAA) working for them. (Here’s hoping, with Obama, that we’ve reached peak mystification.) But America hasn’t had its humiliation years like Weimar Germany — yet. Suppose we lose our reserve currency status, interest rates soar as does unemployment and tens of millions more Americans are out of work. (When Hitler came to power, 40% of Germans were out of work.) At that point some tough-talking confident pseudo-populist telling us that… oh, I don’t know… Canada and Panama are the cause of all our problems and he has a plan to regain our former “greatness” — well, that might be music to many ears.

It might be protested: “But we don’t have Hitler’s evil racist ideas.” (Set aside that he got most of them from the American eugenics movement.) My answer: we have enough of our own racist ideas to last us a good long while, we have 500 years of white hatred and violence toward people of color. The collective punishment of stop and frisk is one strand in an ever-spun web of fascism against blacks encompassing police brutality and summary executions, mass incarceration, racist sentencing disparities and applications of the death penalty (itself a tool of class terror), redlining, gentriciding (hey, it’s not just for Palestinians!), the CIA letting the Contras smuggle cocaine into major American cities in the 1980s and fueling a devastating epidemic (see Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance), the racist salvos from nearly every Scapegoater-in-Chief in my lifetime about “welfare queens,” “big bucks,” various Sister Soulja moments, “ethnic purity” and “black intrusion” (hardly anybody remembers peanut Carter’s multiple infractions) all the way up to Barack Go ‘Bama who, in one of his many magical speeches of misdirection (they’re always for white people), scolded black fathers on Father’s Day with his imaginary ideas about their real lives, and then we can take the way back machine to the infiltration and disruption of black leftist groups (the picked-on-first Communists in the Nazi analogy), culminating in the selective terror of targeted assassinations of their most powerful speakers and leaders. And all of the preceding happened just since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was supposed to kickstart “equality.” And through it all, white America, the “good Americans” in this case, mostly wondered: “What’s the fucking problem? Slavery’s over.”

Godwin’s law says that whoever first brings up the Nazis to win an argument loses immediately. I like Godwin’s law but here’s another one that ought to be remembered: whoever brings up the Nazis last usually gets turned into a lampshade. Looking around the Kit Kat Klub, though, I think most of us made up our minds back in Chelsea that, when we go, we’re going like Elsie.

Randy Shields can be reached at music2hi4thehumanear@gmail.com.Read other articles by Randy, or visit Randy’s website.




We Are a Country Drenched in Bloodshed: Some Hard Truths About Violence in the Media

By Don Hazen [2], Jan Frel [3] Alternet.org

There are many causes of violence in our culture, but the least understood is the heavy influence of media.
violenceCruise-COLLATERAL
Alternet concur that the liberals’ knee-jerk embrace of media excuses for their overuse of violence is misguided if not politically idiotic. As the authors point out violence in America has no single explanation: it’s a systemic uber problem, with many separate organic streams of causality contributing their share to making it nearly intractable. This is not say that we think it’s a good idea to legislate or ban the depiction of violence in all its forms in cinema and associated arts. Violence is part of life; it happens in many different ways, times, and cultures, and ugly as it may be, in responsible, truly artistic hands, it has a role to play, a role of uplift instead of debasement through crass exploitation. The good or bad of violence in “entertainment” is a subjective question and can’t be reliably legislated, but this doesn’t mean it can’t be socially controlled. People, however, seem more horrified by the retail manifestation of violence at the hand of unpredictable unhinged males, than by its wholesale version via large-scale state violence, easily far more devastating, and in general the preserve of hypocritical leaders worldwide. In any case, whatever the relative dimensions of the problem according to source, the indictment of a mendacious media culture is long overdue.—PG

 By Don Hazen [2], Jan Frel [3] Alternet.org
The horrific massacre of schoolchildren and their teachers in Newtown, Connecticut, has unleashed an unprecedented debate about how to address the problem of mass violence in our country. There is an increasing sense that American society is incapable of protecting its citizens, including young children, the most vulnerable among us.

Yes, it’s important to focus attention on the increase in the size andsavagery of the murders [4]: Six of the 12 most deadly shootings in our history have occurred within the past five years. The vast majority of the world’s worst mass shootings have taken place in the United States. And there have been 65 mass shootings since Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot in 2009. Still, despite their horror, mass murders like Newtown are thankfully rare. So we must pay attention to the daily violence, too. Nearly 13,000 homicides were committed in theU.S. in 2010 [5], 8,775 with firearms. So in addition to the most heartbreaking, large-scale killings, the problem is pervasive and the bloodshed overwhelming.

What About Violence in the Media?

It’s revealing, that amidst the millions of written words, TV discussions and proposed solutions, regulating the violence that pervades mass media — movies, TV, the toy industry, gaming, and the Internet — is not often seen as a productive avenue for reform of our violent culture. This seems especially true of liberals and progressives. We invest a great deal of energy pushing strongly for gun control, which is more concrete and tangible, with clearly defined targets and enemies. But we stop short of going after purveyors of violence in the media. Traditionally, this has been more of a priority for conservatives.

But when we looked into the impact of violence in the media, we were shocked at what we found. We, like many people we know, and perhaps you reading this, had a series of wrong-headed notions about the nature of the problem. We found that the issue has been studied for well over 40 years, and has been the subject of over 1,000 studies — including reports from the Surgeon General’s office in 1972 [6], and the National Institute of Mental Health. The studies “point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children,” according to theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics [7].

We were especially surprised to learn that researchers, as summarized by the French Canadian media activist andresearcher Jacques Brodeur [8], claim to have proven that “the effect of media violence is bigger than the effect of exposure to lead on children’s brain activity, bigger than the effect of calcium intake on bone mass, bigger than the effect of homework on academic achievement, bigger than the effect of asbestos exposure on cancer, bigger than the effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on lung cancer.”

Are you surprised? We certainly were. If you are like us, you probably think that the research linking steady exposure to violence in the media to anti-social attitudes and acts has not been proven, which of course, is what the entertainment industry has insisted over and over again.

In line with arguments made by the entertainment industry, you might also have bought into the notion that violence in the media simply reflects the violence in society — even though that is patently absurd when you look at the numbers. Or, because the First Amendment is sacred, expressions of violence, no matter how unrealistic, inaccurate or gruesome, are protected or should be protected.

But most media violence is a commercial creation, designed to addict people to violence and make billions of dollars. This has almost nothing to do with free speech.

Multitudinous Causes in the Mix

Before we go any further we want to stipulate that there is no one cause, or small number of causes, behind the culture of violence in America. There are many culprits but especially culpable are alcohol abuse, which often leads to violence; the war on drugs, which make drugs hugely valuable, increasing the violence (though much of the worst violence takes place in Mexico); the return of hundreds of thousands of soldiers from two long and brutal wars, many trained killers, many with PTSD; the militarization of police departments, with heavy surveillance technology designed to make even a normal person paranoid; mass incarceration in prisons run frequently by companies trying to make a lot of profit off crime, and where for inmates, prison is often a graduate course in more advanced crime, especially since there are no jobs and almost zero help in integrating ex-cons into productive lives after they leave prison; and high levels of unemployment, especially among the working class and those without college diplomas.

Certainly, the political climate over the past five years, with the emergence of the gun-toting Tea Party, has raised the specter of violence. There has been a marked increase in militia groups and right-wing extremists. Threats upon the president’s life have increased, likely stoked by the relentless and aggressive lies about President Obama’s birthplace, his roots and his intentions. Attacks on Obama get huge attention in the media, exacerbating divisions and frustrations. There have been powerful propaganda campaigns by the NRA to scare people into stockpiling massive amounts of ammo, based on the completely out-of-touch-with-reality notion that the Obama administration is going to take away their guns and ammo. (Actually, President Obama has increased the rights of gun owners, and articulated an aggressive interpretation of the Second Amendment.) It’s hard to measure the levels of paranoia and fear that cloud the judgments of millions of Americans, enhanced by a number of conspiracy theories and the presence of media idiots like Donald Trump to give them exposure. That too must be factored in when it comes to understanding the ingredients of the violence.

Then there is what is often called the “masculinity crisis.” The changing roles of men, inspiring feelings of uselessness; the growing success and prominence of women and the increased maladaptiveness of many masculine traits, which are not so useful in day-to-day life in America in 2013 as they have been in the past. The end result, for whatever combination of reasons, is that virtually all the violence in America is executed by men.

 What About Mental Illness?

Notice that mental illness is not on the above list of the most obvious causes of violence. While people who commit mass murder and suicide are obviously ill, Dr. Richard Friedman,writing in theNY Times [9], explains that only 4% of the violence in the U.S. can be attributed to mental illness — and that the lifetime prevalence of violence among people with very serious illnesses is only 16% compared to 7% of people with no mental illness. Friedman adds that people who abuse alcohol and/or drugs were nearly seven times as likely as those without substance abuse problem to commit violent acts. And then, the mass murderers are not predictable: expert and psychiatrist Dr. Michael Stone at Columbia says, “Most of these killers are young men who are not floridly psychotic. They tend to be paranoid loners who hold a grudge and are full of rage.”

Add Guns and Media to the Mix

Add to this gnarly mix of causes 300 million handguns in a third of American homes — and you have a ticking time bomb. Then, you place all of the elements in the context of the pervasive violence in media, so prevalent that it’s almost like the air we breathe. It starts with “killer” toys aimed at toddlers, moves to the most violent video games imaginable, then to films and television shows with numerous acts of violence, seen daily by hundreds of millions of people. Many of these depictions glorify brutishness, macho insensitivity, misogyny, racism, and barbaric behavior. According toSophie Janicke [10] of Florida State University, who references the National Television Study (1998), two out of three TV programs contain violence, amounting to six violent acts an hour. The majority of this content is shown in children’s programming (69%). It has been estimated that by the age of 18, the American youth will have seen 16,000 murders, and 200,000 acts of violence only on television.”

The end result is the mess we are in as a society. And there is no easy way out.
Because the problem of violence is so omnipresent, clouding many people’s daily lives with fear, real or imagined, distorting relationships and many aspects of human interaction, we must start to seriously look at the prevalence of media violence and try to imagine how we might make it better. We must acknowledge that the media adds to the dangerous brew of violence in our culture.

Gun Control or Gun Safety

The rush for some kind of symbolic or even modestly substantive gun control legislation is understandable. There is no question that reducing the number of guns in the country, especially making them harder to access when someone has the urge to kill, will result in fewer violent deaths. However, gun control is not a quick, easy or comprehensive solution to the problem of perpetual violence. The battle for gun safety — given the political realities and the pervasiveness of guns — won’t even begin to address the massive, interlocking and mutually reinforcing violent aspects of our culture.

Future generations may benefit from whatever we are able to accomplish now in terms of gun reforms. But there are many other factors to tackle, and solely focusing on gun control is not enough.

A Reflection of Society

You may wonder, as the heads of the Motion Picture Association have told us over and over, doesn’t media simply reflect the society we live in?

The notion that media merely holds a mirror to society is easily disproven. Iowa State’sBrad J. Bushman and Craig A. Anderson explain [11]:

“Even in reality-based TV programs, violence is grossly overemphasized. For example, one study compared the frequency of crimes occurring in the real world with the frequency of crimes occurring in the following reality-based police TV programs: America’s Most Wanted, Cops, Top Cops, FBI, The Untold Story, and  American Detective (Oliver, 1994). The real-world crime rates were obtained from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI; 1951-1999) Uniform Crime Reports, which divide seven major types of crimes into two categories, violent and nonviolent. About 87% of the crimes occurring in the real world are nonviolent crimes, whereas only 13% of crimes occurring in reality-based TV programs are nonviolent crimes. The largest discrepancy between the real world and the world depicted on television is for murder, the most violent crime of all. Only 0.2% of the crimes reported by the FBI are murders, whereas about 50% of the crimes shown in reality-based TV programs are murders.”

What About the First Amendment?

As you might expect, given the huge dollars involved, any attempt to constrain big media, entertainment, video game and toy manufacturers, will result in screaming about “freedom of expression.” And it is true that the FCC regulates indecency and offensive speech but not violence, because content regulation can be construed as a First Amendment concern as much as a matter of commerce.

However, the First Amendment, like the Second Amendment, has been substantially altered by powerful forces influencing the courts over time. As Adam Gopnick writes in theNew Yorker [12]:

“…..  the blood lobby still blares out its certainties, including the pretense that the Second Amendment—despite the clear grammar of its first sentence—is designed not to protect citizen militias but to make sure that no lunatic goes unarmed. (Jill Lepore wrote [13] about the history of the Second Amendment in the New Yorker recently.) Make sure that guns designed for no reason save to kill people are freely available to anyone who wants one—and that is, and remains, the essential American condition—and then be shocked when children are killed.”

To many, the Second Amendment now means the freedom to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere, including schools.

Over time, the First Amendment — the right to free speech — has also been distorted to serve the interests of the corporations that in dominating our media are never at a loss for the right to speak. It’s not unlike the infamousCitizens United Supreme Court decision, where the courts have expanded corporations’ rights to expression to include investing unlimited money in political campaigns, without even identifying themselves, and at the expense of the individual person’s rights.

According to Mary Megee,in the U.S. [8], “most cultural messages are strained through a commercial filter which uses gratuitous violence as an industrial ingredient to keep viewers tuned in, ratings high and profits up.”

For corporations, the law of commerce and the market is the ultimate rule. In their highly sophisticated propaganda efforts, media corporations try to obscure the fact that they operate on the public airwaves, with licenses. The government intervenes if a swear word is uttered on air, or when Janet Jackson’s nipple was exposed for a brief moment during a Super Bowl show. But the most gratuitous, destructive, dehumanizing violence is not considered worthy of focus, because of the power of the media to shape reality, as well as significantly affect the careers of elected officials and the “fear” associated with tangling with the First Amendment.

It’s ironic that parents who push for less violence on TV are labeled “pro-censorship,” when in fact the omnipresence of programming filled with violence often displaces more constructive material from the air. “The preference for violence, is made by somebody, elected by nobody, prisoner of a toxic culture,” who knows that whomever is in charge expects them “to give priority to cruelty, aggression and hatred,” writes Jacques Brodeur.

The tobacco industry offers a relevant analogy. Tobacco companies (along with the ACLU), in the face of overwhelming negative health data about tar in cigarettes, insisted that the regulation of cigarettes, and the advertising for them, interfered with free expression. It took many years to marginalize the cigarette industry. Twenty percent of the population still smokes,falling by half [14] from 1965 when 42% of adults smoked.

Changing behavior and fighting corporate power is a long and arduous process, but it’s possible.

Isn’t Violence Going Down?

We do face a paradox in society where the hugely visible mass murders are increasing, while violence as a whole, as measured by crime statistics, has gone down — great news. For example, violent crime in Los Angeles is four times lower than it was in 1992. The interesting thing is that no one can explain exactly why. Of course, there is no end of politicians and police officials who take credit for it. The high number of people in jail may be a contributing factor, although many are in jail for non-violent crimes, mostly drug offenses. The high number of police in some cities like New York may contribute to less crime. On the other hand, in Chicago, where the high ratio of police to citizens is second only to New York, crime appears to be out of control.

Nevertheless, it’s important to keep in mind how the U.S., despite drops in crime, still dwarfs all developed countries in the number of guns, level of violence, number of mass murders, and number of people in jail and under supervision by the criminal justice system. The fact that violent crime has dropped is certainly good news. But we made the bar so high that we still have epidemics of violence, bloodshed and murder in our society.

It’s worth noting that in the wake of the Newtown massacre in Connecticut, TV and film executives purposefully avoided broadcasting violent programming. TheNew York Times [15] noted thatUSA Today stopped broadcasting violent police and detective shows; Quentin Tarantino’s gory new film had its red carpet event scaled back; previews of Tom Cruise’s new film were canceled; and “Hollywood’s power lunches have been filled in recent days with conversations about hypocrisy.”

History tells us that this momentary moral pang will dissipate and the hunt for profit through violence will continue. If we want to get serious and confront this issue, we will have to establish a framework for regulating media violence made by businesses seeking to sell tickets, ads and products to the American public.

Time to Put TV Under Scrutiny

The ultimate trouble we face as a society is the powerlessness of most people in the face of corporate dominance. We lack responsive democratic institutions to leverage change in policy to make us less vulnerable to domination by corporate interests. The pervasive and accurate feelings that the political system is bought and sold, that most elected officials belong primarily to the “money party” or their “future million-dollar job” party in whatever industry they choose to specialize, leave many people in despair, and in some cases angry and violent.

In a political system as out-of-whack as ours, where billionaires pour untold millions into elections to seal their outcomes, where corporations spend billions on lobbyists who promote their interests, building on citizen outrage and turning it into change is a difficult challenge.

As Brodeur writes [8], over the past 40 years there were industries polluting our air, water and food, while the entertainment industry “increasingly poisoned children’s cultural environment with violence carried by TV programs, movies and video games. While society agreed to regulate the pollution of air, water, food, governments have been unable to regulate use of violence in entertainment products for children.”

The executives of a handful of big media conglomerates think they own the freedom of the press and it’s their right to decide what will be aired to children (and adults) in the global market. Of course, not all TV is toxic; some of it’s often inspiring, but a lot of it is the opposite.

Still we have to face the music. We need to challenge our assumptions about why our society is so violent. Yes, there are many reasons, and it’s often next to impossible to separate them, as they do feed on each other. But that is no excuse for not trying to address all of the causes and not spend all our political capital on gun control and fighting the NRA. There is no avoiding that violence in the media, for children and adults, which along with the absurdly easy availability of guns, is central to our society being drenched in violence.

Television, quintessentially American, may very well be our biggest culprit. Brandon Centerwall argues that research demonstrates [16] “that crime rates more than double within 10 to 15 years of the introduction of television to any society.” He points out that homicide doubled in the US after the introduction of TV in the 1950s and that the relationship is causal [17].

It’s time to take a closer look at the dark side of the ubiquitous and beloved television, and ask what television programming contributes to a very imperfect society. Is your TV making you less safe?

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jan Frel is AlterNet’s editor-at-large and associate publisher.  Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.

See more stories tagged with:
media [18],
violence [19],
sandy hook [20],
newton [21]
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/media/we-are-country-drenched-bloodshed-some-hard-truths-about-violence-media
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/don-hazen
[3] http://www.alternet.org/authors/jan-frel
[4] http://prospect.org/article/why-obama-needs-be-more-parent-today
[5] http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/effectiveness-policies-programs-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis
[6] http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/C/G/X/
[7] http://www2.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm
[8] http://data.edupax.org/precede/public/Assets/divers/documentation/1_articles/1_089_PagesfromSteinbergMacedo_ch56.pdf
[9] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/health/a-misguided-focus-on-mental-illness-in-gun-control-debate.html?_r=0
[10] http://www.academia.edu/1270752/Janicke_S._H._2011_._Violence_in_broadcast_regulation_A_comparative_analysis_of_broadcast_regulation_in_Germany_and_the_United_States
[11] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01ba.ap.pdf
[12] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/07/aurora-movie-shooting-one-more-massacre.html
[13] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita
[16] http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/reviews/mediaviolence.html
[17] http://cursor.org/stories/television_and_violence.htm.
[18] http://www.alternet.org/tags/media-0
[19] http://www.alternet.org/tags/violence-0
[20] http://www.alternet.org/tags/sandy-hook
[21] http://www.alternet.org/tags/newton
[22] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

ADDENDUM

Is The Reality Of ‘CSI’ Really Unrealistic?

viole-csi-miami

By NIKKI FINKE, Editor in Chief | Deadline.com
(Originally: Sunday April 29, 2007)

The CBS’ Nielsen-topping series CSI and its NYC and Miami spin-offs are having a profound effect on juries, trials and law enforcement. But is hair and fibre analysis actually passé in crime-fighting? That’s the basis for Jeffrey Toobin’s article in the upcoming New Yorker. because of the show, ”criminalists have acquired an air of glamour, and its practitioners an aura of infallibility … But the fictional criminalists speak with a certainty that their real-life counterparts do not,” Toobin writes. He quotes Lisa Faber, a criminalist and the supervisor of the N.Y.P.D. crime lab’s hair-and-fibre unit, as saying that, in her field, “The terminology is very important. On TV, they always like to say words like ‘match,’ but we say ‘sim­ilar,’ or ‘could have come from’ or ‘is asso­ciated with.’

The fact is that “virtually all the forensic-science tests depicted on CSI—including analyses of bite marks, blood spatter, hand­writing, firearm and tool marks, and voices, as well as of hair and fibres—rely on the judgments of individual experts and cannot easily be subjected to statistical verification,” Toobin writes. And that’s coming under fire. ”Given the advent of DNA analysis, some legal scholars argue that older, less reliable tests, such as hair and fibre analysis, should no longer be allowed in court. Last week, a commission on forensic science sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences held an open ses­sion in Washington at which several participants questioned the validity of hair and fibre evidence.” But Faber said prosecutors still introduce fibre evidence because they think the juries like it because it’s “more CSI-esque”. And it’s working. “I just met with the conference of Louisiana judges, and, when I asked if CSI had influenced their juries, every one of them raised their hands,” Carol Henderson, the di­rector of the National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law at Stetson University in Florida, told the writer.