Censored 2014

by Mickey Huff

  A recent article by the Associated Press reported that 30 percent of military commanders who have lost their jobs in the last eight years have been due to various charges of sexual misconduct that range from harassment to adultery to improper relationships.57 News Abuse stories don’t only function as obfuscators regarding their own subject matter, they also can function as broader distractions from breaking news developments and revelations about other very important issues.

  Corporate Media Ignore Worker Rights . . . Claim Twinkie Defense

  Some notable celebrity deaths of the last year included Michael Clarke Duncan, Neil Armstrong, Phyllis Diller, Gore Vidal, Sherman Helmsley, Ernest Borgnine, and Andy Griffith. However, the corporate media demonstrated considerably more grief reporting regarding the bankruptcy of Hostess and the subsequent loss of a beloved snack icon—the Twinkie. Television pundits on Good Morning America anticipated the “Chocodile” tears of millions of school children, and mourned while they stuffed their faces with their last memorial Twinkies. Jesse Thomas, a contributor to Forbes Magazine online, echoed similar sentiments, lamenting: “This announcement is a travesty for pre-packaged desserts and kindergarten lunch-boxes across America.”58

  Yet, not all media outlets grieve in the same fashion. Those with a pro-corporate bias such as Fox News (News Corp.) and ABC News (Disney) vented their rage at labor, suggesting that disputes between management and labor ultimately contributed to the company’s bankruptcy. Fox’s America’s Newsroom, and ABC News repeated statements issued by Hostess that placed “[blame upon] a worker’s strike for crippling their ability to make and deliver their products.”59 Some in the corporate media noted Hostess’s inability to adapt to a changing marketplace, yet did so with a hint of derision; though acknowledging that Americans have been attempting to be more conscious of the nutritional content of foods they eat, Forbes Magazine labeled the trend a “health food craze.”60 And the Huffington Post speculated that “even a repackaged Twinkie would be hard to sell to the current generation of health-obsessed parents.”6i

  Preposterously, some angry bloggers bitterly remarked, “The Twinkie was Michelle Obama’s Osama bin laden,” in a thinly veiled jab at the first lady’s unveiling of the new United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) nutritional guide titled “My Plate.”62 Few in the corporate media reported that Hostess initially filed for bankruptcy in 2004. At that time, the company had cited “declining sales, high food costs, excess capacity and worker benefit expenses,” as contributing factors to its difficulties. In response, the company closed some bakeries and restructured union contracts; however, this did not mitigate the problem of its debt, which totaled nearly $800 million. Members of the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International Union, expressed little surprise (unlike those in the press) by the company’s second bankruptcy filing and even “accused the company of having ‘frittered away’ union concessions, wasting money on a corporate headquarters move, according to court papers.”63

  The Huffington Post reported that panic-stricken Hostess-philes desperately bought up remaining supplies of various Hostess products on eBay, while other more enterprising individuals sold cartons of unopened Twinkies as a vanishing piece of Americana for as much as five hundred dollars.64 As it turned out, the panic surrounding the Hostess bankruptcy and the beloved filling-stuffed polystyrene snack was premature. The judge hearing the bankruptcy proceeding urged both the union and Hostess into mediation, a measure that may yet lengthen the companies’ shelf life. Moreover, Hostess has claimed that several other companies have expressed interest in the brand.65

  While the corporate media offered coverage of overpaid television pundits stuffing their faces with Twinkies, poorly paid and mistreated Walmart employees attempted a strike against the world’s largest retailer. Employees at several locations including: Chicago, Milwaukee, Washington DC, Dallas, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Seattle walked off the job for the first time in Walmart’s fiftyyear history.66 While the strike has received coverage in the corporate press, there has been a noticeable bias toward covering the management’s perspective along with profits—all while the retailer logged record Black Friday sales.

  According to their website, Walmart employs over two million employees in twenty-seven countries. Walmart has supported the unionization of its employees in foreign countries such as China, yet has fought unionization within the United States. In the past, Walmart’s relationships with its labor force have been strained, to say the least. Former abuses against employees have included violation of child labor laws, failure to pay back wages and overtime, and the employment of undocumented workers. Walmart has been the focus of many studies, books, and documentaries that have all attempted to expose the unethical business practices of the company as well as its negative impacts on communities. Walmart has attempted to silence the most recent push to hold the company accountable for its treatment of its employees. And, as outlined by Paddy Ryan on Daily Kos,

  Walmart, one of the richest corporations in the world, refuses to pay its employees a livable wage or provide any form of decent healthcare, increasing reliance on government assistance, and the need for a social safety net. . . . Walmart’s poverty wages force employees to rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. In state after state, Walmart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid. As many as 80 percent of workers in Walmart stores use food stamps.67

  Possibly further driving the ire of workers is the fact that Walmart’s CEO makes $16,826 an hour, while the typical Walmart worker makes $13,650 a year. But at least that’s not quite a full-blown two-to-one/year-to-hour wage ratio like in the late nineteenth century under the Rockefeller monopoly, so, it’s an obvious improvement for workers, right?68

  The fight for unionization at Walmart is long-standing and complex. Lawyers for Walmart filed an injunction against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) in response to the striking workers. UFCW aided the creation of the 2010 Organization United for Respect at Walmart, or OUR Walmart. The fledgling organization has called for protests at one thousand Walmart stores during the Black Friday shopping weekend.69 Striking employees charge that the company not only manipulates hours and benefits, leading to low wages and part-time status, but they allege that it also discriminates against women and minorities. OUR Walmart filed a claim with the National Labor Relations Board “that Walmart’s human resources department violated the National Labor Relations Act by instructing store managers to threaten workers with termination and disciplinary actions if they participate in the strikes.”70 Nonetheless, in spite of the controversy it has generated, Walmart has been ranked by Forbes Magazine as the twenty-fourth most powerful brand. Its annual sales exceed over $450 billion.7i

  Corporate media has demonstrated a noticeable bias toward management in their coverage; Fox News questioned Walmart’s ability to control its striking workers. Moreover, Fox News expressed worry that this latest labor dispute (notice it isn’t referred to as a management dispute) would interrupt sales in what has become a traditional post-Thanksgiving rush for unnecessary consumer goods. Nonetheless, Fox praised Walmart for “taking on” unions and even ran a segment sponsored by Walmart that defended the company against striking workers.72 Regardless of the publicity surrounding the desperate situation of Walmart employees, fewer than i percent of the company’s workforce participated in the strike. Unfortunately, very few shoppers were informed enough, or cared enough, to be able to stand up for impoverished workers and resist the lure of cheap consumer goods.73 Meanwhile, in the US, CEO pay and compensation packages can go as high as 1,795 to i compared to average workers at companies like J. C. Penney. Abercrombie and Fitch’s CEO made 1,640 to i compared to the average retail worker in the company. All of this indicates that there is some money to go around that could pay more wages and benefits, and could lead to more full-time employment, but the corporate media often fail to come to
that conclusion.74

  With All Eyes on Marriage Equality, Monsanto Slips Under the Radar

  Two same-sex marriage Supreme Court cases began on March 26, 2013. The first case was Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of California’s 2008 ballot initiative Proposition 8. Proposition 8 defines marriage to be between a man and a woman and does not allow same-sex couples to legally marry. Opponents of Proposition 8 argue it to be unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The next day, the Supreme Court heard arguments for United States v. Windsor, disputing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This case claims DOMA to be unconstitutional because it allows legally married same-sex couples to be treated differently under federal law than opposite-sex couples, such as denying them federal benefits.75 Both cases are very significant, have been a long time coming, and have the potential to be a big step towards equal rights for same-sex couples.

  Coverage of these cases is key, and there has certainly been media coverage from most major news outlets. Many devoted extensive amounts of time to the court proceedings, including live coverage, numerous reports, and transcripts after the fact. However, with the time given to this issue, some reports deteriorated to News Abuse, including the usual partisan battles and “who just came out supporting/opposing gay marriage” focus. The Los Angeles Times kept the public up to date on the latest celebrity “tweeting” about the Supreme Court cases,76 while CNN chronicled the most interesting signs and costumes seen outside the courtroom.77

  With so much focus on the Proposition 8 and DOMA Supreme Court cases, little attention was given to President Obama signing spending bill HR 933, which included the “Monsanto Protection Act.” Hidden in the Agricultural Appropriations bill under the modest title of “Farmer Assurance Provision,” the Monsanto Protection Act “strips federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified seed crops regardless of any consumer health concerns.”78 With neither certainty over the safety of genetically modified crops nor a labeling system in place, it is one more step backward for food safety and justice. And with the public’s eyes on the Supreme Court, directed by the corporate media’s infatuation with culture war issues, the act was hardly even noticed. While the public should be informed about marriage equality, they should be just as concerned about the quality and safety of the food they are eating, and about which big corporations are literally writing themselves into the law so they can be shielded from any future liability.

  As Censored 2014 went to press, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on DOMA, setting the stage for marital equality. While this is a major step forward for civil rights, people should also pay very close attention to the independent press to see what else may be missed, from the court’s rulings on voting rights and the US prosecution resting their case against Bradley Manning to the protests going on in Turkey and the military coup overthrowing the Morsi government in Egypt. Bait and switch is an old game, and the major news media should be able to cover more than just a few stories at a time in detail, with context and clarity, and for the betterment of the public.

  (Lack of) Election Coverage 2012

  The year 2012 marked the spectacle of another US presidential election season. Corporate media coverage of the entire election process was akin to political theater: dripping with pageantry, oozing with canned patriotism, lacking any real objectivity or critical perspective. All major news media outlets were on board to cover former Mas sachusetts governor and Republican candidate Mitt Romney, and current president and Democratic candidate Barack Obama throughout the campaign trail, cataloguing and remarking upon their every move, however irrelevant.

  The country watched three presidential debates—which are controlled by a private corporation run by Democrats and Republicans, called the Commission on Presidential Debates—between the Republican and Democratic candidates only, along with one debate between the two vice presidential candidates, as they discussed topics including the economy, healthcare, and the role of the federal government, among others. While the public focused on coverage of two candidates arguing two sides of an official narrative, along the way providing entertainment with oddities from “Big Bird” to “binders full of women,” something very important was missing from their news reports on the 2012 election: actual democracy. So-called “mainstream” corporate media offered no coverage of third party presidential candidates, who were actually bringing forth many alternatives to the views espoused by the two major, corporate-backed, political party candidates.

  While corporate media offered extensive coverage of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, only Democracy Now! and the Huffington Post provided any time to third party candidates during the 2012 presidential election. Democracy Now! aired “expanding the debate” segments for each of the presidential and vice presidential debates. These broadcasts showed each of the debates in real time and paused to allow third party candidates—such as Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson, and Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode—the same amount of time to answer the same questions. The Huffington Post offered similar coverage, giving Reform Party candidate Andre Barnett and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson the opportunity to participate in the debate as well.

  If there had been corporate media coverage of these third-party candidates during the debates, the public would have had a broader range of ideas to consider, and a more representative pool of candidates from which to choose. While Obama and Romney presented and argued about the exact same ideas for health care, both Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson criticized “insurance company care” and advocated for single-payer universal health care, which was totally absent from the presidential debate.79 Many of the third party candidates talked about ending all wars, bringing troops home now, and cutting the defense budget, instead of offering arbitrary timelines and refusing to cut from defense in the name of “national security.”80 They even addressed the emerging police state, with some candidates promoting the repeal of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the USA PATRIOT Act, following due process, and ending warrantless spying.8i With proper mainstream news coverage, the country could have been more informed about their actual choices beyond the two major party candidates.

  Democracy Now! also reported on the secret debate contract for the 2012 election. This twenty-one-page document, drawn up by the Democratic and Republican candidates, excluded all third party candidates from the presidential debates, prohibited these two candidates from participating in any other debates, and restricted the moderator in the debates from asking any follow-up questions.82 In response to the exclusion, Green Party candidate Jill Stein and vice presidential candidate Cheri Honkala tried to simply gain access to one of the debates at Hofstra University and were arrested. They were then literally bound and tied in custody for eight hours. Yes, in the United States of America, land of the free, these official candidates on the national Green Party ticket for president and vice president, two women on the ballot in most states from a legally registered political party, were arrested trying to access a public debate at an institution of higher learning, and bound by authorities, like in a third world dictatorship. But hey, at least they weren’t shot, they were only tied up—this is America, after all. Of course, how this type of corporatist collusion with a police state can even exist let alone be tolerated in the US should be quite a mystery.

  One would think this merited serious news coverage, even investigating. Not in America. Before being taken away, Dr. Stein offered a statement that encompassed the presidential elections of 2012: “This is what democracy looks like in the twenty-first century.”83 And a grim look it is at that.

  Thatcher vs. Chávez: Celebrity Death Match of Political Grief Porn Propaganda

  The first few months of 2013 saw the deaths of two significant global political figures. On March 5, 2013, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez died of cancer at the age
of fifty-eight. Chávez held power for fourteen years in Venezuela, and was known for transforming the country through a socialist revolution. One month later, on April 8, 2013, former prime minister of Great Britain Margaret Thatcher died of a stroke at the age of eighty-seven. As Britain’s first female prime minister, Thatcher led the country for twelve years and ushered in a wave of capitalism heavily focused on Milton Friedman–inspired free market economics. Both were important and controversial leaders in their respective countries, and both of their deaths received substantial amounts of corporate media coverage in the US. Reports following their deaths showed a clear bias regarding their political legacies.

  Americans love their grief porn, their infatuation with deaths of well-known people, and the fact that some celebrities are political figures sometimes even exaggerates attention. The deaths of Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston were certainly big news, and the deaths of Thatcher and Chávez also garnered considerable attention, but for different reasons.

  Corporate news reports on the death of Margaret Thatcher tended to have a very positive view on her life and politics. For a leader considered to be controversial, there was no shortage of praise when it came to Thatcher’s time as prime minister. Hailed for being the “Iron Lady” and “uncompromising,” many news reports focused on her success in the financial sector of the country. By pushing for deregulation and privatization, the Wall Street Journal stated she “helped turn London from an increasingly obsolete financial center into a rival to Wall Street.”84 The “patriot prime minister” had “taken a country that was on its knees and made it stand tall again” according to BBC News.85 The US admired her patriotism as well. Fox News reported “she never faltered, in word or deed, in her support of the United States,” while NBC News quoted President Barack Obama calling Thatcher “an exemplar of British strength” and a “role model for young women.”86