It’s not “Public” . . . and the “Mainstream” Media Isn’t

Guest Post by Eric Peters

 You have probably heard someone refer – accurately – to government (rather than public) schools.

We need more such clarity.

More such honesty.

It deprives them – authoritarian collectivists – of the moral sanction they must have in order to keep otherwise decent people in thrall to them. To prevent criticism or even questioning of authoritarian collectivism by preventing any meaningful conversation about it. They use words to shut you up. To get you to accept the terms of the debate before there is a debate. So that there is no debate.

“Public” – schools or otherwise – is a shyster term. Purposely dishonest. The “public” – who is that, exactly? – owns absolutely nothing. Physical property is always – must be – owned by specific living, actual people. And ownership is defined by which living, specific people control the property.

Do you control the – not your – local “public” school? Can you enter at will? Or must you obtain permission? Are you free to use it as you like? Or are you told how you may use it? Do you have any meaningful control over the teachers – or what is taught? Can you fire a teacher? Adjust the curricula an iota?

Exactly.

Tear off the euphemism Band Aid; let’s get to the suppurating sore underneath and have a look.

A government school is controlled by the people who work for the government. Who constitute the government, by dint of having the power to exercise control over other people and other things.

These are the people who control the school – and so, the education meted out within. The government  – these people –  force us to fund their schools and we are forced to hand our kids over to the government’s schools to be educated (another term in need of deconstruction) as the government – as those people – see fit.

Using honest language is important.

How about the “mainstream” media, as it is popular styled? Is it “mainstream”?

No, it is not.

Who defines what the “mainstream” of thought/opinion is? It is the handful of people who control editorial policy – what is allowed in print or allowed to be discussed on air – at the major media outlets: The New York Times, The Washington Post and the LA Times, plus the same things on Teevee: CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC. A relative handful of people who live mostly in Washington or LA or New York and mostly talk amongst themselves about the rest of us.

Contemptuously.

The “mainstream” media relentlessly agit-props for such things as the abolition of (or heavy-handed restriction of) the ownership of firearms by ordinary people – something most ordinary people very much oppose. The “mainstream” media tub-thumps for whatever wars-du-jour are ginned up the government-corporate nexus, the wars to be fought by the people who don’t want them and resent being forced to fund them. The “mainstream” media peddles “free” trade deals written for the benefit of multinational corporate cartels that eviscerate the middle and working classes’ livelihoods because the “mainstream” media thinks its jobs are safe (ha!).

The “mainstream” media’s views are profoundly alien to and despised by the mainstreamWhich holds the “mainstream” media in contempt for exactly this reason.

But the issue isn’t their contempt for the rest of us, nor our contempt for them. Nor their dishonest, egregiously biased coverage – which is biased more by omission (the topics and points-of-view never discussed) than by the way things they do discuss are discussed.

Rather, the issue is the effrontery of their assumption of the title, mainstream media.

A handful of people cannot, by definition, be “mainstream.” They are in fact an attenuated minority whose views are radically different from those held by most people.

That is, by the actual mainstream.

But by using the word when we speak of them, we cede important ground.

Very much as we do when we speak of “public” rather than government schools. It lends an unreal legitimacy to both things. “Public” implying all of us are co-owners, when in fact we own not even a single blade of grass on the grounds of the government’s school. Similarly, accepting the term “mainstream” instantly marginalizes any journalism (or journalist) who isn’t a member in good standing of the attenuated minority.

So, we ought to stop using that word to describe them. Just as many of us now very purposefully refer to government rather than “public” schools.

But which word should we use to describe the attenuated minority media?

Some have suggested that “state” media is apropos – in the spirit of Pravda. There is – pardon the obvious pun – truth in this.  The “mainstream” media organs, print and otherwise, are owned by a few very big corporations and these corporations are all in bed with the very big government housed in DC (mostly). There is a lot of reach-around going on, such as “embedding” journalists (an abuse of language) with “the troops” so as to control whatever is “covered” by these (cough) journalists. It is no accident that the “coverage” of the corporate-government wars of the past 20 years is markedly different from the coverage given by independent journalists during the Vietnam era.

When journalists were not sleeping with the government (“embedded”) but out there getting at the story, whatever it turned out to be. When they weren’t looking at what they were allowed to look at – and spoon fed “stories” by their government handlers.

But it’s still not overt state media – just very close to it.

Which is why I like the term coined by the economist Paul Craig Roberts: Presstitutes.

It neatly conveys exactly what the members of the “mainstream” media are: Bought and paid for shills for the government-corporate nexus; mouthpieces for the powers-that-be.

Whores.

They sell their words, their voices – and so, their souls – to the highest bidder.

I speak as one who was offered that deal – and declined it. Not because I’m a journalistic buddha master. I just couldn’t bring myself to spread my proverbial legs and so here I am.

The poorer for it, but my soul still intact.

 

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
rhs jr
rhs jr

Only Useful Idiots believe the government and Controlled Media experts.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran

NPR and PBS are literal state media and their content is indistinguishable from that of the three networks, the NYT or WaPo. I like to call the government schools “welfare schools” so people see that getting free education for their kids is no different than using SNAP to get free food for their kids.

tampa red
tampa red

NPR & PBS would be good targets 4 Trump to cut.The Reps lost their nerve over this in the 90s,maybe with Trump they could pull it off.

Jason Calley
Jason Calley

“I like to call the government schools “welfare schools” ”

Good phrase! I suspect I am going to use that one… Thanks!

Anonymous
Anonymous

People who care about their children and grand children don’t allow them to attend government schools.

Gloriously Deplorable Paul
Gloriously Deplorable Paul

My wife and I did. Very near unaffordable but we stuck with it. Now we’re very pleased with the results.
A voucher system to allow parents to choose schools for their kids wouldn’t be a panacea, but it would be a good start.

Gayle

I never watch pressitute news, but I did have a local LA channel on the other evening because we were having a situation involving drops of wet stuff (what’s that??) falling out of the sky. I caught a news story about a mosque which had received a threatening letter. The sweet woman newscaster said “This type of hatred, which has been increasing since Trump’s election…blah blah.” It was quick and not so subtle. These entities are not going down without a big fight. (I figure it was a leftist wanting to make a problem for Trumpeteers who actually sent the letter anyway.)

Anonymous
Anonymous

The majority of these anti Islam “hate crimes” involving written threats turn out to be done by Muslims with most of the rest done by leftists trying to make Trump supporters look hateful and violent.

For that matter, so do the claims of Muslims being attacked by Trump supporters.

Wonder if this one will turn out that way as well, and if we’ll be told about it if it does. The exposure of them as fake usually goes unreported or minimized in coverage.

Gay Veteran
Gay Veteran

“…Which is why I like the term coined by the economist Paul Craig Roberts: Presstitutes….”

Gerald Celente invented that term.

“mainstream” media is actually CORPORATE media

Anonymous
Anonymous

comment image

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading