Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Telling No Lies and Still Not Telling the Truth
In January 2004 I wrote an open letter to Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Congressman and then-presidential candidate. I have reprinted the letter at the bottom of this post. The gist was you can tell no lies and still not tell the truth. Here is the closing:Americans reading this letter should begin expecting--causing--the very context of our national debate to be broadened. Dennis Kucinich, you have a deeply held belief that your destiny is to lead the world. Please recognize that the only way to fulfill this magnificent potential is to change the system with truth telling.
Even at that time, before I ever started blogging, my writing exhibited what I later proactively embraced and described as advocacy journalism, defined as writing whose success can only be judged by its ability to produce the real world change being written about. With that in mind I have documented my community and online organizing efforts in more than 500 essays in the GuvWurld and We Do Not Consent blogs. I have developed various memes and recurring themes, though this truth-telling frame had been somewhat dormant before recently storming back in yet another open letter, this one to the media, from the media.
What a difference four more years of fascism makes! This time dozens of people as well as organizations are signing on to the call for truth-telling: "federal election results are unprovable, even though the media reports them as fact." Some notable names added since my last posting: filmmaker David Earnhardt, economist Catherine Austin Fitts, Co-Executive Directors of VotersUnite.org John Gideon and Ellen Theisen, BlackBoxVoting.org founder Bev Harris, and scholar Steven F. Freeman, PhD. I'm trying to keep WDNC current and in sync with (or ahead of) Scoop's tremendous effort.
The next thing I hope to see is supporters of the letter using their media access to expose and explore the central question and themes of the letter: are federal election results provable?, and if not, should we accept corporate media reporting unprovable results as fact?
Let's be clear. The open letter from the media to the media states its intention "to change the corporate media narrative." By my definition this is advocacy journalism, though you can call it whatever you want.
As I wrote last Friday in How To Disarm Weapons of Mass Deception, if we recognize the corporate media as harmful weapons of mass deception, then our strategies have to account for dealing with a weapon. If we are ruthlessly honest, we recognize the necessity and correctness of protecting ourselves, and where possible, using the media weapon to our advantage ("beat the media at their own game"). It is a classic self-defense justification, though another key reason also supports this approach.
Classic tenets of journalism call for objectivity and neutrality. These are antiquated principles no longer universally observed, especially by the corporate media component of the fascist apparatus - the weapons of mass deception. We must absolutely not feel bound by them. If we are ever to create meaningful change, I believe advocacy journalism will be a crucial element to enable the necessary organizing. It is therefore very important that we learn how to be successful advocacy journalists, whether embracing the label or not.
In fact, it hardly matters if other people self-identify with or adopt my definition of advocacy journalism. What counts is the ruthless honesty, ensuring consistency between how we say we see something and how we act about it. We can disarm weapons of mass deception by supplanting its fabricated reality with what is really going on.
The burden is two-fold, falling to truth-tellers both inside and out of the media. If you don't work in the media, use your voice to encourage those who you watch, listen to, or read to use their platform to address the content of the open letter to the media, from the media. Remind the truth-telling media makers of things they have said or written to help make sure they remain consistent (ruthlessly honest) now.
Media truth-tellers who have enjoyed support and popularity among progressives have reached a sort of "put up or shut up" moment. Nobody is suggesting they be silent. Putting up means telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the ruthlessly honest truth. Those who recognize electronic voting machines have brought us secret vote counting know federal election results are inherently inconclusive and unprovable. Say this now and don't stop. Your audience, your country and your planet need this leadership and will follow as we crash through the finish line of this presidential horse race next week.
Those who can't go there may be telling no lies and still not telling the truth.
* * *
1/31/04
To Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-OH:
Congressman, I admire the positive vision you have articulated as the basis for your presidential campaign. Compared to other candidates, the positions you have taken most closely reflect my own. Most importantly, you have taken to re-framing issues as when Ted Koppel inasmuch as told you to drop out of the race or when Wolf Blitzer recently asked if you would consider being a Vice Presidential candidate. The corporate media of America has done the world a disservice by injecting its own agenda, shielding us from the truth, and perpetuating lies that manipulate public opinion. You are courageous and wise to address this.
While I am sincere in offering these compliments, they do not represent grounds on which I can support your campaign. Your stated positions may reflect my views, but what you are not saying ensures that America will continue to ignore many of the root causes of her dysfunction. When I talk with progressive Americans volunteering on your behalf, there is an emphasis on convincing people you are electable. I want to believe. But sir, there is a system in place to ensure you lose. The only way for you to win is to change the system. This must not be a euphemism.
The lack of truth telling is an obvious place to start. This problem pervades the White House, Congress, the media, and even the very premise of America. We are supposed to be about democracy and capitalism, Darwinian free markets where the "fittest" ideas get elected and survival means competing for more market share. The idea of a free market is central to both our political and economic systems. But to tell the truth, in America today, there is no free market and both democracy and capitalism are a myth.
Unless this stark assessment becomes part of our national dialog through your campaign, you may not be telling lies, but you won't be engaged in truth telling either.
If democracy, the free market of ideas, genuinely existed in America today, third party candidates could be taken seriously and their ideas would compete fairly in the arena of public opinion. Even as an elected member of Congress, anti-competitive treatment is hindering the exposure that you and your platform need (and are entitled to!). Election methods have clearly become both unreliable and untrustworthy, with disenfranchisement rampant and major campaign donors running voting machine companies. This description applies to America but does not depict democracy.
On the economic side, fraud riddles Wall Street in collusive stock and bank deals; Halliburton gets no-bid contracts; mergers that kill jobs and consumer choices are rubber stamped for approval; industry leaders cycle between top lobbying positions and Cabinet appointments; and then there's the media. Consolidation has limited the breadth of viewpoints aired and promoted bald-faced lies to launch wars. It's no wonder democracy and capitalism have both corroded when media companies have financial stakes in topics of their coverage.
None of this has been an accident. George W. Bush and the Republican takeover of Congress have accelerated the demolition of American ideals in the last three years. But the Democratic Party is complicit. Of the many ways this is true, the most important is found in the way Democrats and Republicans openly and aggressively seek to maintain the two-party system. Such a contrived power-sharing model violates the spirit of anti-trust laws. It cannot be more plain: the Democrats are harmful to America.
The "Anybody But Bush" crowd is large and vocal right now, indicating the inherent potential energy behind a genuine system changing movement. It is imperative that these people (especially the editors of BuzzFlash.com) come to recognize that electing any of the current Democratic candidates will not bring the restoration of democracy but rather perpetuate the myth that it exists. This message must resonate through their defensive gesticulation that this is no time for division among progressive voices for change in America. I keep hearing the phrase "how much change are you ready for?" It has to be enough to change the system.
Congressman, discussing the myth of democracy and capitalism is only an introduction. This shift will re-frame progressive dialog from a focus on symptoms to a genuine examination of the disease. Extended further, Americans engaged on this topic makes for a great first step towards changing the system, a prerequisite for you to win the White House.
The central theme returns: not telling lies is not the same as truth telling.
Jolting America’s perception of reality will require busting other myths. Tell us the whole truth: corporations have more rights than humans and we must abolish corporate personhood; the Earth has exhausted its capacity for yielding profitable oil, and the calamitous destiny of "Peak Oil" must be addressed to be avoided; the obstruction of a complete 9/11 investigation shields the unsupportable collection of lies that comprise the official narrative; and no society has ever been able to trade freedom for security.
Be the leader we need and help America come to terms with the facts. Demonstrate that we need more than just a regime change, we need to re-calibrate our national compass to pursue rather than destroy the ideals of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Use these powerful documents. It is remarkable what a reading of the Declaration reveals. Our Founders didn't just predict future revolutions, they outlined the grounds that should trigger them. As Americans accept Orwellian contradictions, virtually all of these conditions exist today.
Americans reading this letter should begin expecting--causing--the very context of our national debate to be broadened. Dennis Kucinich, you have a deeply held belief that your destiny is to lead the world. Please recognize that the only way to fulfill this magnificent potential is to change the system with truth telling.
In Respect and Peace,
Dave Berman
Eureka, CA
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/telling-no-lies-and-still-not-telling.html
Labels: Advocacy Journalism, Catherine Austin Fitts, David Earnhardt, Dennis Kucinich, fasicm, media reform, open letter, Ruthless honesty, Steven Freeman, weapons of mass deception
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Hey Media! - Don't Report As Fact What Can't Even Be Proven (Federal Election Results)
On August 17, 2005, I published an essay at the GuvWurld blog called "Why Old Election Numbers No Longer Matter." When I spoke at today's Constitution Day event at the Eureka courthouse, I read the beginning part of this essay:This apocryphal parable contains only true facts. I know because I made them up myself.
After the reading, I ad-libbed pretty faithfully by the outline I posted yesterday. In all I spoke for just under seven and a half minutes. Since there were only about 30 people at the rally, this .mp3 in the GuvWurld News Archive will be (needs to be!) heard by exponentially more people, including the government and media types I'm recommending we aim our message at:The date was Sept 33, 1965. Samdy Kouflax ate eight live pigs, a new record among those in his Pagan cult. This sign of virility and luck soon paid dividends as Kouflax threw one of golf's most memorable games. Going all nine chuckers, Kouflax completed a no-hitter to lead his Chicago Whitehawks to the Super Bowl with a victory over the Boston Celtics. Kouflax's solo grand-slam leading off the first inning was all the offense needed that season. Many also remember this game for the unusual brawl that broke out between two Celtic mid-fielders. The ensuing power play enabled the 'Hawks to expand their zone defense with 20 men on the ice. All in all, it was a fabulous year for Samdy and his wife Whora.
Can you imagine yourself getting into a debate about who won this game or what was the final score? Any such discussion would validate the legitimacy of the idea that there was an actual game with a winner, a loser, and a knowable point tally. If you were asked who won, or what was the final score, the only reasonable answer is that it cannot be known from such nonsensical reporting. There is nothing in this story to suggest that a real game of any sort was actually played.
U.S. federal elections are held under conditions that are equally farcical. At this point, any discussion of the numbers, or the outcome, is only serving to reinforce that an actual election took place.Hey Media! - Don't Report As Fact What Can't Even Be Proven (Federal Election Results).
The media should be the biggest proponents of hand counting paper ballots because this allows for the greatest coverage of the process - transparent coverage of transparent counting creates a basis for confidence in the reported results, a reason to believe where currently none exists. I didn't get into the HCPB message today, though I was followed by Bob Olofson who did cover that on behalf of the Voter Confidence Committee.
I was not the only speaker today to utter the phrase "Consent of the Governed." This reminded me that I had recently subscribed for Google alerts on this phrase. In the first seven days I've had 38 alerts. That compares with an average of about five per week that I've been getting for the phrase "We Do Not Consent." I encourage everyone to use both of these phrases and let's drive those numbers up.
Another plug is due for the GuvWurld News Archive, brimming with recent articles on the economy. There is also a category called Revised Truth where I filed a Monday Washington Post article "The Power of Political Misinformation." The piece cites research indicating many people cling to mistaken beliefs more strongly when presented with information that debunks their erroneous belief. I find this interesting, but not surprising, as it would seem to support the description of ruthless honesty found in A Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution. Some of the specific suggestions of that paper are a bit dated now, but the overall concepts and strategy are still central to the We Do Not Consent blog and even today's rally.
Finally, since I forgot at the courthouse I'd like to mention here that Velvet Revolution has launched a campaign to encourage and support candidates who raise challenges to election results.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/09/hey-media-dont-report-as-fact-what-cant.html
Labels: Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution, economy, GuvWurld blog, GuvWurld News Archive, Hey Media, revised truth, Ruthless honesty, Samdy Kouflax, Velvet Revolution, Voter Confidence Committee
Friday, June 29, 2007
HCPBs are ON the table (Guest Blogged by Rady Ananda)
One of my most durable allies, based a world away in Columbus, OH, Rady Ananda has sent me an essay that I knew right away belongs at WDNC. Naturally I was drawn right in by her title, which builds off of words I've used in several places this week to promote the release of the Voter Confidence Committee Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County, California. Note that I only learned later she has posted the same essay with a different title at OpEdNews.com.
Anyway, what I love about this essay is its ruthless honesty - its effort to move us all to act in a way that is consistent with the information we know we have. I have often said this is the way to conquer cognitive dissonance. This theme runs strongly through my fifth annual Reflections On Independence, due out early next week. For now, challenge yourself and read on...
HCPBs are ON the table
By Rady Ananda
I must be experiencing "cognitive dissonance" with our peaceful revolutionary leaders. If we agree that "government IS the problem" then why do we bother even talking to them? Why debate them, why respond to them, why acknowledge them? They cannot prove they were elected, and we can prove they do not vote in accordance with the majority of the populace (92% Zogby poll on transparent vote counting; 19% approval rating of Congress, etc.)
Since the government so clearly and consistently ignores us, why not ignore them? Isn't it premature to meet with them now, before the bulk of the people have decided how to proceed?
If we agree that secret vote counts (as conducted on machines) are anathema to democracy, and we believe in democracy, then why do we vote? Doesn't that legitimize secret vote counting?
If we agree that hand-counted paper ballots, without media reform, without an informed electorate, without viable choices on the ballot who represent the interests and concerns of the people, are irrelevant, then why do we continue to vote?
Are we not long past time to withdraw our consent? Isn't it long past time to withhold our taxes? To withhold our vote? To withhold our attention from elites?
I've been reading Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed; Pedagogy of Hope; Pedagogy of Freedom), George Monbiot's Age of Consent: Manifesto for a New World Order; and both volumes of Derrick Jensen's Endgame. I am desperate to find winnable strategies to implement democracy and take back our world from the rich (whose social and environmental practices look insane, to me).
Freire thinks we should start at the bottom – not the top. Engage in dialogue with the oppressed, and move forward at THEIR level of awareness. Here's how he puts it: "Leaders cannot treat the oppressed as mere activists to be denied the opportunity of reflection and allowed merely the illusion of acting, whereas in fact they would continue to be manipulated – and in this case by the presumed foes of manipulation."
Isaiah Berlin agrees: "But to manipulate (people), to propel them toward goals which you -- the social reformers -- see, but they may not, is to deny their human essence, to treat them as objects without wills of their own, and therefore to degrade them." Source: Two Concepts of Liberty, 1958 (thanks to Tom Feeley).
Freire characterizers our would-be revolutionary leaders who would develop the platform of change without our input and consent as merely asking us to exchange one set of oppressive rulers for another. He believes that when we use the tools of oppression – in this case manipulation thru "sloganizing" – we are oppressors. We are what we do.
Monbiot, interestingly, does not believe that localization will lead to a successful revolution. Instead, he argues that a global world parliament (similar to the World Social Forum, and to the US Social Forum in Atlanta this weekend) will be what leads us to victory. He makes a strong case. The basic premise of his argument is world government by elites is a given – whether we like it or not. Our only hope, then, is to develop a people's forum that holds global government to account.
But all agree that the oppressed must be given voice. While our revolutionary leaders are off in the halls of power debating, cajoling, discussing with elites, the oppressed continues to be ignored.
My question goes to this. How do we engage the populace? Isn't that where our strength really lies? What would get those teens at the public library to read our blogs, to post their own, to posit their own solutions, instead of playing video games on library computers?
What would make 20-somethings more interested in social justice? In fair elections? In peace and a living wage, or universal health care?
I agree with Digby that bloggers are part of a revolutionary participatory democracy. I see journalism as recording history according to elites, and bloggers as recording history according to the people. But obviously, we cannot limit ourselves to the internet – where only a small fraction participates.
Do we follow Che Guevara's (and Paulo Freire's) example and travel from town to town in dialogue with the oppressed? My experience with this is that without offering an alternative that seems reasonable to the people, they don't even want to talk about the sorry state of affairs.
Where we do agree is that before we can have a meeting of the minds between social justice activists and elites, we must first have a meeting of the minds among ourselves. If I could travel to Atlanta this weekend, I would; and I would be speaking for a living wage, hand-counted paper ballots, civil unions for the GLBT community, and peace (for starters).
I sincerely look forward to reading the reports from the US Social Forum, and hope that some of my questions are addressed.
(I published this at http://tinyurl.com/3du4tr)
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/06/hcpbs-are-on-table-guest-blogged-by.html
Labels: hand-counting paper ballots, hcpb, Rady Ananda, Report on Election Conditions, Ruthless honesty, Voter Confidence Committee
