Clinton, News, Al Jazeera, Censorship & Freedom

The failure of the news media is in a very real sense a country sounding the death knell for its democracy – and Hilary Clinton's remarks have been so upsetting to many because they intuitively understand the implications if she is indeed correct.

Also, what is more worrying than what Secretary of State Clinton said about American news on March 2, 2011 is what she didn't say. It's about corporate censorship. And the media are not likely to report how they are subtly and sometimes not so subtly censored – particularly if it costs them money! It is not censorship we condemn and find elsewhere – it is a kind of corporate censorship that is particularly unique to the land that's not nearly as free as it used to be.

First, it is interesting to see some of what Hilary Clinton said that gave Glen Beck and others such apoplectics.

Rewriting history is another topic that's discussed when US history books are revised as is religion when science books are. It's not an exercise in democracy when the facts lose out. Picture shows what happened to those who lost Stalin's favor!
Rewriting history is another topic that's discussed when US history books are revised as is religion when science books are. It's not an exercise in democracy when the facts lose out. Picture shows what happened to those who lost Stalin's favor! | Source

"Like it or hate it, it is really effective. In fact, viewership of Al-Jazeera is going up in the United States because it is real news." And Clinton continued, "You may not agree with it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news that is not providing information to us, let alone foreigners."

Oddly, I had only started watching Al Jazeera lately on the Internet but had already written an article about my experiences and was about to publish them when Clinton made her comments. Her conclusions were very much the same as many others who had watched Al Jazeera and found out that it offered first rate news coverage on much of what it reported. But what worried me was the reasons why so many of us were being denied the coverage by cable stations. These were not addressed by the Secretary of State and are some of the concerns I had written about. And they follow on rather nicely with some of what Secretary of State Clinton said.

The events and news that has been unfolding since the catalyst on December 17, 2010 in Tunisia are historic – we're watching history being made, although its true significance is still unfolding. In the US, unlike many elsewhere in the world, people will have to watch Al Jazeera online rather than on their TVs. Most US cable providers have refused to carry the station. It is a form of censorship we should all be quite nervous about. It's not the usual kind of state censorship but an example of corporate censorship that's rarely recognized. But it controls more and more of what is seen on US TV and read in struggling newspapers.

Worryingly, some who most admire America now see US political representatives as representing the will of corporate America rather than the will of the people. And if corporate America is deciding on news is being made available to citizens and how it is reported, it should be of concern to a country that has defined its freedom on this very kind of issue.

If news stations and cable networks decide they don't want us to watch a news station that contradicts their interests, does it contradict the intention of a First Amendment that has always taken it for granted that threats to people's rights would come from governments rather than newspapers and companies they assumed would be competing to be critical of those who governed?

When the interests of large corporations and government become intimately entwined, we should worry. Very large corporations who control the media can hardly be expected to honestly criticize themselves and the governments who are themselves influenced by these same corporations and their legions of lobbyists and the money. When battles for democracy are lost in the US, it does not bode well for other democracies. I suspect judging a nation's news media is as good a means of judging the health of that democracy as any, and it makes Clinton's remarks something pertinent that deserve a lot of consideration.

Up until 2011, I’ve tended to receive the great majority of news from US sources because of the convenience of tuning into one or other of the cable news networks and network TV. Also, it is a social event; my wife and I watch the news and make frequent comments during the show, ads as well as after the show. Even now, counting in my Internet sources, I spend more time looking at American rather than other sites. However, I believe as many independent sources of news and opinion as possible is a key ingredient of a democracy. And has the quality of American news, like its educatiion, slipped down alarmingly in the world's standing?

When there are fast moving stories in parts of the world where Americans are fairly ignorant of what’s happening, there’s a lengthy time lapse while the networks try to arrange for reliable sources for both hard news as well as insight into what is really going on in the hearts and minds of the people where the story is unfolding.

Reading online newspapers eventually led me turning more and more to the Internet to supplement the news I was receiving, since it seemed quite clear that CNN and all the other American TV stations had neither the resources or the knowledge to report on the rapidly unfolding events in Africa and the Middle East.

And more and more, it seemed to me that news networks and social news medias that carried the voices of people who risked their lives for speaking their views deserved as much as my time as those who rarely ventured far from university campuses or the comforts of their everyday existence to deliver me their views wrapped up as part of the evening news.

Eventually, I found myself depending on several sources on the Internet as my closest relation and the traditional news media as the poor cousin. According to the traditional media, without their expertise, I’m prey to many who will easily manipulate and mould my viewpoint. It seems to be a view shared by the majority of cable providers or the corporations who control them. A view that I now believe to be quite incorrect.

I watched, joined in and experienced the revolt in Egypt largely through the English website version of We are all Khaled Said. I had become more and more familiar with Al Jazeera and found that their reports were timely and well reported. And I mean that there was none of the political spin that I had been expecting from a news agency about who I had many preconceived and erroneous ideas. These ideas were formed in the Bush years when I, and many others, consumed the negative propaganda that had been propagated by the White House about Al Jeezera without looking at the evidence prior to forming my own opinion.

Certainly American citizens are being properly protected from viewpoints that their cable stations don’t think they either want or need. The cable stations had taken on board many of the same prejudices I had but also cited commercial reasons for not giving viewers a choice of subscribing to the English version of Al Jazeera. (It is still only available in less than half-a-dozen markets.) 

I’d have probably not have given the whole issue another thought had I continued believing that Al Jazeera was little more than a mouthpiece for those intending nothing but harm to the US. Al Jazeera, I thought, is such an unreliable source for news, it’s not even worth a look. 

I had naively thought that it would be a political mouthpiece for Middle East interests; in reality I have found all of the reports on the various revolts surprisingly accurate. The interviewers and moderators seem to want to report on what was going on in a refreshingly direct way. As an aside, on February 22, there seemed to be more genuinely live reports on the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand early EST on Al Jazeera than on any other news station – it did seem to be transmitting live news 24 hours a day rather than merely advertising it. And, again, on February 28, I listened to the British prime minister being interviewed and answering some tough questions from both the host and participants calling in to the show.

Again, Al Jazeera seems to have gone to great lengths to hire people who have sound reputations within the industry and have clearly been hired because they will not be perceived as simple mouthpieces for anti-Western propaganda or spinning a story for blatantly political purposes. Recently friends in the UK told me that they noted Al Jazeera were hiring well-respected people from the news media in large numbers. David Frost is just one of the recently hired luminaries.

(Later, on March 7, 2011, I watched Senator John McCain interviewed by David on Frost Over the World suggesting that even McCain recognizes that Al Jazeera is now recognized as a legitimate, serious news network that cannot be ignored by anyone wanting to reach an increasingly important international audience. It's interesting that cable providers take such a different view. McCain's appearance can be seen as a recognition of the truth of Clinton's comments on US news providers, although I am sure he might argue it is not necessarily an endorsement.)

What is most puzzling of all is that one of the major criticisms America has made of every country that’s dealing with people who are expressing dissent has been when these governments have shut down the Internet and other methods of communication. However, I have seen or read nothing that seems to suggest that there’s a great deal of objection by Americans to having their news censored when the majority of American cable providers refused to carry Al Jazeera. However, it can be viewed Online, and on February 4, The Huffington Post said that the station reported an increase of 2,500% in web traffic in the previous 24 hours! Word travels fast on the Internet and the word about where to go for the real news on events in the Middle East had obviously got out.


Cutting off all information from a particular source because the source is considered unreliable or even if its intention is subversive seems counter to what democracies believe, indeed allowing for such dissension is one of the important founding principles of democracies and what distinguishes them from other forms of government. However, what is interesting is that Clinton notes that Al-Jazeera challenge is that it is a serious news source rather than a source of propaganda that needs to be combatted. 

Time and again, we’ve seen information and its sources branded as inaccurate or even lies by governments only to find later that, sadly, it is the government at the time who were the liars. Governments that claim to be democracies that censor information, particularly information that challenges their account of events, should be regarded with suspicion even if they’re not regarded as being downright hypocritical. There are many cable stations whose refusal to carry Al Jazeera who are using commercial excuses to make political decisions. And why would large multinational corporations want to disrupt criticism of dictatorships who they do business with I wonder?

A lot can be told about a country's democracy by the state of its media. In the past we were able to justly criticise other countries because their media presented a distorted picture of the truth to its people. In the US, we'd better look to the state of our own media before leveling criticisms at others. Ms. Clinton's words were more considered than many suspect. She should be listened to carefully.

More by this Author


Comments 12 comments

Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 5 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

This is an outstanding article! I'd heard something somewhere about Clinton and Al Jazeera; but I never pay attention to mainstream media, so I didn't know what it was that had been said.

So thanks for publishing this, as now I know; and I'm stunned to find myself thinking that Mrs. Clinton actually said something worth saying.


Sembj profile image

Sembj 5 years ago Author

Thanks Wesman Todd Shaw. Do yourself a favor and watch a little Al Jazeera live streaming and your world will change! After viewing it for a while, I am totally stunned that I had been fed propaganda about a media station that I had totally believed - believed without question. Years later I watch just a little of the station and recognize that it is my own media and politicians who have lied. It is a blinding revelation. In a subtle a way as she can I think Clinton is saying democracy in the US is in trouble!


phillip goodson profile image

phillip goodson 5 years ago

What a great hub, I'm so fed up with FOX and MSNBC, it's too bad there are no real American news stations left. I will definitely check out al jazeera.


Sembj profile image

Sembj 5 years ago Author

Phillip goodson, I agree that the notion that many news stations have neither the resources nor interest in finding out the truth – the truth often seems secondary to sponsors, political loyalties, attracting viewers and a tendency to substitute talking heads who often aren't particularly knowledgable when events like we've seen lately occur in Tunisia, Libya, and many other countries where people seem to be stirring again repressive regimes. It seems counter to the idea of the role of the media in a healthy democracy! We should be asking a lot of questions about how the news is reported to us. Sorry for the rant but it is part of an article that's long past the gestating period. Thanks for your comment!


Tony DeLorger profile image

Tony DeLorger 5 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Excellent artcle Sem.Corporate censorship is indeed a major problem, and I feel we are just sctratching the surface.


David99999 5 years ago

Great hub!


crystolite profile image

crystolite 5 years ago from Houston TX

nice hub,thanks for sharing


Sembj profile image

Sembj 5 years ago Author

Tony - you are right about corporate censorship! Free speech doesn't mean a whole lot when pitted against corporate censorship.

Sem


Sembj profile image

Sembj 5 years ago Author

David99999 and crystolite, thank you both very much for the kind words - they're very much appreciated.

Sem


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 5 years ago from Northern Germany

Yes, it is a real issue and threat to the so called free world - the manipulation of information in the media.

My compliments, Sembj, are you closing in on my favourite Noam Chomsky? He is one of the few learned people who address this point frequently.

I think people in western societies never really learned to read between the lines. They take everything for the truth, that is published on TV, radio, newspaper, even internet.

All my friends and family who used to live in totalitarian regimes have a completely different way of analyzing news. For every information there is always the question asked: "Who gets a benefit from this info?" Sometimes it rises my temper if i have to argue on crazy and mindless plots suspected behind some simple news. But then ... you give it a second thought and ...

By the way, Europe has the choice of receiving Al Jazeera in Arab or English via satellite. I stick to English, can´t read and speak backward, may be i should learn it.

Sembj, good hub. Thank you.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

David, did you know that the clip that you imbeded in this pub regarding Secy Clinton's comments is no longer available? This gives a certain credence to your article and the prospective that we all need to be on the look out for. It would be naïve of us not to recognize that the media in the U.S is held in private hands. Those hands have a vested interest in making sure that the news from troubled regions do not implicate corporate interests as possible instigators or at least as participants who chose to look the other way while complicit in the unlying issues surrounding turmoil. The reasoning behind censoring Al Jazeera is highly suspect. How much is American corporate power involved in the turmoil in these troubled regions? Of course, those that control the major media outlets are inextricable linked to broader corporate interests and are not about to bite the hand that feeds them.

A timely and thought provoking hub, thank you


Sembj profile image

Sembj 5 years ago Author

Hi Credence2:

Thank you for your comments. My sense is that we've tended to become rather complacent and naïve; perhaps as a result, I think that we've believed many things we shouldn't have and disbelieved some of those things we should have. Guarding democracy means we've got to find a better way of getting people in power who work for the majority rather than the minority, I think. The media has always been an important part of the mix that helps guarantee freedom. Now they've been bought, the Internet will be our last best hope.

Strangely the Clinton video seems to provide a link to her on YouTube when I tried it. I wonder if someone could either confirm or contradict this happens when they try the link. I'd like to keep it up if it provides a link since the Clinton speech is very, very interesting, I think.

David was the name of another reader who thoughtfully left a comment. I humbly lay claim to the article.

Thanks,

Sem

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working