Showing posts with label Mainstream Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mainstream Media. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The Media Health Care Reform Push Back

The mainstream media is mounting a serious push against health care reform and the reasons are fairly obvious. For starters, I won't even address Fox News as the entire channel is affected by ODS or, Obama Derangement Syndrome, and it can no longer be considered part of the mainstream (if it ever was). Fox News aside, the mainstream media is simply reflecting the political leanings of their corporate owners. That's also a given.

What is interesting about this push back is that the journalists and anchors themselves are starting to weigh in on the subject. This can be seen in the type of questions they ask, the way they choose to frame the issue, the type of people they choose to interview and not interview. It's amazing to me how, for example, the single payer option, which is the most favored by the American people, is not even on the table, let alone being discussed.

What we are left with then is the so called "public option," already a compromise position which, ironically, is being framed as the liberal, extreme left position; Andrea Mitchell (right), the sleeper right winger posing as a moderate on MSNBC, just labeled it as such while commenting on President Obama's remarks this afternoon. Who would have known that those who kept repeating that the United States is a center/right country, are now the ones accusing the majority of Americans favoring the public option as extremely liberal.

The main reason why these TV personalities (the Chuck Todds and Lou Dobbses), and political pundits (the David Brookses and Pat Buchanans) are beginning to push back on health care reform is because they, with their multi million dollar contracts, are the ones who will lose when health care reform is passed. They are the people with the wasteful cadillac health care plans, the ones who might have to pay the surtax to help cover uninsured Americans, and the ones who might end up losing their cadillac plans if their employer chooses to go "public."

Next time you hear those pundits and TV personalities frame health care reform unfavorably, please remember that they are doing it for their own narrow self interest, which is the interest of the top 5% of income earners who want to maintain the status quo. Never mind that the rest of America is getting crushed by the skyrocketing cost of health care; by a system that is designed to deny care rather than provide it; by an industry whose paramount concern is, as with all for-profit industries, maximizing profit instead of helping people stay healthy.

(image source)

Monday, July 20, 2009

Honduras Coup Leader Micheletti Exposed

By now, most of those who are aware of the military coup in Honduras are familiar with the main reason given by the coup leaders to justify President Zelaya's removal from office: that by calling for a non binding referendum to find out if hondurans would approve of a constitutional amendment extending presidential term limits, Manuel Zelaya abused his presidential powers.

A smaller number of people who, for one reason or another, have been following the situation more closely, are also aware of the fact that such accusation has been thoroughly debunked, which is why not one single government in the world has recognized the coup installed government of Roberto Micheletti (pictured right).

What most people are probably unaware of, given the absence of coverage in the mainstream media, is that coup leader Micheletti had once tried the same exact thing he is now accusing President Zelaya of. That's right! In 1985, the man who is now usurping Zelaya's presidential office, and who is calling him a "traitor", had once attempted to amend the Honduran Constitution to extend the mandate of then President Roberto Suazo Córdoba.

On July 9, 2009, Carlos Dada of elfaro.net reported that on October 24, 1985, two years after the current Honduran Constitution was approved, a few members of the Honduran Congress (including then congressmen Roberto Micheletti) tried to introduce a motion calling to immediately turn the Congress into a Constitutional Assembly. Ironically, these legislators requested the suspension of the same constitutional articles (373, 374, and 375) that are now used by the Micheletti regime to legitimize Zelaya's ouster.

Mimalapalabra has posted a scanned page from La Tribuna of Honduras, dated October 25, 1985 which recounts the attempt by congressman Roberto Carlos Echenique to read the motion which had been signed by 11 other congressmen, including Micheletti. The newspaper also printed the motion in its entirety with Roberto Micheletti's name clearly visible at the bottom.

As he was reading the motion, Echenique was interrupted by another congressman, Carlos Montoya, who said:

"No podemos permitir que un deputado alente contra el orden constitucional y pretenda generar un golpe tecnico para acabar con el sistema democratico en que vivimos."

Rough translation:

"We cannot allow a congressman to encourage an unconstitutional act which is seeking to generate a technical coup d'etat in order to end the democratic system we live in."

Upon the interruption, congressman Nicolas Cruz Torres called Echenique, Micheletti, and the other signatories of the motion "traitors." That's when all hell broke loose: people started screaming and insulting each other, a fistfight broke out, and another congressman drew a pistol. Finally, Efrain Bu Girón, the head of Congress, called upon the army to restore order in the chamber. Once order was restored, Girón censored the motion signatories and demanded that they withdraw their signature or be "indicted for attempting to subvert the democratic system." Micheletti, and four other signatories declined.

If this isn't a perfect case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Here is a person, Micheletti, who attempted to do exactly what he is now accusing President Manuel Zelaya of doing (even more so since the 1985 motion signatories never intended to consult the Honduran people on the matter), and who has now appointed himself as the defender of the Honduran constitution. It is obvious that this constitutional crisis, as tragic as it is for the Honduran people, is turning more and more into a farce.

(picture source)

Friday, July 3, 2009

Top Honduran Military Lawyer: Coup Was Illegal

Today's Miami Herald, published an interview with Honduran army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza who is the first top military officer in Honduras to admit that last Sunday's coup was illegal. While he goes on and on about how he can't stomach leftists here, and leftists there, he also admits, kind of in a Col. Nathan R. Jessep fashion, that the Honduran military made the decision to remove President Manuel Zelaya from office and then tried to create the appearance of legality (which also indicates some kind of collusion from the other constitutional powers in Honduras). From the Miami Herald:

"In an interview with The Miami Herald and El Salvador's elfaro.net, army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they circumvented laws when they did it.

It was the first time any participant in Sunday's overthrow admitted committing an offense and the first time a Honduran authority revealed who made the decision that has been denounced worldwide.

''We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.''


Now that the jig is up, it's time to address the abysmal performance of the U.S. mainstream media which, while condemning the coup for the most part, has also been promoting the falsehood that President Manuel Zelaya was abusing his constitutional powers in a manner aptly exposed by John Nichols in The Nation:

"Outside of an Orwellian novel, or the mid-day slot on talk radio stations, some basic principles still apply:

Getting elected. Organizing referendums. Proposing constitutional amendments. These are the sorts of things that happen in a country that is experiencing democracy.

Kidnapping the president. Installing an unelected strongman. Suspending civil liberties. These are the sorts of things that happen in a country that is experiencing a coup."


Apparently, the U.S. mainstream media was caught in a bind on this. On one hand, they could not openly side with the coup given the immediate worldwide condemnation of the event (kudos to Obama on this for standing up for democracy). On the other hand, their visceral disgust for anything that is remotely on the side of the poor in America's backyard shows how old habits and allegiances are hard to break.

In today's edition of Counterpunch, George Ciccariello-Maher describes how the mainstream media paved the way for the coup, much like it did with the failed coup of 2002 in Venezuela, by distorting reality to fit Zelaya into their autocratic leftist strongman narrative:

"The faithful media sows the seeds: in both Venezuela 2002 and Honduras 2009, the national and international media prepared the ground for an eventual coup by distorting the truth and calling into question the democratic credentials of the president. In Honduras, this has taken the form of misrepresenting Zelaya’s constitutional proposal as a re-election bid, a line which was and continues to be shamelessly pushed in the media, when the referendum question had nothing to do with re-election at all, but was instead a completely legal mandate to transforming the existing constitution (itself a holdover from the far-right governments of the 1980s). Some nominally of the left repeated this tasty morsel of misinformation, while Fox News’ Shep Smith argued today that not only had Zelaya sought to extend his term, but to do so would have been “treasonous” (an interesting perspective on constitutional amendments, to say the least)."


(picture source)