Untitled Document

I wrote this to respond to an article that the Washington Post, a supposedly liberal newspaper, and the major daily in the capital city of the US, placed on its front page. It showed that the myths of race and "European heritage" are still powerful among those who should know better.

A skeleton over 8,000 years old, found in Washington state, is similar to those of today’s Europeans. This goes on your front page. You don’t point out this person had no conceivable connection to a European culture that would emerge some six millennia later and thousands of miles away. Your skepticism is directed instead at the body’s connection to the Native Americans now living in the area, though they are the only people with any reasonable claim to kinship.

There are far more rational claims of ancient connections between cultures that are debated every day right here in your community. Connections between Africa and the early civilizations of Europe, Asia and America are based not solely on physical appearance, but on cultural artifacts and historical data. These ideas are detailed in hundreds of books so popular that street vendors specialize in them, as well as on the radio and on a weekly television show broadcast locally. Yet none of the facts and analyses that inform that discussion have ever broken into the front section, let alone the front page, of your paper.

To put it simply, in your news judgment, the fact that one skeleton merely looks European means more than thousands of artifacts and traditions, or, of course, the considered beliefs of thousands of your readers. It’s a strange, yet sadly familiar, way of looking at the world.

The New Pravda -- How the Washington Post Maintains the Status Quo

This occasional feature showcases articles in the Washington Post that spin the news to protect the US government as we know it.

My thesis is that the Post is neither liberal nor conservative, but is the house organ of those in power in the federal government, whoever they are. (Of course at the moment they are "conservative," i.e. they claim to support culturally conservative values and small government, and to identity with white workingclass people with fundamentalist faith. These claims are a bit shaky.)

While the articles critiqued here were written by specific reporters, this critique is of the wholeinternal process of the Post. We can assume that what is printed is not necessarily what the bylined reporter wrote or wanted to write. Post reporters are mid-level employees of a large corporation, which, like all corporations, has a "political line" that its employees must follow, and that line overrides its commitment to fact-based journalism. Just as at Pravda under the Soviet Union, some "stars" get a little more leeway, and occasionally stories seem to stretch the party line a bit.

But the overall party line at the Post is consistent from day to day --

Federal power is exercised by responsible individuals who are motivated by sincere values and ideology to do the best thing for the nation and its people.
Political differences in Washington are almost always matters of principled opinion and personality, of region and local interest and agency infighting. They do not reflect corrupt power blocs of people seeking personal profit. They also do not reflect grassroots movements for social change.
Everyone worth taking seriously is a liberal or a conservative or a moderate, as defined by certain simple "hot button" issues. Radicals of all kinds are funny and silly.
"National security" decisions in particular are not driven by corporate profit or by lust for power, but by genuine concern for our safety. These decisions are sometimes mistaken, but are never foolish, pathological, or criminal. Only those who have been employed in "national security" work have standing to say what "national security" means; if they say so, keeping a dictator in power in Central Asia is vital, while preventing nuclear reactors here in the US from being blown up is a minor concern. As for civil liberties, it's nice to protect them procedurally, but security (as defined by experts) always comes first.
There may be a few "bad apples" in the high circles of federal power, but the independent mainstream media will seek them out and they will be punished. There never has been and never will be a corrupt conspiracy making our national decisions. There also never has been a grassroots movement based on popular outrage that has made a difference in people's lives.
While there are always scandals in Washington, they just come and go, always unrelated to each other, with no need for organized action by citizens to fundamentally change the system. There are no patterns of power and privilege operating behind the scenes.

And if you buy all that, I have a nice monument I want to sell you, with a great view of the White House and the Capitol and the place where they keep that Constitution thing people used to care about so much.

Social Justice Connections -- A Personal Website

Want to see what else is on this site?

The New Pravda -- How the Washington Post Maintains the Status Quo

`click the door, open a selection from my novel`

`>>>>>>`