Trump’s Bit of
Truth-Telling
By Mark Doran
January 16,
2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- Various friends of mine — smart folks, every one of
them! — are telling me that they expect Donald Trump to
be ‘Grassy Knolled’ by elements of the US ‘deep state’
before he even graduates from ‘President-Elect’ to
‘President’. I myself don’t think that such an event is
especially likely … as, to me, it appears far more
probable that he and the people around him will be
‘disciplined’ by various powerful forces — not least
those that act through state-corporate media —
to the extent that his entire project simply mutates
into another ‘cookie-cutter’ US administration dedicated
to neo-imperial violence and corporate empowerment.
The media-based
‘disciplining’ to which I refer actually has two aspects
to it — and both of them can already be discerned
without the slightest difficulty: first, there is the
smacking; secondly, there is the silence.
The ‘smacking’ is what you get when something you have
done, or are merely said to have done, is used as
something for which you can be hammered in so many
contexts that your own planned agenda is simply
submerged; the ‘silence’ is what you encounter when
something you do that is of possible value finds itself
effectively unreported, in spite of all your efforts to
communicate it. What I want to do at this point is
concentrate upon the latter — by highlighting the fact
that the man who, for a year and more, has been
castigated by media organisations and outraged liberals
everywhere for saying things that aren’t true (What’s
that? A man seeking election telling lies?!?)
has now said a few things that are actually truths
of genuine importance — and has not been given the
slightest credit for them. Let’s have a quick look at
some…
It was last
Wednesday that Trump gave a press conference that I was
soon seeing described in the most negative terms.
According to the UK
Guardian it was ‘Trump’s trainwreck press
conference’; in the words of the US
Globe and Mail it was ‘his train-wreck
press conference’; while in a Twitter message from
American horror author Stephen King, it was ‘a
trainwreck’. Me being me, I ignored the lot of them and
simply listened to the entire thing for myself (video
and transcript
here).
Here’s the first
thing that made my ears prick up:
Appalled as I
am by the US corporatecare healthcare system
— coming soon to a UK hospital and GP practice near
you! — I have waited decades to hear a ranking US
political figure venture anywhere near the topic of ‘big
pharma’ and the corruption-driven stranglehold it has
over medicine-related decision-making in the stinking
sewer of US politics. Yet here was President-Elect Trump
— in what was his very first press conference after
winning the election! — not merely alluding to the
problem but also proposing what, to a right-wing brain
(of which there must be more than two hundred million in
the US), is the most obvious ‘market-based’ solution.
And was that
truth-and-solution bombshell a topic of admiring
discussion in our proudly independent media? Was it
celebrated as a potentially positive development by
previously hostile liberals appalled by the cost and
iniquity of the US healthcare racket? From where I sit,
it certainly doesn’t appear to have been…
(And just to
reinforce the extent to which Trump’s bit of
truth-telling placed him at odds not only with the
corporate carpetbagger elite but also with the
bought-and-paid-for parasites on both sides of the US’s
notional political divide, literally two days later
I saw that
this had happened.)
All right,
let’s move on. Here’s the bit where PEOTUS Trump refused
to take a question from the CNN staffer at the event —
for reasons connected with the monumental absurdity of
what future generations (should there be any) will refer
to as the ‘Golden Shower’ dossier:
My point here is
that, once again, what Trump said is absolutely true:
any media-savvy critic who has, over time, examined the
content and conduct of ‘Cable News Network’ — the
cable and satellite television channel
owned by the Turner Broadcasting System division of Time
Warner — knows that CNN is terrible, and
CNN is ‘fake news’. Of course, CNN is far from
alone in being either of those things; but that doesn’t
invalidate what Trump is saying — and doing! — on this
specific occasion. Once again: truth telling —
and of no little significance, at least potentially.
And, in any
case, more and — for me! — better was still to come on
this very topic. Here’s my transcript of a little
exchange that took place a few moments later…
TRUMP: […] Go ahead. Go
ahead. You’ve been waiting. Go ahead.
QUESTION: As far as we
understand, the intelligence community are…
TRUMP: Stand up, please.
QUESTION: Ian Pannell
from BBC news. Ian Pannell from BBC news.
TRUMP: BBC news. That’s
another beauty…
[Laughter]
Here’s the
exchange in full:
Now, I have
been following the actions of the BBC’s news services
for long enough to know that, yet again, Trump was
speaking unvarnished and ungainsayable truth,
however sarcastic and indirect the phraseology. What
makes the exchange richly amusing in addition is the
involvement of Ian Pannell. For it was Pannell — as you
may or may not remember — who on 29 August 2013 produced
a BBC News report whose aim was to convince audiences
that a Syrian fighter jet had dropped an incendiary bomb
on a school playground in Aleppo. Not only was it very
suspiciously the case that the report and its
three-day-old footage aired while the UK House of
Commons was voting on a possible UK military assault
against Syria — meaning that, had the vote been in
favour, the item would have acted as a perfect focus
for the transformation of public concern into bloody
warfare — but the footage itself went on to form the
basis of a Panorama programme (‘Saving Syria’s
Children’, 30 September 2013) whose manifest fraudulence
has seen the BBC fighting ever since to have copies and
extracts deleted from YouTube…
(For Robert
Stuart’s sterling work in unmasking a quantity of sheer
fakery that — in a sane society — would have turned this
BBC broadcast into a career-ending scandal, see
here.)
From all of
which I think it is pretty clear that Donald Trump is
not going to get the credit for anything he says that is
true, nor for anything he seeks to do that is good: the
simple fact is that he was not the establishment’s
intended victor, and he can look forward to nothing
except full-spectrum opposition from the media guardians
of established power right up until the point where he
has given in to the latter on every important issue (and
possibly not even then).
And if that
doesn’t remind you of the leader of the UK’s Labour
Party, it really ought to. For the full-spectrum media
assault on Jeremy Corbyn has not let up even a
little since I first drew attention to it in these
electronic pages not long after he won the leadership
election he was not supposed to win.
Let’s have a
look at what happens over here. On January 10 — just one
day before Trump’s alleged ‘train-wreck’ press
conference — Jeremy Corbyn gave a speech in Peterborough
that, likewise, was presented by the media as a debacle.
And, as in the case of Trump’s appearance, the truthful
and valuable content was either misrepresented or
ignored.
Here are three
things that — in that single day! — the BBC did to
distract attention from Corbyn’s message and to toxify
him as a individual. I present them in the order in
which I happened to see them as the day wore on…
First, a BBC TV
News animation in which one of the 12 stars of the
European Union flag detaches itself — in a reference to
so-called ‘Brexit’…
This star then
turns red…
And lands in
the centre of Corbyn’s cap…
(All three
images saved by Anthony, to whom I send sincere
thanks.)
See what they
did there? Corbyn — by any rational standard a mild
social democrat who has never even proposed so basic a
socialist policy as ‘workers’ control of the means of
production’ — is here made to look like Mao Zedong
(‘Chairman Mao’): he gets a Chinese People’s
Liberation Army cap — and a quick bit of
toxification in terms of those decades of far-away
tyranny and destruction, the millions killed, the
dogmatic political inflexibility, etc.
Isn’t that
a remarkable thing for the BBC to have done? Why would
they do something like that, d’you think…?
A little time
passes, and what do I see next? Ah! I see something
online that features Laura Kuenssberg — the ‘Political
Editor’ of BBC News, and very obviously the head of the
Corporation’s Anti-Corbyn Unit. Let’s look closely…
There are in
fact three fascinating elements there. First, there’s
the choice of headline: without there being a quotation
mark in sight, and whatever his half-hour speech was
really about, Corbyn is credited IN BIG PRINT with
saying the one thing that is guaranteed to
constitute a red rag to many millions of working class
voters whom the Labour Party is currently seeking to win
back. (And this, let me remind you, comes from the BBC
which has allowed Nigel Farage of the anti-immigration
party UKIP no fewer than 31 appearances on Question
Time since November 2000: ever wondered what a
broadcaster’s attempt to split the working class
anti-Tory vote would look like…?)
Secondly, there
is what follows it — in the form of a reference to a
denial of an alleged embarrassing, undermining U-turn.
See that? That’s what you write when you want to place
an idea in people’s minds while still being able to
claim that you weren’t really trying to place the idea
in people’s minds. (So, for example: ‘Corbyn denies that
he kills tiny and helpless kittens using a big hammer’.
See? He denies it; and it’s not true anyway — but you
still felt a feeling and saw an image that I created for
you.)
Thirdly,
there’s the framing and cropping of the photo. See how
Kuenssberg appears as a huge and dominating visual
element, filling almost a third of the space? And how
Corbyn, by contrast, is presented as a tiny and distant
figure — and, on top of that, shown as literally ‘in a
corner’…?
Isn’t that
a remarkable thing for the BBC to have done? Why would
they do something like that, d’you think…?
And then
there’s Newsnight. Less than eight hours after
the BBC had made Corbyn stink like a long-dead Chinese
communist, viewers saw their national broadcaster change
tack — and make Corbyn stink like every liberal’s latest
hate-figure, Donald Trump…
See how they
did it? They did it by producing and broadcasting — for
an extended period — a photograph of something that has
never, ever happened: Corbyn wearing a Donald Trump-type
hat…
Consider
what had to take place for that image to have come into
existence. Someone in charge of a budget and able to
give instructions to a skilled photoshop operator will
actually have sent out an order: ‘Look,
stop what you’re doing: we need something for 10.30pm.
Get a photo of Donald Trump in his red hat. Take him out
of the picture so you’ve only got the hat. Re-write the
words on it so that they say ‘Make Britain Great Again’.
Yes, ‘Britain’. Then find a high-resolution photo of
Jeremy Corbyn seen — and lit! — from the same sort of
angle, and put the hat on it so it looks like he’s
wearing it. Oh, and don’t forget to darken the area
under the peak: this has to look as realistic as
possible. Yes, you can email it. ‘Newsnight’ office.
That’s right: serious analysis of current affairs…’
Isn’t that
a remarkable thing for the BBC to have done? Why would
they do something like that, d’you think…?
Nor was this
the end of that day’s BBC onslaught. Before long, they
had gone to Twitter and were advertising one of
Newsnight‘s interviews in the following terms…
If you can’t
tell what attracted my attention to that, simply take a
look through the programme’s Twitter timeline — and see
if you can see a pattern in who has, and who has not,
been described as ‘getting grilled’…
I spoke earlier
of the twin media mechanisms of ‘smacking’ and
‘silence’, and of their role in shaping political events
rather than merely ‘reporting’ them. In connection with
Corbyn, I want to underline my point by presenting the
entire text of his Peterborough speech — which you can
see
here. When UK readers have read it (or watched the
video below), I hope they will be so kind as to consider
this question:
On January 10,
Corbyn featured in the BBC’s news and current affairs
output over and over again: he and his speech — and the
associated ‘debacle’ — were referred to, and discussed,
during the day, in the evening, and late into the night.
As you’ll see from the video, the BBC — as it was
obliged to! — actually broadcast the whole speech live
(albeit on a news channel most people don’t watch, and
at a time when most people are busy working anyhow). Yet
how much of what he said in that long speech did you
yourself actually encounter in all of that studio-based
‘coverage’…? Or, for that matter, in our proudly ‘free’
billionaire-owned press…? In other words, when you came
to read the text linked to above — or to watch the
speech as recorded — how much of it still came as a
complete surprise to you…?
MD
https://markdoran.wordpress.com
|