Western Journalism as Stenography
By: Martin Barakov
Tags: Security, Politics, Journalism, Intelligence, Capitalism

Western Journalism as Stenography

It goes without saying that in the era of news being available at the tip of your finger, misinformation is abundant. When scrolling through Facebook or Twitter, copious amounts of information is being processed by your mind, even if that information is fake. Usually, misinformation is understood as the manufacturing of content that appears to be real, but is false (or, at the very least, misleading) in actuality. Perhaps the idea of a troll farm comes to mind, or maybe news being pumped out of ‘biased’ state-funded news outlets.

However, some of the biggest perpetrators of producing fake news are, at least in appearance, the most ‘trustworthy’ outlets in the world.

Photo by Fabian Irsara on Unsplash

If you, the reader, were to pick sources that you deem to be trustworthy, many would, most likely, point towards the following outlets:

The Economist

The Guardian

The New York Times

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

Associated Press

Reuters

There are definitely more, but these are typically associated as household names when regarding the endeavour of producing journalistic content. But why is this the case? Does it have to do with their lengthy histories? Their adherence to the “radical centre”? Their usage of terminology that looks professional? Perhaps, but it also has to do with the fact that they maintain and uphold the status-quo, the continuation of imperialism and the domination of Western thought.

Misinformation is not solely the presence of incorrect statements and poorly cited materials. It is also the misrepresentation of factual information, the way in which events that have actually occurred are being portrayed.

The Fate of João Goulart:

In November 2019, I wrote an article detailing how the coup d’etat in Bolivia would not be recognized as a coup in the present, but it would eventually transition into one in later years.

This is the case because of the fact that outlets like The Economist and The New York Times have had an awful track record when it comes down to the analysis of coups that have taken Latin American countries throughout the 20th century. In 1964, a coup was undertaken against the left-leaning President of Brazil, João Goulart.

While it might be commonly referred to as a coup in the present day, it most certainly was not covered in such a manner in 1964. In a section of the April 3, 1964 edition of The New York Times, Goulart was referred to as a President with “almost no supporters” and one that was “incompetent” and “irresponsible”. The following are key excerpts of the piece in the paper, titled Finis for Goulart:

“When it came to the test, he had almost no supporters…“Jango” Goulart was a general with no regiments. Brazil, as is her tradition, has had another peaceful revolution. We do not lament the passing of a leader who had proved so incompetent and so irresponsible. Fortunately, Brazil is one country in Latin America that can make a social revolution peacefully and democratically.”

If one was to take a look at the historical analysis of Brazil following the 1964 coup and read the aforementioned quotations, it would be asinine to consider it as legitimate information. However, it gets worse. In the May 8, 1964 edition of The New York Times paper, a segment titled BRAZIL RELIEVED BY GOULART FALL; Tour Shows That Hostility to Him Affected All Classes was published, which doubled down on their misrepresentation of the events that occurred.

In what used to be classed as a “peacefully” acquired “social revolution”, the content had now shifted towards the purposeful radicalization of Goulart’s left-leaning government:

“The striking thing is that so many Brazilians have written off both the former President and the large number of extremists and far leftists identified with his regime. In the press, despite some criticism of arbitrary arrests under the new regime, the vast majority of newspapers support it. …all classes had grown tired of the inefficiency, corruption and tolerance toward Communism under the Goulart regime. Brazilians of the so‐called popular classes traditionally board the bandwagon of effective leadership, and they did just that when the military took matters in their own hands. The quick jailing and ousting of key extremist leaders, especially in poverty‐stricken areas of the northeast, where pro-Communist influence is strong, was enough to nip in the bud any rebellious peasant or urban Communist activity.”

Once again, if a historian or political scientist were to see these statements today, they would be considered beyond laughable due to their deeply untruthful nature. Of course, The New York Times was certain to not mention the possibility of the event being a coup, instead opting to characterize the events as a removal through “a revolt led by the military”, an astronomically idiotic statement to make since that is exactly what a coup is in the first place.

The main point of these articles being referenced in the my previous work was to highlight the comparison of language being utilized against Morales at the time of the coup against his leadership in November 2019.

Intelligence Community as an Example:

Through the advent of the internet and the interconnected nature of capitalist affairs, the mainstream media, and the state institutions, similar examples can be given. Many figures who previously held positions of authority in organizations such as the National Security Agency (NSA) or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have recently found themselves with positions on mainstream news channels, usually with the word ‘former’ in front of their previously held title.

Arguably the most well known instance of this occurring includes MSNBC’s acquisition of former CIA director, John Brennan, back in early 2018.

Around half a year prior, CNN recruited James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence as a so-called “national security analyst”. Clapper has also consistently defended Gina Haspel, the current director of the CIA. Haspel has notoriously defended the tactics of torture utilized by the CIA, particularly during her leadership over the “Cat’s Eye prison in Thailand…from October to December 2002”.

Clapper also lied to Congress regarding the question of mass surveillance back in March 2013, mere months before the exposing of unconstitutional crimes being committed by the NSA by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

There are more examples of such ‘transitions’ from the intelligence community to journalism existing, but that is not the point of this section. The fact that these figures are now heralded as nonpartisan analysts for the largest news outlets in the United States — and arguably the world — offers insight as to what is allowed to be deemed bias-free.

Considering the gross abuses of power that can be witnessed in the aforementioned figures, their ‘opinions’ should not be taken as gospel, nor even as trustworthy.

The next time one of these figures (or similarly positioned ones not mentioned here) are given airtime on FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, or any other mainstream outlet and give their “opinion” on matters regarding Russia or China, conduct the following thought experiment:

Imagine RT or Sputnik discussing subject matter related to the United States’ domestic or international affairs; Imagine the network in question giving airtime to an individual such as Mikhail Fradkov, former director of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, as a security analyst (or a former KGB agent, if you really want to get those McCarthyist gears flowing); Question if you would view the article or video segment as unbiased, trustworthy, or legitimate due to Fradkov’s perceived expertise on the issue in question; If the answer is no, then apply the same logic to segments that occur within American news channels as well.

Practicing Stenography:

Outside of the misrepresentation of American interests and desires for imperialist expansion, alongside the incorporation of the intelligence community into the system of media under the capitalist mode of production, there is the critical role that is played by the conception of stenography.

The individuals quoting the former directors or newly-declared “security analysts” tend to refer to themselves as reporters or journalists. The individuals who write articles similar to the aforementioned segments of papers in The New York Times will, too, refer to themselves as reporters or journalists.

This is, largely, an incorrect way of describing the process of work that these individuals do. There is no critical analysis at work, nor is there any semblance of unique perspectives from inherently unbiased individuals. Perhaps they could be classed as reporters, but certainly not journalists. They are indeed reporting on events, but only as they are presented by intelligence organizations and the mainstream political circles that are evident throughout society.

In the case of the United States, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party represent the continuation of imperialism in the Leninist sense, physical and direct conquest through drone warfare and airstrikes, political sabotage around the world, and the further construction of military bases in sovereign nations. As such, they represent the interests of the imperialists, the members of the capitalist class that seek to ensure the persistence and continuation of capitalist conglomerations and multinational combines.

If the reporting that occurs in mainstream outlets is to coincide with the political status-quo, then all seemingly ‘trustworthy journalism’ is destined to be aligned with the interests of the controllers of capital and the forces that wreak havoc across the over-exploited world.

Therefore, the self-proclaimed journalist is not committed to the heart of the journalistic endeavour, the seeking of truth. Instead, they are the epitome of the stenographer in the courtroom, scribbling solely what is being said, with no additional critical insight being offered, nor presented.