I think Paul Kurgman is brilliant and agree with his positions most of the time, but his latest commentary, published in the New York Times today, comes off being a bit on the naïve side. In this piece, Krugman wonders why the media keeps allowing Republicans to say the most ridiculous things without any push back. The Benghazi hearings are a perfect example. It’s been clear from the start to anyone paying attention that the Congressional hearings were nothing more than an effort to score political points against Hillary Clinton, yet the mainstream media has treated this blatantly political circus as if it were a serious inquiry.
In his essay, Krugman writes:
"Sometimes I have the impression that many people in the media consider it uncouth to acknowledge, even to themselves, the fraudulence of much political posturing. The done thing, it seems, is to pretend that we’re having real debates about national security or economics even when it’s both obvious and easy to show that nothing of the kind is actually taking place."
He’s clearly right about the failings of the mainstream press, but neglects to mention the true motive behind the networks’ approach to politics in America: Money. In a capitalist society such as ours, profits are all that matter, and everything else needs to take a seat at the back of the bus. This includes morality and even truth. The reason why the media pretends “we’re having real debates about nation security and economics” is purely financial. The truth would alienate viewers, and no network wants to do anything that will cause their viewers to switch channels or cancel a subscription.
So we live in a fantasy world were the most outrageous lies can be said with a straight face and reported as fact. Instead of a government-controlled media we have a corporate controlled media that serves the interests of the one percent, which basically amounts to the same thing. It’s all propaganda dressed up as objective news.