"stunned by the lack of interest"

We once had a lengthy debate on this blog about the media's role in keeping the US ignorant and right-wing. To my and Allan's utter astonishment, a commenter felt that the media has little or nothing to do with it. I can't find the post now, and it's just as well, as I don't want to single out the person who espoused that view. We felt that he simply must be unaware of what the media is like in the US. There seemed no other plausible explanation.

I was reminded of that when I read this in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s article, Was the 2004 Election Stolen?:

The mounting evidence that Republicans employed broad, methodical and illegal tactics in the 2004 election should raise serious alarms among news organizations. But instead of investigating allegations of wrongdoing, the press has simply accepted the result as valid. "We're in a terrible fix," Rep. Conyers told me. "We've got a media that uses its bullhorn in reverse -- to turn down the volume on this outrage rather than turning it up. That's why our citizens are not up in arms."

The lone news anchor who seriously questioned the integrity of the 2004 election was Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. I asked him why he stood against the tide. "I was a sports reporter, so I was used to dealing with numbers," he said. "And the numbers made no sense. Kerry had an insurmountable lead in the exit polls on Election Night -- and then everything flipped." Olbermann believes that his journalistic colleagues fell down on the job. "I was stunned by the lack of interest by investigative reporters," he said. "The Republicans shut down Warren County, allegedly for national security purposes [which has been shown to be a cover story] -- and no one covered it. Shouldn't someone have sent a camera and a few reporters out there?"

In a way, this serves as an addendum to my two posts about the Conspiracy Theory label. There are factors for which no actual conspiracy is necessary. The media's complete "lack of interest" - to quote Keith Olbermann - in this story doesn't mean that each and every outlet was "in on" the conspiracy, merely that looking the other way serves their own agenda. Bland media that doesn't rock the boat is more pleasing to corporate sponsorship, which has a stake in maintaining the status quo. It's also easier and cheaper to refrain from boat-rocking, and it hedges against the possible withholding of access to the courts of power of said boat-rockers.

There have been actual bribes and payoffs - that's been proven - and it's likely that there have been many more that we'll never discover. Many of us are certain the 2004 election was fixed, and the media isn't necessarily to blame for that.

However, the public's ignorance of this treasonous act must be largely laid at the feet of the US media.