[R-G] Ideological Mine Fields

[Anthony Fenton]

Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Ideological Mine Fields
By Stephen Gowans
http://gowans.blogspot.com/2008/04/ideological-mine-fields.html

It’s easy to rail against The Times of London, The Telegraph, Canada’s  
The National Post and scores of US equivalents for being the worst  
kind of purveyors of right-wing propaganda. These advocates of all  
that is backward, with their philosophy of unremitting indulgence for  
the rich and limitless harshness for the poor, wear their reactionary,  
jingoist attitudes on their sleeves. They strive to be “in your face”  
– and are. But because they make no secret of their right-wing  
prejudices, their propaganda value in the larger population is  
approximately zero. These newspapers consciously cater to a right-wing  
constituency. There’s no need to worry about stumbling into  
ideological mine fields here; the mine field has been conveniently  
fenced off and bright warning signs have been deployed along the  
periphery.

More dangerous, like a mine field cleverly concealed beneath an  
inviting patch of turf sporting signs reading: “Please walk on the  
grass” are the respectable, seemingly balanced, quality newspapers.  
They share the same right-wing prejudices, but skillfully disguise  
them and package them to be palatable to those who aren’t inclined to  
spout right-wing shibboleths. Chomsky, Herman and others have been  
dissecting the reporting of these newspapers – the New York Times in  
particular – to show that the biases of so-called liberal media tilt  
just as strongly toward ruling class interests as their unabashedly  
right-wing counterparts do. The genius of the liberal media lies in  
reproducing ruling class ideology without seeming to – the deception  
aided by their being starkly different on the surface from their  
conspicuously right-wing cousins.

The same can be said of progressive and radical sources of  
information. In societies dominated by hereditary capitalist families  
and corporate wealth there are few places hived off from the influence  
of those who own the society’s productive assets. One way in which the  
corporate ruling class extends its influence to the progressive and  
radical communities is through buffer organizations. Buffer  
organizations include foundations, as well as government agencies that  
have names that appeal to traditional progressive concerns about peace  
and democracy. The United States Institute for Peace, for example,  
sounds like it might engage in the kind of work progressives can  
applaud, but is a buffer organization of the US State Department and  
Pentagon. The National Endowment for Democracy, which claims to  
promote democratization around the world, appears to be engaged in  
praiseworthy work, but works to destabilize foreign countries whose  
economic policies are not conducive to the interests of US investment  
banks and corporations.

It is through these buffer organizations that wealthy individuals like  
billionaire financier George Soros and former Michael Milken right- 
hand man Peter Ackerman, hereditary capitalist families like the  
Fords, Rockefellers and Carnegies, and the governments they dominate,  
connect with the progressive community. These connections reach into  
sources of progressive and radical news and analysis.

Consider two recent examples. Last March, Z-Net published an article  
on Zimbabwe by a founding member of the Movement for Democratic  
Change, a coalition of foreign-funded civil society organizations that  
came together in 2000 to oppose Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF government as it  
was about to embark on a program of fast-track land reform. The leader  
of the MDC, Morgan Tsvangirai, acknowledged in 2002 that the MDC is  
funded by the British government and European corporations. Both  
Washington and London have since openly admitted to bankrolling  
Zimbabwe’s opposition and its civil society adjuncts. The author of  
the piece, Grace Kwinjeh, who has traveled to Washington on George  
Soros’ tab to confer with Washington’s regime changers on how to get  
rid of the Mugabe government, failed to acknowledge her MDC  
credentials, passing herself off as an independent journalist (kind of  
like Donald Rumsfeld writing commentary on US elections for a  
Zimbabwean audience while pretending to be an independent US  
journalist.) To give the article a radical feel, Patrick Bond added  
his name as co-author. Bond had assured progressives in a Counterpunch  
article last year that the Western funded Zimbabwean underground  
movements Zvakwana and Sokwanele, which count among their number “a  
conservative white businessman expressing a passion for freedom,  
tradition, polite manners and the British Royals” represent an  
“independent” left. In Bond’s and Kwinjeh’s lexicon, “US/British  
funded fifth columnist” equals “independent.”

In April, MRZine published an article titled “China still a small  
player in Africa,” by Firoze Manji, the director of Fahuma and editor  
of Pambazuka News. Pambazuka News operates on grants from the Ford  
Foundation and George Soros. Fahuma is backed by the US Congress- 
funded Media Institute of Southern Africa, the European Union, and the  
British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (You can read Bond on  
Pambazuka News, too.)

How far does Grace Kwinjeh stray from the views of the MDC when she’s  
masquerading as an independent journalist, and how far do the views of  
the MDC stray from its regime change underwriters in Washington and  
London? Are Manji’s views independent of the corporate foundations,  
wealthy individuals and imperialist governments who allow Pambazuka  
News and Fahuma to operate, and provide him a remunerative and  
interesting job?

You don’t have to log onto Z-Net to find out what the MDC’s views are  
and you don’t need to read MRZine to discover what the British Foreign  
and Commonwealth Office, George Soros and the Ford Foundation think  
about Africa. But if you go to these sources directly, you know what  
you’re getting into. Not so if you go to Z-Net and MRZine; you might  
think you’re getting an “independent” left view, but you could be  
getting a ruling class view, repackaged to be leftist-friendly. This  
mine field doesn’t come with warning signs.