요즘에도 조선일보 패간 하라고 ...악악거리는 사람들이 잇는지 모르겟습니다.
다른소리도 젊엇을때 그런 이야기 참 많이 햇지요..
지금??
조선일보 퍠간시키면 뉴 조선일보가 나와 또 그 역할을 하겟지요..
진짜.....쓰잘때기 없는 짓이라는 생각에....그딴것은 처다 보지도 않습니다.
조중동 때려잡자....는 되지도 않는 개 소리 깽깽거리는 것 보다는
한걸레나 경향 오마이나 제대로된 언론 역할을 하길 바라는 편이 훨씬 더 실속 잇는 일 아닌가?
솔까 조중동 때려 잡자 하는 년놈들이 노무현교 미친개때들 말고 또 얼마나 되나??
조중동이 지들 교주 죶을 빤다면...조중동만 키우자고 악악 거렷을 구더기 쇗끼들...
한걸레 경향 오마이가 없엇을 때라면... 조중동 때려잡자....는 주장에 공감 할 수 잇겟써
그때 그런 언론이라도 없엇으니..
그런데 야나들이라고 조중동과 무슨 차이가 잇지??
민주당이 집권하기 이전에는 ...권력이 바뀌면 세상도 바뀔 것이다는 환상을 갖을 수 잇엇다고......
이런 희망조차 없엇다면 민주화 투쟁 따위 못 햇을 것이고.
그런데 실제로 그런 일이 일어 낫거덩..
절대 불 가능 할 것이라고 생각 햇던 김대중 정권의 집권을 보앗고
이 징검다리 정권을 넘어 ...노무현 문재인 까지 치 달려 나와 보앗더니....
-야나들은 그들과 대체 무슨 차이가 잇는가??...
이 근본적인 질문에서 꽉~~~ 막혀 버린 것이거덩..
더욱 참담한 것은 ...
이들이 앞으로라고 좋아질것 같아 보이기는 커녕...더 악질화되고 더 중증 정신질환자들이 되어 가고 잇다는 것이고
그래서
누구나 공감 할 수 잇는 권력의 잘못된 것에 대한 비판 조차도 즉각
-그래서??
-그래서 니들은 어쨋썻는데??................라는 자조와 체념으로 바꿔버린 것이고
자조와 체념 만큼...도팍들끼리 패 갈라 ..내로남불 멀체쌈질 처 하기 좋은 환경은 없지요..
수구 꼴통 개 쇗끼 때들....노무현교 쥐쇗끼때들... 문재인교 되야쥐 쇗끼때들...이재명교 구더기 쇗끼때들..
그야 말로 ....도팍들의 대 제전..
정치가....오히려 사회 발전에 방해가 되어 버리는 최악의 일이 벌어지고 잇고..
이것이 앞으로 얼마나 더 계속 될 지는 ...........암 도 몰 라...
이런일이 비단 한국에서만 벌어지고 잇는 것도 아니고
민주주의를 표방하고 잇는 모든 나라에서 마치 약속이라도 한듯 꼭 같은 중증질환을 앓고 잇다는 것인데,,
다른소린...선거, 삼권분립, 언론의 자유, 법치 운운하는 서구식 민주주의에 근본적인 의심이 잇습니다.
철 딱써니 없던 젊은 시절....좆도 모르고 ..민주주의가 마치 거대한 가치라도 된 것인양 착각하여 설치던 시절 이후
정말 민주주의가 최선의 제도 인가.....에 대해 끊임없는 의문을 갖고 잇엇고..
이석기 사건을 격으면서....노무현교 미친개들의 쌩 바탕을 보고 나서는... 더 이상 이딴 고민 따윈 하지 않습니다.
민주주의도 하나의 제도일 뿐이고..
이 또한 만들어져 번영하고 찌그러저 사라지는 것 중 하나일 뿐이다는 확신잇습니다.
지금의 서구식 민주주의는 민주주의라는 허울로 장식한 자본주의일 뿐이고 ...
이런 제도는 하루라도 빨리 사라져 버렷쓰면 좋을 제도라고 생각합니다.
그렇다면 민주주의의 대안이 무엇이냐??
물론 모릅니다..
하지만 민주주의가 사라지면 무언가 나와 그 공백을 매꾸겟지요..
다른소리 학교다닐때 입법 사법 행정 + 언론이라 하여...4권 분립을 배웟습니다.
이 4개의 권력이 서로 견제하고 비판하며 건강한 균형관계를 유지하며 사회를 발전시켜 나간다는 것이엿지요..
이 말이 맞씁니까??
4개의 거대 권력중에 사법부와 언론은 선출 권력도 아닙니다...
더구나 언론은 주식회사이고 돈을 벌어 처 먹기 위해 만들어진 조직입니다..
최소 선거을 통한 권력 형성이라는 민주체제의 기본 조건에서도 어긋 납니다.
우리 선생님들은 참 무식하고 뻔뻔 햇지요....그러니 선생질이나 처 해 먹엇겟지만..
아래 글은 언론제벌 머독의 은퇴선언에 대한 글 입니다.
그 아래에 ap 대한 책을 소개한 글을 붙혓습니다.
민주주의는.... 입법 사법 행정 언론이 각자의 권력내에서 그 어떤 견제나 비판도 받지 않고 ..무한하게 썩고 부패 할 수 잇는 체제입니다....
이들은 모두 국민을 내 세우지만...그런 국민들은 애초 부터 존재 조차 하지 않앗고
국민의, 국민에 의한, 국민을 위한 체제 같은 것은 처음 부터 불 가능한 괴설이엇지요..
괴설이 신앙을 만들어 냅니다.
천당이라는 괴설이 없엇다면 종교라는 신앙도 존재 할 수 없지요.
예수도 석가도 천당이란 개 소리가 없엇다면 이미 사라졋겟지요
민주주의도 그렇습니다..
국민의 국민에 의한 국민을 위한 체체 라는 괴설이 없엇다면 민주주의라는 신앙 따위도 이미 사라졋겟지요.
https://inequality.org/great-divide/a-telling-tale-of-two-press-lords/
The world’s mightiest press lord of the past half-century has just announced he’s stepping down.
The 92-year-old Rupert Murdoch, come this November, will no longer be lording over the corporate boards of his two media empires, the Fox news universe and the News Corporation, the publisher of media powerhouses that range from the New York Post to the Wall Street Journal.
These immensely profitable news-and-views machines have left Murdoch a billionaire eight times over. But this deepest of media deep pockets took special care, in his retirement announcement, to position himself as a pal to the people, an ever-appreciative admirer of “the truck drivers distributing our papers, the cleaners who toil when we have left the office, the assistants who support us or the skilled operators behind the cameras or the computer code.”
His entire career, Murdock’s exit statement declared, has been “a battle for the freedom of speech” against “elites” who have only “contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class.”
“Most of the media,” Murdoch’s sayonara went on to claim, runs “in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth.” Their “self-serving bureaucracies are seeking to silence those who would question their provenance and purpose.”
노무현이 서민 대통령이엇다............는 개소리와 꼭 같습니다.
In actual fact, of course, Murdoch’s media properties have unrelentingly operated as bulwarks for elite wealth and privilege.(실제로 노무현은 삼성과 강남만을 위해 피 똥을 쏴듯 머독의 언론 마피아도 그 쌩 지뤌을 떨엇다는 것입니다)
His tabloids have kept modest-income readers distracted with “salacious coverage” that feeds “fears of crime and immigration.” His “prestige” papers have helped elites forge consensus — across the English-speaking world — on tax cuts and assorted other policies that have concentrated wealth and power at levels that would have been unimaginable in the mid-20th century.
이들 주류언론들은 사회의 주요 이슈를 외설적이고 자극적인 보도와 갈라치는 방식으로 사람들의 관심을 흩트리고 엉뚱한 것에 집중하게 합니다.
온 나라가 김건희 성형, 줄리 잡년 같은 것으로 미처 날뛰게 하면서 ..그럴싸한 민주주의와 사회 정의에 한껏 쩌러 살게 하지만, 정작 민주주의가 지켜야 할 근본적인 자유와 평등 인민들의 생존권 따윈 생각조차 못 하게 합니다..
아.........이를 어째..
아무런 이유도 근거도 없이 전쟁을 일으켜 100만명의 무고한 이락인들을 날려 버린
최 하급 인간 쓰레기의 팔짱을 끼고...저리도 행복해 할 수 잇는 구더기때들
노무현 경찰이 방패로 때려 죽인 농민....두 사람의 농민이 맞아 죽엇습니다.
이들을 민주주의자라고 하며....
가장 서민적이고 인간적이며 진보적인 교주님이엇다고 합니다..
삶은 돼야지 돼가리가 벌떡 일어나 웃을 일입니다.
..노엄촘스키는 언론에 의해 조작되는 이런 기괴망칙한 여론을 .."제조된 동의 (Manufactured Consent ) ...라고 하엿지요.
세월호 서명대에서,,,
노무현 스티커를 붙히고 히히덕 거렷던 같은 자원봉사자들에게 다른소리가 말 햇다고 햇지요??
-내가 역대 대통령중 누굴 가장 싫어 하는지 물어봐 주세요??
이때까지만도...다른소린 정치에 관해서는 단 한마디도 하지 않앗던 때엿습니다.
혀튼 특정 정치인이나 정치정당이 언듭되게 되면...반드시 싸우게 된다는 것을 너무 잘 알고 잇엇기 때문이지요..
그런데 어떻게 알앗던지...그들은... 노무현 아니예요??....라고 대답햇습니다..
-그걸 어떻게 알앗써요??
분위기가 잇는가 봅니다.....어떤 느낌 같은것..
서명지기들이 정치적으로 민주당-야당- 성향이다는 것이야 당연한 일일 것인데
자신들 끼리 노무현에 대해 왁자지끌 떠들고 잇을때,,,추임세도 넣지 않고 ...암말도 안 하고 ..세월호 서명이나 받고 잇는 모습등등에서 어떤 느낌을 받앗겟지요.
아무리 같은 서명대 자원봉사를 하고 잇다지만...정말 짜증 날때가 잇썻습니다.
-다들 노무현 정권때 외국에 이민가서 살앗던 사람들 같다...
-꼭 같이 노무현 정권 5년을 격엇을 것인데....노무현 정권때 무슨일이 일어낫는지 정말 너무 모른다.....모른척 하는 것인지..
다른소린 때때로 노무현 정권때 일어낫던 일을 상기 시켜 주엇습니다..
광화문 세월호 서명대를 가운데 두고 ...경찰 차량 성벽이 만들어질때..
-이것이 군사독제와 무슨 차이가 잇냐??....민주주의가 거꾸로 가고 잇다....며 흥분 하면
-노무현 정권땐 쩌기 ...광화문에서 부터 쩌 아래 시청 남대문 까지 차량성벽을 만들엇써요.
사람들은 그것을 무현 산성..이라고 햇습니다.
백남기 농민 물 대포 맞고 병원에 실려갓을때 ...농민들 다 죽인다고 흥분하면
-노무현땐 농민 두명을 경찰 방패로 때려 죽엿써요..
그런식이엿지요.
자본주의치하에선 감성조차도 제조됩니다.
여러분이 느끼는 분노와 좌절 따위도 그들(?)에 의해 제조되어 유통된 것입니다.
그들에 의해 제조 되지 않으면...여러분들 끼리 끼리의 작은 토닥 거림으로 잠시 잠간 시끄럽다 찌그러지게 되지요.
And Murdoch’s empires have, even worse, consistently undercut any broad public awareness of the price we pay for letting that wealth and power continue to concentrate.
“Nobody has done more harm to the understanding of climate change than Rupert Murdoch,” as the University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann has told CNN.
Murdoch, adds Mann, “has wielded his global media network as a weapon to sow doubt and confusion about the basic science and the case for action.”
Murdoch has been wreaking all this damage ever since he inherited — way back in 1952 — his first media property, a daily Australian newspaper his daddy had owned. Over the years, especially those years since his Fox News became America’s premiere news network in 2001, no single individual anywhere on Earth has done more to make our world safe for grand fortunes.
Could we realistically have expected anything even a bit more socially redeeming from a media mogul as powerful as Murdoch? Well, actually, history does offer up some models for media moguls interested in something besides maximizing their mega millions. Take, for instance, E.W. Scripps, the famed newspaper publisher who passed away nearly a century ago in 1926.
E.W. Scripps
The youngest of 13 children, Scripps borrowed $10,000 to launch his first newspaper in 1878. He would spend the next quarter-century building a chain of dailies and a national news service that would evolve into the United Press International.(UPI) His papers, Scripps pledged, would “always be devoted to the service of the 95%, namely the working man and the poor and unfortunate.”
By 1917 and America’s entry into the first World War, Scripps and a handful of other socially conscious men of means had come to realize that the war in Europe had opened up an opportunity to cut our Gilded Age rich(금박의 시대의 때 부자들) down to something approximating democratic size. To meet the cost of waging world war, the nation would either have to tax the rich at significant rates or borrow from the rich, by selling war bonds, a choice that would leave the United States even more plutocratic.
“The country will be the gainer by tapping and reducing the great fortunes,” Scripps wrote to a similarly minded man of means, “and once the people learn how easy it is, and how beneficial to all parties concerned it is to get several billions a year by an Income Tax, the country hereafter may be depended upon to raise most, if not all, of the revenues for the Nation, and the States, and the cities from this source.”
The Scripps-backed American Committee on War Finance would soon be demanding a cap on annual income, what the Committee would call “a conscription of wealth.(부의 징병)” No American, the Committee’s tax plan for the war proposed, ought to be able to retain after taxes “an annual net income in excess of $100,000,” about $2.4 million in today’s dollars.
--1:1200 우리돈으로 환산하면, 세후 28억이상의 소득은 갖어 갈 수 없게 하는 것입니다.
사실상 소득의 상한제도를 두겟다는 것이고....
루스밸트가 미 의회에 제출한 세제안도 이런 식 이엇습니다....
한국 전쟁을 치르던 아이젠하워 시절 미국 소득세의 최고 세율은 90%가 넘엇습니다.
그들은 이런 세금을 "부에 대한 징병제" 라고 한 것이지요.
“All income of over one hundred thousand dollars a year should be conscripted,”
Scripps telegraphed to President Woodrow Wilson. “Such legislation would cost me much more than half my present income.”
“Some of us have very large incomes,” Scripps would later explain to the House Ways and Means Committee. “We employ servants who produce nothing for the common good and only minister to our vices. We purchase costly and showy clothing, houses, food, furniture, automobiles, jewelry, etc., etc., the production of which has taken the labor of many hundreds of thousands of men and women, who if they were not so employed would be producing other commodities in such quantity as to cheapen them and make them more accessible to the poor.”
“An enormously high rate of Income Tax,” Scripps argued, “would have the effect of diverting all this labor, what is given to practically useless things, into other channels where production would be useful to the whole people.”
Most all of the nation’s fabulously wealthy — and their most avid advocates — would respond to the “conscription of wealth” campaign with predictable hysterics. But by mid-1917 the campaign had completely redefined the nation’s tax-the-rich frame of reference.
The result? By the war’s end in 1918(1차대전 종전), America’s rich faced a top-bracket tax rate of 77 percent, up from 15 percent in 1916.
어쩟던 미국의 때 부자들은, 1916년의 15% 최고 세율에서 1차대전이 종전이 되던 해엔 77% 소득세을 두들겨 처 맞은 것이니..가히 "부에 대한 징병제" 할 수 잇습니다.
프랑스 사회당 올랑드 정권이 잠시 시행햇던 부유세는 75%엿습니다.
By 1926, with Scripps passed away, the nation’s wealthy had regrouped enough to get that top rate trimmed all the way down to 25 percent. But the World War I “conscription of wealth” campaign had touched a nerve. In the months after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt would renew the World War I-era call for a 100 percent top-bracket tax rate, and, by the end of World War II, America’s rich would be facing a 94 percent federal tax on income over $200,000.
루스벨트의 이 세제안은 6% 깍혀 94%로 의회를 통과햇습니다.
That top tax rate would hover around 90 percent for the next two decades, years that would see the United States give birth to the first mass middle class the world had ever seen.
미국인들은 그들의 번영이 영원할 것이라 생각햇지요.
그런데 그 장미빛 시대는 생각 보다 훨씬 빨리 저물엇고..70년대 중반부터 미국의 부는 빠르게 부식되어 갓습니다.
혹자는 한때의 미국의 이런 번영을 미국의 민주주의+ 시장경제로 설명 합니다.
개 소리지요..
미국은 민주주의, 자유 따위완 정말 눈꼽 만큼도 관계가 없는 악질적인 나라 엿고...
그들의 경제적 번영은 두 차레에 거친 세계 대전 덕분이엇습니다.
그나마 그런 미국의 부가 중산층을 만들어 낼 수 잇엇던 것은 ...강력한 세제 정책을 통해
부의 솔림을 막앗기 때문입니다.
Today, thanks in no small part to the media machinations of Rupert Murdoch, our richest now face — on paper — a top-bracket income tax rate less than half that high. In real life, ProPublica revealed this past spring, our tax code’s incredibly ample and generous current loopholes have America’s 25 wealthiest taxpayers paying a “true tax rate” of less than 4 percent.
(지금 미국의 때부자 상위 25명의 실질적인 세율이 4%......
이것을 민주주의라고 할 수 잇습니까??....
한국은 미국에 비교하면 정말 천국같은 나라입니다...
여러분은 미국이란 나라를 정말 너무 모릅니다...)
What can we now expect from Rupert Murdoch’s successor, his son Lachlan? Don’t hold your breath waiting for Murdock 2.0 to take his family media colossus down a path any less plutocratic. Lachlan doesn’t have much E. W. Scripps in him. Back in 2019, he spent $150 million on an 11-acre estate in L.A. At that time, Lachlan’s new home rated as the second-most expensive U.S. mansion ever purchased.
Sam Pizzigati, an Institute for Policy Studies associate fellow, co-edits Inequality.org. His latest books include The Case for a Maximum Wage and The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970.
By Mischa Geracoulis
A review of Mr. Associated Press: Kent Cooper and the Twentieth-Century World of News
Gene Allen
University of Illinois Press (June 2023)
ISBN 978-0-252-04510-3
In Mr. Associated Press, Gene Allen investigates the Associated Press (AP) and its trajectory from a pony express news agency founded in 1846 to the international stage, by way of the person most responsible for that transformation, Kent Cooper (1880-1965).
Kent Cooper
As exceptional as every era believes itself to be, the history chronicled in these pages reveals that many of the problems currently facing the media and the public’s relationship to it are reiterations of the past. Some one hundred years on, Allen—a professor emeritus of journalism at Toronto Metropolitan University—analyzes Cooper’s time in the news industry and spotlights evergreen issues, including the politicization, polarization, and corporatization of the news.
Allen’s deep dive into Associated Press archives and survey of the broader news industry from the 19th century onward illuminates Cooper’s ambitions for the AP, and consequent impact on national and global news making. Highlighting historical facts and perspectives, showcasing a who’s who in the news industry, Mr. Associated Press could easily serve as required reading for journalism students. Bridging gaps of knowledge from one decade to the next, it offers insights into how an upstart news route expanded to cover the world, and why journalism—rightly or wrongly—has become nearly synonymous with “the media.” Moreover, it addresses fundamental questions about the profession, such as, “Does competition produce better journalism, or a race to the bottom?” and “Can journalism fulfill a public service role while competing in the economic marketplace?”
-경쟁이 더 좋은 저널리즘을 만드는 것일까 또는 아래로의 경쟁만 만드는 것일까??
-저널리즘이 시장에서 경쟁을 하면서도 공공적인 서비스제공 역할을 할 수 잇는 것일까??
이는 우리나라 조중동,,한경오 에만 국한된 질문도 아니고...자본주의 체체 모든 상업언론에 동일하게
던저진....앞으로라도 마탕한 답변이 나올 수 없는 영원한 질문입니다..
The propaganda and fake news that stemmed from party politics in Cooper’s day were the basis of his calls for accuracy in reporting. Peddling the phrase “the right to know,” Cooper found a home in the Associated Press, the news agency that still lays claim to “advancing the power of facts.” Over the course of 41 years, Cooper moved through AP’s ranks as senior executive, general manager, and lastly, as executive director from 1925 to 1948.
The AP is the United States’ largest, most senior 24-hour news cooperative, working in one hundred countries. Although Cooper was pivotal in this achievement, under his direction, AP’s growth was more of a roller coaster ride than a steady ascent.
Said to be a man of convictions, convenience and career aims played a part in just how tightly Cooper held them. Such was the case in the lead-up to World War II when AP coverage of the Nazis deliberately lagged. Louis Lochner, head of AP’s Berlin bureau, purportedly wanted to give the Nazi Party a fair shot. Leaning on AP’s reputation for “fairness, integrity, and objectivity,” Lochner and Cooper justified Nazi media control and censorship as a trade-off for permission to stay in Germany while other foreign reporters were being harassed or ousted. AP reports that minimized Nazi crimes and the regime’s hostile treatment of the international press only came to an end once Germany declared war on the United States in 1941. Lochner’s and Cooper’s refusals to denounce the Nazi Party and Nazi-controlled media led to accusations of Nazi sympathy. While Cooper, Lochner, and the AP may not have been Nazi sympathizers, Cooper’s public stance against government-censored media and “the right to know,” unsurprisingly, took a hit.
ap만의 경우도 아닙니다..서구 민주주의 체체하의 언론이 다 그랫습니다...
일제 식민시절이나 군부 독제 시절의 한국의 언론도 꼭 같은 길을 걸엇고
지금은 언론 스스로가 돈와 시장 점유률을 쫓아 권력을 견제하기는 커녕 스스로 권력과 결탁합니다.
한걸레와 세칭 진보권력과의 결탁은 ...조중동과 수구 꼴통 권력과의 결탁과 조금도 다르지 않습니다.
Allen writes that, despite this, Cooper continued to focus on censorship, and was quick to call out other governments for suppressing facts. At the same time, Cooper maintained a policy to work with authoritarian regimes in countries to which AP reporters were dispatched. This came at a cost. AP reporters, he’d argued, were guests, and the only way to avoid expulsion was to defer to host country rules and laws. Though the tact was diplomatic, such deference led to reporters succumbing to self-censorship, and to Cooper appearing to have exchanged his professed anti-censorship philosophy for the sake of AP expansion.
Cooper’s determination to overtake AP’s primary competitor, United Press (established 1907), resulted in his decision to create other categories of “news” within AP’s standard coverage. Infotainment, including celebrity and sports “news,” lifestyle and human-interest stories, and photography, were brought alongside rigidly vetted reports, shifting towards a market-driven approach to media.
Opening journalism to other genres proved lucrative, and Cooper’s foresight put photojournalism, for example, on the map. AP’s Wirephoto service is 87 years strong with a growing collection of more than 35 million images. Until AT&T developed technology to transmit photos over telephone lines, photos had to be mailed. With the 1927 launch of this new service, photos sped between the East and West Coasts in seven minutes. Pushing against naysayers concerned with costs, Cooper managed to get his way by promising that AP would do things better and cheaper than any competitor. Early to embrace innovation, Cooper has been credited with prepping the AP for the digital age.
Another progressive move was Cooper’s decision to bring women journalists into the male-dominated field. By today’s standards, hiring eight women over a span of six years (1926-1931) would seem a mere token. In 1927, however, Cooper was “lavishly praised” at an AP annual meeting for his courage and resourcefulness.
For his entire career, Cooper publicly cast himself as an unwavering advocate for a censorship-free press. Highly competitive, he was also a staunch defender of the free market. Wielding accuracy and political impartiality in AP messaging, Cooper drew criticism from the left who accused him of Republican nepotism, as being beholden to wealth and big business. Though he never made public pronouncements on his political affiliation, Cooper was alleged to be a lifelong Republican.
Allen does not make clear whether Cooper suffered any sleepless nights over his conflicting positions, but his book raises questions about how public service ethics square up with big business. Curiously, throughout Mr. Associated Press Allen returns to describing Cooper as faithful to AP’s mission, an assessment that seems based on Cooper’s own definition of journalistic objectivity. For Cooper, objectivity equated to impartial reporting on the American two-party political system.(즉 기존의 주류 정당간의 중립성만 중요햇습니다...당연히 제3의 정당,,,비 주류정당의 목소리는 뭉게 버리지요.......민주당과 국힘당만 설치게 되는 한국의 정치지형도 꼭 같습니다) Analyzing this within the context of the times—hyper-partisan reporting dominated much of the 19th and early 20th century news scene—it was a groundbreaking ideal.
Under Cooper’s leadership, advances for the AP and “the news” more broadly were undeniable, but his leadership and earlier AP bylaws are also sometimes blamed for the surge in media monopolies that took place following anti-trust litigation against the AP in 1942. The board was divided on its response—some were hotly opposed to new competitors, unwilling to give up their advantage. More liberal board members, by contrast, favored allowing membership to other newspapers. Cooper’s public pledge was to non-involvement with board negotiations. Privately though, he formulated a response that included requiring new applicants to pay high fees and provide rights to their services to existing AP members. Allen references a Newsweek article from May 4, 1942, which stated that, regardless of changes in the bylaws, “the club members were still being mighty exclusive.”
By contemporary norms, the parameters of exclusivity may be viewed as elitism or colonialism, particularly when analyzing Cooper’s argument for American journalism as the gold standard. He believed the United States’ model of press freedom should be replicated around the world; but without any mechanisms to make that happen, it was more or less an empty slogan. Like the principles put forth in Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, unless national governments agree, there is nothing compelling the right to freedom of expression to action. Unlike the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, Cooper’s ideas had more to do with the presumed right of a news agency to operate in any nation it chooses, rather than a universal application of “the right to know.”
Around 1942, public and industry opinion coalesced around the idea that the United States was obligated to forge a new world order and spread democracy across the globe. Cooper (and others) fused capitalism with democracy.--이는 자본주의 언론의 가장 악질적인 모습이라 할 수 잇습니다....그들은 자본주의와 민주주의를 뒤 석어 버린 것이지요...시장이 민주주의다는 신 자유주의 광기 또한 이들 언론들의 작품이고...시민들이라는 것들은 민주주의라는 단어에 홀려 ...자본주의 노예로 끊임없이 전락 하고 잇지요.....한국에는 + 노무현 사마니즘이라는 갱상도 표 정신질환까지 첨가 되어.......앞이 보이지 않습니다 ) Promoting globalized commerce, a neoliberal world order took off. Allen discusses Cooper’s 1942 book, Barriers Down. Praised within US borders, a review in The Economist that same year revealed a different opinion on this new world order. Referring to Cooper as a “big business executive,” the article contended that “democracy does not necessarily mean making the whole world safe for the AP.”
To tout Cooper solely as a champion for press freedom would have been misleading. To be fair, Cooper’s general insistence on political impartiality and fact-based reporting are to his and to AP’s credit. Allen’s due diligence illuminates Cooper as a multidimensional human being—contradictions and all. Thanks to Allen’s thorough research and critical attention to controversies as well as victories, this authoritative study of Kent Cooper, the Associated Press, and the media landscape as a whole, is worthy of reflection.
As though documenting a pendulum’s swing across the centuries, Mr. Associated Press makes clear that extremism in politics, rejection of facts in favor of trendy issues, devotion to cults of personality, public attacks on facts, and corporate media takeovers that result in monopolies, news deserts, and out-of-work reporters are not unique to the 21st century. The need for a Fourth Estate(제4국, 입법 사법 행정에 덧 붙혀 민주주의의 4대 요소라고 함....개 소리) that holds governments to account and reports without censorship or fear of retaliation remains fundamental to the pre- and post-Cooper AP, to ethical journalism, and to democracy.
Cooper seemed convinced that the free market would provide journalism with insurance of its role in society. Allen wonders if that wasn’t just wishful thinking, given that corporations have as much, or more, power now than many governments, and can manipulate or manufacture “news” for their own profit. The double-edged sword that Cooper brandished through AP exemplifies a repetition of history, and keeps key questions front and center.
Does competition in the marketplace produce better journalism? Can journalism simultaneously serve the public and generate profits too? If Allen’s review of the mediascape points to one thing, it’s that we may well be asking these very questions for years to come.
Mischa Geracoulis is a journalist and editor who serves as contributing editor at The Markaz Review, and on the editorial board of the Censored Press. Her work concentrates on the intersections among critical media and information literacy, human rights education, democracy and ethics, prioritizing issues on truth in reporting, press and academic freedom, the protracted disinformation campaign against the Armenian Genocide, and diasporic identity and culture.