One of the prime elements of a strong democracy is a media that is diverse and attuned to all aspects of government. Noam Chomsky, distinguished pioneer in linguistics and observer of the political trends going on in the world, says that the media must report the news fairly and without bias as well as function as a watchdog for the public against abuse of power. Using the yardstick of these two dimensions, we have witnessed the continuing collapse of a truly informative media for some time, and as goes the media so seems to go our democracy. Day after day of nothing much to compete with the front page news other than the trial of OJ Simpson or the sexual conduct of the president falls far from the standard.

Chomsky takes this to the point where he says that the mass media is nothing more than a public relations industry for the rich and powerful. Keeping this in mind, if one looks at what is reported with an analytical eye, by and large Chomsky’s evaluation will seem to be a good fit.

There is no more important news going on daily than what is happening to our earth’s ecosystems brought about either directly or indirectly by human actions. Yet the other day listening to NPR news, the lead story had something to do with George W. Bush ("Dubya" to Molly Ivins, "Shrub" to Jim Hightower) calling for trigger locks on guns (or something like that). One can listen to radio news for days at a time and nothing is ever said about the environment. This news release was presented as merely some kind of political posturing, and the media, in this case, NPR, went along with it. Why is there never or hardly ever any coverage of persons who have some vital and intelligent offerings to present as might E. O. Wilson, Ralph Nader or even Noam Chomsky? Think about it – commentators that tell the truth about what is going on in this country, I mean, really going on, would be cut off the air of mainline radio or TV, or their columns would be cut or censored if they worked for, say, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune or the Washington Post. So non- news about the political machinations of an adolescent-seeming man, in his forties, born into privilege, with name recognition, a C student in college and a reputation for being a party boy takes precedence. Why does even someone of this lack of true leadership capacity get into such a position? Why? -- It is all cosmetic contriving to hoodwink the public and brought about by the powers behind the scene. The very fact that Mr. G. W. Bush leads in the latest polls means that this strategy works pretty well.

In 1983 about fifty conglomerates controlled more than half of all broadcast and other media in the US. After fifteen years that figure has shrunk to eight. That makes it easy for those with still greater power to have more say as to what the political and economic stance of the particular media outlet will be. The name of the game, unfortunately, is not to inform the public in any meaningful way, but to increase the power and wealth of the corporate structure.

And from this and other reasons, our democracy is hurtin’ real bad!

Another way for the public to learn what is going on with our country and earth is to listen to presidential debates in the political process. But even this venue has been shut off. The so-called "debates" planned by the name, "Commission on Presidential debates" is a misnomer. It is difficult to make out what any organization is about these days from a title. If this CPD were to be accurately named, it would be called the "Republicrat Commission," devised to keep any third or other party intruders out of the political process. Right there is a terrible slap in the face of democracy. This new commission was formed after the League of Women Voters was ousted because the power structure felt that they were too generous in inviting John Anderson into the debates in 1980. The CPD calls itself non-partisan, but they refrain from describing themselves as more than bi-partisan, and have never made any realistic statements as to their commitment to the democratic process. In fact, they were established to further deny the democratic process – the League of Women Voters had run a truly democratic and unbiased procedure for handling the debates. Little by little the noose tightens on American democracy. This was not a open process but one more dedicated to a necktie party!

According to Jamin Raskin in an article in the February 7, 2000 issue of "The Nation," "At the presidential level, where campaigns have been subsumed by private wealth and corporate power, the suggestion that general election debates be opened up to outside candidates and citizen questioners is considered heretical. Presidential debates are designed not as the focal point in a broad public dialogue ... But as a ritual celebration of the two-party system and its incestuous marriage to corporate capital."

One of the great apologists for privilege, Senator Mitch mcconnell of Kentucky, in a fit of arrogance, made the mistake of saying that the people don’t care about campaign finance reform. A 90-year old woman not only showed him to be wrong, but carried the message from thousands of people from all over the land to the very steps of the Capitol for all to hear. His only comment was a condescending statement about giving Granny D a massage for her sore feet.

We live mostly these days in a two-tiered society with the power brokers and the wealthy, a distinct numerical minority, occupying the top rung, against all the rest of us in the bottom rung. The ritual celebration that Raskin talks about is the attempt to make the take over look legit.

In Orwell’s novel, 1984, the mass of people (called "proles") were neutralized by being provided great quantities of cheap gin. Our situation is a little more complex – instead of the gin we have insipid TV, sports and a particularly non-confrontive type of popular music, a totally false set of values, media (mostly advertising) produced notions of what constitutes the "good life," a carefully created addiction to "stuff" which keeps folks working so many hours to get this stuff that they have neither time nor energy to devote to being good and informed citizens. And if they wish to be informed it is very difficult to get the truth from the mainstream media. I rarely subject myself to anything of the mainstream media these days concerning national politics or events (that includes NPR where "truth" is more and more managed as they are forced to cater to corporate power for funds to keep afloat). To stay informed requires some extra work, a commitment to take the time to it and some extra expense (publications which are relatively free of corporate influence naturally will cost more since they don’t get significant funds through widespread advertisements).

Orwell paints a particularly grisly portrait of a world gone mad from the top hierarchy of persons totally addicted to power. The actual year 1984 has come and gone, but the Orwellian trip seems to be on us in a slow and insidious way. One thing that Orwell did not figure in was the wholesale destruction of ecosystems. When the world’s people wake up to the fact that their habitants are being destroyed, it will be impossible to assuage them. By then, unfortunately, it will most likely be too late to save a whole lot of the natural world.