America’s Laughable ‘News’ Media

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at

As of Friday March 4th, democracy ended in Turkey, but you’d hardly have known it by reading the international ‘news’ at the major (and at most of the minor) U.S.-based ‘news’ sites, as of around 4PM Eastern time in the U.S., nearly a day after the event. Nor has it been announced even now, ten days after that historic event occurred.

Here was the ‘news’ coverage the next day, March 5th, 24 hours after the event:

The New York Times World News section online buried nearly a third of the way down the main page, “Turkey Seizes Newspaper, Zaman, as Press Crackdown Continues,” immediately below “Gunmen Kill 16 at Nursing Home in Yemen.” The news report didn’t even mention that the government-seizure of Turkey’s largest newspaper and its associated equivalent of America’s AP news-service constitutes the signal event in Turkish President Erdogan’s ending of his country’s democracy. It’s like: when did the NYT ever report that George W. Bush had lied about the evidence he had regarding “Saddam’s WMD”? Never.

Nonetheless, that page’s box which was headlined “Most Emailed” showed: “1. Turkey Seizes Newspaper Zaman, as Press Crackdown Continues.” No matter how much the Times’s management wanted to downplay the event and its significance, readers still were emailing it more than any other story in the entire section. Apparently, reader-interest is one thing, but what the management want the readers to be informed about is something quite different (and that’s not even talking about accuracy, but deception is rampant in America’s mainstream and almost all of its non-mainstream ‘news’ reporting). Perhaps the corporation makes up for it in advertising-income from their major advertisers, who don’t want the public to have their eyes focused on certain things (such as that NATO, and Turkey’s being in  NATO, aren’t about ‘American values’ nor ‘U.S. national security’, but about ultimately conquering Russia). And people still subscribe to it? Yes, they do; they pay their good money for that bad ‘journalism’; after all, that’s ‘journalism’ which wins lots of U.S. national awards (not that that’s any authentic indication of the newspaper’s quality — it’s not).

By contrast: Britain’s Independent  came closer to the mark of reality, placing the story front and large on its homepage as the top news-story of all, which it actually is: “Seizure of Newspaper Could Cost Turkey Its Place in Europe, Warns EU Official.” (But, maybe not its place in the American-run NATO — after all, the U.S. aristocracy needs Turkey for things like shooting down Russian bombers that are killing jihadists who want to replace Russia’s ally Bashar al-Assad’s secular, non-sectarian, government, which the U.S. has long been trying to overthrow.)

The Huffington Post’s homepage had as its lead headline, “155 Delegates at Stake,” and 20% down the page headlined “Turkish Police Fire Tear Gas At Newspaper As EU Officials Lament Press Record”. That news-report was from Reuters, not HuffPo, and the headline was rather ho-hum and certainly ignored the real story here, but having to go 20% down the homepage to find it isn’t quite so terrible, even if that’s not where it belongs — it belongs at the very top of the homepage (and with a headline like “Democracy Ends in Turkey,” which fairly represents both the event and its significance).

Meanwhile, HuffPo’s Worldpost section itself also  didn’t lead with this story, but instead with, “A Dangerous Country for Women: The Shocking Reality Of The Sexual Violence In Papua New Guinea” — a tragic cultural reality there, but no actual news-story, much less a news-story that will possibly affect the future history of the entire world. Then, was shown as only an AP headline, down below all of the featured stories (the ones that had pictures there), down in the lower portion of Huffpost’s Worldpost section, was this: “Protestors Met With Tear Gas After Turkey Seizes Control Of Newspaper.” That’s even worse than the NYT. However, unlike the NYT, a reader’s access to all of HP is free; so, readers’ pocketbooks aren’t being charged to read whatever it is.

And then, on March 9th, if one googled the phrase “Democracy Ended in Turkey”, what did one find?

The first listing was “The End of Turkey’s Experiment With Democracy”; that’s dated 16 November 2015, and it’s a professor’s allegation that Turkey’s parliamentary elections on November 1st shouldn’t be called “free and fair.” Perhaps not, but sometimes even Presidential elections in our own country are similarly challenged, without alleging “The End of America’s Experiment With Democracy.”

Another leading listing there was “Turkish Democracy Is Being Quietly Stolen”; that’s dated 4 August 2015, and it’s a Bloomberg columnist’s argument that Erdogan’s policies were set on a path to “revive the ethnic hatreds that mired Turkey in a 30-year war starting in the mid-1980s, costing an estimated 40,000 lives and untold economic opportunity.”

Googling “Democracy Ends in Turkey” produced only one article, my own on March 4th.

Even as of now, there is nowhere the headline “Democracy Ended in Turkey,” despite the fact that it did happen, ten days ago on March 4th, when the Erdogan government took over the nation’s largest newspaper and replaced the personnel. Do American ‘news’ media not think that, if, say, the U.S. government took over and replaced the personnel at The New York Times, we’d have any excuse whatsoever for still calling the U.S. a “democracy”? Maybe they think that freedom of the press to criticize the government isn’t really necessary  in a ‘democracy’. That appears to be the virtually universal opinion in our press.

What does this say about whether the United States is  a democracy?

Not only did just a few small websites run my news-report, which I had submitted (free-of-charge) to all U.S. ‘news’ media; but, even five days later, none of the ones that didn’t run it had yet reported that democracy had ended in Turkey. Though it’s major news, only few and small news-media in the U.S. have reported it, even now, ten days after it happened. Will they ever  report it? Each day that they don’t, makes it even more embarrassing for them that they didn’t. Thus, the best business-decision in such a case is: don’t report it at all. So: maybe they won’t. Ever (except in history-books, perhaps). It’s similar to the situation: there has been no headline “George W. Bush Lied About WMD.” But he did; it merely wasn’t reported, not even after the fact (until I wrote about it in a 2004 book, which few people bought). (When I told major ‘news’ reporters, at the time of the evidence, in September 2002, none were interested; none reported on it, when it was  news.)

Why one would pay for any ‘news’ medium, in the U.S., is a problematic question, given the almost uniformly low quality of the news-service they’re all providing to their readers.

Has the U.S. aristocracy’s manipulation of its ‘news’ ‘reporting’ ever been more blatant than is the case today? Not only does the ‘news’ lack the important relevant historical, cultural, and political, context, in order for it to be able to be at all accurately interpreted and understood by readers, but the news-placement  is obviously driven by other considerations than to serve the readers’ needs — such as the readers’ needs for the most-significant stories to be in the most-prominent positions. 

Ulterior motives obviously drive America’s ‘news’ media. To call that a ‘free’ press is to beg the question: Who owns the press, and whose interests are the employees of ‘news’ organizations (the reporters and the editors) actually being hired to serve? The advertisers’? The owners’? Surely not  the subscribers.

If America’s ‘news’ media aren’t trusted, there’s very sound reason for that: they shouldn’t  be; and that’s because there’s no intelligent reason for the public to trust them. None.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • tom

    ‘Do American ‘news’ media not think that, if, say, the U.S. government took over and replaced the personnel at The New York Times, we’d have any excuse whatsoever for still calling the U.S. a “democracy”?’

    I would suggest that the people who control the US government have got their act so well rehearsed that, even without any overt change of personnel at the NYT, it would still be ridiculous to call America a democracy. That’s because, very cleverly, they have (over the years) arranged for the very same people who work at the NYT to write and publish nothing except what the government wants to be published. Just as they have arranged to continue having elections that make absolutely no difference, in which those voters who care to waste their time can elect the candidate of their choice – who supposedly “represents” them, but never does anything that they want.

    A good summary can be found here:

  • Carl_Herman

    Strong, Eric; thank you!

    Yes, you see and feel exactly what is necessary to reveal our Orwellian condition of .01% wanna-be psychopathic control.

    It’s tragic-comic, yet there it is. And yes, we can prove it again, and again, and again.

    After nearly 40 years of dancing with these devils, I’ve surrendered to my role of being the boy pointing out the obvious in the “Emperor’s New Clothes.” I really don’t know much about the broad world around me in any important cosmic sense, just as a boy in a parade knows nearly nothing about the meaning of his broader community; but I know for sure what I see with my own two eyes. I can’t make anyone look, but will artistically express myself; especially in our real world with costs of annual millions killed, billions harmed, and trillions looted.

    So, thank you, Eric, for the intellectual integrity and moral courage to speak, while offering choice to humanity. You’re doing work of a hero. I do feel Life is absolutely fair, so the work you do is registering with all the right sources 🙂

    All of us moving forward for justice may not move all of us forward… until an “Emperor’s New Clothes” moment ignites…

    • cettel

      Carl, that moves me deeply, because my articles anger a lot of readers (to judge by reader-comments, and not only here but elsewhere), and even when I reply to ones that are obsessed with irrelevancies (such as “the Jews,” the commonest obsession of idiots, or at least of many respondents who don’t share their particular bigotry — or any bigotry — especially because it distracts from the individuals, of all types and religions, who are actually financing the horrors that my articles focus on), I have no success in getting responses from them that are actually relevant to what I’ve written. That’s incredibly frustrating and discouraging. It’s so refreshing to see a reader-comment (such as yours) that focuses on what I had actually been writing about. It helps me know that at least some people out there understand what I was writing about, and care about it, as I do. I also know, from your other comments, and from your articles, that you are as outraged against injustice and oppression as I am, and that we are both trying to pull the same cart in the same direction. “Integrity” — which is so important to both of us — means being more concerned that one is pulling the correct cart in the correct direction, than one is concerned about moving any cart as far as possible in any possible direction; more concerned about being on the side of justice, than about being on the winning side.

  • Oct 28, 2012 Who owns the media?

    The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the “big six” absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States.


    Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will assert they have few, if any, relationships, yet the seldom acknowledged history of their intimate collaboration indicates a far different story–indeed, one that media historians are reluctant to examine.

  • March 25, 2016 American Crime Family Advances On The White House

    Has any American previously been able to run for the presidential nomination while being under investigation by the FBI for security violations?

  • Bob

    I postulate democracy ended in Turkey long before they took control of this newspaper. I don’t see much difference with an overt act like this or CIA control of American media content. Real democracy surely includes freedom of the press which means no censorship and no propaganda, but at its core democracy means the people have some say in foreign and domestic policies. And it also means those who are elected represent someone other than rich campaign donors. It surely has nothing to do with “free” trade deals that give our sovereignty to international corporations. We may still be wealthier, safer, and healthier than many other countries, but our democracy is no less threatened.