The Situationist John McCain shares some words with Barack Obama

The 2008 U.S. election is getting nearer and nearer and with each passing day more and more speculation is being broadcast, all of which attempts to explain to us who will be President of the world's (current) most powerful nation come January 20th, 2009. Of course it goes without saying that the speculation is simply just that, speculation; the opinion of one institution, one group of people, in some cases one person (and in the case of many Fox News anchors, one idiot). In other words, all the speculation we read or hear or watch is information that tries to tell people how they will vote when they go out and cast their vote... With all of that said, it is good and fun to know what people are saying. And there sure is plenty to read. First - the polls. According to CNN Obama (45%) leads McCain (40%); which coincides with a Time Magazine poll, though the numbers are different (43% to 38%, respectively). According to the LA Times Obama (49%) leads McCain (37%). And according to Market Watch - which has it right - the polls should not be trusted because as they have historically told lies. Second - the speculation. From all angles - left, right, and center - we are being beaten down by a barrage of analysts - ones from the left, ones from the right, and ones from the center - each of which explains to us who the key voting group will be come November. Some say it is the 'Hispanic' vote ; some say it is the 'Practicing Catholic' vote; some say the election rests upon the votes of specific swing states; some say the Supreme Court itself is stacking the deck to prevent an Obama win; and some say British media coverage will be the deciding factor in the U.S. 2008 election (... and they're British). Short of speculation suggesting that the Digital Journal reading audience will ultimately decide the 2008 election, it has been covered. But instead of reiterating the stories that are making waves right now, we should think about a factor that likely holds more weight than any of the above mentioned. A factor that gets roughly as much prime-time attention as the crucial importance of DJ readers... But before we get to the conclusion, we need a foreword... Access to news is better now than it ever has before; each day our ability to find information about anything increases. In most cities, free mini-newspapers are found at just about every large intersection. No matter where we are there are all kinds of 24 hour television news channels and radio stations that are devoted solely to providing us with round the clock news coverage. The Internet provides all with access to live, breaking headlines whenever we decide to check. And of course there are still those pesky, pricey, old fashioned things called the common newspaper, whatever that is. But just because there are many news outlets does not mean that we, the readers, have access to all the information. And in the case of the 2008 election, the massive news coverage certainly does not mean that we know who will be U.S. President come mid-January 2009. The reason we do not have access to all the information is simple - every media empire has an owner, and the views of that owner usually shine through (and perhaps more importantly, opposing view points do not.) As pointed out by Noam Chomsky in his book "Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda", the great news providers of the world often present a very skewed, biased worldview. To summarize a central thought in this text, for many small towns and to an extent, large cities, the resources needed to do in house research and reporting are not available. As a result, the editors of these news sources are forced to rely and report on the headlines that are being heralded by what Chomsky calls, "the elite media" - an example of which is the grandaddy of those pesky newspapers, The New York Times. Chomsky goes on to point out that in the months, weeks, and days leading up to the Gulf War, there was almost no coverage in opposition to it. The big broadcasters only produced and printed stories that supported or justified Bush 41's war. And smaller outlets did not have the resources needed to develop informed opposition pieces. In short, commentary that condemned the Gulf War was close to non-existent. Does that not sound eerily similar to the months, weeks, and days leading up to the War in Iraq? Reporters, politicians, and everyday Joe's and Jill's were 'unpatriotic' if they considered the War in Iraq foolhardy, amoral, unjustified, or all of the above. In essence what Chomsky is suggesting is that the large media empires often present only one side of the story. This idea begs the question, who owns the major media outlets, and what are their political views? Well - here are some of the big guns. The Wall Street Journal, the Dow Jones Newswire, the New York Post, and Fox News are all owner by one mogul, Rupert Murdoch; a conservative. CNN is of course owned by 'the mouth of the south', Ted Turner; a declared liberal who often deviates from that punch line. And finally, the New York Times Company is owned by Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. - a man who is right of center. Interesting, sure. But what does this have to do with the 2008 United States Presidential election? Well if we bring everything discussed so far together an even more interesting realization can be discovered. With all of the speculation as to who will be the swing voters that will ultimately decide the fate of the 2008 election, the true audience that holds the power are those that are, as of right now, undecided. For those who have already made up their minds, for those who will not change their minds, for those who's ballots may as well be cast today, all of the speculation is for naught. Their vote is not up for grabs. Thus the only people who can determine the election are those that have not yet decided. Simple isn't it? the undecideds hold the power - whether Hispanic, Catholic, Black, White, Yellow, Green, Purple, or Red (but definitely not British). And so the question then becomes, what will determine how they vote? Well, for the undecideds there is a high likelihood that they will not attend a pro-demo or pro-repo convention; those who are undecided usually are so because they do not care enough for either party to be actively involved in their happenings or to actively participate in their rallies. The point is, for most undecideds, they will be convinced as to which candidate deserves their votes based on the information they receive from the media outlets. And so - if this theory that the election will be determined by those that are currently undecided is true - the greatest factor that will determine the fate of the election is the media coverage that will inform their decision (but not British media coverage). And if Chomsky is correct - if it is true that there is a 'right wing conspiracy', or rather, that the elite media is run by pro-conservative individuals who favor like-minded information - then Obama is facing an uphill battle. Is Chomsky correct? Well consider this - there are clear indicators that suggest such a plot is in the works. To list just one contemporary example, when news broke of Reverend Wright's (somewhat) controversial comments, it was everywhere. What's more, the commentary was near uniform in its conclusion; Obama's pastor was a loose cannon that hates America, and thus Obama must have issues too. It did not matter that there was no proof that Obama was in any way in cahoots with his Reverend. In fact, just the opposite was true at the time, as it seemed as though Obama had practically written Wright's speeches himself. Now compare the reaction of Obama attending Wright's church with the news coverage surrounding McCain's (horrendous) handling of the Abramoff scandal. John McCain was the head authority in charge of investigating Abramoff's corruption. Not surprisingly, very little in the way of Republican head rolling came to be - regardless of the facts. What is more concerning is that despite the horribly inept investigation that McCain conducted, there has been (to my knowledge) precisely no prime time news coverage about this botched investigation. In short, information pertaining to McCain's nigh-on-criminal handling of Abramoff's corruption has been all but absent in the news world. In fact, if not for the reports on DailyKos.com and thehuffingtonpost.com, it is likely that the story would never have seen the light of day. In other words, the media is a lot harder on Obama than McCain. If Obama (or someone Obama has associated with at some point in time or another) says something controversial there is a media frenzy, yet when McCain acts all but illegally or makes a completely inappropriate joke ("I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago") it passes without headline attention. The conclusion that we are arriving is thus very gloomy. If, as it so clearly appears, the media does truly hide (or avoid) McCain issues while at the same time never missing an opportunity to damn Obama, then the potential swing voters - the undecideds - are most surely going to end up voting McCain on ballot day... In other words, unless the British media is conspiring for Obama and somehow manages to trickle into the homes of the undecideds, do not be surprised if come November McCain is being sworn in as the third President - serving the fifth term - of the United States of Oil-men. Please feel free to comment on this piece in any way. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Is right-wing favoritism rampant in the U.S. media? Will the British secure an Obama victory? Thanks for reading. GRMM