Michael Moore

By Robert Kane Pappas

I have been trying to get my mind around the “death of privacy” and what this means and portends personally, politically and economically. 

Yesterday, when Michael Moore was interviewed by Susan Sarandon in front of a packed auditorium at the Tribecca Film Festival, I asked a question from a hand held audience mic:

 “Hi,” (and then briefly tried to jog Mike’s memory; he had once recommended my film on his website) “I made ‘Orwell Rolls In His Grave’ and I would like to ask both of you whether – because of your work – you feel that you are under surveillance?”

The Huffington Post, The Daily Beast and the Guardian have each led their stories with my question. Both Sarandon’s and Moore’s responses were striking and personal but the Huffington Post missed the key response from Moore. However, the Daily Beast and the Guardian highlighted it: namely, that Mike addressed the Murdoch UK hacking scandal and predicted that the hacking that had been going on over there has also been going on here in the US.

I have believed for some time that one of the coins of the realm of political control is blackmail.  

Murdoch deals directly with government leaders around the world.  Years ago, I interviewed his chef and housekeeper, who had on a lark, flipped through his rolodex. They gushed; “every name was a leader of this or that country or people like Michael Milken, every telephone number the person’s private number. One day the President of China’s daughter showed up with her entourage.”   

Murdoch had also given her a book contract (like Gingrich) to write a book about her father. He now has a strong presence in the Chinese media. Thank God Rupert is such a patriot! 

The idea of such access to leaders, coupled with a huge organization which has been shown to be capable of accessing private information, and publicizing it around the world instantly – such power is unprecedented. Plus, the other major networks follow News Corp’s lead. Stories can be driven and kept alive, careers made or destroyed, the public can be influenced. Consider Roger Ailes, and the fact that GOP candidates running for the Presidential nomination had contracts with FOX.  

The mainstream news outlets have been mumbling that the News Corp hacking story hasn’t “Jumped the Atlantic.” Yesterday, Michael Moore tried to help import it.

Bravo Mike.

by Robert Kane Pappas

I could probably find the script – lying somewhere down here in my basement office, the dungeon where I have been making films for a long time.  But the place is swamped with them so I’m not going to look.  I’ll just try to remember what I can. 

Cat Colvin, a woman I know, sent the screenplay to me to read and comment on – in, I think it was 2006 – her sister Marie Colvin was the author. Marie got blown up yesterday in Syria. 

It’s a feature film script. The main character is a woman Journalist, living with or married to a man in London, who feels compelled to rush off and cover terrible atrocities around the world. The relationship doesn’t go well. He cheats in her absence. 

I gave notes on the phone. My feeling about it was akin to how I felt about parts of Nathanial West’s “Miss Lonely Hearts” where this newspaper editor reads and responds to pathetic letters of human suffering sent in to the paper he works for.  

In Colvin’s script I kept thinking – why? Why does she do this? Why try to intervene in such hopeless situations? Why not stay at home and make the relationship work? I remember in Miss Lonely Hearts (which I read 30 years ago) the character had a girlfriend, and I kept hoping he’d get it together with her and settle down.  But he doesn’t and it ends sadly. 

I recall critiquing Colvin’s piece as a professional, explaining the need for some dramatic scene so that we know why she runs off to war, runs to danger, at the expense of her relationship. 

I may now be able to answer the question – but I need to backtrack. 

I hadn’t spoken to Cat Colvin for several years. Yesterday at 5 AM I woke early, and soon afterward Cat popped into my mind. I was thinking about whether she was still with that  guy from Boston.   

Sometime after 6AM I turned on CNN. Breaking news “journalist killed” flashes and a photo of a female with an eye patch appears on screen.  I knew instantly it was Cat’s sister because she had told me Marie lost an eye in some war.

I found yesterday’s coincidence odd and as the day wore on – for different reasons – disturbing.

I came to know Cat in 2000.  She, like her sister, had gone to Yale and was now working as a lawyer for IFC Films, part of Rainbow Media and Cablevision.  I had made an independent film “Some Fish Can Fly” that had been released briefly and was now being bought lock stock and barrel by Rainbow Media for not much money.  Cat was on the other side of the deal and we dealt pleasantly with each other concerning “film delivery items.”

In his film review, the Los Angeles Times critic, Kevin Thomas, noted that the filmmaker (me) appears to have made the film more than once:

     “The film, furthermore, is as ambitious in its structure, with Kevin vainly attempting to make a film drawn from his ambivalent romance while he has yet to come to terms with its ultimately impossible nature.”

 Pathetic but true. I actually had made the film twice -12 years apart -in the US and Ireland. I failed a little less the second time. Not enough money both times. Years of toil and poverty.

Why?

Days before the deal was to be closed with Rainbow, I pulled out. After all the SAG wage increases and such, my personal take would be around 10 thousand dollars for 3 years of work and I was giving away the copyright. I thought I might want to make the film again in a different way so I said no.  My partner was angry. I’m not sure what my wife thought.  I do know she doesn’t want me to make that film again.

In the summer of 2003, I had finished a cut of “Orwell Rolls In His Grave” a feature documentary I made about the Corporate News Media. I had begun filming in 2000, before 9/11.  I showed the film to Cat, who showed it to her boss at IFC.  There was interest and phrases like “we love it.”  IFC seemed to want to distribute the movie. Unlike my films about impossible love, this film dealt with our impossible media situation, and the havoc that such centralized media power does to our political system. The film itself was made during to the Florida Recount and the run up to the Iraq War.

Cat seemed sure a deal was going to happen.  Then there were delays, scheduling difficulties, all the while she continued to hear that “the boss loves it.”  This went on for a couple of months. Finally, another executive gave me a heads up. “The IFC is never going to buy this film, your movie goes against their business interests, the decision has come from upstairs”

I then call Cat: “But your boss just said he loves the film and wants to distribute it”

Cat responds simply: “He’s a good liar”

And so it went with “Orwell Rolls In His Grave” – a hit at festivals – untouchable for the major distributors, despite the interest and praise. It was like asking Turkeys to publicize Thanksgiving.  No film had ever discussed the media in such stark terms. Orwell Rolls… has become a ‘cult classic’- professors use it at Universities, libraries.  The film popular in places like Belgrade, Israel, Iran…

Why ever make such a film?

I have a new film “To Age or Not To Age” and a series on aging research and the implications.  I spent the last 5 years filming the molecular biologists, stem cell researchers and geneticists.

One of them – an Outlier – Aubrey De Grey, thinks there are people alive today who may live to a 1000 years or more. Aubrey looks medieval with a beard more than a foot long. He wants to get rid of aging and disease as a cause of death – a minor goal. Aubrey’s view nets him ridicule. I asked him why he got involved in aging research?  He responded; “I wanted to make a difference to the world”

I think his answer goes to why Marie Colvin’s character went to war.

It’s existential.  She was trying to intervene in the seemingly unstoppable human misery.  She wanted to do the impossible. Graft sense and meaning onto absurdity.

And this is the likely reason bloggers blog, and whistleblowers risk their careers – and why I make impossible films.

And why I woke up yesterday thinking about Cat Colvin.

We are all in this together, trying to push the rock up the mountain in our own ways.

 I read a response to a William Rivers Pitt blog last week that summed up Marie Colvin’s why.

It quoted the Talmud:

“Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it”.

an essay by Robert Kane Pappas

The political flap over the prominent and well-funded breast cancer advocacy group -Susan G. Komen for the Cure – cutting off financing for screenings at Planned Parenthood – was spoken about largely on a political Left/Right basis.  

In her New York Times essay on February 7th, Susan Love, M.D. poses a different and perhaps more basic question. Her view is that the real race in cancer is “finding its cause”; and she takes up the question of the efficacy of mammograms, laying out how according to British researchers, early detection saved one life for every 400 women between the ages of 50 and 70 who were screened regularly over a ten year period.  In terms of preventing deaths this is a tiny percentage. 

Dr. Love explains that the underlying reason for this is that there turns out to be 5 or more types of breast cancer, some indolent, some virulent. The aggressive tumors have usually already spread by the time a mammogram finds them.  She concludes that early detection has its limits; the thing to do is to find the cause.

I have a few other ideas about this three legged chair of Politics, Medicine and Science. 

In the more than 5 years of investigation and filming molecular biologists and various researchers in connection with my forthcoming series on aging, “The New Fountains of Youth”, it has become clear that “cause” must be thought of in the plural, “causes.” Just as there is no one cause of aging, there is no one cause of cancer.

However in both aging and cancer research, the good news is that there are several nexus points (nexus genes), where scientists appear to be able to intervene. These genes control a cell’s – and hence the body’s – repair mechanisms. They inadvertently control aging, longevity, and speak directly to the question of the causes of cancer, and also, to the questions of why there are different types of tumors; why some women develop relatively harmless or curable versions of breast cancer, while others get the bad one.

People with ‘good versions’ of these genes which control the cells’ repair mechanisms may get cancer, but they tend to get a type or degree of cancer that can be treated.

 When I interviewed Nir Barzilai, M.D. Ph.D.,head of the Einstein Research Center on Aging,  for my series, he spoke of his study on several hundred centenarians and their children. Dr. Barzilai explained, in part, how they live that long. “Some of the centenarians look young, others, nothing will kill them, but they look old. A number of centenarians have never had a major illness, some of them smoked cigarettes for 90 years. Others get sick but they always get better.” They don’t have dementia or Alzheimer’s. 

 The trick is that both groups of centenarians have good versions of certain nexus genes such as “telomerase.”  Their telomerase gene has certain mutations, which helps the gene do a good job of repairing the telomeres at the ends of each chromosome, which in turn keeps the cell intact longer when it divides. In fact, the centenarians have better versions of several key genes that regulate many cellular processes, including apoptosis, a process in which damaged cells commit suicide as opposed to becoming cancerous. This is one reason people with good versions of these genes survive cancer and live on for a long time.

 To make a broad statement, the scientists have found that aging and disease are so closely related, that researchers now say that aging is the primary cause of all the major diseases. These genes control aging.  Control aging and you delay and ameliorate diseases. 

 Nutrition and exercise have a strong impact on aging because they also influence these key genes. Environment and chronic stress impact aging genes. Some individuals have an inherited mutation, which increases the likelihood of developing this or that pathology. These ‘causes’ or “Risk Factors” influence the body’s repair mechanisms, causing it to age slower or more quickly.  These genes protect us from cancer.

 Underneath all these factors, the primary cause of disease is aging. Tens of researchers have told me this. People who age more slowly either don’t get cancer or get manageable forms of it. This also applies to the other major diseases. They either don’t get them, or get milder versions of them.

 Simple but true.

 That’s the good news. Here’s the bad news.

 The third leg of the chair of modern medicine and science is politics. In particular, GOP Politicians politicize common sense points of agreement with regard to medicine and science. Clearly, at a minimum, scientists will be able to keep us healthy and active longer. Economically,. prevention and delay of disease is obviously the answer. Every single scientist I spoke with said this.

 The GOP will then talk about the budget deficit. Earth to the GOP – “Research Saves Money”, it’s infrastructure.

 The business of politics and the politics of business influence both the scientific and medical chair legs. There is nothing good about creating wedge issues in areas where the entire population actually agrees. The mainstream media often discusses science and medicine in terms of conflict and sensationalism, or they play along with fools who try to make it a left/right thing – “ big government bad” –  hindering fruitful research in the name of balancing the budget (i.e., playing to voting groups).

 Only 8 percent of research proposals are funded, which means 92% of them are not. The result is that scientists have to play it safer in order to get grants, which delays breakthroughs. To a man and woman, the researchers complained about this state of affairs.  And, other countries are in this game, they have scientists too. The political gamesmanship could export a blossoming industry.

 What about the “private sector?”The scientists say that large drug companies do little basic research work. Their primary concern is developing patentable drugs, having them approved by the FDA, and marketing them.

 Moreover, major organizations like Susan G. Komen for the cure, groups which go after this or that disease, command major resources and funding, and tend to dominate what the media concentrates on and therefore what the public knows.

 Several scientists argued that aging research goes after many diseases at once and should be more heavily funded than it is. The business and funding of science and medicine make this obvious solution much more difficult to achieve.

 A couple of years ago Leonard Guarante Ph.D., head of the Paul Glenn Lab at MIT mused that he wasn’t sure what might happen if these discoveries produce a kind of silver bullet, ‘because various large organizations have a huge financial stake in the ‘status quo’ – from Big Pharma and the AMA, to large advocacy groups.

 If we use our heads and avoid the easy labels and surface discussions, maybe we can get a fourth leg for that chair, design a better chair, make it cheaper, and create a new 21^st century industry that could easily rival the computer revolution. I believe there is progressive high ground to be staked out here.

 To the scientists, the answer is simple.

 But the 3 legged status quo chair commands the narrative and the lazy media’s attention. Herein lies the problem.

 In honor of today being the bicentennial of Charles Dickens’ birth, let’s have this important scientific discussion without politics.

Are reporters merely stenographers?

Notes on the New York Times Public Editor Brisbane’s column  concerning the journalist’s job: is a reporter merely a Stenographer?

Judging from the public’s reaction to Brisbane’s column, one question among many, is, “how did Brisbane get that stupid (or perchance, uniformed)?” One incredulous reader asked, “Is this a joke?”

That same thought popped into my mind one morning in March 2001.  I was interviewing Jim Ryan, who at the time was the anchor of FOX’s morning show “Good Day New York.”  Jim had worked for the Associated Press, NBC and now Fox News for more than 30 years.

I brought up a story I thought should be looked into and asked him why I hadn’t seen it reported.

He said, straight-faced, “Oh you’re talking about enterprise reporting - there are times when a reporter might do that.”

Enterprise Reporting seems to occur infrequently. The term refers to digging into something or “asking a question” outside the scope of the highly managed way news stories are reported on a given day; the same stories which will be mirrored on every major network, cable  news channel, news radio, and in the national newspapers around the country on that day.

Jim smoothly implied that my question was really not particularly relevant.  I thought “Is he joking, or is it me who doesn’t get it?” I had been introduced to Jim by his cousin, an old friend of mine, at a holiday dinner.  Turned out we had both been brought up in Parkchester in the Bronx.  We ended up at his apartment over-looking Lincoln Center till 4 AM on that night.

Now on this day in 2001 I was taping at that apartment, partly because FOX doesn’t allow outside interviews of its Journalists on its corporate premises.

Watching his non answers, I realized: “He knows. He has to play dumb”. At the end of the editing process, I used little of the interview in “Orwell Rolls in His Grave”. In the scene that did make the cut – his expression tells the story.

The phrase that fits is called “self censorship.”  Most TV journalists will not keep a high profile job for very long in the Corporate News Media unless playing dumb becomes as second nature as driving a car. In numerous stories or particular lines of inquiry, unspoken boundaries are drawn and the reporters know them.  A certain term used is: “There’s no interest in that story”.

Who’s not interested?

Robert McChesney

Renowned Media Professor Robert McChesney explained how this  methodology of journalism came about.

“In 1850, if a Governor said something stupid the reporter would say I‘m not going to print that, it’s stupid. But as journalism tried to legitimize itself, there came to be a reliance on Official Sources. What that means is that people in power became the assignment editors of journalism, if they don’t want to talk about something it’s almost impossible for the reporter to bring it up”

The result is that the media narrative can be manipulated.  A certain source, often a tainted one, can propel a story into the mainstream.  Consider the run up to the Iraq war, the media repeats the story Yellowcake uranium, or an image, mushroom cloud and…

If those in power want to kill a story the technique is simply not to discuss it.

Vincent Bugliosi – the Charles Manson prosecutor who wrote the best-selling book “Helter Skelter”, and then wrote a book on the Supreme Court’s decision to stop the vote counting in the 2000 election – told me: “Whenever I write a new book, all the networks have me on. With this book on the Supreme Court Decision to stop the recount, none of them have called”.

Have any of the networks ever done an anniversary special on the Supreme Court ‘s decision to stop the vote counting in Florida, in the 2000 Presidential Election?  An historic event, a Court decision that was footnoted as “not to be used as legal precedent”.  Think the public might be interested in what actually happened?

Or how about a program on the episode of the vote recount itself, about the questions raised and the lessons learned?

The corporate media “is not interested in that story.”  The fact that the 5-week episode of the Florida Recount could be successfully relegated to the memory hole was the PRECEDENT.  It showed what you can get away with when you control the questions, and the Judiciary.

But if the public is interested in a story, won’t the prospect of advertising revenue associated with such programming make the networks broadcast those stories? Normally, large numbers of prospective viewers (manna to advertisers) drives programming. But in this case, that programming would inherently pose very basic questions, and not giving these questions a platform and voice is even more important than advertising revenue.

This is the paradox which proves intent.

The Anchors and Wise Pundits will then titter: “The Nation went through a lot, what is the public value of dragging us through this or that story again”

Really?  Are you joking?

According to a report published today on The Raw Story, Harvard professor, Lawrence Lessig, speaking at an Occupy D.C. rally earlier this week, urged the Occupy movement to reach out to members of the Tea Party and bring them into the movement, saying:

“What is inspiring about this movement is its potential… to rally our country around an idea that we all believe fundamentally: this government is corrupt.”

He went on to say:

“[2008] is the first time in American history where we have seen a collapse followed by no fundamental re-regulation of the financial services sector, because [the financial elite] have the power to block change from either the Democrats and Republicans.”

and continued with

“You can build this movement to unite America around this idea that the time for crony capitalism must come to an end…There is no one on the left or the right who defends the system of crony capitalism, they just practice it. And you, the movement you’ve begun, can begin the recognition across America of why and how we need to end that corruption. You do that by framing this in a way that [the Tea Party] can hear you, and inviting them in to your conversation by explicitly bringing them in.”

To read the entire article on The Raw Story, click here

Journalist and East End Resident, Richard Wallace, attended a Conversation wtih Harry Belafonte at Bay Street in Sag Harbor on Saturday, October 15th (as part of the Hamptons International Film Festival).  Outside an Occupy the Hamptons Rally took place.  In his coverage of the event for thenextsiliconevalley.com, Richard singled out Orwell Rolls in His Grave for mention, saying:

“Meanwhile, Sag Harbor’s Occupy Wall Street rally on Saturday followed a distinctly local spirit and script in the picket lines outside the theatre, but they did manage to strike a  resonant film festival chord in placards promoting the timely-as-ever documentary about the media, “Orwell Rolls in His Grave by Sag Harbor resident and film maker, Robert Kane Pappas to the Hampton’s International Film Festival that runs here through Monday.

A few days ago, it was just a matter of speculation about OWS finding its way to the Hamptons. This weekend, it became a global event.”

To read the entire article click here

by Robert Kane Pappas (originally published on Buzzflash.com on September 29, 2011)

I have to meet with a Wall Street friend later today – partly to seek funding for my latest documentary – and I am going to wear a suit. Usually, I come as I dress, which is casual; but today I am going to put on a suit, just in case I decide to join the demonstration.

For me, it goes back to the 2000 Presidential Election recount and “The Brooks Brothers Riot” in Miami-Dade County, Florida on November19th. Something happened that day. What looked like a spontaneous demonstration of local citizens about unfair counting practices was actually a few dozen GOP operatives from out of state. New York Republican Congressman John Sweeney was quoted as saying – with regard to the recount – “shut it down.”

Canvassing Board members were pushed, shoved and intimidated. They then cancelled the recount. Bush and his top aides remained silent about these tactics. The underlying attitude was, “we’re taking this election, period – laws be damned.” Later, Bush and Cheney jokingly referred to the incident in a celebratory conference call with supporters.

The information I remember receiving from Network coverage was that white men in suits were protesting the canvassing board. The impression was that these fellows couldn’t really be paid rioters because they were so nicely dressed. No one was arrested.

These people were thugs, but several identified in the video record were later hired by the Bush administration. One went on to work for Koch Industries.

Yesterday, on CNBC, I heard the demonstrators referred to by one host as “hippies.” On various programs, I heard them called wackos, druggies and radical lefties. Unlike the Brooks Brother Rioters, many Wall Street demonstrators have been arrested, some have been pepper sprayed.

I think demonstrators should begin wearing suits to the demonstration. Maybe even pose as Wall Street workers who have come to “see the light,” have come to realize that unchecked corporate power and corporate “personhood” is harming their children as well, even if indirectly.

So, see you on Wall Street. I’ll be wearing a nice navy Brooks Brothers suit.

What gets me is the ability of these people like Dick Cheney to be legitimized by the corporate media as they trot out a book.  Or, as in the case of Karl Rove, a criminal is given a platform by the News Corporation’s Fox Network, and in doing so, a natural impression is created, namely: ‘this guy can’t be really bad –he’s a regular on a program.’

My all time favorite was watching Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor being interviewed by Matt Lauer – it was soon after the Bush v Gore decision.  She was pushing her new book about her childhood.  Not once, not a single question, not even an allusion to what had just transpired was posed. 

I was making “Orwell Rolls In His Grave” at the time.

In the fall of 2003, I read the story of Floorgraphics and Murdoch on my way to screen Orwell Rolls In His Grave at McChesney’s first media conference. I have followed this with gritted teeth for years.  Paul V. Carlucci was involved - now publisher of the NY Post.  There is a story here, low, a movie – and a serious prison sentence if we had a justice department.

Click here to read the story by David Carr, published in the New York Times on Monday, August 8th.

Director, Robert Kane Pappas was interviewed by Mark Karlin, editor of Truthout in late July and the interview was publsihed in Truthout on August 12th.  The following is the uncut version of the interview and also includes video clips from the film.

MK.  How do you feel that “Orwell Rolls in His Grave” revealed the corrupt, power- and profit- hungry side of the corporate media industry that we are seeing unravel in Murdoch’s News Corp?

RKP.  Through lobbyists, media companies like News Corporation largely write the laws, fill in the key details.  In the fall of 2002, prior to our invasion of Iraq, I was filming around the Congressional Office Buildings.  Bernie Sanders’ chief-of-staff assigned a friendly and competent assistant to take me around and show me where it happens, how laws are written, through the Halls and Committee Hearing rooms, places the mainstream news organizations rarely place their cameras.  Podiums and sound bites are their methodology. It’s easy and cheaper.

 Here, I was introduced to something called “place holders.”  Outside the hearing rooms – where lawmakers are examining, for instance, telecommunication policy – down-and-out looking people are paid to show up first thing in the morning – they stand or sit on the floor on little round pieces of paper about 12 inches wide – saving places (places supposedly reserved for the public) in the banking or media rooms for the lobbyists, who show up minutes before the hearing begins in their Brooks Brothers suits and replace the placeholders.  It’s about writing the laws, the inherent promise of future jobs in the private sector (the revolving door), or campaign donations.  So in addition to drafting of the law, the regulators and politicians are captured by the people they are supposed to be regulating.

  MK.  The use of quotations from Orwell’s “1984” as an ongoing analogy to the modern media age is quite effective. How did you come up with this idea and pick specific passages from “1984”?

 RKP.  I had been thinking independently about our ability to forget things that happened, specifically, events that clearly were wrong, that crossed the line.  It seemed to me during the 2000 election recount that the media’s narrative was being orchestrated and, shockingly, after the Supreme Court decision, the media simply said, “time to move on”, end of reporting.  “Here’s the new story.” And everyone forgot, or convinced themselves, bye by memory.

 I remembered Orwell’s 1984.  I picked it up, reread it, looked for relevant passages.  A researcher, Tom Blackburn, combed through the text for specific quotes.

 Orwell also focuses on the meaning of words, and the manipulation of them.  I thought, ‘Let’s film a dictionary’ – I made lists of words that are used and altered in the media political nexus.

 MK.  This is film is in large part a personal reflection – interspersed with experts on media consolidation such as Bernie Sanders, Robert McChesney and Mark Crispin Miller.  How did you personally come to focus on the pernicious effects of profit-driven corporate media owned by just a few companies?

RKP.  I went to NYU Grad Film.  Many of us had this idea of doing independent film, of making personal, relevant films, as opposed to Hollywood fluff. I directed a few.  The problem for independent film is that huge companies control all the promotion, the free advertising.  Hollywood films’ advertising budgets are as large as their shooting budgets.  We didn’t understand this, at first.  It doesn’t matter how good your film is; if people don’t know about it they won’t go and see it.

So I understood the paradigm and could recognize it in the way stories had come to be covered. At one point while I was at NYU, the Iranian hostages had been in captivity for over 350 days, and for each of those days The New York Post had a little hand drawn picture of a blindfolded hostage, with the number of days accrued typed below. I called it “the never ending news story.”  I got fed up with the ongoing soap opera, grabbed a primitive video camera and a classmate, and talked my way into a video interview with Murdoch’s editor, who ended up telling me he was quitting The Post.

  MK.  You have a great clip from more than two decades ago with you interviewing the then outgoing editor of the New York Post after Murdoch acquired it.  It is grainy and faded and seems to be a ghost from the past that foretells so much.  What has happened in the intervening years to strengthen your conviction that the information we receive about public policy issues and the “news” is brought to us in an “Orwellian” frame from the mass media? 

RKP.  Media manipulation has been going on for a long time. There are many examples. William Randolph Hearst comes to mind. The difference is in degree.  In my new doc on aging science (To Age or Not To Age), scientists discuss “degree” of aging damage.  The startlingly simple idea is that degree becomes kind, that is, degree changes the nature of the thing.  I think this is relevant to the pickle we are in, not only with regard to the corporate media, but also our economy, the various wars, etc. As there is more and more media concentration, less reporting, more manufactured PR, the nature of the impact to our society changes, has unforeseen effects.

MK.  In what ways do the campaign contributions of these large “news delivery” companies influence politics in the US? 

RKP.  This is similar to the problem of independent films. A politician without money for advertising is out of luck.  They are not taken seriously. The media companies control whether a candidate gets “coverage”-which itself, is tied to the knowledge of how much he or she has raised.  The networks then know how much money the candidate is likely to spend on commercial airtime buys – so this is a reinforcing system of legal corruption and quid pro quo news coverage. 

MK.  Does it surprise you at all that it appears that Rupert Murdoch pretty much “owned” the current UK prime minister and is rumored to have heavily influenced Tony Blair? 

RKP.  It doesn’t surprise me in the least. A number of the potential GOP presidential candidates are paid commentators on Fox. Murdoch had perfected the technique, until the “Unforeseen” happened.

 MK.  How has it come to be that FOX “News” has set the tone and framing for discussion of public policy and politics on television and even Capitol Hill? 

RKP.  Fox news is able to set the range of discussion partly because of the vertical nature of Murdoch’s holdings, which includes, books, TV, cable, movies, newspapers and magazines. He is the kindling and fuel for ideas developed by people like Koch and in right wing think tanks.  This is an infrastructure that dwarfs the silly talk about Liberal bias -  however, the notion of “Liberal bias” itself is pushed. 

Moreover, News Corp has become so powerful that the other major media entities like NBC, etc., feel compelled to respond to a Fox narrative, further driving the coverage. 

On Capitol Hill, the GOP is almost totally captured by special interests, their officials propel talking points, period.  That is the basis of their careers; and leads to regular appearances on TV. They become well known.  Enough of the Democrats are captured as well, and this adds up to a tipping point of corrupt politicians and a rigged media narrative. 

MK.  You discuss in the film how the majority of Americans held beliefs on certain reasons the Bush administration cited for going to war with Iraq that were simply not true?  Isn’t that in large part that large news outlets became simply megaphones for the White House during the build up to the Iraq War? 

RKP.  If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.  It really is public brainwashing. Misinformation. Carl Bernstein wrote that hundreds of mainstream news people are on the CIA payroll.  I will leave it at that.   

MK.  We’ve seen a precipitous decline in investigative reporting in the corporate media? Is this because investigative reporting is not profitable or it might reveal too much about the government that the for-profit media relies upon for favorable business regulations. 

RKP.  I think the answer is both. In depth reporting is expensive.  It is much cheaper to have people sit around or on remotes and talk about politics like it’s baseball. But there is also intent in terms of what is reported, and the degree to which a story is pushed. Both have bad effects. 

I can answer this with an analogy.  Scientists have had trouble conquering certain diseases precisely because there are multiple causes, redundant processes and feedback loops.  Dr. Guarente at MIT explained that in aging, so many things are going wrong that it was thought impossible to fix enough of them at once in order to intervene, to slow aging down. Then scientists accidentally stumbled on certain nexus genes, which operate high in the pyramid of cause and effect to influence many downstream effects. Likewise, the problem of media/politics is multi-fold. Many things are out of whack, how can we get around the snafu. Well, Rupert Murdoch is a nexus point; this may be an opportune moment. 

MK.  Murdoch’s News Corp is grievously wounded – perhaps critically in the UK and time will tell in the US and Australia.  How did Murdoch come to be a shadow power broker with such enormous political influence and clout in the US, UK and Australia? In the UK, and certainly in the Republican Party in the US, the connection between Murdoch and the government is almost seemless. 

RKP.  Murdoch’s Empire is several decades in the making.  He is absolutely hands on.  I interviewed his former private chef and housekeeper on video (they wouldn’t let me use the footage).  The first thing his chef said was: “I got a call, it was Rupert Murdoch on the phone, not an assistant.”  They also told me that Rupert, at that time, couldn’t operate a VCR or a computer, but that he had a rolodex that contained the personal phone numbers heads of state, top financiers, even Princess Diana.  He makes and breaks political careers and has been doing business in a certain way for a long time.