Exile of Another Journalist From Corporate Mainstream Media, David Wright Suspended By ABC– This Time It’s Not For Being Anti-war, It’s Just For Being Honest About How Corporate Media News Doesn’t Serve The Public

Here’s a striking news story. ABC has suspended veteran journalist David Wright because of secretly recorded remarks in which we described with frankness his opinion that mainstream corporate media, doesn’t properly serve the public. . .  It means we’ll have to add another journalist to our list of journalists exiled from corporate mainstream media.  (See: List of Journalists Fired or Self-exiled From Mainstream Media Outlets Because They Expressed or Wanted to Express Views (Like Being Critical of U.S. Wars) Unacceptable to the Outlets They Were Working For.)

We’ll also have to note how Wright’s suspension breaks the typical pattern of so many other exiled journalists on our list: Wright was not fired for expressing any antiwar sentiments, only for expressing his misgivings about the overall corporate media news system. And maybe for saying he personally favors a national health insurance, or thinks that there are too many billionaires?

What’s wrong overall with the corporate media news system may explain why the corporate media so often encourages us to go to war, but Wright’s secretly recorded remarks didn’t connect any of those dots.

ABC suspended its veteran correspondent despite David Wright’s history and credentials:

•    Emmy Award-winning ABC News correspondent. 
•    Joined the network nearly 20 years ago.
•    He has covered the White House and was "Nightline's" lead political reporter during the 2016 presidential campaign.

It’s remarkable that Wright was suspended for the remarks he privately shared given what he said.  His remarks, which actually seem wise and perceptive, were:

I feel terrible about it.  I feel that the truth suffers, the voters are poorly informed…

    And so, it's like there's no upside in — or our bosses don't see an upside in — doing the job we're supposed to do, which is to speak truth to power and hold people to account.

* * *
I don’t think we are terribly interested in the voters

* * *

The fake news abounds.  There are problems with the truth these days. 

* * *
The commercial imperative is incompatible with news. …

 It became a profit center, a promotion center. Like now, you can't watch "Good Morning America" without there being a Disney princess or a Marvel Avenger appearing. It's all self-promotion. And promotion of the company and also promotion of individuals within the company. As opposed to, kind of, the dedication to the story and a commitment to stories that we need to tell but that are maybe hard to tell.
           
* * *

I think some of that, at least in the places where I work and the  places like it, is that with Trump, we're interested in three things. We're interested in the outrage of the day, the investigation, and the palace intrigue of who's stabbing who. Beyond that, we don't really cover the guy. …   

We don't hold him to account. We also don't give him credit for what things he does do. …

And we're in this awkward moment where  — and created by this awkward moment — where we have this f**king president. And we can't figure out how to challenge him.

* * *

I'd consider myself a socialist. Like I think there should be national health insurance. I'm totally fine with reining in corporations. I think there are too many billionaires, and I think that there's a wealth gap. That's a problem.

* * *

So you know, real people talk about practical issues, when they’re thinking about a a candidate, “I want to get back n the workforce,” or “I need medical care for whatever.” Those things aren’t TV friendly things.  You know, we want to focus on impeachment, we want to focus on the big sh*t going on, but the things that help people make up their mind are little shit. 


* * *

I think that we don’t have the bandwidth to give everybody a fair shot .  And we should.

**

We are all guilty of the same thing.  I think all these big news organizations- I’m speaking about broadcast television.  That’s all Im speaking about: ABC, CBS, NBC.  And we recognize that we are dinosaurs and we’re in danger of dying.

In the secret recording Wright also exchanges views with his colleague Andy Feis that the media is screwing up in presidential campaign coverage by covering just the "horse race" aspect of things, not giving candidates their due, just wanting to do "flavor of the month, flavor of the week," wanting to emphasize conflict and keep moving on.

The incongruity that Wright was suspended for these remarks constituting news and insight about corporate media news that's probably more important and valuable than much of ABC News' own standard fare, is what is and what should be the main story here, although the story comes with a footnote important to pass along: The secrete recording was made by Project Veritas, typically described as a "far-right activist" group that often unreliably edits what it publishes after setting up entrapments.  It's unclear what Veritas thought it was proving about bias in the media when it recorded Wright and published what he said.  As you can read above, Wright's criticisms include that media doesn't, in his opinion give Trump credit when credit is due; his views are considered, not one-sided.

Here is the Project Veritas video:

‘Socialist’ ABC Reporter Admits Bosses Spike News Important to Voters, 'Don’t Give Trump Credit', February 26, 2020

The story was covered as a headline by Democracy Now, "ABC Suspends David Wright over Remarks Secretly Recorded by Far-Right Group," February 27, 2020, and the Salon coverage with worthwhile, "ABC's David Wright told the truth about network news and Trump — and paid the price," Dan Froomkin, February 27, 2020.

"ABC Suspends David Wright over Remarks Secretly Recorded by Far-Right Group,"

"ABC's David Wright told the truth about network news and Trump — and paid the price,"

Privatization of History: Scary Information About What Is Happening At Our National Archives and Records Administration

"Erasing" history or "privatizing" it?  Churchill, a man whose flaws you may be unfamiliar with said: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”-- And he did.

This one hits home for us at Citizens Defending Libraries.  At Citizens Defending Libraries we have paid much attention to how the shutting down, selling and deliberate underfunding of libraries relates to information control, information elimination, and censorship.

On February 6th, Democracy Now had a story about how millions of documents are being expunged from the National Archives.  This was right after the National Archives delivered an altered version of history concerning the 2017 Women’s March by doctoring a photograph of the March that the Archives used as a main feature for a new exhibit, The doctoring removed criticisms of President Trump.  See:  Erasing History: The National Archives Is Destroying Records About Victims of Trump’s ICE Policies.

Our National Archives is a form library intended to be a repository for the protection of our country’s history, as well as a form of watchdog for its protection.  Let’s note again: It’s a form of library.  Matthew Connelly, professor of history at Columbia University and principal investigator at History Lab, interviewed for the Democracy Now story about the expungements said that:

a lot of what’s happening at the National Archives is happening because they are being starved of resources.  They have a smaller budget now than they had back in 2008. That budget has been cut every year for the last three years.

That sounds exactly like our New York City libraries.  And we will remind you that there is no excuse for starving our New York City libraries of resources the way we are being starved, because libraries are an almost infinitesimal portion of our city budget, especially in terms of the benefits they deliver.

Mr. Connelly was on Democracy Now, having written a recent piece for The New York Times on the Archive expungements headlined “Why You May Never Learn the Truth About ICE.”

While the hook that was used for both the Democracy Now interview and Mr. Connelly’s New York Times op-ed was the destruction of information about the recent and ongoing atrocities being committed by ICE under Trump, the violations of “immigrant rights” involved, and how ICE may be “destroying records from Trump’s first year, including the detainees’ complaints about civil rights violations and shoddy medical care,” Mr. Connally ventured further in his concerns.  He expressed his worries about our government’s “long history of destroying records related to the overthrow of democratically elected governments, mind control experiments and torture,” and he noted how our country has “destroyed all of the records of the deliberations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [he didn’t get to finish his sentence].”  He noted that the “Department of the Interior and the National Archives have decided to delete files on endangered species, offshore drilling inspections and the safety of drinking water.”

The Democracy Now headline for its segment with Mr. Connelly refers to “Erasing History,” but is this characterization directly on target?  Isn’t this instead, a likely “privatization” of history?

In his New York Times op-ed Mr. Connelly mentions how now when things go into the National Archives, “Everything must be digital, or the departments and agencies must use their own resources to scan them.”

We are currently in an age when there is unprecedented private storage of data.  Everything is saved.  Data storage is insanely cheap, and keeps getting cheaper.  Much of that data storage is done by companies like Amazon, private companies that have strong ties to the CIA and the military industrial complex.

With private data collection running rampant for every conceivable purpose, is it reasonable to think that any anything that ever exists in digital form, even if that digital existence is brief, is ever truly expunged, that it truly ever vanishes?  Is it reasonable to believe that just because we starve our libraries and public national archive, that the information they made available, however briefly, especially if it was made available digitally, will not continue to exist in private hands?  Probably not.

When information exists digitally, it is easy to suck it out on into private databases a wholesale basis. . .   It is instructive to remember that, before his premature and extremely disheartening death, Aaron Swartz, the young activist  who was, among other things, a fan of libraries and an advocate for democratic empowerment through publicly available information (plus an open internet with net neutrality), was legally persecuted by our government for sucking out digital information on a wholesale basis to do exactly the opposite: He downloaded 4.8 million academic journal articles from a from a private database with the probable intent of making them more publicly accessible.  A number of years before, Swartz downloaded and made more freely available to the public 2.7 million federal court documents (essentially the law) from a federal database, documents which were technically already public, but were somehow not actually readily accessible to the public unless they paid to go through private channels, except through private channels.  Prosecuted for his download of the academic journal articles, Swartz faced a potential 90 years in prison and his father accused the government of hounding him and bringing about his death.
         
It is therefore important to understand that what we are talking about is the privatization of history and information, not its erasure.

The control of history and its narratives has been going on for a long time with those who are powerful thinking a lot about it.  Winston Churchill famously said, “history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”  Our more liberal friends from the United Kingdom, who are better and more knowledgeably acquainted with Churchill, tell us they have very mixed feelings about “Winnie.”  Their feelings toward him are probably less favorable than ours, as we on this side of the pond, have likely been subjected to more unadulterated myth-making propaganda about the man.  There is much that was simply appalling about Churchill, but the fact that Churchill did, indeed, actually write a lot of the history about himself counteracts much of that.

Interviewed on On The Media, journalist Madhusree Mukerjee explained that after World War II, Churchill:

had complete access to all United Kingdom documents and an entire team of researchers and writers who helped him actually write six volumes or so of his World War II memoirs. And these volumes put Churchill at the center of the war, whereas historians have filled out some of the detail, which is that it was the Soviets who defeated the Nazis and the Americans who defeated the Japanese.

(See: Churchill's Forgotten, Ruthless Past, March 16, 2018)

Mukerjee also notes that “when his political career was in shards after the First World War, he wrote a history then, as well,” and that he wrote several histories, including “something called The History of the English-Speaking Peoples.”

Putting the resources of the British government at Churchill’s disposal to write is one way of letting history be written by those that command the reins of power. . . But pulling back on our public resources to put all of our history in the hands of private corporate monopolies that do not have the best interests of the public assuredly at heart is probably an even more serious surrender of the custodianship of truth and memory.  Global warming anyone?  How about perpetual wars?

. .  Privatizing history is probably far worse than just trying to erase it.

Our last thought on this: You may have already observed for yourself that, whether its studying to understand history or just trying to follow the news, the most vital key to comprehension is most certainly a careful focus on what the powerful don’t want you to know.

PS: (added February 29, 2020)– On February 21, On The Media caught up to run a segment, “The Vanishing National Archives," about  Matthew Connelly, his  New York Times op-ed and the expungements from the National Archives.

It mostly tracked the story above:

by the end of this year, they're [the archive is] going to be able to start destroying records from the first year of the Trump administration when it first began to crack down on undocumented immigration.

* *

[On the chopping block] . .  everything from aviation safety to the takeover of American firms by foreign nationals. All of those records are slated for destruction in the Department of Interior, records related to protection of drinking water, enforcement of laws on endangered species, the management of the mismanagement of native lands, native assets, all that stuff's gonna get deleted, too.

However, it ends using a nice quote from Churchill’s counterpart in the United States, Franklin Roosevelt:

“A nation must believe in three things. It must believe in the past. It must believe in the future. It must, above all, believe in the capacity of its own people.” So to learn from the past that they can gain in judgment in creating their own future.