I don't think I can handle much more media coverage today. You see, I've been following the coverage of the NSA leaks, and leaker, Edward Snowden, who's come forward. And I'll just begin by saying, apathy and ignorance are damn depressing. I know all of us can think of many instances where we felt frustration over the public's seeming lack of interest or education with relation to some issue we care about, but this is a topic that literally affects
everyone,
right now.
Check out the coverage on
The Guardian, the British newspaper that broke the story with the help of "Civil Liberties Extremist" Glenn Greenwald. At least watch the inteview with Snowden himself, if you haven't already.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-interview-video
The
NPR news shows today featured mainly former CIA directors and conservative
think-tank pundits as commentators on the topic. The mainstream coverage I've seen has kept the focus on the leak as a security breach, a threat to our
security, blah, blah. On "On Point" this morning, there was an interview with Glenn
Greenwald, who himself interviewed the NSA leaker for The Guardian. Greenwald was
articulate as always, but his relatively brief segment was followed by an interview with a
former government flack and Heritage Foundation member whose role was
apparently to represent the status quo, to return the focus of attention back to the the leak-as-a -crime,
and to generally assure everyone listening that there is nothing to worry about (except Terrorists, of course).
The show's comment section attracted some
"kill the traitor!" type commenters; more of them than I usually see there, and I have to wonder if these
people really bothered to educate themselves before reacting with such
reflexive outrage toward the leaker, rather than the information leaked.
I guess that's why they're called "reactionaries". A cynical part of me
often wonders how much of the angry-internet-political-commentariat is coordinated by some kind of psy-ops public
perception-management operation (maybe several different ones). I'm not just "being paranoid" in considering this
possibility, either. Not when it's been known for years to anyone who bothers to pay attention that PR and spin are a huge part of the Managed Democracy game.
Neal Conan, the "Talk of the Nation" host was actually rather patronizing and hostile toward
several callers who wanted to challenge the notion that all this spying
takes place "with full judicial and congressional oversight" and is
basically
no big deal. Sadly, the off-the-cuff callers weren't as smooth
and well-prepared as someone like like Glenn Greenwald might've been, so the
host was able to browbeat them successfully. I'm glad that show is being
cancelled.
I've seen this pattern repeated in much of the media coverage of "leaked secrets" scandals like this, both on the radio and online (personally I try never to have anything to do with the idiocy taking place on the cable shows). There's little
said about the actual information revealed, and why the leaker was willing to risk everything to come forward. When the evidence of government or corporate wrong-doing is discussed, there is usually a quick
follow-up rebuttal from some government flack or journalist
which reiterates the party line, which is what "sensible citizens" believe, of course.
The reader comments under many articles on major news sites are largely of the ignorant,
reactionary variety. "He's a traitor", "Why would the government care
about me", "Terrorists are going to kill us", "what's the big deal?" What room is there for informed discussion, disagreement, and openness to new ideas in a "dialogue" such as that. At least we Americans still have the right to express our personal opinions, however ill-informed and pointless they may be. Yay.
What really bugs me is the same thing that Edward Snowden told Glenn Greenwald worries him the most: that this
story may just "blow over" like so many others, thanks to the adroit spin
of propagandists and the dull complacency of a populace kept largely
uneducated and apathetic. That would be a terrible shame both for Snowden, considering the personal sacrifices he made to reveal this
information, and frankly for anyone else who can actually put two thoughts together
in their heads and understand why a police state is a bad idea.
If nothing much changes, it will be a sure sign of the ultimate triumph
of cultural apathy, a-historical ignorance, incurious complacency and
conditioned obedience to authority. If that happens, I ask myself, how can I continue to live as
a part of a society whose values I find increasingly repellent and
inhumane? Even recognizing that neither I or anyone else is above reproach, how can I be expected to have any respect for those of my fellow citizens whose stubborn ignorance, self-centered hypocrisy and lack of basic human compassion disgusts me?
After a while, one starts to feel that such people deserve what they get. Problem is, the rest of us have to live in this world, too.
For now, all is not (yet) lost. Some people out there are still able to remember the lessons of history, and to understand the implications of Big Data in the context of an authoritarian/corporatist political regime. They will want
to take meaningful action. I just hope they aren't too small and
marginal a part of society to be able to make any difference. Other nations may be able to exert political pressure on our country, and on the powerful internet companies like Google as well, serving to place at least some limits on the extent of Sauron's gaze, even while many of these nations have their own spying regimes. Also I suppose that as "consumers" (which is what we are now, instead of "citizens"), we could vote with our meager wallets and boycott those companies that do business with the NSA et al., to the extent that that is possible in the modern techno-oligopilized world.
This post will most likely be placed into a giant database
by an automatic filtering algorithm, stored along-side the rest of humanity's thoughts and expressions. A unconscious collective memory held in secret, accessible only to a shadowy few, their motives unaccountable. Information held in abeyance not to promote the development of thought, but instead to control or prevent it. A sort of vast, Anti-Library, you could say.
At any time, these words can be retro-actively
called up and used against me, or anyone I associate with, should
someone with the right access choose to do so at any point in the future. Given the vast, complex data-stores that exist about all of our movements, associations, habits and thoughts, it becomes frighteningly simple to retroactively pick out just the information needed to make a case, to discredit a troublesome enemy, even to render someone into oblivion. None of this is science fiction; it's all happened already. And that doesn't even account for the possibility of erroneous data, or hacking and theft.
How can anyone who considers themself an "American"
not see the danger in allowing faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats and
private corporate operatives to build dossiers on
everyone, to be
used and abused as they see fit, with no
real oversight or recourse on
the part of the people? Do we really think that living in a Panopticon
society won't have a chilling effect on speech and thought? Can we
maybe just stop arguing about our "right" to purchase AR-15's from Walmart long enough to pay
some attention to the Constitional Rights that actually
matter to our democracy? What does being an "American" even mean, any more?