To get back on topic.....
What I find disturbing about all this is that Bono now feels he needs to toe some sort of White House line about what is and isn't acceptable to say to Bush about his policies. And it isn't even with regards to protesting, or even criticizing...just, maybe, a simple asking of questions and expecting some sort of serious answer. And we all know that Bono is not Chavez...he would be as polite as he could about it, but forceful in his own way as well. But apparently, asking questions isn't acceptable in this White House. Asking questions that raise serious issues gets you permanently thrown out--"denied access." This has happened not only with American journalists and news organizations, but with foreign ones as well. IN recall an incident in Dublin in 2002 where an Irish journalist persisted in asking questions to Bush during an interview and Bush (clearly unaccunstomed to such radical treatment) squirmed in his seat and said, "No, no, you musn't ask--" etc ,etc, clearly looking for a White House minder to bail him out of the situation, and it didn't happen. Next day, that reporter's magazine found itself permenently banned from Bush interviews.
What disturbs me is that this is not cases of reporters being rude or abusive or "going out of bounds". This is just reporters asking questions in general, any questions at all, other than "fluff" questions or ones that frame White House polices in a good light. And if we had not been used to 200+ yrs of a climate where people could ask questions to those in power, then no foreign or domestic journalist would even try. But we tell ourselves (like that Dublin journalist did) that we live in more democratic time and our leaders are not autocratic kings, who are distant figures unassailable behind their fortresses--and just as uninfluenceable.American news organizations have learned at what little press conferences there are, not to ask hard-hitting or even serious questions or risk losing White House access, without which their organizations would profoundly suffer or even be put out of business (for how can one survive if you can't report on government?) A climate of inquiry is thus discouraged, and one of passive acquiesance is encouraged instead--until everyone "gets it" and whne they begin exhibiting the desired behavior, they are finally re-admitted, and ona selective basis, like trained Pavlov dogs. Thus, even a question that is for a good purpose, not necessarily anti-policy, becomes inherently hostile (how many American lives were saved by that courageous soldier who had the nerve to actually ask a serious question at a news conference, to wit, why body armor issued to troops in the field in Iraq was so shoddy. Within hours he was reviled as a traitor by the MSM, people accused him of being a liberal plant, etc. But he wasn't criticizing the war. In fact, just the opposite. He was in a sense "supporting" the war and being a bigger patriot by wanting the troops to be better protected. But in the current climate of hostilty to outside opinion, it was the act of asking the question in public that was the real crime more than what he said. The "law" had been laid down, and he broke it.
This is what troubles me--when the Fourth Estate has surrendered its role as the guardian of democracy, in a sense the media are the biggest in this role. And instead sit down at the communal table and feast with the oppressors. And this should not be a poltical thing. By this token, this same attitude of passive submissievness should continue on, whoever is the next President. We shall see.
Bono may indeed be willing to follow his self-professed policy of "having lunch with the Devil" to get what he wants but I would be disturbed to find out if he has become as genuinely afraid and cautious as everyone else. I can see it now: instead of boycotting Arizona for not celebrating MLK"s birthday, he'd send a letter to Governor Meacham requesting a meeting to discuss the situation, and no doubt Meacham would have accepted eagerly, grateful for the photo-op. And Bono would have politely asked him why MLK was such a problem, and the Gov would have palmed some twaddle off his lower lip, and Bono would have declined to argue with him out of fear that he would lose some conservative Arizona votes for the One campaign, when he wants to get to a membership total of 2 million or whatever it is. And after the media heat was off the Gov, say, after a month, he'd go on as before. I don't think in the end AZ ever got MLK's birthday on the books. But the fact that serious heat was raised over the issue, that is what counted. Heat that wouldn't have been raised if there was photo-op. Now, if 250,000 letters had poured into the Gov's office, maybe he would have changed his mind. Maybe not. Sometimes, with an issue that really hits an emotional nerve--like the percieved racial issue--250,000 angry polite "Pretty please" letters would not make any more of a positive difference than a million polite letters to Governor Wallace from the SCLC would have in 1961. MLK"s birthday is small fry. It's not the issue at hand or the topicality ofit; it's the fact that the more you adhere to this mindset, the more it becomes THE mind-set for good--the more it becomes your personal policy and worldview, whatever the situation....But I'm just opening the old can of worms
Fine. But small, harmless issues like this have a way of growing. A politician would find more serious ways of exploiting this situation, and where would Bono draw the line? No sweat if you're talking about a harmless issue like MLK, but things grow. Of course this kind of thing could never happen to Bono, concievably, b/c he has picked a "safe" issue. But substitute a journalist with an issue that isn't so safe, and throw in a climate of passive subjugation. Even in an non-American context. I feel sorry, for example, for Chinese activists trying to draw attention to the shoddy quality of some Chinese goods and foodstuffs sold to Chinese, in their own country.
And that is what really matters. It astounds me at how quickly the American public has come to accept this as normal--"Shhh, don't ask questions or you will lose White House access, for ever and ever" has NOT been the policy of even the White House,let alone news organizations, for most if not all of this country's history. Not even during World Wars. In the past, you could tick off a Presdient and there would eventually be some way they'd punish you, get your reporter fired or whatever. But the climate of virtually unquestioned power and authority, to the point where we now think WE are the wrongdoers for asking questions and we are shocked when one of us does so, is something utterly new. It's what happens in countries ruled by dictators. In the past, Presidents had to just put up with it-they could choose how to respond to it, ignore it, whatever. But they couldn't prevent the climate of watchfulness and inquiry from prevailing. It is what has made crimes and abuses of power eventually come to light in this country, even decades later. But the way things are now, I don't think any abuser of pwer of any party will ever be stopped.
It is a question of the people having any role at all in the outcome of their society, and if we have to operate in a country of "free speech zones" and where leaders do not even like to be within bullhorn speaking distance of their people, what hope do we have?
In this instance, trusting that someday things will get better and someday we'll have access to our leaders again and thus regain say in their decisions they take with our lives, is a foolish belief. In fact, it is dangerous. The longer we encourage and tolerate this behavior, the more dangerous it is.
I say this for domestic situations. But I hope that at least Bono is aware of the dicotomy.
It isn't visible until you log in.
