To begin this posting, a
word in support of the Pew Research Center.
What a service for the American people.
It is a nonpartisan think tank or “fact tank” as it refers to itself. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., it
publishes information over various issue topics, i.e., social issues, public
opinion, and demographic developments within the US and the world in
general. Also, it reports on media and
its content and provides overviews of empirical studies from the various social
sciences.
It is organizationally funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts
and has been providing the general public with insightful and timely research
reports since the 1990s. For those
unfamiliar with the Pew Charitable Trusts, it is a nonprofit, tax-exempt
organizational arrangement that funds various nonprofit entities like the Pew
Research Center. The Center is also funded
by the Templeton Foundation. To
illustrate its work, there has been a series of studies supported by the Center
on the issue of polarization. One such
effort is highlighted in this posting.[1]
Robert Faris, et al., looked into the 2016 presidential
election, found various actions by rightwing actors that constituted what the
study calls “right-wing ecosystem,” affecting the results of that election. The ecosystem includes the Fox News setup but
also has an array of other contributors as this posting indicates. Most of that activity relative to the 2016
election revolved around what the Center study calls “two chief dynamics” and,
as such, provides two lessons for future elections.
The two dynamics targeted the Clinton Foundation. The first dynamic aimed at setting an
effective public agenda. In part, this
dynamic was nothing new; it consisted of opposition research. That is, it consisted of tough partisan
investigation, reporting, and messaging of information aimed at portraying
Clinton and her campaign in the worst way.
What made it somewhat unique was how thorough or deep it was as well as how
far back their research went.
Interestingly, this effort began before Trump became part of the story.
This tale seems to have begun with the publication of the
book, Clinton Cash, a scurrilous account of donations to the Clinton
Foundation and speaking fees to the Clintons by moneyed interests in exchange
for public policy enactments or proposals.
The book was written by Peter Schweizer and published in July 2016. Here’s the Amazon’s advertising blurb for the
book,
In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton owed millions
of dollars in legal debt. Since then, they’ve earned over $130 million. Where
did the money come from? Most people assume that the Clintons amassed their
wealth through lucrative book deals and high-six figure fees for speaking gigs.
Now, Peter Schweizer shows who is really behind those enormous payments.
… Schweizer [in a previous best-selling book] detailed
patterns of official corruption in Washington that led to congressional
resignations and new ethics laws. In Clinton Cash, he follows the
Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune,
their “close personal friends,” the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and
some of the highest ranks of government.
Schweizer reveals the Clinton’s
troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the
“wild west” fringe of the global economy. In this blockbuster exposé, Schweizer
merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered. Meticulously researched and
scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton
Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness
to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public
office.[2]
Apparently, the book does
bring up verified decisions by Hillary Clinton that did favor various sponsors
of her husband’s speaking engagements – at hefty fees – but the evidence reveals
only questionable timing.
Here is how a Newsweek review of the book summarizes
the book’s reportage of what actually happened,
The book contains many more lurid examples of Bill and
Hillary doing things that look bad—from Bill
taking juicy speaking fees from a major investor in the Keystone XL pipeline
while Hillary's state department reviewed the pipeline deal, to the Clinton
Foundation accepting donations from a Swedish mining investor who more or less
financed a coup in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
None of these actions
are illegal. And it's not even clear if they're related. The rooster doesn't
cause the sun to rise, but this is the thrust of Schweizer's argument. He never
proves any laws were broken—in fact, he practically begins the book by hedging
his accusations: "I realize how shocking these allegations may appear. Are
these activities illegal? That's not for me to say. I'm not a lawyer."
Indeed not. Nor are the vast majority of
American voters. And this fact is what Schweizer is counting on, presumably,
because, while he points out many instances of Hillary and Bill Clinton doing
things that look bad, he doesn't include any
instances that rise to lawbreaking.[3]
What added to the effect
of this dynamic (including publishing the book), Steve Bannon and his publishing
interest, Breitbart News, proceeded to produce and distribute a film version of
the book. But of interest, the book was
released months before Trump became the Republican candidate.
But
more calibrated was the release of the film and calls for Congressional
investigation of the entailed charges to coincide with the usual bump a party convention
would receive after its conclusion. All
of this was further coordinated with a well-organized email release to
highlight the film. The rightwing media
ecosystem held back the story from public release until the mainstream media took
up the story. Those in that broader media
platform played an essential role in “spreading the word.” They in effect legitimized the story and, in
turn, it became part of the public discourse.
How
can public or private policy address this disruptive development – a
development that, in effect, spreads as truth information concerning unfounded,
illegal behavior? One challenge is: any public policy must not be inconsistent
with First Amendment rights of free speech.
The Center opines that such developments needs to be met by a “highly
vigilant professional press.”
Yes,
the press today is being hacked (information the Center added to the report as
relevant) and such overviews call for serious surveillance which, in turn, depends
on time-consuming efforts on the part of editors. But the republic’s future seems to depend on
the press to inform its readers and viewers as to such efforts as exemplified
by the Clinton Cash case. Sure,
if an editor receives what is called an “exclusive” from a source such as
Schweitzer painting a public figure, such as Clinton (either one), negatively,
that will deserve an editor’s attention.
But that is where the interchange begins.
The
Center’s summary states, “Tracking down the funding and sponsorship of
Schweitzer’s research, and developing an investigative story about who is
behind this assault and why it is being launched, is harder. It is,
nonetheless, the fundamental professional responsibility of the press if it is
to retain its unique role.”[4]
So,
this is the first dynamic that the Pew Research Center offers in its related
study. The next posting will look at the
second dynamic, the role of propaganda and misinformation.
[1] Robert Faris, Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler, “Partisanship, Propaganda, & Disinformation: Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election,” Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Library (n.d.), accessed August 19, 2020, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/76a9/3eb0bed8ff032c44186678c5279f20cc5ff8.pdf?_ga=2.230250332.1151241653.1597869609-1463880478.1597869609 .
[2]
Amazon (online marketing statement), “Clinton Cash: The
Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Helped Make Bill and
Hillary Rich” – book title, (n.d.), accessed August 20, 2020, https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
.
[3] Taylor Wofford, “Everything You Need to Know about ‘Clinton
Cash,’ Newsweek, May 1, 2015, accessed August 20, 2020, https://www.newsweek.com/everything-you-need-know-about-clinton-cash-327694
.
[4] Robert Faris, et al., “Partisanship, Propaganda, &
Disinformation,” 130.
No comments:
Post a Comment