Dialogues with Greco,

"On Gary Webb"

...and the cost of exposing the truth...

Greco: Suvian, if I were to ask you to speculate on the ability that we have in our society to challenge the status quo, how would you respond?

Suvian: Well, I would say that there certainly seems to be room to do so.

Greco: Interesting that you said, "room to do so"...that would seem to imply that there is also "not room to do so" as well.

Suvian: Yes, I suppose you could say that.

Greco: Well, then what we must investigate is the boundary between the two...at what point does being critical of the status quo begin to have negative consequences?

Suvian: Perhaps when we become too critical and somehow threaten the status quo?

Greco: A good answer. So it would seem that there is an acceptable range of behavior within which one can challenge or be critical of the status quo, but if one exceeds those boundaries, then there is a price to be paid. Let us test this hypothesis by looking at an example from journalism. Suvian, have you heard of the journalist Gary Webb?

Suvian: No, I haven't. Who is he?

Greco: Rather, who was he. For nearly two decades, Gary Webb enjoyed a successful career as an award-winning journalist. His particular interest was in exposing private sector and governmental corruption. As it turns out, that interest would be the cause of his downfall.

Suvian: Downfall?

Greco: Yes. In August of 1996, Gary Webb produced a series of newspaper articles that investigated the sale of cocaine in Los Angeles during the 1980's by Nicaraguan drug traffickers, and that profits from those sales were used to provide support to the U.S.-backed Contras who were involved in a counter-insurgency war with the Sandinistas. He maintains that the CIA was aware of what was going on, but turned a blind eye to it all. He named his series of articles "Dark Alliance".

Suvian: And how were they received by the public?

Greco: "Dark Alliance" received national attention, at it caused quite an uproar. The New York Times tried to denounce his investigation, but was largely unsuccessful. The newspaper he was working for came under enormous pressure to withdraw the series, and did so about a half-year later. Jobwise, he was reassigned to a location 150 miles from his home, and he soon quit, for obvious reasons.

Suvian: That's quite a backlash...

Greco: Indeed it is. But that's not all. After a failed marriage and a damaged career, he eventually fell into depression. On December 10, 2004, Gary Webb was found dead from two fatal gunshouts wounds to the head, whose entry points were in the back of the head; not the side or front of the head, but the back of the head.

Suvian: Why is that important?

Greco: Well, you tell me Suvian. The coroner officially labelled his death a suicide...

Suvian: ... (assailed by an onset of cogdiz...)

Greco: A suicide. And so looking back at our original idea that there is a price to be paid for exceeding the acceptable bounds of critical discourse, let us not forget the work of Gary Webb, whose very life provides overwhelming support for that hypothesis.

a quote from Gary Webb:

"The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job...The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress." --Into the Buzzsaw, chapter 14

Dialogues with Greco, "On Zachary Taylor"

...and cherries and milk...

Greco: Suvian, if I were to ask you what was probably the most decisive issue in America in the mid-nineteenth century, what would you say?

Suvian: That would have to be the slavery issue.

Greco: Agreed. And there was also the issue of how to deal with slavery in the newly acquired territories of that time, namely California and New Mexico. The question of whether slavery should be allowed in those new territories or not was a hotly contested one.

Suvian: And those newly acquired territories were a result of the U.S. winning the Mexican-American War, were they not?

Greco: That's right. But remember, the size of California and New Mexico today is completely different from what it was in those days--combined together, California and New Mexico basically comprised everything west of the Rio Grande all the way out to the Pacific Ocean, a huge territory that we have come to think of as "the West" in the American psyche.

Suvian: I see.

Greco: And if I were to ask you who the hero of the Mexican-American War was, what would you say?

Suvian: Hmm...let's see...that would probably be a former president...

Greco: Yes, and his name was Zachary Taylor, who soon after that war became the twelfth president of the U.S. in 1849. Though a slaveholder, he was against the extension of slavery into the newly acquired territories, and this made him unpopular with his Southern constituency, whose interests he directly threatened.

Suvian: How so?

Greco: Those in the South who wished to see the extension of the slavery system into the new territories saw it as a direct threat to their interests that the president did not support such a policy. And it wasn't only from the South that Taylor received opposition. His own vice-president, Millard Fillmore, was against it, favoring, along with many others in Washington, a more concessionary approach to the issue. In fact, Fillmore was a vehement supporter of the Compromise of 1850, a bill seeking resolution that heavily acquiesced itself to slaveholder interests.

Suvian: And did the bill go through?

Greco: Before answering that, first let it be known that as long as Taylor was alive, the bill would never go through, because he was staunchly against it. But it was eventually passed...

Suvian: How's that?

Greco: On July 9th, 1850, Zachary Taylor died mysteriously of an acute onset of gastroenteritis, supposedly as a result of eating too many cherries and drinking too much milk after the previous July 4th celebrations. Less than a month after his death, the bill went through.

Suvian: Are you saying there's a relationship between the passing of the bill and Taylor's death? Or more generally, between his anti-extensionist stance and his death?

Greco: I'm saying that to even consider such a notion causes a severe case of cognitive dissonance, both for those relegated the authority to define history (the intellectuals), and for those who come to rely on that history to define their experience of who and what they are (the masses). Any investigations into possible foulplay have been met with derision by professional historians and America's intellectual sweetheart, The New York Times. Taylor's death was officially attributed to gastroenteritis, which is actually a set of symptoms, not a cause, and as such, leaves the question of his death unanswered.

Suvian: So cognitive dissonance functions to keep the flow of thought within acceptable boundaries, and one effect of that is not being able to consider possibilities outside of those boundaries...

Greco: Yes, and remember it is largely the intellectual's job to define those boundaries for us...you can think of intellectuals as a kind of "secular priesthood", if you will.

Suvian: I see. And so with regard to the death of Zachary Taylor, are you saying that he was poisoned?

Greco: I fear that question will forever remain a mystery, my dear Suvian. But the circumstances surrounding his death provide us with an excellent example of cognitive dissonance in action--cherries, milk, and all.

In closing, let us not forget the precept of Occam, namely that from a given range of explanations, the simplest is usually the best.

Dialogues with Greco, "On Thought Constraint"

...and how the media perpetuates it...

Greco: Suvian, if I were to ask you to speculate on the relationship between the information that we receive and the thoughts that we are able to make as a result, how would you respond?

Suvian: That there is a definite relationship between the two.

Greco: Indeed, Suvian, there is. When you want to learn about current events, about the happenings of the world, what do you do?

Suvian: I'll pick up a newspaper, watch the news on tv, or look on-line.

Greco: What else can we do? The public relies on those sources to stay informed. But do you consider the news that we recieve to be value-free, or neutral?

Suvian: Value-free or neutral?

Greco: For example, if you are told by the media that the purpose of the U.S. government's involvement in a third world country is to democratize it, would that satisfy you, Suvian?

Suvian: Well, I might suspect that there's something fishy going on, but find it hard to put a finger on it exactly.

Greco: True enough. And why can't you put your finger on it?

Suvian: Hmm...well, I suppose because I don't have any other points of reference.

Greco: Interesting! And why don't you have any other points of reference?

Suvian: I can't say exactly...

Greco: Right...at this point, it is safe to say that you are experiencing a form of cognitive dissonance my dear Suvian. Perhaps you have reached the edge of your extant knowledge on the subject, beyond which things seem cloudy or murky. I would like to propose the following idea to you, Suvian--the reason that you don't have other points of reference is simply because they are not made available to you, or to anyone, by the mainstream media.

Suvian: (!)

Greco: I'm afraid that this brings about even more cognitive dissonance, because we are all raised to believe that the media are trustworthy, that they are endowed with integrity, that their high standards are high, and their methods thorough. And indeed, these qualities may be present to a greater or lesser degree. But I ask you to consider this--fundamentally, what are the media, Suvian?

Suvian: (coughs)...hmm...well...let's see...

Greco: The media are a business, selling a product, like all businesses must do.

Suvian: A product?

Greco: Yes, a product. The media are selling a product to their customers, which sounds normal enough, wouldn't you say?

Suvian: Yes...

Greco: But the "product" they are selling is us, the readership or viewership, while their "customers" are the advertisers on whom they depend for their revenue.

Suvian: Wait a minute. I'm getting some cogdiz here...I thought that we were the customers, buying a product, the news, from a particular source, such as CNN, The New York Times, etc.

Greco: That's one way to look at it. But if you consider who the players really are, we get a different picture of what's going on. Did you know that the illustrious New York Times gets around 75% of its revenue from advertising, for example?

Suvian: No, I didn't.

Greco: Well, here is where I want to make my point, Suvian. If a newspaper the caliber of The New York Times depends so heavily on advertisers to succeed, wouldn't it only make sense then that they must acquiesce themselves to the demands and pressures placed upon them by those advertisers?

Suvian: Yes...

Greco: And that those demands and pressures function as a kind of constraint on the information that they publish?

Suvian: How so?

Greco: Let's say that you are a vendor at a market. If your customers regularly ask for a certain kind of product, but you choose not to stock it, you will likely not do very well. The same can be said of the media and their relationship with advertisers. Increasingly, the advertisers (the customers) come from the big-business sector, and as such they are looking for certain audiences to promote their products in (i.e., a certain product). It is a matter of course that the content the media disseminate to the public will be in minimal conflict with or only superficially critical of the advertisers on whom they depend (that done in order to give the appearance that an independent and critical media actually exists), for if it were not, they could not stay in business. And this, Suvian, is one way in which thought constraints are built into the very bowels of the media itself.

Suvian: So the particular nature of the relationship between the media and advertisers inherently limits the information that the public is presented with, which may explain in part why alternative points of view about a given topic are usually lacking.

Greco: Yes. Presenting perspectives that may be damaging to advertisers and the interests they represent (i.e., big business) is a step below sacrilegious, which makes it difficult for the media to be critical, and that limits the information that the public recieves, and over time, the cognitive choices that they are able to make.

Suvian: Going back to the beginning of this conversation, this provides an example of the case that as diversity is undermined, so is democracy.

Greco: Yes. And to bring this argument to a conclusion, I would say that the relationship between the media and advertisers places limits on the ideological spectrum that is presented to the public. The public may perceive that spectrum to be natural (remember, it was once a widely held belief that the earth was flat), but that spectrum is in fact limited and framed within certain boundaries, both intentionally and unintentionally, by those with the vested interests and power to do so. Purpose? Self-preservation, which is only instinctual, after all.

Dialogues with Greco, "On Economic Choice"

...and its relation to democracy...

Greco: Suvian, if I were to ask you what is the one thing that sets us apart as Americans, something that makes us special in the world, the thing for which other nations in the world pine for, but has its clearest and most desirable expression in our society, how would you respond?

Suvian: Hmm...let me see...well, I think that would have to be the idea of "freedom"...

Greco: Can you be a little more specific? "Freedom" is such lofty concept...

Suvian: Well, the idea that as Americans, we live in a society in which democracy recieves its most abundant and fruitful expression...that the historical struggles our country has experienced has culminated itself into the democratic principles that lie at the foundation of our society...

Greco: Well said. Tell me more about those "democratic principles"...

Suvian: Those democratic principles include an abundance of civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms...

Greco: That is true...these represent some of the core values of our democracy as we know it. But in looking at the way things work today, wouldn't you grant me that economic choice is also a kind "freedom"?

Suvian: Well, yes I would agree with that...

Greco: That it is logical to say that the more choices we have, the more freedom we have?

Suvian: Yes...

Greco: That the idea of diversity is an essential part of democracy?

Suvian: Yes...

Greco: Keeping that line of thought, how would you describe the kinds of economic choices that you make these days?

Suvian: Well, everyone makes dozens of economic choices everyday, ranging from the phone company they use, to the books they read and the food they eat, for example.

Greco: True. And do you have any guiding principles in how you make those choices? What makes you decide to buy something or not?

Suvian: Well, price is certainly a big factor, especially for the more everyday kind of things like food, clothing, etc.

Greco: Right...and that's very practical of you, Suvian. Saving money on everyday expenses is a good way to watch your budget...are there any other things you think about when deciding to buy something?

Suvian: Yes. Sometimes I think about who makes the product and whether or not I agree with or want to support that company by buying their goods. Sometimes this means buying a product which is more expensive, but I feel that the expense is worth it because I am supporting a company whose values I agree with.

Greco: So price is not always the bottom line?

Suvian: Right...but what concerns me more and more these days is the increasing consolidation of products into "super-stores" and "mega-centres" where almost any product can be found at a cheap price...

Greco: And why does this concern you?

Suvian: Well, there are two sides to it. One is economic. These super-stores are closing down the local shops, making it more and more difficult for them to stay in business. The second is about choice. As the super-stores continue to grow and spread across the country, how does this affect the choices that we can make? It would seem to narrow them, such that the choices made available to us are increasingly determined by the super-stores, at the expense of the local stores...

Greco: And, might I say, at the expense of democracy.

Suvian: How so?

Greco: Earlier, we agreed that diveristy is a necessary component of democracry, did we not?

Suvian: Yes we did.

Greco: Then it stands to reason that as our economic choices become increasingly constrained and limited by the super-store phenomenon, by the multi-national corporations that provide them with the goods, and by governments that readily endorse "the rising tide will lift all boats" ideology, that it is democracy itself that stands to lose out in this process.

Suvian: Hmm...but surely we will still be free?

Greco: To what end? If choices made available to us are increasingly put into the hands of a powerful few, then how is that "free"? No, Suvian, that is not democracy. That is the natural development of embracing capitalism, and the corollaries with fascism are striking.