medialens | We live in a time when compassionate rhetoric is used as a weapon of
state-corporate control. The rhetoric focuses on ethical concerns such
as racial, gender and same-sex equality, but is disconnected from any
kind of coherent ethical worldview. Corporate commentators are thereby
freed to laud these moral principles, even as they ignore high crimes of
state-corporate power.
Thus, it was deemed 'historic', even 'epoch-making', by our corporate culture that Barack Obama was elected the first black president of the United States. And it certainly was
a triumph for racial equality. But the moral significance was hailed by
a media commentariat that proceeded to gaze with blank indifference at
the ethical trailblazer's bombing of seven countries, his deep
involvement in four ongoing, full-scale wars, his devastation of Libya,
and his abject failure to address the apocalyptic threat of climate
change.
Alongside these horrors, Obama's involvement in the Honduran coup,
his diplomatic and military support for Egypt's blood-soaked military
junta, and his $90bn in arms sales sent (in the last four years) to a
Saudi Arabian tyranny wreaking havoc in Syria and Yemen, are mere
footnotes.
None of this matters: for our corporate media, Obama remains, above all, the inspirational first black president.
Similarly, in evaluating Obama's possible successor, the Guardian's editorial 'view on Hillary Clinton' focuses on the problem that she is 'hammering the glass ceiling (again)' of gender inequality:
'with four years as her nation's chief diplomat on the world stage under her belt, Mrs Clinton's personal gravitas is even harder to quibble with than it might have been in 2008'.
So, for the Guardian editors, Clinton has more 'personal gravitas' now - she actually has more dignity, should be taken more seriously. A remarkable response, as we will see. The Guardian continues:
'On foreign policy, her spell as secretary of state leaves her with a somewhat clearer record - she is associated with a rather more interventionist approach than Mr Obama. Her admirers would describe her as a happy mix of the smart and the muscular; doubters will recall her vote for the ruinous invasion of Iraq in 2003, and prefer the Obama-esque oath to first do no harm.'
The cognitive dissonance could hardly be more glaring: Obama's colour
and Clinton's gender are key ethical concerns, and yet Obama's
responsibility for mass killing is not only not a concern, it
is not even recognised. Instead, he continues to be presented as a
benevolent non-interventionist who has consistently chosen to 'do no
harm'.
