Clouzot's "Wages Of Fear" and Capitalism

[Mark Heide]

I just recently watched Henri-Georges Clouzot's Wages of Fear. It's a movie from 1953 that won the Cannes Film Festival Grand Prize. The subject of the story is about an American oil company expoliting local labor for a high paying suicide mission of transporting explosives across Central America. What's interesting is that the original release of the film in the 50's was censored for the 1954 US release, because of its depiction of American capitalist abuse of foreign workers.

It makes me wonder how much more is hidden from the American public today considering that most of our news comes from a limited amount of news organizations. I assume that quite a bit is hidden from the American public, but with the internet news sources their may be hope for more news. I'm not pointing this out to start an argument about anti-Americanism, but I do think that the majority of Americans are ignorant to world events. This is not by choice, but by corporate news censorship in America.

My point is extremes of capitalism is the cause. This should open up a good debate on balancing capitalism and socalism and why the extremes of both don't work. We've seen the former Soviet Union crumble from failed socalism, but will America crumble from failed capitalism?

All opinions welcome.

Mark

[Zeno]

"....but I do think that the majority of Americans are ignorant to world events."

I agree.

"This is not by choice, but by corporate news censorship in America."

I disagree. Consider these suggestions:

News is a business. It must make a profit to stay alive.
You are misinterpreting bias, entertainment-type news coverage for ratings as deliberate censorship. The news in America is slanted (as the news is in every country) but the reasons are manyfold. If you wish to know about world events or different opinions, views, or perspectives there are numerous magazines, websites, newspapers, in the US and outside the US, that have such news etc. All it takes is a little initiative to find things out.

There is another important reason that Americans are ignorant of world events (and culture)... We are a large, self-absorbed country with an educational system that stiffles inquisitiveness and a cosmopolitan outlook to the world. Also, it is my opinion, that many people are simply willfully ignorant about many things, not just "world events". They have no cares or curiousity about anything outside there own community, state, or region.

It must be stated that the U.S. is not alone in this regard but it is prevalent here and has the potential to do the most damage, to the U.S. and the rest of the world, because the U.S. is a dominant force in many areas, politically and economically.


-Zeno

[Mark Heide]

Zeno,

I agree with your points about news being a business and they need to make a profit. Futhermore, I do understand that most of American news media is for entertainment purposes, because that's what makes the most profit. What I consider censorship by corporations is news media like NBC which is owned by GE. I'm picking them as an example because NBC could never report a story about GE or a business that would possibly affect their profits that would be damaging to their bottom line. It is a conflict of interest for a company like GE to own a news media outlet and should have never been allowed to do it. So, you could say that I equate state sponsorship of news, like in Iraq, equivalent to corporations that own major chunks of the news media in the US. Instead of being done by the government it is done by corporations in the US.

A good example of corporate censorship is the 60 Minutes report that was canned due to their relationship with one of the major tobacco companies. I don't remember the exact story, but CBS and this tobacco company were working on an aquisition, due to conflict of interest, the story was canned for years.

The reason why I brought up the Wages of Fear movie is that Hollywood had a relationship with the oil industry and they didn't want 22 minutes of footage shown in the US, since it had a negative impact on US oil companies operating outside of the US. It was not until 1998, 44 years after the original release of the censored version, that this movie finally was released in the US in it's original uncut version.

Another problem in America is that most people only know one language. This is due to our education system that does not require learning an addition language in high school. Because of this, we can only get our news from sources that broadcast or publish in English. Furthermore, most English speaking countries go along with US foreign views, like the UK.

Additional problems with media exist even on the PBS stations. This is due to major corporations, like ADM, sponsoring programming. PBS does not need to make a profit, but they insist on sensationalizing news events. My example here is the McLaughlin Report, were the guests are corporate news media individuals from the major newspapers and TV stations.

Lastly, I agree with your statement "There is another important reason that Americans are ignorant of world events (and culture)... We are a large, self-absorbed country with an educational system that stiffles inquisitiveness and a cosmopolitan outlook to the world. Also, it is my opinion, that many people are simply willfully ignorant about many things, not just "world events". They have no cares or curiousity about anything outside there own community, state, or region."

Thanks for your response

Mark

[eMarkM]

It makes me wonder how much more is hidden from the American public today considering that most of our news comes from a limited amount of news organizations.

A lot less than any socialist country has hidden from its populace or ever will. With the internet there's more news outlets than ever. This statement simply isn't true. Any one of us can start our own virtual news organization if we want. There's a myriad of alternative news sources that one can turn to that does not toe the "corporate line". I can't agree with your statement that Americans are completley out of touch with world affairs. Compared to whom?

This is not by choice, but by corporate news censorship in America

Censorship can only be done by governments by point of gun. A news organization is free to print whatever it wants outside of libel.

[nicky g]

A European point of view, from someone who works for a free-speech organisation (not that that makes me an expert; I'm the monkey boy):
"Any one of us can start our own virtual news organization if we want. There's a myriad of alternative news sources that one can turn to that does not toe the "corporate line". "

I agree. There is a lot of corporate distortion of facts and burying of unfavourable news by Fox et al, but there's no question that there are other channels for those stories. I think the longstanding commitment to free speech in the states is under attack, but there's no question it has one of the most free presses in the world. There are some dubious issues surrounding libraries, schools, prisons, and the INS, but that's about it.

"A lot less than any socialist country has hidden from its populace or ever will. "
I'm really tired of this. Socialism does not mean totalitarianism, any more than capitalism means Latin Merican military dictatorships. There are plenty of examples of democratic socialist governments and states with a free press.

"I can't agree with your statement that Americans are completley out of touch with world affairs. Compared to whom?"

Completely out of touch, no, of course not. But relative to European countries, American knowledge of the world around them seems poorer to me. If you compare a good European newspaper to a good American newspaper, there is a lot more international news in the European one. That goes ten-fold for television news, which I find really poor in the States compared to say the BBC (and it's by no means perfect). Fox news is a travesty in this respect, and CNN has gotten really bad since it was taken over by AOLTimeWarner. In my experience, Europeans are in general much better informed about the US than Americans are about Europe. I suppose that's inevitable given the US's position in global politics adn cultural dominance.

[nicky g]

PS Freedom of Information, which I think is often a more important issue in Western democracies, given that outandout censorship is relatively rare, is far better protected in American than just about anywhere (Canada isn't bad either). FOI in many European states is a joke. That said, there is perhaps more covert/illegal suppression in the states. And let's face it, Dick Cheney ain't no Freedom of Info lover. The worst Western European state for censorship etc is by far and away Italy, which is a lunatic asylum under Berlusconi. Italian journalists are genuinely scared of him.

[eMarkM]

But relative to European countries, American knowledge of the world around them seems poorer to me.

I would agree. I'm the only one I know who subscribes to The Economist. Their coverage compared to any American news weekly is a joke. Time looks more and more like People magazine every day. I have no doubt the same goes for TV coverage, too.

It also stems from the fact that the US is oceans away from the rest of the world's problems (well, pre 9-11 anyway). Europe cares more about the rest of the world, but the "rest of the world" is much closer to them. But aside from Europe, I think America stands up very well in being concerned about world events.

I'm really tired of this. Socialism does not mean totalitarianism

I suppose, but more often times the great power given to the state in socialist countries make it easier to slip into suppressive regimes than does capitalism. I think a mistake socialists make is comparing socialism in its ideal to capitalism in its reality and stating the socialism is the way to go. Comparing capitalism in its reality to socialism in its reality isn't even close, capitalism in a landslide. The proof is all the people who vote with their feet in trying to get out of socialist countries to ones with more freedoms (ie capitalism).

[Baltimore Ron]

This gets a little tiring after awhile. Who gives a rat's patootie if Americans don't speak second languages, or don't like soccer, or like McDonald's hamburgers.

Let's face facts. While the U.S. is not the universe, it is at least the center of it. Take any measure you want: GDP, technological advancement, Nobel prizes in the sciences, movies and TV shows, what have you. The U.S., with less than 5% of the world's population, exceeds the accomplishments of any other country, or group of countries, on the planet. And don't get me started on our supposed "betters" in Europe. History has left them in its wake. Europe's biggest achievement in the last century was to start two world wars that it couldn't even finish without American assistance.

As to second languages, why bother? English is the universal language. There's no need to learn another if you speak it. Viva la Anglosphere!

For you those of you out there who aren't Americans (and even some who are), if you'd like an insight into the character of a large portion of this country, read The Jacksonian Tradition (http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html). It's a long and nuanced examination of an influential part of the American community. Enjoy.

BR

[IrishHand]

Take any measure you want
ok - how about the UN quality of life index (actually called the Human Development Index)? The US, for all it's glory, ranks 6th. And lest ye get all excited - it's a pretty objective standard. (Based on "life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income.")

I used to think pretty well the way you do. Then I decided that happiness and quality of life were more important than power and money. This country does a great job with the latter two, generally at the expense of the former.

Who gives a rat's patootie if Americans don't speak second languages, or don't like soccer, or like McDonald's hamburgers.
Nobody - so long as you're happy being ignorant, lazy and fat. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Mark Heide]

You stated,"A news organization is free to print whatever it wants outside of libel."

My response to this, of course, is if their parent company, like GE for example, will let NBC report it.

There are many news organizations that print whatever they want, but most Americans get their news from ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and CNN. All of these news organizations are not independent, and therefore follow the policies of their parent companies.

Lastly, I would like to know what are the myriads of alternative news sources that one can turn to that does not toe the "corporate line". I do not know of any alternative on radio, TV, or cable.

What I find even more amazing is that most of the Americans that watch these major news shows believe everything they are told. What a bunch of sheep!

Good Luck

Mark

[Baltimore Ron]

Irish,

Ok, I'll stipulate for the moment that the HDI is an "objective" standard, even though this is the same organization that recently installed Libya as head of the UN Human Rights Commission. /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

However, a short visit to the undp website was instructive. The HDI for the top six countries ranges from .942 for Norway (#1) to .939 for the US (#6). Not that great a spread. But then, my point was that the US is the best, so I guess I need some more ammo.

While the calculation of the index might be straightforward, there are assumptions underlying the calculation that certainly are judgment calls. For instance - education, life expectancy and per capita GDP are all given equal weight. Why? IMHO, education is an input and GDP is an output. If a country such as Sweden (#2 at .941) has a higher education score but a lower (much lower) GDP, this, to me, would indicate a problem, not a strength. On a strictly anecdotal level, I am aware of the tendancy in many western european countries for young people to spend extra years in school largely because of a lack of other opportunities. Yet, all of these young adults marking time in school raises a country's education score.

Another problem I have with the HDI's assumptions. GDP is the one measure that's done on a log scale (from GDP of 100=0 to GDP of 40,000=100). The other two measures are on a linear scale. Here's a glaring expamle: Sweden gets an education score of almost 100 due to 100% school enrollment and 99% literacy (assumed) while the US gets an education score of 98 with enrollment of 95% and literacy of 99% (assumed). Life expactancy scores are 91 for Sweden (79.7 yrs) and 87 for the US (77 yrs.) So far, so good. GDP, however looks very different. The US gets a score of 97 with GDP of $34,142 and Sweden, with almost one-third less GDP ($24,297) receives a score of 92. WTF? I understand all about marginal utility, but this seems a little out of whack to me. And why wouldn't marginal utility apply to education as well, or even to life expectancy. The HDI is essentially saying that being one-third poorer is ok as long as you live two-and-a-half more years. I'm sorry, but that's a judgement call, not objectivity.

Your thoughts?