Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Framing the Sixties

by RON JACOBS

The 1960s continue to open and salt wounds in the US political and cultural psyche over forty years later.  From the holiday celebrating a domesticated Martin Luther King, Jr. to the hysterical hype around the Black Panthers and Weather Underground, the actual history of that period continues to be manipulated and misrepresented by popular journalism, Hollywood and TV, creating a scenario where fiction becomes fact and facts become harder and harder to discover.  The skeptical observer might ask if there is some kind of conspiracy afoot to obliterate the radical reality of that time period.

Author and historian Edward Morgan doesn’t go that far in his recently published study of the 1960s and the media, but he does raise interesting and pertinent questions regarding the nature of the fifth estate’s (and its fictional counterpart in Hollywood) representation of that period’s popular struggles then and now.  According to Morgan, it’s not that the media didn’t cover the movements against racism and imperial war in the period known as The Sixties.  It’s how they covered them.  Of course, one might argue that any coverage was better than the almost complete lack of media attention most progressive grassroots movements experience today.

Like many other historians that focus on the period, Morgan accepts an understanding that the mainstream media sees the Sixties historically as being divided into two primary periods.  First, there were the “good” Sixties.  This was when African-American and white Americans battled racist laws and those who upheld them in America’s south.  Their tactics were nonviolent and their cause was morally unimpeachable.  A complementary part of this history puts men like the Kennedy brothers and Lyndon Baines Johnson at the front of this struggle against segregation and for racial justice.  Morgan points out that this retelling ignores the very real facts that the mainstream media was not as supportive of the antiracist movement during that period as it claims it was now.  Furthermore, both the Kennedys and LBJ were forced by events to support civil rights legislation that was opposed by the very powerful Southern wing of their political party.  They did not carry the torch of civil rights until it was politically necessary.

The “bad” Sixties, then, were composed of Black Panthers, urban riots, radical students fighting police and blowing up buildings, and so-called hippies like Charles Manson.  Morgan calls these elements “media outsiders” and contends that the portrayal of these “outsiders” as such was related to the media’s role in defining the parameters of dissent–parameters which had been transgressed repeatedly by 1968.  In addition, it was the combination of those parameters, the “outsiders” desire to get their message across to the broader public, and the media’s portrayal of those attempts as spectacle that combined to limit the appeal of those whose protests targeted the roots of the war in Vietnam and racism in the United States.  In other words, truly radical and anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist debate was considered foreign by the mainstream media (liberal and conservative) and would be treated as such, no matter what.

Morgan provides example after example.  Martin Luther King Jr was a true hero of the media until he publicly spoke out against the US war on the people of Vietnam.  Betty Friedan and her Feminine Mystique was palatable once one finished reciting the standard jokes about feminists.  The more radical elements of the women’s movement, on the other hand, were portrayed (and consequently perceived) as men-hating witches and lesbians.  The Beatles were positively presented until they made it known that they took LSD and considered themselves to be part of the counterculture.   And so on.

Behind the delightfully vivid discussions of iconic and not-so-iconic events, people and movements that occurred during the period we call the Sixties is Morgan’s underlying premise that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.  Acknowledging that this premise goes counter to the standard tale we are told by those who rule the United States, Morgan points out that “capitalism and its companion political theory, liberalism, are grounded in a view of humans as essentially self-interested beings” who need political society and its laws only to curb the excesses that such self-interest might create.  Democracy, on the other hand, “rests on a foundation different from the self-interested individualism of capitalism.”  It’s not that humans are not self-centered; it’s that they are so much more than that.  It is the latter actuality, argues Morgan, that informed the popular grassroots movements of the Sixties and continues to inform similar movements today.  Likewise, it is the former supposition that informed (and informs) those in power and their media accomplices.  Therefore, there was bound to be a conflict between those popular movements that depended on participatory democracy and the established power structure.  After all, the fundamental impetus of grassroots democracy is that the people have the power, not some representatives chosen from the power elites or the corporate interests they represent.

If one considers this when studying media representations then and now (of the Sixties and today), it becomes clear that the media understood its tole to be one of protecting the powers that be.  Although this was occasionally difficult, especially when the images presented were impossible to reinterpret in a manner favorable to the power elites, in general the corporate media was able to perform its task.  When images were impossible to explain away, the media merely explained them in such a way that the overall structure of power was unperturbed, while regressive elements that conflict with the necessities of corporate America were rendered to the (often well-deserved) dustbin of history.  No better example comes to my mind than the video of Birmingham police and their dogs attacking civil rights protesters.  The time for legal apartheid had come to an end in the United States and the media was doing its part by pointing to reactionary politicians and police in the US South as the only  racists in the nation.  By doing so, the deeper question of racism’s role in building the modern US economy and its continued existence throughout the US could be whitewashed away.   When the riots in Watts and other US cities proved otherwise, as did Malcolm X and groups like the Black Panthers.  However, true to their role, these phenomena were presented in the media as spectacle without context.  This rendered them meaningless or, even worse, criminal.  As noted above, this scenario replayed itself over and over (and does to this day).  When it came to the war in Vietnam, those who portray(ed) it as a colossal mistake and not an imperial exercise were (and are) given play in the mainstream media, while those who understand things differently are not.

What Really Happened to the 1960s is a look at the role the media played in the presentation and interpretation of the struggles of the 1960s.  Simultaneously, it is a consideration of the meaning of democracy in a society where the media is owned by corporations and elites who consider democracy antithetic to their hegemony.   The nature of democracy is an important element of this book.  Indeed, the need to struggle to regain some democracy in the world is an important element of this book.  It is Morgan’s contention that understanding how corporate media helped and hindered the democratic movements of the Sixties will help us develop today’s grassroots movements.  His text does an excellent job of developing that understanding.

RON JACOBS is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs’ essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch’s collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net

 

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com.

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
September 30, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Henry Giroux
Thinking Dangerously in the Age of Normalized Ignorance
Stanley L. Cohen
Israel and Academic Freedom: a Closed Book
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Can Russia Learn From Brazil’s Fate? 
Andrew Levine
A Putrid Election: the Horserace as Farce
Mike Whitney
The Biggest Heist in Human History
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Sick Blue Line
Rob Urie
The Twilight of the Leisure Class
Vijay Prashad
In a Hall of Mirrors: Fear and Dislike at the Polls
Alexander Cockburn
The Man Who Built Clinton World
John Wight
Who Will Save Us From America?
Pepe Escobar
Afghanistan; It’s the Heroin, Stupid
W. T. Whitney
When Women’s Lives Don’t Matter
Howard Lisnoff
What was Missing From The Nation’s Interview with Bernie Sanders
Julian Vigo
“Ooops, I Did It Again”: How the BBC Funnels Stories for Financial Gain
Jeremy Brecher
Dakota Access Pipeline and the Future of American Labor
Binoy Kampmark
Pictures Left Incomplete: MH17 and the Joint Investigation Team
Andrew Kahn
Nader Gave Us Bush? Hillary Could Give Us Trump
Steve Horn
Obama Weakens Endangered Species Act
Dave Lindorff
US Propaganda Campaign to Demonize Russia in Full Gear over One-Sided Dutch/Aussie Report on Flight 17 Downing
John W. Whitehead
Uncomfortable Truths You Won’t Hear From the Presidential Candidates
Ramzy Baroud
Shimon Peres: Israel’s Nuclear Man
Brandon Jordan
The Battle for Mercosur
Murray Dobbin
A Globalization Wake-Up Call
Jesse Ventura
Corrupted Science: the DEA and Marijuana
Richard W. Behan
Installing a President by Force: Hillary Clinton and Our Moribund Democracy
Andrew Stewart
The Democratic Plot to Privatize Social Security
Daniel Borgstrom
On the Streets of Oakland, Expressing Solidarity with Charlotte
Marjorie Cohn
President Obama: ‘Patron’ of the Israeli Occupation
Norman Pollack
The “Self-Hating” Jew: A Critique
David Rosen
The Living Body & the Ecological Crisis
Joseph Natoli
Thoughtcrimes and Stupidspeak: Our Assault Against Words
Ron Jacobs
A Cycle of Death Underscored by Greed and a Lust for Power
Uri Avnery
Abu Mazen’s Balance Sheet
Kim Nicolini
Long Drive Home
Louisa Willcox
Tribes Make History with Signing of Grizzly Bear Treaty
Art Martin
The Matrix Around the Next Bend: Facebook, Augmented Reality and the Podification of the Populace
Andre Vltchek
Failures of the Western Left
Ishmael Reed
Millennialism or Extinctionism?
Frances Madeson
Why It’s Time to Create a Cabinet-Level Dept. of Native Affairs
Laura Finley
Presidential Debate Recommendations
José Negroni
Mass Firings on Broadway Lead Singers to Push Back
Leticia Cortez
Entering the Historical Dissonance Surrounding Desafinados
Robert J. Burrowes
Gandhi: ‘My Life is My Message’
Charles R. Larson
Queen Lear? Deborah Levy’s “Hot Milk”
David Yearsley
Bring on the Nibelungen: If Wagner Scored the Debates
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]