What do you think?
Rate this book
Gag Rule: On the Suppression of Dissent and the Stifling of Democracy
Award-winning columnist Lewis Lapham issues an urgent new polemic about the strangling of meaningful dissent—the lifeblood of democracy—at the hands of a government and media increasingly beholden to the wealthy few. Never before, Lapham argues, have voices of protest been so locked out of the mainstream conversation, so marginalized and muted by a government that recklessly disregards civil liberties. In the midst of the “war on terror,” we face a crisis of democracy as serious as any in our history. Gag Rule is a rousing and necessary call to action in defense of the right to raise our voices and have those voices heard.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
4 people are currently reading
241 people want to read
About the author
Lewis H. Lapham
181 books134 followersLewis Henry Lapham was the editor of Harper's Magazine from 1976 until 1981, and again from 1983 until 2006. He is the founder and current editor of Lapham's Quarterly, featuring a wide range of famous authors devoted to a single topic in each issue. Lapham has also written numerous books on politics and current affairs.
Lapham's Quarterly
http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/
Lapham's Quarterly
http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 14, 2019
"Suck-up coverage is in"
Lapham is addressing what I think is a serious threat to American democracy, namely the suppression of dissent and the curtailment of civil rights. It comes in two forms: one is pressure from government and corporate interests on media and citizens to behave in a way that furthers corporate interests; and the other is from the news media and ourselves, acted out in the form of prior censorship. Thus the quote from Dan Rather: "We begin to think less in terms of responsibility and integrity, which get you in trouble...and more in terms of power and money...Increasingly anybody who subscribes to the idea that the job is not to curry favor with people you cover...finds himself as a kind of lone wolf...Suck-up coverage is in." (p. 99)
Media mavens know what their corporate bosses want to hear, and they are loath to go against them. After all, their jobs are at stake. So even though reporters and newscasters may be middle of the road or even left-leaning types, their public utterances tend to be in line with what their corporate bosses want to hear. And as citizens we also know what our government and our bosses consider right behavior, and sometimes some of us are afraid to go against their wishes because, as Lapham points out, we might be found out. With surveillance cameras on street corners and camera crews filming protest demonstrations, there is a very real chance that protestors will be caught on film. How would such a photo look alongside a resumé? is what some people ask themselves; and, in consequence, they stifle themselves. In chat rooms and discussion boards we often see people using nicknames so that their utterances and their real world personalities cannot be readily connected.
In this long essay (parts of which appeared in Harper's Magazine) Lapham spends a considerable amount of time going back into American history and recalling the suppression of dissent by previous administrations. In particular he shows how civil rights and civil liberties were taken away by our government during times of war or civil unrest. He compares and contrasts the historical record with that of the Bush administration. He makes the point that in declaring a "war" on terrorism, the Bush administration greatly augmented its ability to get around the Bill of Rights. As Lapham phrases it, "by declaring 'war on terrorism' the Bush administration had declared war on an unknown enemy and an abstract noun...[which would be similar to] sending the 101st Airborne Division to conquer lust..." (p. 17)
He adds, "We have a government in Washington that doesn't defend the liberty of the American people, steals from the poor to feed the rich, finds its wealth and happiness in the waging of ceaseless war." (p. 165) In general Lapham believes that "In every instance, and no matter what the issue immediately at hand, the purpose is the same--more laws limiting the freedom of individuals, few laws restraining the freedoms of property." (p. 141)
Working hand-in-hand with the interests of property is our mass media, which is controlled by corporate interests either directly or through their ability to withhold advertising dollars. Lapham, who is the longtime editor of Harper's Magazine and an experienced reporter himself, makes a special point of exposing the failures of newscasters and reporters. He recalls his days with the White House press corps: "I could never escape the impression of a flock of ducks--plump and well-kept ducks, ducks worthy of an emperor's garden--waddling back and forth to the pond on which the emperor's gamekeepers cast the bread crumbs of the news." (p. 98)
On the next page he quotes John Swinton, former chief of staff for the New York Times: "There is no such thing...in America, as an independent press...We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes...Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men."
Lapham sums it up this way: "The media compose the pictures of a preferred reality, and their genius is that of the nervous careerist who serves, simultaneously, two masters--the demos, whom they astound with marvels and fairy tales, and the corporate nobility, whose interests they assiduously promote and defend." (p. 93)
Assuming that Lapham is right, what is to be done? How can we free the press from the corporate influence to the extent that reporters, editors, and newscasters can feel free to report the news as they see it, rather than as their bosses want them to see it? Clearly the antidote to a government that would suppress liberties and stifle dissent is to elect people who will honor and respect the Bill of Rights. But the media is another story since it is inexorably bound up with commercial interests. Lapham does not have an answer to this conundrum. And neither do I. It is a curiosity that the Fourth Estate, powerful even during the time of the formation of the American colonies, is a de facto political force that is not part of the electorate and yet can influence elections. And while it is not part of the government, it can influence government policy.
One feels that as long as corporate interests control the media, the media will continue to be an anti-democratic force in our society. This danger increases dramatically as larger and larger chunks of media fall into fewer and fewer hands.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
Lapham is addressing what I think is a serious threat to American democracy, namely the suppression of dissent and the curtailment of civil rights. It comes in two forms: one is pressure from government and corporate interests on media and citizens to behave in a way that furthers corporate interests; and the other is from the news media and ourselves, acted out in the form of prior censorship. Thus the quote from Dan Rather: "We begin to think less in terms of responsibility and integrity, which get you in trouble...and more in terms of power and money...Increasingly anybody who subscribes to the idea that the job is not to curry favor with people you cover...finds himself as a kind of lone wolf...Suck-up coverage is in." (p. 99)
Media mavens know what their corporate bosses want to hear, and they are loath to go against them. After all, their jobs are at stake. So even though reporters and newscasters may be middle of the road or even left-leaning types, their public utterances tend to be in line with what their corporate bosses want to hear. And as citizens we also know what our government and our bosses consider right behavior, and sometimes some of us are afraid to go against their wishes because, as Lapham points out, we might be found out. With surveillance cameras on street corners and camera crews filming protest demonstrations, there is a very real chance that protestors will be caught on film. How would such a photo look alongside a resumé? is what some people ask themselves; and, in consequence, they stifle themselves. In chat rooms and discussion boards we often see people using nicknames so that their utterances and their real world personalities cannot be readily connected.
In this long essay (parts of which appeared in Harper's Magazine) Lapham spends a considerable amount of time going back into American history and recalling the suppression of dissent by previous administrations. In particular he shows how civil rights and civil liberties were taken away by our government during times of war or civil unrest. He compares and contrasts the historical record with that of the Bush administration. He makes the point that in declaring a "war" on terrorism, the Bush administration greatly augmented its ability to get around the Bill of Rights. As Lapham phrases it, "by declaring 'war on terrorism' the Bush administration had declared war on an unknown enemy and an abstract noun...[which would be similar to] sending the 101st Airborne Division to conquer lust..." (p. 17)
He adds, "We have a government in Washington that doesn't defend the liberty of the American people, steals from the poor to feed the rich, finds its wealth and happiness in the waging of ceaseless war." (p. 165) In general Lapham believes that "In every instance, and no matter what the issue immediately at hand, the purpose is the same--more laws limiting the freedom of individuals, few laws restraining the freedoms of property." (p. 141)
Working hand-in-hand with the interests of property is our mass media, which is controlled by corporate interests either directly or through their ability to withhold advertising dollars. Lapham, who is the longtime editor of Harper's Magazine and an experienced reporter himself, makes a special point of exposing the failures of newscasters and reporters. He recalls his days with the White House press corps: "I could never escape the impression of a flock of ducks--plump and well-kept ducks, ducks worthy of an emperor's garden--waddling back and forth to the pond on which the emperor's gamekeepers cast the bread crumbs of the news." (p. 98)
On the next page he quotes John Swinton, former chief of staff for the New York Times: "There is no such thing...in America, as an independent press...We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes...Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men."
Lapham sums it up this way: "The media compose the pictures of a preferred reality, and their genius is that of the nervous careerist who serves, simultaneously, two masters--the demos, whom they astound with marvels and fairy tales, and the corporate nobility, whose interests they assiduously promote and defend." (p. 93)
Assuming that Lapham is right, what is to be done? How can we free the press from the corporate influence to the extent that reporters, editors, and newscasters can feel free to report the news as they see it, rather than as their bosses want them to see it? Clearly the antidote to a government that would suppress liberties and stifle dissent is to elect people who will honor and respect the Bill of Rights. But the media is another story since it is inexorably bound up with commercial interests. Lapham does not have an answer to this conundrum. And neither do I. It is a curiosity that the Fourth Estate, powerful even during the time of the formation of the American colonies, is a de facto political force that is not part of the electorate and yet can influence elections. And while it is not part of the government, it can influence government policy.
One feels that as long as corporate interests control the media, the media will continue to be an anti-democratic force in our society. This danger increases dramatically as larger and larger chunks of media fall into fewer and fewer hands.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
December 10, 2022
I really liked this analysis albeit the issues might be slightly outdated. The content is relevant and interesting as well as a good reminder for citizens. also a book you could read more than once and still find new things or facts which I always like.
Read
June 22, 2009Read the STOP SMILING interview with author Lewis Lapham
Q&A: Lewis Lapham
By JC Gabel
(This interview originally appeared in STOP SMILING The Downfall of American Publishing Issue)
Stop Smiling: You started your career as a reporter at The San Francisco Examiner. Do you find it strange that going to journalism school has become such a prestigious accomplishment? When you were coming up, it was much more a trade profession where you learned on the job. Do you think that might be what's wrong with journalism today?
Lewis Lapham: Yes, I do. In 1957 when I went to work as a reporter of the lowest grade as a cub at the Examiner, I was the only Ivy League kid on the premises. I probably was the only college educated kid on the premises. It was a trade, a craft. By and large, the attitude of the city room was more in tune with the folks in the bleacher seats at the ballpark rather than with the folks in the box seats. I came to New York in the winter of 1960 and went to the Herald Tribune and that was still by and large the tone at the Herald Tribune. It was when Walter Lippmann was still writing for the paper, but by and large again, it was people that were in it for the hell of it and who did not take themselves or their profession too seriously. Nobody in New York in 1960, at least on the Tribune, would have identified himself as a journalist. Journalism was a word reserved for Englishmen. One was either a newspaperman or a reporter, and again the tendency was still to identify oneself with the have-nots rather than with the haves.
That all changes in the Sixties, and journalism becomes a glamorous profession. In 1960, before Kennedy's election, I am at an Upper East Side cocktail party and a very pretty young girl from Smith or Vassar or something says to me, “What do you do?” And I say, “I'm a newspaperman.” She looks at me with contempt and says, “Yes, but what are you going to do when you grow up?” That was the attitude. Journalists were below the salt. There were a few exceptions. There is still, at least on my part and on the part of a number of other people, a romance to it. The notion that the way that one learns to become a novelist is to spend a few years working for a newspaper, a la Ernest Hemingway or James Thurber or John O'Hara. There were a number of the writers who came out of the Twenties and Thirties that started as newspapermen. That all changes in the Sixties. It begins to change with the election of John Kennedy. Suddenly journalism becomes a high-end profession.
Read the complete interview...
Q&A: Lewis Lapham
By JC Gabel
(This interview originally appeared in STOP SMILING The Downfall of American Publishing Issue)
Stop Smiling: You started your career as a reporter at The San Francisco Examiner. Do you find it strange that going to journalism school has become such a prestigious accomplishment? When you were coming up, it was much more a trade profession where you learned on the job. Do you think that might be what's wrong with journalism today?
Lewis Lapham: Yes, I do. In 1957 when I went to work as a reporter of the lowest grade as a cub at the Examiner, I was the only Ivy League kid on the premises. I probably was the only college educated kid on the premises. It was a trade, a craft. By and large, the attitude of the city room was more in tune with the folks in the bleacher seats at the ballpark rather than with the folks in the box seats. I came to New York in the winter of 1960 and went to the Herald Tribune and that was still by and large the tone at the Herald Tribune. It was when Walter Lippmann was still writing for the paper, but by and large again, it was people that were in it for the hell of it and who did not take themselves or their profession too seriously. Nobody in New York in 1960, at least on the Tribune, would have identified himself as a journalist. Journalism was a word reserved for Englishmen. One was either a newspaperman or a reporter, and again the tendency was still to identify oneself with the have-nots rather than with the haves.
That all changes in the Sixties, and journalism becomes a glamorous profession. In 1960, before Kennedy's election, I am at an Upper East Side cocktail party and a very pretty young girl from Smith or Vassar or something says to me, “What do you do?” And I say, “I'm a newspaperman.” She looks at me with contempt and says, “Yes, but what are you going to do when you grow up?” That was the attitude. Journalists were below the salt. There were a few exceptions. There is still, at least on my part and on the part of a number of other people, a romance to it. The notion that the way that one learns to become a novelist is to spend a few years working for a newspaper, a la Ernest Hemingway or James Thurber or John O'Hara. There were a number of the writers who came out of the Twenties and Thirties that started as newspapermen. That all changes in the Sixties. It begins to change with the election of John Kennedy. Suddenly journalism becomes a high-end profession.
Read the complete interview...
May 17, 2007
In a chillingly cogent treatment, Lapham chronicles the many instances in American history where the powers that be convince the masses to forego civil liberties in the name of chauvinism, er, patriotism. The motivations of these powers range from ideological convictions to naked greed, but the underlying impetus always involves a concerted effort to bamboozle the general populace into accepting the time-honored tiering of power in the United States of America. Ultimately, Lapham makes the case that, while they certainly have some competition from the annals of our country’s history, the current Bush administration has proven to be one of the most adept (and crooked and self-serving and duplicitous) at convincing people to allow them to strip their rights away for the good of the land. Of course, it’s not the good of the land these power merchants are most concerned with—it’s the maintaining of hegemony via concentration of wealth and influence at the top.
July 23, 2009
Excellent book on the value of dissent and thinking for yourself in a democracy! Lapham points out how, as a country, we have a history of squelching dissent and free speech often in the name of national security....from Woodrow Wilson during WWI to the Red Scare of the late 40s and early 50s to the recent fiasco of the Bush administration and Iraq. Each time that we chip away at our freedoms and democracy, we are in fact doing some of the damage that the enemy, itself, was unable to do. Don't read this book if you aren't comfortable having your view of things challenged or aren't willing to think for yourself.
March 10, 2011
On the suppression of dissent and the stiffling of democracy.
I think democracy is dead and buried. We are now living in global autocracies,kingdoms,and aristocracies.
On our way to 1984.
This book is like closing the gate after all the livestock are gone.
As the great Canadian poet Irving Layton said "The sensitive write the insensitive rule".
I think democracy is dead and buried. We are now living in global autocracies,kingdoms,and aristocracies.
On our way to 1984.
This book is like closing the gate after all the livestock are gone.
As the great Canadian poet Irving Layton said "The sensitive write the insensitive rule".
July 26, 2014
Politically, Lapham and I differ more than we agree, but I sympathize with some of his main ideas. As always, he is a treat to read, even when dealing with deadly-serious issues such as the mishandling of our monstrous Frankenstein of a government. This manifesto is a superb example of brilliant rhetoric.
June 9, 2009
Lapham is credible and insightful, and very critical of the media (of which he is a long-time member). Example: "Servile by need, the media become servile in spirit, willing to trade the capacity to think for the security of being told."
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews