The past several days has seen a perplexing and continuing spin and odd phraseing of the debate on the illegal immigration problem. This brings to mind that recently some members of the press, particularly the White House Press Corps, and several leading newspapers, were complaining that the American public was in a frame of mind to "simply shoot the messenger", to blame the media for the bad news they were reporting, whether it be on Iraq, or domestic issues like the immigration imbroglio.
However, I submit that rarely has a "Messenger" so rated and earned that curse, the proverbial shooting. With the possible and instructive exception of the "Yellow Journalism" that helped trigger the Spanish-American War in the 1890's, more than any other time, today's media does rate "the blame" for much of the ills currently plagueing the national psyche. Protests that they are simply "reporting what is happening, don't blame us" fall flat once it is realized how calculated both the instances of omission of reporting are, and in phraseing of mention and issues.
Two examples will suffice. Regarding the Iraq War, it is demonstrable and well-attested that in many cases, the press corps does not move far from the hotels they are billeted at, and focus on simply obtaining and running footage of the latest bombing or insurgent atttack. Almost no effort is made to describe and report, let alone actually go out and chronicle, the efforts of our troops and Iraqi forces in the rebuilding effort, or to determine the true parameters of unrest, or even more crucially, where enemy activity is weak or or on the wane. It is something of a historical truism that if you say something long enough, it will become self-fulfilling. The media has spent much time "talking down" the Iraq War, and all but excluding tangible reports and coverage of the real successes and progress clearly documented by many military participants and bloggers. They have done this so long, that the insurgent and terrorist activity is not only encouraged, but bolstered. For the coverage has been disgustingly knaive, sometimes going as far as characterizing the terrorist counter-strikes as "freedom fighters". Never mind that these are freedom-fighters that do not hesitate to kill real freedom expression by seeking to intimidate and disrupt votes and elections.
This is not "reporting" -- this is spin, pure and simple. Its as insane as if the U.S. Press had spent all its time covering attrition losses of crewmen on American destroyers to strafing Japanese Zeros during the battle of Guadalcanal, with little coverage of the progress toward the final securing of the island being announced. Whatever one feels about the administration's drive to war --- and this writer holds the White House Public relations style and quality in great disdain - it can rightly be said that with a "Messenger" such as this on the war front, it arguably would be best to have none at all. It is that bad. In their apparent desire to relive the 1960's much of the media moguls have reprenhensibly mis-characterized and talked down Operation Iraqi Freedom to an extent that favors the enemy's goals more than any truth. In the late 1890's yellow journalism sought and unleashed a war for Cuba's future --- in the 2000's an analogous yellow journalism seeks now to lose a war for Iraq's future. The style and lack of quality, the blatant lying, the methods are all the same. All that is different is the goal.
However, it can be granted that Iraq is a controversial matter and undertaking, and its relation to 9/11 and the War on Terror not always clear. A better example of where the "Messenger" is rightly blamed and accountable, not really subject to any dispute, is the ridiculous atmosphere that the immigration reform is being debated within. Namely, the "protests" against the immigration reform are being treated as some kind of civil rights issue, when its about illegality; Period. The American people are wanting something done about massive illegal immigration and a wholesale virtual migration untested across the border. For the press to hesitate to speak of illegal aliens/immigrants, to even suggest that to wish to enforce the law is in some way racist or insensitive, is patent absurdity. And lest the point be missed, is certainly not "just reporting what is happening". No, it is demoguguery, and about an issue that needs to be soberly but firmly debated and dealt with.
After all, its no secret that there is no easy solution. Many businesses want things to stay the way they are regarding cheap labor, and arguably, this may be of greater need than enforceing the law. But all the more reason for the press to tackle this aspect, instead of seeking to demonize those wanting border reform and enforcement. Though it is true that it is activist agitators or foolish officials like Senator Kennedy that have sought to hijack and demogogue the debate by making false and frankly stupid comparisons to the Civil Rights movement, the press corps bears the blame for abetting this and lending it false credence in its reporting. The problem is simple, though the solution and best answer is not: this is about foreign nationals entering America without permission and established process, and in secret -- in short, entering illegally. Many leading newspapers seem to have forgotten that one of the primary duties and responsibilities of the Federal government is controlling and defending the borders. It is not helpful to help poison the atmosphere and distort the already contentious issue being debated in the Congress.
These two examples share something in common: the current tendency of today's "messengers" of the press, and for that matter, party figures, to over-simplify and reduce to a blatantly inaccurate caricture the discourse about serious and complex national and global issues. To these may be added a third example, one from the other side of the coin, which only makes the justness of "blameing the messenger" all the more appropriate. That is the simultaneous failure to truly play "watchdog" and balance to official misconduct and corruption, and instead spilling droves of ink or hours of air time on various and highly particular domestic frivolities or the latest crime/disappearance. Instead of seeking out the truth, whether speaking of the `Left' or `Right' outlets, there is too much eagerness to run with the claim that is the most sensational, and usually the most damaging to the opposite side, without proper deference to the national interest, or even when necessary rooting out and calling attention to the real ongoing legal distortions of politics and authority.
Thus, currently, both as `Reporter' or `Watchdog', this current brand of "Messengers" fully deserves the blame an increasingly disgusted public heaps upon it. The age of "Yellow journalism" fortunately reached an end and turn to the better, and its time this one begin its reform as well.
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Oh, I can see it now. Future historians and researchers look back in time in an attempt to gain perspective on the past through contemporary articles and reporting.
November 12th, 1864. Headline:Atlanta's gardens sure to prosper this spring. Fire removes heavy overgrowth. Or perhaps this one: August 25th, 410: Rome cleared of cumbersome artifacts, people. Or perhaps the Confederacy should have reported on July 4th, 1863: Shoes gathered in Northern Raid. That would certainly put the proper spin on things.
There has been a wealth of reporting concerning the conditions in Iraq, from reporters brave enough to travel through unsafe streets and cities. These reports, generally found in on-line journals and print have detailed both the re-construction and insurrection in detail and at great risk to themselves. Over 81 reporters have been killed so far. To tar the entire press corp with your brush is lazy and inaccurate. I would also appreciate if you would cite a mainstream use of "freedom fighters". In most of the things I have read concerning Iraq, the terms terrorists, jihadists, or insurgents were used. Unless you are siting the World Com, or the Socialist Web as your sources for your claims.
While you're at it, please explain the motives and plans of the "media moguls" to relive the 60's.The last time I looked, almost the entire main stream media structure of the US was owned by major conglomerates; Time-Warner, News Corp, Sony, Bertelsmann, Gannet, GE. I am at a loss to even understand your comment.
From reading this post, it is clear that you have a very narrow choice of your daily news. Probably a morning right-wing talk show and Fox News. I suggest that you expand your intake to include more diverse news sources and you will see that there are places where one can get a wide balance of news. detailed, accurate and sober. If you are looking for such a thing in the mass media however, you are bucking a even greater trend than "spin". It's called Capitalism. Good luck with that one.
Hmm...from what poster chinggis said, it would appear that my post was fundamentally misconstrued. Since others may thus do the same, I will indulge myself with a few clarifying remarks. Given that the point of disagreement appears to be Iraq, its important that it at least be on the right basis.
For I find I agree with the post far more than disagree. To wit:
"There has been a wealth of reporting concerning the conditions in Iraq, from reporters brave enough to travel through unsafe streets and cities. These reports, generally found in on-line journals and print have detailed both the re-construction and insurrection in detail and at great risk to themselves."
Not denying that at all, but that is precisely mostly the new or alternative media. My complaints was directed at the mainstream network and cable media's presentation.
"From reading this post, it is clear that you have a very narrow choice of your daily news. Probably a morning right-wing talk show and Fox News."
Not unless you consider MSNBC and CNN right-wing. However, as clarified above, I was not referring to online journals or embedded efforts. If such was implied, its unfortunate.
One other note: "While you're at it, please explain the motives and plans of the "media moguls" to relive the 60's.The last time I looked, almost the entire main stream media structure of the US was owned by major conglomerates; Time-Warner, News Corp, Sony, Bertelsmann, Gannet, GE. I am at a loss to even understand your comment."
This is partly because on reflection, the commment should not have been included in the post. It refers to a larger observation that here has insufficient context. It refers to a phenomena by which politicians and major anchors alike are easily perceived as readily interpreting everything today through a 1960's lens, whether it be referring to domestic issues or the war. And this often holds for either the left or right wing in public discourse today.
Chinggis' last paragraph highlights the actual agreement: "I suggest that you expand your intake to include more diverse news sources and you will see that there are places where one can get a wide balance of news. detailed, accurate and sober. *If you are looking for such a thing in the mass media however, you are bucking a even greater trend than "spin".* "
Agree! Both on the first part and the last. It is the character of precisely what that mass media, whether CBS or FOX, throws at the public that was the issue.
Good post.
- Anthony
“If you are looking for such a thing in the mass media however, you are bucking an even greater trend than ‘spin.’ It's called Capitalism. Good luck with that one.”
A review of the movies Hollywood was producing five to ten years ago established that there were more agendas at work in its selection and treatment of topics for film than merely the financial bottom line. Some media (re: art forms, of which film is only occasionally one) should be free of the whims of public opinion, but that concept has unfortunately leaked into journalism, a field that should be more responsive to the public’s needs for accurate information than most. (Not to say that journalism doesn’t indulge absurdities disguised as “what the public wants,” with no finer example than the beyond ridiculous term “homicide bomber” used by Fox News.)
Walter Cronkite, as anchor of the CBS Evening News, was once called “the most trusted man in America,” indicating the respect and position that used to be given to journalism in this country.
I agree with Mr. Tully’s comment here: “It is the character of precisely what that mass media, whether CBS or FOX, throws at the public that was the issue.” It is unreasonable to expect even most Americans to spend time seeking out accurate news sources on Iraq or any other issue, and if mainstream journalism (as opposed to advertising) refuses to operate in the public good, there must be greater transparency about their ‘real' agenda, whether financial (partly) or ideological (mostly).
Therefore, I don’t believe it should be the lone responsibility of lesser-known journalists working for lesser-known publications or on-line journals to report the facts well and accurately. And it’s not hard to imagine that “freedom of the press” is the only reason there hasn’t been harsher (and publicly mandated) gov’t regulation of the mainstream media – the kind of regulation that resulted in the limits and prohibitions on both content and advertising in the Food and Drug Acts. But have the mainstream media so distorted what “freedom of the press” means that what they engage in makes a mockery of the intentions of that praised phrase?
Embracing cynicism is certainly not the way to go in addressing the troubling antics of the mainstream media.
Psych said,
"A review of the movies Hollywood was producing five to ten years ago established that there were more agendas at work in its selection and treatment of topics for film than merely the financial bottom line."
A review? By whom? Which films? What agendas? Which studios? Just curious. I am thinking this was meant to refute the "60's mogul vs. corporate ownership" impasse noted prior which refered to the ownership of the mass media news outlets, not the supposed agendas of Hollywood instigators.
But that is an aside. The real meat of the post is the decrying of the mass media's responsibility to inform. In my post, I simply stated that the media organizations are owned and operated by corportations. And with the exception of public television, all the news shows get their revenue from advertising. It is very clear, especially in the last few years that the various news shows have branded themselves in a clear effort to attract a certain audience. And for no other reason than delivering that audience to its advertisers. While their content is idealogical based (and often biased), their goal is higher audience share, not to inform.
The solution is not a FDA style Truth Commision. It is in using the technologies of the internets to gather well rounded and diverse sources of news and taking the time to review, evaluate and digest what those sources offer. This is certainly within the bounds of even the most time strapped American. In addition to providing accurate and in-depth news, it also denies the mass media precisely what they covet, an audience.
To address this aside in its own comment, I previously stated: "A review of the movies Hollywood was producing five to ten years ago established that there were more agendas at work in its selection and treatment of topics for film than merely the financial bottom line."
Chinggis responded:
"A review? By whom? Which films? What agendas? Which studios? Just curious."
The most relevant review to this topic was conducted by the Dove Foundation. In an analysis of the profitability of 2380 wide-release films from 1988 to 1997, it was found that the average G-rated film produced 8-times more gross profit and had a 78% greater rate of return on investment than the average R-rated film; however, 17 times more R-rated films were produced than G-rated films. (Quoted from 1999 ROI Study found here: http://www.dove.org/research/stats.htm)
The Dove Foundation continued its study in 2005, finding that from the period of 1989-2003, regarding profit, the average R movie made $7 million, the average PG-13 movie made $24 million, the average PG movie made nearly $28 million and the average G movie made nearly $79 million. However, since 2001, there has been a trend to produce more general audience fares.
I don't support the Dove Foundation's own agenda to demand more family friendly fare or the MPAA's frequently nonsensical rationale in differentiating content appropriate for PG-13, R or NC-17 ratings, but I cannot find fault in the Dove Foundation's methodology or its conclusion that Hollywood disproportionately makes films with content that end up being less profitable than films for a general audience. Money clearly isn't the only bottom line.
If one wants to look at another agenda from a similar time period (let's say, 1997-2001), one can examine Hollywood's self-congratulatory pats on its back more commonly known as the Academy Awards. In 1999, two African-American men were nominated for acting (Denzel Washington and Michael Clarke Duncan) both of whom played convicts (Duncan was even the stereotypical model of the black person who heals and liberates his white guardians). 2001 was the break-out year in which an African-American man (Washington) won Best Actor for playing a corrupt cop, and and African American woman (Halle Berry) won best actress for playing a desperate woman with a husband on death row who finds salvation in a relationship with a white man. These were the years of movies like "Eve's Bayou," "Soul Food," "Bamboozled," and the most wrenching examination of American slavery and its personal effects yet filmed: "Beloved." Hollywood chose to acknowledge performances that played into common stereotypes or fantasies of African-Americans, nevertheless.
Chinggis wrote: "I am thinking this was meant to refute the "60's mogul vs. corporate ownership" impasse noted prior which refered to the ownership of the mass media news outlets, not the supposed agendas of Hollywood instigators."
Most of the film studios are owned by other, bigger, corporations. Clearly, financial issues alone aren't driving what films have been produced, nor do I think it alone drives the content of the news divisions.
Moving away from asides, Chinggis wrote: "It is very clear, especially in the last few years that the various news shows have branded themselves in a clear effort to attract a certain audience. And for no other reason than delivering that audience to its advertisers."
I agree with this, if allowance can be made for the fact that in the case of news programs, it often works backwards - advertisers choose programs that are already attracting a certain demographic (for instance, I don't think CBS Evening News set out to capture the retirement age audience to attract phamaceutical advertisers).
"While their content is idealogical based (and often biased), their goal is higher audience share, not to inform."
I agree here, but would urge greater acknowledgement (on their part) to their audience that indeed, their goal is not to accurately inform, but to entertain. There are some who still believe what they hear on the news as near-gospel truth.
However, I have to disagree here:
"It is in using the technologies of the internets to gather well rounded and diverse sources of news and taking the time to review, evaluate and digest what those sources offer. This is certainly within the bounds of even the most time strapped American."
Most people do NOT have time to do this between job and family responsibilities (and the ridiculous nature of the morning and evening commutes for many people living in suburbia, but that's another subject), and that is assuming that they even have consistent access to the internet. Of those who do have access at home and/or at work and are internet-savvy (I know a number of professionals who aren't) most I know choose one or two sources that they feel gives them reliable news, and don't go about surfing the web for more. To me, this is the importance of getting an accurate, reliable news source. No need to add hoop-jumping to just getting straight facts.
Post a Comment