June 14, 2004
Gullibility and Mediacracy: a conflict of disinterest
The results of a recent Pew survey, which found that “news audiences are increasingly politicized,” showed also that the US public is increasingly skeptical of the media mass. However, shouldn’t we be quite concerned about the fact that almost one-third of respondents still believe “all or most” of what they are fed by the various rackets?
While Republicans were least likely to trust the news, a whopping 45% of Democrats still believe "all or most" of what they hear on CNN. What is the Democrats' excuse for such gullibility among their ranks? Perhaps observing CNN's response to the new numbers would change the minds of these faithful. Campaign Desk quotes a CNN spokesman saying, "We're obviously pleased . . . Once again we've been voted the most trusted news organization in America." Or is this precisely the kind of rhetoric almost one out of two Democrats finds highly credible? Only with the help of Democrats did CNN win the cable news credibility contest. Overall, 32% of respondents claimed to believe "all or most" of what CNN tells them. FOX came in second with 25%.
Few things expose the moral corruption and civic rot of the Republicans and Democrats more clearly than their complicity, despite their supposed skepticism, in the staging of the news media's version of reality. For instance, they have helped divert the public's attention from media ownership and the tyranny of the big five corporations, to indecency scandals and FCC fines. No doubt this change also reflects the influence of conservative media activists, whose criticism of the industry begins and ends with facile observations about the political leanings of journalists, and complaints about the eroticized and/or vulgar content of regular programming. More serious criticism is denounced as incredible, and confined to the fringes. The very notion of grassroots "media reform" is alien to the discourse of the corporate entity. Forcing the media to cover opposition to their media model as opposition would itself be a victory in any media revolt. Currently, in a mockery of democracy, CNN spinsters are touting a 32% approval rating as a sweeping electoral victory.
Mainstream media criticism remains unsatisfactory because the question of whether a media outfit leans Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, is inconsequential if, in either case, the racket does not question the arrangement by which two minority special interest groups, the Republican and Democratic Parties, maintain total hegemony over the political (dis)order in both the government and the media. In other words, the media are biased in favor of the duopoly. Indeed, they're literally invested in it. "From 1999 through the end of 2003, Washington lobbyists pocketed more than $159 million in big media money to support dismantling rules against conglomerates owning more outlets in more markets," reports Timothy Karr. But we all already know why media reform is not a campaign issue. It's a classic example of a conflict of disinterests: politicians don't want to talk about it, and journalists don't want to investigate it. Karr is literally grasping at straws in his attempt to tie Kerry favorably to the subject. He sums up the Senator's take on media consolidation in this way: "had he been around to vote on last year's proposal to loosen rules against media ownership, he would have voted against it." Sounds like a top priority.
This post originally appeared here.
Posted by charles sanson at June 14, 2004 04:27 PMI think that much of what is reported in the media is generally true, but that the information is so pathetically oversimplified or incomplete as to be virtually false.
For example, almost every media outlet refers to Iraqi insurgents as “Saddam Loyalists” - which is plainly wrong (Saddam is in captivity and leads nobody) and dodges the real question of asking who these insurgents are actually loyal to. Or when media outlets use the expression “undisclosed location” when they really mean “we know where he is but we’re not saying”.
I think that the real problems with the news media are stupidity, greed, laziness, and the need to cater to an intellectually incurious audience. As a result of this, they will do whatever the government tells them to do and/or whatever big corporations tell them to do, running pre-packaged PR videos and repeating blatant government lies without comment, analysis - and apparently without the slightest embarassment.
These problems - problems of simple journalistic quality and work ethics - far outweigh the issues of corporate ownership/sponsorship, IMHO. Not to belittle the influence of underwriters who wish to influence news content through financial pressures, but I think the real problem is that the public just has no appetite or patience for insightful news.
For example, I think that part of the reason why Fox seems to lean so far to the right (in addition, of course, to the fact that Fox management’s stated intention is to promote conservative politicians) is because they are so damn lazy that they will never, ever, ever question the Bush Administration lest they lose their access and then they’d actually have to work to get a story. CNN isn’t a whole lot different. Apparently even the New York Times plays this game, as is witnessed by the shameful behavior of Judith Miller, whose stories were pretty much written for her by the Pentagon.
Apropos of nothing, I remember a poll that showed that 20% of voters thought that George W. Bush was George H. W. Bush only a few months before the 2000 election.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at June 14, 2004 07:07 PM“These problems - problems of simple journalistic quality and work ethics - far outweigh the issues of corporate ownership/sponsorship.”
I disagree, these two problematics are virtually inextricable. One could argue that the corporate/business model of the mass media outlets is incompatible with journalistic quality and a serious work ethic. For instance, in the reigning model of the 24 hour news cycle, it’s more important to get the story out, than it is to get it right. Better, and easier, to supply an image, any image, than track down witnesses for their takes on the events. Better simply to get a response from the Kerry campaign on a Bush campaign allegation, than fact check the claim yourself. etc.
The problem with the media is not simply one of content. The content of the product is conditioned, from the beginning, by the form of its production.
Posted by: charles at June 14, 2004 07:51 PMCharles, I was speaking about the more insidious issue of whether or not, for example, a news organization will report on the scandalous activities of it’s corporate owners or companies that advertise on their networks. A news organization can be composed of the very best reporters and editors in the world, but if the owner says “don’t talk about Enron” it won’t do them any good.
My contention is that 99 out of 100 stories that overlook or misreport corporate or governmental misbehavior do so despite having no outside pressure like the above example at all - they misreport because of sheer laziness, greed, and pandering.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at June 15, 2004 11:23 AMChristopher, though i agree with your general assessment of the current media, you refuse to acknowldege the fact that it has long been a fact that the folks in charge of producing the news have time and time again shown a liberal bias. Just take a look at what happened prior to our successful invasion of Iraq. Instead of focusing on our administrations thorough reasoning and justification for the war, the liberal media spent much of its time giving a voice to a few stalinist-like war protesters in places like San Fransisco and France, as if these extreme radicals spoke for the entire nation that was, contrary to what the media told you, almost completely and totally behind our military’s efforts to bring freedom to the middle east.
Posted by: Fisk at June 15, 2004 01:40 PMCf,
“overlook or misreport corporate or governmental misbehavior despite having no outside pressure like the above example at all - they misreport because of sheer laziness, greed, and pandering.”
There is no need for such “outside pressure.” Journalists and reporters know what their editors will disapprove of, they know what won’t fly in the news room, they know what’ll help sell advertising. Furthermore, do you dispute the fact that the corporate media’s current business/corporate news models breeds laziness, greed and pandering among journalists and reporters? The media’s sensationalist hystericizing is a perfect example of how the form of news production skews news content. It is not unusual, in the middle of the day, to see an advertisement for the evening news which tells you, “You’re children may be in grave danger, tune in at eleven to find out why.” So you wait around, and in the last item on the 11 o’clock news they tell you that some children who don’t drink orange juice regularly underperform in school, or something like that. This is a problem with the form of the news, not its content.
Fisk,
Thanks for supplying a perfect example of the standard conservative criticism of the news media. Unfortunately, simply ensuring that there is mainstream ideological parity in the national media will not improve coverage in any significant fashion. The media will still be superficial, they will still repeat naively and endlessly the lies of big government and big business, they will still sensationalize news content, they will still be cowards, and they will still fail to properly investigate stories of serious import. In my opinion, we need more journalists who favor neither conservatives, nor liberals, nor moderates. We need a media willing to oppose anyone and everyone who has a stake in reporoducing the current political status quo, in which two political parties, and their constituent special interests, hold the rest of the country hostage to their criminal incompetence and moral corrpution.
Charles wrote:
> There is no need for such “outside pressure.”
> …
> Furthermore, do you dispute the fact that the
> corporate media’s current business/corporate
> news models breeds laziness, greed and
> pandering among journalists and reporters?
I don’t think you and I are in dispute here. I was just saying that the amount of crappiness in the news that is caused by news organization owners giving overt direct orders to journalists to manipulate the news is small compared to the crappiness caused simply by the sheer commoditization of the news. This is something I am sure you’d agree with.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at June 15, 2004 10:31 PM
