Watching the grilling that Tony Blair has received from the British media since his decision to involve Britain in the Iraq war, one cannot help but make comparisons with the kid gloves approach of the mainstream U.S. media to the outrageous behavior of the Bush administration.
The BBC is now carrying a viewpoint article, titled Has Katrina Saved the U.S. Media? (OK, I wasn’t particularly imaginative with my title, I know), which emphasizes this point. The article suggests that the outrage seen in such unlikely places as Fox News may signal a turning point in this trend, and that the gloves may now come off in the coverage of our government’s incompetence.
One interesting part of the article is a very succinct explanation of why many people view the mainstream U.S. media with such suspicion.
Amidst the horror, American broadcast journalism just might have grown its spine back, thanks to Katrina.
National politics reporters and anchors here come largely from the same race and class as the people they are supposed to be holding to account.
They live in the same suburbs, go to the same parties, and they are in debt to the same huge business interests.
Giant corporations own the networks, and Washington politicians rely on them and their executives to fund their re-election campaigns across the 50 states.
It is a perfect recipe for a timid and self-censoring journalistic culture that is no match for the masterfully aggressive spin-surgeons of the Bush administration.
But last week the complacency stopped, and the moral indignation against inadequate government began to flow, from slick anchors who spend most of their time glued to desks in New York and Washington.
It’s an interesting suggestion. However, I can’t help but be cynical and expect that it won’t last, essentially for the reasons in the first few paragraphs, which I don’t expect to change. But I guess we’ll see.
September 5th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
Mark,
What I always find amazing is not just that the news media have shared interests with many of the subjects of their coverage, it is often the exact same people that shuttle back and forth between news organizations and government agencies, political think tanks, party campaigns etc etc. This is not even a very subtle issue- every interview with a powerful politician has also the subtext of a job interview….
September 5th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Count me in the cynical camp. The media have a strong herd instinct; when things are going well, they will treat whoever is in power with kid gloves, and when things fall apart, they will be critical of everything. If someone (of either party) gets elected in 2008, they’ll get the usual honeymoon period.
Contrariwise, the Bush administration is going to have a rough time for the next three years.
September 6th, 2005 at 12:05 am
I’ve been impressed this week, and a small part of me is hopeful that this will be enough to wake them, but I’m not convinced it will last either.
That said, check out this amazing editorial piece by Olberman…
(at this site, click on Olberman’s who’s to blame commentary)
September 6th, 2005 at 3:23 am
But don’t the same factors apply to the BBC as well – i.e. BBC reporters occupying the same social milieux as government officials? – e.g., middle-class, Oxbridge educated, etc.
September 6th, 2005 at 4:06 am
But don’t the same factors apply to the BBC as well – i.e. BBC reporters occupying the same social milieux as government officials? – e.g., middle-class, Oxbridge educated, etc
Exactly. And not only that — the BBC can get away with incredibly one-sided reporting in this instance because that plays to the “Well Americans are so dumb so what do you expect” audience outside the US. It was notable that when old poor people in Europe who could not afford air-conditioning were dying like flies in the summer of 2003, the BBC did not feel so moved to claim that that was an indictment of the foundations of European society or whatever. That was just an unfortunate sequence of events.
September 6th, 2005 at 6:38 am
Hi Andrew. I’d say no. The issue is not really being of the same class, but rather the interdependence of their fields. It’s very different in the U.K. I agree (if this is your point) that there are other reasons also responsible for the British press being more willing to challenge the government, but I do think this is one important reason.
Fyodor. I think it it true that the foreign press delights in having a go at the U.S. This can be annoying at times. However, it doesn’t mean they’re always wrong. The point about the U.S. media is one that many people have made for a long time. The article isn’t about the foundations of U.S. society; it’s about the pretty poor U.S. media. It is hard to look at the way they’ve dealt with the government about Iraq and think that they have any teeth at all.
The BBC did criticize the French government over the deaths. but it was a different situation, with different weightings of blame than this one.
Also, as a European myself, the idea of “the foundations of European society”, for practical purposes, makes me giggle. Europe is composed of separate countries, with different governments, philosophies, ways of life and no underlying constitution. We’ve been at each others’ throats for most of recorded history and have been the center of two world wars within the last 90 years or so.
September 6th, 2005 at 7:53 am
Why should news media in the US be objective? They are private institutions owned by private individuals, therefore they have the right to say and report whatever they want. Why do we assume that we can depend on Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner to “watch” the government? Why should it be their responsibility, they’re just trying to make money? I suggest you lobby some other rich individual and ask him to found an objective, unbiased news agency. I think it’s unlikely he’ll make much money, but I’d watch it.
September 6th, 2005 at 8:49 am
We shouldn’t assume it. We should watch it, and try to make it objective and hard-hitting when it’s not.
September 6th, 2005 at 8:51 am
My impression is that the brief moment of ’spinehood’ is already starting to slouch. Shepard Smith, one of Fox folks that dared to challenge Mr. Hannity last week, was already giving an interview w/O’Reilly that had better ‘persepctive’.
Most likely, the media message will now become exactly what Chertoff said: ‘Let’s focus on on what needs to be done rather than assigning blame’ (subtext: only a pathetic selfish loser would focus on blame). In principle, not bad. But of course, the issue is not merely blame, but rather, asking whether those with the resources to address a national disaster be trusted again? The Chertoff (ala Rove) statement makes it seem like finding out what went wrong for future benefit, and saving lives now are mutually exclusive.
We can expect 1.) feds blaming Lousiana locals while proclaiming we should not focus on blame…. 2.) suppression of details re: loss of life…a celebrity crisis might suffice 3.) many shots of Bush Sr. and B. Clinton 4.) and of course, many shots of Bush Jr talking ‘compassion’ and perhaps awarding Chertoff and Brown with medals of Heroism. If anyone actually does get ‘blamed’, it will be some equiv of Lynndie (sp?) England in Louisiana.
And most likely, we, the people, will eat it up with a grin.
September 6th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Comment 8,
“try to make it objective”.
You could have meant two things with this statement:
1.
It is not your right to “make” them do anything, all you can do is air your opinion on the issue, as they have aired theirs on that particular issue. They are a *private* organization! If you were a stockholder in that corporation then you can have a say in “making” them do something. These news agencies respond to what the consumer wants. They are trying to make money and air their point of view (what else should they try to do?), and the only way they can do that is by being subjective and catering to those with similar politiical/philosophical opinions. Indeed this blog is a case in point. If you made blogging a professional goal (ie as the source of your livlihood), you would air your opinion so as your ratings would go up, you’re making your case, as it were, and hope that kindred spirits back you up. Network media has a similar goal. Why should they bother to be “hard-hitting” when they are making money doing what they do right now? It’s their right to do what they do if they so choose (or if their consumers so choose!).
2.
If, what you meant by “try to make it objective” was: “take reports with a grain of salt”, that is, sift through a report for the facts and form your own opinion, that’s fine, I agree.
September 6th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
It is my right as a consumer to air my feelings about the news organizations and if enough people do it, they will change their behavior because it is in their interest to do so. I don’t want them to represent my political views. I want them to be objective and hard-hitting – to ask the difficult questions.
It seems that you want to read something subversive into my comments, as opposed to what I’m actually writing. What I’m asking for isn’t difficult to understand and shouldn’t be a left-wing ideal. Are you suggesting that all Republicans want wimpy “news” that doesn’t get to the facts?
As news consumers, we have the right to do what we legally can to make companies hurt for not giving us what we want, and therefore to try to change how they behave.
September 6th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
I think there is a deeper issue here- the consumer product/service model is fine and good for many things, but cannot be taken to be the only game in town. There are certainly some things that cannot work this way (emergency management, news, police, and also science…). That’s why there should be strong institutions with the mandate to protect the public good against narrowly defined interests. The widely believed illusion that one can manage absolutely everything by a free market strategy, and still have a livable life is just that, an illusion.
I am not sure that news was always thought of as a consumer product, rather than a public service, but sadly that seems to be the case now.
September 6th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
The radio spectrum is not private property and so in assigning spectrum to private entities, the public, via the government also required the private entities to fulfill some responsibilities. It is every citizen’s right to demand that the broadcast media fulfill those obligations.
To the extent rights-of-way used by cable companies were obtained from railroads and roads that in turn were obtained by eminent domain, the cable companies too have obligations to fulfill, and every citizen has the right to demand that.
To Moshe Rozali’s point – free markets, democracy with division of power, etc., are good because they promote accountability. The enlightened dictator may provide much better government than a democracy; but the problem is that accountability is lost, and inevitably corruption follows. The rightwing has forgotten accountability and simply regards property rights as primary. Let us remember that intellectual property rights is a created right and does not exist without government; and property rights are a convention or derived rights, like privacy rights, that in general hold because they are necessary for upholding other rights.
September 6th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
“As news consumers, we have the right to do what we legally can to make
companies hurt for not giving us what we want, and therefore to try to
change how they behave.”
Yes we do have a right (my point 1 above concerned imposing forced
regulations on networks). Because we are paying them. Their fate is tied
to the desires of the viewing public. Their subjective behaviour is
therefore a result of our behaviour, not the cause. To ensure objective
networks one must first create an objective public. How do you create an
objective public? By ensuring free speech. The American people love to hear an opinion (just look at the sports shows on ESPN!, you never get Alan Hansen talking like that!) and respect your opinion much more than in other countries I’ve been to. America is the home of free speech and the country most dedicated to it’s protection. And that’s why, (crazy
as it might sound), American networks (taken as a whole) are more
objective than English networks. What do I mean by this. I mean, if you
want a left leaning opinion it is available (CNN), if you want a right
leaning opinion it is available (FOX). You could watch them both and come
up with an objective opinion (which is what I do actually). In England
you have quite homogenous opinions across the networks. Even the conservative party has to cloak their ideals in left-leaning jargon.
“It seems that you want to read something subversive into my comments,”
Subvert: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subvert. Absolutely not. I’m just trying to debate with you. Sometimes I just don’t understand what you mean and would like a more explicit version of your opinion.
“Are you suggesting that all Republicans want wimpy “news” that doesn’t
get to the facts?”
I have no clue what you mean by this. I love facts.
September 6th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Comment 12,
I’d like to ask you: What exactly is the “public good” with regard to news media? What if the “public good” conflicts with “my good”? (I’m not trying to be sarcastic, sorry if that appears to be the case).
September 6th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
Arun,
Nice of you to refer to my comment, though I don’t see any dictators there, benevolent or otherwise.
David,
The public good in this case is to encourage responsible and independent news media, otherwise real democracy cannot function. This means regulations (to prvent monopoly, conflicts of interests etc.) and it means taxes to support public broadcasting, so that the financial consideration will not be the only consideration. I don’t believe this conflicts with “your good” (unless you define that very narrowly, as in “I don’t want to pay any taxes”)–this is all a small price to pay to have a functioning democracy.
September 6th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
David. That you’d refer to CNN as left-leaning is crazy to me. also, if you think British news is homogeneous, you’re not reading/listening to enough of it.
September 7th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Moshe,
Regulation: A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct
Govern: To control the actions or behavior of:
Control: To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct.
Encourage: To give support to; foster: (definitions from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/)
“to encourage responsible and independent news media… (to prevent monopoly, conflicts of interests etc.” …….”This means regulations…”
How can you support something by controlling it? The only thing you need
to support is free speech. That is, if someone wants to say something and
someone else wants to “regulate” that (by force if necessary, how else?) you put the
person who wants to regulate it in jail. It’s regulation of the airwaves
that causes monopoly (BBC pre 1955
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/22/newsid_3131000/3131477.stm
and
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=632782005)
For example the Internet is the most unregulated type of news media. Due to this lack of regulation, news delivered on the internet is by far the most diverse source of information, a true “free society”. It is the lack of “controlling” and “governing” that has made the internet what it is.
September 7th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
david,
We probably understand each other, so we can just let it go…
September 7th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
Right now, it may not be corporations that are the problem, but rather the government.
From Josh Marshall:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_09_04.php#006449