02
Dec
An Overdue Media Debate
*AL GORE DISSECTS FOX NEWS
*NY TIMES PRAISES FOX NEWS
*VIEWS NOT IN THE NEWS
*****NOW HEAR THIS: *****
This daily weblog from Danny Schechter, your news dissector, is now available, for free via email. Please sign up and help us get this unique daily column out across the world — and across the net. Scroll down and find out how you can held promote Mediachannel and let others know about this weblog.
GOREING FOX NEWS
I have been having the Fox News Channel morning show for breakfast these many months with frequent citations of chapter and verse of its daily degrading of journalism and boosterism of the Bush White House and all of its many wholly owned subsidiaries.
I was heartened last week at Committee to Protect Journalists dinner to hear a first-hand account from a producer who told me that he had met with Al Gore who is finally, focusing on the role that right shifting media has played in the decline and fall of the Democrats. He told me Gore was talking about investing in a new channel, a democratic version of Fox, a new network with a spin more to his liking. (To my knowledge such a channel is still in his mind, not on the air)
So I was not surprised when a day later, Gore was on the front page of the New York Observer suggesting that Fox is not a network at all but “part and parcel” of the Republican Party. He told the paper:
“Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh — there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media …. Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks — that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what’s objective as stated by the news media as a whole.”
“…KIND OF WEIRD”
Most of the media, he claims has been slow to recognize this development. In fact, most of the Democrats and progressives have been even slower to “get” the impact of our evolving news media into more overt political weapons. Gore, who I find weird for not seeming to recognize what has been obvious to all who look closely calls it weird, charging, “The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party.”
He is not wrong about the effect although seemingly unaware of how orchestrated and sophisticated this has been for years, going back to Newt’s Contract on America and GO-PAC strategy which was at its core a “communications strategy.”
Why it has taken the mainstream of what is supposed to be the opposition party so long to recognize the reality of what Hillary Clinton once bravely called (before ranting) a “vast right wing conspiracy.” The reason? Politicians don’t watch TV, except when they are on. They think of TV only as a place to place to place their incredibly shrinking soundbites, and or political ads. They think about TV endlessly, spending all their time raising money to insure their presence. But they they usually think about changing it.
HOW THE MESSAGE IS SPREAD
Now Gore is beginning to think along those lines. He seems to understand how the right uses media to get its message across.
“Something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, The Washington Times and the others. And then they’ll create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they’ll start baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they’ve pushed into the zeitgeist. And then pretty soon the mainstream media goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and lo and behold, these R.N.C. talking points are woven into the fabric of the zeitgeist.”
This didn’t happen by accident. It reflects years of planning by strategists at well funded think tanks. The far-right foundations have been investing in media for years while the left leaning ones dribble out money to money almost as an afterthought. (These foundations also shape the messages while the Democrats take refuge in old slogans.) This media, especially right wing radio talk show hosts in the Rush Limbaugh Mode are on the air everywhere while left leaning voices are muzzled and marginalized. I know about this directly, having spent a decade in commercial radio and watched how media concentration helped foster this climate.
And it is a climate in which much of the media has become a weapon of mass distraction, as in Larry Gelbart’s memorable phrase. Politics has been pushed onto morning shows and weekend talk shows and on to cable. This has been done by design. In our Mediachannel book on the 2000 election, Mediaocracy: Hail to the Thief, we documented the depoliticalization of politics as coverage was halved, moved out of prime time, and driven into the cable news ghetto. Soon, punditry displaced journalism. The media role in the 2000 election was a scandal–but it can’t all be laid at the feet of Roger Ailes and his fiery foxes.
Gore, a former journalist–who lectured at the journalism school at Columbia University (Meadow Soprano’s school for the uninitiated)–has evidently been doing some thinking about these trends which, naturally, many in the Republican-oriented media (ROM) dismiss as sour grapes and way off-base. Here’s Al in the Observer:
NEWS AS A COMMODITY
“The introduction of cable-television news and Internet news made news a commodity, available from an unlimited number of sellers at a steadily decreasing cost, so the established news organizations became the high-cost producers of a low-cost commodity,” said Mr. Gore. “They’re selling a hybrid product now that’s news plus news-helper; whether it’s entertainment or attitude or news that’s marbled with opinion, it’s different.
“Now, especially in the cable-TV market, it has become good economics once again to go back to a party-oriented approach to attract a hard-core following that appreciates the predictability of a right-wing point of view, but then to make aggressive and constant efforts to deny that’s what they’re doing in order to avoid offending the broader audience that mass advertisers want. Thus the Fox slogan ‘We Report, You Decide,’ or whatever the current version of their ritual denial is.”
MEDIA DEBATE NOT IN MAJOR MEDIA
Gore seems to be the politician most of the media likes to put down — and there are many good reasons for doing so. He was and still is treated much more harshly than the man who allegedly beat him. But his comments here are on to something. We didn’t hear them for obvious reasons when he was on with Barbara Walters (Where ABC edited out some revealing comments he made about the election in Florida) or with Larry King. Issues that should be argued out in the major media are instead coming out in weeklies like The Observer, that has a small upscale audience that is likely to agree or sneer. It has Joe Conason, the only halfway-known political columnist who has gone to bat consistently for the Democrats on its staff–although this interview was conducted by Josh Benson. (See NYObserver.com for more)
This media debate followed by a week or so, that other tempest when Senator Tom Daschle lashed back at Rush Limbaugh for calling him a traitor. You would think the Republican would collapse by the chorus of critics who turned on him implying he was “unhinged” (John Podhoretz in the NY Post), a “hypocrite:” (Chris Caldwell in the Weekly Standard), and even that sometime liberal Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post who says he was probably “jealous.” Never mind that some of Rush’s ditto-heads sent death threats to the Senator, who earlier had anthrax sent his way. What’s funny is how the folks who dish it out with regularity are so overworked when it is dished back. It is also amusing when media moguls like Murdoch invest tens of millions in politically-oriented media to buy influence, and then deny that media has any influence when critics complain that it is excessive.
THE NEW YORK TIMES TO THE RESCUE
If all of this denial and dementia were not enough, we have none other than ex-New York Timesman Alex Jones (who had run NPR’s media show and now heads up a media institute at Harvard) stroking Fox News Channel in the New York Times Week in Review. One the same day that I heard Times editor Howell Raines dissemble before an audience at the Berkeley Journalism School (Rebroadcast on C-SPAM) about how the Times did not misreport the Washington Peace March but that the original story which claimed thousands were there should have said tens of thousands but no it was not a mistake but, but, but…..
While I was watching this performance with one eye, I was glancing at Alex’s piece in the Sunday paper claiming but not proving: “Fox News Moves From the Margins to the Mainstream.”
First, we have Jones quoting a former Times Colleague Leslie Gelb–who now heads the mighty Council on Foreign Relations.
“He now considers Fox News Channel often to be a more reliable news source for international reporting than CNN or the nightly network news. Fox, he said, provides a “fairer picture, a fuller version of the different parts of the arguments” over world affairs. Mr. Gelb said he makes a distinction between Fox’s news coverage and its opinion programs, like “The O’Reilly Factor,” which he considers biased. But even here, he finds himself drawn to Fox. “CNN’s commentary tends to be less biased and less interesting,” he said. (A reliable foreign news source? I guess if you trust Geraldo, it is. Last week as I noted, Fox was reporting on events in Baghdad from Jordan.)
MAINSTREAM OR MUDSTREAM?
Jones drones on: “A lot of other people who do not fit comfortably into the right-wing stereotype of Fox viewers apparently agree”
And so the Times, quoting one of its own brings down its widely craved kiss of legitimation of the very propaganda organ that Gore dissected earlier in the week. Not mentioned in this story is how networks like Fox, not to mention the Administration it faithfully parrots, have worked hard to shift the “mainstream” from the center to the right, and in the process turned it into a mudstream.
And so does the Mighty Times bows down in deference with words like these: “And if cable news is now the nation’s main news source, Fox — the self-described maverick outsider — finds itself in the peculiar position of being, arguably, the most powerful television news organization in the country, playing a major role in defining what is important and what is not.” Rest assured, the promo department at Fox News was working overtime over the week to put these words to a self-promotional purpose.
WHAT IS “AMERICAN?”
And then, my friend Alex Jones betrays his own notion of what is American and what not: “Without doubt, its claim to offer “fair and balanced” news appeals to many people. In a conservative time, a time of war, Fox viewers like their news from a strong American perspective.”
First of all, this is a “conservative time” in large part because of the media not, in spite of it., And yes there are legitimate fears out there that our politicians skillfully play to in terms of rhetoric and ineptly satisfy in terms of security measures
But what us a strong AMERICAN perspective? Are we talking only about a smarmy patriotic correctness that poses as objectivity? Is that what American means these days? Are those many citizens who protest and question Bush policy not American as well?
DEEPER FORCES GO UNEXAMINED
There are deeper forces at work. The last time I looked, the American population is deeply divided if not largely opposed to the Bush domestic agenda. Most may support the War on terror talk because it is reassuring to hear tough talk even as that war is far from won, if it even can be. (The Times reported yesterday that a former member of the Bush administration says in a magazine interview that the White House values politics over domestic policy, lacking both policy experts and an apparatus to support them, and has failed to achieve a “compassionate conservative” agenda. In an interview with Esquire magazine, John J. DiIulio Jr., a domestic affairs expert said: “There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you’ve got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis”) This is a reference to Karl Rove, master of the Bush universe.
THE PSYCOLOGY OF MORAL POLITRICKS
There is a psychological strategy at the root of the Bush approach reports Alternet’s Don Hazen who was in town this weekend and also told me about this analysis: “According to George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley University cognitive scientist and author of “Moral Politics,” the anxiety-provoking anti- terrorism actions and messages of fear of the Bush administration fall into the category of the “strict father” mode of communication.
“Lakoff concludes that the country is dramatically split between two ways of understanding the world. Some see this division as political — conservative vs. liberal. But Lakoff argues that it is ultimately a moral division, one derived from how people envision the right kind of family. Hence it is also a personal division.
STRICT FATHER MODE
“Lakoff believes that the ‘strict father’ mode is at the bedrock of conservative ideology. This morality ‘assigns highest priority to such things as moral strength … respect for and obedience to authority [and] the setting and following of strict guidelines of behavioral norms.’ Nurturant parent morality, by contrast, ‘requires empathy for others and the helping of those who need help. To help others, one must take care of oneself and nurture social ties.’
“This morality provides the basis for progressive/ liberal ideology. …
“As Lakoff underscores, ‘Over the past thirty years conservatives have poured billions of dollars into their think tanks. They have articulated the system of moral and family values that unifies conservatives; they have created appropriate language for their vision; they have disseminated it throughout the media; and they have developed a coherent political program to fit their values.’ Lakoff argues that this infrastructure of ideas and values is the essential reason ‘for the success that conservatives have been enjoying, despite the fact that they appear to be the minority.’”
ECONOMIC INTERESTS ALSO AT PLAY
That’s the psychology that underlies the Fox approach. It goes way beyond party politics. You would think Al Gore who just put out a book on family would get this too. But there is another M missing in a debate that turns on morality — money. Yes, economic interests are at work, as Paul Krugman noted in a Friday column in the Times, after Alex Jones’ praise poem to Fox News had gone to print.
“Will the economic interests of the media undermine objective news coverage?For most of the last 50 years, public policy took it for granted that media bias was a potential problem. There were, after all, only three national networks, a limited number of radio licenses and only one or two newspapers in many cities. How could those who controlled major news outlets be deterred from misusing their position? The answer was a combination of regulation and informal guidelines. The ‘fairness doctrine’ forced broadcast media to give comparable representation to opposing points of view. Restrictions on ownership maintained a diversity of voices. And there was a general expectation that major news outlets would stay above the fray, distinguishing clearly between opinion and news reporting. The system didn’t always work, but it did set some limits.”
But, now, he argues that has been dismantled by the Bush Administration’s FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who is chipping away at what’s left in the arsenal of regulation. His conclusion:
“…. we have a situation rife with conflicts of interest. The handful of organizations that supply most people with their news have major commercial interests that inevitably tempt them to slant their coverage, and more generally to be deferential to the ruling party. There have already been some peculiar examples of news not reported. For example, last month’s 100,000-strong Washington antiwar demonstration - an important event, whatever your views on the issue - was almost ignored by some key media outlets. For the time being, blatant media bias is still limited by old rules and old norms of behavior. But soon the rules will be abolished, and the norms are eroding before our eyes.Do the conflicts of interest of our highly concentrated media constitute a threat to democracy? I’ve reported; you decide.”
SYNTHESIS IN TWO SENTENCES
So there you have it, several layers missing from the Times tribute to Fox News. Lest you think I am bashing the paper of record, let me turn to add a dissector devotion and show some love to Maureen Dowd, who outdid herself on Sunday with two lines that said it all in another matter, President Bush’s selection of Henry Kiss of Death to head the probe of what happened on September 11. Have you seen anything to match this formulation.
“If you want to get to the bottom of something, you don’t appoint Henry Kissinger. If you want to keep others from getting to the bottom of something, you appoint Henry Kissinger.”
ISRAEL’S DIVIDED SOCIETY
One more item, this from ZNET’s Tanya Reinhardt on the elections in Israel, another story that suffers for over simplification in our media “For quite some time, public opinion polls in Israel appear to be contradictory. On the one hand, there is a majority of 60-70% for Sharon and an “iron-fist” policy in the occupied territories, and on the other a majority of 60% for immediate unilateral evacuation of most of the territories and most of the settlements.
“In fact, it is simple to reconcile this contradiction. Since at least the nineties, a division to three thirds can be observed in Israeli society: The ideological third on the left opposes the occupation on moral and principled ground. The ideological right supports Israelís policy of expansion and the settlers. The middle, non-ideological, third are people who just want quiet and a normal life. They don’t care about the Palestinians, but also not about the settlers.
“The polls reflect the confusion and despair of this middle third: Most likely, their frame of mind is that if it is possible to kill or expel all Palestinians, that’s fine, but if it is possible to simply get out of there, as Israel did in Lebanon they support this as well. Thus, in polls asking about immediate evacuation, the left third plus the middle say yes. In polls regarding support of Sharon’s policies, the right third plus the same middle say yes.
“It is impossible to conclude from these polls that Sharonís victory in the coming elections is guaranteed, as so commonly argued. The winner of the elections will be the candidate drawing more of the votes of the middle third.”
A GREEK VIEW
Now a long letter from Stefanos Dris. Who says he comes from Planet Earth, although it sounds more like Athens.
“I always knew most Americans have limited access to objective news, and international coverage on news networks is limited to direct US interest. It’s almost as if people in this country are informed on a ‘need-to-know’ basis.
“Moreover, I am shocked that there are so many people who willfully allow themselves to be lied to and will defend the government position at any cost. Right now I feel as if there is NO hope for the political future of this country. I talk to people trying to explain what US foreign policy means to allies and foes alike. When mentioning Kissinger’s well known antics, their usual responses range from naive ‘where’s your proof’, to arrogant ‘we have to do what is necessary to defend ourselves’. In other words, CIA involvement in the Greek military junta either never existed, or it was better to have right-wing colonels that we can control in power, rather than some democratically elected pinko. Substitute Chile in the previous sentence, and you have another good example of what US foreign policy means.
“In response to the terrorist attacks on the WTC, the US has done anything but revise its criminal foreign policy. Senator Tom Lantos was crude enough in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz: “My dear Colette, you won’t have any problem with Saddam. We’ll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we’ll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you.”
Since I am also Greek, I find this arrogance outrageous, let alone dangerous. Like many Greeks, liberals or conservatives, I have family who suffered torture and exile during the 7-year junta. It is no laughing matter. In fact, the junta which ended in 1974 is the most important factor contributing to anti-americanism in Greece (an ally and member of NATO).
AN ANNIVERSARY THAT WENT UNMARKED IN OUR MEDIA
“A few days ago (November 17th) was the anniversary of the student uprising in 1973, which led to the deaths of many young men and women who were protesting in the university campus, in downtown Athens. The dictators ordered a tank to break down the main entrance to the university, and the soldiers fired into the crowd. The students are remembered as heroes who, regardless of political background, stood up to a brutal and oppressive regime. The university radio station broadcasts urging people to resist the junta and support the student uprisings are legendary. They fought to bring back democracy, and they died to ensure freedom for future generations. You can understand why I am a bit confused when many people in the US talk about American soldiers who are sent to die in faraway lands (in Southeast Asia and the Gulf) ‘to preserve our freedom.’
“But enough about foreign policy. An understandable consequence of the Cold War is that the US government has managed to carefully control the media and ensure support for virtually anything it does overseas - no matter how brutal the results for the local populations (though Vietnam was an exception). But how in the world can the government get away with domestic scandals like the one I read about in The Independent? The article that can be found at
“How the heck did I not hear about this on the TV? I checked CNN’s website - absolutely nothing! Eventually I dug up the same story on washingtonpost.com, and was slightly comforted… What angers me is how the right wing will surely try to cover this up like they always do. It will turn into a debate, and the clause will be deemed ‘controversial’ instead of outright CRIMINAL. This is very similar to the gun control issue; in Europe it is not even an issue - It goes without saying that their should be extremely strict laws on firearm use! Yet the NRA has managed to make a debate out of it in this country, simply a clash of ideologies…”
What does this have to do with Homeland Security? I can’t wait to hear about the new “controversy” on Faux News.
MARKING WORLD AIDS DAY
I hope you marked World Aids day yesterday. See Oneworld.net for lots more if. You live in New York City, you may want to check out a benefit photo exhibition tonight for Albina’s Action For Orphans, a not-for-profit organization that manages 81 AIDS orphans’ centers and programs in 17 countries. You will meet Albina du Boisrouvray and view compelling photographs of AIDS orphans for whom she is creating a “Global Safety Net.”
Benefit Photography Exhibition
Staley-Wise Gallery
560 Broadway, 3rd Floor
Soho, NYC 10012
One night only reception: Monday, December 2, 2002 From 6-8PM
LET US SEND YOU THIS WEBLOG ON EMAIL
I hope you find the occasional longer essay in this log of interest. As we have mentioned, you can bow receive this blog via email if you sign up above. We want to you keep coming back to Mediachannel but think that if we have it in email form, more people will read it. That is also where you come in. If you sign up, you can forward it to friends and invite them to join our interactive network of media watchers and critics. If every reader sent it on with a personal recommendation to ten friends, we will generate more traffic and hopefully, down the line, more needed funding. Anyway, if you want to help, please do. Please keep your emails and insights coming to dissector@mediachannel.org
