REUTERS ROUNDTABLE
INVESTIGATE MEDIA DEATHS!
INDECENCY FINES HIKED

Gosh, we as a species have been around for longer than I realized. Some new skulls turned up in Ethiopia some decades ago that have finally been analyzed. They suggest that we Homo Sapiens (You can bet the Bush Administration will soon move to drop the “Homo” prefix. See Below.) have been around for nearly 200,000 years. Mel Brooks celebrated the 2000 year old man, but he was way off. Its 200,000 Mel. That’s a lot of New Years Eve Parties to think about. As Mr. Zimmerman once sang, “we were so much older then, we are younger than that now.” Huh?

I could say something stupid like if humanity is so old, how come we aren’t smarter, but I won’t? I was happy to learn we are on “the cusp.”

AP reports:

“Rick Potts, director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, said he considered the case for the new fossil ages “very strong.” The work suggests that “we’re right on the cusp of where the genetic evidence says the origin of modern humans … should be,” he said.”

THE NEWS OF THE NEWS

On that reassuring note, I will let you catch up with the latest news today and so won’t be talking about US overflights of Iranian nuclear facilities, or Michael Jackson leaving the hospital, or Iraqi elections, or Donald Rumsfeld discovering new terror threats in time for the defense appropriation hearings, or the hockey scandals and even the latest Syria bashing.

I will leave that to you because I want to report on a discussion of the news that I attended last night in the spanking Reuters tower in Times Square where a group of major domos panelized on the coverage of the Tsunami. The discussion ranged beyond that one event, and delved in to the media territory that I dissect around each morning. Only this time, a group of insiders and experts traded thoughts that were more revealing than perhaps they set out to be.

Many top Reuters execs were on hand for the kind of discussion that few news organizations encourage — what can we learn from what we did. What worked? What didn’t? It is rare to find busy professionals taking time out to have the kind of candid exchange in a professional setting. For those of you who don’t know, Reuters is big with 2300 editorial staffers and 196 bureaus in 130 countries. They have 600 photographers buzzing around the world and just won the press photo of the year. They claim that a billion people read their news every day in more than l000 top newspapers.

So when they talk, some in the media listen and should.

When they summon your news dissector to join journos from BBC, AP and even Fox to discuss coverage issues. I am there. Hopefully it’s a sign that the media channel is taken seriously in the towers of media power.

Their Reuters Foundation roundtable brought together Aaron Brown of CNN, Daniel Okrent, the public editor of the New York Times and former TV exec Jill Geisler of the Poynter Institute to talk Tsunami with Jan Egelend, who coordinated aid for the UN (and got into the headlines when news outlets mangled a quote of his that was interpreted as calling the US “stingy” when he was really condemning all rich countries for a lack of generosity towards the poor). Nicholas de Torrente of Doctors Without Borders and Columbia’s Jeff Sachs who advises the UN on poverty issues. Reuters uber Paul Holmes editor moderated quite well.

Everyone started off patting the media on the back for the unprecedented graphic reporting accorded the Tsunami. A study done for Reuters unique AlertNet — a must read humanitarian news portal — found that journalists stuck with the disaster and coverage was still building by day ten whereas, in a similar period after an earthquake that devastated the city of Bam in Iran there was no reporting to be found by then. The story had disappeared as so many do with no follow-up.

CNN’s Aaron Brown boasted that CNN’s coverage was much superior than that of the competition (Fox) and expressed pride in his own stories from Aceh. CNN, he revealed, invested heavily it and seemed satisfied by the outcome. He explained his belief that TV is “an experience medium, it conveys experience, we went for the experience to show people what happened and why they should care.” And yes indeed, CNN was the TV news leader even if the context it offered was often thinner than the human interest angles. People dominated the coverage, not politics.

Everyone acknowledged that the coverage resulted in unprecedented levels of donations and galvanized a major relief effort. It roused the world’s conscience and saved lives to some degree even though the biggest loss of lives happened immediately when the big waves struck sweeping people and whole towns away. Many first day stories carried embarrassingly low death tolls and missed its significance. They blew it but quickly recovered. The media focus may insure it won’t happen again because new early warning systems are now being planned.

So far, so good.

But then other concerns trickled out, first as a few “buts” and then as a torrent of concerns. Jill Geisler of the Poynter Institute noted that the media didn’t really get going on the story until the second day — after the biggest loss of life — because it didn’t really understand what happened, and that many newsroom execs were on holiday so coverage was slow to be deployed. She also explained that CNN was able to do better coverage because CNN International was already in place and had correspondents in the region who “didn’t need to find a map to figure out where these countries are.” CNN International often has the best news of the world but it is watched the least in the US because few cable companies carry it.

Implicitly, that was a knock on the abandonment of international coverage by most networks as well. (Perhaps, the abandonment of journalism itself.) Okrent, a former TIME correspondent says that magazine now only has five foreign bureaus, down from 55.

COVERAGE OF AID EFFORT MISSING

Nick of Doctors Without Borders said that there were many inaccuracies and alarmism about the dangers of epidemics that never occurred. He pointed out that there was disproportionate coverage of foreign tourists over locals and more from a tourist town in Thailand than in Aceh and Indonesia where so many more died. He also called for more coverage of the international aid effort itself to see how effective it was and is. He noted that the media coverage made it seem as if the international and US relief effort was the most important when in fact local agencies were often quicker off the mark and more impactful. We still don’t know if the people most in need are getting help. (A woman from Aceh in the audience says they aren’t!) He noted that that in one month the Red Cross raised 70% of the money it had raised in 86 years. How was it spent? Remember the Red Cross scandal in New York after 911?

Hegland complained that the saturation coverage of the Tsunami in Asia has to be contrasted with the lack of coverage of other serious humanitarian disasters like the bloodletting in Congo, or Uganda, or Malaria that rates no coverage and affects as many or more people. (Doctors Without Borders lists ten unreported stories on its website: “Soaring tuberculosis (TB) deaths and the immense toll on people living through chronic conflicts in Chechnya, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Northern Uganda are among the “Top Ten” Most Underreported Humanitarian Stories of 2004:

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/pr/2005/01-19-2005.shtml

Jeff Sachs went further, much further noting that there is a “silent tsunami” or word poverty and diseases like malaria that does not exist in the US media. The rest of the world covers these crises for the world’s majority, but the US media is uninformed and indifferent. He contrasted the coverage of the dead bodies in South Asia to the lack of coverage of the dead bodies in Iraq, saying, “When the Lancet magazine reported that l00 000 Iraqi civilians had been killed it was not covered. The N Y Times put it on page A 8 and never pressed for a response from the Administration. It was disgraceful.” No one disagreed, but no one picked up the theme.

THROW IN SOME CHOCOLATE

Aaron Brown listened to all this but did not engage. He explained the problem not as a journalist out to inform but as a media personality committed to maximizing audience size.

“I deal with a “harsh reality,” he said defensively. “I know eating Brussels sprouts is good for you, but I have to offer a more balanced meal and throw in some chocolate.” The point: he will lose the audience if he gets into too much depth or human suffering. ”

TV is a business” was the ultimate excuse. He seemed to squirm around the points as if to say,what do you want me to do guys, I work in commercial television.

I don’t want to knock Brown. He was just voicing the market logic of commercial TV without perhaps realizing that it is precisely that logic that is driving so many viewers away from the tube He recognizes that he is a prisoner of the dumbed down cable environment that companies like CNN created . (See my “The More You Watch The Less You Know” for an account of the time I spent at “America’s most trusted network, “)

At least, he showed up for the panel and does try to offer a mix of stories on his program, many better than so many others, however pretentious I might find him at times. The pity is that someone of his skill and there are many like him are onlyu allowed to do far less less than they are capble of becauise of the formats and the way thet frame news.

We said hello as he left (He was still smarting over emails readers sent to CNN demanding better election coverage) but unfortunately he left to go back to word before I got to unwind from the floor.

He himself was bitching about all the Robert Blake stories he is doing. And he will go on doing them. I am sure his candor was constrained, He knows what can happen if he mouths off too much at panels like these. He worked for Eason Jordan too.

Just one last point, when asked what people should do to get better coverage, the impressive Daniel Okrent of the Times put it in one word: “AGITATE,” And then this agust ombudsman of the newspaper of record added two more “MAKE NOISE.”

He said that’s the only things that works. And he should know.

MAKE NOISE

With that in mind, I bring you a letter Media for Democracy, the MediaChannel’s action arm, sent out yesterday. In the end, action always speaks louder than words:

CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit late last week amid a furor over remarks he allegedly made about American soldiers intentionally killing journalists in Iraq. Jordan delivered the remarks while sitting on an off-the-record panel of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

While no actual tape of his comments has yet to be released, an attendee disseminated news of the event into the blogosphere and ignited a firestorm, which included charges that CNN itself — not just Jordan in his personal capacity — had “slimed our troops.”

Leading the charge was CNN competitor Fox News Channel and its sister publication, The New York Post. Members of Congress piled on with angry demands for evidence although the tone of their remarks suggested a total denial of the possibility that Jordan may know something that they didn’t. Instead, Jordan’s patriotism and CNN’s integrity was attacked.

This incident raises three urgent issues:

1. Do media executives have a right to express opinions that deviate from the official line? Media companies should defend the rights of their employees to take part in democratic debate without fears of recriminations. The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and the World Editors Forum have rushed in to defend Jordan’s right to express controversial opinions without intimidation.

2. Do media companies have an obligation to investigate and not just denigrate? CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, AFP and other media outlets should take a fresh look at these charges to determine their validity. At least eleven journalists have been killed by “friendly fire” since the War in Iraq began, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Thus far there has been little effort by the Pentagon to explain their deaths.

3. Are we who care about integrity in the media willing to stand up to protect free speech during a time of war? While this issue is often spun as a left-right story, it’s about much more than that. We are all paying dearly for this war. Shouldn’t we Americans have a right to know what’s being done in our name?

Reuters, the International Federation of Journalists and other press freedom groups have pressed for independent investigations of suspicious killings in Iraq. The Pentagon has refused to cooperate or permit journalists to interview soldiers involved in these incidents.

What’s the truth?

Media for Democracy members can help press for full disclosure and clear up the controversy and partisan mudslinging on this issue. Here are two things you can do:

1. Write CNN and ask them to conduct a full investigation into Eason’s charge that journalists may have been intentionally targeted:

Jim Walton
President of CNN News Group
One CNN Center
PO Box 105366
Atlanta, GA 30348
E-mail: jim.walton@turner.com
Phone: (404) 827-1500
Fax: (404) 878-0891

2. Write the Pentagon to demand more cooperation with independent groups seeking an inquiry into “friendly fire” deaths:

Lawrence DiRita
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Pentagon
Washington, DC
Email form: http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
Tel 1: (703) 697-5131
Tel 2: (703) 428-0711

Thank you for taking action