Korangate
The Newsweek/Koran issue is interesting in several respects. First, it's just the latest in a series of debacles--Jayson Blair, Dan Rather, and in my opinion Iraq--that has given journalism a chronic and well-deserved black eye. What's going on here? Is it deadline pressure? Financial cuts? The need to fill space? General shoddiness? I work in a field that is completely unrelated to the media, so I am genuinely curious what's behind this mess. I've been a consumer of mainstream journalism for twenty-five years, and I cannot remember such a string of successive high-profile botch jobs before.
Against this backdrop, some new poll results concerning the public's attitude towards the media are interesting:
1. "Overall, do you think the press in America has too much freedom to do what it wants, too little freedom to do what it wants, or is the amount of freedom the press has about right?" 43% responded too much freedom, 12% too little freedom, 43% said about right, 2% did not know.
2. "Newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story." 55% strongly agreed, 20% mildly agreed, 11% mildly disagreed, 11% strongly disagreed, 2% did not know.
Incredible, isn't it? Slightly less than half of those polled thinks the press is too free. And almost half does not "strongly agree" that the press should be allowed to print a story without government approval.
Undoubtedly, part of this is a result of Rathergate, as well as the deeply entrenched public perception of liberal media bias. And as I discussed in this recent post, journalism as an institution certainly bears some of the blame. Still, it amazes me that so many people are so disgusted with either the mistakes or the perceived bias of the mainstream media that they favor actual government oversight or overt censorship. The way in which history has shown how people can passively accept or even actively encourage restrictions on their own freedom--and the implications that has for their type of government--has always interested me. It "can't happen here" though, can it?
In a democracy, people generally get the type of journalism they deserve. Maybe Jayson Blair, Rathergate, and Korangate are not so surprising after all.
Against this backdrop, some new poll results concerning the public's attitude towards the media are interesting:
A survey to be released Monday reveals a wide gap on many media issues between a group of journalists and the general public. In one finding, 43% of the public says the press has too much freedom, while only 3% of journalists agree. And just 14% of the public can name "freedom of the press" as a guarantee in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the major poll conducted by the University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy.As always with polls, the way in which the question is phrased is as important as the results, so I checked out the poll here at the University of Connecticut's DPP website. The two relevant questions were:
Six in ten among the public feel the media show bias in reporting the news, and 22% say the government should be allowed to censor the press.
1. "Overall, do you think the press in America has too much freedom to do what it wants, too little freedom to do what it wants, or is the amount of freedom the press has about right?" 43% responded too much freedom, 12% too little freedom, 43% said about right, 2% did not know.
2. "Newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story." 55% strongly agreed, 20% mildly agreed, 11% mildly disagreed, 11% strongly disagreed, 2% did not know.
Incredible, isn't it? Slightly less than half of those polled thinks the press is too free. And almost half does not "strongly agree" that the press should be allowed to print a story without government approval.
Undoubtedly, part of this is a result of Rathergate, as well as the deeply entrenched public perception of liberal media bias. And as I discussed in this recent post, journalism as an institution certainly bears some of the blame. Still, it amazes me that so many people are so disgusted with either the mistakes or the perceived bias of the mainstream media that they favor actual government oversight or overt censorship. The way in which history has shown how people can passively accept or even actively encourage restrictions on their own freedom--and the implications that has for their type of government--has always interested me. It "can't happen here" though, can it?
In a democracy, people generally get the type of journalism they deserve. Maybe Jayson Blair, Rathergate, and Korangate are not so surprising after all.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Tuesday, May 17, 2005
20 Comments:
Most dangerous words ever spoken: "It can't happen here."
scary, scary, scary!
owenz comments in response are right on and chilling for our Democracy.
speaking as a European.....
A nation not only get's the government it deserves( And good luck with yours )..... It also gets the press it deserves.
By the way, please stop useing the term "Free" press about the American media.... fact is, it's all owned by someone, and anything that is owned by an individual or small group, by definition, is not free. ( I hear PBS is going the same way)
Eighteen men ( who all know each other) own or control ninety per cent of anything the Average American is likely to read, hear or see.
DaveGood
PS to the above post.......
Rupert Murdoch.... owner of Fox ...... is a case in point... and an interesting one.... Apperently, while at University in Australia he was a member of a communist group\club ( This get's bizarre, but it's worth following)...
He built his intial fortune on the success of the Uk newspaper "The Sun".... and that was built on introducing the bare breasts of teenage girls (Some as young as fifteen) onto page three of that paper........ Soft-porn therefore pays the salaries of those right wing commentators on Fox who decry the appalling drop in morals prevalent amongst the society he has done so much to shape.
Here's where it gets interesting.
He expanded a decade ago into the far east market.... China in particular......through his satellite broadcasting ..... there, he agreed, at Communist China's request... to censor all his TV output in the region and remove certain sources of news and information from his satellite broadcasts completely.... such as the BBC.
There are long time observors of Rupert Murdoch who hold the belief that his "flirtation" with communism while at University was and is, in fact, a core belief..... that he is happy to help corrupt and destroy democracy from within, while makeing huge , untaxed, profits, through his media Empire.
DaveGood
Owenz.....
Sir..... you assume post assumes there are only two ways a , media outfit ( or any other organisation) for that matter CAN be owned....
One is directly, by the government ( often called communism\socialist etc).... the other is.... by private inviduals ..... ( who may end up owning the government as well because they own the opinion forming press)..... the fact is .... there are other, very succesful models of ownerships that place ownership and control of large powerful institutions beyond the reach of governments and self interested individuals alike.
One is the co-operative......In my country two of our oldest and mnost powerful newspaper are owned and run on that basis... the Observor and the telegraph.
Another is the BBC and the PBS ..... both of whom were set up to be at arms length from governments and any special interest groups but are currently umder attack and about to be "brought to heel" by thier governments.
My original point still stands.... your media is largely owned by a very small like-minded group of elderly white males who all know each other.
They control the formation of opinion within your society..... and opinion is politics.
DaveGood
PS.... Never been totally convinced by the arguement that Murdoch is a closet communist myself.......... but it's put forward by people who claim to have known him from his University days, long before I was born.... they think they see a consistent pattern..... damage and corrupt western democracies from within, useing capitilisms's tools.
PS.....
B*gger.... the above should read "Gaurdian".... not "Telegraph"....sorry.
DaveGood
Owenz :)
Sir.... you clearly know your field....... as for "would the british invent it?".... We did ... remember? These are British Newspapers.
You want to seriously make a case that the ownership of mass media should end up in the hands of a few like-minded individuals...... as it has... In the US and increasingly elsewhere..... and that it would benefit society.
By all means, make your case.....
But, and i may be wrong, you didn't seem to argueing that in your original, thoughtful post.
What I'm doing here is pointing out that you, along with most Americans I have ever met or corresponded with, assume that ownership and control of anything will be between "State" ( Ie communism\socialism) or "private individual" (Capitilism)..... The choices are far wider then that.....
Society and communities are entitled and fully capable of owning and controlling important entities and can do so in way's, that government on the one hand and selfish private interest on the other, are far more beneficial to all concerned.
Unless you actually WANT Rupert Murdoch and his ilk dictateing the terms of debate within your country?
DaveGood
"Freedom"....
A "Free" press.
Nothing and no-one, includeing the Press is "Free" if it is owned by some other entity. Ask any slave.
Don't know who you work for..... but I'm willing to bet whoever, or whatever it is..... that "entity" dictates to you what you can and cannot do, can and cannot wear, can and cannot say during your working week.... and has extended it's influence into the rest of your life.......I'm willing to bet for example, it can fire you should it learm that you have been caught smoking a joint, on your own time, on holiday, a thousand miles away from where you work.
People have been excommunicated from thier church becuase they redused to vote for George Bush
Just how "free" are you?
DaveGood
Owenz.
Sir, let us please be serious......are you claiming the information\news you recieved from the sources you qoute "NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal News Division".... before during and since your countries attack, invasion and occupation of a country one tenth your size, and utterly incapable of defending itself, was, and is, in anyway reflected within these august newspapers?
Knowing what you know now......just how f*cking accurate were they?
DaveGood
PS. Note to the author\owner of this blog... you want to ban and delete me from your blog ..... I accept it with good grace and no critiisism.... you have the right and I will not contest it.
Owenz.....
As for the type of government the people of Darfur get.......it seems the regime in your country has taken a shine to it.
Do try to keep up.... just because the Wall Street Journal prints it... doesn't mean it is true, honest, or in your best interests.
DaveGood
what can't happen here? Arbeit Macht Frei? It's already happening.....
Owenz......
Why do you keep insisting that the american media ( while awknowledgeing and lamenting it has been damaged and weakened).... is still the best in the world?
Just how good a job have they done in reporting honestly, accurately and fairly the true state of the world we all live in?
The media in other countries..... virtually ANY other country ... reported the true state of affairs over Iraq, who wanted War, why they wanted it and what they expected to gain.... and they were proved right.... NOT in hindsight, they were right at the time concerned.
Your media didn't just perform badly ( and even if that's all thier guilty of.... it still doesn't square with your claim they are more to be trusted then any other news source does it?)
It's clear they knowingly did so... and do so today..... Some fifty per cent of Americans still believe to this day that Saddam Hussien had WMD and\or backed 9\11.... It takes a massive concerted effort by your media to bring that about....when your own government and George Bush himself have been forced to awknowledge that in fact Saddam didn't have WMD... and there is no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in 9\11.
Corruption is to light a word to lay at the door of your news media.... Betrayal matches more closely what they have done and continue to do.
DaveGood
PS to above post
Owez.... that you clearly wish the real state of affairs within the American Media was different.... that "honourable" and courageous reporting should be the norm, and that is greatly to your credit.....
But the gap between what you wish for and reality is so huge no attempt can be made to intellectually bridge it.
You are left with the choice of looking at the world as it actually is, and trying to do something about it, or retreating into fantasies.
DaveGood
oh....
and Owenz.... "Dying" ... was the term you used to describe the current condition of American News Media... was it not?
DaveGood
Tayefeth.....
Why send a correspondant at all?
Those "embedded" with the "Coalition" have proved worse then useless... many awknowledging that themselves... locked up as they are in Saddams former palaces......
Why not read the blogs from within those countries or areas of interest ( when they are avaialable)..... there are many fine ones from Iraq..... Who would you rather trust and believe?..... the direct voice of someone living day to day with the reality of any given situation..... or thier voice filtered through the perceptions and mindset of someone who flew in, stayed half an hour, conversed through a (usually government supplied) interpreter, and flew out again?
Blogs are primary source material...... thanks to the web I no longer have to rely on some corporate owned entity to tell me what they think I ought to know, or think about, in any given situation..... I can usually reach directly someone living it, and hear what THEY think and fell about what's going on.
DaveGood
PS.... that said.... I follow the writings of certain correspondents with great interest and pleasure:)
"In a democracy, people generally get the type of journalism they deserve"
And one could also add "government they deserve".
If one wanted to discredit the media and they were in the WH, all one would have to do is just create false information from what one would reasonably think is a reliable source.
Jayson is a different story, but Rather and Newsweek it could very well be.
I do often wonder why Judy Miller from NYT used Ahmad Chalabi as a trusted source?
Look how easily a finger in a bowl of chili brought Wendy's to its knees. The WH could very well plant a finger in the US media to also bring it to its knees. Since these stories, I'm giving the media a break. Their job is extremely hard these days.
Do you think it is beyond Karl Rove to plant misinformation?
Considering what Rove did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000, it is certainly not beyond him to plant misinformation. He was involved in similar shenanigans in a couple of Texas campaigns, too.
And FWIW, I agree with owenz that the Republican Party's goal is to destroy the media's credibility, thereby neutralizing the Fourth Estate. It's a logical, albeit shameful, objective for a party that controls the executive and legislative branches and is in the process of stacking the judiciary in its favor.
Nice blog. Check out mine if you can. Thanks. citizen automobile finance inc
Very nice site!
»
Post a Comment
<< Home