Media Reform: Systemic Change & Individual Integrity

Added by second edit: We need to fix the news/information media also.

Omnivorous writes:I agree, moose. The Fourth Estate is in a shambles: we can't straighten out the nation without a return to form of an aggressively independent press.On one hand, we have the deliberate seduction of the press in return for access, with critical reporters shunned; on the other, the sealing off of traditional flows of information to the press, with the government classifying documents at nearly ten times the rate of the Clinton (or prior) administrations while bringing the process of declassification of older records nearly to a halt. Governmental agencies and departments have been instructed to aggressively resist FOIA requests that were once routinely granted.The Bush administration has always excelled at denying access to critical reporters, while rewarding supporters with leaks: this coziness helped conduct the Iraqi WMD charade. Concomitantly, media conglomeration has facilitated all the above by bringing the interests of media owners in line with GOP funders--huge corporations that at best prefer to sell entertainment and at worst profit from deliberately slanting or withholding information.We could go on and on about media failures in recent years, but for me it culminated with the NYT admitting it sat on the warrantless eavesdropping story prior to the 2004 election. I cannot stop marvelling at how much has been lost when the supposed "newspaper of record"--and oft-accused liberal bastion--would spike a story of deliberate, unConstitutional malfeasance at the perpetrator's request. We are in deep, deep trouble. This is not a smilie--it's really how I look when I think about it.The GOP Congress' response to leaks about a torture gulag is to investigate the leak: both the gulag and the response falls so short of "We hold these truths to be self evident..." that I sometimes fear the damage is beyond repair.Would Watergate be uncovered today? We had one of the two Watergate luminaries pooh-poohing the seriousness of the Valerie Plame leaks, insisting they couldn't possibly be part of an Administration leak-smear, when he had himself received the same leaked info from Karl Rove. How far that is to fall...Could the Pentagon Papers be published? Or would the source and the publisher merely disappear into the enemy combatant gulag--no warrant, no court appearance, no lawyer, no habeas corpus? Perhaps after Homeland Security Agents stop the presses? None of that sounds far-fetched to me--the Attorney General has explicitly argued that the president has the power to declare any U.S. citizen an enemy combatant without review by the courts. We are terrifyingly close to that abyss; history shows us how quickly the distance from Republic to regime can be traveled.I am anxious to see what happens in the first half of 2006. The WH lost some ground on this front with the Rove leak scandal, the pay-offs to columnists for pro-Administration propaganda, government-supplied video segments being passed off as independent news, etc. Most U.S. voters feel they were misled by the Bush administration on WMDs and the Iraqi invasion.Like the Democrats and the left in general, the media desperately need to regrow a backbone. There are a few encouraging signs, but they remain pitifully few.

Theus writes:Unfortunately, we need more than a simple change in the media. Think of the long term, we need a media that doesnt give a $#^$@# about public perception. We need a media that has secure enough funding so as not to cater to the public's demand for access in Brad Pitt and Jolie's bedroom. This is not a failing of individuals in the media, it's the failure of a system dependent upon profits.Granted, this is still a step up from the dissimenation of information in the past, but we need to generate lofty goals to design a system around... As it is two few hands cradle the fourth estate, all of which have the same goal.Think about it, if a movie by Michael Moore can hit high attendence in movie theaters, then the media is failing, because there certainly is demand for critical reporting (though arguably inaccurate).But even at that are we assuming that the people will make the right decision if the news is reported a certain way? Is the question itself not based on liberal leanings? I think the real answer won't come from such short sighted debate. We need to define and articulate an argument for an ideal media, similar to what Enlightenment-era thinkers did when looking at the control and connections between religion and government.

Omnivorous writes:Rather, it s a failure of both. As I noted, media conglomerates, concentrating the media outlets in fewer and fewer hands, have had a pernicious effect; however, the failures of individual journalists to maintain the standards, ethical and otherwise, of their profession in recent years have been spectacular. The print and broadcast media in the U.S. have always been dependent on profits, but they have often risen far above their current performance. Well, I don't have liberal leanings--I'm a flat-out radical socialist, I suppose, as much as anything, leavened with libertarian and anarchist tendencies on specific issues and registered as an independent.Over the years, I have voted for candidates in many different parties. But the only "certain way" I want the news reported is honestly and aggressively. Yes, I am assuming people make better decisions if they have more accurate information; that is not a liberal strain of American thought but a founding principle. A debate about ideals is always welcome, but I don't think we have to redefine the Fourth Estate before we address the most execrable current abuses, beginning with reporters who are "in-bedded" with the current administration and with media conglomerates which could not have been formed in a stricter anti-trust environment: a man with a leaking roof is not short-sighted because he tar-papers over the leaks before rebuilding the entire roof--especially in a hard rain.The Fourth Estate problems are both systemic and individual; in the past, the integrity of individual reporters has been a brake on the ideological and economic corruption of a free press; I think that can be true again, making a dramatic, immediate difference, while we work on longer term reforms.

As long as news is considered a profit center and not a civic duty, I expect there to be no changes.

As long as news is considered a profit center and not a civic duty, I expect there to be no changes.

This one is part debunking and part war story so I’ll just throw it out there for you to enjoy whichever way you like it.On one occasion in Afghanistan, my team had the pleasure of providing host to the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and I’ve got the coin to prove it. Our location was rather remote. We had a Special Forces team, a Civil Affairs team, and a Psychological Operations team literally two hours from anywhere; by plane that is, it was more like two days by road. And here we were, less than two dozen U.S. soldiers, preparing security for the SecDef.Due to time constraints, the meeting was to take place at the local airport, more like an airfield. I cannot get into too many details but let me just say that we utilized our local Afghan defense force and had that airport secured better than Osama’s 72 virgins.The SecDef touring through a combat zone is big news, so he had several reporters tagging along. Since the reporters were not allowed in the meeting, they wandered around the greeting area and mingled a little with the greeting party.A short time later, somebody found one of their reports and sent it back to us. It told how the Afghan men were so unaccustomed to seeing unveiled women that one Afghan soldier asked to have his picture taken with a couple of the female reporters. He then went on to describe how we moved around the aircraft they came in on like a giant chess piece to avoid drawing mortar fire. We all had a pretty hearty laugh when we read that. Here’s what really happened.First, the Afghan soldier was closely related through blood and/or partnership with the local governor/warlord and was pretty privileged; he just loved getting his picture taken and would pose for a camera any chance he could find. He was determined that any reporter with a camera was going to take his picture whether female or not.Then the aircraft was another story. For convenience, the plane initially stayed close to the greeting area but C-130’s are notoriously noisy and Rummy complained that he could not hear. So, we radioed the pilot and they turned the plane in a direction that would direct the most noise away from the meeting room. This was not enough so we asked the pilot to again move the plane further away and he taxied out to the runway. Something must have kicked in and the pilot decided that the middle of the runway was not a good place to park so he moved again to the end of the runway. So, no chess moves and nobody could get close enough to reach us with mortars.The whole reason for telling the story is to illustrate how far outside the loop the average reporter is. They observe events from the sidelines and make guesses at what is happening and then add their biases. On the other side, the one seldom reported, the military Public Affairs posts reports by the men and women who are doing the work. Are they going to put a positive spin on them? You bet they will, but whose reports are more accurate and whose reports would you rather read? Keep in mind that second hand testimony is inadmissible in court.

Now I submit a BLOG written by my friend Francis Marion Francis is on these boards

As he pointed out, most of the time reporters don't just report what they see, they see something and make a guess as to what actually happened, then spin it to sell more commericals/magazines/newspapers.

nwr writes:The reports I hear suggest that many people get their information from talk radio, MTV, the tabloids, and other equally dubious sources.

Theus writes:I fear I misrepresented myself. A failure of the system preludes a failure of the people. There will be an assortment of good and bad in any system, but the system itself will allow succesfull passage of idiots who maintain the status quo... from embedded journalists to witch burnings.We cannot control people, nor should we when it comes to their ideals and beliefs, however much we disagree. But we can reform a system, which is where I think the best effort can be pushed.

jar writes:In the past, there was an inviolable separation between news, editorial and advertising.

holmes writes:I do agree that the ability of profit motive to influence reporting is a major problem, but I have to note that that is more an indictment of the people of the United States than the individuals running for profit media companies.If there was profit in good reporting, then most companies would follow demand. Apparently most people only want infotainment (at best) and so that is where the profit is. Facts should not be followed to conclusion, but rather "debates" to their conclusion (which is yelling and screaming with more to follow later).The journalists now must keep these "debates" alive through pretense that all sides must simply be heard and not accurately fact or logic checked. And if any facts might overtly injure one side, especially a very powerful side, then it must be kept out of the debate.We can all fault the media moguls and journalists for not having the sense of civic duty that they should have, but that is to shift the burden off the shoulders of the much greater force who have lost their sense of civic duty.

Certainly from the time I began working in print media in the early 1070s, the editorial wall was quite porous.

Raise hell now. Plan heaven later.