Change in media reporting

[marct]

Great points as usual, Marc.

Thanks, Tom. I seem to be on a structuralist jag recently...

I would add a fourth consideration in media affairs. As a military guy for most of my life--but one assigned to work with non-military agencies--I have long watched our military culture and how it affects our views and how we describe those views, both orally and in writing. We as a military see what we report as correct and anything that differs from what we see as correct is by definition incorrect and possibly delberately so. "We don't like CNN so we change channels to Fox because we like them more,' is symptomatic of this tendency.

Really good point, Tom. I've always suspected that one of the key friction points has been conflicts in the oral language, without people understanding why the differences exist and why they are necessary. I remember years ago talking with a bunch of anti-(Vietnam)war people in Toronto, and one of the comments made really stuck with me: (roughly) "the military uses 'sanitized' language to avoid responsibility for their actions." Hunh, what a crock! About a week before that little encounter, I had been having lunch with my great uncle, who was a WW I vet, and a bunch of his friends and they had slipped out of "sanitized" language for a minute or two, appeared to get very depressed and then started using it again.

But that friction with language comes out, especially when reporters quote people. Terms like "collateral damage", "friendly fire", etc. have a tendency to be taken by many of the civilian population as newspeak in the Orwellian sense. It's certainly not unique to military-civilian interactions, either . The way many people react to what politicians and corporations say is another great example of the phenomenon; phrases like "unavoidable readjustment in the economy", "rightsizing", "free trade", etc. are good examples.

Marc

[Ken White]

I could quibble around the edges but only microscopically and that only due to personal experience and bias.

Reality is always such a drag...

[Featherock]

The post that started this thread is conservative propaganda and not worth the attention of SWJ readers. The discussion it generated is more interesting.

That said, are there any actual journalists commenting here?

[Ken White]

The post that started this thread is conservative propaganda and not worth the attention of SWJ readers.

I would've said poor satire as opposed to propaganda but whatever.

That said, are there any actual journalists commenting here?

Oblong said he was, >20 years worth...

Now you're here so that's two (plus lurkers like hedgpethd), I guess...

[Featherock]

I thought that the satire itself was quite good! It's the propagandistic bent to it that brings it down. But enough of that...

I don't think we in the U.S. get enough mainstream media stories that are critical of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thank God for the web

[Ken White]

I don't think we in the U.S. get enough mainstream media stories that are critical of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Definition 1, below, I think we get more than enough *. If you mean Definition 2, then I agree with you:

1. Inclined to judge severely and find fault.

2. Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment:


* With the caveat that I understand that if it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead and that the second definition is precluded by several factors including local stringers with obvious and totally understandable impartiality problems and a general lack of knowledge, acceptance or understanding of all many western reporters see -- and also that there's a strong proclivity to insure prophecy becomes reality on the part of stateside based editors and producers.

[Featherock]

Definitely #2.

I think the result of #2 has been jingoism, mainly.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing more of #1 if the theoretical media outlet and/or media personality was clearly anti-war, a thundering pacifist, or even an angry protectionist. That would be fun to watch.

[Wildcat]

I laughed. I wouldn't call it conservative propaganda, but it highlights a very well earned distrust with the media. Not to get on my soapbox or anything, but I've seen virtually no news coverage of the current offensive in Mosul, the last redoubt of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

The moment I still come back to, though, time and time again in my mind, was when Cpl. Jason Dunham's family was given his Medal of Honor, awarded posthumously.

But it received virtually no airtime on any of the major cable news outlets.

Why?

Because that was the same day as Anna Nicole Smith's funeral.

Non-stop coverage of some bimbo's funeral on CNN, while Dunham's sacrifice went almost unnoticed. That made my blood boil.

Take from that what you will. I don't buy into all the "liberal media" invective that gets tossed around. I read the New York Times almost every day, and I don't believe there's any conspiracy to undermine the war. But I am constantly reminded that media is a business, and it tends to seek that which will bring more viewers, and thus generate more revenue. There may be a few diamonds in the rough, reporters and correspondents who still have integrity and commitment, but by and large it seems to me that the media is not to be trusted.

[marct]

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing more of #1 if the theoretical media outlet and/or media personality was clearly anti-war, a thundering pacifist, or even an angry protectionist. That would be fun to watch.

True, but that's back at the infotainment industry . Personally, I'd like to see more critical examinations as well, especially if there is a sharp distinction drawn between why it started and what's happening now.

[selil]

True, but that's back at the infotainment industry . Personally, I'd like to see more critical examinations as well, especially if there is a sharp distinction drawn between why it started and what's happening now.

We could write critical examinations but it would get darn lonely quick.

[marct]

We could write critical examinations but it would get darn lonely quick.

LOLOL - too true!

BTW, I was using the term "critical" in its real, not PC, sense - an evaluation of available evidence and judgement. The PC sense of "It's BAAAAAAADDDDD!!!!!!!!" doesn't cut it IMHO .

[Ken White]

...I think the result of #2 has been jingoism, mainly.

I'm unsure what you mean by that. I do know that I have seen so little truly thoughtful analysis and comment on either Afghanistan or Iraq that I'm unsure how jingoism can develop other than as a dumb knee jerk reaction to sloppy reporting.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing more of #1 if the theoretical media outlet and/or media personality was clearly anti-war, a thundering pacifist, or even an angry protectionist. That would be fun to watch.

The interesting thing is that there's plenty of #1 about due to ignorance of entirely too many of the writers and a bias that is not necessarily as a committed believer in much of anything, to include the three thoughts you posit.

Indeed, many don't seem to be believers in much of anything except in some cases by some journalists that it is their role to save the world from itself -- like the Preachers who believe the same thing, they really get short shrift from most of the great unwashed. I truly don't think most of the world savers in either vocation realize just how short...

Marketing in the US generally heads for the late teen-early 20 market because that's where the flaky binge spenders are. Due to market pressures as Oblong mentioned print journalism is aiming at the same market. Like him, I'm inclined to disagree with that approach. It would seem to me that anyone who wanted to improve the world would object strenuously to dumbing down anything, much less the news. There are exceptions that do not dumb down their output -- but there are not nearly enough of them.

Marc said:

"...Personally, I'd like to see more critical examinations as well, especially if there is a sharp distinction drawn between why it started and what's happening now."

Between why it started or why it was said it started? Two very, very different things, I think...

[Rank amateur]

I do know that I have seen so little truly thoughtful analysis and comment on either Afghanistan or Iraq that I'm unsure how jingoism can develop other than as a dumb knee jerk reaction to sloppy reporting.

The fact that the war was sold on sound bites like weapons of mass destruction, liberation, flowers at our feet, dead enders and mission accomplished may have something to do with it too.

[marct]

Between why it started or why it was said it started? Two very, very different things, I think...

Good point, Ken - I was more referring to the entire entire "start debate" vs. the "now that we're here..." or what do we do now" debates. For example, a story that says "this is an illegal war so we should now withdraw" would be mixing the two. It's one of the reasons why I was so peeved over the Dems "Support the soldiers, not the war" meme...

[Rank amateur]

It's one of the reasons why I was so peeved over the Dems "Support the soldiers, not the war" meme...

"If you support our troops, you must support the war" hasn't worked out too well for the other guys. What do you suggest instead?

[Culpeper]

The post that started this thread is conservative propaganda and not worth the attention of SWJ readers. The discussion it generated is more interesting.

Conservative propaganda is a little harsh. Conservative satire is more like it. Its intellectual value has some merit no different than political cartoons of every flavor. Excluding myself, most of the folks posting on this thread are taking a serious look at the media that the satire sparked. So, I disagree that the post, which started this thread is not worth reading by SWC readers. Without the original post there would be no discussion here. If you found the original post insulting in some way than please elaborate further. To include something written in American society as propaganda is not taking a fair look at freedom of expression. The word, "propaganda" used to describe someone's freedom of expression is a hot button that should be used with caution. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of every journalist's philosophy on Freedom for the Press. In fact, I would go far as to state that describing the satire as "conservative", "liberal", "right", or "left", is a moot point.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Originally posted by marct:

Part of the problem, I suspect, is the idealistic nature of a chunk of your (US) assumptions, especially those related to the idea of an invisible hand operating in the information/political economy. Personally, I think it is naive to assume that the media will not be co-opted by political and economic factions with specific agendas. Their entire livelihood is based on their ability to compete in the (supposedly) "free market" of information reporting. But where does the money come from?

Actually, the "But where does the money come from?" is interesting. It's not "new money" at issue here, because there really isn't any, but it is all about stagnating/declining revenues, and even tougher, new outlets competing for existing revenues.

The news media has over the long-term, cast themselves as the "Information Middleman", but they got both greedy and stupid about doing it, and they overdid it. If you want to be a successful middleman, honesty and integrity are EVERYTHING. And when you are in the middle and you find that you are "shaping" the news (even if only by appearance, and even if only to part of the audience), you have just started on that slippery slope down to the bottom.

And then you have the Internet.

The theme of disintermediation -- of eliminating middlemen -- has been a driving force in the Internet for as long as commerce has been allowed on the web. But what happens when the middleman you just eliminated had as one of his or her jobs the task of keeping us from being ripped off?

Link to Column

Now, that's an argument that could be made by the newspapers (and television), except for the fact that it's become apparent that they were the very ones ripping "We The People" off over all this time - for example, see the effects of craigslist.org on newspapers classified advertising, and other types of advertising. So making the watchdog argument is falling on mostly deaf ears.

There's a reality here that the print media (and I'm not just talking newspapers, and certainly not just the WaPo and/or NYTimes) is having to deal with, which is their news media "Leadership" (such as it is) has been, and still is trying desperately to make information / POV outlets like the Internet and the blogs subservient to their existing empires. Basically, they are trying the same approach circa 1997-2004 that Microsoft tried to do with the Internet, which was run the Internet through the desktop, which MS just happened to control. Didn't work for them, no reason it's going to change this second time around.

It's almost like their media empires work on the basis that because they have all this tradition, and a business plan that worked reasonably well pre-Internet, and all this sunk capital already deployed in their empires, that's enough of a reason that they should be pre-eminent going forward into the Internet/digital future.

But that's unlikely to be, IMO. Just pay close attention to the troubles and travails of The Tribune Company over the last year or so. And just wait for the whole STNG (Chicago Sun-Times News Group) to fail, because there's a slow-motion train wreck in process. There will be others.

Finally, just as an observation, it seems to an outsider that the mainstream media seems to spend an inordinate amount of time picking at the US military, but the end result is that the military is much better for it (certainly in terms of the measure of public respect), while the news media seems to keep sinking even further into the depths of public disrespect. You think they'd figure it out after a while that they got the formula backwards.

[Ken White]

A resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania -- who unlike his namesake Uncle A. E. Newman, does worry.

Alfred has been known to say:

"Football is not a game, it is a physical contest between persons of low intellect who, if they do possess Degrees, received them only because they played football for four years for some podunk college."

"Football players are vastly overpayed; it's a travesty."

"No son of mine will ever play football if I have anything to do with it."

"I would never pay a penny to watch a football game."

"They built that big expensive Stadium and just think how useful that money could have been in improving downtown schools and alleviating poverty."

Alfred also says "But I support the Steelers..."

I agree with Alfred on most of those issues. The difference between us is that I make absolutely no pretense of supporting the Steelers or any other Football team.

[Ken White]

...The news media has over the long-term, cast themselves as the "Information Middleman", but they got both greedy and stupid about doing it, and they overdid it. If you want to be a successful middleman, honesty and integrity are EVERYTHING. And when you are in the middle and you find that you are "shaping" the news (even if only by appearance, and even if only to part of the audience), you have just started on that slippery slope down to the bottom.

True, I think. I cannot figure out how a bunch of nominally intelligent people cannot see what they have done to themselves in that vein.

...Basically, they are trying the same approach circa 1997-2004 that Microsoft tried to do with the Internet, which was run the Internet through the desktop, which MS just happened to control. Didn't work for them, no reason it's going to change this second time around.

Also true; I'm reminded of a quote from someone, can't recall who, on the demise of US Railroads; "They didn't realize they were in the transportation business, they thought they were in the railroad business." Interestingly, the major Airlines have more recently made the same mistake. Looks like the media is bound down the same path.

Finally, just as an observation, it seems to an outsider that the mainstream media seems to spend an inordinate amount of time picking at the US military, but the end result is that the military is much better for it (certainly in terms of the measure of public respect), while the news media seems to keep sinking even further into the depths of public disrespect. You think they'd figure it out after a while that they got the formula backwards.

Well, they told us if George Bush got elected, the nation would suffer from hubris...

[Culpeper]

True, I think. Well, they told us if George Bush got elected, the nation would suffer from hubris...