Change in media reporting

[Gian P Gentile]

...and see this caricature as a satirical spin on a real, real issue.

Please define what you see as the "real, real issue" at hand here? I think I know what you are implying but want to be sure before I respond.

gian

[Steve Blair]

Please define what you see as the "real, real issue" at hand here? I think I know what you are implying but want to be sure before I respond.

gian

Or define what you see as the issue, since at the end of the day many issues are in fact a meeting between a number of individual interpretations of that issue. My own news grazing is something of a cross between RTKs and Schmedlap's (I have this major issue with coughing up about $100 a month to watch three channels, so no cable for this household), and I do find that there is a clarity of spin when you aren't saturated with outlets.

And as far as I'm concerned, The Today Show isn't news. Of course, Entertainment Tonight also claims to be news, so go figure....

[SWCAdmin]

Please define what you see as the "real, real issue" at hand here? I think I know what you are implying but want to be sure before I respond.

That the role of the media and its interaction with both society and conflict is a) huge b) dramatically accelerated from a generation or two ago (just more? or fundamentally different?).

Again, this specific satire just floated past me. Concur w/ Fuchs, the author needs to go back to satirical journalism school before landing the war desk at the Onion. I don't put it forward to advocate for or skewer whatever leaning anyone infers from it, but simply because it will cause so many to infer. Please continue to do so, fascinating observations, looking forward to yours, too, Gian.

[marct]

You know, there are some interesting assumptions operating here that haven't been pulled out and probably should be. First is the actual question of responsibilities - of the media, of the citizen, of the soldier. There appears to be an assumption that he citizen should "educate" themselves on current issues both via "formal" education and via the media. Second, that the role of the media is to act as a watchdog; uncovering what is going on that is (possibly) being hidden from the public. Third, that soldiers will, inevitably, practice some form of if not "censorship", then at least deception.

What I find fascinating is that none of these role-responsibility assumptions, barring a limited form of the third one, is backed up by any social structural factors. Citizens are nor rewarded (or punished) for their knowledge; indeed, for the past 70 years or so, there has been a progressive structural emphasis to "domesticate" citizens in order to make them more "predictable" for advertising, either political of corporate. The media are economically punished for taking the time to do a really good, in-depth job of analyzing issues (that "quest for eyeballs" problem). At the same time, academics are also punished for doing the same if it steps outside of the broad boardaries of the politically acceptable (not, necessarily, the same thing as Politically Correct; see here for an example). Finally, soldiers are structurally required to limit information that, in many instances, goes well beyond the actual requirements of OPSEC (cf Lt. Gen. Caldwell's comments here).

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?

This is why I believe that the blogsphere, and sites like SWC, are so important. The structural impetus is not crudely economic in the "I do X, you pay me Y" sense of the term. It is a much better example of a "free market" of information than anything that shows up in the MSM.

*****
just got a link to this which I think makes part of my argument for me...

L.A. Times to Cut 250 jobs, 150 in newsroom.

[Tom Odom]

You know, there are some interesting assumptions operating here that haven't been pulled out and probably should be. First is the actual question of responsibilities - of the media, of the citizen, of the soldier. There appears to be an assumption that he citizen should "educate" themselves on current issues both via "formal" education and via the media. Second, that the role of the media is to act as a watchdog; uncovering what is going on that is (possibly) being hidden from the public. Third, that soldiers will, inevitably, practice some form of if not "censorship", then at least deception.

What I find fascinating is that none of these role-responsibility assumptions, barring a limited form of the third one, is backed up by any social structural factors. Citizens are nor rewarded (or punished) for their knowledge; indeed, for the past 70 years or so, there has been a progressive structural emphasis to "domesticate" citizens in order to make them more "predictable" for advertising, either political of corporate. The media are economically punished for taking the time to do a really good, in-depth job of analyzing issues (that "quest for eyeballs" problem). At the same time, academics are also punished for doing the same if it steps outside of the broad boardaries of the politically acceptable (not, necessarily, the same thing as Politically Correct; see here for an example). Finally, soldiers are structurally required to limit information that, in many instances, goes well beyond the actual requirements of OPSEC (cf Lt. Gen. Caldwell's comments here).

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?

This is why I believe that the blogsphere, and sites like SWC, are so important. The structural impetus is not crudely economic in the "I do X, you pay me Y" sense of the term. It is a much better example of a "free market" of information than anything that shows up in the MSM.

*****
just got a link to this which I think makes part of my argument for me...

L.A. Times to Cut 250 jobs, 150 in newsroom.

Great points as usual, Marc. 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.

Inside the military, I had a similar experience as an intelligence analyst and operator dealing with manuever commanders. Intelligence is always a business of pessimism; manuever looks for and expects the positive. The friction between the two is apparent to anyone who has ever sat through an ops intell update. When the shoving is over, the positive wins.

Ergo most of what is going to come out as the facts in a military account of any event is going to tend toward the positive. That tendency also runs full tilt into the media's tendency to look for the bad news.

We are not going to "fix" this. We can only expect it and mitigate its effects when necessary. See: CALL Newsletter 07-04 Media is the Battlefield

Best

Tom

[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...