Why didn't the serious questions get more TV air time? Why was the only bandwagon out there the one the Bush administration was driving?
The theory is that much of the Press is independent of the administration and can be expected to ask the embarrassing questions of the administration and then publish and explain the responses. Were all the journalists individually complicit in the Bush-directed rush to an unnecessary war?
Now, fives years too late, we get the answers. From Josh Silver's article:
More and more reporters, including major TV correspondents like Jessica Yellin and Chris Matthews have recently admitted that their bosses were pro-war and that it slanted their coverage.Then from Ruth Rozen, Journalist and historian, we get her experience at what was the most "liberal" newspaper in America:
I worked as an editorial writer at The San Francisco Chronicle, where a liberal editorial board raised serious objections to the war. And yet, in the years following 9/11, I felt editorial restraints that never allowed us to tell the whole truth about the lies and deception that led to America’s most catastrophic foreign policy disaster. [Snip]Even without inside sources it was clear early on that the Bush administration was lying and that the Press was either spreading those lies (FOX "News" and the other right-wing liars) or they were shading the news and omitting the opposition.
So what did I experience? An editor and an editorial board who felt that, in the absence of inside sources, we could not counter the administration’s lies.
Let me give you some examples. I was raised in a Republican family, but schooled by the great iconoclastic journalist I.F. Stone, who taught me that you can find the truth without inside sources, if only you’re willing to see beyond patriotic fervor and examine voices in the public domain that are marginalized, So, I would read national security experts who countered Donald Rumfeld’s ridiculous predictions; I would read the British, Canadian, Italian and French press; I would read the writings of experts in resource wars and weapons of mass destruction.
No, I didn’t know I was right. But I was sure that the administration was lying. And, I knew that at the very least that our editorials should be asking why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al should be believed when I had found strong evidence that they were cherry picking intelligence, and setting up their own office in the Pentagon, and acting in complete secrecy. [Snip]
When I heard Bush’s inaugural address, I heard two major lies embedded within his speech. But somehow that still wasn’t enough to accuse him of plagiarism and deception.
The truth is, even a liberal newspaper, blessed with a liberal editorial board, did not engage in truth telling. We raised some good questions, wrote about supporting the troops, but failed to describe the deception that led to the catastrophe that was unfolding right before our eyes. [Snip]
This week, I sat with a former colleague from the editorial board in a café, rather than in the room where we used to make our editorial decisions. He admitted that I had been right, but even more, that even in a liberal paper, the editor and most of the board, had felt restrained, afraid of seeming unpatriotic, afraid of saying the emperor wore no clothes, afraid of not giving the President the benefit of the doubt, afraid of truth telling without access to inside sources.
How did they get away with it?
There are three major TV networks and the cable news organizations, all owned and managed by a very few conservative individuals. The controls in TV regarding what is reported are in the hands of probably fewer than 25 or so individuals. Most local radio stations have been bought up by a very few networks like Clear Channel, and the same controls are applied to what is broadcast. And Newspapers?
The newspapers have lost their revenue streams as the downtown department stored moved to the malls, and the Reagan administration encouraged competing newspapers in the same city to merge or have one buy the other out and shut it down. Control of the news again resides in the hands of two or three people in each city, even if they aren't controlled by the few chains.
News in America is controlled by fewer than 200 individuals. They determine what will get a lot of coverage and what will be ignored.
The result? There is no free market in news in America. The many disasters of the Bush administration starting with Florida 2000 is a direct result of the central control of the news organizations. We have problems that fester because the news controllers do not want to upset the apple cart by telling the public about those problems, and most especially, they don't want to run counter to the wishes of the administration, particularly the Republican administrations.
I would bet that the 200 or so news-controlling individuals are afraid of the vindictiveness of the Republican administrations, which is why they avoid criticizing them while piling on to the Democratic administrations. That's just one of the many biases in the news media.
Another bias is that those 200 individuals are all very wealthy and belong to the class of individuals with great wealth. Chris Matthews gets $5,000,000 a year for what he does. Tim Russert gets even more. And they aren't the top decision-makers. Those top decision-makers can remove Matthews and Russert just as the head of CBS news removed Dan Rather when he became too inquisitive.
Those wealthy news-controllers don't want to upset their own apple carts, so they give labor and the poor short shrift. Better than those groups get propaganda on how to be better Americans (and support the wealthy) rather than that they learn that the social deck as stacked against them (by those wealthy individuals and their wealthy friends.)
Very large organizations do not exist to produce and sell products and services. They exist to make money, and the top CEO's control all their subordinate companies by controlling the money those companies get to keep or receive to invest. Those top CEO's are bankers, generally with little close knowledge of how the products they sell are created or used. All that matters is that revenues increase and costs be reduced.
This also applied to news organizations. Their purpose is not to collect and present their news. Their purpose is to make a profit by selling advertising, and the news department is bait to cause viewers/readers to look at the ads. Increasing revenue means selling more ads or selling ads at higher prices. Reducing costs means cutting newsroom staff - since distribution of the news is pretty much a fixed cost.
As a result, those of us who expected the news organizations to provide the information needed for an informed public who would vote for those who best manage America are sadly disappointed. IN the absence of an active and aggressive news media, we get bad government filled with corruption and ignoring the real problems that government has to deal with in an industrial society.
Welcome to the Reagan Revolution as it works its way into creating a Latin American society with about 10% wealthy 90% poor and no significant middle class. It is the result of too much centralization of power.
No comments:
Post a Comment