This election season is giving us a chance to observe our media
at its best as well as at its very worst. Unfortunately, I can find
more examples of bad behavior than of good. When we depend on the
objectivity of the media, at least as far as
“news” goes, the fact that they fail so often is
disheartening.
This election season is giving us a chance to observe our media at its best as well as at its very worst. Unfortunately, I can find more examples of bad behavior than of good. When we depend on the objectivity of the media, at least as far as “news” goes, the fact that they fail so often is disheartening.
Recently, the Internet Magazine, Salon, ran an column that addressed the manner in which Howard Dean had been treated by the media. (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/13/dean_media/) The lead in to this story reads: “Democrats haven’t voted yet, but reporters have got the story: The former Vermont governor is angry, gaffe-prone and unelectable. How do they know? Republicans, and anonymous Democrats, told them so.”
The implication is that a majority of the media is being manipulated in favor of a comparatively conservative John Kerry or the even more conservative Republicans.
Isn’t it interesting that the “liberal” media has become the “conservative” media? Has the tool of the Left as defined by Reagan and Gingrich become a part of Hillary’s “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy”?
Well maybe not. It seems to me that it is more realistic to think of this as an the result of several factors designed to give us pablum.
The media truly finds it difficult to deal with issues in an election. At heart, they don’t think that the public can really understand issues. So, they report on elections as if they were athletic events. They keep score. Who is ahead? Who made a winning shot? landed a knockout punch? That they can understand … no need get involved in these mucky “issues”.
Media pundits are also in competition with each other. So, the way they keep their own personal score has no relationship to how well they report the “news” but rather it is in who gets the scoop or can ask the “gotcha” question. Therefore, the media always appears to be against the one being grilled. In the 2000 election, there was a bit more balance in that there were two campaigns going on … Gore / Bradley and Bush / McCain. (Unfortunately, the better man lost both times.) This year, with only a Democratic Primary to focus on, Bush gets a free pass … at least for a while.
Once anyone has defined “the story” then everyone else has to chase the same story or risk being asked “Why weren’t you on top of that?” Look at how quickly the Dean “screech” story was picked up by everyone. Fortunately, one documentary photographer was there who was not getting the same feed directly from the mic in Dean’s hands. Her clip showed that Dean was almost inaudible above the supporting roar of the crowd. The result is that we do not have anyone truly looking at what is going on because, having decided what the “story” is, they all try to package it better than the next guy.
Even though Dean brings up the issue of Kerry and contributions from lobbyists, that is not yet how the networks have defined the story and when aired, it is not presented in terms of whether it is factual or not. The only comments are whether this will derail Kerry. Again, all they are doing is keeping score.
Finally, I feel that much of the media is arrogant. They feel a disconnect from the rest of us, who are neither privileged as in insider nor capable of really understanding it. It is this arrogance that bothers me the most. You can hear the condescending tone when they speak of “the public” or “the voters.”
Just listen for it in the tone of Tim Russert, Ted Koppel or Bob Schieffer. Well, it was hard to listen to Schieffer on Sunday, because CBS had such a full day of SuperBowl that they ran his hour long Face the Nation interview candidate Edwards at 1 a.m. Monday on the West Coast. Kerry must have loved it. Was that bias or business? Who can sell the most ads? Whether the intent was there or not, the result was a bias.
Every year, various Pulitzer Prizes are awarded for different journalistic categories. For example the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary was “Awarded to Colbert I. King of The Washington Post for his against-the-grain columns that speak to people in power with ferocity and wisdom.” I would love to see a Pulitzer Prize for Yellow Journalism awarded to the most over hyped, under reported, fact free media presentation. After all, Pulitzer, along with Hearst, invented “yellow journalism.”
So far, I think that I would give the award to FOX News for any number of reasons, though NBC is running a close second with Chris Matthews’s content-free Hard Ball.
As March 2 approaches, I wonder how the California story will play out. I hope that the Democratic primary is decided by then. If it isn’t, all we will hear is the play by play and campaign sound bites. The real issues for California, Propositions 56, 57 and 58 will be lost. They just won’t be the story – after all it is only our future at stake.
“I find I have a great lot to learn – or unlearn. I seem to know far too much and this knowledge obscures the really significant facts, but I am getting on.” –Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Wes Rolley is an artist and concerned citizen. The Board of Contributors is comprised of local writers whose views appear on Tuesdays and Fridays.
