I find it a little odd when I hear someone express doubt of the authenticity of the facts of a report because it was written on the web and not by a major media outlet. While I agree that one should always be on the lookout for biased, agendized or even false journalism, I find it odd when people consider main stream journalism legitimate and discount alternative journalists out of hand.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of mainstream corporate media is inherently biased, spun, and written for a specific purpose. I’ve seen some statistics which state that over 70% of news stories are written by corporations and businesses themselves and placed in the news media.
The vast majority of the media itself is owned by a handful of families and to think that these families are not protecting or promoting their own interests and those of their friends is foolish at best. Yet, even if one does not have the time to fact check or research a topic, the very style and format of most of modern main stream journalism demonstrates its lack of integrity and authenticity.
The media, like most enterprises, has become increasingly dominated by economic processes. It is all about economic success and increasing market share. Smaller outlets are bought out or merge with other outlets in order to compete and survive the economic realities of a capitalistic society. Merger after merger ends up with a shrinking field of huge media entities.
These huge entities depend on access to newsmakers, advertiser revenues and increased market share for their survival. Such huge conglomerates have many divisions in varied fields of interest. It is important to note that every major news outlet has strong ties to military, financial, and industrial corporations which they almost daily have to report on. Conflicts of interest are inherent in this megastructure.
A reporter who is relatively harsh or critical of a political figure will not get exclusives or easy access to that political figure. Such a reporter will seldom be called on during press conferences and therefore endangers his position with his employer whose focus on the bottom line needs the story even if its soft.
The reality of reporters needing access to the people they report on isn’t the only factor making it difficult for reporters to be unflinching in their reporting the facts. Advertisers have a big say in how a story is written and reported. Even when they don’t censor or directly influence a potentially damaging story to their financial interests, they can always remove their financial support of the offending media outlet by dropping their ads from the radio, TV or print medium involved.
Just as politicians have become more products than leaders whose primary goal seems to be getting elected rather than an agent for designing a healthy society, likewise, the media’s need for market share makes their entire business a popularity contest and not so much about information, education and the unbiased reporting of hard facts.
On a national level it is almost impossible to write an expose or an honest portrayal of events without insulting or harming one of a news medias own subsidiaries. The huge media conglomerates are integral parts of mega multinational corporations which depend on consumer confidence and goodwill in order to continue to flourish.
This is not to imply that our news is always positive and business friendly. Everyone loves a good story and controversy sells more newspapers and magazines than anything else. The important thing is that in the long run business booms and short term dramas seldom lead to long term fiscal damage.
The advertisers themselves try to make their product look good, by making their competitors look bad. Yet, in the world of politics we thrive on the two party system. Our media loves to foster controversy between supposedly opposite poles such as conservative/liberal, democratic/republican, industrial/environmental, individual versus social rights and so on. In many of these battles the sides are really just two sides of the same coin and this easy controversy is used to distract people from real issues and choices.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans has been shrinking for decades now. Since both parties are dependent on the financial support of the wealthiest Americans neither can afford to truly represent the interests of the common man (unless you can convince the common man to support the interests of the wealthiest Americans). Both parties now support big business, war, Wall Street, etc., the only debate is in how they support these entities.
The days of classic journalism have been gone for decades. News reports no longer strive to be objective and neutral, they no longer just report the facts answering the basic questions of who, what, where and when. Yes, even in the old days specific perspectives were given, but when one perspective was given so were many others. Now, there are only two black and white perspectives given, these two viewpoints are usually labeled as democratic and republican or conservative and liberal.
I can hardly think of a single issue in which my viewpoint falls inside either of the two camps. I can’t recall the last time I read a report by the mainstream media or heard a speech by a politician which I felt articulated or even came close to a perspective I have.
I know many people who still consider outlets such as PBS and NPR as objective and even humanistic. Though I’m not a regular consumer of these outlets I have noticed a dramatic shift away from objective investigative reporting, or even a humanistic perspective to one which is noticeably status quo and supportive of current power structures and their policies.
Often times the opposing perspectives I hear regarding domestic and international policy on NPR radio are very narrowly defined. It’s like hearing if the choice is whether to watch an NFC or AFC football game and totally ignoring the possibility of the hundreds of viewing choices one has while those games are on TV. No one questions wars or the ethics of political policies, but only the two narrow and almost identical strategies of republicans and democrats.
Television and radio programs are well rehearsed in which the execution of the newscast must be planned out to almost the exact second. Even the bulk of interviews conducted on radio and TV though attempting to sound impromptu and natural are for the most part totally rehearsed. Questions and responses of supposed candid interviews are preplanned and prepared for, thus allowing interviewers a smooth interview with no dead and uncomfortable air space and no surprises for the person being interviewed. Despite the fact that most interviews progress in this seamless manner and fit perfectly into an exact time frame for the newscast, most people seem to buy into the authenticity and spontaneity of the interview.
Reporting the facts and being objective has been replaced by news anchors who explain the news to us and engage in highly emotional and judgmental language. In a story or report it is often obvious which “side” we are supposed to believe or support. The bad people’s quotes, organizations or nations are littered with words such as “so called”, “alleged” and their actions framed as “terrorists” or “insurgents”. While the good guys are often the victims of a given situation and their quotes are certain and contain no doubt. When the need for description is called for they will be referred to do as defenders of justice or freedom fighters.
One of my favorite phrases used so often in modern news reporting is “some people feel”, or “some people believe”. In reality this is a total non-statement, but used artfully it can steer public opinion in the direction you want it to go. The authority and voice tone of the speaker is the only thing giving the phrase “some people think” any validity or influence. Yet, these phrases are uttered by news reporters more often than almost any other.
Obviously in any debate some people think one way and others think the opposite, the newscaster is taking sides by only stating one side. Comments such as “some economists think concerns regarding the economy are over blown”, “some experts feel that entitlement programs reduce productivity”, or “some scientists feel that global warming is more myth than fact”, all are misleading and prejudicial. Any statement of fact should have ample data supporting it, resorting to “some people” opinion statements is not good journalism nor a good sign of the objectivity of the report.
Early on in this post I pointed out some of the factors which have greatly contributed to the death of ethical and responsible journalism. These factors included the increased role of advertisers, the world of wealth the owners of mass media belong to, and the financial realities of media including market share and keeping friendly relations with news makers to insure constant access. Let’s expand on these ideas a moment to further articulate the growing sham that is portrayed as objective journalism.
So often our journalists are asked to stay mute or avoid reporting important news for the sake of “national security’ or if their reports could put “honest Americans in danger”. When reporting on the Iraq war journalists were banned from reports which could provide “aid and comfort to the enemy”, or divulge “sensitive information”. Instead they were required to just cover the press conferences held by the military to update the public on the war, or become “embedded” with the troops in chosen activities. The danger of not following these conditions was obvious in the fact that the Red Cross and foreign and alternative press incurred bomb and artillery attacks on a number of occasions even when they were clearly marked or had recently communicated their position and purpose.
No photos were allowed of military action or of injured or killed servicemen. Any report at all critical of the war or the actions of our military was attacked as anti-American and a danger to our troops. Without balanced and objective coverage of the war American’s weren’t able to monitor and question the policies and actions of its military. A case could be made that freedom of the press could alert the public when a military campaign is unnecessary of ill advised and thereby save the lives of our troops and our national security by removing us from battles unfitting to the goals and ideals of a world power.
One has to wonder about our government’s concern about national security and its relation to what is reported on the news. If filming our troops and military actions in a war zone is a threat to national security then why is not a danger to frequently encourage our press to insult and antagonize our enemies and their leaders?
The list of foreign leaders and nations which our leaders through the media label as evil and crazy is quite extensive. If it were true that these leaders and these nations were truly a threat to our national security why would we publicly call them crazy and ruthless? If we really were vulnerable to their actions and military attacks why would we acknowledge and admit this? If our media retained a shred of journalistic integrity don’t you think that be asking our leaders these questions?
The asking of questions in America which does not serve the interests of the military/industrial complex, or fit into the conservative/liberal debate is all but disallowed. Asking a question when facts don’t match the official story is considered paranoid or conspiracy thinking.
It is easy to view the national media as a lap dog for both the government and the wealthiest of Americans. A short list of what appears to me to be obvious examples of either utter stupidity or complicity should suffice to make my point.
When the towers came down they sure looked like a planned demolition and they came down at near speed of free fall totally inconsistent with the plane impact and resulting fire official story. This doesn’t even speak to the tower that came down which did not suffer any plane impact or direct fire caused by jet fuel. Of course, right away people defending the official story will accuse me of being a conspiracist or assume that I believe it was an inside job. Yet, strip the name calling and labeling away and the questions still remain. I have no idea what happened but why weren’t the logical questions asked?
Soon after the towers came down there were concerns regarding the air quality in the area. The EPA and other “experts” claimed that the air was fine despite the fact that workers and residents were complaining about symptoms which would typically signal a severe reaction to toxic air quality. Yet, despite this obvious contradiction of the official story I did not see any news report where they researched, investigated or questioned the official story in any substantial manner, or interview someone who felt the air was not safe.
The recent Gulf oil spill quickly went from ecological disaster to past history in an amazingly short period of time. The media once again was forbidden to film the spill or the clean up efforts. Then whole procedure was handled like a war situation where the media was forced to limit their reporting to information conveyed at the daily press conferences held by BP and the government.
Once the well was in the process of being capped the story went away. I saw some follow up stories in outlets such as the Christian Science Monitor in which the headlines proclaimed that the Gulf though injured was safe and quickly recovering. Most of the articles I read were artfully written to give the impression that the major harm was done and the long term prospects for the Gulf were promising.
All the articles talked of how effective the clean up efforts were progressing and that though the clean-up may take years, the general health of the waters and the sea life was better than anticipated. The articles that went into some detail do so in the following manner.
First they would state a range of gallons of oil that had been sucked up. These estimates were vague and never expressed in terms of the percentage of total oil spilled. Second they would state that some oil was sinking to the bottom of the gulf and described this oil as being relatively inert and only a harm to the sea life it was covering at the bottom. Each article hinted that the sinking oil was being caused by the chemical dispersants being amply used in the cleanup. No word of explanation was offered as to how something used to disperse the oil was somehow responsible for its coagulating and sinking.
In fact not one single article I read (of over two dozen) mentioned the fact that the oil that was successfully dispersed wasn’t gone, but only dispersed into the water. They would say the noun dispersant but avoided all verb forms which could imply that oil was being dispersed and not removed. Not only did the reports and journalist not ask any questions regarding this conflict, or report the actual mechanics of chemical dispersants, but they also underplayed the toxicity of the chemical dispersants. In sentence after sentence they would say that the dispersants have not been “proved” to be more harmful than the oil, and that in fact they are “considered” to be less toxic than oil.
The following parts of the articles truly show the death of journalism. They went on to say that since the chemical dispersants were less toxic than oil, a combination of the two was actually less toxic than oil alone. They stated that a gallon of oil was far more toxic than a half gallon of oil and a half gallon of dispersant. What they led a reader to believe was that the dispersant was replacing the oil it was dispersing and therefore making the gulf less toxic the more it was used. What was missing was any information regarding the amount of dispersant used compared to the amount of oil in the gulf.
Yet, since by its name a dispersant doesn’t remove but only disperses the most logical conclusion would be that we now have the toxicity of the oil spill plus the toxicity of the dispersant. I was horrified when these logical assumptions weren’t even posed as questions for the professionals to answer. So while the headlines of most of the articles proclaimed the Gulf as being safe, these claims were neither supported or questioned by the content of the articles.
A logical person is only able to conclude that the dispersants were not used to clean up the Gulf or reduce the toxicity of the water, but only to disperse the oil diluting its toxicity by spreading it over a greater area while at the same time making any further attempt at collecting or removing the toxic oil less possible if not impossible. Instead of collecting and cleaning up the massive oil spill, we decided to disperse it into the water system by adding additional toxicity to the water through massive use of chemical dispersants. Though our government showed a moment of backbone and humanity by ordering BP to stop using the dispersant they were and find a less toxic alternative, they did nothing when BP refused to comply and continued the use unabated.
There are literally hundreds of examples I could give in which it appears our national media has at worst lied to or deceived the public and at best did not ask the basic questions inherent in being a journalist.
Many of the world’s tragedies could be reduced and in some cases prevented by media outlets with integrity and ethics. Events and situations such as famine, torture, genocide, epidemics, slavery, abuse, crime and mass exploitation could be reduced or rectified by a free and ethical media. Yet, currently one has to wonder if the media is exacerbating these events and situations by being propagandists and apologists for those who stand to suffer financially by an open and thorough reporting of events and its related discussion.
Jim Guido