|
there was a tremendous amount of self-censorship in the media, but it involved matters of a sexual nature and foreign policy intervention in other countries that the press simply wasn't sure about, although they may have suspected wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the coverage was strikingly better than it is now. I just finished reading David Brock's "The Republican Noise Machine" which compellingly documents that over $1 billion has been spent by various Republican foundations over the last 20 years to establish a lock on the media. In private, these foundations admit that they have succeeded. I agree.
The right's attack on the media was essentially twofold. First, the Republicans pushed hard for "balanced" coverage instead of truthful reporting, understanding that they could never be portrayed very well if truth was the only standard. In this Orwellian world, whether or not a particular side was lying in presenting its case was ignored as the media simply regurgitated the positions advocated by the parties. No attempt is made to assist the reader in sorting the wheat from the chaff or in fact checking of the information provided. In fact, to do so, if it finds a position particularly meritless or false, is unbalanced by definition. In other words, they wanted their position presented without any check of information so the reader would be left in the dark on what was real and what was an illusion.
Second, Republican pundits, whose salaries are supplemented by foundations, write books and flood the media with concentrated right wing talking points all promulgated by subsidized think tanks. This is, obviously, the antithesis of capitalism since the marketplace of their ideas are not created by demand, but rather by a steady supply subsidized from the right and pushed into the media (another example of supply side economics with a bitter twist, I suppose). These pundits are presented as journalists and are pitted in various media outlets against mainstream journalists who are presented as though they are the "liberal" voice. These "liberal" journalists usually hold no allegiance to the liberal viewpoint, are often apolitical, and attempt to present both sides of an issue. As a result, real liberal voices are rarely, if ever, heard in response to the relentless drumming of right wing talking points.
In my youth, the media functioned as a full trial on the merits of many issues, almost as though they were skillful lawyers presenting the competing evidence to their readers. If there was little or no evidence backing up a position, this would be noted in the story, although generally the news consumer was left to be the ultimate judge on the final issue. Nonetheless, journalists did not shy from reporting the facts as they existed, or in comparing the words spoken by politicians with the facts as they were known. Even more importantly, journalists routinely dug for evidence and had no problem angering the powerful. In fact, the media's allegiance to the truth was considered to be its most important and sacred duty to the democracy. Slowly as the media became more concentrated and the Republicans screamed about balance, journalists were replaced with pretty boys and girls, and truth gave way to fairness and balance. Media became a profit center, just another business, and so the original altruistic model I grew up with faded away. It's also cheaper to do balanced reporting as it requires no investigative reporting or fact checking, so these valuable services disappeared as well.
Today, the TV media, including cable news and the networks, do little or no true journalism, only reporting. The press, however, continues to do quite a lot, but this information is spread out all over the country in various newspapers and magazines. The TV media often ignore these important stories, and no mainstream media source that I am aware of puts the stories in a cohesive and readily available format. And that is why those of us online are so much better informed than those who consume only TV, radio and print news sources. Websites like DU or Buzzflash compress the really important news from sources all over into manageable doses and weed out the crap and sensationalistic stories, allowing us to see both the big picture and the important details quite clearly.
In short, I really disagree with you on this one.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
