The New Yorker has an interesting article:
FEAR AND FAVOR
by NICHOLAS LEMANN
Why is everyone mad at the mainstream media?
Issue of 2005-02-14 and 21
They also have a forum to which one can post by providing only name and email address. So, I wrote up this:
Yes, they don't get it
As a 63 year old addict of blogging, I hardly have time to read my New Yorker, but today I finally got to N. Lemann's article
about the press and want to say that he's absolutely right, even though he 'doesn't get it' either.
First of all, Rove's assault on the NYTimes was a typical example of how to intimidate someone into doing what you want by accusing them of being something they are not. That is, the "right's" charge against the "liberal" press is intended to make journalists and editors lean backwards to prove that the charge is false. This has the intended the effect of making them provide more coverage to the right.
On the other hand, one reason the MSM is so easy to manipulate is because they've got this false paradigm which persuades them that there are two sides and if both are mad at them they must be doing something right. Not to mention they take it as a sign that they are being objective. The paradigm is wrong and so is their conclusion. Not only are there many more than two sides, but the reality is that everyone finds it easy to agree that the journalistic effort is increasingly shoddy.
(Why would a journalist be assigned to do a story on luggage with wheels? The idea blows the mind. We've got children with blown off arms and legs in Iraq and children born without appendages here at home and journalists are writing about suitcases that roll!!!!! Like that's really going to appeal to middle America where there are no longer any luggage stores!)
Anyway, the topic that set Lemann on his search, the Presidential candidates' spin-meisters' response to the MSM coverage of their war record, does need to be looked at more closely. It has been obvious to me from before Kerry became the Democratic nominee that there was only one reason why Bush's spotty service in the National Guard was again an issue--it was being floated by Rove in order to justify a comback against Kerry's real accomplishments. The idea wasn't to expose or clarify Kerry's record; the idea was to keep media coverage on what happened thirty years ago, rather than what happened in the last four years. Since there are only so many inches in the paper for politics on any given day, if you can fill them with a story you control, then there's less chance the stuff you don't want to see covered will make it in. And that's exactly what happened. The war against Iraq, that the neo-cons and industrialists have wanted for the last fifteen years, was overlooked while people were distracted with "true copies" of documents described as "fakes" and then journalists were further intimidated by having one of their stars taken down. And you want the public to be impressed by the performance of the press!!!
Nobody, unless they're a bully, likes to see someone else intimidated. Most Americans aren't bullies. On the other hand, they also know that the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him and watching the press kow-tow was/is not a gratifying experience.
Why do people prefer Fox? Because they see people apparently willing to stand up for something. That what they stand for is wrong is not that important, because the audience can see that for themselves (that's why Bush's ratings keep falling). But, if the rest of the press concludes that the answer to how to increase their audience share is to provide more entertainment and less news, then we're going to be in real trouble.
BTW, while I was reading my New Yorker, my spouse was reading the Boston Globe and sharing stories of interest to us both. Unfortuntely, almost everyone he mentioned was not news to me because it had already been covered on the blogs--days ago, and FOR FREE.