I write this entry because, until today, I had some small hope that the media might be salvaged from the bog it is currently in. An article I saw today on MSNBC.com has finally broken this hope.
The last few weeks could very well be used as a crash course to educate the previously disinterested citizen on modern political journalism in America. Specifically, the crash course would share this diary entry's title.
The media are all too eager to report on the controversies in any issue, especially politics, because they believe it improves their ratings. Of course this is desirable, because the media are generally owned by corporations which require profit, rather than truthful journalism, to be the driving factor behind all media decisions.
The truth, journalistic integrity, and our very democracy all suffer the ignominy of being placed second or lower on a list of media priorities. This is, of course, about as far removed from the heady days of Edward Morrow as it can get, and it's proving to be more and more dangerous to our Republic.
The most egregious violation of truthful journalism in the name of promoting and then reporting on a controversy in the last couple of weeks has perhaps occurred just today, with an MSNBC re-posted Washington Post article that implies that Sarah Palin's gaffe over the Bush Doctrine during her interview with Charlie Gibson might not necessarily have been a gaffe at all. Why? Well, because "gee, golly so many different things might be called the Bush Doctrine," (according to people who are or have been involved with the Bush administration, blithely called "experts" by the author, Michael Abramowitz, of course).
Rather than ask substantive questions to include in the article, the author of the article does what every other infotainment presenter in the media does: he simply reports the words as-is, without context or background. Whatever his personal political views or other motivations, his uncritical regurgitation of opinions voiced by people who undeniably have a vested interest in promoting a positive bias for McCain, Palin, and the Bush administration is an egregious violation of journalistic integrity.
The only purpose for such a slanted, uncritical, laughable article is to promote a controversy whether one exists or not. Any ambiguities regarding the actual complete contents of the "Bush Doctrine" are, at best, academic masturbatory exercises. There is a clear, singular, overriding principle in the Bush Doctrine: the right of preemptive strikes against perceived enemies. Anything else incorporated into the Doctrine is window-dressing or embellishment on the central point. Abramowitz may or may not understand this (he's a White House "reporter" for the Washington Post, and being a modern reporter he may or may not be as unthinkingly stupid as his colleagues for all I know), and whether he does or doesn't is irrelevant to the purpose of the article.
Now, of course, pundits, "journalists" and media personalities of all ilks can point to Mr. Abramowitz's article and report on the controversy that will inevitably spawn from it (between those who recognize Abramowitz's "experts'" opinions for what they are: attempts to obfuscate and muddy the water to provide cover for Palin's mind-numbingly juvenile understanding of America's foreign policy under Bush and those who have a vested interest in obfuscation and water-muddying for the benefit of McCain-Palin). It's a piece designed to promote and advance a distraction that will provide convenient excuses for pundits and talk radio personalities to have opposing-view guest segments ad nauseum.
This one example is but one example of many that, collectively, illustrate a serious issue that we all face today. The media are not interested in and will not engage in fact-based journalism. It's not going to happen. I have held to the hope that this isn't the case; that something in the media can be salvaged to the good. But I just don't see it happening. I think the corporatist mindset in the media that extends back in history a long way (cf: the struggle between CBS and Edward Morrow) is too far entrenched. It will require something more bloody than vigorous verbal and literary excoriation to bring the media around.
With just two primary exceptions I can think of, the vast majority of the media personalities are far more interested in the fight itself, rather than the substance or truth-value of the arguments issued in the fight. Any hope we have to bringing the media to view journalism as a higher priority than this fight for ratings is dim, in my view. So it falls to us to educate ourselves, our friends and family, and when the occasion presents itself (and courage permits) our neighbors and work peers.
So when you see some ignorant media personality allowing lies to pass unquestioned, or when you see one actually promoting lies, realize this: a new day approaches. The old-guard of the media--television, print, radio--are waning in significance. The internet, coupled with our hard work in our individual lives--will prove to be as revolutionary as print, radio and then television. It's worth pointing out when traditional media fails to live up to what it should be, but it's not necessarily worth trying to change them or to fight them. It's up to us to make sure they become (even more) irrelevant.