What Happened to the Free Press?
Janet and I were discussing government this weekend, and we came to one major sticking point. I won't go into details about our philosophical difference (if Janet wants to chime in and say what she believes, she's welcome to, it's her blog too).
However, in our discussion of it, we together seriously bemoaned the loss of an independent and fact-driven press.
What has happened to independent news? What has happened to reporting of unbiased news, and news which is important, as opposed to news which will get ratings?
News outlets once took this responsibility (and fundamental freedom) seriously. Today, too much of our news is just blanket repetition of press releases. It seems like we have too many reporters and not enough investigative journalists.
There was a recent minor flap when an executive from one of the networks (ABC, from memory, but I'm aging, my memory can be faulty) made a comment about how there is an on-going debate over whether to continue to cover the war in Iraq. The implication of the statement was that "People don't care, they're tuning out, we need to report on things people care about."
The problem is, in our special effects blockbuster movie society, we the citizenry have lost touch with what’s important. Iraq was interesting to us while there were bombs going off that we could WATCH. Now that they’re simply reported, we’ve lost interest. But guess what: We need this. Like children, we must be spoon fed a nutritional diet, and not allowed to gorge ourselves on chocolate and ice cream. We must be taught to recognize the difference between fiction and fact. We must not be allowed to let our entertainment so desensitize us that the more important (but infinitely more boring) facts of real life seem unimportant.
Some of our media outlets are clearly biased, pushing one agenda over another. The rest are merely lazy, opting to repeat press releases rather than spend any time confirming them.
Some folks have argued that bloggers are the new investigative journalists, filling that vital voice in our society. The problems are myriad. To name a few:
- Bloggers have little funding, which limits their investigative possibilities.
- Bloggers tend to be independent, so they can’t afford to send representatives to the places news is happening and verify it for themselves.
- There are so many bloggers, there’s no central authority in which we can place our trust (in the past, we may not have known the reputation of a particular reporter, but darn it, they work for the Times, and we could trust the Times).
- Again, like AP or UPI, bloggers have a tendency to proliferate each other’s stories, but with little regard to where it originally came from. If the story fits the model or viewpoint which the blogger ascribes to, and sounds like it might be true, it gets posted to blog after blog.
- Many bloggers do not even pretend to be unbiased. Some, like me, are clearly opinion bloggers, focusing on commentary rather than news gathering. Some are not as honest about that as I try to be.
In order to downsize government (as most people pay lip service to, while building ever larger governmental systems), we NEED our free press to take up some of the slack. I wish I had any idea how to make it happen.
Copyright © May 13, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net
posted by Liam at 5/16/2005 09:52:00 AM
27 Comments:
I think you are helping by contributing to the blogosphere.
Also, it makes me feel very good that you, who have a quite different perspective on political issues from me, also think that MSM has abandoned the journalistic high road for editorialism of the news.
And hey, I don't pretend to be unbiased, but I do try to be honest. I may pick up a lie or misrepresentation and pass it along. If anybody is reading and they catch it, they will do one of two things. Not waste any time reading my comments in the future or engage me with the facts. I hope for the latter but either way, I am not capable of the damage that Newsweak or Dan Rather can produce.
Monday, May 16, 2005 2:50:00 PM
Great comments from Bill Moyers can be read here that sheds some light on what has happened to objective journalism.
I think it's particularly true that this administration labels any reporting that's not party-line (even when it's the truth) as liberal.
Of course, the other side does it as well, it's difficult for most people to differentiate between disagreeable truth and lies-in-service-of-the-enemy.
But PBS and NPR are among the last bastions of objective media out there, in as much as they aren't beholden to the ratings, and are free to report on news stories with less "pop". I hate to think they, too, are being squeezed to tow a party line, instead of being left to do what the press is supposed to do: Report.
Liam
Monday, May 16, 2005 10:04:00 PM
It seems jounalism has abandoned the old maxim of requiring at least two confirmed sources for every fact. ...... Take Newsweek, for example. I'm surprised you haven't commented on Newsweek's latest fiasco (unlessed I missed it in your writing).
Monday, May 16, 2005 10:15:00 PM
Bill Moyers objective? What will you come up with next?
Monday, May 16, 2005 11:58:00 PM
The Newsweek fiasco was a problem, but an inevitable one in the current system. I see it as symptomatic of a larger problem:
Having to find news items that will be popular and report 'em quickly, so YOU get the ratings bump.
On the other hand, Newsweek did publish first a repudiation of the source and then a retraction and very prominently, so at least they eventually correct themselves when they get something wrong, something a lot of places don't even try to do. Some won't even admit they're wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence, preferring to cast aspersions on those who brought the charges.
And Ralph, I didn't necessarily say that Bill Moyers was objective. I said that PBS was one of the last objective news sources, not being subject to ratings concerns, and to see any show on it subject to what amounts to government monitoring for political content is bad.
By the way, I hope you aren't going to resort to the arguing tactic that seems to be at the heart of politics today (particularly but not exclusively on the part of the administration) of casting any report not in line with your party line as "(other) wing lunacy".
That whole name calling thing has to go. Sure, there are plenty of cases of clear left-wing agendas (Michael Moore) as well as right (Rush Limbaugh) in the media, both willing to lie, cast aspersions, and forgive just about any ill in their own team. But the argument against them is weakened when one chooses to apply the label to ANY contradictory fact (even if it is objectively true and not politically motivated).
To hear the current administration talk, there is Party Line and there is liberal bias, and nothing in between. The administration has gotten so polished at staying "on message", you can watch all of the inverview shows and hear everyone (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and down the list) using virtually the same words. It couldn't be clearer that they're issued a set of talking points and don't stray from them.
In a political landscape framed by "repetition defining fact", there's that much MORE need for the media to dig into the party line and see what passes the sniff test, and after repeating the same item (true or false) so many times, it does start to sound as though anyone who disagrees with it is not in touch with reality. That's the insideous thing about propaganda: It works.
The point is, places like PBS and NPR should, like judges, be as free as we can make them from political concerns (re-election for judges, ratings for PBS/NPR), so that they can remain free to be what we desperately need them to be: Able to report to us without pressure to filter based on what we WANT to hear.
Liam
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:33:00 AM
PBS, NPR, and Bill Moyer should never be used in the same sentence as objective unless one says it in the negative. I realize that it is one's own perception, but the reason Rush Limbaugh got so popular so fast can be stated in one word ie: alternative.
I was always a news junkie and during the day when I could only get news from PBS talk radio, I would. Between my radio listening and the news on the "major" TV stations (and the local stations which only repeated the national news as presented by the "majors")
I would never hear anything conservative. I often thought that me and my ilk (politically speaking of course) were so far out of the mainstream that it was unbelievable! The news as presented by the aforementioned sources were, if you followed them closely, in favor of the Democratic Party, pro-abortion, pro-big government, pro-raising taxes, and against the military being successful at anything. Then, one day, I stumbled on Rush on the radio talking about abortion and big government with the same attitude that I have on the subjects. I was hooked. Granted, Rush is self confidant to the point of being cocky, and uses absurd examples to demonstrate absurdity (hope I spelled that correctly), and has a name tag for anyone on the "other" side, but he hit a note with all of us who never heard a conservative position exspoused by a talk show host. There has been an explosion in talk radio;some good and some just plain nasty, but, like captilism, the pendulum swings back and forth by virtue of listener numbers(economic viability) until the right balance surfaces.
As an example, Dan Rather would have gotten away with his attempted distruction of the President's National Guard Service useing fake documents in the past. In today's much more balanced news reporting (both conservative and liberal) his (Dan Rather's) plan was uncovered and he has paid the price. Since it's obvious he accepted as gospel these false papers purely because they fit his ideas about the President, and saw fit to use his position to tell the world, how many others of his previous "news" stories begin to stink.
In conlusion, our own political and personal beliefs affect how we perceive the various new medias, but as long as we don't allow the government to get in control of the outlets, then, like captalism, the right balance will win out. M
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:16:00 AM
I hope I mis-read that, and you aren't trying to imply that Rush Limbaugh is news. Rush is entertainment, and about as factually reliable as Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update.
Sure, I'll grant that he's a voice for the right wing, and he should be allowed to say his piece just like anyone else. But he is in no way unbiased or even factually accurate.
For a good debunking of a lot of Rush-isms, you can read a book by (admittedly a left wing version of Rush) Al Franken. I don't take everything Franken says verbatim either, but one place that each side is pretty good at being accurate is when they debunk statements by the other.
I absolutely believe Rush has the right to say whatever he likes on his show, and as long as people want to listen, he'll be successful at it. But he is a talk show host and an entertainer primarily. The difference can be clearly seen contrasting Limbaugh to Fox News. Both are conservative leaning, but Fox News merely slants the news, by taking a pro-Bush stance on things, and opting to lead with stories negative to the left, they don't (or shouldn't) invent news, or run un-verified rumor and speculation (something which most news organizations are guilty of occasionally, as the referenced "Rather-gate" and the latest Newsweek debacle show).
Limbaugh, on the other hand, is free to report any rumor or speculation which crosses his desk, flinging globs of mud and just not bothering to revisit any which fail to stick.
Liam.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:03:00 AM
I will get Al Franken's book and read it. I have heard many people rant about Limbaugh's lies, but I haven't had anyone tell me one that stuck, and I have listened to him for a long time. Maybe it's my agreeing with him on many issues that color my judgement but if you shared one or two of these lies with me that you know to be true I could mull things over.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:19:00 AM
Liam,
I am glad you continue to enjoy PBS. I used to listen and enjoy it too when I was a young pup. And Al Franken may have reasoned arguments (although if he does, they elude me) but he is certainly no entertainer.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:17:00 AM
It's been a while since I read Frankin's book debunking Limbaugh, but I can probably find a copy somewhere and find a few of the more eggregious examples...
My life has been pretty hectic lately, but I'll try to remember to do that.
Liam.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:18:00 AM
Al Franken's sense of humor rather eludes me as well. I kind of like him for the personal reason that he reminds me a whole lot of my Uncle, but I don't see that as likely to make him popular with the masses.
Obviously SOMEONE likes him as a comedian, he's been relatively successful. Actually, I'm kind of surprised he's not on Huffington Post, he and Ms. Huffington used to pal around a bit, if I recall correctly.
But as I said, people like him and Rush can be correct sometimes, they're not UNIVERSALLY lying, that's what makes them difficult to deal with. You have to figure out what's true and what isn't.
Liam.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:21:00 AM
Liam, I think I detect from your posts that you haven't actually ever listened to Rush Limbaugh but instead have derived your opinion of him from the writings of others like Al Franken. One of the things he continually talks about is that if anyone calls in and declares an opposite position than himself, he puts that caller to the front of the line. Most of the time when I listen to the "put in front line callers" they end up calling Limbaugh names because they cain't stand up to his logic. Once in a while though, the conversation gets lengthy due to the fact that both the caller and Limbaugh rely on facts to make their points. I must say that Rush reminds me of your posts in that you and he are both very logical and polite. I have recommended him to some of my male friends who hold other opinions than myself and 2 continue to listen to this day. One because he now agrees with most of Rush's philosophy, and the other because he loves getting angry at him. But with 22 million in his audience, something he says is catching.
I have tried this same thing with women(encouraging them to listen to Rush) and have had no luck at all. They all declare him to be too arrogant for their liking.
I've never called in because the wait, once you get on the line, can be more than an hour.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:05:00 PM
I have listened to him... But not since the Clinton era.
I have heard that the drug scandal mellowed him a lot (they sort of had to, he couldn't really continue to label drug addiction as weak and pathetic, after having been revealed to have one).
He used to be logical and polite on the surface, but arrogant and cocky and prone to signing on to any wild theory that was anti-Clinton. There are certainly valid criticisms to make about Clinton, but IMO the strength of some of them was diminished by the large number of spurious accusations which were made.
The whole Vince Foster case is one example. Quite apart from whether there was really any funny business going on there, none was ever PROVEN. After too many un-proven or unsubstantiated claims, the valid and substantiated ones lost some of their luster for proximity to the junk ones.
Back in those days, Rush devoted any number of hours of his broadcast day to anything anti-Clinton, no matter how far fetched, quoting statistics which, in Franken's book, were clearly debunked as wildly inaccurate.
Lots of people have transformed themselves over time, and maybe Rush is one of those. Perhaps now he's settled into a more mature, fact-checked mode of communication. Certainly the idea that he'll actually DEBATE someone who disagrees (instead of hanging up and then maligning them when they can no longer answer) is a change from the Rush I remember.
(On the other hand, he may have simply changed his focus from ANTI Clinton to Bush cheerleader, which would by it's nature make him seem less like a pit-bull and more like a civil debater.)
But I should probably have mentioned that the Rush with which I had experience was the Rush of 6-10 years ago, which may not be the same as the Rush of today.
Liam.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:39:00 PM
I'm not sure this was clear in my response: I used to listen to him quite a lot back in the Clinton years. I was one of those "Listen because he pissed me off" types, sort of like a car accident. You really don't WANT to see someone injured and bleeding at the side of the road, but you can't pry yourself away.
I stopped about... I don't recall how long ago. The company which syndicates him bought a few radio stations in our market, and so pulled the syndication license from the local station that had it (so as not to compete with one of their own shows), but didn't opt to broadcast him locally.
To the best of my knowledge, he still can't be heard up here (although since getting a CD player in my car about 3 years ago, I haven't done much broadcast radio listening, except for NPR occasionally.)
Liam.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:42:00 PM
My, what a lively topic you've got here, Liam!
I don't understand all the PBS bashing. OK, I'm a liberal. I like PBS. I love Frontline, at least what I've watched so far. I've learned a lot from that program.
The point is, at least we HAVE a PBS. I thank the stars above it's here, even if it suffers from adjusting pains and threats from the regular commercial world. I like Moyers too. He can be a little sappy, but I like him. I don't know what I would do without PBS. Probably buy cable, and I resent doing that. In some places, you need to buy cable just for the reception. But in this day and age, it seems everything and every minute of our day requires a fee to somebody who is getting rich off of us. I'm sure glad my antenna still works.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:12:00 PM
Linda,
I agree. That Liam really knows how to get the dialogue flowing.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:21:00 PM
More on the Newsweek thing... (Not original ideas, but good ones, so I thought I'd add them here).
First, why is this getting such huge play? It turns out, with a few quick searches, you can find similar allegations in many publications over the last year or two. Allegations of Korans being stepped on, taken away, thrown in toilets, etc. The only difference this time is the allegation that it was FLUSHED (probably absurd anyway, given that flushing a book doesn't sound all that easy to ME).
But additionally, isn't it the same White House that brought us into a war on false pretenses (leading to thousands of deaths) and the same right wing idealogues who decry the "Political Correctness" of the liberal side who are now getting their panties in a twist over allegations that someone didn't have proper respect for Islam, and may have gotten a fact wrong?
The plain facts are that there are enough reports of Korans being abused and disrespected to think they're ALL false. If this SPECIFIC incident is wrong, then Newsweek should (and did) retract the story. But to point to this as further justification that the press is just out to get Bush and his administration just further weakens our press.
And for the conspiracy theorists, I rather liked the theory one crack pot put forward, that perhaps this was all orchestrated by Karl Rove. Get some insider to leak the information to Newsweek, someone high enough placed that they should be credible. Wait until Newsweek publishes it, then have the source recant, so that Newsweek is forced to look stupid, adding more fuel to the "Ignore the press, they're just out to get us!" argument.
I THINK I'm not jaded enough to wonder if it might not be true. I THINK I still have enough faith in the system that I think the theorist is a crack pot.
But damn, in the current climate, I'm just not POSITIVE.
Liam.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:26:00 PM
"That Liam really knows how to get the dialogue flowing".
Liam just knows how to write long, opinionated diatribes, polite enough to invite dissent, strongly worded enough to engender it.
If I knew enough to shut my mouth sometimes, this'd have died a long time ago. :-)
Liam.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:28:00 PM
Never shut up, Liam.
What would we do without you .... and your mouth?
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:30:00 PM
And your obstanance.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:59:00 PM
Liam, sometimes in our human experience comes a person who changes whole ways of thinking, an
epiphony. I know you will laugh at this, but I think you are missing one in not looking closer at Rush Limbaugh. Stop laughing long enough to read this article by a Professor (from UC I think)for the Los Angeles Daily News. A guy who states up front that he "agrees with Rush Limbaugh just about as much as he disagrees with him" and puts forth, as Profs. are prone to do, with a scholarly opinion that says better than I could hope to do.
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~24781~2872499,00.html# I hope this pastes well. W
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 8:45:00 PM
Whoops!! There I go again calling myself W instead of M; Freudian Slip(I hope I spelled his name correctly. M
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 8:53:00 PM
I'll read that link when I have a chance. I woke up late this morning, and so shouldn't spend TOO much time on-line until I've gotten some work done for "the man".
Liam.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:54:00 AM
Hmmmm. Norman Mailer weighs in on the possibility that this was orchestrated to aid the administration.
Still feels a bit far fetched to me, but he makes some plausible sounding arguments that it MIGHT be true.
(I really wish I didn't think the current administration was as evil and damaging as I do. I really feel like a partisan hack sometimes, because most of the negative stuff I post is aimed at them. Just remember, it's aimed at Bush and company, *NOT* at conservatives.)
Liam.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:02:00 AM
m,
I read the link you give, and the argument in favor of Limbaugh seems to run less to the factual content of his speech and more to the fact that he has successfully parlayed a talk radio show into a very influential voice in American politics.
I don't dispute that he's had great impact... but... There are a lot of people who were not RIGHT who have had great impact on societies. Hitler is one example. If you want one closer to home, Senator McCarthy.
I am not a communist, but I believe that our country guarantees the freedom to believe communist beliefs and even espouse communist values, if the individual so chooses. Philosophically, there is a lot of good stuff in communism.... it just can't work because it fails to take a fair amount of human nature into account.
However, Sen. McCarthy was able to take this country on a very UN-American witch hunt, to punish and squash the voices of the minority (something we're supposed to be set up to protect).
I'm not saying Rush Limbaugh is the McCarthy of his day, but I am saying that writing an article extolling the fact that a man has successfully made himself an influential figure in American politics doesn't speak to the correctness of his facts nor the rightness of his ideals.
Limbaugh deserves recognition for this, just as Howard Stern deserves recognition for his accomplishments, although I don't particularly find much morally redeeming in Stern's show, either.
Liam.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:10:00 AM
Liam, it's very hard to seperate Bush and Company from Conservatives, as most of them (Company) have conservative views just like mine and all the rest of the group. There are some differences in application of ideas, but really only one main differnce of idea and that is illigal immigration.
Your hatred of Bush & Co. is hard to phathom. You state it is because he lied to lead us into a war when every CIA type of body in every democratic country said the same thing. (even Israel & Russia).
I think Bush had to re-nominate over 30 judges;how does that add up to your 95% number?
Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:52:00 PM
I disagree. Separating individuals from the groups they belong to should be VERY easy. Extremist liberals do not define the viewpoint for the entire sphere of liberals, neither does the actions of one small sect of the conservative party define the viewpoint for the entire party of conservatives.
My hatred of Bush and company... There are so many reason for it.
1) More and more evidence suggests that the intelligence reports used to justify the war in Iraq were slanted, faulty, and KNOWINGLY so, in order to get the country behind an ill-advised war.
2) Handed a balanced budget when he took office, he returned us to record deficits.
3) Handed the good will of almost the entire world after the events of 9/11, he turned around and in the span of about a year had squandered it all and has given us a negative approval rating in just about every foreign nation.
4) We've gotten more propaganda and less information since the start of 2001 than from any President in my memory (barring perhaps the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, but that wasn't related to the job of President).
The list goes on, but it's been a long day and right now, they're not coming to memory.
And lots of Presidents have re-nominated judges who didn't get through the first time. The 95% number is the number of judges that he's so far nominated which have received their confirmation vote. The 65% number is the number of Clinton nominees who ultimately received their confirmation votes. What doesn't add up is how a President who has been the recipient of both the highest level of votes on his nominees AND the highest level of APPROVAL of his nominees can possibly claim that there is some sinister policy at work in the very small percentage of his nominees who have been blocked from a vote.
Liam.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005 7:13:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home