The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Decline of the US Media
enlightenedbum
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So the New York Times posted an article on the "military analysts" the cable and networks news shows always trot out. They're always retired officers either Colonels or Generals. As it turns out, they have several conflicts of interests and have been repeatedly used by the Pentagon to influence public opinion, especially with respect to Iraq.
The article is very, very long (11 pages), so I'll try to find some choice quotes:
There's a lot more, overall it seems to me to be a pretty damning article, particularly about the media and the lack of vetting they do before giving airtime to people. Not that it surprises me that they're essentially lazy and incompetent.
So I'd like to use this article to kick start a more general discussion of the US media, a personal pet peeve of mine. Topics to consider: what exactly is the cause of the decline? And more importantly, what better sources are there? I tend to rely on a bunch of various blogs around the internet as they tend to pick up the important stories I'm interested in, which tend to be particularly political in nature. They'll link to whatever primary source and life is good.
I know some folks around here like to use the BBC for example, and for international hard news, they do tend to be pretty good. The Economist is frequently cited and they also appear to do a good job. So I suppose another question would be: is this a phenomenon strictly limited to the United States or is it a worldwide problem? If just US, why?
TLDR: The media sucks, wtf is up with that?
The article is very, very long (11 pages), so I'll try to find some choice quotes:
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts†whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon’s campaign have never been disclosed. But The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.
These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.
Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers†or “surrogates†who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages†to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.â€
Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.†Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.
Many also shared with Mr. Bush’s national security team a belief that pessimistic war coverage broke the nation’s will to win in Vietnam, and there was a mutual resolve not to let that happen with this war.
This was a major theme, for example, with Paul E. Vallely, a Fox News analyst from 2001 to 2007. A retired Army general who had specialized in psychological warfare, Mr. Vallely co-authored a paper in 1980 that accused American news organizations of failing to defend the nation from “enemy†propaganda during Vietnam.
“We lost the war — not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped,†he wrote. He urged a radically new approach to psychological operations in future wars — taking aim at not just foreign adversaries but domestic audiences, too. He called his approach “MindWar†— using network TV and radio to “strengthen our national will to victory.â€
Back in Washington, Pentagon officials kept a nervous eye on how the trip translated on the airwaves. Uncomfortable facts had bubbled up during the trip. One briefer, for example, mentioned that the Army was resorting to packing inadequately armored Humvees with sandbags and Kevlar blankets. Descriptions of the Iraqi security forces were withering. “They can’t shoot, but then again, they don’t,†one officer told them, according to one participant’s notes.
“I saw immediately in 2003 that things were going south,†General Vallely, one of the Fox analysts on the trip, recalled in an interview with The Times.
The Pentagon, though, need not have worried.
“You can’t believe the progress,†General Vallely told Alan Colmes of Fox News upon his return. He predicted the insurgency would be “down to a few numbers†within months.
“We could not be more excited, more pleased,†Mr. Cowan told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. There was barely a word about armor shortages or corrupt Iraqi security forces. And on the key strategic question of the moment — whether to send more troops — the analysts were unanimous.
“I am so much against adding more troops,†General Shepperd said on CNN.
There's a lot more, overall it seems to me to be a pretty damning article, particularly about the media and the lack of vetting they do before giving airtime to people. Not that it surprises me that they're essentially lazy and incompetent.
So I'd like to use this article to kick start a more general discussion of the US media, a personal pet peeve of mine. Topics to consider: what exactly is the cause of the decline? And more importantly, what better sources are there? I tend to rely on a bunch of various blogs around the internet as they tend to pick up the important stories I'm interested in, which tend to be particularly political in nature. They'll link to whatever primary source and life is good.
I know some folks around here like to use the BBC for example, and for international hard news, they do tend to be pretty good. The Economist is frequently cited and they also appear to do a good job. So I suppose another question would be: is this a phenomenon strictly limited to the United States or is it a worldwide problem? If just US, why?
TLDR: The media sucks, wtf is up with that?
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
enlightenedbum on
0
Posts
edit: although I will concede that it went from bad to unreasonable from about 2001-2005.
Maybe there's a reason.
Right, however I am stunned someone bothered to do some actual reporting on it.
The network channels really haven't conglomerated, and newspapers are being destroyed by not figuring out how to make monies on the internets. The chief reason for a decline in broadcast journalism is simply the expectation of profits to come out of news rooms. There was a time when companies took a hit in their news department because it was a public service which the FCC required them to provide for use of public spectrum. Then 60 minutes came out and was making money as opposed to soaking it up. Throw in the desire of 24/7's to be 'first' in their unending news coverage rather than 'best' or 'most in depth' and you get tabloid magazines gussied up as news, and the McLaughlin group wannabees shouting at each other across a pundit's table. Afterall, a few stories that are probed and discussed isn't as profitable as 50 headlines blurted out in an hour.
And then there's The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, on PBS, which didn't suffer that fate and makes everyone else look bad.
the papers back then makes fox news seem like it's run by edward r murrow
Well, lets go with a basic summary of the US media's history, which I probably should have included in the OP.
Phase I (founding to sometime in the late 1800s): Rich people own printing presses, print their own papers. Jefferson for example, owned the press so ran the paper and printed all kinds of horrible shit about his opponents, who also owned papers and ran terrible things about him. But it was clear where the various places stood and easy to tell the biases.
Then came yellow journalism (Hearst/Pulitzer, 1890ish-1932): the first essentially capitalistic period of US media. Shining moment was getting the US to go to war with Spain under false pretenses. Also "investigative reporting" started here with people voluntarily getting admitted to insane asylums and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair being examples.
Then the media totally loved it some FDR, Ike, and JFK, commonly referred to as lapdog journalism. The papers were big fans of the government, especially during WW2. Not a whole lot else to say.
Then Nixon happened, and the media took on a watchdog stance. The goal was to find terrible things the government or politicians were doing and take them to task. There was some overreaching...
Then came CNN etc and we had profit motive part two. This era combines the worst of the previous three, with the internet adding some of the fun of the first era for taste. After 9/11 I'd say it became more of the lapdog era, and the watchdog was no longer finding a misuse of the government, but salacious personal flaws of politicians like Bill Clinton's BJ or Barack Obama's pastor or John McCain's...oh wait, we ignore John McCain's personal flaws.
I get my descriptions of his Senior Senility Moments from other sources. Good fun.
i guess, but have you actually ever read some of those papers? it's not just the editorials that were outrageous, even standard news content was almost hopelessly biased. the chicago tribune during the civil war is especially insane sometimes.
during undergrad i did a project on the emancipation proclamation that involved a lot of hours looking at microfiche scans of old newspapers from that era, and it blew my mind. i know they're incredibly up front about their attitudes, but that's mainly a result of those attitudes being so freaking polarizing. they're so damn hardcore about it that there's no way they could ever even hope to hide it
edit:
i think that's a gross oversimplification of the situation. i think as telejournalism was starting to come to bear, the US was extremely lucky to have some incredibly talented and honest people running the show. now it's a much bigger tent, and some of that quality is gone
Among other things, President John Adams was called a "hideous hermaphroditical character."
that's a really good one, but really virtually every election in the 1800's is pretty good for finding that kind of stuff. especially anything involving andrew jackson
Thats because Andrew Jackson saw his life as a series of personal battles, and said battles were easily lapped up by the media.
John Stewart: The Most Trusted Name in News.
Kind of like Kent State and Protests.
A shooting a a protests: protests
A good piece of investigative journalism: good journalism
?
I think it takes away the financial aspect that is causing the media to sensationalize and "infotain".
But the problem then is the government has a say in what is reported. Right now it is good, but PBS is always under threat of being shut down by hardliners. They nearly lost their funding multiple times.
I would like to say the only answer is to not watch till it gets better, but not only would that be hard for many people to do, it would probably make it worse as the news got even more sensationalized.
So I don't know what the answer is.
but they're listening to every word I say
When something is shown to be detrimental to the intended function of an organization, it is worked around.
Real protests have been marginalized, and good journalism has been bought out.
Measure and counter measure.
Eventually the internet will fall to the same system.
And lost them a week later.
They probably left them in the canoe.
hahahaha
I love that Matt Lauer and Katie Couric even call her out on it.
More on topic:
Do you guys see any correlation here? It seems like most of the comments about poor work are aimed straight at 24 hour news networks. Those kinds of media outlets just have way too much time to fill up for their own good. They'll go around picking up anyone who can fill up airtime. It's really no wonder that they don't have a strenuous screening process for who they use as pundits and sources.
Let's be honest, 24-hour news is shit. But there are still a lot of good outlets, most of which are print.
They actually serve as a very important role of media criticism. It's a comedy format, but really, it's one of the only sources of that perspective (media: full of shit?) on television.
Which if you think about it, does make a twisted kind of sense. You have to entertain as well as inform, you can do this by oversensationalising everything and telling people want they want to hear (bizarrely by making them angry a lot of the time it seems) or you can make it into a comedy and actually entertaining.
Only the Fool can make fun of the court.
Bill Oreilly's idol.
If influence ~ quality, sure.
Unless you define quality by influence I don't see that being the case.
I think they're connected do you?
I mean media agencies are huge but they've also cut back staff heavily and many have lost lots of investigative reporters. That's why big media corps fucking use people like drudge as a source. They can't be bothered to do the research themselves. That's why they overuse "experts" instead of getting real information.
The decline of influence has made them desperate and sensationalist