Slashdot Mirror
Are Journalism and Politics Inextricably Joined?
An anonymous reader writes "Retiring figure Bill Moyers makes his case in a recent speech delivered at the Society of Professional Journalists 2004 national convention. 'But I approach the end of my own long run believing more strongly than ever that the quality of journalism and the quality of democracy are inextricably joined.' It is a deep argument, made poignant by the recently murdered Francisco Ortiz Franco of Mexico, Manik Saha of India, and Aiyathurai Nadesan of Sri Lanka, among others. It is a broad argument, touching on history from America's first best seller to yesterday's blog. Is it a convincing argument?"
That's the whole idea behind the First Amendment isn't it?
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Please correct it, Manik Saha has nothing to do with India. He's from Bangladesh and killed there as the link shows.
The reason freedom of the press is so important is that they serve as the town criers for the people. "Making sure the Enquirer can write whatever it wants is the only way I can be sure the New York Times is writing whatever it wants."
The first thing you learn in Social Studies is the concept of bias. Bias is in some ways, unavoidable, and in others desirable, because it allows you to see what viewpoints people are coming from. We know the Washington Post is liberal, we know the Washington Times is conservative, and that there are plenty of people who would disagree with either of those claims. And a newspaper is only so many pages long, and some things get cut. Is it political? Much of the time, yes. But only because 'politics' is a better synonym for beliefs, those oh-so-irrational parts of the human experience that can easily trump the logical parts of us. And if I publish one thing and somebody disagrees, they'll publish another. The press isn't there to tell us what is True and Right, they are there to report on What Is Happening so we can make Our Own Decisions About the World. Whether this means I have to pick up a few papers instead of just one is an exercise for the reader.
As an example, a few months ago when ABC (I think?) decided to read the names of the young men and women who had been killed in Iraq, some stations refused to cover it. Not because they didn't think those people had died, but because it was believed there were motives beyond respect for the dead that had come into play. Whether there were matters less -- so much as the perception of those who decided to air or not to air it because they believed there were other motives. We see the same thing in the climate debate -- we see things reported or not reported about greenhouse gases because they believe the other side is 'junk science'. And in some ways, the bias is desirable; that way I know if I pick up the Post and the Times, I get both sides of the argument and not just what the editors think is right.
The late Martha Gellhorn, who spent half a century reporting on war and politicians - and observing journalists, too -- eventually lost her faith that journalism could, by itself, change the world.
It can't. It requires people to be informed about their situation to do something about it.
And guess what? That's the way it's supposed to work; God Bless America. True journalism is absolutely essential to a democracy; voters must be informed to make informed decisions. And I can't imagine a situation where everybody reported the same stories in the same way being anything but very accurate, or very censored. There is no middle ground.
The FA has some good observations but most of it has been said elsewhere. An excellent book on this subject is Manufacturing Consent : The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
It comes down to the fact that freedom of the press is not what most people think. What it really means is that the media is free to make you hear what they want you to hear.
Please.... Journalism, Politics AND technology has always been closely tied. Read "The 70 greatest conspiracy of all time." This is really nothing new. Except we have slashdot to speak out nowadays. Before it was the same shit without the internet.
But everyone has a different "reality". The guy who lives in a ghetto probably sees very differnt things than the guy in suburbia with the gated communities. But in reality, nothing is differnt than perception. I think the problem is the people in the gated communities have such blinders on they don't understand the rest of the world. They are like the monday morning quaterback who says "if only they would get a job.... blah blah blah". Then they realize the person is working overtime and they say "if only they would get a better job blah blah blah". A good journalist shows it how it really is, without any value statements.
But I approach the end of my own long run believing more strongly than ever that the quality of journalism and the quality of democracy are inextricably joined
I would agree with that statement. Ever since new stations hire people like Fox does, their reputation goes into the toilet. For example, people like Orielly are nothing but paparazzi in disguise. Didn't he work for inside edition or some equally worthless tabloid? And now he is a news reporter? Wouldn't that be about the same if Jerry Springer decided to anchor the news?
Come and say hi. http://forum.penpals.com/index.php
To the extent that jounalism provides useful and accurage information, it's helpful. If it provides a way for leaders to share their considered opinions about matters of state, even better. When it's a tool of the government, then of course it sucks. In the long run I think that bad journalism is worse for democracies than good journalism is good...
Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
For those with seconds to digest the point.
Journalists in the US aren't murdered, they have it too easy, and as a result, they're soft - soft on the truth - and letting the government tell them what they can and cannot know.
In other countries people are dying for it - but getting to the truth.
Corporate "homeland Security State" is the threat. Corporate interests can and do manipulate news. They have before (long example re:pesticide v monsanto).
So buck up - get the real story - the one that would get you killed if you were in Sri Lanka and skip the gossip.
- I think that about does it.
AIK
If journalists choose to cover unimportant issues such as Howard Deans debacle, Zel Millers flaming, Bill Clintons sex scandal etc, then people aren't going to be well informed, hence they won't make smart decisions. People vote based on what the media tells them. What else do people have to go on ?(except inherited family/geographic leanings and here-say from other people)
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
If Moyers really believes what he writes, then shouldn't he be calling for Dan Rather's head on a platter? It seems to me that trying to influence a presidential election with forged documents is not exactly quality journalism.
Honestly, I'm not trolling or flamebaiting, just saying that Moyers isn't really Mr. Objectivity when it comes to journalism and politics. I found his laudatory reference to I.F. Stone a bit much, considering that we now know Stone was in the pay of the KGB. And Moyers, for those of you who don't know, produced LBJ's infamous "Daisy" TV ad of 1964, certainly a landmark of American political campaigning, but hardly a positive one.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Hello! Are Journalism and Politics inextricably mixed? Why don't you ask the obviously analogous question: Are senses and perception inextricably mixed? You need the whole article title to even say anything intelligent on the subject.
As for the quality of journalism, I'm not so sure. The question becomes, "Are people more likely to make a good desicion if they have access to better facts." I don't think I've ever seen anything that would prove that. People have access to some pretty damn good facts, and rarely if ever bother to avail themselves of them. On the contrary, people go out of their way to find facts that back up their preconceived notions. I even do it myself on occassion.
What would really happen is what's happening now: political candidates are judged minutely on everything they've ever done in their whole lives. I don't like Bush, but does it really matter that he did coke, skipped out on the national guard, or had a DUI? Does it make that much of a difference? But it's a much larger issue than his foreign policy blunders and blatant cronyism.
No, it's all reduced to soundbites, and all the issues are reduced to shady poll numbers and the pundits dissect every tiny piece of information into meaningless atoms, before producing unfounded tripe to throw at both sides. We're obsessed with things that could not matter less, and the things that people SHOULD be caring about, no one even TALKS about. What's Kerry's voting record REALLY like? How many times has Bush vetoed things that are popular to the American people? Who knows? You'd have to read fringe papers and the goddamn Congressional Report to figure these things out.
So yea, I think we need "better" journalism, but it's not the same "better" that everyone thinks of. It's not better scandal mongering, or even more psychotically in-depth coverage of shit that doesn't MATTER in people's personal lives, but instead real coverage of the issues, and real coverage of what the candidates have actually DONE in office (we're not talking interns here)!
The complete lack of substance in the political debate is utterly fed by the media. They need to stop playing the game, and stop pandering to the lowest common denominator and start covering shit with substance. I don't see it ever happening, but that's what needs to happen.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The journalists that go into war zones will get left in the cold if they don't say the right things. This makes them part of the political system. In theory, the journalists are independent observers, but they are not. No wonder the Iraqi forces etc treat them as "enemy".
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Odd that Moyers chose to complain of "raging idealogies" in his little screed. He should have turned his gaze inwards, I think.
I urge you to read documents that have now been released relating to Nicaragua (US displaced popular govt), Iran (US displaced democratic govt), Indonesia (US assisted displacement of democratic govt, replaced with tyrant who, by own admission, quickly killed over 500K people), Laos, Cambodia... The list goes on.
None of this is reported. WHY!
Noam Chomsky provides some good insight into this, ideas that are parallel, but deeper, that this article.
in the us, in the era of newt gingrich, a day wouldn't pass without the right screaming about how the media had a liberal bias.
now, in the '00s, in the days of fox news broadcasting, it's the left screaming about the media covering things up and placating the masses and a right wing bias in things.
all i know is, the pendulum swings left, the pendulum swings right, and complaining about the media seems to just be a scape goat for the right or the left, depending upon the era.
the truth i think is this: the media is the media is the media. it does not exist in a vacuum, it is a reflectin of what it's audience wants to hear, for better or for worse, way more than it is under the control of some left or right wing back room conspiracy.
it scares the left that what the right says might actually find resonance in the general public. just like it scares the right that what the left says might find resonance as well. so what the right or left does when the pendulum swings against them is blame the media, because it's easier for the right or the left to think the media is some sort of negative influence than it is for them to believe that what the other side says might actually be compelling.
sorry, but complaing about the bias of the media is like complaining about violence in movies. the movies are violent becasue people pay to see that, that's all. hollywood is not some sort of shill for satan or some such bs, out to seduce people. people are already interested in seeing what they want to see, and hollywood simply wants to make money. so they make what is appealing. the audience is the issue, not hollywood.
same with news media. don't like the media or see a bias in it? don't look at the media, look at the audience. if people don't like what they see, they don't tune in. your problem is with the gneeral public if you don't like what you see in mass media, not mass media.
focus on the issues, don't attack the conduit for information.
in other words, blaming the media is like shooting the messenger: you don't like what you hear, but it's not the guy who's telling you things that is to blame, it's a deeper problem you should be looking at: the general public. they swing right and left. so focus on the issues and sway them thataways: directly. don't attack the media, that's a waste of your time and resources if you are actually interested in influencing people. just go and make your case to them directly.
this lesson applies to the right in the 1990s, and it applies to the left in the 2000s.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Coupled with that is the new focus on controlling interaction with the media and the neocon culture of retaliation. If the White House doesn't like what you write, you might find your access restricted, or your CIA agent wife named in the right wing media (hey, there's a switch). Expect payback. And if that level of pressure is applied to media companies and the same retalitory practices on the macro level, the overall chilling effect could be huge. Start peppering Bush with tough questions and you might not only be excluded from inside acess but might be out of a job or reporting on the rug weavers of western Pakistan.
And before some neocon drone steps up and tries to justify their behavior by saying the Democrats did the same thing when they were in power, the previous administrations were not nearly as draconian about trying to control access and what the media reported as this bunch. Stop justifying the horrendous tactics and amoral behavior of this administration by pointing back to the excesses of other political entities. This one claims the religious and moral high ground, then employs the tactics of evil and acts despicably.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
In the UK the news media is vastly different to yours. Reading the coverage on CNN and other US news sources, it's hard to see any real analysis of issues that matter. Week in, week out, all I've seen is pointless tripe about various candidates' vietnam war records, and what the dems and republicans are saying about each other. What about questioning one particular candidate's very recent war record? What about questioning whether the US (and the world) really is a safer place after Bush attacked a foreign country without justification in a war which most (including the UN) say is illegal. How Bush came out of this relatively unscathed is beyond me. The UK democratic system is far from perfect, but the media do a pretty good job of getting to the issues. As a result, Blair is suffering at the polls. For a country with probably the most liberal libel laws in the world, your media do a poor job of questioning the government on anything.
Since FOX news started up, actual journalism died for good. Now, it's all pundits proclaiming the sweet and marvelous victory of America by proclaiming George aWol Bush the president of the united states.
Nobody here in the U.S gets killed because they exposed some powerfully rich pecadillos. Instead they get character assinated and overwhelmed with high priced lawyers. This of course is more controversy and the news media plays both sides and fuels the story so that we can get our dose of Shadenfrauden.
When I think of the U.S news media and politics, I distinctly remember two incidences that sum it up.
Number one, when Clinton was first running for office, he came in 4th in some primary, and I was writing him off as an also ran. The very next primary, some 2 weeks later, Clinton came in 3rd and was annointed the "Comeback Kid" with all the news media worshipping him.
Number two, when Clinton got caught with his cigar in the cookie jar -- I mean caught dead to rights complete with smoking cigar -- the news media was all agog and in awe of his "genius" in the syntax of his denials. Even admitting that on the surface they appeared to be lies, but where actualy very subtle and genius denials that technicaly were correct. Culminating in "Depends upon what the meaning of is is".
These point to one of the big shortcommings in U.S news today. They are Lazy. Any well funded and controversial organization can simply make up the news and make up the story and the networks buy it up wholesale and then dress it up and retail it to us.
American journalism went down the toilet.
Otherwise, things like Fox News couldnt exist.
The "left wing media" meme has been trotted out for the past decade and a half by the right wing as a pre-emptive measure to embed that idea in the mainstream memosphere. Currently they are pushing the meme of "feminization of culture" in order to push people towards a more rigid and kneejerk form of "decisive, masculine" thinking and get them behind whoever acts toughest.
Everything the right-wing pushes out these days is designed to undermine our liberal democracy and to keep power entrenched and centralized under the corporate machine.
Centralized corporate power has a name: Fascism.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Try the Lexis-Nexis search for "George W. Bush" and "National Guard" and "Service" and see how many hits you get then.
My gut instinct is that you are just trolling, but the fact that you replied to yourself twice leads me to believe that you may just be unstable/unhinged.
I'm quite familiar with the scientific method, and have been using it for the last seventeen years. I'm guessing that you just discovered it, and are attempting to misapply it in an effort to appear more intelligent to the Jr. high crowd that sometimes frequents here.
If you haven't noticed, my post was about the subject of the article; journalists and politics. I wasn't looking at the accusations of Rather's piece, because, well there isn't any reason to. Sources and your "evidence" thoroughly and completely discredited mean that there is nothing to see here.
Evidence that is fraudulent or manufactured to fit a theory is not evidence. In this case, the fraud is much more important than what he was trying to prove, because it addresses the objectivity, ethics, and credibility of Mr. Rather. In this particular case, Mr. Rather's ego and personal politics have become the story and have greatly extended the length of time that this event is spending in the public eye.
As I said, this isn't fair to Kerry or to Bush, who both should be focussing on policy debate. Instead, this pathetic attempt to injure the president (possibly to get back for the Swift Boat Vets,) and it's continued mismanagement of damage control has cost Kerry, Rather and CBS, when the same story done with real evidence and proper objectivity may have helped all three.
-- Len
Surely you mean "vent" and not "speak out".
My greatest fear is that by bitching on slashdot, some of us feel as we've "done something" - something on the scale of protest.
Please folks - remember to get up off the couch.
Have you noticed that most of the stories about the presidential campaign are about exactly that? The CAMPAIGN.
Almost EVERY mass-media story on the election isn't about anything except the ELECTION PROCESS. Dicussion of actual political issues, and the candidates views on said issues, are rarely attempted.
I think that's a poor analogy, as the interpretation of current events (like that of history) can be quite subjective. It would seem reasonable to me that most people who frequent political blogs are already aligned with the particular political view of the blogger (left, right or center) and aren't likely to challange the validity of any story that supports their own viewpoint.
To use conservatives as an example (since that was your reference), a bunch of bloggers across the country who support Bush all "sharing openly and reviewing" a story that supports Bush aren't really the same as a bunch of hackers poring over code. A null pointer is a null pointer no matter who you want to vote for, it's an objective fact. No matter how many conservative bloggers look at a story that casts their man in a positive light ("Those liberal media elites used forged documents to attack our saintly President!"), they're all going to be less inclined to question it.
Not to mention that the way they all feed off each other makes it easy for a story (true or not) to reach a "tipping point" so quickly that there's really no time to check facts, and far to easy for one phone call from Karl Rove to start an avalanche of doubt on a subject that might just hurt his candidate.
Reviewing code for an obvious, factual error and reviewing a politically charged news story composed of (currently) precious few facts, are not analagous.
"Trust in haste. Repent at leisure"
Systematic prisoner abuse in violation of international treaties that used to protect our soldiers being instigated by civillian contractors and nodded at to the very highest levels? Hard to see how you can blow that out of proportion.
But that WASN'T what happened. What you described is what the news organizations like the New York Times wanted it to be. There's no evidence to suggest that it was either systematic or at "very high levels" of either the Military or Executive branch. Turns out it was just a small group of idiot, frustrated soldiers getting seriously out of line, and unlike the innocent civilians killed in Iraq, I'll remind you that every prisoner left with his head on his shoulders. Now how does THAT warrant FIFTY front-page NYT articles --at least twenty of which were consecutive? September 11th didn't even get that kind of coverage!
You really don't see an agenda there?
You don't see an agenda ("Defeat Bush at any cost") in the former? All major news organizations harbor an agenda contrary to the truth today. Whether it's making money by scaring people over anthrax, wild-animal attacks, and so on or pushing a political agenda, none of them really care about objective, rational presentation. Journalistic integrity is dead.
But don't believe everything they tell you.
Nor should you take the NYT or Michael Moore's work as holy words from the mountain either. That's the key here. The world isn't as simple as that anymore. Everything has a slant, and yes that includes Fox News.
-Grym