PBS' 'Frontline' examines ways politics, business hurt news media

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/13/7 | Joe Garofoli

[SmithL]

The timing couldn't be better for the four-part "Frontline" series "News War" premiering tonight on PBS. Not only does tonight's first episode explain why non-journalists should care about the Valerie Wilson leak investigation trial unfolding in a Washington, D.C., courtroom -- it uses the probing, contextualized "Frontline" style to answer a question on a lot of lips:

What's wrong with the American media?

Readers didn't need a week of front-page stories about diaper-wearing astronauts and the alleged cultural significance of Anna Nicole Smith to tell them that the Fourth Estate is having an identity crisis. There's also last week's Pentagon inspector general report criticizing the Bush administration's manipulation of prewar intelligence, reminding Americans that most of the Beltway media danced to the White House's drumbeat to the Iraq war four years ago.

The 4 1/2-hour "News War" series traces the pathology crippling the media business -- financially and legally -- back to the days of the Nixon administration. What it reports is not necessarily new, but it is one of the first televised efforts to connect the factors transforming the news industry at this critical juncture in journalism. And many of the key players -- on both sides of the camera -- are in the Bay Area.

Over its four parts, "News War" explains the significance of recent media controversies, including BALCO-investigating Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams -- who could face jail time in the next few weeks -- and San Francisco blogger Josh Wolf, who recently became the nation's longest imprisoned journalist for refusing to turn over digital footage to police.

[rhombus]

Let me guess... news is driven too much by profit, therefore we need more public funding of the news. Hah! That didn't take 4 1/2 hours.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

How much does bias and fake news hurt the news media?

Anything from ABCNNBCBS should be taken with a grain of salt!

[KarlInOhio]

PBS' 'Frontline' examines ways politics, business hurt news media

Will there be an in depth examination of Dan Rather's blatant political goals harming CBS? Will I have to worry about pigs flying by my office window tomorrow?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

4 1/2 hours ?

[Bonaparte]

Gosh, I'm fresh out of grains of salt. Guess I'll just have to skip the MSM.

[Lexington Green]

Journalist - what a propagandist calls himself.

[John Jorsett]

I love how Bill O'Reilly keeps decrying the non-stories like Anna Nichole, the Trump/Rosie battle, Miss USA, etc. He's done about 5000 segments criticizing the other media for continuing to bring them up.

[P-40]

What's wrong with the American media?

Pandering to the lowest common denominator in order to get ratings by presenting poorly packaged crap as news is one of the biggest problems. News of any importance is going to most likely be....boring.

[LurkedLongEnough]

What's wrong with the American media?

Entitlement mentality.

[P-40]

He's done about 5000 segments criticizing the other media for continuing to bring them up.

There's a lot of that going around...but it is particularly funny in O'Really's case. Cultural Warrior........

[SmithL]

Anything from ABCNNBCBS should be taken with a grain of salt!

There isn't enough salt to season any reporting from PBS.

[Mad Dawg]

I heard a clip from the show last night and an interview with one of the bigs involved with it.

Can you say "hatchet job?" Y'see, the problem is that reactionary people like you and me are too dumb to understand that the need for the the NYTWaPoetc's version of reality trumps the lives of our troops in the Combat Zone or our ability to defend ourselves.

Nothing to see here, just the death rattle of a dying industry.

---

[gondramB]

1. For profit media has always catered to what people will read and/or watch.

The public has always enjoyed tawdry news more than serious or complex news.

So the for profit media always has and always will feature much that is tawdry.

2. Publicly funded media always have and always will reflect the politics of the government and/or the people they put in charge. Often they will go out of their way to do things that no one would voluntarily pay for.

3. What is different now is technology and the ability of the average person to bypass #1 and #2.

[stayathomemom]

It probably all started when Time realized the most popular section in their news magazine was the "People Section" and expanded it to People. Real news now takes a back seat to "pop" news and is reduced to inaccurate sound bites at the top and bottom of the hour on your local radio station.

[KC_Conspirator]

That is the same exact thing I was thinking. Where is the 4 part PBS series on how Dan Rather tried to smear a President during an election campaign? Or how the media let John Kerry run on and old war record without pressing to know about his dishonorable discharge?

[P-40]

It probably all started when Time realized the most popular section in their news magazine was the "People Section" and expanded it to People.

I'm trying to remember my source on that....but yes, that is pretty much what happened. The news organizations saw where all the dollars were coming from and they responded to it.

The audience loves to *feel* informed without having to go through the hassle and bother of actually getting informed...and the nightly news delivers on that desire. We love our celebrities because it makes us feel close to them and close to something important...which helps mask the truth of just how insignificant most of us are in the grand scheme of things that lurks just below our conscious thoughts every day.

[Dont Mention the War]

Readers didn't need a week of front-page stories about diaper-wearing astronauts and the alleged cultural significance of Anna Nicole Smith to tell them that the Fourth Estate is having an identity crisis.

Oh please. Sometimes, the people get exactly what they ask for. Most news producers have a choice: They can either add some of the more gossipy stuff (it's not like they're running nothing but titillating trash) and actually get some readers/viewers, or fill every inch, every second, with dry policy discussions, and have so few readers/viewers that they go out of business. (Of course, it's obvious that what Garofoli actually wants isn't dry policy articles, but hardcore Bush-bashing. But i'm trying to at least salvage half an argument out of his silliness.)

And I'd rather have the airtime filled with stories about killer astronauts and ANS paternity claimants than droning, one-sided liberal propaganda any day of the week. Since the MSM only seems to be interested in providing one or the other, I'll take the one that's less damaging.

[Spok]

My expectation is that it will be more left wing whining about how the media is biased toward the right and controlled by big business, Christians and Zionists.

[Gingersnap]

Summary of the article: everything that is going wrong with traditional journalism is directly the fault of conservatives and the free market.

The rest is just meaningless filler.