The media must share some blame for Sept. 11 (Cal Thomas)

Townhall ^ | October 25, 2001 | Cal Thomas

[Mr. Mulliner]

Cal Thomas

October 25, 2001

The media must share some blame for Sept. 11

Why were we caught with our preparedness pants down on Sept. 11?

Some blame the government for ignoring not only the warning signs but also previous terrorist acts and threats to repeat them. While the past two administrations can share some blame, a major culprit is the media. The press fiddled with the likes of Gary Condit and Chandra Levy; with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky; with the political games Republicans and Democrats played over the budget and electoral politics, while America was being prepared for burning by her enemies.

This isn't the first time the news media has deliberately missed a story with religious roots. During the 1929 Scopes trial, the media of that day thought they had buried fundamentalism. In 1979, the so-called "religious right" re-emerged from seven decades of political hibernation and the media scratched its head in astonishment. PBS's Bill Moyers wondered in a 1980 TV special where all of these people had come from. He and others might have known had they been paying attention and looked in the right places.

While the media was lying in bed on Sunday morning reading the New York Times and watching the TV interview programs, much of America was worshipping a higher authority and their ranks were growing. Because most in the media elite don't worship anything higher than their careers, they missed this important and newsworthy movement. They never fully recovered from that lapse and most still are incapable of understanding religious doctrines and accurately defining religious terminology. The desire for better TV ratings lead programmers to present people from the extremes for high-octane religious debates, rather than responsible and knowledgeable guests who could enlighten the public with historical facts and informed perspective.

Now comes another religious movement, with an indictment of secular culture similar to Christian conservatism, but with a far more radical and dangerous proposal for altering it. While the "religious right" sought victory through the ballot box, radical Islam seeks it at the point of a gun. But the press missed this, too, to our common detriment.

Some may wish to excuse the media blindness on the grounds that most journalists do not wish to offend. That is selective absolution. While they may not wish to offend certain racial and sexual minorities, they have regularly offended conservative Christians and many Jews by wrongly attaching labels and motives that insufficiently describe what these groups believe. The media has been able to get away with this because they know such people won't send anthrax to them in the mail or hijack airplanes that crash into their offices.

Few in the media know the basics about Middle Eastern culture, politics and history, or Islam and its myriad teachings. Newspaper editors and television executives should require that reporters take a crash course on these topics, or hire people who already have the information and can present it fairly and accurately. The disinformation campaign about our enemies will succeed in proportion to the ignorance level of our citizens.

A major part of the problem has been journalism's failure in recent years to cover foreign news. When I worked for NBC News in the 1960s and early '70s, one of the more useful endeavors was a year-end national tour by our correspondents, who would come in from Hong Kong, London and Paris and join a team of domestic reporters for enlightening "town meeting" sessions attended by the public. Today, the networks have closed most of their foreign bureaus and rarely cover news from overseas. Advertisers covet 18- to 49-year-old female viewers, who buy their products, so foreign news has been dropped in favor of too many stories apparently chosen for the express purpose of reaching this demographic.

The TV networks, from which most people get their news, will only make the commitment and spend the money to cover foreign news again if there's sufficient demand and if it's profitable. That will depend in large part on whether viewers want such coverage and support it by buying the advertised products.

Given the media track record, I wouldn't bet they will make the commitment now and our ignorance will place us in greater danger.

©2001 Tribune Media Services

[Mr. Mulliner]

Here's a guy who understands American news media. I respect him so much for constantly speaking out from his conservatism, almost always saying things that most journalists would never have the guts to say.

[Mr. Mulliner]

flag (for a 3-day old editorial)

[eclectic]

Monica Lewinsky : Chandra Levy :: Kosovo War : 911 War

[be-baw]

I like Cal Thomas a lot too, but I don't see how the media's ignoring foreign affairs is connected to the 911 attacks. Maybe I'm missing something...

[OldFriend]

Thanks, I'm with you on this lack of a connection. Seems those on FNC are singing the same song. I heard O'Reilly complaining about the attention to Chandra Levy the other day as well. Guess the dems aren't the only ones with talking points, sadly sadly.

[Red Jones]

they keep us entertained and occupied with soap-opera type news and obfuscation while other important issues are left alone and thus the people are kept ignorant. All the journalists can say is that they're fulfilling demand for low quality news. But in reality these low quality news sources have been losing losing losing market share for a long time. So, I can't see how market demand causes them to do a poor job.

[Mr. Mulliner]

The TV networks, from which most people get their news, will only make the commitment and spend the money to cover foreign news again if there's sufficient demand and if it's profitable. That will depend in large part on whether viewers want such coverage and support it by buying the advertised products.

I don't think Cal Thomas is oversimplifying and this and the last paragraph indicate that viewer interest has a lot to do with our ignorance of foreign affairs which, in part, made us unprepared for 9/11. When news media is all about making money, we're not getting our money's worth.

Here's something I posted 3 weeks ago after digging through some old MRC Cyberalerts: How much blame does our news media share for our security problems?

[John W]

I would propose that traitorous presidents-including ALL of their crimes ans misdeeds-and murderer congressmen-and ALL of their crimes and misdeeds-are not "low" news,but a clear part of the mindset that led to 9-11-01.

[Mr. Mulliner]

Please read the link I provided in post #7. It implicates that certain person you're referring to and shows just how the media is to blame for his misdeeds by their own complicity.

[be-baw]

With all due respect, my friend, I didn't see in the link you posted anything that would make me think that the media's failure to report certain stories make them complicit for 911.

That MRC report focused on two issues: (1) the (television) media's failure to report a study by the GAO that revealed a lack of proper vetting of DOD employees for security clearances, and (2) the pardoning by Clinton of the FALN terrorists.

One might infer, I suppose, that the GAO report revealed an overall sloppiness by the DOD that allowed the terrorists to enter and to operate within our borders, or that the Clinton pardon may have emboldened the Atta gang (because he was "soft" on terrorists). However, I stll think that the conclusion that the media's failure to report certain stories led to 911 needs more justification.

BTW, I believe that conclusion CAN be supported. If I'm not mistaken, previous terrorist attacks by Al Q'aeda were muted by the media because they were focusing on other issues, such as the OJ trial (can't tell you which attack(s) off the top of my head--the earlier WTC bombing or the embassies in Africa bombings, maybe?)

Despite my picking nits here, the issue raised by Thomas is crucially important. Much of the mainstream media does not report a lot of news that an informed citizenry should know about. So what should be done about it?

If Dan, Petuh and Tom start reporting more on foreign affairs, will they survive? Are people who watch TV news interested in such matters? I would like to think otherwise, but I'm inclined to think more viewers will turn to the programs (like Brokaw's) that concentrate on fluff-news-you-can-use pieces.

[mewzilla]

The public bears some responsibility as well. Many are not critical readers and viewers. They don't garner news from more than one source, and they don't bother to educate themselves about subjects they know little or nothing about. The media is, by and large, giving the public what it asks for. Pap. The problem therefore is also with the public, and until it realises that ignorance is NOT bliss, nothing will change.

[uncbob]

Yes and No
The GOP did not make foreign affairs a high profile during the election campaign or even attempt to.
Of course that was probably because the American public wasn't concerned
Of course that was probably because the media didn't tell them to be
But the GOP could have at least tried. It should have been part of Bushs's convention speech if only a minor part

[Mr. Mulliner]

I agree with both of you about the public's responsibility which does limit the blame that the media can be expected to take. But I am not convinced that the news that is reported is all strictly a business decision of what sells. Fox News is proving that ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN were all along making decisions that probably limited their viewership and thus their ratings and ability to earn advertising dollars. Fox's success says a lot about that.

Fox is no better, though, at making responsible decisions regarding the reporting of foreign affairs. If anything, they were the worst in making the Condit story frontpage news for weeks on end.

But having said that, doesn't it seem possible that news can cover real stories with real consequences and still not be a loser in the ratings? Or am I giving too much credit to the American news consumer?

[Landru]

"I respect him so much for constantly speaking out from his conservatism, almost always saying things that most journalists would never have the guts to say."

I couldn't agree any more with your sentiment, _Yank.
The man stands alone; with a couple here & there popping up every now & then who'll do justice to & in the name of, truth.

Here are a few choice quotes of CalT's worthy of repeating IMO; just because, they're proof of the righteousness of his entire POV.

"The disinformation campaign about our enemies will succeed in proportion to the ignorance level of our citizens.""

Yea. It sure will continue; & in direct proportion as he described.

"Advertisers covet 18- to 49-year-old female viewers, who buy their products, so foreign news has been dropped in favor of too many stories apparently chosen for the express purpose of reaching this demographic."

A good deal more than just foeign news has bitten the dust, too.
TV news & TV in general has quite nearly become completly unwatchable; & for the sake of selling laundry soap? -Nuts.

"The TV networks, from which most people get their news, will only make the commitment and spend the money to cover foreign news again if there's sufficient demand and if it's profitable. That will depend in large part on whether viewers want such coverage and support it by buying the advertised products."

I wouldn't be so sure about that, either...I mean, in a perfect world one would think so.
To be honest, I don't think they'll change as Cal suggests because, there's the little matter of the quisling's Leftist-Socialist agenda?
These Leftist quislings have an agenda aside that of making a buck; make no mistake about that.
We're seeing their give-damn-attitude & the results it reaps right now -- visa-vi, sagging ratings et al?
But again...a Socialist couldn't care less about profits & ratings per se; which explains their not paying attention to those numbers & our inability to understand why they're not?

"Given the media track record, I wouldn't bet they will make the commitment now and our ignorance will place us in greater danger."

Well...that's a, "gimme," eh.

[marktwain]

The media bear responsibility for the attack in this way: They give a very misleading view of what the American character is like. If you watch American media and news shows, you would think Americans are weak, frightened, feminized creatures. We are scared of things that no rational person would be scared of, such as another couple of parts per billion of arsenic in some remote water supplies. We are obsessed with the possibility that someone might kill a poor, defenseless little bunny. We constantly preach that "violence never solves anything". With this view of America, which is quite false, it is no surprise that Osama and the other Islamic terrorists have so totally misread us. They thought that, hey, those wimps, one punch and they will surrender. Just look at Berkely, and you probably have the terrorists view of what the rest of America is like. It is the image that the media portrays, of a weak, feminized, cowardly America, that contributed to 9/11.

[mewzilla]

You're giving WAY too much credit to the average American news consumer, and not just about the news.

Another problem is that so many of us seem to have no context in which to understand the news if we do keep up with it. An example: I was talking to someone (no kid) who was freaking out about the anthrax attacks. I said concern and vigilence was great, but panic was stupid. I told her to recall how the British behaved during the Blitz. Then I discovered that I had to explain the Blitz.

[Mr. Mulliner]

[The media] give a very misleading view of what the American character is like. If you watch American media and news shows, you would think Americans are weak, frightened, feminized creatures.

Very true. I've lived 14 years of my life in Africa and Asia and can tell you that both Hollywood and the news media contribute hugely to the world's perspective on America and Americans. Fighting this image exported like raw sewage is one of the most discouraging things about living in a foreiegn country. Here in Singapore it's not too bad because most Singaporeans have had some real live contact with Americans and are more able to form a reasonable opinion based on that. But I also lived in China and found that many of them thought that America must certainly be the most dangerous place in the world with muggers and rapists hiding behind every tree. I even read in a Chinese newspaper that the crime rate in America was something like 1000 times as high as China's which was nothing but a total fabrication.

I think this is more than anecdotal evidence. America gets painted in a really lousy way by our media (both news and entertainment) and they must take part of the blame for the anti-Americanism that is behind 9/11.

I still think that they had a responsibility to report the things that our own government was finding that was intended to act as a warning to us.

[mewzilla]

Sure a lot of the media is full of it. It got that way because consumers have allowed it. I was once asked by someone who works in the newspaper business why I didn't subscribe to the local rag. I said because it was contained lousy wire service reporting, lousy local reporting, and a LOT of fluff. I was told by the newspaper guy that that was what their customers wanted, and that when they tried NOT dumbing down the news their circulation went down.

You get what you pay for. Now that the internet has become so pervasive, the public will not be able to hide behind the excuse of having no other access to info. FOX's success is also an example of this.

[be-baw]

I am not convinced that the news that is reported is all strictly a business decision of what sells.

You're right, it's not. It's a combination of what the managing editors deem to be newsworthy, and what the producers think will garner high ratings.

Fox News is proving that ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN were all along making decisions that probably limited their viewership and thus their ratings and ability to earn advertising dollars. Fox's success says a lot about that.

And, still, ABCBSCNNBC doesn't have a clue...

doesn't it seem possible that news can cover real stories with real consequences and still not be a loser in the ratings?

It certainly is possible. Someday, (maybe) someone will produce a comprehensive television news program (probably 1.5 to 2 hours long) that will make the critics rave, and people will tune in.

am I giving too much credit to the American news consumer?

You are probably giving the American consumer much more credit than the networks are. The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times still enjoy relatively high circulation rates, and they are serious news organs (although the latter is notoriously leftist). Can a serious television news program sustain itself? We won't know until and unless someone tries it, I suppose...

[marktwain]

Remember that the mass media in America is not a free market, and has not been since the Federal government nationalized the airwaves, I think in the late 20's. The big TV networks have always been a cartel fostered and in large part created by the government. Now that the Internet and Cable and Sattellite TV are here, we are starting to get a market in mass media. The consumers had little real choice, before.

It is my hypothesis that the goverment essentially controlled the mass media from the first licensed radio networks, with total censorship in WWII, up until the McCarthy hearings. With the McCarthy hearings, the media moguls learned that they could control the government (not directly, but with heavy influence) instead of the other way around. This culminated in Watergate, which was essentially a media coup against Nixon. Once Reagan was elected, and put some liberterian types in charge of the FCC, we started to move toward the present situation. Remember that Rush Limbaugh could never have existed under the "fairness doctrine" that existed on radio before Reagan became president.