US media: Telling it like it isn't

US media: Telling it like it isn't
By Akhilesh Upadhyay

NEW YORK - In submitting too easily to the official line on Iraq, the United States media have grandly fallen short of their all-important responsibilities to reflect diversity and to keep the government at arm's length, according to a group of journalism educators and working journalists.

They say that the country's dominant media corporations have presented the current buildup to war on Iraq with a shocking homogeneity that fails to reflect the pluralistic vibrancy that exists in the United States. In an open letter sent to major media outlets this week, more than two dozen professors, journalists and authors warned, "This is no time for relying solely on official sources and their supporters.

"The media should never confuse patriotism with obeisance and a rubber-stamp mentality," the letter states. "There is a duty to seek out and quote the many experts who express skepticism about claims by the state, rather than simply to rely on the same pundits repeatedly."

Enlightened by history, independent journalists argue, more and more people in the US are relying on the Internet to get alternative viewpoints, a trend that took off during the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, where media corporations failed to give adequate and accurate information on what many now regard as a turning point in a broad-based international anti-globalization movement.

The media debacle in Seattle led the much-venerated Christian Science Monitor to note, "The new media in Seattle provided a glimpse of what lies ahead for journalism in the new century. It is a message that older media ignore at their own peril."

"The first thing US readers need to do is stop reading the US corporate media," said Jeanne Strole at the Independent Media Center (IMC) in New York. "They should start reading the foreign press - British, French, Spanish, Arabic - anything other than the goddamn US corporate media."

The IMC homepage features two articles related to war, neither of which has found much room in the US media. One describes a weekend report in Britain's Guardian newspaper based on a leaked memo describing how US agents have increased their spying on representatives of the United Nations Security Council member countries in a bid to get their approval for war on Iraq. The expanded surveillance operation includes intercepting home and office telephone calls and e-mails, according to the paper.

The other IMC article describes recent anti-war protests in the Turkish capital Ankara, where parliament on Saturday failed to approve the deployment of 60,000 US troops inside the nation's borders.

A day after the vote, the New York Times, for instance, did carry the news on its front page, but failed to mention that thousands of protesters had gathered outside the parliament in Turkey, a secular Muslim state and the only democracy in the region.

"We are seeing this increased need for alternative news sources because many more people are feeling generally disillusioned with our government, our corporate leadership and the mainstream media which favors these interests," said Strole's colleague Catriona Stuart.

Those who signed the protest letter include retired Times columnist Tom Wicker; a former reporter at the paper, William Serrin; Ben Bagdikian, former dean of the journalism school at the University of California at Berkeley; author Studs Terkel; independent journalist and filmmaker Barbara Koeppell; and author and politician Ralph Nader.

The letter describes six patterns of poor media coverage, which characterized reporting during the 1991 Gulf War and which are being repeated in the present run-up to war in Iraq. The "horse-race syndrome" and highlighting military tactics over political analysis means that the media are endlessly churning out news features with titles like "Showdown with Saddam" and "presenting a grave matter as though it were a high-stakes sports contest", the letter says.

It indicts the media for failing aggressively to protest government control of information, adding that newspapers and TV news have under-reported this "freeze-out". The letter also accuses the media of failing to maintain "an arm's-length relationship" with government, noting the over-reliance of TV news in particular on government-approved retired military and intelligence consultants.

According to IMC's Strole, the US media are run by "a handful of corporations who all have a stake in making sure the Bush administration gets its [expletive] war. More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the US corporate-mainstream media has been bought and paid for."

The Los Angeles Times, Associated Press and the New York Times declined to comment on the letter, telling IPS that they react only to specific points about their own coverage.

"There is a duty to seek out and quote the many experts who express skepticism about claims by the state, rather than simply to rely on the same pundits repeatedly."

I could see if this was written during the Clintonista era of media going ga-ga. Surely this writer can't be serious about such an allegation today.

...more and more people in the US are relying on the Internet to get alternative viewpoints,

On the one hand, I would agree, what with FreeRepublic.com and the interactive discussion groups that are available ...

On the other hand, you will find ALL the conspiracy theory wacko's on the internet where their "stuff" can stay visible under their control forever if they so choose ... So, let's keep this "relying on the internet" thing in perspective.

The IMC homepage features two articles related to war, neither of which has found much room in the US media. One describes a weekend report in Britain's Guardian newspaper based on a leaked memo describing how US agents have increased their spying on representatives of the United Nations Security Council member countries in a bid to get their approval for war on Iraq. The expanded surveillance operation includes intercepting home and office telephone calls and e-mails, according to the paper.

The other IMC article describes recent anti-war protests in the Turkish capital Ankara, where parliament on Saturday failed to approve the deployment of 60,000 US troops inside the nation's borders.

I saw brief footage and mention of the Turkey protesters on network TV when they rejected use of their country. What is so significant about that?

The first item would be significant, but sounds preposterous for a variety of reasons. The U.N. representatives don't decide how to vote on their own. They're following the orders of their heads of state. If anything this would create antagonism towards the U.S. Maybe the reason nobody's paying attention to the "memo" is because it's unbelievable.

They say that the country's dominant media corporations have presented the current buildup to war on Iraq with a shocking homogeneity that fails to reflect the pluralistic vibrancy that exists in the United States.

Oh, do they mean the 65+% majority in favor of the war, or the 25% minority of dissenters?

I am in complete agreement with the basic argument presented here but, amazingly, what they see as shortcomings of the leftist media, they blame on their being too far to the right. The complete obsurdity that American corporate media are anti-liberal is a continuation of the rant started a month or so ago by the Democrats, including the slick one himself. It seems to me they are trying to combat the emergence of conservative reporting in some areas by shaming the leftists media into an even more strident leftwing position. That is the direction the Democrat Party is going and they are trying to force their free campaign arm in that direction with them.

One of my pet peeves about today's journalists is how they are so lazy...they surf the internet, check AP releases and 90% of press stuff is repeated that way...Hardly anyone goes out on the street, does personal interviews, does "unique stories" that the other 20 media sites haven't already done, etc. They're one step above soap operas in my opinion...only Fox makes any effort to alter some of their lineup and even then their main stream reporting is from the AP!

I agree. Only a few industrious reporters with entrenched government sources, Bill gertz is a good example, ever dig up a story and maybe I give even them too much credit. After all, they are simply relying on inside reporting which they rewrite and repeat for the public.

I often smile when I see my own ideas appear for the first time on talk shows, even Rush's, and in the press shortly after I have voiced them on FR. Much of what is in the media is gleaned from our discussions here. I am not purposely tauting myself as others are certainly better contributors than I am but I do notice when one of my ideas is repeated rather than when the ideas of all the others here are.

"The first thing US readers need to do is stop reading the US corporate media," said Jeanne Strole at the Independent Media Center (IMC) in New York. "They should start reading the foreign press - British, French, Spanish, Arabic - anything other than the goddamn US corporate media."

Let me guess . . . IMC and Mizzzzzzzzzzzzzz Strole are anti-war. Typical liberal blather. They're so damn convinced that they have to do all the thinking for us poor peons that when we don't agree with them it has to be because their message isn't getting out!!!!!!

They don't for one minute think they MIGHT JUST BE WRONG and that we've heard their message and decided it was BS!!

You just hit the nail on the head. Otherwise they would be asking themselves "How did the anti-war protests get organized so quickly?" "Who was paying for the busses, porta potties, etc? Who ARE these groups?? What are their political beliefs, agenda's?

They would also be giving FAIR and BALANCED Coverage to both the anti-war and PRO-America groups.

Instead they paint a picture of America by showing dissenters in LA, SFO, and NY. Or by showing 20 to 30 people with PINK hair protesting against this administration out in front of the Whitehouse.

FreeRepublic people used to have protests numbering MUCH BIGGER CROWDS in front of the Whitehouse..and you didn't see one tenth the coverage in the media about them.

The media doesn't report anymore.. they HYPE!!

Thanks for making such a valid point!! FRegards, Vets

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.