"LACI IN BAGHDAD"

[Tony]

July 1, 2003 -- WE Americans have the finest media in the world, representing the broadest spectrum of opinions. Our media is feisty, but also self-critical and self-correcting (though The New York Times may win the Pulitzer Prize for fiction this year). Overall, the American people are very well served.
But the fierce competition that makes our media so effective can also be its worst enemy. The fight for the hottest headline can lead to peculiar forms of group-think and pack journalism at its worst.

The Laci Peterson story is a good example. One murder, among many, catches on - and suddenly it's a more important story than terrorism, famine, coups or genocide. Pack journalism leads to a loss of perspective that badly distorts our national priorities.

Well, journalistically speaking, poor Laci Peterson's in Baghdad now. A relatively small number of foreseeable attacks - predicted by this column months ago - have been blown wildly out of proportion.

Our troops are doing remarkably well - but the headlines make it sound like a disaster. Last weekend, almost as many Americans died in a residential balcony collapse in Chicago as have been killed by hostile fire in "postwar" Iraq.

As a former soldier, I don't discount any American casualties as unimportant. But the fact is that, despite real errors and miscues, reconstruction efforts in Iraq are going surprisingly well.

 

[Thumper]

Yay! They found Laci! THat means Scott can go free now.

Oh wait. I guess I should read the whole post.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

So competition is good in economics, but bad in journalism?

 

[Drifterman]

July 1, 2003 -- WE Americans have the finest media in the world, representing the broadest spectrum of opinions.

Rather an arrogant opinion, I would say. The whore-like US media coverage of the current liar in the White House is insulting. The only difference between the US an Italy in this respect is that Berlusconi's media connections are explicit, and he is (or was ) under investigation for it.

Still, the rest of the article made a lot of sense. It clearly was not stating that all competition is a bad thing, but that there are problems associated with journalism that are analagous to a bubble in economics - overwhelming interest where the subject matter does not warrant it.

Seems like a fair assessment.

 

[Tony]

The whore-like US media coverage of the current liar in the White House is insulting.

Where you just as insulted with the whore-like media coverage of the previous liar in the white house?

 

[Drifterman]

Originally posted by Tony:
Where you just as insulted with the whore-like media coverage of the previous liar in the white house?

Which liar? Clinton? Bush the 1st? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon?

I was not really exposed to the full force of the US media until the Bush II regime took office in their underhanded way.

I was no big fan of Clinton, given the cynical timing of some of his airstrikes (amongst other things), but the relentless hounding of him by the right-wing bigot dominated media presents a sharp contrast with the fawning, obsequious kow-towing to the current occupant of the oval office.

There is a vast body of recent evidence to show that the American media establishment is extremely partisan in favour of the right wing.

The grotesque spectacle of Richard Roth denigrating the UN at every opportunity on CNN is but one example.

Are there any left-wing newspapers in the US that can balance the ill-informed vitriol of the Murdoch press? Even the NYT is right of centre by any reasonable estimation.

Face it, corporate media stands to gain (and has already gained) a great deal from not rocking the Bush regime's gunboat.

 

[Tony]

Which liar? Clinton? Bush the 1st? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon?

I was not really exposed to the full force of the US media until the Bush II regime took office in their underhanded way.

I was no big fan of Clinton, given the cynical timing of some of his airstrikes (amongst other things), but the relentless hounding of him by the right-wing bigot dominated media presents a sharp contrast with the fawning, obsequious kow-towing to the current occupant of the oval office.

There is a vast body of recent evidence to show that the American media establishment is extremely partisan in favour of the right wing.

The grotesque spectacle of Richard Roth denigrating the UN at every opportunity on CNN is but one example.

Are there any left-wing newspapers in the US that can balance the ill-informed vitriol of the Murdoch press? Even the NYT is right of centre by any reasonable estimation.

Face it, corporate media stands to gain (and has already gained) a great deal from not rocking the Bush regime's gunboat.

Yes yes, the "corporate" media is the latest boogieman of the bedwetting left. Why try to resolve your own ineptitude when you can just blame the "corporate" media. It’s really pathetic that someone as seemingly intelligent as you has to resort to school yard name calling tactics.

 

[a_unique_person]

Rather an arrogant opinion, I would say. The whore-like US media coverage of the current liar in the White House is insulting. The only difference between the US an Italy in this respect is that Berlusconi's media connections are explicit, and he is (or was ) under investigation for it.

Still, the rest of the article made a lot of sense. It clearly was not stating that all competition is a bad thing, but that there are problems associated with journalism that are analagous to a bubble in economics - overwhelming interest where the subject matter does not warrant it.

Seems like a fair assessment.

You should be used to the US having the 'Finest <Fill in anything you like here> in the world'.

 

[Drifterman]

Originally posted by Tony:
Why try to resolve your own ineptitude when you can just blame the "corporate" media.

My ineptitude in what?

 

[Tony]

My ineptitude in what?

Not your ineptitute, I was speaking generally. Sorry if that wasnt clear.

 

[Drifterman]

Yes yes, the "corporate" media is the latest boogieman of the bedwetting left. Why try to resolve your own ineptitude when you can just blame the "corporate" media. It’s really pathetic that someone as seemingly intelligent as you has to resort to school yard name calling tactics.

I stand by my assertion that Presidents of the USA can be characterised as liars. It is part of the political condition. I did not mean it as a name-calling tactic, more as an accurate description, rather like describing a donkey as an ass.

Nevertheless: different lies have different consequences. Bill Clinton's, in my opinion, had far less negative consequences than those of Bush, Blair et al.

I attach blame to "corporate" media because private enterprises must fight for the advertising dollars of powerful companies that have powerful vested interests, and thus pander to these interests.

These interests act as a dampener on critical discussion throughout the media. When the question being asked on American TV was "When will the war start?", the rest of the world was asking "Should we have a war at all?", a question all but ignored by the US media. This kind of censorship by omission is dangerous because of its insidiousness. It assumes a consensus where none exists, and stifles important debate by stigmatising one of the participants.

Now, the British media, in the form of the BBC, is actually being berated by the British government for being unsupportive. This, I feel, is a healthy state of affairs. The love-in between the ideologues of the Bush regime and media outlets such as Fox is exceptionally unhealthy. Like the unbelief and insult heaped upon token sceptics invited to the orgies of psychic advocates on daytime TV, the left-leaning critics of right-wing woo-wooism are ridiculed by such unsavoury characters as Ann Coulter et al.

Why? Because questioning of people's deeply held but irrational beliefs on a show is not conducive to selling them the next consumer must-have during the commercial break.

Pandering to the lowest common denominator sells.

The left must share partial culpability - its weak and wishy-washy evenhanded responses do little to stir the emotions. Who wants to hear "Well, you do have a point, but, but, but..."? In politics there is no point in being correct if no-one can hear your voice.

To summarise: it is a dangerous situation when the dominant media outlets side with a militaristic government beset with serious domestic economic problems, and drown out contrary views with cynical appeals to patriotism.

 

[Tony]

I stand by my assertion that Presidents of the USA can be characterised as liars. It is part of the political condition. I did not mean it as a name-calling tactic, more as an accurate description, rather like describing a donkey as an ass.

I agree that politicians are liars, thats not what I was referring to when I said you were using name calling tactics.


Nevertheless: different lies have different consequences. Bill Clinton's, in my opinion, had far less negative consequences than those of Bush, Blair et al.

Assuming Bush lied, how is getting rid of saddam hussien a negative consequence?

I attach blame to "corporate" media because private enterprises must fight for the advertising dollars of powerful companies that have powerful vested interests, and thus pander to these interests.

Is there a time in america in the last 50 years when this has not been the case?

These interests act as a dampener on critical discussion throughout the media.

I think wide-spread apathy has a more of a dampening effect than those interests of which you speak.

When the question being asked on American TV was "When will the war start?", the rest of the world was asking "Should we have a war at all?" a question all but ignored by the US media.

Do you have evidence that the question was ignored, because that's news to me. I was watching and listening to the news everyday, and everyday I heard the question (on a plethora of shows on both radio and tv, including foxnews) "should we go to war with iraq?".


Like the unbelief and insult heaped upon token sceptics invited to the orgies of psychic advocates on daytime TV, the left-leaning critics of right-wing woo-wooism are ridiculed by such unsavoury characters as Ann Coulter et al.

It goes both ways, like the conservatives that piss and moan about the "liberal" media, you are seeing what you want. The media at large is neither "liberal" nor "right wing".

Why? Because questioning of people's deeply held but irrational beliefs on a show is not conducive to selling them the next consumer must-have during the commercial break.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Beliefs of all stripes are questioned daily in the US media.


To summarise: it is a dangerous situation when the dominant media outlets side with a militaristic government beset with serious domestic economic problems, and drown out contrary views with cynical appeals to patriotism.

I didnt realize the LA Times, The NY Times, CBS, NBC and ABC news made "cynical" appeals to patriotism. Do you have any evidence of this?