CNN's complicity in Iraq has kindled a white-hot passion over here at Winds of Change.NET, which is why we're focusing so hard on the media and its role today.
Today, Blake brings us two complementary pieces. "The Holy Media" looked at the some of the attitudes that still remain part of the undeclared war, as exemplified by incidents in Baghdad's Palestine Hotel. Until those attitudes are overcome, he argues, the media's malaise will continue and its societal role will continue to erode. In this article, he extends Glenn Reynolds' excellent "New Class Crackup" piece about that erosion, looking at the phenomenon through the lens of the fall of Saddam's statue and how it was covered.
It's The End of the News As We Know It
(And I Feel Fine)
by C. Blake Powers
Yesterday, my noon local TV newscast was broken into by what appeared to be a very grim Tom Brokaw, supported by an equally grim and upset reporter at CENTCOM. The subject of their discussion was the horrifying miscalculation by American soldiers in the fight for Baghdad. The repercussions of this miscalculation were going to be formidable, with implications of a terrible backlash not only in Iraq, but the entire Middle East.
This dire team not only offered their own take on this reprehensible situation, but had gone so far as to seek CENTCOM comment and take on it. What was this major screwup to the war plan, the campaign, and any chance for a lasting Mid East peace?
A soldier, a common soldier, had raised the U.S. flag. The Stars and Stripes had been raised in Baghdad, and its display was the source of the grimness, angst, and dismay at NBC News. Which, upon mature and considered thought and reflection, led me to ask myself: Was Tom Brokaw A Snitch In School?
Other questions also occurred to me. They have cut the last five minutes off the newscast for this? Are they really this desperate for stories? Is this all they can come up with to manufacture a crisis? Are they auditioning for Baghdad Bob's slot and trying to do his job for him by creating trouble?
The entire situation reminded me not so much of a major news organization covering a major story, but of high school. Of the class snitch running to the assistant headmaster to rat out the latest minor infraction of the rules in self-righteous smugness.
CONTINUED...
Now NBC has not exactly covered itself in glory with its coverage of the war, so I was not terribly surprised in many respects. For anyone who hasn't been paying attention, I will just say: Peter Arnett. Sedition. Enough Said. Or, maybe not -- there is certainly much to critique in their coverage. I turned them off long ago, and watch the local station at noon simply for the weather and local coverage. Those are pretty good.
Let's take a look at this incident that brought out the heavy stares of despair and mature dismay being displayed. It didn't take too long to figure out what had happened. A Marine had displayed the flag as his vehicle moved into one of the main squares in Baghdad, where a group of Iraqis were trying to take down one of Saddam's statues. The Marines, being the helpful gentlebeings they are, offered to help. In the course of this, the flag ended up hanging for a few minutes from the statue. The Marine who owned it ended up trading it to one of the now free people in the square for an Iraqi flag, which flew over the statue as it came down. Appropriate. The Iraqis, from all that I saw, took the American flag and proudly displayed it amidst loud cheers.
The real story here is the demonstration in the square, already underway before the troops arrived. The story here is the warm welcome those troops received, one NBC and others had prophesied would not happen. The story here is the mutual help to bring down Saddam, which is a wonderful parallel to the real events taking place – a signal piece of allegory and metaphor. For those confused, the allegory is the picture, the visual image of the statue coming down. The metaphor is the story in words. The real story was the Marines relaxing afterwards with the crowd, not in combat mode but in rest.
Now it may be that this is what NBC had started to report. It may be that the local station cut into a breaking story, and that national did not cut them off. It may be that I will be elected Queen of the May. What was presented was a story that completely missed the point of what was happening; that appeared to deliberately and willfully ignore it to concentrate on a negative non-story.
The story here is that Saddam is now truly irrelevant, and that the people are rising up on their own against him and his regime, and not waiting on Coalition forces to do so. The secondary story is that our forces were welcomed into the situation with open arms and cheers, not shots, rocks, or bombs. The tertiary story is the one that good writers and reporters salivate over, the symbolic joining of forces to topple a tyrant. There is a Pulitzer in there for the person who seizes this opportunity to present this story with all of the delicious levels wrapped up into one well-crafted piece.
There is one other story here as well, and it is not that of a network news piece done badly. It is the story of the death of network news as we know it. Network news as it has been done for more than 30 years. The death of the major media gatekeepers who decide what the story is, create and shape stories for their own purposes, and otherwise determine the coverage given. Between the 24-hour news operations, news sites on the Internet, and Blogs, the news is out there for all to see. All the stories are out there, and the coverage of them is no longer limited to one view or one reporter's perceptions.
The fundamental change that is underway is going to revolutionize the news and communications in general. In revolutions, the old regimes fall. Yesterday, I did not merely watch Saddam's statue come down, I watched The Media fall as well. I celebrate the fall.
N.B. Continue reading C. Blake Powell's series today with "The Holy Media".
The full index of our recent media-related coverage can be found here.
What the cable/Internet revolution is doing to the news is opening up competition among viewpoints. The leftward bias of the media that once existed in the name of "unbiased" reporting is now giving way to a network of openly biased outlets. This is not a bad thing, but it does require the consumer of news to be more knowledgeable and to be aware of the viewpoint of the reporter.
My theory has been that the days of radio and television, outlets were limited to a practical maximum number. There were only 11 TV stations on the dial for years, and the formation of some of these stations into networks meant that only three TV networks would be economically viable nationwide. With only three major networks news organizations, it wasn't sensible for them to differentiate themselves ideologically... rather, all three competed to give news which was "more unbiased" or simply more timely than each other. And it tended to be somewhat left-leaning, though reasonably centrist. And pretty darned bland, too.
As the number of outlets has exploded in the cable/Internet era, people are increasingly turning to biased news sources, but (in my opinion) doing so knowingly. People can watch the war on Fox or they can watch it on al-Jazeera. MSNBC has obviously taken a look at Fox's ratings and decided they want a piece of that conservative action, and the two stations have engaged in a heated cheerleading competition (complete with catfights).
Likewise, the New York Times, once the center-left standard of professionalism, now reads more like an alternative weekly (though they still have some great standalone reporting).
The three major networks still hold down the center-left mainstream... I expect that in due time, some broadcast or cable network will find itself a voice as a magnet for the left, and will start to differentiate itself in that manner, leading to a future where the market is dominated by news outlets that are either left-leaning or right-leaning.
Likely some outlets will retain the "unbiased" label, and there will probably always be a market for that sort of presentation, too. Among newspapers, the Washington Post looks ready to assume that role from the NYT.
Interestingly enough, this is basically the situation that existed in the 1800s, with many openly-biased newspapers in each town.
There isn't anyone I know that trust the news anchors and believe me Tom brokaw is a news whore just like jennings and what's his name on late night ABC these folks are the ones who always cry 'WOLF" or "The sky is falling AGAIN" nobody believes them. Hell i quit watching 10 years ago I watch Sat news now and I don't watch CNN at all.
Interestingly enough, this is basically the situation that existed in the 1800s, with many openly-biased newspapers in each town.
True story:
Morgan's (Confederate) Raiders tore through my hometown in Ohio in 1864.
It is recorded that they stopped only long enough to burn down the Republican newspaper.
Twelve hours later, the pursuing Union cavalry passed along the same route. They stopped only long enough to burn down the Democratic newspaper.
This war has done plenty to awaken people to what is happening in this country, and not just in regard to the media. These journalists, for the most part, are college-educated and own degrees. Just what the hell were they taught, anyway? Into whose hands have we placed the minds of our children? And at great expense, I might add.
For once, I'll stand next to the Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy and scream, "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Children?"