Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

New PBS Doc Misses the Media/War Story

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted February 12, 2007.


Purporting to analyze the media's cozy relationship to those in power, PBS's new documentary series misses the boat...
Advertisement

It's good news, bad news time again.

The good news is that PBS Frontline, one of America's leading documentary strands, is devoting an impressive four-and-a-half hours of national prime time (February 13, 20, 27 and March 27) to the overall subject of the "future of the news."

The bad news is that as the limited series contains very little that is either new or news.

Moreover, "News War" is more about the war than about the news -- at least judging from the first two hours, which were all that were available at press time.

As the author of a blog called "Media Is A Plural," and co-founder of a site called the "MediaChannel," I really wanted to recommend this series and commend Frontline for putting so many resources behind it.

But I'm afraid I simply can't -- this is programming that obviously sounded like a good idea in its conception, but in execution it's actually just another missed opportunity.

As usual, the programs are chockablock full of the famous Frontline "production values" and techniques: the subtly suggestive music; the dramatically-lit interviews; the sexy slow motion pushes into White House windows, purportedly offering a peek behind the veil; the near-total access to top players whose talking heads propel the action; and the appearance of rare in-depth treatment of important topics crucial to democracy…

That's the promise at least. Alas, the first two hours of the series (titled "Secrets, Sources and Spin") for the most part deliver only rehashes, bromides and clichés.

The opening program, for example, appears extremely topical, in that it considers the revelation of the secret CIA identity of Valerie Plame and the controversy over allegations that the Bush Administration twisted intelligence to lead the nation into war in Iraq. The events connected to that affair, of course, have been making headlines for several weeks during the course of the ongoing trial of Scooter Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Having liveblogged a week of the Libby trial, however, I can assure viewers that they will learn more from reading blogs and other coverage of the trial than they will by devoting time to the Frontline effort.

To its credit, the program does from time to time meander into meaningful discussions of contemporary media and democracy issues -- but not nearly often enough. Instead, the producers make some curious choices: they rehash earlier media controversies such as the Supreme Court's Branzburg decision (in the first show) and the Pentagon Papers case (in show two.) They also cram in substantial sections about the Barry Bonds/Balco steroid story and even imprisoned video blogger Josh Wolf. They want the series to be about big issues like national security vs. the First Amendment and prior restraint vs. punishment after the fact.

But is this really "déjà vu all over again," as correspondent Lowell Bergman phrases it? I think not. America's news media in the 21st century are in a totally new situation, and instead of providing context, these historical and topical detours simply take the program off its tracks.

That said, "News War's" biggest flaw lies in its overall approach. The media here is all New York Times and Washington Post, MSM bigwigs like Bill Keller and Len Downie, Judy Miller and Bob Woodward, coupled with their counterparts in politics, like White House advisers Dan Bartlett and Mark McKinnon. There are few bloggers -- Jay Rosen gets two lines -- and no independent voices. (One conspicuous omission in the program's consideration of who in the media was "right" and "wrong" about Iraq's missing WMD, for example, is that of my Globalvision partner Danny Schechter, whose 2004 documentary "WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception" was way ahead of most media -- mainstream or not.) The program also covers right-wing demonstrations against the "Al Jazeera" Times, castigating the paper of record for reporting that the US government was secretly monitoring worldwide money transfers -- but it fails even to mention or show that the Times has more often been the target of progressive protesters upset about the paper's cheerleading for the Bush Administration and its policies promoting the war and occupation in Iraq. (Full disclosure: I led one organized by MediaChannel.) The fact that an entirely different narrative and critique of the real "news war" is missing from the Frontline effort means the producers missed the story -- or at the very least a good chunk of it.

Just as the mainstream media it focuses on blew the WMD story by relying exclusively on sources from Big Politics and Big Media, Frontline's "News War" misses the media and democracy story owing to this partial, flawed and incestuous approach, which comes off as mostly self-congratulatory. Moreover its information and analysis about the Valerie Plame affair is already outdated and surpassed by the ongoing Scooter Libby trial itself.

To sum up: judging from its first two hours, "News War" is a big disappointment… Here's hoping the final two and a half hours deliver more voices and more choices.

(Rory O'Connor directed, wrote and produced three films for Frontline in the early Nineties.)

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: media, iraq, pbs

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
U.S. Media is PSYOPS
Posted by: rwa on Feb 12, 2007 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reports in the Dutch newspaper Trouw (2/21/00, 2/25/00) and France's Intelligence Newsletter (2/17/00) have revealed that several officers from the US Army's 4th Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) Group at Ft. Bragg worked in the news division at CNN's Atlanta headquarters last year, starting in the final days of the Kosovo War.

In the U.S. media, so far only Alexander Cockburn, columnist for The Nation and co-editor of the newsletter CounterPunch, has picked up on the story. Cockburn's column on the subject is available at www.counterpunch.org.

The story is disturbing. In the 1980s, officers from the 4th Army PSYOPS group staffed the National Security Council's Office of Public Diplomacy (OPD), a shadowy government propaganda agency that planted stories in the U.S. media supporting the Reagan Administration's Central America policies.

A senior US official described OPD as a "vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in enemy territory." (Miami Herald, 7/19/87) An investigation by the congressional General Accounting Office found that OPD had engaged in "prohibited, covert propaganda activities," and the office was soon shut down as a result of the Iran-Contra investigations. But the 4th PSYOPS group still operates.

CNN has always maintained a close relationship with the Pentagon. Getting access to top military officials is a necessity for a network that stakes its reputation on being first on the ground during wars and other military operations.

What makes the CNN story especially troubling is the fact that the network allowed the Army's covert propagandists to work in its headquarters, where they learned the ins and outs of CNN's operations. Even if the PSYOPS officers working in the newsroom did not influence news reporting, did the network allow the military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against CNN itself?

For instance, one PSYOPS officer worked in CNN's satellite division. According to Intelligence Newsletter, rear admiral Thomas Steffens, a psychological warfare expert in the Special Operations Command, recently told a PSYOPS conference that the military needed to find ways to "gain control" over commercial news satellites to help bring down an "informational cone of silence" over regions where special operations were taking place.

An unofficial strategy paper published by the U.S. Naval War College in 1996 and written by an Army officer ("Military Operations in the CNN World: Using the Media as a Force Multiplier") urged military commanders to find ways to "leverage the vast resources of the fourth estate" for the purposes of "communicating the [mission's] objective and endstate, boosting friendly morale, executing more effective psychological operations, playing a major role in deception of the enemy, and enhancing intelligence collection."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: U.S. Media is PSYOPS Posted by: particle
» RE: U.S. Media is PSYOPS Posted by: Lauren
I'm More Optimistic
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 12, 2007 2:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frontline has a good track record, especially considering the immense pressure put on PBS/CPB by the NeoCons and the Bushies. No other national news program has spent as much of it's time & treasure covering the the serious issues for many years now, and they did while walking a plank with the Wingnuts and their boys in D.C.

Gingrich tried his damnedest to cut PBS off when he was Speaker, and a Democratic White House may have been the thing that tipped the balance, so they are probably treading upon some thin ice behind the scenes. Bill Moyers didn't leave Now because he wanted to return to commercial TV.

Next, Frontline is not directed to a hard core political audience and laying the background by giving an overview is not a bad place to start if you have 4 hours of prime time. If they came out with their guns blazing many inclined to ignore the show would turn it off and miss the meat.

As to centering around the big media, it's a valid judgement call. Every day, the traditional media gets more eyeballs than Daily Koz, FDL or any of the darlings of the Blogosphere. Numbers= attention when discussing the media and even Keith Olbermann's Countown on MSNBC has a relatively tiny audience (250-400k, depending on the news cycle) despite having national distribution. The numbers for indy media are undoubtedly smaller.

It would be nice to give Goodman, Greenwald and other independent people 4 hours on PBS, but that's not likely to happen in the current political environment. There are still people in Public Broadcasting who remember the firestorm surrounding the amazing stuff NET, the predecessor of PBS, used to put on the air.

Between AIR (America's Investigative Reports), Frontline, NOW, Independent Lens (sometimes), P.O.V. and other efforts, PBS has done America a great service amid some very tough times for Public Broadcasting. No other outlet with such wide availability even comes close. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not a front-line attack on THE issue (empire), but a flanking move
Posted by: amacd on Feb 13, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Rory, it appears more than a bit disappointing that PBS does not mount a full frontal attack (a 'front-line' attack) on the heart of the imperial enemy camp --- including the corporate controlled media, the corporate controlled political scam, the corporate controlled economy, our corporate controlled lives, and everything else at the center of this unsustainable system of pathology.

However, there is probably not yet much of an audience for a really blunt news special report on the status of what Americans think is still their country.

For example, how would most of the population likely respond to a Front-Line special entitled, "Vichy American" --- which bluntly laid out the facts that we are living in a guilefully disguised global corporate/finacial elite Empire that has fully taken over what we used to call 'our country' (the nation-state previously known as the USA) in all aspects: politically, economically, militarily, informationally (through 'their' media), etc??

As is sometimes said of deprogramming kids who have been brain-washed by a cult, 'tough love' and 'harsh truth' can bring them back to reality. But as Jack Nicholson said, "You can't handle the turth".

Rory, ask yourself, "Can many average Americans really handle the truth?" --- the real truth ---the whole truth, in one TV show?? Are you really asking for a front-line, a frontal assult on empire?? Would this be a sane battle plan against the empire that now has our people by the throat? --- Or would it be a suicide mission that the empire would actually benefit from? Have empires ever been overcome by 'front-line' / frontal attacks? Even Christ did not confront the Roman Empire with frontal attack --- but with another weapon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gary J Minter
Posted by: garyjminter on Feb 13, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do you expect from government media, and media which depends on corporate funding for its survival? PBS and NPR have such low ratings because they are timid and boring, afraid to say things which might offend someone....too "politically correct and wimpy." Sadly, this is also true of most left-wing or "progressive" journalism, they are obsessed with a few issues that most people don't really care about, issues which are "safe" for old fashioned liberals like being against the death penalty or being in favor of abortion rights....to be honest, most people really don't care much about these issues either way, because they don't plan to be murderers or prostitutes or get pregnant. So, most "progressive" media is too boring, irrelevant, and fails to capture the hearts and spirit of "the masses."

I've seen the same problem in China, where I've worked the past 3 years....most TV and radio stations are owned by the central government, so the content is predictably boring, sexless, and of low entertainment quality....but there are few real choices due to the tight control of media by the government, so all the smart kids go on the internet or buy pirate DVDs for a dollar each, or download music and movies for free!

PBS and NPR, and any government-owned or corporate-sponsored TV or radio show, is either very boring and neutered, too PC, or like FOX, so corporate-owned and Republican, shamelessly sucking up to Bush's administration (which controls the FCC), very sexy and dramatic yellow journalism: all about Anna Nichole or OJ or the crazy astronaut wearing diapers...but with an extreme right-wing political bias!

Gary

Gary J. Minter
http://aidsvillagechina.blog.sohu.com
www.healthchina.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS:
Posted by: rwa on Feb 14, 2007 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MoveOn, an organization that, unlike the Bush Regime, has redeeming virtues, is making a terrible mistake in trying to collect half a million signatures in behalf of saving federal funding for NPR and PBS.

I cannot imagine a surer way of adding NPR and PBS to the Bush Regime's ministry of propaganda.

NPR and PBS desperately need to be totally independent of government and dependent only on their listeners. Any organization dependent on government money belongs to the government. Such an organization has no independence. Just ask the many physicists who cannot express doubts about the 9/11 Commission Report because their careers depend entirely on federal government grants.

We have witnessed a decline in the integrity of NPR reporting over the past six years. The Bush Regime put an ideological commissar in charge of NPR and the result is that NPR sounds increasingly like Fox "news." The few people with integrity that America has left in the news business desperately need their independence.

On February 13, I listened for two hours to NPR and did not hear a single report of General Pace's contradiction of Bush/Cheney propaganda about Iran's leaders. But I did hear a neoconservative from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a propaganda institution in Washington D.C., push the buttons for war with Iran.

The Clinton Administration permitted the destruction of independent news in the US when it allowed the extraordinary concentration of the media. The American media is no longer run by journalists with a commitment to truth but by advertising executives who seek to protect profits by avoiding "controversy" and who seek to protect the value of the conglomerates, a value that depends on government-granted broadcast licenses, by accommodating the government's line, whatever it might be.

The only free and independent media in the US is online. The best thing that could possibly happen to NPR is to lose all federal funding and to become totally independent of Washington.

Then we could trust it again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NPR and PBS became a part of Bushs' ministry of propaganda
Posted by: TruthBeTold on Feb 15, 2007 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
long before now. One has only to listen to any one of the programs offered to hear the soft questions asked of neocon/publican party guests and to hear the mis-statements of the hosts when referring to a progresive/Democratic party issues. I no longer care if NPR and PBS survives. If they can't serve the public, but continue to carry water for BushCo, then good riddance to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

P-ure B.S.
Posted by: wleming on Feb 15, 2007 4:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Say it ain't so: PBS: McLaughlin Report, Jim Lehrer . - "Hey lets talk to George F. Will for the real story.." Home to William F. Buckley, Oil company promo, and a parade of Right Wing pundits, Pat Buchanan et. al.---may not be telling us the truth about the corporate media? They do promo for the corporate media.
Want the real story? Try Radio: its called Pacifica.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PBS has been taken over by Bush appointees,
Posted by: Ellie1 on Feb 21, 2007 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and their programming shows it. They have seen my last donation until we get new control of the network. I can't wait for that phone call wanting to know why I haven't sent in my donation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You jumped the gun
Posted by: MTguy on Mar 1, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sir, if you saw this week's (air date 2/27) installment of Frontline's series, you should know your initial observations have no merit. I disagree that the first segment was a rehash.

In America, the Free Press is intended to be one of the tempering factors on the behavior of the government. The press should be the watchdog for the citizens. In our hunger to have everything NOW without any delay or to allow time for reflection on what just happened, we are killing the quality of journalism in the Free Press that has kept us from suffering under bad leaders or outright lies from our government.

Vietnam ended and Nixon was forced to resign largely by the efforts of the Free Press and what this series is saying is that society is killing the goose that lays the watchdog function golden eggs.

Newspapering takes passion and good journalism requires that quality also. In the days when newspapers were owned by families, that passion is what drove the engine of the paper. Now with the advent of corporate ownership, the stockholders and their greed for income are the fuel for the engine. Anything that doesn't make money isn't worth having around in that environment.

In this recent series on the News and how it's changing, Frontline has once again done a marvelous job of digging beneath the fingernails of the issue to find the dirt.

I look forward to the final installment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]