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.

It's Like Iraq, All Over Again

By Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org. Posted September 9, 2004.


The reporters may not be 'embedded' any more, but their coverage of the election campaign is no less deferential to the White House than during the Iraq war.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Danny Schechter

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

During the run-up to the war in Iraq and through the US invasion, it was obvious that our media system had signed up as an unofficial megaphone for war. There was a uniformity of perspective, a reliance on the same "facts," and a dismissal of critics and dissenters.

Journalists outside America compared our TV coverage to that of a "state-run media" even though most U.S. media outlets are in private hands and nominally competitive with each other.

A year and a half later, some journalists and newspapers took a second look at their coverage and acknowledged it had been flawed. There were admissions of misreporting, especially on supporting the government's allegations of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

These media admissions never rose to the level of institutional post-mortems or real mea culpas. They haven't led to more diversity of perspective, investigative journalism or dissection of government claims. The modalities of coverage continue.

The New York Times spent more time and space exposing the fraudulent but minor inventions of a troubled reporter, Jayson Blair, than on its own role in the selling of a war that its own public editor Daniel Okrent would later pinpoint as an "institutional failure."

The Washington Post's ombudsman Michael Getler selectively critiqued his newspaper's coverage, as did media correspondent Howard Kurtz. Editorially, the newspaper said little and refused to mount an internal investigation.

The three television networks that most Americans rely on for their news and information about the war also said little or nothing. They moved on to other stories without any acknowledgement that the modes of coverage that we saw during the war need to be changed fundamentally.

Mili-tainment Goes Political

The administration, which successfully mobilized the media and public opinion behind their military venture in Iraq, are using the same techniques to fight a political war against their Democratic opponents. The embedded reporters may be gone but the routines of political coverage and their deferential approach can be relied on to achieve the same results.

A new book analyzing the White House spin assesses why the administration's media machine is so successful. In "All the President's Spin," Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan explain: "Bush's White House has broken new ground in its press relations strategy, exploiting the weaknesses and failings of the political media more systematically than any of its predecessors. The administration combines tight message discipline and image management – Reagan's trademarks – with the artful use of half- or partial truths and elaborate news management – Clinton's specialties – in a combination that is near-lethal for the press."

The authors cite four "key weaknesses" of the press that helps a determined media spin operation get its message – and none other – through: " First and foremost, reporters are constrained by the norm of objectivity, which frequently causes them to avoid evaluating the truth of politicians' statements. In addition, because reporters are dependent upon the White House for news, the administration can shape the coverage it receives by restricting the flow of information to the press. The media are also vulnerable to political pressure and reprisal, which the Bush White House has aggressively dished out against critical journalists. Finally, the press' unending pursuit of scandal and entertaining news often blinds it to serious issues of public policy."

The White House handles the press the way TV producers package information: with careful pre-planning, structured themes and packaged infomation. And so the "mili-tainment" we saw during the war has given way to "electo-tainment." The dynamics of coverage remain largely the same: simplistic, superficial and uncritical.


Digg!

Danny Schechter writes a daily blog for MediaChannel.org. He is the author of "Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception – how the media failed to cover the war on Iraq. (Prometheus)

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

Five Women Buried Alive -- and the Media Ignore It
Reproductive Justice and Gender: Why is it that we get so outraged over war but look the other way when women and girls are beaten and murdered in the name of tradition?
By Riane Eisler, AlterNet. September 6, 2008.
On Top of Jail Time, Prisoners Now Face Fees and Surcharges
Rights and Liberties: Prisoners across the country are facing court fees, arrest fees and booking fees in addition to their sentences -- and states are raking in the cash.
By Emily Jane Goodman, The Nation. September 6, 2008.
One Fifth of Iraq Funding Goes to Private Contractors
War on Iraq: If spending continues at the current rate, the U.S. will have spent 100 billion dollars on military contractors in Iraq by the end of the year.
By Willam Fisher, IPS News. September 6, 2008.

Advertisement