Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Un-Embed the Media

By Amy Goodman and David Goodman, AlterNet. Posted April 8, 2005.


Government-supplied propaganda has become pervasive in mainstream media, from hiring journalists to write puff pieces to credentialing fake reporters to fawning reports from embedded reporters in Iraq. Where is independent media?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This originally appeared in the Baltimore Sun on April 7.

Recent revelations that the Bush administration has been fabricating news stories, secretly hiring journalists to write puff pieces and credentialing fake reporters at White House news conferences has infuriated the news media.

Editorials profess to being shocked -- shocked! -- by the government's covert propaganda campaign in which, as The New York Times revealed March 13, at least 20 federal agencies have spent $250 million creating and sending fake news segments to local TV stations.

But the media have only themselves to blame for most people -- including TV news managers -- not being able to distinguish journalism from propaganda. The line between news and propaganda was trampled not only by the public relations agencies hired by the government but also by reporters in the deserts of Iraq.

The Pentagon deployed a weapon more powerful than any bomb: the U.S. media. Embedded journalists were transformed into efficient conduits of Pentagon spin. Before and during the invasion of Iraq, the networks conveniently provided the flag-draped backdrop for fawning reports from the field.

As if literally adopting the Pentagon's propagandistic slogan -- "Operation Iraqi Freedom" -- for their coverage weren't enough, the networks bombarded viewers with an unending parade of generals and colonels paid to offer on-air analysis. It gave new meaning to the term "general news."

If we had state-run media in the United States, how would it be any different?

The media have a responsibility to show the true face of war. But many corporate journalists, so accustomed by now to trading truth for access (the "access of evil"), can no longer grasp what's missing from their coverage. As CBS' Jim Axelrod, who was embedded with -- we would say in bed with -- the 3rd Infantry Division, gushed: "This will sound like I've drunk the Kool-Aid, but I found embedding to be an extremely positive experience. ... We got great stories and they got very positive coverage."

It should come as no surprise that the Bush administration, having found the media so helpful and compliant with their coverage of the Iraq war, would seek to orchestrate similarly uncritical coverage of other issues that they hold dear.

TV viewers nationwide have watched and heard about how the "top-notch work force" of the often-criticized Transportation Security Administration has led "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history," how President Bush's controversial Medicare plan will offer "new benefits, more choices, more opportunities," how the United States is "putting needy women back in business" in Afghanistan, and how Army prison guards, accused of torturing and murdering inmates in Iraq and Afghanistan, "treat prisoners strictly, but fairly."

Such crude government-supplied propaganda would be laughable were it not being passed off as news on America's TV stations. Even sadder, nothing about the sycophantic reports seems out of the ordinary.

The first casualty of this taxpayer-financed misinformation campaign is the truth.

Mr. Bush must have been delighted to learn from a March 16 Washington Post-ABC News poll that 56 percent of Americans still thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the start of the war, while six in 10 said they believed Iraq provided direct support to al Qaeda.

Americans believe these lies not because they are stupid but because they are good media consumers. The explosive effect of this propaganda is amplified as a few pro-war, pro-government media moguls consolidate their grip over the majority of news outlets. Media monopoly and militarism go hand in hand.

It's time for the American media to un-embed themselves from the U.S. government. We need media that are fiercely independent, that ask the hard questions and hold those in power accountable. Only then will government propaganda be seen for what it is and citizens be able to make choices informed by reality, not self-serving misinformation. Anything less is a disservice to the servicemen and women of this country and a disservice to a democratic society.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Amy Goodman, host of the radio and TV news show Democracy Now!, and David Goodman, a contributing writer for Mother Jones, are authors of The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them, just published in paperback by Hyperion. Amy is currently on a 50-city 'Un-Embed the Media' tour.

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

Advertisement
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:
No More Ferocity
Posted by: spaghetti happens on Apr 8, 2005 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great story, and I love Amy Goodman (even those pregnant pauses on the radio where you wonder if her guest thinks he/she should maybe keep on talking). But please, let's stop automatically connecting the adverb "fiercely" to the adjective "independent" whenever we talk about how we want the media to be (as well as in other usages that we all could name).

I can think of lots of fine independent journalists--Goodman herself is one--but none of them arouse in my imagination an image of ferocity. "Fiercely independent" has become a trite and stereotypical construction that has little of its original meaning left. I'm not sure you could even apply it to I.F. Stone, the icon of journalistic independence.

Can I get an amen from the editors out there?

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

» RE: No More Ferocity Posted by: lamar
It's about time
Posted by: Mythsaje on Apr 8, 2005 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the moment the war started I was disgusted with the whole media blitz. The news would come on, complete with militaristic musical piece, and a proud banner that said something like "The March on Baghdad."
It was pure propoganda, and I found it sickening. In the past two years since I have watched the television news exactly once. For five minutes. I trust the burned-out, drugged-out guy on the side of the freeway on-ramp for news more than I trust the mainstream media anymore.

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

Real News
Posted by: pheephee on Apr 8, 2005 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having survived for the past 56 years, I remember when the War was covered by journalists who intended to bring the truth to the American public.

The experience of bringing the war to the public during the late sixties and seventies, we the people were no longer insulated from the realities of what our young were facing in that terrible war.

The Bushies remember all too well what effect the pictures of the body bags had on the general public and how it began to turn public belief into public questioning as to the reason for war. Of course, the current regime in the Whitehouse cannot allow public knowledge of their true intentions are (demonstrated by the campaign against anyone who expresses a doutful comment toward them); thus, the propaganda of the corporate media machine.

"NEWS" as it exists today is only infotainment as demonstrated by headlines generated by coverage of Michael Jackson, Terri Sheivo, and the Pope while our children are dying far from home, we are involved in two wars, and our society is in decay.

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

» RE: Real News Posted by: Ashcanman
Disgusted with the Mainstream Media
Posted by: zarabeth on Apr 8, 2005 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I stopped watching the mainstream media shortly after 9/11 and well before the Iraq War started. I listen to alternative radio (like Amy Goodman on KGNU in Boulder) and NPR (which, sad to say is becoming more biased). I also read a lot of print media to get a wider perspective. The news on networks and local news is so pumped up and fake, I just can't stand it - and this from a former "news junkie" who for years rushed home to watch Tom or Dan tell me what I needed to know. I have relatives who have Fox News on all the time, and it's a parody of the news - as far as TV news goes, I'd much rather trust The Daily Show.

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

Alice Walker
Posted by: Iamnotafruittree on Apr 8, 2005 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alice Walker wrote that the best way to stop someone in their tracts is to stop believing them! I don't believe a word that comes from the news casts. I laugh at how childish these grown up, educated people look every time a lie comes out of their mouths. You watch them blink and blink, foreheads wrinkle, eys stare out to space and words that make no logical sense come out of thier mouths and you just have to crack up! When the media starts loosing money because no one will pay the outrages prices for cable or satelight because all they get for their money is lies the media will have to change. Money changes everything in this world. It's only a matter of time.

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

Am I the only one?
Posted by: piperson on Apr 8, 2005 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given the spinelessness and sycophancy of mainstream media, when I hear the phrase embedded reporter or journalist I always conjure a picture of a journalist with his nose embedded in somebody's anatomy. Does anyone else feel that way?

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

The good
Posted by: Rshaw on Apr 11, 2005 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's missing from this story is the good news. Independent News organizations are growing, and becoming self-suficient.

Democracy Now and Alternet are great examples.

A new organization I recently came accross called the COA also seems to have a lot of promise.

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

I agree
Posted by: Rshaw on Apr 11, 2005 1:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A new organization I recently came accross called the COA also seems to have a lot of promise.

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