Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
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

Reality and Spin in the Media

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted December 13, 2005.


In a wide-ranging interview, 'Wag the Dog' author Larry Beinhart describes how members of the news media censor stories -- even as they publish them.
Advertisement

In a speech this fall, Al Gore spoke of the "strangeness" in our political discourse. He bemoaned the "new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time," and the lack of desire for accountability in American journalism. On top of all this, the idea that perception is far more important than reality has become the principle of our broadcast politics, debasing our political discourse to a game of controlling the spin.

Larry Beinhart has thought long and hard about the nature of message-based politics. Beinhart, author of the bestselling novel, "Wag the Dog," recently waded into the nonfiction world of 21st-century communications with his new book "Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin."

AlterNet caught up with Beinhart outside of Woodstock, New York, in the cabin in the woods he shares with his wife and son.

What are "fog facts?"

Fog facts are things that have been published or are easily known but have disappeared in the fog. And there are lots of facts that should disappear in the fog; they're trivia, they're nonsense, and we don't need to know them. I'm talking about things that are important -- that once you bring them to the foreground it changes your picture of reality.

How does a fact become a fog fact?

With certain exceptions, news is not automatically big news. The exceptions are dead popes, the World Series, tsunamis, volcanoes, wars the wars that involve us anyway -- but most news actually becomes news -- including wars -- because of press releases. The example I always use -- because we're in the small town of Woodstock -- is the little league schedule. If the little league schedule is going to be in the newspaper, it's only because the coach or the coach's wife sends it to the newspaper.

Most news originates as a press release or a press conference or an announcement. And if it's going to stay in the news, it has to get new press releases and new stories. Someone has to work at that, someone has to invest effort and time to make it a big story. And if nobody does that, it may not be a story at all, or it may be a one-time item. You know, page 12 of the New York Times, page 26.

And part of what happens is that people in the media -- especially print people -- think that if they're reported it they've done their job. Their job is not to determine what effect it has on the population, how well we absorb it, how excited we get about it -- that's not their job. Their job is to get the fact and put it in the paper. They're done. Then if the fact comes back again, as a new press release or a new twist, they go with it.

Two great examples are the Oil-For-Food money. Everybody in America knows that there's some kind of weird scandal about what the U.N. did with the Oil-For-Food money. They don't know exactly what it is but they know there's something scandalous, that Kofi Annan is a little dirty. Now, as far as anybody's been able to tell so far, the corruption and malfeasance involved several hundreds of thousands of dollars at most, excluding those moneys that Saddam Hussein was able to hold onto, which was generally approved by all parties or permitted by all parties. But however much the U.N. did wrong was fairly minor.

After the U.S. conquest of Iraq the Oil-For-Food money was transferred to a new entity, the CPA -- the Coalition Provisional Authority run by Paul Bremer. And about $9 billion dollars of oil money went into the CPA, plus about $10 billion dollars of other funds went into the CPA. And this money was essentially being held in trust for the Iraqi government. Now they ripped through about $19 billion dollars of it -- it has essentially disappeared.

If I remember correctly out of 20 billion dollars there was about half a billion left. And it surfaced in only about three isolated stories. The reason for that is that there is no constituency that has influence in the American media that gives a damn about Iraq's money. There's a very big constituency in the United States that hates the U.N.. And they hate the U.N. because the notion of any restraint on America's sovereign, unfettered authority is something that just disturbs them to no end. So they were eager to find things that would tarnish the U.N., so they worked that story very hard -- the right wing -- they pushed that story and we heard a lot about it.

So one stayed a fog fact and one's a well-known fact.

Another instance is when the media itself will decide that they want to create a fog-fact -- they don't want something known. The most notorious example of this was the recount that the media itself paid for after the Florida election in 2000. There was enough controversy about it that a consortium of the major players in the media business -- the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company -- which is the Chicago Tribune -- the Los Angeles Times, CNN, the Wall Street Journal and the St. Petersburg Times all got together and said we're going to recount these votes and we're going to find out who really won. And they went and they spent a million dollars on it. And who really won, presumably, was news.


Digg!

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

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:
rinthy
Posted by: rinthy on Dec 13, 2005 1:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Granted that it's been a long time since I worked in a news room, it seems to me that the structure of main stream news departments ensures that the public will remain in the fog. The reason is simple enough, and it involves the chain of command. The reporter may know, understand, and have the skills to elucidate the complexities of a legitimate news story. If the medium in question is print, the reporter may pitch the story, even get so far as writing it, only to find that the editor...for any number of reasons... doesn't want it. It won't be published. If the medium is television, the reporter...in the same circumstances as above, and with the same skills...can't get a camera. Radio, no air time.
Station managers are hired to maintain a certain status quo. Bleeding leads attract viewers and viewers attract advertisers and revenue. Complicated stories that don't build on popular 'knowledge' can't be told in a minute and a half, or read while perched over the can, and unless you read a wide variety of papers and blogs, you'll never ever know how narrow and ill informed you are.
Let's hear it for the bloggers and the availability of international news. If you piece it all together you'll go beyond some editor's notion of what's 'fit to print' and you'll come a helluva lot closer to understanding your world. Rinthy

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

» the EDITOR is KING Posted by: qrswave
the new booboisie
Posted by: menckenman on Dec 13, 2005 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They read their Bible, down south, and 90% of the rest of the country gets their news from Entertainment Tonight. For the god-fearing faithful who've found Jesus, the national media tells them more than they want to know. If news doesn't fit the simple paradigm of good v. evil it's just too damn complicated for the species boobus americanus found south of the Mason Dixon Line.

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

agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Dec 13, 2005 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Another instance is when the media itself will decide that they want to create a fog-fact -- they don't want something known."

Here's the current example:
The 4 Christian activists/CPTers held hostage by the Swords of Righteousness Brigade;
The USA media has yet to cover the multitudes of Muslims: militants, politicians, religious leaders and regular folks who have held numerous demonstrations and have spoken out on Al Jaazera begging for their release.

The USA media has failed to report that it was the CPTers/Christian PEACEMAKER Teams who FIRST reported the abuses at Abu Grahib.

The third way to break through the fog/media shield is INDEPENDENT MUCKRAKERS who have a PASSION for TRUTH and FEARLESSLY REPORT it on the www

read more on WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

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

LOL, you will love this: I send foreign press articles to the NY Times editors!
Posted by: Pepper on Dec 13, 2005 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do it all the time. I usually tell them (all 6 editors) "your reporters aren't reporting the news for the money your spending, so I am offering to do it for you for 1/2 the price of a reporter!" Then I hit them with all the news that is going on and only reported in Europe. Then periodically I ask where my paycheck is. LOL I am sure they love hearing from me.

They contacted my server company and asked them to block my emails to them. So, I changed the subject line now when I send them and they don't get blocked.

I am having a ball with it. They hate it cause they are forced into doing something about it. I started with the Judith Miller scandel and moved up from there. It was a lot of fun. Everyone pick a newspaper and send the news to their editors and use humor with it. I bet you get a reaction, I did. Have some fun saving your republic.

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

» Your a real wise-guy. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Your a real wise-guy. Posted by: Newsguy
» RE: Your a real wise-guy. Posted by: Lincoln fan
News? What news?
Posted by: thecynic on Dec 13, 2005 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who watches the network "news" programs in the evening has to wonder why these are in fact called news programs. Mostly they are advertisements for drugs with nonsensical snippets filling in between. Oh I have to admit that every now and then they will manage to put a smathering of news in the program somewhere, by accident I guess. But how many times do we have to see interviews with non-entities from New Orleans? And how could that possibly be considered news.

As for Bush's speeches. Since when was one of them actually news. But everytime he gives one, the networks feel compelled to turn our stomachs by reporting it as news.

I got so sick of hearing about Tookie Williams I could scream. We heard about him for a week. That was news????? Some looser in California who is about to get executed. Thank God he is finally gone. Now only another couple of days about him and we can move on to other trivia.

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

» RE: News? What news? Posted by: jwg
» RE: News? What news? Posted by: Jackson
Oh that fluff news
Posted by: chaoslegs on Dec 13, 2005 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can not stand to watch local TV news, it is plain crap. It gets worse during sweeps months.

For the past 2 years we have been hearing from Republicans, the news isn't reporting the good news out of Iraq. Well they aren't reporting the good news out of American cities either, so get used to it because they aren't going to change.

I don't read the local Knight Ridder newspaper, but I have read others' analysis that it had some of the best quesitoning of the lead up to Iraq. Now a large shareholder of Knight Ridder wants to sell off the assets. Hmm, could be non-related, but you never know how far the right will go to promote their view.

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

From the "We're Doomed Files. . ."
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 13, 2005 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody remember Pravda and Izvestia, the media mouthpieces for the old Soviet Union's disfunctional government? With the fall of the wall, they didn't go out of business – they just moved to America, formed an alliance with Ding-Dong School, and now flood us with important news like Tookie Williams, the Runaway Bride, Britney, Tom, Jessica S., health scares, impending non-disasters, no-work diet "miracles," ad nauseum.

The Los Angeles Times has just fired its great progressive pundit Robert Sheer along with dozens of others from the news department, and has turned the OP-ED pages into an extension of the Comics section, in the hope that they can push their profits past the 25% (25%!!) mark.

How can a whole media-cooked generation with s**t for brains hope to maintain a democracy, let alone save a damaged planet? Unless this trend changes – and soon – we're doomed.

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

Newsguy
Posted by: Newsguy on Dec 13, 2005 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Los Angeles Times reporters and editors aren't even curious about the facts of the stories they do report. Day after day we read stories in the Times and there will be some important detail, and we will say to each other, something like, "what led him to do that?, or "is he a US citizen, or not?," or "what was the cause of the fire?'

Any number of things are missing from LA Times stories because the reporters and editors don't have the native curiousity of good journalists to discover the important details of stories that leave the reader wondering.

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

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Dec 13, 2005 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Media Monster is made up of people. Humans.
There must be a soul in there somewhere, no matter how long it's been put to sleep with promises of material wealth.

"Individual" is a title we're born with. It needn't be earned. It's just that some folks have no idea they're entitled to it and all the benefits that go along.

Ignorance is the thing making freedom so expensive.

There must be reporters weighing their children's future chances of having air to breathe and water to drink - against the job-of-propagandist, providing the income required to send them to private school. Private or public, schooling means perparing for the future.

How well have we schooled our young for THIS future?

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

Journalism has a lot of problems now
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Dec 22, 2005 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work at a newspaper and I am appalled (for a long time now) that we no longer tell the truth-well, inform people. It seems we're good at spinning stories, censoring stories that need to be told (such as Bush's unauthorized spying on Americans, e.g) and kowtowing to advertiser's whims (GM pulled its ads from the Los Angeles Times.)
But the most disturbing trend is that we're pursuing Entertainment Tonight-kind of crap instead of reporting on why the USA is in such a mess.
Yes, I read European newspapers and they seemed to put issues out there for the public, but the American news media hasn't dared to tell the truth about our government. And going to war against Iraq was the worst thing that could happen to us. Iraq is worse off than ever.
Lots of newspapers heeded the battle cry, thinking it would be an excellent adventure in the desert; that reporters would be "embedded" with soldiers directed by the Pentagon. We went to bed with the prostitute.
Now the L.A. Times decides to axe a truthful columnist in Robert Scheer, et al. and the editorial page is not worth reading. David Gelenter? Max Boot? I want to vomit.
It's no wonder circulation numbers have declined. The rise of blogs and cable news have steadily eroded at the numbers. Some of the woes print journalism faces were of our creation.
Maybe it's time we try the European way. Have a party-based newspaper. The reader will know exactly where the paper stands.

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