Nader writes: "The media coverage of the Presidential campaigns is a dreary repetition of past coverage. Stuck in a rut and garnished by press cynicism and boredom, media groupthink becomes more ossified every four years."
Ralph Nader being interviewed during his 2008 presidential campaign, 08/01/08. (photo: Scrape TV)
US Media: Examine Thyself
26 August 12
he media coverage of the Presidential campaigns is a dreary repetition of past coverage. Stuck in a rut and garnished by press cynicism and boredom, media groupthink becomes more ossified every four years.
This massive mental motion-sickness confines reporters, editors and producers to the following all too predictable patterns:
- They follow the money, whenever disclosed, but don't diligently pursue the quid pro quos which NBC's David Brinkley described as "deferred bribes." Like a constant posting of a basketball game's score, this reporting of cash register politics goes on and on.
- They spend considerable time and ink on the tactics of the Obama and Romney campaigns. This year the Republican primary season took much of the attention of the campaign press as first Santorum, then Gingrich, then Romney, then Santorum, then Romney were the tactics-driven winners.
- The horserace is closely connected to the punditry's facile fascinations - especially on the cable shows and the Sunday morning news programs. Who is ahead in the polls? Who is slipping? Who may slip? How will the candidates confront the next hurdle?
- Then there are the gaffes! The population of gaffedom is growing and is the ultimate titillation for the reporters. It's a gotcha moment that comes from the candidates or their chief honchos so that reporters cannot be accused of initiating trivia. Michael Kinsley once described a Washington, D.C. gaffe as someone really telling the inconvenient truth inadvertently.
Then there are gaffes manufactured by unscrupulous political consultants who neatly slice off the words that would have explained away the purported gaffe.
Gaffes don't have long legs but they can crowd out all other communications by the candidate for several days. Gaffes provide reporters leisurely comic relief and require little work. (See links to this year's political gaffes below.)
Gaffes proliferate when there are political vacuums that should be filled with reporting on substantive policies and agendas. After all, the campaign trail is usually a mind-numbing daily routine of déjà vu right down to the contrived quips, laughs and the same three or four issue lines that make up the repertoire for the faithful. - Then there is the Morton Mintz admonition that should haunt any conscientious reporter. Mintz was a great reporter for the Washington Post for about thirty years. After he retired, he issued a series of questions the press should but does not ask of candidates running for federal office (mortonmintz.com/work1.htm).
Here are some samples from 2000: "Whether Congress should rescue 13.5 million American children from hunger"; "whether ending poverty in America is as important as tax cuts for the middle class and the wealthy"; and "whether it would be wise or unwise to adopt the nonprofit, Canadian-style 'single payer' system, which would provide health insurance for all Americans, enable every citizen to choose his or her own physician, end insurers' interference in the doctor-patient relationship, improve the overall health of the American people, and save $127 billion in administrative and billing costs in 2001 alone." Lest you think the latter is a loaded question, Mintz always cited reputable studies and sources, in this case the General Accounting Office and a prominent Harvard Medical School professor.
Another question Mintz asked was "whether the federal government should stop doling out more than $125 billion a year to politically-wired corporations and industries - corporate welfare that costs the government as much as it collects in income taxes from 60 million individuals and families." Mintz put forth question after question and reporter after reporter ignored them while covering the campaign. So too did the eminent columnists and editorial writers. - Given that the two major parties superficially contend more and more over fewer and fewer subjects or redirections for the country, it should be incumbent for reporters to once in a while look at what third parties are putting forward for voter choices in a two party tyranny that obstructs them at every step - from ballot access to exclusion from the debates.
I've kept my website from 2008 open for this comparative purpose (See: votenader.org) and today's Green, Justice, Libertarian and Constitution Party websites also present their priorities.
Because the media views third parties as "can't win" alternatives, they avoid them, forgetting their pioneering contributions in American history (anti-slavery, women's right to vote, labor and farmer protections). This blackout assures that fresh seeds and saplings in American politics do not have a chance to sprout, as they have in Parliamentary systems. - Finally there is the suffocating self-imposed conformity of reporters and commentators. No one is stopping them from asking Presidential and other federal candidates about important issues, like cracking down on corporate crime (See: corporatecrimereporter.com), raising the federal minimum wage to that of 1968 adjusted for inflation, or the war in Afghanistan and the use of drones anywhere a President chooses to send them, even over sovereign countries.
Defining news as largely focusing on charges or assertions generated by the candidates produces a narrowing of meaningful public debate. Instead, the presidential election, when the public's attention peaks, should produce a widening public reporting and discussion. Imagine twenty presidential debates around the country with tough questioning by informed reporters and engaged citizens. (See George Farah's book No Debate)
Mintz, never jaded into giving up, wrote an article titled "The Sound You Hear Is Silence," noting that "when the subject is corporate immorality, nary a judgmental word is heard.... it's Fleedom of the Press."
The media should engage in some serious introspection!
Political Gaffes:
President Barack Obama
Vice President Joe Biden
Mitt Romney
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 24 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 24 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
The Fourth Estate has a key role to play in creating and sustaining an informed and effectively involved citizenry. Only a precious few people, programs, and outlets even feint in this direction today.
I am not a cynic, but I am a skeptic. Elections are too important to be left to professional campaigners and pundits. This includes Ralph.
To be fair, there actually is such a thing as liberal press. There are independent newsweeklies, some college papers and radio, some listener-suppor ted radio and TV, some online sources, etc, that may in some cases be reasonably regarded as "liberal".
But when people refer to The Press in the US, they're talking about the ever-shrinking pool of huge, corporate "news" sources.
Look, guys, the broadcast and cable TV news organizations, the big newspapers, Clear Channel radio, and all the other big media are not cottage industries run by tree-hugging, pot-smoking hippies with Leftist Agendas. These news organizations are big corporations owned by other big corporations.
Whose interests do you think these news organizations truly serve?
I think Ralph's article brings up a bunch of perfectly legitimate questions. The only remaining question: Are The Press really interested in answering these questions, doing their job, and providing the public with relevant information?
Or is The Press already doing its job of promoting the interests of the rich just fine?
A point Mr. Nader also misses and the reason it is so tilted toward the lowest common denominator.
I've read this book. It's a few years old by now, but the truths it reveals are as current as today's headlines. Not to mention far more accurate and relevant.
Folks need to understand that we are all in this together....the 99% defending itself against unconscionable onslaughts by the 1% and their minions in Congress, “law enforcement” the courts, and the media.
Provocateurs like Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Savage, et al, have nothing to share with us. They are no more than barnacles on the backside of humanity. They produce nothing except hate. Hate will never fill a dinner plate. Workers produce all wealth. Until we understand that and decide we will settle for no less than our collective share, the 1% will keep hammering us into submission, and will continue dividing us by race, sex, and economic class.
Here is Southwest Florida a news reader just won the GOP primary for Congress, thus securing his right-wing place in our government.
As a veteran award winning investigative journalist, I cringe when I view local TV and network news and read the news rags. Partisan, sissy, weak--absolutel y disgraceful. Either strengthen the nation's J-schools or plow them under and replace them with nursing schools. At least nurses help people.
I am not alone in this, but I seek much news overseas via internet. For example by following english language Japanese outlets I found the fukushima story continued to be dreadful and world-significa nt long after US news had forgotten all about it. Then I owe much to small US newsfeeds that report the under-reported to us under-dogs. Like RSN does.
Another online resource you might like is the site for The Times of India, a newspaper respected the world over. It no doubt has its own agendas and biases, but at least they'll be different from those of western corporate news sources.
Its "who owns the media/press" that's the question. Journalists and reporters; including editors and other media honchos are paid by their employers; the corporations. They'd lose their jobs/ livelihoods if they asked such "inconvenient" questions. Have you forgotten what happened to Dan Rather? and Keith Olbermann? The problem is corporate ownership of the media. Until we can find a way to resolve that we are "toast" forever!!.
They don't own it, you do! Take it away from them. Like all corporations, they’re state chartered one and all. Take away their charters. Forming a corporation is a privilege not a right, given by the people.
By the way: they say "You are what you eat" but that's not true: You are what you do! Lots of jobs will have to go, in favor of new, better ones.
And, thank you Ralph Nader, as always.
If you think that Ralph Nader doesn't understand 'corporate ownership' then you know nothing about Ralph Nader. You owe it to yourself to familiarize yourself with Mr. Nader's life's work, before you lecture him on anything, especially the topic of 'corporate ownership!
Pretty strange that you'd say what you say about our corporate-corru pted media and money-dominated election process -- and then imply that Ralph Nader, of all people, is somehow part of THOSE problems.
National election campaigns must be democratically- open, money-equalized , mass media-exposed debates about facts and values ---which is exactly what Nader has been advocating, above all else, for 4 decades.
We need MORE election process reformers who're honest and independent -- like Nader, made visible in the MAINSTREAM media today -- not LESS of them! By ignoring them, the MSM now effectively banishes them to the fragmentation and chaos of the Internet.
Just how in hell are WE average citizens supposed to "do more for ourselves," given this government-enab led MSM lockdown?
The Internet is unlikely to ever replace the crucial function of a democratically- centralized and access-equalize d MSM 'Town Square' for coherent national political debate, and Ralph Nader is practically the only remaining, semi-visible political commentator who even sees this worsening 'fact' and 'value' fragmentation crisis for what it is: something fatally divisive for democratic consensus-build ing, but very opportune for the forces of Tyranny.
Nader's media reform ideas are distinctly NOT in the same class as your standard political campaigners and news pundits, and to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or ignorant.
"The aristocracy stands for the voice of God, and the masses are asses" I'm afraid this is as close to coming to pass as we have ever been.
Please come back home from Brazil. We need your informed thinking, and we need your tax dollars.
At least get out of the hot Brazilian sun, and cool down your brain before commenting on the subject of Ralph Nader and his reputation as that well known, dues paid up, liar and manipulator.
It is hard to get a balanced perspective. I have spent a lot of time in the Middle East and read volumes. I rarely watch mainstream news anymore except to get an idea of how they are "spinning" the current stories. Or no comment at all. The Chiquita terrorist scandal in Columbia is a primary example. Very little mention in the press of what is an outrageous situation and you will also be pleased to know that Chiquita's ownership have alsways been major Republican supporters. If it isn't a conspriracy, it is an old boys club.
It is up to you. If you want to know the truth you are going to have to work at it. There is no other way.
Unfortunately, they exist on tiny, tight budgets and minimal if any paid staff and a large volunteer component who do it for the love of freedom of information, free training in radio and in-depth reporting (I've done quite a bit of it myself).
Unfortunately, in spite of all this, most Americans have never heard of Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti (my personal favorite speaker), Arundhati Roy, Dr. helen Caldicott and so, so many others who are working constantly and dedicatedly with passion, for the good of the planet and it's peoples and other inhabitants.
Otherwise, look elsewhere -as in other countries- for un-whored and in-depth information on almost any subject of object of news or quality music and art.
It's a tabloid culture folks.
Frankly, after watching Cronkite and Rather back to back for 40 years, with an occasional side-trip to Chancellor or Brinkley or Severeid or Collingwood, or the unsung Marlene Sanders, the current crop of lightweights and corporate clowns on display makes me long for the sound of crickets outside my window. Olbermann tried to emulate them, and occasionally almost made it, but he allowed his own monster ego to get in the way, and the last half of his MSNBC show was alas, programmed for morons. In this arena, the more things changed, the more they changed.
They will take the news and spin it to maintain the status quo and insure the welfare of their corporate sponsors/advertisers.
And that includes PBS too, for the most part!
Aye but they are so soft on everything and painfully "P.C." dahling, that it all comes out as milquetoast, with most of the reporters having a "particular" type of voice -especially the women.
"Car talk" is at least a bit out of the box but Public Radio and TV is being bought by "Grants" (a.k.a. commercials) from corporations they should be reporting on critically in-depth, instead accepting donations from them and putting out the same false messages and self-aggrandizi ng propaganda these robber-baron "persons" do on the commercial channels. Sad but true!
As a kid, after seeing how the pages were so crowded with small type, and articles that 'continued' on page so and so, I concluded that it really meant to say, "All the News That Fits, We Print"
Later on I learned the truth, and that is, "He who owns the printing press, owns the news."
Well, printing presses are a bit passe these days, but you get the idea, don't you?
With 24/7 'news cycles' to fill, we're back to my early, youthful, and not so naive, analysis, "All the News That Fits, We Print." You can replace 'News' with 'Content' and 'Print' with 'Air' or 'Up load' or 'Insert' or whatever keeps the wheels rolling.
As more and more 'local' papers go out of business, or are bought up by the Big Guys, a strange thing is happening. Those left are getting bigger and bigger, and more successful, and more powerful.
Whereas before, when there was more than one 'news' outlet, there was some competition. Editors had to ask themselves if they didn't print the story, would they get scooped by the guy across town.
When you're the only game in town, you can ignore a story, or a scandal, if it might in any way upset the owner, or the shareholders.
"HE WHO OWNS THE 'PRESS' CONTROLS THE 'NEWS.'
We've been living in "1984" for close to 3 decades. We are all Mr. Wilson; initially afraid of the rat, but slowly getting used to it.
I dont agree with him on everything, but compared to what we see in politics he is pretty close to perfect on the issues, and he has a brain and the right morals.
The media is just part of the machine that lulls us to sleep and makes us want to buy the crap that we import from China while chopping up our own country.
Just about everything is broken and not what we are told it was ... and now it seems no one knows what to think or do ... except Ralph Nader.
Regarding Ralph Nader's personal interest as evidenced by his running as a third party candidate for president: you can't criticize him coming and going.
First off, if he had such a potential for influencing the election, why was he banned from participating in the national debates? What was the powers that be afraid of? You can't have it both ways.
Secondly, if you think that his 2000 run should be labeled as 'infamous' how would you label the Bush/Gore race? Would that be infamous to the Nth degree?
Nader did not give the election to Bush; get that crazy idea out of your head. Bush stole the election with the help of SCOTUS, Harris, and a few thousand retired Florida Jews who, for some unexplainable reason, voted for an anti-Semitic named Buchanan. Go figure!
By the way, Eric, you live in the city of New York. Staten Island is not a city, as much as you may want it to be.
The media has been complicit for years in the take over of America by the wealthy and corporations. After all, the media is part of corporate America. While there are one or two bright spots, for the most part the media plays the game of sound bites and fais to require the politicians to really answer questions or be responsible for the things they have done vs what they say. Most of the media is useless and complicit in the raping of America. The problem also is that too many Americans pay too little or superficial attention to what is really going on and allow themselves to be duped by the failings of the media or their own biases.
RSS feed for comments to this post