"A political economic analysis stresses that the reasons for lousy journalism stem not from morally bankrupt or untalented journalists, but from a structure that makes such journalism the rational result of its operations. Hence if we are serious about producing a journalism and political culture suitable to a self-governing society, it is mandatory that there be structural change in the media system. This means explicit and major changes in the public policies that have created and spawned the media status quo." ROBERT W. McCHESNEY
David Barstow, of The New York Times, recently was awarded his second Pulitzer Prize for(according to the Pulitzer website) "his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended." The article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html
Basically, Barstow shed light on the fact that the major networks; CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC, all utilized these military analysts in their coverage of the Iraq War. None of the networks disclosed the fact that many of these analysts reaped huge monetary benefits from the Iraq War. Most of them also worked for military contractors who directly benefitted from US military contracts. The analyst's access to the administration was vitally important in order to obtain and retain contracts for their companies. Many of these analysts were also paid for their appearances on the networks.
When Barstow's article appeared, the lack of attention from the major networks was appalling. The fact that no network picked up an 11 page cover story in The New York Times is not a coincidence. In fact many of the very same analysts still appear regularly on the news programs with still no disclosure of their ties.
Barstow's article appeared more than a year ago. The controversy of his discovery had died down with the chaos of the election and inauguration of Obama. However, the Pulitzer for his piece was just announced last week. Surely, the networks, a year later, would make mention of Barstow, his piece and his award. Uhm, not so much:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/21/pulitzer/
It seems that the networks are trying their best to completely avoid mentioning this report. The networks were able to admit their mistakes in the handling of the 2000 election night coverage. Why can they not admit that there is some sketchy business going on here? They have become a story in themselves. They were complicit in the Bush administration's propaganda machine. I think the McChesney quote from the top of this post sums up the problem well. Is it because the TV media, being controlled by only a few huge corporations, has become too intertwined with big business and the government? Are the networks too embarrassed by their oversights? Did they know of the pentagon's analyst PR program and look the other way? One thing is clear; there must be a better separation between the media and the administration they are reporting on. TV media is so obsessed with ratings and who has the best access that they have forgotten what great journalism is. In Alexandra Pelosi's docu "Journey's With George", we can see what happens when reporters are more interested in better access and a chummy relationship with the people they are reporting on. It is time for a complete realignment of news. There couldn't be a better time then now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow! I can't believe how disrespectful it is to essentially ignore Pulitzer prize winning journalism! The fact that the media refuses to recognize the painstakingly diligent investigative work of one of their own is deplorable. Journeys with George definitely brought to light how quickly the media turns it's back on those who offer hard-hitting investigative coverage that effects access to key political figures. I agree the time to change for the better is now. I think that objectivity shouldn't take precedence over the historically beneficial watchdog role of a publicly serving press.
The dangers of government controlled media are becoming more and more omnipresent over time. The mainstream media's ties to the government and the constant rating race which produces all these new eye-catching features leaving substance to be something desired makes me sick. And worried. I couldn't agree more that we need realignment of the media's role of news relayer to the public. It's not even so much of the bias that I mind, but the motivations that go on behind the screen. All the ties to these specific agendas are so detrimental to the audience because we are mostly oblivious to it and just eat up what they promote as a result of not knowing where anything is coming from. It is hard to cough up the truth when all you are fed is lies.
Very interesting piece. It really depicts how much the government invests in framing an issue. It's sad that this piece was ignored by the media because it really shows how far the government will go to pursue it's goals. I'm shocked but I really shouldn't be at how many analysts were hired to promote the Iraq war. Thank you for introducing me to this article.
Post a Comment