The mainstream press needs the help of serious and careful bloggers in placing events in context, in reporting stories that would anger many, and in trying to establish the truth or falsity of government claims. For many reasons, the mainstream press is no longer in a position to provide these essential services. Without them, our democracy could wither. A great problem is that journalists are no longer able to go wherever the evidence leads them. Their function has been redefined.
The admitted failure of even the most prestigious newspapers to question the Bush administration's reasons for invading Iraq comes to mind. Another example of the failure of the mainstream press relates to the recent Downing Street Memo. Almost all but the Knight Ridder papers ignored or downplayed the May 1, 2005 London Times story on a July 23, 2002 memo describing a meeting of Blair advisors and security officials. The conservative Chicago Tribune belatedly and surprisingly picked up the story. At the meeting, Richard Dearlove, the head of the MI6 British intelligence , reported that the Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq and that there was an effort in Washington to make intelligence information fit this policy: "But the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy." The Knight Ridder story added that an anonymous American official said that the Downing Street Memo offered "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" while Dearlove was in Washington.
Later the Cabinet Office briefing paper for that meeting became public. It revealed that Tony Blair had agreed to help the US invade Iraq when he had visited the Texas White House in Crawford two months previously. The paper emphasizewd that it was important to find a pretext for military action so that the US and Britain could satisfy the requirements of international law.
Numerous economic factors explain why mainstream journalism can no longer do its job. It needs the help of honest bloggers who are beholden to no one. Today, less than 200 newspapers are independently owned. The rest are owned by large corporations which, with a few notable exceptions, are politically conservative in orientation. Among the few that remain, moderate politics prevails as in the case of The Washington Post and The New York Times. Both beat the war drums for the second Iraq war and both insisted that Clinton was involved in criminal activity in the Whitewater case, consistently ignoring any exculpatory evidence that was presented. Newsweek, which is owned by the Post, provided the Starr staff with information, used confidential information provided by the Starr staff, and timed publication of some information to help the Starr operation set a perjury trap for Bill Clinton, who was arrogant enough to take the bait. If the gentle reader thinks they are not essentially moderate, compare their outlooks to those found in The Nation, Mother Jones, or In These Times-- all liberal publications.
A number of business-based factors contributed to lowering the quality of by large chains, that tend to be conservative in orientation. Moreover, there has been an endless round of cost cutting, resulting in fewer reporters, far fewer investigative reports and far less pages devoted to news ( now about 40%). Similar developments have occurred in television news departments; and in both areas there has been more interest in entertaining and less in informing. In the view of the big corporations that own these outlets, higher returns of investment are demanded, and a successful business model calls for not angering advertisers or readers.
A recent study published by the University of Missouri School of Journalism revealed that 43% of respondents thought the press had too much freedom. A larger number believed the press had a "liberal" bias. The first figure suggests that these people think the press should not be critical of the current administration in Washington and should not print information that would cast it in a unfavorable light. These views have been fed by conservative propaganda for three decades. The result has been to make people distrust anything the mainstream media reports about Republicans and to lead vast numbers to look to the conservative talk radio and cable television and conservative blogs for their information . As a result, many Americans rely on FOX News for their information and refuse to consider more balanced presentations. Though the conservatives always call for fair and balanced reporting, what they really want is self-censorship and presentations tilted in their favor. FOX News provides a perfect example of what they want from the entire national press.
To avoid being accused of having a liberal bias, the mainstream media increasingly overlooks some touchy stories or replies on a "he said---she said" approach which does not get at the basics of a story. In this approach, they simply print the spin offered by both Democrats and Republicans, making no effort to establish what the real facts are. In the case of debates on environmental policy, the result often is that the readers obtain no idea of the full dimensions of these stories. That is because Democrats as well as Republicans are dependent upon corporate funding. Thus the so-called "left" view of the Democrat politician may be somewhat more friendly to the environment, but the true nature of threats to the environment do not come up.
This stenographic approach to journalism also is an excuse for not doing much with "hot" topics.
Of course, someone who has a Washington beat has little choice but to take the stenographic approach. Those who depart from it are unable to interview important people and do not have their telephone calls returned. Not wanting to appear unpatriotic, Democrats do not want to say much about occupation policy in Iraq or even use that word. Hence, the subject appears with little frequency in the mainstream press. Even the most respected journalists now seem to think that if a career politician does not raise a subject. Either these politicians provide "news pegs," or the story gets no coverage. Without them, there is no means of separating official pronouncements from propaganda of the worst sort.
Until recently, Public Radio and Public Television have provided more balanced and thoroughly researched stories than most of the other media. For that reason, they have been under attack
from conservatives, who have sought to cut funding and force them to tone down their reporting. The attacks on public radio and television began under Richard Nixon, but in those days there were enough moderate Republicans to fend off most of them. However, Republicans were able to continually cut their funding.
Under George W. Bush, Republican ideologues have been placed on the corporation for Public Broadcasting Board, and Kenneth Tomlinson has become his chairman. He was one of the six people involved in purging Voice of America in the 1980s, but his exact role was uncertain. He began his chairmanship by claiming Bill Moyers' weekly "Now" was partisan and by secretly hiring a to monitor its content. The consultant , Fred Mann of Indiana, received $14,170. . Soon the program ended. Mann labelled guests as liberals and conservatives and labelled Senator Chuck Hagel a liberal because he raised questions about the war in Iraq. Some people were classified as pro or anti Bush on whether or not they praised the president or asked questions about his policies. Tomlinson also paid another consultant $10,000 to provide insight on why Republican Senator Conrad Burns did not support stripping public broadcasting of funds.
He has also spent as much as $5,000,000 to give the opinions of the Wall Street Journal editorial page commentators an airing on public television. It would be difficult to find many who believe their views are fair and balanced. The program showcases very conservative views and, unlike Moyers, does not balance its views by inviting guests with different views. To assist Tomlinson in transforming public broadcasting into a conservative outlet, former Republican National Committee co-chairman Patricia Harrison was installed as CPB president.
The mainstream press today dares not challenge the political junk food of propaganda. In the long run, democracies die when people believe too many lies. In 1984, Syme said "Orthodoxy means not thinking, not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconscious." Progressive blogs will not always be right, but they will lead people to think. That's enough justification for them.
