If it bleeds, it leads
Bookworm on Dec 12 2006 at 7:59 pm | Filed under: Media matters
If you were wondering about the MSM’s orientation when it comes to war reporting — that is, whether to report good news or bad, failures or successes, spilled blood or new buildings — wonder no more. Howie, at the Jawa Report, ran a test. He took three morning news stories, one negative and two positive, and followed them throughout the day to see how they spread through the media. The results won’t surprise you.
The one thing I’ll add is that I don’t think that there is some vast editorial board conspiracy with editors all over America lurking in darkened rooms and thinking explicitly “Let’s bury the good news from Iraq, and make sure only the bad news gets broadcast.” In a way, that would be better, because honesty would at least compel such conspirators to acknowledge that the good news exists. Instead, this is a bone-deep bias that makes anything good out of Iraq unworthy of their notice — just as, in the old days, whites were unaware (or forced themselves to be unaware) of blacks as human beings, seeing them only as objects for service.
del.icio.us
digg it
No related posts.
Email This Post To A Friend
5 Responses to “If it bleeds, it leads”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It has become pervasive. Even Fox News Channel, that notorious right wing, war loving, Bush/Cheney propaganda organ (tic), is guilty. This week while Hannity was inteviewing SecDef Rumsfield they kept cutting to scenes of burning cars and other disasters. They are all addicted.
Maybe members of this Video game culture cannot focus attention for more than a minute or two, without gripping visual stimulation.
There is no question that all of this affects our perception of reality. My wife watches the Weather Channnel, for pete’s sake, which constantly runs weather disaster stories between their comically inaccurate forecasts. Then she walks around with a vague sense of foreboding–and isn’t sure why. Heck, it has been 43 years since we were hit by the toronado. But, the name of the game is to keep fear alive.
There was a time when McNeil/Lehrer would give us the news each evening and then bring in some knowledgeable people to amplify certain issues. Just some folks sitting in the studio talking about content that they thought was significant. Oh, were we deprived.
Fox still uses the AP. You can’t keep your hands clean if you use the AP. Fox would go out of business in the news bizz, if they stopped using the AP. Which was why I recommended before Toni Snow got his job, for the President to shut down all Executive interviews, exclusives, and leaks to the media. Giving Fox News, the only source into the White House and the Executive Branch, on pain of executive retribution.
As the press got more and more anti-Bush, Bush simply stopped giving them information. Which hurts America, given that the press can still make up information.
It is not like the press cares that the truth gets out. They aren’t there to report on what the President is saying, they are out there to distort the message into what they believe is true and what they believe to be true is what they have always believed to be true, independent of what is going on in the halls of government and the fields of war.
The American people suffer by not being given access to Bush’s inner circle ideas. To help the American people, the media must be isolated and punished, giving only outlets that have proven that they are responsible, the privilege of government data sources.
The media gets more than 70% of their data from government and official sources. In reality, the media doesn’t “generate” information and truth, just as the government doesn’t “generate” wealth. The source of information is from the government, and the source of wealth is from the people. When you combine those two, you get the media. The media stands at the crossroads of wealth (advertisement and people choice) and information (government databanks, classified reports, press releases, etc).
The media (and Hollywood) used to represent the people’s choices. WWII pro-war patriotic propaganda video made by Hollywood, with little to no prompting by Roosevelt. So long as the media is representing the interests and will of the people, then it doesn’t matter where they get their information from, government or non-government sources, because you can rely upon the media not to harm America through truth or untruth. The media does not have the time to search through every 500 page bureacratic report to get the goods. They really don’t. Journalist school isn’t the same as a crime forensics program or Intelligence Analyst one either. So if the media ever does attempt to harm America, and they are reporting from government sources, the media is then basically abusing the privilege of the press. The government isn’t there so that they can help those who harm Americans, you know.
I look at the media, the same way I look at guerrila warfare. I ask myself “how do I cut the throats of my enemies so that they die a hideous and efficient death”. That’s it. Everyone has a weakness, the only problem is in finding out who your friends and enemies are, and determining the weakness of your particular enemy.
As with foreign policy, I try and come up with plans that help my friends (Fox News) while decimating my enemies (CNN, AP, Reuters, CBS, etc). It is the only sane way to plan a war while you are fighting. You don’t want to be like Bush, right, treating your enemies (Ted Kennedy and Amanie) as equals and friends, right? That got him a lot of help at the UN, right? No.
There is no particular reason why the President should give the White House press corps valuable and time sensitive information, just so that those same press corps can distort it and use it in their anti-American propaganda. I mean come on people, when your enemies are hacking the heads off children and the US media is too busy covering up Haditha and Abu Ghraib, you might want to rethink your priorities a bit here if you really, really want to win this war.
There are two things the media does when they cover Haditha and incidents like Abu Ghraib. One, as a distraction to the reality.
Two, as a way to cover up government investigations by attempting to displace the government in the eyes of the people, through advance copies of press judgements. They do this by actually using government sources and information, such as when the Generals told the media the details about Abu Ghraib. The media use the information from the government, to cover up the actual government investigation into the stories like Abu Ghraib.
“As the press got more and more anti-Bush, Bush simply stopped giving them information. Which hurts America, given that the press can still make up information.”
Many good points, Y. I try to see things from the President’s perspective. He knows the media is as you describe. He also has to serve all the people despite media animus.
Had he engaged the media during the last 3 years, they would have started their rage chant of “Vietnam” long ago.
It’s the ultimate media weapon. His correct, certainly honorable way was to cut the media out, leaving his political fortunes to the wolves, but allowing him room to pursue the best course for the people. He has kept his office responsible to the people, not to the Leftist elites.
He must have a possibly naive faith that free, thinking Americans will judge him by his actions, not media words.
That’s the way historians work, when they tell us that terribly popular leaders–Grant, Cleveland–were corrupt Presidents. And, of all those Presidents who failed to care for America, no one, I think they will say, was more crass than Bill Clinton.
Had Bush chosen to take sides and attack the Democrats, we would have had a bloodbath, with American attacking American. Mr. Bush has never sought disunity; his foes have.
I think he was naive, and American enough, to think his political foes sooner or later would put America first and serve their country. 3 years have shown that the Democrats/the MSM will not.
Is it wrong to have faith in America? That’s the question Mr. Bush has answered.