The Dichotomy of Cable Network News

[kentuck]

When did these changes take place? There was a time when the media felt that their job was to challenge those in authority. If someone charged those in power with some wrongdoing, then it was up to those in power to prove that person wrong. The press would question those in authority to find out the truth of charges against them. The onus was on the authorities to prove they had been above board and honest. But look at the media today - especially cable news networks - but not them alone.

Take for example, the earthshaking charges by former terrorist expert, Richard Clarke, that Bush ignored al Qaeda terrorist warnings. Did the media go directly to the White House and ask them to prove those charges were wrong? Did they accept the credibility of Richard Clarke? Did they look to the White House for clarification? No.

They questioned the credibility of Richard Clark - not those in authority. They have it all bass ackwards. No one is supposed to question Republicans in power - only Democrats in power. They were skeptical of every move or decision made by Bill Clinton, and rightfully so. That is their job to be skeptical.

But where is the skepticism with the Bush White House? Why are they skeptical of those that question the Bush people's motivations but were quick to believe at face value everything that was charged against Clinton and the Democrats. If the media were honest with themselves, they would see that this is the case.

Their job should be to be skeptical of both Parties when they are in power. When someone makes such a serious charge, as Clarke has done, their job is not to tear down Clarke or his credibility, their job is to put the heat on those in authority and get to the bottom of the charges. Their job is not to assist those in power with tearing down the credibility of those making the serious charges.

Why the confusion? Are they not capable of treating Repubs and Dems alike and being skeptical of both Parties when they are in power. Lesley Stahl looked incredulous at Richard Clarke's charges that Bush ignored the al Qaeda warnings from his intelligence. But she is not alone. She is representative of the entire corporate media structure and reflects clearly what changes need to be made in cable news and network news. They need to be fair and balanced - not just talk about it as a slogan.

[dennis4868]

1. Dont you just.....

love the so-called "liberal" media?

[kentuck]

2. Liberal media?

Even the liberals that are in the media are looked at with a skeptical eye...as if they have to prove something that their conservative equals do not have to prove.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. The press acts as if it's not "nice" to question the Bush adm. --

either that, or they are terrified themselves of the truth that this administration bungled 9/11 -- before, during, and after -- and is peopled by the most nefarious cast of characters ever to hold power in this country. Certainly, the press was in denial, or feigned denial, in 2000 that an American Presidential election could be stolen, assuring the public over and over that our system had worked, as there were "no tanks in the streets."

Another factor, I think, is D.C. provincialism. The children of the press go to school with the children of administration officials, and they see them socially. Journalists think the Bushies are, again, "nice" people, and are, I think, reluctant to admit to themselves what they do in their political roles.

[devinsgram]

4. After knowing what the Bush family can do to those who threaten

them and their power, I feel the media is most likely being threaten in some way or they are cowardly and afraid to cross them. There's just something here that does not make sense. The good thing is the people are starting to take notice to this and they are beginning to lose all their credibility. I for one do not watch a single news show anymore, because I know they are not telling the whole truth. I take the INTERNET and browse the newspapers, especially the foreign ones so I may get the whole picture and the truth.

[Bread and Circus]

5. Rarely does it seem the media does their own "fact checking".

That to me is sad. It's usually just a glossover or
they focus on the most sellable "controversial" part of
a story that often has little to do with what really matters.

Even if Clarke was a disgruntled employee, who gives a shit.
What matters is that multiple unrelated high ranking sources
have confirmed the basic premise we've all known from day 1:

That the grounds for starting an imperialist war were made up
and propagandized by the Bush administration.

This is the death of our Democracy if we are not careful.

Actually, it would make sense to me that Clarke is a disgruntled
employee. He seems like a guy who worked for both houses to
protect the country. He sees Bush and his warmongering chickenass
cronies come along and fuck everything up. NO wonder he is
disgruntled. I would be. And I certainly would try to expose the
mess.

Clarke is a whistleblower, similar to the whistleblowers of Enron.

Whether or not the media is being intelligent, at least the story
is being covered. It's just that it is being covered in somewhat
of an assenine way. Sometimes I feel we are little better off in
terms of access to honest information than many of those under
dictatorship rule (and often feel sorry for).

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Agree -- It seems like a game, with "facts" not important --

as if the press never thinks in terms of the significance of what they're talking about, or the consequences of how they "spin" it. In the Watergate era, the press helped people understand that Nixon was tinkering with our system, with the Constitution. Either the press doesn't understand issues in that context now, or they don't care.

[kentuck]

8. It does seem like a game to them.....

They seem to have no idea what it means to be a journalist. They do not seem to understand that they are the watchdog for the rest of us. They are not the watchdog for the government. They are the watchdog for us. They should be skeptical of everything that comes out of the mouths of those in power. They should not be so quick to question the credibility of those that are willing to tell the truth about those in authority.

[BiggJawn]

6. Frank Beacham's column in "TV Technology" this month...

It's a trade pub for video geeks like me. this particular column is not on line yet.

This month, he talked about what TV news was like back in the Nixon Era, when he started out. Frank's first big job was at a Washington Post-owned station. Graham herself welcomed him to his first day, and told him "There are NO Sacred Cows, and if you find one, you tell me." He was NEVER cautioned about offending advertisers, and said that back then, EVERY small station want to create a Woodward or Bernstein of their own.

Then in the early 80's, the "Bean Counters" took over, decreed that hard investigative reporting was too expensive for the bottom line (gotta keep lawyers on staff for when your reporters step on toes, y'know) and soon, we started getting fluffy, in-offensive "Lifestyles" reporting.

The most advanced technology ever known for doing live television from the field, and how is it used? We get "Stand-ups" with some blow-dried Barbie or Ken Doll standing in front of a wall intoning "This is Blondie McNews reporting LIVE from THE FIELD!" or the obligatory "Lifestyles Reporter" down at the local gym at 5 AM interviewing the stairmaster-before-work crowd....

Now we have the "Access" issue. Piss-off Scotty or Karl, and you lose "Access". You have to sit in the back of the room at Scotty's daily dog-and-pony, you lose your seat on the press plane, you don't get invited to ask pre-screened questions on the rare occassions when the Sock Puppet actually gives a Q-and-A session.
you lose "access", your network loses. And you won't work there very long if you lose something that someone before you wore the knees out of their slacks getting...

[RedEarth]

9. I think your post is right on target.....

I am old enough to remember Watergate and the manner in which the media reported news in the 60's and 70's. National news and many newspapers tried to be objective in their reporting. With the advent of huge media corporations, it has all changed and the democracy of our country is now in jeopardy.

[BiggJawn]

10. More from Frank

He writes:
"...I worked in the best television news operation (WJXT)I've ever experienced. Yes, the news department reported the routine police stuff, but we were encouraged to 'follow the money' and report substansive stories of corporate and political corruption...Never was i cautioned not to offend an advertiser. If I needed expert help, the station had accountants and lawyers on retainer that we could call at any time. If we had a breaking story, we do instant live specials...."

They don't do that nowadays. We get packaged propaganda pieces paid for by corporations (a "Lifestyles Report" about older men "loving longer" paid for by Pfizer, perhaps?) and now, it appears, the Bush White house has gotten into the "Puff-News" business. Don't piss-off the ADVERTISERS!" is the new battle cry.

Hell, look at those Icons, Bernstein and Woodward...What's Woodward doing now? Blow-job books for Commander Codpiece like "Bush at WAR"? THIS is the guy who blew the lid off Nixon's dirty tricks?

"Get the Widow on the Set, We need Dirty Laundry!"