Wed, April 30, 2003

I've made no secret of the fact that I think mainstream American journalism has taken a nosedive in terms of credibility and integrity lately. The sensationalism and fearmongering have been under way for years, but the jingoistic propaganda is fairly new. In all cases, however, a few news institutions have maintained their measured trustworthiness – in my opinion. Particularly, I'm a fan of Tom Brokaw. He was recently voted "most trusted American journalist," although I forget by whom. I grew up with him and I've always felt he was fair and honest. Also, the public-broadcasting outlets (PBS, NPR) are usually balanced and objective. Lately, even they have fallen away, and I'm forced to resort to Jon Stewart for my news. Not because he's unbiased (despite the show's professed "equal opportunity offender" approach, The Daily Show has a leftward lean to it), but because at least he indicates some measure of surprise at the way things are handled elsewhere.

Lately, The Daily Show televised a press conference at which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attempted to allay concerns over the looting of ancient artifacts from Iraqi museums under the watch of American troops. Rumsfeld joked that because cable news broadcasts loop the same stories and the same footage over and over again during the day, the impression of countless artifacts being looted was only a result of repeatedly viewing footage of the same artifact's removal. He actually tried to pin the whole looting thing on editing! And, what's more disgusting, all the "journalists" in the briefing room were laughing with him! Nobody raised a hand to query if it was really so reasonable to expect Americans to believe that just because there wasn't specific footage of each artifact being removed, the images of empty museum halls didn't indicate that everything had been taken. This is because the American media is fully complicit in the propaganda war that the Bush administration has undertaken, and they benefit as much as our president does from American viewers hearing what they want to hear.

I mentioned Brokaw before. He appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman just after the fall of Baghdad and spoke about the recent events in journalism. Geraldo Rivera and Peter Arnett had received a lot of press in the preceding weeks, so Letterman asked about them. With barely a hint of sympathy, Brokaw blasted Arnett (who worked for NBC and MSNBC up until his statements were broadcast on Iraqi television) for making a "stupid mistake." There was no defense of Arnett's right to freely vocalize his concerns (which weren't even that inflammatory, just a level evaluation of the perception of progress so far). Brokaw went so far as to criticize Arnett's decision to talk with the Iraqi interviewer because "[Iraqi TV] isn't news, it's just propaganda." He said this with a straight face and absolutely no irony. Over two weeks of conflict the American media had shown one wounded Iraqi child, and most embedded journalists were asking questions of their nearby soldiers that sounded indistinguishable from "Hey, aren't you guys doing a great job and everything going swell?!" in tone. Iraqi TV may be focused on propaganda at a time when winning the minds of Iraqi citizens was key to the regime's survival, but contrasting that with the American media is laughable. The offenses on American airwaves are (slightly) less overt, but the reach is far broader and the audience far more conditioned to accept what it hears on TV.

A few weeks back, a particularly sensationalized and speculative episode of Nova caused me to question my respect for PBS's commitment to balanced reporting. Today, NPR took the opportunity to disappoint me. Deborah Amos reported from Cairo about a growing trend of Arab commentators vocalizing frustration with bias in the coverage of the Iraq war by regional networks. The report focused on the tendency of Arab-based news networks like Al-Jazeera to foreground Iraqi resistance and civilian casualties. The NPR story actually made the assertion that because these reports conflicted with American reports, they were necessarily slanted and false. As though American journalism is always true and anything else just plain must be wrong. No mention of the military and retired-military "analysts" on CNN and the other networks. No mention of the American media's lap-dog devotion to whatever the Pentagon tells it. I actually reviewed the story again on NPR's website (violating this site's long-standing commitment to angry, unresearched ranting) to make sure I got the following quote right. Cairo University Political Science Professor Mohammed Kamal, speaking about Arab networks' coverage of the Iraq war: "It's not really reporting. It's a mixture of emotionalism mixed with propaganda." This is exactly what I've been saying about CNN! Kamal again, "I would say the media fed the people what they wanted to see." I believe you could apply both quotes – verbatim – to the American media. This is precisely what our networks have been doing for years. What other reason is there that we saw not one single Iraqi civilian casualty on American TV? NPR related the entire story unironically, with no mention of similar views about American media voiced loudly and often by commentators such as myself or Michael Moore or Jon Stewart.

I read an interview with the Dixie Chicks, who've been in the public eye for daring to publicly express an opinion that differs from that of the White House. Emily Robinson said "[Americans are] scared right now–scared to speak up, scared to question. But, our country's based on asking questions. Especially in a time of war. Especially when people's lives are at stake." I'd like to see her in the White House press corps. She has a better sense of how to respond to the tripe that Bush, Fleischer, and Rumsfeld spew than anyone I've seen reporting "news" this year. It's sad when I'm siding with country music singers on foreign policy.

© onebee · all rights reserved