|
The price of “free” media
(Last call for those that did not see it – join the MoA census)
Can we still have an independent media?
Can we still have an independent mass media?
Some facts and thoughts below the fold.
– In France, 70% of dailies (by circulation) are owned by two industrial groups heavily involved in the weapons business and thus very dependent on public purchases (Dassault, the plane maker, has recently bought Le Figaro and a host of regional dailies; Lagardère, 15% owner of EADS, another plane and weapons maker, also owns through its media affiliate Hachette a bunch of other regional dailies). The rest (including Le Monde and Libération) are in a frail financial situation;
– In many countries, the combined emergence of the internet-based news sites and of free, advertising-based dailies (Metro, 20 minutes, etc) are threatening “serious” newspapers that rely on daily purchases or subscriptions for a significant portion of their income. The free dailies use skeleton crews and rely on the wires and press agencies for their info, it’s very basic and bare – simple facts, limited or no analysis – and when there is no advertising market, there is no paper and thus no news – as happened during the winter holidays, when the biggest news for a while – the tsunami – took place and the free papers were simply not there to report about it as they were not published in what is a low readership period…
– In Russia, admittedly an extreme case, you can pay to have (i) articles favorable to you published (ii) articles critical of your competitors/rivals published (iii) articles critical of you NOT published. A few people that control what goes into the papers have made a lot of money out of this. (Now THAT’s “pure” capitalism, isn’t it? – everything has a price)
– Meanwhile, journalists keep on getting killed or kidnapped around the world.
Let’s face it, the main information outlets nowadays are TV channels anyway, and they follow the rules of show business, which make for strange economics. Winner-takes-all phenomena (a few shows/personalities attract all the attention, the viewers and thus the advertising, leaving very little to less well known newscasters), celebrity behavior (TV people become the news or influence them instead of reporting them) and that stark truth: the clients of TV channels are not the viewers, they are the advertisers, and they respond to what advertisers want: no controversy, no uncomfortable truth, “values”, etc… Most people rely only on TV for their news, and TV does not usually provide complexity, diversity or contradiction other than as a show.
France, strangely eough, also provides the ultimate counter-example: the most profitable newspaper in the country is also the most independent as it does not accept advertising AT ALL. “Le Canard Enchaîné”, an influential satirical/political weekly, relies entirely on its readership for its revenues and it is making tons of money. Thanks to its independence, it is the newspaper that has uncovered the most scandals in the past 30 years and it has acquired a very strong reputation and credibility. It is also the preferred vehicle for political gossip and dirt and thus has a faithful base amongst the political junkies. Sadly, it is not on the net; its journalists have no known e-mail addresses… (one of the most famous scandals was about 30 years ago, when they caught “plumbers” trying to install listening devices in their offices; they have had repeated burglary attempts and they protect their archives very seriously)
Is this a sustainable model – high quality, ad free, fully paid for by its readership? Can more than one or two papers in each country follow such a path? Is it enough to ensure that a quality press still exists?
And – are islands of quality accessible to – and accessed only by – a privileged few enough? The Bush administration seems to be testing that sorely, by pushing lies and relying on their access to the not-maniacally-informed majority, and not caring about what the well-informed minority (us) knows.
Can we fight back?
an interesting article from frank rich
All the President’s Newsmen
by Frank Rich
One day after the co-host Tucker Carlson made his farewell appearance and two days after the new president of CNN made the admirable announcement that he would soon kill the program altogether, a television news miracle occurred: even as it staggered through its last nine yards to the network guillotine, “Crossfire” came up with the worst show in its fabled 23-year history.
This was a half-hour of television so egregious that it makes Jon Stewart’s famous pre-election rant seem, if anything, too kind. This time “Crossfire” wasn’t just “hurting America,” as Mr. Stewart put it, by turning news into a nonsensical gong show. It was unwittingly, or perhaps wittingly, complicit in the cover-up of a scandal.
I do not mean to minimize the CBS News debacle and other recent journalistic outrages at The New York Times and elsewhere. But the Jan. 7 edition of CNN’s signature show can stand as an exceptionally ripe paradigm of what is happening to the free flow of information in a country in which a timid news media, the fierce (and often covert) Bush administration propaganda machine, lax and sometimes corrupt journalistic practices, and a celebrity culture all combine to keep the public at many more than six degrees of separation from anything that might resemble the truth.
On this particular “Crossfire,” the featured guest was Armstrong Williams, a conservative commentator, talk-show host and newspaper columnist (for papers like The Washington Times and The Detroit Free Press, among many others, according to his Web site). Thanks to investigative reporting by USA Today, he had just been unmasked as the frontman for a scheme in which $240,000 of taxpayers’ money was quietly siphoned to him through the Department of Education and a private p.r. firm so that he would “regularly comment” upon (translation: shill for) the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind policy in various media venues during an election year. Given that “Crossfire” was initially conceived as a program for tough interrogation and debate, you’d think that the co-hosts still on duty after Mr. Carlson’s departure might try to get some answers about this scandal, whose full contours, I suspect, we are only just beginning to discern.
But there is nothing if not honor among bloviators. “On the left,” as they say at “Crossfire,” Paul Begala, a Democratic political consultant, offered condemnations of the Bush administration but had only soft questions and plaudits for Mr. Williams. Three times in scarcely as many minutes Mr. Begala congratulated his guest for being “a stand-up guy” simply for appearing in the show’s purportedly hostile but entirely friendly confines. When Mr. Williams apologized for having crossed “some ethical lines,” that was enough to earn Mr. Begala’s benediction: “God bless you for that.”
“On the right” was the columnist Robert Novak, who “in the interests of full disclosure” told the audience he is a “personal friend” of Mr. Williams, whom he “greatly” admires as “one of the foremost voices for conservatism in America.” Needless to say, Mr. Novak didn’t have any tough questions, either, but we should pause a moment to analyze this “Crossfire” co-host’s disingenuous use of the term “full disclosure.”
Last year Mr. Novak had failed to fully disclose – until others in the press called him on it – that his son is the director of marketing for Regnery, the company that published “Unfit for Command,” the Swift boat veterans’ anti-Kerry screed that Mr. Novak flogged relentlessly on CNN and elsewhere throughout the campaign. Nor had he fully disclosed, as Mary Jacoby of Salon reported, that Regnery’s owner also publishes his subscription newsletter ($297 a year). Nor has Mr. Novak fully disclosed why he has so far eluded any censure in the federal investigation of his outing of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Plame, while two other reporters, Judith Miller of The Times and Matt Cooper of Time, are facing possible prison terms in the same case. In this context, Mr. Novak’s “full disclosure” of his friendship with Mr. Williams is so anomalous that it raised many more questions than it answers.
That he and Mr. Begala would be allowed to lob softballs at a man who may have been a cog in illegal government wrongdoing, on a show produced by television’s self-proclaimed “most trusted” news network, is bad enough. That almost no one would notice, let alone protest, is a snapshot of our cultural moment, in which hidden agendas in the presentation of “news” metastasize daily into a Kafkaesque hall of mirrors that could drive even the most earnest American into abject cynicism. But the ugly bigger picture reaches well beyond “Crossfire” and CNN.
Mr. Williams has repeatedly said in his damage-control press appearances that he was being paid the $240,000 only to promote No Child Left Behind. He also routinely says that he made the mistake of taking the payola because he wasn’t part of the “media elite” and therefore didn’t know “the rules and guidelines” of journalistic conflict-of-interest. His own public record tells us another story entirely. While on the administration payroll he was not only a cheerleader for No Child Left Behind but also for President Bush’s Iraq policy and his performance in the presidential debates. And for a man who purports to have learned of media ethics only this month, Mr. Williams has spent an undue amount of time appearing as a media ethicist on both CNN and the cable news networks of NBC.
He took to CNN last October to give his own critique of the CBS News scandal, pointing out that the producer of the Bush-National Guard story, Mary Mapes, was guilty of a conflict of interest because she introduced her source, the anti-Bush partisan Bill Burkett, to a Kerry campaign operative, Joe Lockhart. In this Mr. Williams’s judgment was correct, but grave as Ms. Mapes’s infraction was, it isn’t quite in the same league as receiving $240,000 from the United States Treasury to propagandize for the Bush campaign on camera. Mr. Williams also appeared with Alan Murray on CNBC to trash Kitty Kelley’s book on the Bush family, on CNN to accuse the media of being Michael Moore’s “p.r. machine” and on Tina Brown’s CNBC talk show to lambaste Mr. Stewart for doing a “puff interview” with John Kerry on “The Daily Show” (which Mr. Williams, unsurprisingly, seems to think is a real, not a fake, news program).
But perhaps the most fascinating Williams TV appearance took place in December 2003, the same month that he was first contracted by the government to receive his payoffs. At a time when no one in television news could get an interview with Dick Cheney, Mr. Williams, of all “journalists,” was rewarded with an extended sit-down with the vice president for the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a nationwide owner of local stations affiliated with all the major networks. In that chat, Mr. Cheney criticized the press for its coverage of Halliburton and denounced “cheap shot journalism” in which “the press portray themselves as objective observers of the passing scene, when they obviously are not objective.”
This is a scenario out of “The Manchurian Candidate.” Here we find Mr. Cheney criticizing the press for a sin his own government was at that same moment signing up Mr. Williams to commit. The interview is broadcast by the same company that would later order its ABC affiliates to ban Ted Koppel’s “Nightline” recitation of American casualties in Iraq and then propose showing an anti-Kerry documentary, “Stolen Honor,” under the rubric of “news” in prime time just before Election Day. (After fierce criticism, Sinclair retreated from that plan.) Thus the Williams interview with the vice president, implicitly presented as an example of the kind of “objective” news Mr. Cheney endorses, was in reality a completely subjective, bought-and-paid-for fake news event for a broadcast company that barely bothers to fake objectivity and both of whose chief executives were major contributors to the Bush-Cheney campaign. The Soviets couldn’t have constructed a more ingenious or insidious plot to bamboozle the citizenry.
Ever since Mr. Williams was exposed by USA Today, he has been stonewalling all questions about what the Bush administration knew of his activities and when it knew it. In his account, he was merely a lowly “subcontractor” of the education department. “Never was the White House ever mentioned anytime during this,” he told NBC’s Campbell Brown, as if that were enough to deflect Ms. Brown’s observation that “the Department of Education works for the White House.” For its part, the White House is saying that the whole affair is, in the words of the press secretary, Scott McClellan, “a contracting matter” and “a decision by the Department of Education.” In other words, the buck stops (or started) with Rod Paige, the elusive outgoing education secretary who often appeared with Mr. Williams in his pay-for-play propaganda.
But we now know that there have been at least three other cases in which federal agencies have succeeded in placing fake news reports on television during the Bush presidency. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Census Bureau and the Office of National Drug Control Policy have all sent out news “reports” in which, to take one example, fake newsmen purport to be “reporting” why the administration’s Medicare prescription-drug policy is the best thing to come our way since the Salk vaccine. So far two Government Accountability Office investigations have found that these Orwellian stunts violated federal law that prohibits “covert propaganda” purchased with taxpayers’ money. But the Williams case is the first one in which a well-known talking head has been recruited as the public face for the fake news instead of bogus correspondents (recruited from p.r. companies) with generic eyewitness-news team names like Karen Ryan and Mike Morris.
Or is Mr. Williams merely the first one of his ilk to be exposed? Every time this administration puts out fiction through the news media – the “Rambo” exploits of Jessica Lynch, the initial cover-up of Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire – it’s assumed that a credulous and excessively deferential press was duped. But might there be more paid agents at loose in the media machine? In response to questions at the White House, Mr. McClellan has said that he is “not aware” of any other such case and that he hasn’t “heard” whether the administration’s senior staff knew of the Williams contract – nondenial denials with miles of wiggle room. Mr. Williams, meanwhile, has told both James Rainey of The Los Angeles Times and David Corn of The Nation that he has “no doubt” that there are “others” like him being paid for purveying administration propaganda and that “this happens all the time.” So far he is refusing to name names – a vow of omertà all too reminiscent of that taken by the low-level operatives first apprehended in that “third-rate burglary” during the Nixon administration.
If CNN, just under new management, wants to make amends for the sins of “Crossfire,” it might dispatch some real reporters to find out just which “others” Mr. Williams is talking about and to follow his money all the way back to its source.
© 2005 The New York Times Company
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 14 2005 0:51 utc | 20
|
