Thirty-five years ago, the phrases were "Eastern Establishment Liberal" and "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism" were all the rage. Since then, the Republican propaganda machine has maintained steadfastly, and despite all evidence to the contrary, that the media is generally liberal. (Studies of top reporters and anchors show more registered Republicans than Democrats, and studies of editors and news directors show far more Republicans.) As a result, the mainstream media has been cowed into incompetence by irrational fears of appearing biased, while the right-wing media has unabashedly spread lies, slander and deceit, all in the name of "balance".Nobody bothers to remember that the person originally responsible for pushing these phrases ended up in prison as a convicted felon.
Time and time again, Republicans go before interviewers who let them get away with the most outrageous lies. Respected "journalists" are either uninformed, or unprepared. "Fair reporting" used to mean telling the truth; now it apparently means simply parroting both sides' press releases.
Most reporters simply don't bother to get the facts. They get statements from both sides, read them on the air as if they were news (by the way, the statements aren't news, they're propaganda). Then the "reporters", who have become little more than puppets, collect their paychecks, go home, and pretend they've done their job.
Meanwhile, interviewers are so busy asking questions that they don't bother to listen to the answers. As a result, the political operatives being interviewed can say anything they want, secure that their statements will go unchallenged.
This failure by interviewers to listen and follow up is not new. Back in 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush was about to become the Republican nominee for President, and the big question leading up to the convention was whom he would choose as his running mate. CNN's Bernard Shaw was interviewing a top Bush campaign official. He asked what the Vice President would do after the convention. The campaign official said that the Vice President would travel with his running mate, visiting his running mate's home state, Illinois and Ohio. In seconds, I was on the telephone, telling everyone I could reach that it would be Dan Quayle.
Bernard Shaw did nothing. The next day, NBC's Andrea Mitchell was credited with breaking the story.
Wups!
Not to single Mr. Shaw out; there isn't a "well-respected" journalist today who doesn't have his or her share of missed opportunities. There are plenty of similar examples for Tim Russert, Judy Woodruff, Ted Koppel -- you name it.
Was there ever a time when true journalists dug for the facts? Was there ever a time when press releases were poured over and given some sort of "truth test" before being put on the air? Maybe not; nostalgia is a dangerous way to remember things, especially if they happened (or didn't happen) before you were even born. Certainly such kings of journalistic empires as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
But we're supposed to be more sophisticated today. We're supposed to be better informed. Especially after the Watergate scandal, we're supposed to be able to tell the difference between news and PR.
At the very least, the people who bring us the news are supposed to know. After all, it's their job, isn't it?
And then there's Fox.
Copyright 2004, Dan Jacoby
For a PDF version of this document, click here.
To contact Dan Jacoby, click here.
Return to the Main Menu