Media Myth

[Spinelli]

Propaganda? Agent Provacateurs? Mis-information? Whatever it was that David BArstow won his Pulitzer for this week, the major media players did not jump up and down to recognize the feat.

Glen Greenwald in Salon magazine ramps up the rhetoric and laments a time when the press was not quite so "owned".

As the noble Nobel group stated the award...

to David Barstow of The New York Times for his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.

salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/21/pulitzer/index.html

I have a ton of angst regarding this story - and a pile of resentement for the notion of myth making around the events of that day - but to the political question - what expediency can be gained from a press that retells, resells and generally is conjoined with the DoD? What opportunities are left for political historians when trying to piece together bits of truth from such wholesale fabrications that were taking place on national airwaves? Does this story rankle you? Should his award be buried? Has the story gone away?

 

[Praktik]

it sure rankles me but I think the reasons why it hasn't been bigger is pretty obvious: the media definitely live in a bubble and while Im not sure there's any evidence of top level execs "quashing" the story its likely even if they wanted to issue orders like that they wouldn't have to - the major networks involved in this are staffed by individuals who have internalized certain basic facts, such as the fact they're "adversarial", that they did their jobs leading up to Iraq (David Gregory, etc), that complaints about their coverage are the partisan attacks of democrats and not grounded in fact. Running this story pre-eminently would put the lie to these internalizations.

I'm not one who buys into the top-down theory of media "management" for propaganda purposes -in my mind the kind of propaganda this story reveals simply a natural product of the socialization of the individuals running the news and the systemic pressures of running a business.

 

[INRM]

Spinelli,

Propaganda and Mis-Information I would say it would qualify as

 

[INRM]

I personally think this is absolutely disgraceful and is completely against what our Founding Fathers would have stood for.

 

[Laeke]

What Would The Founding Fathers Do?

I would make one observation: this Media Myth has been uncovered by another member of the Media, a journalist of the NY Times. So all hope for better information is not lost.

I think that unfortunately the problems underlined by this story have to do with the very nature of modern media. I won't bore you to death with a lecture on our society: media has tubes to fill 24/7, and the tubes are only getting bigger and bigger. There's no time to double check information or credentials. News reporting is a marathon, and it's going faster and faster.

Something happens in the world, maybe some sort of war or crisis. TV needs "experts" to comment on it. TV loves "experts". Producer will call the people he knows to get some contacts and find someone to put on the air... Who knows? He maybe called in the Pentagon directly to ask indications! I mean, if I need generals, what better place to call?

Turns out the retired generals are not totally impartial. Journalist finds out. TV doesn't comment on it out of shame ("In other news, how we were duped and duped you!"). That's pretty much it, I guess.

I don't think things will get any better. I think the best defense is to pick a few (the last few?) credible sources. That may sound snobby, but not having TV anymore really cleared my mind. I'm mostly off with media in general now, the downside being that I am sometimes late to catch some news.

I miss the sports broadcast though.

 

[MG1962]

So the fact that this guys claims were investigated, and he was found to be wrong matters to nobody?

Good balance there folks

 

[Praktik]

I think that unfortunately the problems underlined by this story have to do with the very nature of modern media. I won't bore you to death with a lecture on our society: media has tubes to fill 24/7, and the tubes are only getting bigger and bigger.

You know what else has tubes?

The internet: it's actually a series of tubes.

 

[Laeke]

So the fact that this guys claims were investigated, and he was found to be wrong matters to nobody?

Good balance there folks

I'm confused: who are we speaking of here?
This guy (the journalist) or those guys (the analysts)?

You know what else has tubes?
The internet: it's actually a series of tubes.

Indeed. I actually knew the quote. However, as a last second attempt to save face: I did not propose to organize them in series.
(I actually encompassed the Internet into the "media", but going into details would have resulted in a longer post. Too long for the little I had to say.)