Media Wars: The Boomerang Backlash Effect

Newsweek made a mistake. It got sloppy. But the practice of using anonymous sources is the same technique used to uncover necessary truths – like Watergate and President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinski.

Anonymous sources are also tools of administrations, too. Many administrations have leaked stories to the press for their benefit.

You have to ask yourself, why didn’t the Pentagon refute the story when Newsweek gave it to them to fact check?

What about the anonymous source in the military? Newsweek followed reporting protocol and offered the Pentagon a review of the article, yet Newsweek takes all the blame, while this anonymous course remains, well, anonymous and unscathed.

Can you just hear the dialog prior to the release of the article?

NEWSWEEK: (To the Pentagon.) Can you read this over and let us know if we have this right?

PENTAGON: (Later, behind close doors.) Hmmm. This thing about the Quran being flushed down the toilet looks pretty bad. And so does this prisoner abuse stuff, but is it ALL true? And who is the source for this? We need to find them and let the public know who it is.

LATER.

PENTAGON: Here’s your story back. Looks good to us.

But the preceding paragraphs aren’t really the points I wanted to make. I’m not an apologist for Newsweek. I’m seeing a dangerous trend from Right wing pundits employing a tactic of demonizing the press, specifically outlets they label with a liberal bias.

Conservatives have successfully sold the idea that the press is liberal. Ask any quasi-knowledgeable, conservative person and they will start citing statistics about how the majority of reporters voted for democratic candidates, about how the press favors liberal stories, and how Dan Rather sloppily gathered facts in some of his recent stories.

Newsweek opened the door for more “facts” to be built up against the “liberal media establishment.” It was a real case of piling on as conservative pundit after conservative pundit lined up bash Newsweek and “uncover” yet another “abuse” of the American people by the liberal media.

One of the best examples is Michael Reagan, who in his latest column, blames Newsweek for

“inciting riots that killed at least 16 or 17 and injured scores more”

and

"reported a bogus story that caused the deaths of not 16 people.”

That Reagan fails to acknowledge that the Newsweek article also factually includes references of prison abuse along with the fact that our war effort is supremely unpopular in the Muslim world makes his claim somewhat amusing were not for the fact that these riots did result in casualties. While the Newsweek article may have been the tipping point, it certainly didn’t “cause” the death of 16-17 people. The Muslim extremists behind these riots need little or no reason to riot. They have hated American influence for years and add it the fact that we have invaded their homeland and anyone can see how they might riot.

I think David Letterman's quip on it summed it up best. (I'll paraphrase.)

"There seems to be an uproar over in the Mid-East after Newsweek ran an article about a Quran beingh flushed down a toilet in a prisoner of war camp. That's too bad because, you know, they loved us up until then."

Another example of how the conservative media is trying to paint the rest of the media into a corner is Dick Morris’ take on the Newsweek article. He states regarding the story,

(the) “Newsweek magazine story falsely reporting desecration of the Koran by American military interrogators”

and

“And now Newsweek has published an inflammatory story that has led to massive anti-American demonstrations in Afghanistan — the first since the war — protesting the seeming defilement of sacred texts. Sixteen people are dead because Newsweek got the story wrong,”

Again, I return to the core argument that Newsweek did not make up the story of the Quran being flushed down a toilet, they reported it from an highly regarded military source. And when placed along side the slew of atrocious prisoner abuse cases perpetrated during this war, does it seem out of context that a Quran would be flushed down a toilet to add to the debasement of these prisoners? Come on, there are pictures of a pile of naked Muslim men out there and men forced to crawl on the ground wearing a dog collar. How far do you have to go to “buy” the fact that a Muslim sacred text could be flushed down a toilet to add to this debasement?

And my last example, from Barbara Simpson, reporting for World Net Daily (a reach, yes);

“Newsweek lied, but did so because in the thin air of East Coast journalism, the purpose was more important than the message. It was a scoop. It would air more alleged scandal to shame and incriminate the United States, the U.S. military and especially President Bush and his administration.”

She adds:

“Newsweek printed the scandalous story without verifying its truth or reaffirming sources.”

Did Newsweek lie? Or did the anonymous source lie? Did Newsweek uses its liberal bias to report an unfavorable story towards an administration it has great disdain for?

Newsweek did not lie. Again, Newsweek was sloppy, but it had a source. If you have a reliable source that tells you something and you print it, how can that be construed as a lie and bised reporting. It's beyond me.

This isn’t to give reporters a lazy, free-pass to not do their jobs thoroughly. Media has a great responsibility to get their stories correct and this is an example of how they didn’t get it right, but for conservative media columnists to use it as way to cite yet another example of how the liberal media is out bashing the administration and the troops again, come on. The Right is exploiting the situation for their own gain.

Frankly, I think it’s less of a case of liberal bias, but a part of media’s desperate need to break the story. This need to be first has driven many a reporter and media outlet to jump to conclusions, get facts wrong, and generally practice poor journalism.

But the current (effective) tactic of conservatives is to go on the attack when a “liberal media outlet” gets it wrong. This tactic puts these media outlets back on their heels and effectively start marginalizing their credibility with the public. But the hypocritical aspect of the whole tactic is that conservative media outlets have made the same mistakes and display their bias on a regular basis.

Conservatives, media or not, have played an effective game of labeling the media and the people have bought it. Thoughtful and sometime provocative news outlets have been labeled “East Coast Liberal Elitists” and we in fly-over land are buying it to our detriment.

From my experience, reporters from the past worked hard to remain objective and restrain their biases. Today, conservative media outlets show no pretense in this area. Bias is rampant. Watch FOX News or listen to Rush Limbaugh for a week and find out what I mean.

I can say that, yes, through use of story selection and probably some slight bias, there probably has been a liberal bias to the media for several decades. And yes, if you’re a conservative, this might annoy you, but currently there is a boomerang backlash in effect that is grossly tipping the scale away from any idea of unbiased reporting. Reporting critical of this current administration and our efforts in Iraq have been labeled as attacks from the liberal media.

But what is the role of media and hasn’t the media in the past been instrumental in bring to light abuses of power? Isn’t a free press one of the greatest assets of our country?

I fear that the conservative tactics of the right are endangering the balance that lies between government and the press. This check and balance system between government and the media has had a long and effective tradition in our country. Certainly, there can be two sides to a story, but when the press becomes neutered, we as a public lose an avenue of information to help us make up our own minds.

With the advent of cable TV and the internet, we have seen the gradual break down of the media in into ideological camps. Yes, some East coast papers have a liberal slant. But, also talk radio is vastly conservative. Balance, accuracy and responsible journalism is what we all deserve.

Ultimately, it’s my opinion that while the media of the past may have held a bias, it in the vast majority of instances, held that bias in check, attempting to deliver fact-based stories that would help Americans make up their own mind. In this new polarized media landscape, with lines been drawn and camps set-up and partisan politics playing a greater role in reporting, bias is coming through loud and clear and I don’t think Americans are better off for it.


Sources:
Michael Reagan Artilce

Dick Morris Article

Barbara Simpson Article

The Corporatization of America: Part 1

Yes, I’ve coined a new word, Corporatization. You read it the title of this missive. What do I mean by this word? What I mean by this is that if you keep your eyes open, you will see that our lives in America are dominated by corporate influence.

This will be a teaser article to just open your eyes to the way your lives are being shaped and molded influences that you either don’t pay attention to or are not aware of. Hopefully, I will be able to add to the specific example highlighted in this installment, by bringing to light other examples in future posts.

I give Ronald Reagan much of the credit for this change in influence. When Ronald Reagan campaigned for office he used this catchy campaign phrase to persuade voters he was their man, “Government isn’t the solution to our nations’ problems, it is the problem.”

Now, that’s an ironic statement coming from the man who hoped to lead that government.

Anyway, voters were persuaded and the Reagan revolution was started. “Big” government was demonized and checks and balances in place for many years were systematically dismantled. Deregulation, good or bad, was a part of the paradigm shift.

Corporate Influence Case #1
Drug Companies Profit Up -- FDA Influence Down
During the ‘90s, the FDA was a strong advocate for the consumer, but as lobbying forces were applied and an administration came into power that was more inclined to please corporate forces than protect the consumer, the FDA has rolled on to it’s back in submission.

From 1998 to 2004, drug companies nearly doubled their spending on lobbying efforts, going from $79 million to $158 million. Now, our representatives may say that all these efforts and money may grant some people access, but it doesn’t equal influence. Now, you can decide for yourself if a individual voter in Peoria has the same clout as a multi-billion dollar drug company contributing generously to a campaign coffer.

Here’s something to mill over. The drug companies used this “influence” to speed up the process by which drugs are approved by the FDA because the faster a drug came to market, the more money a company can make. What about that pesky fact that some drugs really need more testing? Who cares? There's money at stake here, not lives.

Take the case of Redux (a drug to help people lose weight). It was rushed through the approval process and then was pulled from the market because of the fact that it caused heart damage. This is just one in a long line of drugs brought to market without proper and safe review.

Drug companies also were a dominate force behind the bill to provide senior citizens prescription drug benefits. Now, what could be bad with seniors getting help with their purchases of medicine?

Well, along with the benefit, the drug companies also knuckeled the government under to approve the fact that the government could NOT negotiate prices of the drugs. Now, why is that Canadians pay less for the same drugs we get in here in America and why can’t our representatives see that they just sold the consumer up river? Because drug companies used their influence to rig the deal in their favor.

Drug companies also make exaggerated claims about the cost of developing a new drug.

Here’s one ploy: Drug companies claim that the cost of developing a new drug is $800 million. Well, half of this claim is based on the fact that they take the cost of development and state that if they had invested the money instead they would have seen X amount of profit. Then they take this estimated profit and add it to the exaggerated total of development.

That would be sort of like any homeowner claiming that if he he/she had invested all their mortgage payments in the market instead of paying off their house (and instead lived in a card board box), they could be rich!

Drug companies also fail to disclose the fact that that in many cases, their “brand” new drug is really just a slight derivative of an existing drug from which they have already reaped a generous profit.

Marketing is where all the money is being spent. Along with increasing their influence on our legislators, drug companies are also working on us, the consumer and our doctors. Who can watch the evening broadcast news without seeing at least a half dozen adds for these new drugs? Drug sales reps are in a conga-like stream in and out of doctor’s offices offering “educational” trips to Aspen or to the islands to “teach” doctors about the wonders of their new drugs.

This is a just a tease to the amount of influence that corporations are exerting over our culture and lives. It’s time to step back and open our collective eyes.

Corporations are in the business of making a profit. There’s nothing wrong with that. Profit is good. But when profit without the restraints of ethics and considering what is best for the whole of American is standard operating procedure, then you start to see an imbalance. Just take a look at how oil companies are gouging consumers with high gasoline prices while the companies themselves are showing record profits while taking cover under the excuse that OPEC has raised the price of crude. (See my earlier blog post for more on this.)
These profits are well and good for oil companies and their stockholders, but they are clearly having an effect on the economy as a whole, causing a drag on consumer spending as retail prices are affected.

And the drug companies are a part of this drag. U.S. Health care premiums for us, the consumer, have increased 11% since 2001. I can tell you that I know wages haven't seen that sort of increase. This cost increase creates not a only a burden on the consumer, but on companies who provide benefits like health care. Since 2001, there are 5 million fewer jobs that have health care provided benefits. This is largely due to increases in drug costs. Consumers have also seen a 15% increase in the cost of perscriptions since 1995.

All this while drug companies are generating fabulous profits. Again, profit isn't a bad thing, but when it comes at the expense of the whole, you have to start having second thoughts about who the corporation has in mind. It's certainly not you or me.

In closing, what I don’t get from the American voter is that they fail to perceive that government, not “Big” government, is the best line of defense against the negative influence of corporate greed and influence gone astray. While I can’t and won’t support a government that flagrantly wastes tax payers money on pork barrel spending or throws bad money after good in hopeless causes, I think that government has job to protect us from corporate influence that sees on only profit and not the good of the whole.

Stay tuned -- More to come.

Sources:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20001220/02/printerfriendly

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=22683