The Link Between Media and Politics

Jan Leighley, in her book Mass Media and Politics, lays out five models of Mass Media journalism. Each one of these models is able to stand on its own in terms of a standard for Media production. The essential difference between the five, and as we will see, a sixth, is the relationship the Media has with the government and the citizenship.

The first of these models is the one to which, normatively, every journalist would subscribe, namely, the "Reporters of Objective Fact Model". In this model, the media takes on a passive role in reporting, and acts rather like a clear conduit for information rather than an amplifier. They shouldn't comment on any information nor conduct debates, host magazine shows or even provide entertainment. They are assumed to report "just the facts" without any prejudices or biases. In class we agreed that C-SPAN is relatively the best-fit program for this model. Although they do not really have narration, the viewers get just what they want - pure information to make their own judgements. In evaluating this model, it is clear to see how not many people would want to tune into this particular type of reporting. Taken for granted the fact that it would be ideal for the polity to know exactly what is going on in their government circles, it is practically impossible for the mojority of Americans, who form the working class, who have their own lives, families and work to tune into every single meeting the Committees of Congress are having and have the time to process it into their political world-view. The media industry would quickly run out of funds for lack of advertising due to lack of viewership. Debra Stone, in evaluating this model in a more abstract sense, concludes that it is practically imnpossible to give over "just the facts" without some twist towards the interperative lenses. "To name is to take a stand; is it terrorism or resistance; terrorists or freedom-fighters; radical cleric or leader of freedom-fighters (Class Discussion, Oct. 25, 2006)?" Another aspect through which we must critically evaluate the "Reporters of OF Model" is when Walter Cronkite said, "and that's the world tonight", he must have left something in the world undiscussed in the 22 minutes he had! This point confirms a line Professor Pimpare is always fond of repeating: "The media can't tell you what to think, but they can tell you what to think about;" and that hardly fits into the OF model.

The next model of Leighley is the "Neutral Adversary Model". This model assumes the role primarily of a watchdog on government and understands itslf to be another institution of govrnment. It plays into the assumption that all government officials and elected officers are self-interest seeking and it is the job of the media to be a "truth-seeker". This model doesn't take the citizenry into the scene as much as other models (see Public Advocate Model below) and leaves the job inthe hands of reporters. I am not so sure how much positive feeling this model would throw on the public view of the government, which isn't in the greatest of stages right now. It would increase their disfavor and many might decline to run for office for fear of the "Medial Eye". Another detrimental consequence to utilizing this model is the amount of information the government would be willing to provide for the media agencies. "Reporters and news organizations depend on government institutions for relatively cost free information, so playing a neutral adversary role could be costly (Leighley, pg. 99)." In terms of keeping the citizenry informed through entertaining means, this model would work well and would proabably not have too much trouble in obtaining funds from advertising businesses.

The next model of Leighley is the "Public Advocate Model". This model assumes that the citizenry play an essential role in the reporting process as they provide the que as to what the media should aim their focus. An important aspect of their approach is that they would provide lively debate and discussion with politicians for the sake of enlightening their viewers. They would not fall into the trap of government bias for they themselves would be a self-supporting agency and therefore free from special interests. They would therefore not be timid in questioning and seriously acting as a check on government policies. This model assumes that citizens are interested and want to be informed.

The next model is the "Profit Seeker Model". This model assumes that the primary goal of the media should be to turn a profit and be able to compete with other major corporations and even entertainment TV shows! They would obtain this through advertisers, who would pay incredible amounts of money if the ratings for the station are high. This, I beleive, is the most realistic of all the models and the least abstract as it posits what Arthur Jensen from Network "prophesised" to Howard Beale. He reprimands Beale and tells him that he has "meddled with the forces of nature", and that the lifeblood of the world is not democracy, nor even public opinion, but rather buisness... the world is one big buisness; and the media play a major componant of it, as they are the primary medium between the polity and the government. This model is the antithesis of the Public Advocate and Tocquevillian model since it really doesn't care for the political knowledge of the citizenry and democracy, but rather - the bottom line. One could potentially ask: We're just giving the people what they want, if they want to watch 147 shows of Law and Order, they'll get it, if they want to watch C-SPAN, they'll get that, so what's so wrong with fusing the Profit-Seeker model with the Public Advocacy model? We dispelled that myth in class with the story of the Nebraskan and Sushi: How does the Nebraskan, whose had steak all his life know he will like sushi? He doesn't, the only way he'll know is if he tries it. The same thing with the media, they provide us with the shows first (sushi) and we decide if we like it. The public are not necessarily the initiators of the typology of shows.

The next model is the Propagandist Model. In this model, the Media functions in cooperation with the government and views itself as a rationalizer for their decisions. “It is to support and advance the interests of those in positions of power.” They are viewed solely as an instrument of the political elite and the special interests. Their primary income still comes from advertising, however. In evaluating this particular model: since they act in consonance with the government there will be great setbacks in providing the public with what they need to know to be effective and infomed citizens, since the Media in this model, are too timid to approach their “bosses” to argue with them. They will rather work to help create the reality that the politicians desire. This model works well when the government requires the support of the people and helps with getting information from official sources. The problem comes in when those sources aren’t checked critically. A practical difference could be seen in reporting from before to after the engagment in Iraq (see below).
The final model is the Tocquevillian model. This model views the media as the primary modicum of information to inform the citizenry and the binding of all civilization. Thomas Jefferson is known to say: “If I had a choice between governement without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should never hesistate to choose the latter.” “…nothing but a newspaper can drop the same thought into a thousand minds at the same moment. A newspaper is an adviser that does not require to be sought, but that comes of its own accord and talks to you briefly every day of the common weal, without distracting you from your private affairs. Newspapers therefore become more necessary in proportion as men become more equal and individualism more to be feared. To suppose that they only serve to protect freedom would be to diminish their importance: they maintain civilization.” Tocqueville looks at the media not only as an everyday informant of the daily news, be it local or federal, but it is the stringer of society – it creates that forum in which people can read it and gain enough information to be an informed citizen. He views media in general and the newspaper in particular as the primary mode of association. Since people are so spread out, they need the newspaper to bring them together. This view assumes that people in general are self-interested and they require the newspaper to link them into various associations. It views the government as a reactionary force to the will of the people. This may be too ideal though, you have to have some distrust of government and the focus of the media should also be to watchdog the government, not just create associations. It also doesn’t address the issue of civilized debate, much like blogs nowadays where the commentators are basically on the same page as the authors (Class). Tocqueville assumes this to be the case even with the newspaper: “A newspaper, therefore, always represents an association that is composed of its habitual readers.” His model is excellent for his day when people were actually reading more than traveling, but nowadays when you have people working 9-5s and mass transit, you need some entertainment to get you into the news and politics. You would also need some discussion and debate. It is also hard to apply Tocqueville to our current society since he leaves out the role politicians would play in the press.
The one I would pick to rise above the rest and become the standard by which all MSM is judged would be the public advocacy model combined with the Tocquevillian model. The standard for current American Mass Media seems to be the Public Advocacy model. You need to make politics interesting and appealing to a broad range of people if the government will truly be a Democratic Republic, with representatives representing an informed citizenry, rather than working dads and soccer moms running around casting a blind-eye-ballot to whoever is first on the list. The job of the media is to increase political knowledge while keeping their ratings up. A piece of the Public Advocacy model is that it is interesting; now, if people are tuning in, then advertisers would rain down the cash and you could subsume the PS model under the PA model. This is also the best because it opens the door to the future and leads into a Tocquevillian utopia since in its ideal form, citizen journalists come to the fore and work with the media to inform themselves while keeping a watchful eye on the government. I would also like to combine this with the Tocqueville model since associations are key to the fabric of a democracy (see Federalist #10). This model works well for the government, relative to the Neutral Adversary model, which assumes that politicians are self-seeking. This one assumes that to an extent, but still puts some trust in the government, and views it as an extension of the people, and assumes that the polity will communicate with their officials after being informed. It holds up not objective fact because it accepts the fact that it would be too boring and may not bring the country together, it rather lauds debate and discussion, which according to Leighley: the way we overcome the effects of propaganda and minimize it, is by increasing political knowledge, education in general, debating and conversing as more of a part of your life. Those three are the principle ways that reduce the effects of political communications. This fits perfectly into the PA model since it fulfills all three. The other models do not assume this to such an extent and do not view the public as such an essential piece to the medium puzzle.

Viewing the media through the lens of the PA/TQ model, it appears that the current MSM have not lived up to the standard. A myth that McChesney debunks is the myth that the corporate media have developed by way of natural progression through the market system: “The operating assumption in most discussions of the US media system is that the media are a natuaral province of the market… To the contrary, the US media system – even in its most “free-market” sectors – is the direct result of explicit government policies and in fact, would not exist without those policies. Most dominant media firms exist because of government granted and government-enforced monopoly broadcasting licenses, telecommunication franchises, and rights to content (copyright) (pg. 19).” Corporate control in this sense actually contradicts the PA model.

The Public Advocacy/Tocqueville model seems to have been too high a standard for the MSM/Big Media of today. Let us examine this thesis. The PA/TQ Model prides itself on advocacy for the people against the governement, the production of true, well-debated information, room for association and of course, fun. The MSM prides itself on its relationship with corporate big business and governement officials rather than the people of “We the People” in the Constitution. There was a time that journalism was a middle-class job, but now, the people on TV are at the top 10% of the income distribution, while the anchors share in the top 1% (Class Discussion 10/23/06)! This is hardly a middle-class job advocating for those in the same class. The professionalization of the media can be compared to the same instance with Congress. Congressmen and Senators, posing as delegates of the people and representing their constituency, range in the top 10% of the income distribution as well (Class). Perhaps this should not come to many as a surprise as there are only six companies that own virtually everything in the US. In a Capitalist Democratic State, why wouldn’t people want to pursue their own interests and team up with big business, if it would gain them a profit? The professionalism, profit-seeking and status-seeking of the Media corps has cost the American people valuable information and the ability to serve their country’s democratic process as informed citizens.
Big Media has not lived up to the standard of the Public Advocate Model. This is highlighted in the movie Network. The point from this movie is that the media puts on a façade of news, but they really look towards the bottom line as their gauge. Howard Beale, who has had enough of the scripting and choreography his station, UBS, has played out, and he tells his audience this and decides to embark on a quest for truth. Although this is risky for UBS, they decide to go through with it since their ratings couldn’t have been any worse. They basically move into the Public Advocacy model by accident; and they’re only there because it fits into the Profit-Seeker model as well. But when Beale starts sharing the inner workings of UBS and how the media in general tries to delude the audience into believing what the policy makers want them too, he gets himself assassinated (also a profit raiser). The point of this movie is to reveal Profit-Seeker model of Big Media within the façade of the Public Advocate Model.
Jon Stewart, while on Crossfire, took the role of Public Advocate while he played the hosts into the role of propagandists for the politicians. He criticized their interviewing methods as “theater” and that it was all scripted from the outset. This again is a case of another model within the façade of the Public Advocacy Model. In other words, Crossfire seemed like it was having serious discussion and debate, when in reality it was propagandizing for the government by asking all the right questions. In the middle of the tirade, Stewart says:
STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...
CARLSON: How do you pay?
STEWART: The people -- not well.
BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.
STEWART: But you can sleep at night.
Stewart is suggesting that the Big Media, under which Crossfire falls, do not act in the interest of the public, but rather in the interest of CNN, or Big Media, or even government. Stewart says “but you can sleep at night” to emphasize the point that, in a Public Advocacy model, you don’t have to worry about being the lapdogs of the politicians by spinning the people.
Another aspect of the Public Advocacy Model is the enlightenment of the citizenry. This is essential for a democracy to work since the people have to be in dialogue with their elected representatives. Nowadays, Big Media are to blame for too many shows on sex, violence and scandal. While these shows are entertaining, which is also a part of the PA model, they are taking the place of important, realistic thoughts which should be in the minds of people. When PA model says that the Media should be entertaining, it means in its political field. To have 147 different versions of Law and Order and Survivor is not enlightening. And even the News shows themselves are dealing with the aforementioned themes. “A central preoccupation of the news has become the activities and personal lives of celebrities… Politicians stand a far greater chance of becoming the object of news media scrutiny if they are rumored to have ten outstanding parking tickets or to have skipped out on a bar bill at a topless club than if they quietly use their power to funnel billions of public dollars to powerful special interests.” Why should this be so? Why isn’t the media acting as our advocates? Because “fluff is cheaper and easier to cover than hard news and rarely angers those in power, while it provides an illusion of controversy to the public (McChesney, pg. 86).” Let’s face it, in the Cost-Benefit analysis, wherever you could find the most benefit with the least amount of cost – that’s where the story is, unfortunately for us. For example, CBS’s choice to place Katie Couric as the anchor for the Evening News was more motivated by her looks and comport than by her insight. CBS’s huge promotional campaign in advance of Katie Couric’s arrival as anchor of its evening news program paid a rich dividend, at least on her opening night: the broadcast drew 13.6 million viewers on Tuesday, its largest audience in more than eight years, according to preliminary estimates by Nielsen Media Research released yesterday by the network and its competitors (CrankyDocs). To evaluate the MSM on this issue with regard to the standard of the PA/TQ model, we could suggest that it does provide entertainment, but it would be hard-pressed to argue that she does a better job enlightening the viewers. She was criticized just her first night as anchor as being too fluffy. Again, this is journalism falling below the standard.
As a final evaluation of how the MSM has fared using the standard of Public Advocate/Tocqueville Model, I will turn to how the press handled the Iraq War during the leadup to the war as opposed to their behavior after.
One of the biggest puzzles of today is how President Bush received so much widespread support for a war that was doomed (we’ll see) to failure at the worst and internal violence at the best? The answer to this, as was discussed numerous time in class throughout the semester was the linkage the members of the Bush Administration made between Iraq and 9/11 (see Cranky Doc’s – “A cheap shot), the hype he built up around WMDs and the War on Terror. Nicholas Jackson O’Shaughnessy, in his book Politics and Propaganda, lays out three characteristics of propaganda: (1) Rhetoric, (2) Myth and (3) Symbolism. The president and the administration were experts in using rhetoric to their advantage. The most famous example is the president standing on the USS Abraham Lincoln with the sign “Mission Accomplished” blazed across his background. As we all now know, the mission isn’t yet accomplished. This is just one example among many. So, how is the media to blame for this seeming deception on the part of the president and the administration? This past summer, while working in Congressman Steve Israel’s office we had the privilege of hearing from a photographer from Newsday ©. He told us that his job is to get the picture and walk out; he couldn’t really care for the content of the event. In this case, as in many cases, the administration took this into account and knew the press wouldn’t question them in plastering a “Mission Accomplished” sign behind the president – they framed the event through rhetoric. The media is also to blame, in part, for the lack of opposition to the Iraq war. It is widely agreed upon that the US is in a difficult position now and is not sure whether to pull out or stay the course; if we had sufficient information before the engagement into war, we could have made better choices. For example, the CIA reported that there is no evidence at all of WMDs (Sept. 9), why didn’t the media question Bush before the war? Some might argue that they did question the motives of the president before the war, but the true answer to those questions were avoided as an arrow shot against an oily shield. (VIDEO). The FOX news station is notorious as fitting perfectly into the Propagandist/Profit-Seeker Model of Mass Media. They have “cut costs to the bone by replacing expensive conventional journalism with celebrity pontificators. Using this formula, Fox News was able to generate roughly equivalent profits to CNN by 1999-2000 and spent far less than CNN to do so (McChesney, pg. 79).” A result of the way Fox News cooperated with the government and didn’t provide so much by way of serious reporting is evidenced by the table (inset), which shows how the viewers of Fox News believed the implied claims of the President that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The press, for a variety of reasons, didn’t act on behalf of the public interest, especially in terms of soldiers’ lives, and were too timid to challenge the administration. And they would admit it:
Boehlert cited an interview from Hardball with Chris Matthews with Jim Lehrer as saying that it was not possible for journalists to foresee the messy aftermath of the Iraqi Liberation Operation. He claimed as well that its not fair to charge reporters with the mishap since the rhetoric coming out of the White House (which according to Ms. Leighley is the primary source for official news) kept referring to the upcoming war as "Liberation" and not "Occupation":Lehrer: I do. The word "occupation," keep in mind, Chris, was never mentioned in the run-up to the war. It was "liberation." So as a consequence, those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation.Matthews: Because?Lehrer: Because it just didn't occur to us. We weren't smart enough to do it. I agree. I think it was a dereliction of our -- in retrospective.
After the apparent stalemate in the war, however, the press lived more up to their namesake – the press, and was not satisfied with answers that avoided the question. They were not on such seemingly friendly terms with the administration. (Compare the clips, the first one which is posted on the bottom is the way the press treat Bush now, after the mess up, and this is the link to what the press was like at the leadup to the war): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.v.html
So, perhaps one could make the argument that the model of media in the lead-up to the war was Propaganda, while after was Neutral Adversary and Public Advocate.

It would appear that the New Media is a bittersweet appearance in terms of the Public Advocate Model of media. On the one hand they are an incredible source of enlightenment, and an exciting one at that; there are a plethora of websites and news outlets that expand the horizons of knowledge to anyone who seeks it out. When it comes to the blogosphere, there are some flaws, especially when you consider the lack of authority and focus. Dan Gillmore, in his book we the media, quotes Chris Allbritton, an individual who raised money through his blog, as saying: “A blogger has to pick a topic and stick to it… most blogs are too unfocused (pg. 156).” But, popular blogs have thousands of readers and have just as much influence as an MSM outlet. The New Media’s ability in forming associations is unmatched. I think de Tocqueville would be proud of the New Media. Aside from the many websites revolving around political interests and associations, there are websites for dating, vacation ideas and astronomy to name but a few. So far so good. But if we compare further the New Media with the PA model, we find some holes. For one, there is really not that much debate across group lines on the Internet. The comments on the blogs are pretty much homogeneous and those who argue would be looked upon as trolls. When it comes to the characteristic to be a watchdog on the government, they also come up short. The government is extremely large and bureacratic, the New Media is more democratic and direct. So, even though there have been some cases of the blogosphere affecting the government, they are limited in scope. Gillmore brings the case of the Korean website, OhMyNews.com, which led to the election of a new president of the country.
When compared with the Traditional Media, I would have to say that even though the NM beats out the traditional in terms of the PA/TQ model, there are still some holes that the NM must yeild to the traditional sources. The most clear-cut difference is in the connections the MSM have with official sources of news. If we dive right into the blogosphere and remove MSM, to quote Jonathan Noble, this is the “death of authoritative information as we know it.” But you could also look at it as that you are entrusting the knowledge of mankind back to the people; so it could go two ways. But even Gillmore is wary of the NM in this regard and view the job of the traditional journalists to be a filter. “The job of the journalist, more than ever, is to be a filter.” The traditional journalists are to keep their prior connections to the government, but there has to be a shift in medial thought, almost a revolution. In order for the NM to have enough political muscle as the traditional media is if they develop relationships with politicians, and this would only happen if politicians, as busy as they are, find time to go online and chat with constituents – the makers of the NM.
The potential for the New Media to develop into the Public Advocate Model of Mass Media, as I said before, they would need to have Congress become more interactive and democratic. This is because an important aspect of the PA model is the interaction the media has with the government and to advocate for the people. In the case of NM, where the media is the people, there need to be a breakdown somewhat of formality and professionalism within the government and the media. I am not sure how feasible this will be since status plays a big role. So, when Kevin Sites created a blog when he was in Iraq, his mother company, CNN made him stop it because they felt it wasn’t professional enough (Gillmore, Chapter 6). MSNBC welcomed it though; so there is some hope. In a way, they could become more connected with politicians. For example, “Counselor Tobin got himself known out there with his daily video blog – and his electorate got to know him a lot better than his opponents who had mere texts (Class Discussion, 11/27/06).” If other politicians were to do this, then the NM could be entertaining while enlightening the viewers. If it would also be possible for there to develop in the future a blog specifically designed to bring together different points of view, this would work incredibly well for the PA and Tocquevillian model. However, McChesney warns us as to the possibility of the Big Media pulling the carpet from under our legs, so to speak. “If media firms are allowed to become vastly larger they will in effect be handed tremendous power to shape how NM technologies are developed… (McChesney, pg. 217).” We have to be wary of Big Media even in the New Media.
In conclusion, the combonation of the Public Advocacy Model and the Tocquville Model of Mass Media seems to be the standard to which MSM and New Media should be judged. It incorporates entertainment with true, lively debate and should work well to create an informed polity who will act effectively in a democracy such as ours. The MSM have not really lived up to that standard as they have come under the umbrella of massive corporations and are on friendly terms with politicians. The consequences for this have been many lost lives in Iraq due to the timidity the media felt in questioning the motives of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war. New Media seems to be on the rise, but we can’t take traditional journalism out of the picture so long as they still have access to the primary sources of news. Although the NM have a Tocquevillian character to them, they still are too vast to fit his description of the media being easily accessable. The NM also must work on its ability to cross group lines and steer clear of Big Media. When writing about the future of New Media, Dan Gillmore hypothesizes: “Only one thing is certain: we’ll all be astounded by what’s to come (Gillmore, pg. 158).”

Bush: We're not wining, we're not losing

Neturei Karta Propaganda

Yesterday I completed a report on the Neturei Karta. Strange ocurence yet again, there was an article about their actions in this morning's paper. The Neture Karta are an anti-Zionist group of Ultra-Orthodox Jews who use every instance to gain press coverage. They broke off from another anti-Zionist group, Agudat Yisrael, back in 1935 when they found their views to be too lienient with respect to the Zionists.

A while ago we had a class in the way Adolf Hitler and Goerring used propaganda to amplify their ideas. Eerily, in the same way, this group prides itself on propagandistic means of communication. What is interesting to note however, is that they have a miniscule following. The question I would like to address is how this is possible if their only means of communion with others rests in the propagandistic realm?

Rabbi Norman Lamm explained, when he wrote an article back in 1971 for the Tradition Journal, that their claims are not of the logical and rational type. To argue with them would be fruitless since they play stricly on the emotive aspects of people. You can't defeat them through debate. Perhaps, now, one can draw a distinction between propaganda that has some rationale behind it and plays into what people already believe, but "merely" deceives them and twists their already present ideals; and propaganda that is based solely on the partisan views of the authors. The latter, I would like to claim, don't really catch on or draw an audience. That is one of the primary reasons the methods of the Neturei Karta are not working; they are too partisan.

However,one could cast some doubt on whether they even want to attract a following. They believe that they are the "true" servants of God and will be redeemed at the end of days while everyone else will not. They want to feel proud of their special status; so perhaps that is the reason their propaganda methodology is to incite and irk ire, rather than convince.

Times Square - Center For New Media

Yesterday I had the privelage of walking around Times Square with my family. I had my digital camera with me for the first time in a while, so I was able to take some pictures and feel like a real tourist. I got some shots of the glitzzy lights and billboards and even of my little brother with the Charmin Bear. It was fun and exciting.

This morning back at Yeshiva, I noticed on the front page of the NY Times an article that jumped right out at me. I felt like I was living in a Tocquvillian world, receiving a detailed report of information I had just pondered hours before. I don't often go down to Times Square, yet, here it was, right before my eyes, the following headline: Times Square Ads Spread Via Tourists' Cameras. The article even goes so far as to describe someones experience that sounded quite familiar, "One blog post last week, “Der New York Trip Part II”, written in German, shows a young couple posing with the Charmin bear."

I am not posting about the coincidence of it all, I would rather like to look at the article and its thesis, that advertisers in Times Square are using the New Media to reach potential consumers. "As a result of the growing popularity of consumer-generated pictures, videos and e-mail messages on Internet sites like YouTube and Myspace, advertisers are getting consumers to essentially do their jobs for them (article)." We discussed in class a while back that the original reason (and funding) for the newspaper industry was for advertising. Local companies and businesses would submit their ads to the publishing company and thereby retrive local consumers. Consequently, one would assume, as the corporate industry "goes global", so should the advertising. And that is exactly what has happened. "On sites like YouTube, Flickr and MySpace, an army of tourists and residents are spreading advertisers’ messages well beyond Manhattan, using their cell phones and video cameras as they walk through the marketing crossroads of the world (article)." Just last night, I wanted to take a picture of the shimmering lights from where the ball is to drop New Years' Night. I didn't get the lights, but I did get a blazing blue ad for Prudential! (inset) The article relates the following ploy designed by GE: "In April, General Electric rented nine digital billboards in Times Square and displayed photos of people passing by. People on the street photographed themselves standing below the billboards when their images appeared. Soon, those images were circulating online." GE now has instant advertising literally the world over, on the New Media, of course.

Louise Story, the reporter of this article, I believe is acting in Leighley's "Objective Fact" model of media. "The mass media are merely a conduit for information, tools used by citizens and government officials to expand their scope of vision or communication, not active participants in the communication process (pg. 9)." They are merely stating what is out there on the street, literally.

The retort to Leighley from the New Media is glaring. "We are the channel of communication, we are the newspapers and we are the advertisers - come to us, the wave of the future."

"Every Citizen is a Reporter"

OhMyNews.com

This website has been accredited with having helped elect South Korea's current president, Roh Moo Hyun. How did this website begin and how did it get so big? In Chapter Six of We The Media, Dan Gillmor attempts to answer this question. He says that it was begun by a man named Oh Yeon Ho (inset) of South Korea. It's basic premise is the paradigm of Gillmor's book: "every citizen can be a reporter (pg. 126)." So, Oh went to Regent University in the US to get his master's degree and returned to South Korea with the bright idea of OhMyNews.com. Gillmor says the reason it gained so much prestige so quickly was because it was one of the first of its kind in South Korea and because the country of South Korea, unlike the US, is more enmeshed with the Internet. "It's a weird nation; more than two-thirds of households are connected to the Internet, most with high-speed links. The Internet is an always-on part of everyday life, not an afterthought (pg. 126)."

The Pew Internet and American Life Project came out with a report in October of 2004 that looked into a possible corrolation between people's access to the Internet and their political interest, specifically in the 2004 Presidential Campaign. The report presents its argument based on the condition of studying Internet use independent of other possible sources of political awareness. Although they do admit to the possiblity that "Internet use is not the only factor associated with exposure to a wide range of political arguments. Education levels... are among other factors tied to the number of points of view people encounter (pg. 3)."

I decided to see for myself if this was possible drawing on South Korea as a reference point. In other words, is it even worth it to measure the impact of the Internet while disregarding other factors that could cause political awareness? I decided to check out the graduation rate of South Korea to perhaps hypothesize as to a correlation between that rate and political involvement, which would be measured by involvement in OhMyNews.com. According to the Charlotte Observer, The high school graduation rate among 25-34 year olds is a staggering 97%. According to the article, South Korea is more homogeneous that the US and the economic divide is smaller, but they used to be on the bottom of the totem pole, now they're on top. I would like to suggest a correlation, although this is mere speculation and requires further research. A reason the population of South Korea are so interested in politics and worked together to help elect Hyun (inset), is because of the site OhMyNews.com, however, this interest is due in no small measure to the educational system present in South Korea; and it should not be discounted as not affecting the Internet involvement.

The Wave of the Future

Dan Gillmor's book, We The Media, has been illuminating. In Chapter Six he discusses the requiem for editorial intervention in the blogosphere. "I believe in the mission of journalism and fear that serious investigative reporting will diminish, and perhaps nearly dissappear, if big newspapers and other serious outlets wither (pg. 111)." In context, he says that he admires the concept of the blogosphere and that it is the proverbial "dawn" of a new kind of media, namely, New Media, he does however, feel that traditional media is necessary, if only for their (relative)attentiveness to "fairness, accuracy and thoroughness (pg. 134)." "But the vital bottom line would be in improving the news reporting for everyone (pg. 123)."

The reason I said before that Gillmor's book has been illuminating was specifically because of the content of the book. I feel much more knowledgable about what exactly is out there on the web merely thanks to his off-handed citation of sites. I decided to surf through some of the sites he cites and see for myself if they are as ideal as he said.

Gillmor's site, Backfence, is a "many to many" site. In other words, its not like the sites we have for this class where one person authors a blog and others comment, but his site uses technology that allows people to post blogs onto the site itself. Gillmor's site is dedicated to his hometown of Sunnyvale and Silicon Valley. It lists as index titles: Community, Arts & Living, Sports, and Crime Log. What's the point of such a site? To give members of the community a sense of place, belonging and be what Aristotle classed all humans as: zoon politikon. "I'd like to see news organizations encourage 'citizen reporting' by people who want to cover some broadly defined aspect of community life (pg. 122)." There is a clear difference in terms of the tone of the pieces in Gillmor's blog. When Dan posts an entry, it is written like a professional journalist, clear, focused, andwell-written. This is his job as the professional even in these sites! -to be the moderator. "The job of the journalist, more than ever, is to be a filter (pg. 125)." In other words, a journalist in the New Media, according to Gillmor, is not just another blogger, but rather plays a pivotal role in the management of the NM. He is the "filter", viz. the editor. He still is the proffesional source of the news and bloggers would be nowhere without them. In fact, it is the Big Media themseves who make bloggers so successful. A case-in-point is Chris Allbritton. Allbritton appealed to his readership for funds to travel to Iraq to cover the war from the field. Over the course of three months, he got about $500, not bad. However, when his quest was reported by the MSM, his site viewers "went through the roof" and altogether raked in $14,500! New Media still needs Old Media.

Getting back to intonation. I said before that Gillmor's voice is clearly that of a reporter. But a "citizen reporter" is much more amateur, naturally: "I had briefly heard on the radio about Gunn High School receiving an award for being an environmentally friendly 'business or organization' as part of a Palo Alto program." He could have taken out the word "had" and made the reporting seem more objective, for example, by saying, "It was reported by 'so and so station' that...". But, as I said, its only natural, even essential. I would like to expland briefly on intonation.

An essential characteristic of NM is its intonation. Its more like a Town Hall meeting than a formal seminar; people are talking to each other. And even though it is common knowledge that people write differently than they speak (usually for the better), perhaps the advent of the Internet and specifically the non-formal method of IMs and E-Mails where "I" is replaced by "i" and abbreviations are prevalent (eg. nm, gtg, ttyl, asap, IM, etc), make modern "writing" more like talking.

Gillmor relates an incident regarding CNN reporter Kevin Sites. When CNN found out he had a personal blog on Iraq, they forced him to abort it using the excuse, "We do not blog (pg. 116)." But what is it about the blogosphere that so repels Traditional Media? According to Gillmor, its the "innate conservatism of the Big Media business (pg. 114)." So what's so "revolutionary about New Media"? Obviously the answer is its openness, but alongside that is its lack of discipline specifically, I believe in the realm of rhetoric. Articles are credible becuause the people writing them invested the time to make them intelligent sounding. Much of what is out there in the New Media is just noise. That is what repels the Big Media. I can understand that. But what Gillmor is suggesting by his quoting Tim Levell's comparison of the professional journalist as a filter is that the synthesis of professional journalism and New Media will produce true Tocquevillian Media that is accurate, sharp, reliable and... well written.

Good Job Ricks!

... on second thought, maybe not.

Last week, Washington Post reporter Thomas E. Ricks wrote an article that could definitely build up some contention in the following weeks. He reported on a "super-secret" meeting within the Joint Chiefs of Staff in which they decided on a course for Iraq. There were a few plans on the drawing board. One was to send in many more troops in a short amount of time; two was to send in more troops, but in a long-term fashion; and three was complete withdrawal.

"The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said."

That is what the MSM reported that the government is planning to do. The Post was acting in the neutral adversary role of media, according to the criteria of Jan Leighly: "In this model, the primary role of the press is to discover 'truth' and act as a check on government (pg. 10)." This is clearly what Mr. Ricks did.

Is what Mr. Ricks did wrong? For this I would like to turn to Steven Aftergood. Although he has not published anything on his site as of yet relating to this leak, I would like to hypothesize as to what he would say. I wrote in an earlier entry relating to the talk Mr. Aftergood delivered at Yeshiva University, "His primary point and the basis for which he conducts his work, is what he called “proportion”; that there does exist a boundary between what we should know, and what we shouldn’t know..." Mr. Aftergood categorized different levels of secrecy. One of those level he termed, "Genuine National Secrecy". I believe this secret meeting among the Joint Chiefs falls under that category and should not have been revealed. What would happen if an Iraqi were to read it and tell his friends? Let's see, since Mr. Ricks tells us directly: "That combination plan, which one defense official called 'Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long,' could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the United States to moonwalk out of Iraq -- that is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding backward. 'If we commit to that concept, we have to accept upfront that it might result in the opposite of what we want,' the official said."

If I were the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I would probably be incensed about this leak to the press. "The Pentagon group's proceedings are so secret that officials asked to help it have not even been told its title or mandate (Ricks Article)." And for the reason as to why Mr. Ricks felt he was entitled to reproduce the information: "...in recent days the circle of those with knowledge of its deliberations has widened beyond a narrow group working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Ok, so the circle of knowledge was widened to a few more senior intelligence officials - with clearence - and ok - you've already won the Pulitzer Prize, but what gives you the right to reproduce such sensitive information!?

What will happen? Only time will tell, and of course, government bureacracy.

Lapdogs? You Bet They Were

I had a hard time finding specifically negative reviews about Eric Boehlert's book, Lapdogs (May, 2006). I came across many positive reviews and interviews with Mr. Boehlert from numerous sources all acclaiming him, but not so much criticism. For me, this could be for one of two reasons. One, he is right - the press, throughout the Bush Administration generally, and at the approach to the war in Iraq specifically, were lacking in the charcteristic of courage and in it's stead, placed timidity. Boehlert cited an interview from Harball with Chris Matthews with Jim Lehrer as saying that it was not possible for journalists to forsee the messy aftermath of the Iraqi Liberation Operation. He claimed as well that its not fair to charge reporters with the mishap since the rhetoric coming out of the White House (which according to Ms. Leighly is the primary source for official news) kept referring to the upcoming war as "Liberation" and not "Occupation":

Lehrer: I do. The word "occupation," keep in mind, Chris, was never mentioned in the run-up to the war. It was "liberation." So as a consequence, those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation.

Matthews: Because?


Lehrer: Because it just didn't occur to us. We weren't smart enough to do it. I agree. I think it was a dereliction of our -- in retrospective.

The second reason there is not much negative reviews on Lapdogs could be found in the review written by Michael Getler (who Boehlert actually quotes as a protagonist) for the Washington Post:

"Unfortunately, Lapdogs may be easy for some to write off: It has flaws that too often overwhelm the valuable research and provocative analysis that Boehlert has assembled...


One obvious failing is that a book by a journalist attacking the press ought to have included some responses from editors and reporters who disagree with Boehlert's conclusions. There is basically none of that here. "Another defect is that Lapdogs too frequently appears overtly political; the book is written as though a cadre of Bill Clinton's defenders were its editors."

The basic premise here is that the book was written not so
much as a professional criticism of the media, but more of a polemic. Getler goes on to say that the claims that Boehlert make assume that he knew what was going on in the minds of the journalists and their supervisors. Getler retorts and says that those editors may not have had any deliberate motives in mind, but could have just made honest mistakes:

"One big problem, however -- especially at this newspaper -- was that these challenging stories were far too often run inside the paper rather than on the front page. Other stories that challenged the whole premise of an invasion were simply missed or minimized.

"So does that mean that the editors who made those calls were pro-Bush or cowed by the aftermath of Sept. 11, fiery right-wing bloggers, conservative broadcasters and a mean White House press strategy? Or did some editors simply exercise poor news judgment or lack the experience or determination to make sure that nothing was left unsaid, unchallenged or uncovered? Or were they convinced that a war with Iraq was coming and were too focused on getting ready to cover it? "


He adds to this the fact that the general atmosphere at the time was that the Iraqi Administration under Hussein was something insidious and was thought dangerous for over a decade. Reporters might have went along with it because they were not ready to start trying to push off the inevitable war with Iraq.

At the end, though, Getler praises the book and says that "maybe something else was indeed going on in America's newsrooms. If so, Boehlert's book will prove to be the most well-researched and well-argued one I've yet seen about the darker side of why the press failed."