MEDIA CONSOLIDATION: A MAJOR THREAT TO DEMOCRACY
Before discounting the idea that media consolidation is dangerous, remember that in every coup one of the first things to go is control of radio, television and independent newspapers. In the United States, a military takeover is unlikely. Here the takeover must be more subtle and done through things like consolidating media ownership.
Why is this important? Because those who own the media decide what we hear and see. As Robert Perry said:
“There is no more effective way to short-circuit democracy than to get large segments of the population to buy into a made-up reality, while keeping other citizens so uncertain of the truth that they are politically paralyzed.”
After three decades as a Washington journalist, Perry came to the conclusion that mass media was being used to convince the American populace that reality is something it isn’t. The distorted reality they are selling rewrites history, promotes fear, and ridicules those who try to point out the truth.
How do they do this? They use “false narrative” created by taking a kernel of truth and twisting and changing it to tell a different story. The twisted version is then circulated through the media, first by its authors and then by the mainstream “journalists” who repeat it over and over without checking its veracity. A journalist is supposed to be a person who gathers and disseminates information about current events, trends, issues and people. Once there was an entire industry of professional journalists who worked diligently to ferret out the facts, then offer a clear perspective on what they found. If they had an agenda, it was to oppose institutional secrecy and call public attention to abuses of power.
What changed? Media consolidation took root and began to grow. The owners of media outlets set policy just as any business owner does. But media is different from other businesses because it has the power to push its owners’ agendas in ways subtle and manipulative. And it changes the nature of journalism as journalists become employees first and reporters second, (if at all) making them complicit or afraid of losing their careers.
The results were: Information provided as a public service, was largely abandoned. Integrity in reporting ceased to matter. Profitability for media owners became the priority. Real news became a rareity and sensational speculation took its place. Sound analysis became passe and false narratives became the order of the day. A new reality was created in which the “truth” was whatever media owners said it was and what they said was based on what they wanted to achieve – destroy a career, elect a sympathetic candidate, or even start a war.
Al Gore is an example of how false narrative is used and its damaging and lasting effects. Not particularly a Gore fan, it still took only light research to understand that much of the public’s perception of Gore is based on false information which has painted him as a traitor, a liar, and a lunatic.
The traitor label surfaced during the run up to the 2000 election: The basis for this false narrative was the 1999 Cox report stemming from a Republican-controlled congressional investigation of China’s thefts of significant nuclear secrets. The investigation actually showed that the worst of the national security breaches took place during the Reagan-Bush administration. But the report overview “gave the impression” that Clinton-Gore were responsible. National news media ran with this mix of misrepresentation and outright lies. Republican backed campaign ads continued and reinforced the false narratives and sent millions of Americans to the voting booth in November 2000 believing that Gore was linked to Chinese nuclear spying.
The “Liar” label started with an unimportant issue in 1977: Gore said he believed he and his wife had served as models for the lead characters in the sentimental bestseller and movie, Love Story. The author, Erich Segal, said the preppy hockey-playing male lead, was indeed modeled after Gore and Gore's Harvard roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones but the female lead, Jenny, was not modeled after Tipper Gore. [NYT, Dec. 14, 1997] Even though Segal confirmed that Gore was, at least partly, the inspiration for the lead character, the media continually misstated the facts saying that Segal had denied Gore was the model. The news media reported it as if Gore had willfully lied and the seed was planted for the perception that Gore told self-aggrandizing lies. This misinformation was not corrected even by those journalists who recognized it was misleading.
The “Liar” label was further enhanced with the “created the internet” false narrative in 1999: Gore's statement may have been poorly phrased, but its intent was clear: he was trying to say that he worked in Congress to help develop the Internet. Gore was the leader in Congress on efforts that helped to create the Internet that we know today. Vinton Cerf, often called "the father of the Internet," and futurist Newt Gingrich, have both publicly vouched for Gore's role in helping to shepherd the Internet to life. The media asserted that Gore claimed he had invented the Internet, that he was the “father of the Internet.” They ignored the first part of what he said which put his statement in the context of his congressional service. While condemning Gore's words as exaggeration, the media itself indulged in gross exaggerations.
In November 1999 the Love Canal controversy added delusional to the liar label : Gore speaking to a group of high school students in Concord, N.H. gave the example of a high school girl from Toone, Tennessee, a town with toxic waste problems, who in the late 1970s, brought the issue to the attention of Gore's congressional office. Gore called for a congressional investigation and a hearing including other sites such as a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. The context of Gore's comment was clear. What sparked his interest in the toxic-waste issue was the situation in Toone – “that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all."
The media pattern of distortion went into high gear putting a false quote into Gore's mouth and then went from there to questioning his sanity. Taking his statement completely out of context and even rewording it, in the space of one day, the quote went from “that was the one that started it all” to “I was the one who started it all.” The offense of the media in this case is so egregious it boggles the mind. Newspapers, TV commentators and pundits went after Gore with a vengeance. The Washington Post, especially political writer Ceci Connolly, New York Times, New York Post, The Buffalo News, Washington Times, George Stephanopoulos, and Cokie Roberts, all went after him. Chris Matthews, on Hardball, holds the dubious honor of leading the pack with twelve percent of all the statements regarding Gore’s exaggeration, and seventeen percent of the statements about Gore’s ties to scandal coming from his show alone. These sources were either knowingly dishonest or they are too incompetent to ever be believed again.
This kiss of death on Gore’s honesty actually proves not his dishonesty but that of the media, showing them to be unprofessional and undeserving of trust. Even after the quote was acknowledged to be wrong, the words continued to be repeated, again becoming part of Gore's record. And this false quote was used to recycle the other situations in which Gore allegedly exaggerated his role or, as some writers put it, told "bold-faced lies."
Why did they go after Gore so unmercifully? No real answer has ever been determined. Some say it was “Clinton payback” some say it was to elect Bush, others simply attribute it to dislike of Gore who was perceived as uncooperative with the press. Regardless of why, the important thing to recognize is the damage the media can and did do without regard for the truth or any sense of duty to the public. About fifty percent of Americans said that Gore's tendency to lie or exaggerate would make them "less likely" to vote for him. A “tendency” created by the media!
How can we make informed decisions as voters if the media presents honest and sincere candidates as dishonest and delusional? The National press showed disdain and contempt for Gore during the 2000 election campaign. As Eric Pooley stated, “The press… engaged in stunning misconduct” trashing Gore. The reporters’ behavior showed a complete lack of respect for the simple standards of professional conduct and it also exposed their refusal to own up to their own attitudes and conduct. Those who used the power of the media to denigrate Gore as well as those who aided and abetted them are a poor representation of what once was America’s free press and an industry of professionals.
If we allow today’s parody of a free press to continue, if we support newspapers and TV shows filled with inconsequential celebrity scandals and manipulative political half truths then we surrender our beliefs and opinions to the dictates of corporate owned media.
If we want a free press we will have to fight to get it back.
Comments
Excellent piece Trish! You put your finger on one of the greatest threats to our nation at present, a crooked media. And if not “totally” crooked, than mediocre, uninformed, biased and self –serving corporate directed misinformation. As you say, it is usually the first step taken by a dishonest government, controlling the media, the major source of information to the citizenship.
Is it just a coincidence how frequently it seems to come back to corporations? They came up with a tricky line in commercials about perception being reality, and it’s the very strategy they employ to misinform us about our reality.
It begs the question as to why? Who and what is trying to replace the Republic with their own rule? How high and how far does it reach? These are questions Americans had better start asking themselves, and real soon! It won't take much longer for reality to be taken out of their hands altogether!
Posted by: Stephen | January 14, 2008 11:38 PM
There was a comment posted to this blog on another site that contained a transcript from a November 2007 Chris Matthews show regarding the participants in the political debates. The transcript contained some very revealing statements. One that particularly struck me was by Howard Kurtz. He said:” "Obviously, to put the three or four top tier candidates on a stage, limited to somebody who might plausibly occupy the Oval Office would be a great service to the American people.."
By what stretch of the imagination would it be “a great service to the American people” for network executives to decide for them who is a plausible candidate? In what galaxy does the decision of who would make a good president fall under the purview of people who think when it comes to news, that Briteny Spears’ latest escapade takes precedence over genocide in Darfur? Why would anyone trust the word or judgment of someone like Chris Matthews, who has shown his dishonesty regarding candidates’ character and qualifications - or if not outright dishonesty, at least his total incompetence in checking facts as in the case of Gore mentioned above.
This tactic of giving a noble sounding motive - "great service to the American people" - to an action that is not only not noble but is contrary to the true purpose of journalism is found over and over in media broadcasts. Such subtle mind bending goes unnoticed by the majority of people who do not filter what they hear on TV but nonetheless absorb impressions. These impressions plant seeds in the mind which are nurtured by other impressions and eventually sprout into a "belief" that is based on… surprise! … a series of impressions with no real facts to back them up.
Such is the power and the danger of a contaminated and corrupt media.
Posted by: trish | January 17, 2008 03:18 PM
I have come to believe that most news broadcasters, faux news broadcasters, political pundits, talking heads, etc., are essentially mediocre people with overblown egos, limited critical thinking ability, and a complete disregard for the task of the media, which one would expect to be informing the public. Today, these people are more interested in making news than reporting or investigating it. This is very, very dangerous indeed.
Posted by: Renee G | January 20, 2008 08:37 AM
Renee, your evaluation of media people is borne out by a recent poll. It is actually encouraging to see that people are waking up to the lack of credibility of the media which declined from 29.2% in 2000 to 24.6% in 2004 to a current low of only19.6% of Americans who believe “all or most” of what they see and read in the national news media. Perhaps this awakening will translate to fewer viewers, which in turn means fewer dollars for corporate media. And we all know that a declining bottom line is the one thing that makes corporate America sit up and take notice. If only people would realize the power they hold in their remote controls and their voices!
Posted by: Trish | January 20, 2008 11:02 AM