# Does the American media cower from authority? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556 "2003-06-26T17:09:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/1 "2003-06-26T17:09:10Z")
In the thread about [fighting ignorance in America](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=193086), I contended that the American media does not do a good job of informing Americans about foreign policy. I was looking through some articles, and came across this column from a BBC correspondent in Washington who contends that American reporters are willing to accept the word of an authority figure much more so than British media. [His depiction](http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=418401) makes it seem that U.S. reporters cower from authority. The reporter claims that this is a reflection of the U.S. culture, in which we are taught to accept the words of authority figures. Anyhoo, it’s not a rosy picture if it’s true that we’re getting all our news from reporters too timid to question authority, or too lazy to have all the facts to question an authority figure’s statement. And, you have to ask yourself, if this is an accurate picture, why is it that they media outlets accept this type of work from their reporters? Any Reporting 101 student can tell you that it’s important to be prepared and ask followup questions. Some excerpts. I bolded some parts I found particularly interesting. > [@](#): > > We ask the questions > > It took a British journalist to put the American Defence Secretary on the spot. Why, asks Justin Webb, are the US media so timorous? > > 24 June 2003 > My favourite weapons-of-mass-destruction moment came at a Pentagon briefing a few weeks ago. Just as the storm over the failure to find said weapons was breaking in Britain, deep in the bowels of the Pentagon one of the deputies of the Defence Secretary, \*\*Donald Rumsfeld, was asked a potentially tricky question on the subject. His imperious response: “I’m not here to answer that.” > > And, lo and behold, he didn’t. And nobody complained about it.\*\* > > … > > Just before the Iraq war, David Dimbleby came to Washington to interview Donald Rumsfeld. They talked for half an hour. As you would expect, the questioning was persistent, forensic. Americans who heard the interview were shocked. The world’s most powerful nation does not have the world’s most powerful press. Specifically, it has no daily forum for the close questioning of politicians - no Today programme, no Channel 4 News, no Newsnight. > > Incredibly - in this cultural and political superpower, in this supposed beacon of world freedom - radio stations were reduced to running interviews with experts from the BBC on their airwaves; a plucky station in Boston laid on an hour-long discussion and phone-in to follow the broadcast, during which I had to explain to the listeners that this kind of thing happened all the time in Britain. > > What surprised people most was the style. Mr Rumsfeld’s answers were followed up. His reasoning was tested. He was put on the spot and not allowed to leave it. When Dimbleby asked him why he had repeatedly referred to the “so-called” occupied territories of the West Bank, Mr Rumsfeld said he might have done it once but certainly not repeatedly. > > Dimbleby had the dates and occasions in front of him. The Defence Secretary was forced to concede the point. > > **What a far cry it was from the Donald Rumsfeld Americans know and love. Strutting his stuff on the Pentagon podium, Mr Rumsfeld is lord and master of all he surveys. The Defence hacks titter nervously at each other and hope to get off with as light a beating as possible. Difficult questions are avoided; difficult questioners are lampooned. Anyone who persists is taken out and beaten senseless. (I made that up, but the atmosphere is genuinely one of laughing menace; a truly independent spirit would not enjoy being a Pentagon correspondent. The Today programme’s Andrew Gilligan would not get through the door.)** > > So why the transatlantic journalistic rift? Are American journalists simply spineless? Do they toe the line because they love the President? Or because their employers do? > > The answer, I think, is more complex. **Americans in all walks of life have a respect for authority that the cynical Brits jettisoned somewhere around the time of Profumo and Christine Keeler.** Americans, remember, still go to church. For all their rhetoric of freedom, there is nevertheless an acceptance of a higher power here in the United States. And an acceptance, too, of unimpeachable motives. President Bush, you may remember, declared the Iraq war won while on board a US aircraft carrier out in the Pacific Ocean. He flew to it on a navy jet, emerging with his flight suit on, looking for all the world like the Top Gun that he never was. I watched the performance live on US television and marvelled at the difference in coverage that there would have been on a British TV channel for a British prime minister attempting the same stunt. > > \*\*Only once did the anchor people remark to each other - in the most delicate fashion - that the pictures would likely be used by the Bush team during next year’s election. > > Likely be used! The whole thing was set up for political use - it had no other purpose.\*\* The President could have stepped on board the carrier on shore; but it had been slowed down to make sure that it was still at sea. > > … > > If a President’s motives are generally considered worthy until proved otherwise, the same can be said of the President’s appointments. When he appoints a Defence Secretary, your average American is willing to believe that this man or woman is worthy of trust, worthy of respect. He or she is the choice of the President. **The journalists charged with the task of questioning the President and his advisers must work within the bounds of a culture that is willing to give national leaders the benefit of the doubt.** Even after Watergate. Even after Monica Lewinsky. Even after Wag the Dog. > > That’s why the BBC’s Correspondent programme caused a minor sensation here when it questioned the veracity of the Jessica Lynch story. Lynch was the 19-year-old West Virginia soldier taken prisoner by the Iraqis and rescued by US special forces during the war. At the time, Pentagon sources said - and the American media reported - that Lynch had fought back against the Iraqis; that she had been stabbed and shot; that she had been abused in hospital. > > The BBC team went to the hospital and heard a different story. Her injuries, according to the Iraqis, were caused by a car accident; after the accident, she had been brought to the hospital and treated well. The “rescue” had been unnecessary; the doctors had been trying for some time to hand her back. > > **It does not matter which story is true. The issue is that there were conflicting accounts but the American media overwhelmingly chose to report the Pentagon’s version as fact.** > > … > > It’s still the case, though, that the US media have not covered themselves in glory in recent weeks. And I am glad to be able to report that the Bush administration is properly grateful. \*\*I went to see the Vice-President make a speech a few nights ago. He finished with a reference to the war in Iraq, telling his audience: “You did well - you have my thanks.” > > Were these troops or government officials he was addressing? Neither, in fact: the occasion was the annual dinner of the American Radio and Television Correspondents Association.\*\* > > It’s all very, very cosy. No wonder the BBC table was No 148. Next to the lavatories and the emergency exit. > > Justin Webb is Washington correspondent for the BBC ---
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/2 "2003-06-26T18:07:36Z")
Another [article](http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1446&mode=thread&order=0), this one attempting to explain why American reporters are willing to go with the company line. Two portions: > [@](#): > > Bill Falk observed: “Here when you enter into the New York Times or the Washington Post, it’s entering into a cathedral. Journalists – particularly the commentators and the named journalists are the high priests of the profession, and we worship the truth, and there’s this sense that in our country the truth is a quantifiable, objective deity that you can put borders around and say ‘well, this is the truth and that’s opinion.’” > Such observations touch upon just a few of the characteristics that make up a larger social and cultural phenomenon that acts as a kind of “default setting” for American journalism – those foundational, philosophical and moral beliefs that are used to divine what has come to be perceived by a majority as the “truth” or “objectivity.” > This “default setting” is best defined by simply stating its most common, and largely tacit, assumptions. > · Democracy and capitalism are the ultimate realizations of political and economic systems. This is arguably the bedrock of American journalism. This belief commonly manifests itself in the distrust and marginalization of any person or country that is neither and a hyper-reverence for anything that is. > · The United States is the rightful enforcer of global order. The fact that the U.S. wanders the globe establishing a military presence essentially anywhere it wishes, policing and disciplining small countries that commit the smallest offense, and consistently offending the sovereignty and cultural identity of host nations is never questioned on its face. It is allowable to debate “how” this process should proceed, but never its very existence or legal or political basis. > · The world needs to be helped by the U.S. This assumption is quite nuanced because the real meaning is not that those under duress need emotional and material aid to get back on their feet again (charity, assistance) but that much of the world is a “failure,” and because of this, the U.S. is compelled, though reluctantly, to straighten them out. So this “help” isn’t the giving of food to a poor country (of course, this is done, but only along with subsidies) but instead is the overthrow of a government seen undesirable by Washington. Such a philosophy is perfectly captured by Henry Kissinger’s comments regarding Chile, “I don’t see why we should have to stand by and let a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.” Very rarely do corporate journalists ask, “What right do we have to be there in the first place?” > · The process known innocuously as “globalization” (really, in economic terms, a kind of global and fully deregulated, free-market capitalism) is at once beneficial, in fact needed by the communities of the world, and an egalitarian system of modernization. To argue that “globalization” is a class sensitive benefactor – enriching the rich and weakening the poor – or to question its legitimacy or long-term economical soundness is anathema to American media. Of course, to challenge globalization is essentially to challenge capitalism. > > · America knows best. Regardless of who is involved, how distant the land or the people, or the actual stake the American people have in a given “crisis” or “situation,” the United States government is the sole, most reputable, and most complete source of enlightenment on the subject. This assumption is highlighted by both the American media’s and American people’s general distrust, if not open contempt, for virtually all foreign governments and foreign media. (This is also partially caused by the overt rise in nationalism over the past two years.) > · Imperialism is a thing of the past and no longer exists even in a hybridized form. This is, perhaps, the most laughable of all the assumptions that one must be so careful not to disrupt in polite conversation. > These attributes saturate current American journalism and are the reason many journalists, news agencies, and people around the world take the American media less and less seriously and strongly question its impartiality – especially when American commentators and journalists speak so profoundly of the truth and objectivity while throwing around supposed facts from the Pentagon or State Department so carelessly. > [@](#): > > It’s as if an unspoken rule is that any decent journalist should just accept what the United States government public relations branch tells them and that to question openly or conspicuously what one is being told crosses into “advocacy journalism” – even when what one is being told is absolute nonsense. This, combined with a dogmatic view of “the truth” and the paranoia surrounding the concept of “opinion,” has led to the phenomenon of American news outlets sincerely believing they are fair, balanced, and objective without interjecting any spin or bias, when, in fact, they are bastions of advocacy, selectivity, and slant. As a complement to this, it’s a frequently employed technique to label counter arguments or views as “opinion.” > > In this light, then, there is a strong parallel with Washington’s foreign policy, as both American journalism and foreign policy seem to exude a distinct air of infallibility accompanied by an even more marked contempt for the opinions of organizations and individuals who conceptualize and think differently. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/3 "2003-06-26T18:39:48Z")
I believe it is worth noting that, at least in political journalism, the coin of the realm is “access”. A journalist’s standing in the food chain is determined by their level of access. Access is granted by the folks in power being questioned. The current administration gives the impression of being quite open about threatening to cut off access to any journalist who “strays too far.” The result is a meek press media. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/4 "2003-06-26T18:56:35Z")
I have a relative who is rather high up in the media heirarchy (you undoubtedly know his ever-so-slightly bent face) who suggests that it’s not so simple. Some agencies and reporters do jostle for access, and they are willing to kowtow to get it. But others are just lazy or cost-saving: it’s easier to re-type warring press-releases and cover press conferences than it is to go out and get a story. In my opinion, the everyday “press” is becoming more and more the “regurgitated press release.” ---
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/5 "2003-06-26T18:58:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Icarus \* > \*\*I believe it is worth noting that, at least in political journalism, the coin of the realm is “access”. A journalist’s standing in the food chain is determined by their level of access. Access is granted by the folks in power being questioned. The current administration gives the impression of being quite open about threatening to cut off access to any journalist who “strays too far.” The result is a meek press media. \*\* Yeah, if the goal of the journalist is to get the story “first,” this is a way to do it. Let it be known that you’ll unquestioningly report a source’s thoughts. This leads to a lot of anonymous sources with the understanding that the story is an exclusive, “insider” piece. But, when at a press conference, how many times did you see American reporters openly questioning a statement by Rumsfeld? Like in this example, where a Brit was interviewing Rummy: > [@](#): > > What surprised people most was the style. Mr Rumsfeld’s answers were followed up. His reasoning was tested. He was put on the spot and not allowed to leave it. When Dimbleby asked him why he had repeatedly referred to the “so-called” occupied territories of the West Bank, Mr Rumsfeld said he might have done it once but certainly not repeatedly. > > Dimbleby had the dates and occasions in front of him. The Defence Secretary was forced to concede the point. You just don’t see that in American journalism. Not often, anyway, and certainly not enough to give the American public a true picture of our government. I just have to believe that lazy, unchallenging journalists had to be a big reason that America was led to believe that Iraq was a major threat to our security. ---
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/6 "2003-06-26T19:08:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*I have a relative who is rather high up in the media heirarchy (you undoubtedly know his ever-so-slightly bent face) who suggests that it’s not so simple. Some agencies and reporters do jostle for access, and they are willing to kowtow to get it. But others are just lazy or cost-saving: it’s easier to re-type warring press-releases and cover press conferences than it is to go out and get a story. > > In my opinion, the everyday “press” is becoming more and more the “regurgitated press release.” \*\* You have to wonder why a media outlet puts up with this from its reporters. Why not demand more from your workers? OR … Is it that the corporate media doesn’t mind this style of journalism when it comes to covering foreign matters? Does the corporation owning the media outlet encourage reporters to question the nation’s leaders, or does it prefer a “patriotic” approach that results in providing our leaders a mouthpiece to the public in times of pending war? If a media corporation truly OPPOSED something, I’m certain its side would be properly covered in its pages or on the airwaves. The fact that this didn’t happen with the Iraqi war – there was almost zero news from the peacenik’s standpoint in the mainstream media – shows me that the media corporations had little to gain by avoiding a war. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/7 "2003-06-26T20:25:18Z")
…and your point would be?.. In one interpretation, you may say that the “product” of the news media is news and the “consumer” is the reader/viewer. In another interpretation, (looking at the financial model of the business) you may say that the “product” of the news media is viewers and the “consumer” is advertisers. The news media delivers viewers (customers, in the form of ratings) to advertisers (who pay the news publishers). So, if I’m the news media, in general, I don’t want to alienate my advertisers, and I don’t want to alienate my viewers. I keep the news within a generally accepted framework, and I don’t antagonize the public by antagonizing popular leaders with too many tough questions. I keep my finger to the wind and if it starts blowing the other direction, I follow. ---
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/8 "2003-06-26T21:26:51Z")
**Icarus** , my point is that our media has pretty much sold its soul in the name of capitalism. We have freedom of the press. But, what good is that if they don’t try to pursue all sides of the issue? How the heck did we just go to war under the auspices of stopping a brutal dictator from attacking us first with WMD? When there were no WMD. And, when said dictator didn’t plan to attack us. But, we don’t have a problem propping up dictators elsewhere, who brutalize their own population. And, the media doesn’t seem to care. Doesn’t even ask questions or draw comparisons. Or, does so rarely. My point is that the media should at least try to inform us, in good faith. They shouldn’t take their cues from our leaders. They should try to get us all the facts. They should work to give a broad range of views. Do we just say, “Oh well, they’re out to make a buck,” and not at least demand more from our press? The large media conglomerates are taking freedom of the press, and turning it into freedom to turn a buck. It’s difficult to swallow, but I don’t know how it will ever be fixed. Anyhoo, I go to the Internet to learn what’s really happening. I got to alternative sources to find other views. I have friends who are constantly posting information that you never see in the mainstream news. I just hope the Powers-That-Be don’t decide to censor the Internet and take over that form of communication, because it will turn into the same thing. It just makes me sad that we aren’t informed. How can you be a great nation, and have its people uninformed? Okay, that ends my rant. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/9 "2003-06-27T01:11:17Z")
\*\*Clucky, \*\* what’s equally sad is that no one \* has \* to be uninformed. There are countless books on any subject that’s currently in the news, and dozens, if not hundreds, of independent news organizations on the Web. Information is not kept from us-- it’s just not spoon-fed to the masses in the major media. To stay informed, you have to watch more than CNN, and you need to read more than \* USA Today. \* However, most people aren’t willing to do that. Simply put, most people just don’t care. A good portion of Americans don’t read even a mainstream newspaper, or watch the news on television. My husband teaches at our local university branch campus. Prior to the war, he took a poll of how many had read a newspaper or watched the news in the previous week. Very few hands were raised. Most got their “news” through word of mouth: what their co-workers, pastor, or friends had told them about current events. All had loud and firm opinions, though few knew the details. I think one of the factors that leads to this relative indifference to really knowing about what’s going on in the world is our nation’s wealth and stability. International turmoil doesn’t affect our daily lives, so it doesn’t seem relevent to some. There are no major changes in our government when administrations change, nor are there any economic crisises to keep people on the edge of their seats. The mainstream media has no desire to rock the boat. Hostile questions to the administration might lead to less access to politicians, and stories which might offend the corporate sponsors are utterly unthinkable. The purpose of a media outlet is to make money, pure and simple. A hot story might temporarily sell more papers, but if it makes a sponsor pull its ads, that could be a loss of millions of dollars. Orwell was an idiot. Big Brother has no need to censor the media: the media will happily police itself. There’s no need to silence the smaller media outlets, because only a few malcontents read them anyway, and no one really cares what they think. They could shout the truth from the rooftops and no one will take notice, except to mentally dismiss them with the thought, “What a nut!” The information is out there, for whomever cares to read it. No one is censoring the independent media. Getting people to read it is the trick. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/10 "2003-06-27T03:27:42Z")
> [@](#): > > You have to wonder why a media outlet puts up with this from its reporters. Why not demand more from your workers? It isn’t a matter of “putting up with it.” It’s the outlets pushing the change, not just the reporters. When you spend less money on research and travel, you can spend more on development and marketing. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/11 "2003-06-27T05:05:39Z")
It’s one thing for journalists to kowtow to the military. It’s one thing for journalists to become so “embedded” in the military that they start to identify with their military overlords. It’s quite another thing for journalists to identify so strongly with the military that they start leading the soldiers! But that’s what Judith Miller of the New York Times did in Iraq, according to Army officers who were there with her. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28385-2003Jun24.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28385-2003Jun24.html) > [@](#): > > \*\*“This was totally out of their lane, getting involved with human intelligence,” said one military officer who, like several others interviewed, declined to be named because he is not an authorized spokesman. But, the officer said of Miller, “this woman came in with a plan. She was leading them. . . . She ended up almost hijacking the mission.” > > Said a senior staff officer of the 75th Exploitation Task Force, of which MET Alpha is a part: “It’s impossible to exaggerate the impact she had on the mission of this unit, and not for the better.”\*\* ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/12 "2003-06-27T05:49:19Z")
I think the American print media does a good job on the whole. Sure there are questionable episodes like the Judith Miller story linked above and the hyping of the Jessica Lynch story but there is also a lot of tough reporting and commentary. There were plenty of reports in the NY Times and WaPo even before the war about the doubts in the intelligence community about the administration line. There have been a series of tough articles by Seymor Hersh in the New Yorker. Even commentators like Fareed Zakaria who supported the war have been deeply critical about aspects of the Bush policy. Etc etc. However the OP is probably correct when it comes to broadcast journalism particularly when it comes to interviewing public officials. Journalists simply aren’t aggressive enough. Incidentally this doesn’t apply just to the networks and cable. Public TV and radio are some of the worst culprits when it comes to interviews; they are just too polite and deferential eg.Jim Lehrer. However, at least on PBS, the same show will often have excellent in-depth reports. In short the picture is a bit more complicated than the Justin Webb article portrays but he is at least partly right when it comes to broadcast journalism. ---
**Author:** ![ikderk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8dc957/32.png) [@ikderk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ikderk)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/13 "2003-06-27T06:01:45Z")
Why does our media refuse to inform us about international events? Because we exist in a state of willful ignorance. For example, each and every person has/had an opinion on the War in Iraq. An AP poll found that 18% of college students could find Iraq on a map. Somehow, the average “educated” person doesn’t care enough to know the LOCATION of a country that were were/are engaged in armed combat with. The question is, why should America be informed about concepts and movements that are beyond our scope? How can we understand the socio-political movement of groups if we can’t grasp geography? In a democracy, we get the government we deserve and in capitalism, we get the news we deserve. Intellegent news will only come when there are intellegent consumers. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/14 "2003-06-27T07:35:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > Sure there are questionable episodes like the Judith Miller story linked above and the hyping of the Jessica Lynch story but there is also a lot of tough reporting and commentary. Looking back at the softball questions-cleared-in-advance press conference George W. Bush had right before the start of the Iraq war, I have to say I completely disagree. Even if the press conference itself was lame and superficial, there was plenty of opportunity for a hard-nosed reporter/news outlet to shred the show and expose it for the meaningless puff piece that it was. It was a fat, plump, juicy, _vulnerable_ target, yet none of our “tough” reporters took up the mantle. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/15 "2003-06-27T15:08:09Z")
I agree that the media doesn’t do a good job at press conferences and interviews. But that is only one part of journalism. There are plenty of tough stories on the front pages of the NYTimes and WaPo or inside the New Yorker. There is probably a bigger problem with broadcast journalism especially cable news. But even on TV there is some quality reporting: PBS News Hour and Nightline for example. ---
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/16 "2003-06-27T16:17:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lissa \* > \*\*\*\*Clucky, \*\* what’s equally sad is that no one \* has \* to be uninformed. There are countless books on any subject that’s currently in the news, and dozens, if not hundreds, of independent news organizations on the Web. Information is not kept from us-- it’s just not spoon-fed to the masses in the major media. > \*\* > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Apos_ > \*\*It isn’t a matter of “putting up with it.” It’s the outlets pushing the change, not just the reporters. When you spend less money on research and travel, you can spend more on development and marketing. > \*\* > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ikderk_ > \*\*In a democracy, we get the government we deserve and in capitalism, we get the news we deserve. Intellegent news will only come when there are intellegent consumers. > \*\* I picked out these quotes to address a broader issue: Is it that Americans get what they deserve? Or, is it that they have been conditioned to think a certain way? My contention is that the latter is true. Let’s use the Iraq War as the example, since that’s fresh on our minds, and because the mainstream media is just now starting to catch up to the truth. We know that the average American is busy. For lots of reasons. Mostly because we want to make money and live the “American dream,” which I think in general means that we have all the modern creature comforts provided by our industrial/technological society. We also have kids and other responsibilities. We have to fix that running toilet, mow our lawn, walk the dog, etc. And, we have to unwind, and usually that means partaking in popular entertainment. Watch TV. Read a book. Go to a sporting event. Go to the park. Go to the movies. Where does getting the news come into this? At what point do people become informed? Well, usually, a busy family does this by turning on the news, and possibly reading the front pages of the newspaper. So, you know, we at least know the “major” happenings from around the world. Well, in this type of society, what’s happening is that the media conglomerates have decided what you’ll learn. Which isn’t much. As **Apos** says, the news agencies are less worried about investing in the news than they are investing in their marketing departments. I’m sure he’s right. And, thus, the news is packaged as a product not to inform, but to bring in as much money as possible. If you _don’t realize_ this about the news, then you willfully believe that you’re getting somewhat informed. You take the information on face value. Add the myth that the news is “liberal,” and you have people being skeptical for the wrong reasons. So, you have a media that doesn’t care to attack our nation’s foreign policy – in fact, in the case of Iraq, pretty much endorse it – and a busy, on-the-go populace that doesn’t realize this, so doesn’t see the need to even look into the “alternative media.” If Americans knew they weren’t getting the facts on important issues, I think they’d be upset. But, they don’t know that. And, because they’ve grown up with this type of media coverage, it’s not easy to convince them that they’ve been duped. In fact, people get defensive, I think because they think their intelligence is being attacked. I argue they’re not stupid at all. Just in the dark. Now, what **rjung** said: > [@](#): > > Looking back at the softball questions-cleared-in-advance press conference George W. Bush had right before the start of the Iraq war, I have to say I completely disagree. Even if the press conference itself was lame and superficial, there was plenty of opportunity for a hard-nosed reporter/news outlet to shred the show and expose it for the meaningless puff piece that it was. It was a fat, plump, juicy, vulnerable target, yet none of our “tough” reporters took up the mantle. A lot of people, I think, took the President at his word. I think that’s fair to say. As was argued in the articles I posted, Americans tend to believe authority figures. We give them every benefit of the doubt, as evidenced by this Iraq War. The media is a part of this culture. Add to that the fact that absolutely NO major media outlet wanted to skewer the President for fear of losing advertising dollars. It was “all Patriotism, all the time.” That’s what the average American was exposed to on TV. Americans’ opinions were already colored by the narrow scope of news coverage. Then, the President comes on TV and reiterates his spiel, to which he was given softball questions. At this point, it was a slam dunk for the neocons in charge. Go time. Let’s attack, and let’s embed reporters, so we continue to get this great media coverage. I just can’t blame the average American for falling for this stuff. I would have also, if I hadn’t met some people who showed me where to find the facts about this mess. Not everyone has access to the Internet, either, and unless you do, it’s hard to find these alternative sources. It’s certainly near impossible to learn what the rest of the world is learning. OK, maybe I’ll say more about this later. ---
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/17 "2003-06-27T16:25:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\*I agree that the media doesn’t do a good job at press conferences and interviews. But that is only one part of journalism. There are plenty of tough stories on the front pages of the NYTimes and WaPo or inside the New Yorker. There is probably a bigger problem with broadcast journalism especially cable news. But even on TV there is some quality reporting: PBS News Hour and Nightline for example. \*\* Well, press conferences are one part of journalism we can actually “see.” It’s also the only time, generally, reporters get to ask questions directly of the President. And, the ENTIRE nation was watching at this press conference. I think it’s significant that during this very important press conference – what’s more important that deciding on whether to start a war? – we saw only softball questions. When looking at the impact of the mainstream press, you can’t just pick and choose a few good stories here and there. I think you have to consider the big picture, because a few investigative pieces that really look at all the facts isn’t going to make a big impact if the rest of the news we see all day is from just one point-of-view, and ignore all the facts. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/18 "2003-06-27T16:45:41Z")
I agree that the media should do a better job at press conferences and interviews. However I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss the print media as just doing “a few good stories here and there”. At least in the quality papers like the WaPo and NYTimes there has been a steady flow of critical articles. Where did we learn about the Niger uranium blunder? What about the looting of the weapons sites in post-war Iraq? What about the doubts within the intelligence community about some of the claims made by the administration? What about the problems in Afghanistan? The quality papers have covered all these stories in detail. Probably TV hasn’t done an adequate job but even here the problem is mainly with the cable news channels. You still have plenty of quality reports on PBS or ABC. ---
**Author:** ![Clucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Clucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clucky)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/19 "2003-06-27T16:58:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\* … I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss the print media as just doing “a few good stories here and there”. At least in the quality papers like the WaPo and NYTimes there has been a steady flow of critical articles. Where did we learn about the Niger uranium blunder? What about the looting of the weapons sites in post-war Iraq? What about the doubts within the intelligence community about some of the claims made by the administration? What about the problems in Afghanistan? The quality papers have covered all these stories in detail. > \*\* I learned about the Niger uranium blunder right after Powell’s UN address, well before the war. But, not from the mainstream media. The mainstream media didn’t touch that story. Not until recently. Same thing about the doubts in the intelligence community. While it was “out there” in the mainstream media before the war, it was not a focus of coverage. And, why wasn’t it brought up by those reporters at Bush’s important pre-war news conference? The post-war coverage has been much better, I’ll give you that, but it’s a little late. The rest of the world seems to always find out about America’s foreign policy before we do. The Jessica Lynch story’s a good case. BBC did the first story pointing out how Lynch didn’t gun down a bunch of attackers, and that she was treated pretty well in the hospital there. American media outlets slowly have come around to the actual circumstances of that rescue, after blindly reporting the first version from the military’s PR department. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556/20 "2003-06-27T17:34:19Z")
“The mainstream media didn’t touch that story. Not until recently.” No you are wrong here. I started a thread before the war about this and it has several links to mainstream media sources. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=168075](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=168075) “While it was “out there” in the mainstream media before the war, it was not a focus of coverage.” I don’t know what you mean by “focus of coverage” but I recall several front-page stories in the WaPo and NYTimes and which quoted insiders(annonymously) who were skeptical of the Bush policy. It wasn’t a secret that many senior soldiers and intelligence people believed that the containment of Iraq was working and should be continued. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-american-media-cower-from-authority/184556.md?page=2)