Of Chickens And Eggs
Apparently the news media is still smarting from the public response to the report showing how news about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan simply disappeared from front pages and television reports. The excuse that is still being offered is that the public has lost interest, which is, of course, a load of offal. Even Frank Rich, who normally operates fairly honestly and within a recognizable reality, felt compelled to write a CYA column for today's NY Times.
He had just gone to a posh screening of “Standard Operating Procedure,” the new investigatory documentary by Errol Morris about the torture at Abu Ghraib, and was ruminating over the fact that films about the war have been box office poison, so much so that many projects have been yanked before the first screening. He then makes an astonishingly illogical leap and declares that the public just doesn't want to hear about the wars we are currently engaged in, thereby justifying the lack of real coverage by the press:
This is not merely a showbiz phenomenon but a leading indicator of where our entire culture is right now. It’s not just torture we want to avoid. Most Americans don’t want to hear, see or feel anything about Iraq, whether they support the war or oppose it. They want to look away, period, and have been doing so for some time.
Turning away from what? There had been no coverage to turn away from for months. It's as if the wars (both of them) had suddenly ceased to exist.
Armando Acuna, the Public Editor of the Sacramento Bee had a more honest response (see here) to the news blackout, and invited responses from his paper's readers. He got an earful, and he shares those responses in a column published in today's edition.
Iraq was in the news again, at least for now.
It always should have been, said many readers who sent e-mails, letters or left phone messages.
As you might expect, there was no unanimity, but several themes stood out:
• Follow the money: Readers want more information on how much the war costs and its effect on the nation's economy.
• The draft: Reinstituting the draft, several readers said, would give many more Americans a personal stake in the war, increasing focus and debate on developments there.
• Afghanistan: The media is doing a poor job of telling Americans what is going on there.
• Media distraction: The media, The Bee included, are prone to gorging themselves on fleeting and inconsequential flavor-of-the-month stories at the expense of more hard-hitting, substantial coverage of Iraq. ...
Others said The Bee and the media are to blame.
"Maybe the drop-off in interest in the Iraq war is a chicken-and-egg matter," said Paul Jorjorian of Sacramento. "If the media does not cover it, it's not in the public's mind, and if it's not in the public's mind, then the media does not cover it.
"American soldiers are dying almost every day and it is costing the nation billions, and yet the stories, if any, are buried in the back of the paper and are non-existent on TV. This is news!"
Wrote Lorraine Krofchok of Elk Grove: "The war is in the back pages because YOU put it there. It is your responsibility as the 'free' press to keep the war on the front pages."
So much for a lack of interest in the wars by the public.
What I found interesting, however, is that the Bee's readership had to remind the public editor just what the proper function, the responsibility, of a free press is. I might be horrified by pictures of detainees being tortured, and I might avert my eyes, but it is important that I get that information. I can only get it if the press covers it. I don't want the media deciding what news I might like to have. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions on that. But if the news isn't there, I don't get to make the decision.
And if the "news" from Iraq and Afghanistan (and Guantanamo Bay) is the same old-same old, I still want it. It does not have to be new to be news. The fact that nothing has changed in six years is in itself news, and I want to see that and form intelligent opinions and take appropriate action.
That's the job of the press, at least press that isn't managed by a corrupt White House and the corporatocracy.
He had just gone to a posh screening of “Standard Operating Procedure,” the new investigatory documentary by Errol Morris about the torture at Abu Ghraib, and was ruminating over the fact that films about the war have been box office poison, so much so that many projects have been yanked before the first screening. He then makes an astonishingly illogical leap and declares that the public just doesn't want to hear about the wars we are currently engaged in, thereby justifying the lack of real coverage by the press:
This is not merely a showbiz phenomenon but a leading indicator of where our entire culture is right now. It’s not just torture we want to avoid. Most Americans don’t want to hear, see or feel anything about Iraq, whether they support the war or oppose it. They want to look away, period, and have been doing so for some time.
Turning away from what? There had been no coverage to turn away from for months. It's as if the wars (both of them) had suddenly ceased to exist.
Armando Acuna, the Public Editor of the Sacramento Bee had a more honest response (see here) to the news blackout, and invited responses from his paper's readers. He got an earful, and he shares those responses in a column published in today's edition.
Iraq was in the news again, at least for now.
It always should have been, said many readers who sent e-mails, letters or left phone messages.
As you might expect, there was no unanimity, but several themes stood out:
• Follow the money: Readers want more information on how much the war costs and its effect on the nation's economy.
• The draft: Reinstituting the draft, several readers said, would give many more Americans a personal stake in the war, increasing focus and debate on developments there.
• Afghanistan: The media is doing a poor job of telling Americans what is going on there.
• Media distraction: The media, The Bee included, are prone to gorging themselves on fleeting and inconsequential flavor-of-the-month stories at the expense of more hard-hitting, substantial coverage of Iraq. ...
Others said The Bee and the media are to blame.
"Maybe the drop-off in interest in the Iraq war is a chicken-and-egg matter," said Paul Jorjorian of Sacramento. "If the media does not cover it, it's not in the public's mind, and if it's not in the public's mind, then the media does not cover it.
"American soldiers are dying almost every day and it is costing the nation billions, and yet the stories, if any, are buried in the back of the paper and are non-existent on TV. This is news!"
Wrote Lorraine Krofchok of Elk Grove: "The war is in the back pages because YOU put it there. It is your responsibility as the 'free' press to keep the war on the front pages."
So much for a lack of interest in the wars by the public.
What I found interesting, however, is that the Bee's readership had to remind the public editor just what the proper function, the responsibility, of a free press is. I might be horrified by pictures of detainees being tortured, and I might avert my eyes, but it is important that I get that information. I can only get it if the press covers it. I don't want the media deciding what news I might like to have. I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions on that. But if the news isn't there, I don't get to make the decision.
And if the "news" from Iraq and Afghanistan (and Guantanamo Bay) is the same old-same old, I still want it. It does not have to be new to be news. The fact that nothing has changed in six years is in itself news, and I want to see that and form intelligent opinions and take appropriate action.
That's the job of the press, at least press that isn't managed by a corrupt White House and the corporatocracy.
Labels: Free Press
posted by Diane at 9:14 AM
1 Comments:
Frank Rich is a hack, who should have stayed reviewing theater. Rich was one of those who trashed Al Gore back in 2000. But even with than, he's better than the AIPAC stooge, Abe Rosenthal.
Post a Comment
<< Home