Selling Politics
By Marc Ash and William Rivers Pitt
Thursday 15 January 2004
The morning after Paul O’Neill accused George W. Bush of lying to the
nation about his plans for war with Iraq, the headline for the San Diego
Union Tribune read: "Dean Under Attack." This was an interesting whiff, and
an example of a large problem. As the Democratic nominating process
nears crunch time, we at truthout are wondering what the rules are. The
Dean campaign, for one example, has charged that they are the target of
coordinated attacks, not only by Democratic rivals, but by powerful
corporate-owned media interests. Further, they contend, such attacks
undermine the effectiveness of their efforts to empower ordinary citizens.
Such charges, if justified, would be serious.
Many of Dean's rivals protest as well. Dennis Kucinich, whose
grassroots efforts are legendary to activists nationwide, has been isolated
behind a virtual iron curtain of media silence. He is left to wonder what might
have possibly been had the Fourth Estate acted with true journalistic
integrity. John Kerry, probably the most bona fide liberal power player in the
race, finds himself faced with a media theme which focuses on the interior
processes of his campaign, rather than the policies he espouses. Carol
Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton must wonder if the mainstream press is
prepared to judge them by the content of their character rather than the
color of their skin. For Ambassador Braun in particular, this question has
brought forth the endgame for her campaign. All candidates, it seems, must
bear insults.
None of the Democratic candidates should hope to escape media
scrutiny, or the slings and arrows of rivals. All are equals in the democratic
process. If a candidate cannot fend off criticism from within his or her own
party, that candidate probably does not deserve to stand as, nor will they
fare well as, the national candidate in the general election. This is the
purpose served by the primary system. However, truly "coordinated" attacks
against any candidate from well-heeled media interests are not hallmarks of
democracy, or arguably in the best interests of the voters themselves.
In the aftermath of the 2000 election, thirty-year veteran political
journalist Robert Shogan wrote a book titled ‘Bad News: Where the Press
Goes Wrong in the Making of the President.’ The book analyzes media
behavior in every Presidential election since 1968. In it, Shogan states, “The
innate weaknesses and limitations of the press corps are also a large part
of the problem. In their coverage of campaigns the media at one time or
another have been guilty of just about every one of the seven deadly sins. Of
these failings, probably the most common and most injurious are sloth and
pride. Too often journalists, myself included, have been unwilling to make
the effort to learn what they do not know, and to make the information they
do possess relevant and significant for their audiences. Too many of us,
eager for attention, have been too wiling to create stories that are larger
than life and reality, and too impressed with our own importance to benefit
from the criticism leveled against our work.”
We at truthout fear that Shogan’s experience, combined with the
powerful influence and agendas of the corporations who own the
mainstream news outlets part and parcel, will undermine the legitimate
procedures of democracy. Reporters must of course report - it is a job like
any other where daily performance is a requirement of continued
employment – and the American people are owed the scrutiny placed upon
candidates for the most powerful office in the world.
But there is a way to be a professional, to be the guardian of political
speech, and there are ways to fail in that endeavor. The 2000 campaign is
instructive in this regard. If the mainstream media covers the 2004 election
in a manner that causes unimportant stories to be overblown (the color of
Gore’s suits as an allegory about his manhood), takes statements
completely out of context (Gore never said he ‘invented the internet’), and
fails to examine the meaning behind political rhetoric (do we yet know what
a ‘compassionate conservative’ is?), we as a nation will have again been let
down by the very entity that is supposed to protect us.
Furthermore, if the mainstream media deliberately works to narrow the
race by reporting overblown stories about tightening margins, a process that
would serve only them by manufacturing drama to bring in viewers, the
process itself will have been pillaged. This kind of activity will serve to
damage all the candidates equally, causing them to react to circumstances
that were created out of whole cloth by journalists looking to make things
more interesting. Things are interesting enough as it is.
Let us do better this time.
-------
truthout.org |
