The "P" Word (Tee Hee)
In response to "A Wink and a Fraud"
I Disagree with Maureen Dowd blog
Published March 20, 2005
Two items of special interest appeared in the news this week; both the timing of their release and the number of column inches allotted to each warrant analysis.
New Age?
Sunday, March 13, 2005, saw The New York Times giving front-and-center treatment to "Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News." The article investigates, over its 5,330 words, news segments produced and distributed by the government at taxpayer expense. These segments address certain initiatives undertaken by the government and are distributed both free of charge and sans authorship disclosure to whoever wants to use them. Many do. The Times' reporters are quick to inform us that these segments "generally avoid overt ideological appeals."
Why then the fuss? Other than that the article gives the Times an opportunity to use the "P" word (propaganda) no less than seven times in close proximity to accounts of Bush administration activities, this is a fair question.
The reporters contradict the title Times' editors chose for the piece by revealing that under President Clinton some $125 million was spent on similar, government-generated news segments. In light of Clinton-era spending it's odd, is it not, to charge that the current action is indicative of an ominous "New Age."
And ultimately no one, not even the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, an investigative arm of Congress that studies the federal government and its expenditures, is able to conclusively state that the Bush administration has disseminated propaganda anyway.
The reporters reveal in time why the Times is so bothered: "The administration ... gets out an unfiltered message."
What irks the Times more than all else are instances when the Bush administration finds a way to communicate with the masses minus Times commentary.
Curious Timing
While the world was still digesting Sunday's lengthy article, Monday, March 14, 2005, saw the release of a study from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism's Project for Excellence in Journalism. During the 2004 election cycle the Columbia group surveyed 16 newspapers (including the Times, we can assume,) four nightly newscasts, three network news shows, nine cable TV shows and nine Web sites. The J-School study reveals that, among other things, 36% of stories covering President Bush during this timeframe could be deemed negative while only 12% of those covering Senator John Kerry could be so deemed. Also discovered is that only 20% of the stories published or broadcast concerning the president could be deemed positive. This, contrasted with the 30% of those covering the Senator which tested positive.
There were numerous news items published--one example here--detailing the J-School study, mostly sourced from a Reuters report. While the statistical details are fresh the study's findings are hardly new. Back on November 16, 2004, a mere 14 days after the president had been re-elected, Sherrie Gossett reported the following for Accuracy In Media in an article titled "Media Tilt For Kerry:"
"Days before the election, a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism at Columbia University found that news stories were favoring John Kerry by a ratio of almost 2 to 1."
Times' editors, though, gave the new statistical findings regarding anti-Bush media bias short shrift. They chose instead to remain focused on their own story, that of the Bush administration's "propaganda." Why? Again, it's a fair question though we can't know the answer.
The Steady Drum Beat
Smothering discussion re: the news of anti-Bush media bias, Times' editors kept their story alive, publishing on Wednesday, March 16, 2005, "And Now, the Counterfeit News." In this brief, 447-word editorial the "P" word appears no less than twice, again in close proximity to descriptions of Bush administration activities. But in what can only be interpreted as an unguarded moment of candor they let slip this: "It is time to acknowledge that the nation's news organizations have played a large and unappetizing role in deceiving the public." Indeed, going forward honesty of this sort would surely be by all appreciated, particularly in terms of Times' coverage of the Bush administration.
Also on that day, March 16, the president was questioned during a lengthy press conference concerning the "propagandistic" news segments. He reiterated the government's position, in fact the same position detailed in the Times' article of March 13: "It is the responsibility of television news directors to inform viewers that a segment about the government was in fact written by the government."
So, though there was no "new" news to report based on the president's remarks, the Times used the question-and-answer session of the 16th as grounds to publish, on Thursday, March 17, 2005, the misleadingly titled "Bush Defends Offering Video News Releases." The story is wholly rehashed; the reporter manages to slip the "P" word in once for good measure despite that the article is only 451 words long.
Finally, Maureen Dowd is the last to pile out of this clown car, bringing up the rear with her giggly Op-Ed, also of March 17, "A Wink and a Fraud." Over the course of her 777-word piece she manages to whip out the "P" word merely once: "Of course," she mordantly mocks, "this is a White House that never makes up facts to suit its purposes or sell its programs. It serves its propaganda baldfaced..."
Going, Going, Gone
What is evidenced by all this is the unfortunate modus operandi of the New York Times. A story of middling relevance is floodlit by the Times because it furthers the promulgated agenda of the editorial board there, one unreasonably inimical to the Bush administration. The story is followed up, though follow-up is not particularly warranted. The story is editorialized upon in demagogical fashion before finally being dismissed via Ms. Dowd's dudgeon. Meanwhile, fairly stunning evidence of the media's bias is downplayed, this important news rendered marginal. What a shame it all is.
As was offered by syndicated columnist and television host Cal Thomas in Ms. Gossett's article, "It's the repeated failures of media that have created the very market that made cable TV and grass-roots Internet news sites so popular and successful. The 'old media' are going, going, gone. And the 'new media' are in."
Maureen Dowd's Op-Ed "A Wink and a Fraud" can be found here.
nytimes.com
idisagreewithmaureendowd.com |
