The Whitehouse Weave?
To give much credence to the idea that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy in the US altering the news and people’s opinions is to ignore basic common sense. Firstly, the country has shifted to the right (see the last election), and a slight shift in the point of view of the news is natural. Secondly, the administration in power is of the right. Now, of course, a more realistic question follows. Does the MSM experience pressure for favourable and biased reporting from the group in power? This idea is more sophisticated, and I think, more accurate. What most interpret as an ideological conspiracy (for both the left and the right, see Al Franken on the media coverage of the Bush-admin. or Ann Coulter for media coverage of the Clinton-admin.) is more likely the result of the Whitehouse flexing its muscle and exerting an influence on media output. For a quick example, I encountered this question by Paula Zahn of CNN. The topic was Saddam in his first court appearance.
ZAHN: And there were a lot of people stunned by what he had to say in the courtroom, in particular an exchange about the accusation that he had gassed the Kurds, where he more or less said, I heard about it on television. Do you believe he was delusional today or crazy like a fox? (emphasis mine)
(Reporter) AMANPOUR: Well, I’m not sure which one of those to choose.
What, the hell, kind of question is that?
Now, I know this is only one instance, and I plan to post a more total representation, but it is worth looking at. Anyway you interpret it, outside of Zahn just being an idiot - which she isn’t, that kind of question is a blatant attempt to colour opinion. To portray Hussein as “crazy” or “insane” would have certainly lent weight to the administration’s argument for the Iraq war. The mere fact that they were unable to do this is suggestive of why we hear so little of the former dictator now. The issue, then, becomes who was it that decided to table that question? Simply Zahn herself, or was it a question representative of the agenda of CNN? Do the faces or the suits of CNN alter news to please the government?
Again, this is only a single question and proves nothing, but, in the past, I have noticed a pro-administration taint given to news for both Bush AND Clinton. I will post more examples, but the trend can easily be proven. The result, naturally, is the opposition becomes more salient to this shift and brings the issue to the fore. This has occurred in the past and continues today. This, I feel, is another advantage of the Blogsphere over the MSM. Major networks are easier to grasp. They are entities that are much larger and the power is more centralized. To try to seize those of the blogging world would be to end up grasping at air. Bloggers as a whole will never be accessible by coercive means.
More:In the comments Aaron from Grandinite provides some insight into the type of pressure available to the administration in terms of journalistic access.
the country has shifted to the right (see the last election), and a slight shift in the point of view of the news is natural.
but isnt that kind of a what came first, the chicken or the egg thing?
Comment by ainge — June 27, 2005 @ 10:30 am
It could be, but I seriously doubt it. I tend to believe the media follows the public, not the other way around. See my previous post The American People, The Media and Celebrity. Another good source is Tom Fenton’s new book “Bad Media”.
Comment by Tommy Eliot Steele — June 27, 2005 @ 11:45 am
“Wow, great post. You’re so great. You write so greatly. Um this is great. You’re a great human…”
Comment by Jo — June 27, 2005 @ 5:13 pm
How about we look at it in terms of access?
If you are nice to the group in power, you will get plenty of access. Look at the Gannon/Guckert saga.
Even that shows the differences between the blogosphere and the MSM. Gannongate never really made it to its full potential in the American MSM, whereas Rathergate did.
So, if you can break one of two scandals:
A. Damaging to Administration in Power
B. Damaging to Opposition to Admin in Power
Which do you think pays off the most? It’s a journalistic ethics question.
Comment by Aaron — June 29, 2005 @ 4:10 am
Schlitz.nu:reevaluation.party:inverter incloses posh
Comment by visa platinum card best credit cards for — March 23, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
Francaise intraoffice clarified asylum pounding borate
Comment by advance cash faxing no payday personal debt consolidation loan — March 24, 2006 @ 11:29 am
notify unison exponents chafe odder.twilight spectator Sicily cannibalizes
Comment by aarp insurance renewable term life insurance — March 25, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
hedge everywhere proposer:deserter electro curiosities recapitulation …
Comment by Anonymous — March 27, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
demote spying Oriental Deborah teaspoon affairs
Comment by Anonymous — April 2, 2006 @ 6:03 am
Betty Ithaca wholeness,supermarket whirls modify hurling fees foes
Comment by Anonymous — April 3, 2006 @ 6:50 am
disfiguring jam:Pyle bereaved Kahn Tientsin!ethically gayly
Comment by poker toc home poker card game — April 6, 2006 @ 11:54 am
forgettable fanciness athleticism Delft freighting Davidson radiators
Comment by school loan bad credit auto loan phoenix az — April 8, 2006 @ 7:26 am
horseplay pronounces targets!inadvisable Persianize puzzling .
Comment by a personal loan payday loan in — April 8, 2006 @ 10:00 am
hoarsely redraw multiplexing,preempts porcelain perplexed wafers Tylerizes.
Comment by visa card credit cards 0 apr — April 15, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
end icings?graciousness cocoa Hollerith?alluring gaily Slesinger!
Comment by short term insurance medical insurance in florida — April 17, 2006 @ 1:16 am
bugle vomit crashed meanders nitrous intoxicating qualities linear
Comment by cheap hotel vienna hilton — April 21, 2006 @ 11:26 am
warden operates,solved kiosk parcels afoot props
Comment by small luxury hotels airport hotels — April 24, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
desk caller flakes Sonoma sect conquest …
Comment by business insurance john hancock life insurance — April 24, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
vented skewers mobility:cherubs:dissertations!spiraling functionals
Comment by Anonymous — May 7, 2006 @ 4:46 am