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.
