Media Watch
The New York Times and CBS News recently polled the US public:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf
After a long list of questions that confused any distinction between health care and health coverage, the New York Times/CBS asked:
"Do you think it would be fair or unfair for the government in Washington to require all Americans to participate in a national health care plan, funded by taxpayers?"
By 48 to 43 percent, respondents said: unfair. But a strong majority had already said they thought it was very important for the government to cover everyone, even if it meant raising taxes. What was seen as unfair here, for some people, was almost certainly the national health care plan, which sounds like something more than a national health coverage plan. In fact it sounds like Walter Reed Hospital.
The New York Times article reporting on the poll quoted one respondent who obviously thought national health care, not just coverage, was being discussed:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf
After a long list of questions that confused any distinction between health care and health coverage, the New York Times/CBS asked:
"Do you think it would be fair or unfair for the government in Washington to require all Americans to participate in a national health care plan, funded by taxpayers?"
By 48 to 43 percent, respondents said: unfair. But a strong majority had already said they thought it was very important for the government to cover everyone, even if it meant raising taxes. What was seen as unfair here, for some people, was almost certainly the national health care plan, which sounds like something more than a national health coverage plan. In fact it sounds like Walter Reed Hospital.
The New York Times article reporting on the poll quoted one respondent who obviously thought national health care, not just coverage, was being discussed:
It requires no special skill to sell Michael Gordon, chief military correspondent of the New York Times, the Brooklyn Bridge. All you have to do is whisper down the phone to him that the transaction will occur at a background "briefing" by anonymous intelligence sources and a "senior official" or two.
One would think that it would require astonishing rhetorical ingenuity on the part of the sales team (in fact, operating out of the U.S. Defense Department) to keep on selling Gordon the Brooklyn Bridge, long after the deed from the first sale has been pronounced an obvious fraud.
But it's not so strange, really. Your true sucker is a vain fellow, who can never accept the evidence of his own gullibility and who therefore regards each successive purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge as a sound investment, certain to re-establish him in the public eye as a man with a keen eye for a good deal. He thus becomes psychologically and professionally a captive of the bridge salesmen.
One would think that it would require astonishing rhetorical ingenuity on the part of the sales team (in fact, operating out of the U.S. Defense Department) to keep on selling Gordon the Brooklyn Bridge, long after the deed from the first sale has been pronounced an obvious fraud.
But it's not so strange, really. Your true sucker is a vain fellow, who can never accept the evidence of his own gullibility and who therefore regards each successive purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge as a sound investment, certain to re-establish him in the public eye as a man with a keen eye for a good deal. He thus becomes psychologically and professionally a captive of the bridge salesmen.
Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits - a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage."~~Hunter Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
If the Bush administration and the US mainstream media are united on any one issue, it's an absolute refusal to rock the political boat as they sail mercilessly through the seas of corporate profit on the good ship Terrorbush. For the most part, each group is an incurious lot -- undead creatures who neither care, nor dare, to glance over the side of the ship at the bloated, swirling bodies in the blood-red water below. From the beginning, their mission has been to perform so fantastically against a backdrop of such violent, explosive madness on so many fronts that we watch hypnotically but do not see -- listen intently but do not hear.
They are very good at what they do.
If the Bush administration and the US mainstream media are united on any one issue, it's an absolute refusal to rock the political boat as they sail mercilessly through the seas of corporate profit on the good ship Terrorbush. For the most part, each group is an incurious lot -- undead creatures who neither care, nor dare, to glance over the side of the ship at the bloated, swirling bodies in the blood-red water below. From the beginning, their mission has been to perform so fantastically against a backdrop of such violent, explosive madness on so many fronts that we watch hypnotically but do not see -- listen intently but do not hear.
They are very good at what they do.
A preliminary investigation by Free Press staff demonstrates the new graduate program rankings offered by the Chronicle of Higher Education undercount the number of books produced by faculty members at reviewed institutions -- sometimes dramatically.
A simple search of Amazon.com, the source used by the Chronicle's data provider (Academic Analytics), directly contradicts the rankings.
For example, the Chronicle's data state that faculty at sociology departments at schools such as Chapel Hill, Johns Hopkins and the University of Chicago produced zero books between 2001 and 2005. Here are three examples of books produced by faculty at these institutions during those years (via Amazon.com).
One from Chapel Hill
One from Johns Hopkins
A simple search of Amazon.com, the source used by the Chronicle's data provider (Academic Analytics), directly contradicts the rankings.
For example, the Chronicle's data state that faculty at sociology departments at schools such as Chapel Hill, Johns Hopkins and the University of Chicago produced zero books between 2001 and 2005. Here are three examples of books produced by faculty at these institutions during those years (via Amazon.com).
One from Chapel Hill
One from Johns Hopkins
We often hear that the Pentagon exists to defend our freedoms. But
the Pentagon is moving against press freedom.
Not long ago, journalist Sarah Olson received a subpoena to testify in early February in the court-martial of U.S. Army Lt. Ehren Watada, who now faces prosecution for speaking against the Iraq war and refusing to participate in it. Apparently, the commanders at the Pentagon are so eager to punish Watada that they’ve decided to go after reporters who have informed the public about his statements.
People who run wars are notoriously hostile to a free press. They’re quick to praise it -- unless the reporting goes beyond mere stenography for the war-makers and actually engages in journalism that makes the military command uncomfortable.
Evidently, that’s why the Pentagon subpoenaed Olson. They want her to testify to authenticate her quotes from Watada -- which is to say, they want to force her into the prosecution of him. “Army lawyers are overreaching when they try to prosecute their case by drafting reporters,” the Los Angeles Times noted in a Jan. 8 editorial.
Not long ago, journalist Sarah Olson received a subpoena to testify in early February in the court-martial of U.S. Army Lt. Ehren Watada, who now faces prosecution for speaking against the Iraq war and refusing to participate in it. Apparently, the commanders at the Pentagon are so eager to punish Watada that they’ve decided to go after reporters who have informed the public about his statements.
People who run wars are notoriously hostile to a free press. They’re quick to praise it -- unless the reporting goes beyond mere stenography for the war-makers and actually engages in journalism that makes the military command uncomfortable.
Evidently, that’s why the Pentagon subpoenaed Olson. They want her to testify to authenticate her quotes from Watada -- which is to say, they want to force her into the prosecution of him. “Army lawyers are overreaching when they try to prosecute their case by drafting reporters,” the Los Angeles Times noted in a Jan. 8 editorial.
MEMPHIS, TENN. -- Asked his opinion of western civilization, Mahatma Gandhi famously replied he thought it would be a good idea.
You could say the same of media reform. A good idea, far more easily said than done.
But hang on. There's a growing populist movement out there, working to achieve the goal of a more responsive, independent and accessible media. Over the weekend, 3500 advocates, an empowered array of women and men of all ages from across the country, came to Memphis, Tennessee, to attend the third National Conference for Media Reform. They made for a committed and impressive, ruly mob.
(The event was sponsored and organized by Free Press, the national organization promoting "diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications.")
Admittedly, there was a certain, liberal "Kumbaya" quotient at play in the crowd, and sprinkled here and there, a tiny Whitman's Sampler of cranks.
You could say the same of media reform. A good idea, far more easily said than done.
But hang on. There's a growing populist movement out there, working to achieve the goal of a more responsive, independent and accessible media. Over the weekend, 3500 advocates, an empowered array of women and men of all ages from across the country, came to Memphis, Tennessee, to attend the third National Conference for Media Reform. They made for a committed and impressive, ruly mob.
(The event was sponsored and organized by Free Press, the national organization promoting "diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications.")
Admittedly, there was a certain, liberal "Kumbaya" quotient at play in the crowd, and sprinkled here and there, a tiny Whitman's Sampler of cranks.
No task is more important for any newspaper than to impart the news convincingly to the people and their government that a war is wrong, futile or, ultimately, lost. The United States has been militarily defeated in Iraq. It has no sane options left. All talk of troop "surges," of the need for a "continuing presence," of the feasibility of training an Iraqi army, of any constructive capacities for the central Iraqi "government" is as hollow as kindred talk in Vietnam in the early 1970s. There is no light, of any sort, at the end of the tunnel. The failure of the major newspapers in 2005 and 2006 to disclose the United States's defeat in Iraq has been as disastrous as the earlier failure to challenge the claims of the Bush administration on Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.
Competition has been fierce for the fifteenth annual P.U.-litzer
Prizes.
Many can plausibly lay claim to stinky media performances, but only a few can win a P.U.-litzer. As the judges for this un-coveted award, Jeff Cohen and I have deliberated with due care. (Jeff is the founder of the media watch group FAIR and author of the superb new book “Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media.”)
And now, the winners of the P.U.-litzer Prizes for 2006:
* “FACT-FREE TRADE” AWARD -- New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman
Many can plausibly lay claim to stinky media performances, but only a few can win a P.U.-litzer. As the judges for this un-coveted award, Jeff Cohen and I have deliberated with due care. (Jeff is the founder of the media watch group FAIR and author of the superb new book “Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media.”)
And now, the winners of the P.U.-litzer Prizes for 2006:
* “FACT-FREE TRADE” AWARD -- New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman
The New York Times (12/4/06), profiling new CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck, called him "brash" and "opinionated," with an "unfiltered approach." The conservative talk-radio host-turned-cable news announcer, the paper reported, "take[s] credit for saying what others are feeling but are afraid to say."
The Times mentioned one of the things Beck has said recently, to newly elected U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim: "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." But as press critic Eric Alterman pointed out (Altercation, 12/4/06), as offensive as that question is, it doesn't begin to suggest the poisonousness of Beck's rhetoric about Muslims.
On his August 10 radio show, distributed by Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks, Beck told listeners, "The world is on the brink of World War III," then issued this warning:
The Times mentioned one of the things Beck has said recently, to newly elected U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim: "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." But as press critic Eric Alterman pointed out (Altercation, 12/4/06), as offensive as that question is, it doesn't begin to suggest the poisonousness of Beck's rhetoric about Muslims.
On his August 10 radio show, distributed by Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks, Beck told listeners, "The world is on the brink of World War III," then issued this warning:
The lead-up to the invasion of Iraq has become notorious in the
annals of American journalism. Even many reporters, editors and
commentators who fueled the drive to war in 2002 and early 2003 now
acknowledge that major media routinely tossed real journalism out the
window in favor of boosting war.
But it’s happening again.
The current media travesty is a drumbeat for the idea that the U.S. war effort must keep going. And again, in its news coverage, the New York Times is a bellwether for the latest media parade to the cadence of the warfare state.
During the run-up to the invasion, news stories repeatedly told about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction while the Times and other key media outlets insisted that their coverage was factually reliable. Now the same media outlets insist that their coverage is analytically reliable.
But it’s happening again.
The current media travesty is a drumbeat for the idea that the U.S. war effort must keep going. And again, in its news coverage, the New York Times is a bellwether for the latest media parade to the cadence of the warfare state.
During the run-up to the invasion, news stories repeatedly told about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction while the Times and other key media outlets insisted that their coverage was factually reliable. Now the same media outlets insist that their coverage is analytically reliable.