Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Michael Harold
Published Letters: 498 Editor's Choice: 3
I agree with you, Glenn, that everything that helps to move our political and cultural discourse in the direction of rational and fact based decision making is important. Everything, no matter how small, that helps this to occur is significant.
I also think it is important to see these small incremental changes a part of a larger process.
There is also the hope that all of these small changes will lead to bigger changes and that, at some point, we will recognize a phase shift, a complete and rapid change from politics and journalism as usual, to politics as a means of educating and informing the citizens of this nation.
I personally think the mass media is primarily cultural in nature and reflects the power structure of the society at a specific point in time. Although journalism is part of the culture of mass media, it is not a leading indicator of change as are other cultural components such as art and popular culture. Rather, journalism is a trailing indicator of change.
In a complex system, a phase shift represents a completely different behavior that emerges from the multiple interactions of the system's smaller components. What we may be witnessing is the behavior that occurs in the "moments" before a journalistic phase shift.
I certainly hope so.
Terence Smith had this to say in a post at HuffPo:
The Aspen Institute has just wrapped up its third annual Ideas Festival, which gathers a couple of hundred people in the Colorado Mountains for panel discussions on everything from politics to poetry. On one panel, five journalists were 30 or 40 minutes into a discussion of media credibility or the lack thereof, when a questioner in the audience stopped the conversation cold.
Where, he asked, was the media during the run-up to the war in Iraq? Why didn't news organizations demand better answers from the Bush Administration on the reasons for the war, such as Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction. Isn't that your job?
The journalists on the panel squirmed for a minute and then one said: "Reporters thrive on conflict. The war was going to be a hell of a story." A second panelist reluctantly, hesitatingly, agreed.
As the moderator, I was shocked. Were we really going to sit here in front of this audience and agree that the press had secretly welcomed the war as a way to sell newspapers and build ratings? That seemed a scandal to me.
And yet, I had to admit that at some point in the fall and early winter of 2002, as the military buildup in the Gulf continued and Congress voted to authorize the war, news organizations stopped asking whether the U.S. should attack Iraq and started to speculate on when, and how, and how as journalists they were going to cover it.
That would be a very cynical way to look at the press, but there may be a lot of truth in it. Perhaps the press saw the war with Iraq as a way to sell newspapers and TV advertising and jumped on it. And everything from "Shock and Awe" to Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to the loss of habeas corpus sold papers as long as it was part of the "war" story. And since January with the Democratic takeover of Congress the focus has been on the "war" between the White House and the Congress. Perhaps the change in coverage is an early effort to test market the "scandal" of a criminal presidency and the rise and dominance of a new Democratic party from the ashes versus a new "war" in Iran. Which of these two will sell more papers and advertising?
How cynical.
1. The 9/11 terrorist attack was attributed to Al-Qaeda.
2. The 9/11 hijackers were identified as being Saudi(15), Egyptian(1), Lebanese(1) and union of Arab Emirates(2).
3. The Taliban in Afghanistan was harboring Al-Qaeda and would not give them up so we attacked Afghanistan.
4. At the Battle of Tora Bora in December of 2001 we attacked Al-Qaeda in Afghanastan.
5. At the Battle of Tora Bora, Osama bin Laden escaped into Pakistan with other members of Al-Qaeda.
6. We did not follow Al-Qaeda into Pakistan.
7. When we invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003, Osama bin Laden was still in Pakistan.
8. The CIA Unit dedicated to capturing Osama bin Laden was shut down in late 2005.
9. From the date we invaded Iraq to the present, Al-Qaeda has been rebuilding itself in Pakistan.
9. Osama bin Laden, if he is alive, is still in Pakistan.
10. Al-Qaeda is still in Pakistan.
11. Pakistan is our ally in the War on Terror.
I would be curious to see if this little tidbit, courtesy of Bloomberg, makes prime time news or the NYT:
Iran asked Japanese refiners to switch to the yen to pay for all crude oil purchases, after Iran's central bank said it is reducing holdings of the U.S. dollar.
Iran wants yen-based transactions ``for any/all of your forthcoming Iranian crude oil liftings,'' according to a letter sent to Japanese refiners that was signed by Ali A. Arshi, general manager of crude oil marketing and exports in Tehran at the National Iranian Oil Co. The request is for all shipments ``effective immediately,'' according to the letter, dated July 10 and obtained by Bloomberg News.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awYHprN5i52c&refer=home
This might be worth a little outburst of journalism, don't you think?
The last time a Middle East country launched an oil bourque we we sure showed them. We invaded them. Thank goodness for OPEC. At least the Saudis will never turn. They won't, right?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
