Letters to the Editor
mikeyfil
Published Letters: 51
-
Re Clinton and the media
[Read the article: Journalists and their good friends in the White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
While I agree with you that it's far too simplistic to label the Washington press corps as "love GOP - hate Dems," I do remember Clinton's very first days in office when the press corps went after Stephanopoulus and the communications dept. with attack dog force--I still remember how hopeful people were at the beginning of Clinton's administration and I think the media's aim was to take him down several pegs, let him know who was boss. Two of my aunts worked for Sen. Scoop Jackson until he died and I went to visit them in DC after Carter was elected but before he took office-during Thanksgiving. Boy, you could cut the tension in DC with a knife. I asked my aunt what was up and she said that everyone was scared because Carter was an outsider and he didn't owe anyone in DC anything and he was going to bring in so many of his own people, a whole bunch of outsiders. She said, "Mark my words, they (including the press) will do everything they can to make him look bad--that's how they get control over him."
In DC, it's all about power, who has it and who doesn't and the kind of perks you can get for yourself, who you know. In the pre-Rove character assassination days, before the partisan hatchet jobs got so out of hand, it was very much "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." This had good and bad aspects, certainly the tone was much more civil, while the politics may have been almost as underhanded.
So the issue is, who is an insider and who is not. I think that explains some of the ambivalence towards Obama--he is kind of an insider so the media is somewhat positive towards him but he hasn't been there very long so he's not a REAL insider plus he's talking about change, so that in itself is really scary to them--how much does he mean it? They're basically on McCain's side but after the debacle of the Bush years, there is really no guarantee the Repubs won't pay the price. The media can't tell what the future holds so they're like a pack of dogs sniffing the wind, trying to figure which way this is going to play out. And the media doesn't seem to be too involved in protecting Bush's personal image too much lately, just protecting the power structure he put in place.
You're doing such important work, Glenn. I think the MSM is one of the biggest threats to democracy today--if we can't clean up the situation, I really fear for the future of our country.
-
One more thing...
[Read the article: Journalists and their good friends in the White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm wondering if you ever thought of being part of a think tank or even a university center (I think NYU has a communications/media center) that could put your work out more forcefully. Even good books are published so far after the fact that they lose a lot of their steam. But we need a major effort to deconstruct the MSM, show the effects of their biased reporting and hold journalists accountable--take away this cloak of being in some kind of private club and not being called on anything. Don't know how this would play out exactly...just thinking out loud.
-
re a few things
[Read the article: Journalists and their good friends in the White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All this discussion on Russia/Georgia seems to underline the points GG was making--in the "olden" days maybe we would have had a better shot at some accurate, first hand reporting on the situation--not being very knowledgeable about it, I have been trying to figure out whether the Georgians actually started things--a piece that is really missing from most US accounts--and to roycommi, if you think Bernard Henri-Levy is some kind of journalist or even a reliable observer, think again--he is a big "Israel can do no wrong" camp member. It seems that Israel is playing into this whole event somehow--sorry for my ignorance, but when everything journalistic has become part of a noise machine, it's hard to make heads or tails.
For anyone looking for a very interesting take on the US MSM, rent Barbara Trent's documentary The Panama Deception on the invasion of Panama--you can't get a clearer picture of how the corporate US media informs or fails to inform--what's particularly creepy is watching all the Bush II evildoers circa 1991--Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell--these guys have been at their dirty deeds for a long long time.
-
@ intercooler
[Read the article: Journalists and their good friends in the White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, yes--this is the only way things will change! I actually showed The Panama Deception (which was like an early draft for the Iraq War--right down to "he was our ally now he is the devil incarnate" spin on Noriega)to some of my college students and they were shocked--a few of them became almost physically ill--one student came up to me afterward, crying and asked "Is this what things are really like?" It's harsh to accept but unless we do, things will only get worse.
Also in reference to that comment about a "Truth and Accuracy" act--it was actually something called (I think) the Fairness Doctrine which meant that the MSM or broadcasters had to give equal time to all sides--a law Reagan did away with--and if you don't think that has made a huge difference in the way the MSM portrays issues, you aren't paying attention. I think of this every time I see right wing evangelical spokesmen given so much airtime or presented as if they actually represented a considerable percentage of how Americans think.