casual-observer wonders appropriately what is the real nature of American media corruption, decadence, confusion...

Indeed. I argue it is institutional, in that the major media institutions in this country are all pretty much the same, all operate on the same standards (which have essentially nothing to do with the standards of journalism most of us believe they should have) and all behave similarly toward the public and critics, ie: with contempt.

These are institutional behaviors that have a long tradition in the American media. They nearly all seem to suck up to and/or serve Republican power as well, something that may seem like a relatively new development, but which actually has a long history in American media.

They treat Democratic power with almost as much contempt as they treat the public.

And it is the power relationships in American media that are the key to the corruption of same. During the Bush years, it's been painfully obvious that the American media operates as a Palace PR and Propaganda Office. It wasn't significantly different during the Clinton years, except that the Palace they served wasn't in the White House, it was in the Republican controlled Congress, the Independent Counsel, and the corporations and foundations that were allowed to set so much public policy.

As soon as the Busheviks seized the White House, the Palace (and the Power) the Institutional Media serves moved there.

It is corrupt journalism because it relies entirely on the favor of the powerful for its existence and sustenance. It cannot exist apart from it, nor can it scrutinize or investigate the Powers it serves. It can only cheer and foster those Powers. For that is its function. A completely corrupt function.

Institutional media, however, has pretty much always been this way; subsevience to Power is built in to the institutional system and framework. You can't get rid of it without getting rid of the institutional media itself -- something nobody is really advocating.

One of the perfect examples of the Institutional requirements overriding everything else was the media's clamor for an end to the recounts in 2000 and demands for a concession from Al Gore. They simply could not stand the indecision and delay. Why? Because the institutions and the powers they served couldn't abide a lack of resolution, and couldn't imagine a scenario in which the People's interest and will actually mattered enough to wait for it to be discovered.

Institutional media is an entirely authoritarian -- indeed, autocratic -- system, has little or no respect for care and deliberation (unless someone's source could get burned), has absolute deadlines, the missing of which means the lower ranks are out of a job, and it is completely subject to orders and commands from the top. Government "should" operate the same way as far as the institution is concerned. And that's what the Busheviks are all about. Marriage made in heaven, eh?

Thank goodness there is still a healthy alternative media (as there has always been) in this country.

But I don't think we can expect the institution of Big Media in this country to change.

NY Times 12/14/2003:

http://nytimes.com/2003/12/14/international/middleeast/14WIRE-HUSSEIN.html

Ex-Leader, Found Hiding in Hole, Is Detained Without a Fight

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 14 - A force of 600 American soldiers captured Saddam Hussein in a raid on Saturday night on an isolated farm near Tikrit, American military officials said today. The former Iraqi president was found, haggard and disoriented but alive, hiding at the bottom of an 8-foot-deep hole.

Mr. Hussein was armed with a pistol at the time of his capture, but he offered no resistance and not one shot was fired in the operation, military officials said.

American authorities, along with members of the Iraqi Governing Council, said they were convinced that the captive was Mr. Hussein, in part because of positive DNA tests, and described him as a talkative man who seemed alternately resigned to his fate and belligerently defensive about his 35 years in power. [...]

- - NY Times, 12/14/2003

Adam Nagourney, NY Times, 12/15/2003:

http://nytimes.com/2003/12/15/national/15ELEC.html

THE CAPTURE OF HUSSEIN: THE DEMOCRATS;
For Candidates, a Day to Celebrate First and Worry Second
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: December 15, 2003

The news about Saddam Hussein fulfills what many Americans have long viewed as a crucial test for measuring success in the war in Iraq and thus could rob Democrats of an issue they have increasingly challenged President Bush on, Democrats said on Sunday.

But its impact could fall particularly heavily on the candidacy of Howard Dean, the Democrat who most party leaders view as the leading contender for the nomination. [...]

[...] Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, in a flurry of activity that included television appearances and a telephone news conference, said events in Iraq crystallized the differences between competing wings of the party and underlined the extent to which Dr. Dean would be a weak general election challenger.

[...] Mr. Kerry's press secretary, Stephanie Cutter, sent an e-mail message to news organizations listing remarks Dr. Dean had made over the past six months that she said demonstrated that his opposition to the war was ''politically driven.''

But Ms. Cutter, reflecting the concern among the campaigns that they not be viewed as turning a foreign policy victory to political advantage, put a note on the top of the statement demanding that it be reported as ''background'' and attributed only to a Democratic campaign. [...]

- - Adam Nagourney, NY Times, 12/15/2003

The Boston Phoenix media critic is stunned and outraged:

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/medialog/2003_12_14_archive.asp

MEDIA LOG by Dan Kennedy

Monday, December 15, 2003

Did Nagourney have a justifiable excuse to out Stephanie Cutter? Should she have known better than to send out an e-mail demanding background treatment in advance, rather than receiving assurances before she sent out the e-mail? Or did Nagourney just decide to screw the Kerry campaign? This demands further explanation. I suggest that the Times' new public editor, Daniel Okrent, address it in his first real column this coming Sunday.

Tuesday, December 16, 2003

Adam Nagourney responds. New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney, who yesterday exposed Stephanie Cutter of the John Kerry campaign as the author of an anti-Dean e-mail despite Cutter's demand that the contents of her message be reported as "background," has responded to Media Log's item on the flap.

Nagourney writes:

The Kerry people e-mailed me a copy of your item about my story.

Feel free to call or e-mail any time. I would have told you what I told Stephanie: I'm more than happy to let a campaign aide go off the record, or on background. But it's a two-way street: we've got to negotiate the rules in advance. This is pretty basic: I do this a dozen times a day with campaign officials.

But in my book, you can't fire off an e-mail and demand preemptively that it be taken on background and attributed to a "dem campaign," which is what Stephanie did. That is particularly true in a case where one campaign is ATTACKING the other. If other reporters want to agree to that, fine. But I don't think it's fair, and I'm not going to agree to those terms.

[...]

- - Adam Nagourney

- - Dan Kennedy at the Boston Phoenix