Reply #22: Who cares?

[Jack Rabbit]

EDITED for grammar and typing

For crying out loud, the scandal here is about who controls the media and whom is journalism supposed to serve, not about who is and isn't gay.

The discussion we should be have having is about the role of "the media" ("the press", "journalism", "the fourth estate" or whatever noun with which one wishes to denote it) in a democratic society as opposed to the one that it in fact serves in contemporary American society.

The function of a free and independent press in a democracy is to inform the public. In this respect, a journalist is little different than a scientist. He goes out in the field, gathers facts and reports them, letting the chips fall where they may. Other journalists, often called "opinion journalists", may string these fact together and present a theory. This is not to suggest that opinion journalism should be an ideological echo chamber; that would serve us poorly. A wide range of opinion, from Noam Chomsky to Charles Krauthammer, is desirable.

Free and independent is often meant in terms of the government; some believe that as long as the government does not censor the press, it is free. However, the press in order to serve its proper function in a democratic society must be free and independent of any power structure, public or private. Science ceases to be science when studies are censored by their sponsors; journalism ceases to be journalism in exactly the same way.

If journalists are only allowed to publish facts and opinion that serves the interests of those who sign their paychecks, then it is propaganda, not journalism. If those in power seek out those who support their point of view in a effort to drown out dissenting voices, then that is merely a censoring device.

The media in the last quarter of a century has been placed in fewer and more homogeneous hands. On television, where most Americans get their news, a corporate slant on news prevails. This is often extended to a soft critique of political figures favored by those who own both the transnational corporations and media outlets, such as Mr. Bush today or President Reagan twenty years ago. More than a whimper of dissent at obvious gaffs and misstatements of fact from such leaders is not permitted. Meanwhile, the personal foibles of less favored leaders are allowed to grow into governmental crises. Even when lies are told about those leaders less favored, there is only a feeble effort to refute them. Indeed, when the favored political leaders tell lies of any kind, such as those that promote their programs and initiatives, there is little effort to refute them.

The crisis of modern American journalism has become acute in recent years due to the willingness of Mr. Bush and other members of his administration to lie and deceive in order to get their way. There was information available prior to the Spring of 2003 that challenged the administration's case for war against Iraq. This was available mostly on the Internet on the sites of foreign media, such as the BBC and the Guardian Unlimited, as well as traditionally liberal and progressive publications, such as The Nation and The Progressive, new sources that have come into being with the advent of the Internet, such as Salon, and in the alternative media, such as Pacifica Radio. However, this information was not seen on television or in major newspapers. Anyone who was restricting his news sources to CNN and The New York Times during the run up to the invasion of Iraq was most likely as misinformed as if he got all his information from an unabashed propaganda outlet like FoxNews.

The corporate owners of the media are not the only ones restricting information and opinion. We now see that the Bush administration itself has gotten into the "news" business by hiring a public relations firm to produce fake news reports to promote the administration's Medicare initiatives and has given payola to media pundits to promote their education programs without disclosure. Now we have this case where a journalist with no real experience was given favorable treatment by the White House press office because, so it seemed, they knew he would ask softball questions barbed with partisan invective.

Karen Ryan, Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon are media whores. Whore is the right word. By taking money from the White House or Mr. Bush's friends to promote the administration's point of view, they have prostituted themselves.

It doesn't matter that any of these people have a secret, seedy life that isn't in line with the virtues promoted by the administration in its messianic aspect. If Jeff Gannon were not a homosexual pimp and prostitute, he would still be a media whore. While I am personally offended at Mr. Gannon's secret life, it is a red herring to the important matter. His behavior in service of the Bush administration, as well as that of Ms. Ryan and Mr. Williams, undermines the mission of journalists in a democracy.

It is not the secret lives of media whores that needs to be discussed, but the undermining of democratic institutions by modern American journalism.