Al Qaeda

[Ian Andrew Bell]

On 3/20/02 5:30 AM, "Luis Villa" <louie@ximian.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 02:56, Adam L. Beberg wrote:
>> An ex-CIA guy is on Nightline talking about how al Qauda trains their ag=
ents
>> better then the CIA, has better manuals and training then the CIA, holds
>> their agents to higher standards then the CIA, uses better technology th=
en
>> the CIA, hides people better then the CIA, and can actually locate their=
 own
>> ass unlike the CIA...
>
> What? The media criticized the government? I didn't think that was
> allowed in the US... maybe I've just been reading too much FoRK.
> Luis

Not very funny.  And a very over-simplified view of the statements made in
earlier discussions.

This is not exactly investigative journalism, Luis.  Why should we believe
that this guy is really an ex-CIA?  Why should we even believe he's an
insider?  How do we know he's not just a disgruntled ex-employee and someon=
e
with an axe to grind?  How is this ultimately critical of the government,
when the prevailing message of the interview is that we need to spend more
money on intelligence gathering and insurgent operations in foreign
countries?

You might remember when newspapers investigated allegations of corruption,
crime, and hypocrisy, breaking stories like Watergate.  While Woodward &
Bernstein were tipped by an insider, the story didn't break until they had
conducted their own investigation.  They eventually toppled a President.

I don't think anyone in this or any forum I've seen (except maybe first yea=
r
Sociology students) has represented that the US Government censors and
manipulates the media directly -- the point is that they don't need to,
because the popular media handle that all by themselves thanks to the need
to optimize shareholder return.

The news is no longer a loss-leader operated by outlets in order to sustain
audiences for other content, it's a business.  Five of the factors that hav=
e
significantly impacted the quality of the news that we consume in America
are:

    -   Speed:  The obsession with breaking a story first has resulted in
        most of the standard journalistic checkpointing practises being
        eliminated.  As a result, tips and press releases are passed throug=
h
        the media with almost complete transparency
    -   Budget: There is no budget at the local or even the national level
        for long, sustained investigations by news organizations.  While th=
e
        salaries for anchors have soared to the $10 million mark because of
        their screen appeal, the budget for reporters and editors is
        substantially smaller.
    -   Marketing:  Thanks to Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, and Conrad Black
        the business of news is more about glitz and gloss than it is about
        the quality of reporting.  On television, screen appeal is often a
        deciding factor for stories moreso than its social importance.
    -   Research:   In an effort to retain viewership, media agencies have
        become sensitive to the views of their audience and have conducted
        substantial primary research on their consumers.  They have subseq-
        uently made a clear effort to reflect the prevailing world views of
        the audience and to be sensitive to the emotions of the reader and
        viewer.  The notion of the Fourth Estate's role in democracy is
        therefore muddied, as audiences pick the media that reflect their
        own world view rather than reading centrist, objective journalism.
    -   Advertisers:    Advertisers call the shots in popular media.  The
        market for advertising dollars by major companies is more compet-
        itive than ever before.  If  CNN feels that Kmart will pull their
        spots as a result of a special investigation on Kmart's employment
        practises they'll pull the story -- better yet, they won't invest-
        igate the story in the first place (see "Budget").  That=B9s plain
        and simple common sense.

Now no system is perfect, of course.  I differ from the classic
Marxist/Chomskyite viewpoint that the media necessarily reflects a bourgeoi=
s
rightist view of the world.  I think that there are plenty of leftist media
outlets and there is an emerging trend (thanks to the work of Michael Moore=
,
Chomsky, and others) toward more of them.   But the notion of news consumer=
s
choosing the prevailing viewpoint news they want to consume, be they
Leftists or Rightists, is an alarming one.

While the current state of the US (and to some extent the Canadian and
British) media toward polarity seems to be irreversible, the best way to
deal with it is to educate the public.  Educate them that what they're
watching represents a subjective world view.  Implore them their
responsibility as voters to seek out information which challenges their
world view, and helps them to reflect upon the world around them
objectively.  Simply presenting an equal number of media reflecting either
side of the spectrum isn't enough.

That's the point of criticism.  You're being manipulated, not by a
government that wants to remain in power, but by a broadcaster that wants t=
o
keep you around so that they can sell you more cereal, cars, and kitchen
widgets.  The fact that what they believe will keep you coming back reflect=
s
upon the Bush White House favourably is simply a convenient business
decision that Bush is happy to be able to take advantage of.

If this mailing list evidences anything, it's that we're more closed-minded
in how we approach current events than ever before.

-Ian.
       =20