If a Tree Falls in the Woods, but the Media Don't Cover it...

In a thread about the war in Iraq (which I'd ask you to go to if you wish to debate that topic), constant reader sidereal made a very interesting comment about the media. I'll begin with the comment that prompted his comment for background (but again, there's plenty o' room for discussion on the war over there...this thread's about the media):

It was Bush who decided that our goals in Iraq were worth American and Iraqi lives. If that was a mistake the blood is on his hands, not his critics'.

No, in our postmodern media-driven world (in which Brooks is steeped to the eyeballs), you create realities by describing them. According to his fundamentally damaged perception, Kerry would be 'responsible' for Iraq being a mistake by being the person who talked about it, creating that storyline. Since Bush talks about Iraq being a golden domino of something or other, he's responsible for that being true, which it is, because he said it and people believe it.

More evidence that the media aren't biased, they're just pathologically broken.

IMHO, reality currently lies somewhere between the influence "created storylines" have and the actual events (afterall, Bush's rosy portrait of Iraq isn't quelling the insurgents at all). But this middleground reality is alarming, because "Reality" should lie squarely with the actual events as much as possible. I know PR is just another tool of war, but the idea that Kerry is held even partially responsible for our failure in Iraq because he was bold enough to describe the actual events is, again, alarming, and this phenomenon does seem to be getting worse (oh, where are you Ken White?). And what's the logical conclusion of this trend? Will events eventually be totally influenced by media. If the media don't cover an event, does it not happen? If media simply say something happened, will the world make it so?

Comments

[carsick]

The media likes a horse race for many reasons but it slowly is seeming like the don't sell papers if they indulge in the old journalistic practice of defining what is credible and what is bs.Everything is not he said/ she said but you would no longer know that from watch or reading what gets away with being called the news these days.
The most disturbing issue is not only are they reporting on the horse race and not the substance but more and more seem to want to weight the jockey's saddles themselves.
Read Bill Moyer's address to the Society of Professional Journalists.
"I believe democracy requires ‘a sacred contract’ between journalists and those who put their trust in us to tell them what we can about how the world really works."

[sidereal]

"If media simply say something happened, will the world make it so?"

No, but when the shelf life of the fantasy expires, we come in for very, very rude awakenings. This has been happening for a long time.

There can't be any doubt that the media's current primary role is to discover/manufacture and nurture satisfying storylines. This is very much a human tendency. . translating events through a familiar narrative. . we probably couldn't function without it. But in combination with the capitalist drive for efficiency (make the most satisfying storyline with the least cost/legwork) and pure laziness, media coverage turns into competing oversimplified narratives, rather than any good-faith analysis of the facts.

[carsick]

sorry for all the typos above

[sidereal]

Also, a typical response is handwaving about free markets and how the media are just operating under capitalistic supply/demand constraints like everyone else.

This ignores the role that the press plays (as Moyer observes) as a foundation of a healthy democracy. The Founders recognized this. The press, a private institution, is mentioned specifically in the first amendment. There's no mention of the freedom of the fast food industry, or the freedom of agricultural concerns. But the press is called out by name, because they are fundamental. And as long as that's true, we do ourselves a disservice to treat that industry as if it were just one economic enterprise among many.

[Edward]

Having had to study the FCC rules and regulations back before Reagan gutted them (i.e., before he swept away the so-called "Fairness Doctrine")...yes, I'm old, moving on...the argument that the radio and television media were just another "private business" has always stunk to high heaven to me.

If that's the case, let these private businesses transmit their messages via something they own, something other than the public airwaves.

Apparently, it wasn't enough that media were granted a license to make money off the public's property, they wanted to be able to eschew the tiny bit of responsibility a much more conscientious generation felt the privilege fairly required.

It's a story of obnoxious greed and unchecked powergrabbing.

[kenB]

The original comment reminds me of the Monty Python skit about the guy who builds apartments by hypnosis:

"But the obvious question is are they safe?"
"They are as strong, solid and as safe as any other building method in this country, provided of course people believe in them."

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"No, in our postmodern media-driven world (in which Brooks is steeped to the eyeballs), you create realities by describing them. According to his fundamentally damaged perception, Kerry would be 'responsible' for Iraq being a mistake by being the person who talked about it, creating that storyline."

A perfect example of the problem:

Bush creates North Korean 'crisis' by cutting off the oil and food which was payment for the Agreed Framework when they admitted they were violating it.

[JadeGold]

Look, the media's a business selling a product. As a business. it responds the demand of the marketplace. It's fun and fashionable to bash the media but they're only responding to our demands.

Scott and Laci Peterson are such an interesting story as compared to understanding the nuances and history of the Agreed Framework. Teresa Kerry telling a reporter to "shove it" is good for several days worth of programming while the fact Tom Delay's inner circle has been indicted on 32 felony counts is boring and too difficult to understand.

Fox and Rush Limbaugh understand this dynamic very, very well.

[marguerite]

How do they even know what are demands are anymore?Quite honestly, I am not interested in the Peterson trial at all, let alone Theresa Heinz Kerry saying "shove it". I don't know anyone who is. Of course I'm probably not all that representative but it's not like these companies have either high ratings or high profits--in most cases they lose money.

There's been a lot of good stuff written lately on the problem with "he said/she said", two sides to every fact, etc. coverage. I think an even more invidious example of laziness passing for objectivity is what stories the press seems to cover. If they cover too much bad news in Iraq, write too many stories about Abu Ghraib or too few about whether Kerry was on the Cambodian border on Christmas or in January, bullies on the right like Instapundit start kvetching about liberal bias, how they want us to lose the war to relive their glory days in Vietnam, and all the rest.

So the press decides it must be "objective" in how they choose which stories to cover. And their objective measure of a story's importance seem to be how many other people in the press and political parties are talking about it, and at what volume.

[marguerite]

"A perfect example of the problem:

Bush creates North Korean 'crisis' by cutting off the oil and food which was payment for the Agreed Framework when they admitted they were violating it."

Dude, that's not even the liberal storyline, let alone the media storyline. Not in my circles anyway. It's more like "North Korea breaks word, U.S. breaks treaty in response, North breaks word again and begins making plutonium based nukes much faster than uranium based ones, Bush doesn't have the will or troops or desire to invade or seriously threaten force but also won't seriously negotiate for fear of being labelled appeaser, Bush fiddles as Rome is doused in highly flammable liquid."

That's no doubt an oversimplification too, and I don't really want to derail the thread into another discussion of why this is or is not all the fault of the dastardly duo of Carter and Clinton. Just: the storyline you cite is not even the liberal storyline. As for the media storyline, it's more like "Monthly update: North Korea still building nukes, worst country on earth to live, controlled by a crazy dictator. Coming up next: Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant, and Martha Stewart's secret tryst."

[JadeGold]

How do they even know what are demands are anymore?Quite honestly, I am not interested in the Peterson trial at all, let alone Theresa Heinz Kerry saying "shove it". I don't know anyone who is. Of course I'm probably not all that representative but it's not like these companies have either high ratings or high profits--in most cases they lose money.

The demands are easy to discern: sex, sensational murders, celebrity crime, etc. Sensationalism sells.

Even those who profess to understand the deeper issues of today--sometimes don't--choosing to get their "news' via talking heads like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

The problem is that network news operations are now cost centers. They have to be self-sustaining. This literally means they can't be independent; how could a news organization go after, say, a car that tends to roll over when that auto mfr. may be responsible for tens of millions of dollars in ad revenue to the network?

Additionally, news organizations understand they can have their access to newsmakers cut off or lessened if they dare ask those questions that are inconvenient.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Dude, that's not even the liberal storyline, let alone the media storyline. Not in my circles anyway."

Sure. Key concept--'anymore'. I was addressing how it played out at the beginning of the storyline.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian - "the beginning of the storyline"? When do you imagine the storyline about North Korea began?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Comeon, you don't even get points for that pathetic level of snark. When Bush suspended the Agreed Framework payments he was identified as causing a crisis by the main stream media at the time. I don't believe for a second that you were confused about that.

I talked about that and other issues relating the topic of this thread in "Pointing Out Problems Isn't Creating Them" on my website in January.

[Jadegold]

Sebastian: Your interpretation of the Agreed Framework and its history is flawed. To merely claim the North Koreans cheated so we stopped payments ignores a lot of history and omits detail and nuance.

The Agreed Framework is a process where both North Korea and the US have obligations and responsibilities. Did the North Koreans cheat or violate provisions of the Agreed Framework? You bet. Did the US renege (or at least slow-walk) on some of its responsibilities? You bet.

To say Bush was responsible for creating the North Korean crisis vis a vis the Agreed Framework isn't fair. But its certainly fair to say he unnecessarily exacerbated a situation that was far from broken. Indeed, at the start of this appointed administration's tenure, Colin Powell stated the US had every intention of continuing the Agreed Framework's process. He did so with the full knowledge North Korean had likely cheated WRT uranium enrichment programs prohibited by the AF. But Bush sent a disastrously mixed signal; while Powell is telling NK the AF is alive and well--Bush is making his infamous 'Axis of Evil' speech, as well as specifically mentioning NK as a posible target in his new preemption policy.

No, pointing out problems isn't the same as creating them. However, exacerbating problems--needlessly--isn't a solution.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

But its certainly fair to say he unnecessarily exacerbated a situation that was far from broken.

If you believe the Agreed Framework was 'far from broken' I can totally understand how you are able to put so much trust in treaties.

Do you believe that Charles Manson was far from crazy?

[sidereal]

Derailment successful.