If a tree falls in the forest and the news media ignore it, does it make a sound?
What constitutes news, and how that drives daily editorial decisions, is the subject of philosophic rumination in schools of journalism and daily argument in newsrooms. The foundation of news coverage is the public interest and the right of citizens to know what affects them. This principle is enshrined in countless newspaper mission statements, and even in the code of ethics of the Public Relations Society of America.
Freedom of information is fragile. Repressive governments routinely shut down independent news outlets, reporters are an endangered species in a growing number of countries and some governments are seeking to censor the Internet. One of the pillars of American democracy is the skeptical zeal of journalists and their traditional adversarial relationship with government.
That’s why it’s distressing to see news media in the U.S. squandering their freedom through politically motivated self-censorship. The most flagrant example is the lack of coverage of the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed our ambassador and several others. I’ve come to accept biased and slanted news coverage, but this is more serious: a conscious decision to ignore the questions surrounding a significant incident and effectively suppress the story.
Even if you ignore the political overtones, there is much to question. Instead of issuing the customary noncommittal statement while the facts were being sorted out, the Obama administration immediately blamed the embassy attack on an obscure Internet video. Even though the remarks of the President and other officials were carefully worded enough to avoid outright lies, it appears that their objective was to advance a narrative that is proving to be false.
The major news media accepted that explanation, and the story would have disappeared had it not been for the persistence of Fox News and Republican members of Congress. It’s now apparent that the Libya attack was premeditated, that the U.S. was aware of the danger, and that security and rescue efforts were bungled.
As the facts emerge, the major national media are beginning to give the story minimal, reluctant coverage, perhaps shamed by competition from Fox News. Contrast this with the intense media coverage of the Valerie Plame CIA leak scandal in 2003, when TV crews camped on the front lawns of Bush administration officials. The only explanation for this uncharacteristic lack of curiosity is that the news media are declining to cover the story because it might jeopardize President Obama’s re-election campaign.
One result of the unprecedented romance between this president and most of the news media is the Pravda-like docility of the White House press corps. President Obama has held fewer news conferences than his predecessors, and it has become customary for the Prez to bypass Washington reporters in favor of journalism-free entertainment programs. If Presidents Clinton or Bush had tried this, the press corps would be out for blood.
Even in this environment, the lack of media interest in the Benghazi incident crosses a new line: subordination of the public interest to political advocacy.
The good news is that freedom of information in the United States is self-correcting. If President Obama is re-elected the ideological corruption of the news media will continue, but not for long. Sixty percent of the respondents in a recent Gallup poll now distrust the “mainstream” news media, and the three major networks are losing their audience to Fox News and an army of bloggers. Sooner or later, economics will force the media to return to honest journalism or go out of business.
If Governor Romney is elected, the White House press corps will awake from their slumber and the news media will immediately revert to their traditional adversarial role… just as the Founding Fathers envisioned.
Press freedom and the election
If a tree falls in the forest and the news media ignore it, does it make a sound?
What constitutes news, and how that drives daily editorial decisions, is the subject of philosophic rumination in schools of journalism and daily argument in newsrooms. The foundation of news coverage is the public interest and the right of citizens to know what affects them. This principle is enshrined in countless newspaper mission statements, and even in the code of ethics of the Public Relations Society of America.
Freedom of information is fragile. Repressive governments routinely shut down independent news outlets, reporters are an endangered species in a growing number of countries and some governments are seeking to censor the Internet. One of the pillars of American democracy is the skeptical zeal of journalists and their traditional adversarial relationship with government.
That’s why it’s distressing to see news media in the U.S. squandering their freedom through politically motivated self-censorship. The most flagrant example is the lack of coverage of the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed our ambassador and several others. I’ve come to accept biased and slanted news coverage, but this is more serious: a conscious decision to ignore the questions surrounding a significant incident and effectively suppress the story.
Even if you ignore the political overtones, there is much to question. Instead of issuing the customary noncommittal statement while the facts were being sorted out, the Obama administration immediately blamed the embassy attack on an obscure Internet video. Even though the remarks of the President and other officials were carefully worded enough to avoid outright lies, it appears that their objective was to advance a narrative that is proving to be false.
The major news media accepted that explanation, and the story would have disappeared had it not been for the persistence of Fox News and Republican members of Congress. It’s now apparent that the Libya attack was premeditated, that the U.S. was aware of the danger, and that security and rescue efforts were bungled.
As the facts emerge, the major national media are beginning to give the story minimal, reluctant coverage, perhaps shamed by competition from Fox News. Contrast this with the intense media coverage of the Valerie Plame CIA leak scandal in 2003, when TV crews camped on the front lawns of Bush administration officials. The only explanation for this uncharacteristic lack of curiosity is that the news media are declining to cover the story because it might jeopardize President Obama’s re-election campaign.
One result of the unprecedented romance between this president and most of the news media is the Pravda-like docility of the White House press corps. President Obama has held fewer news conferences than his predecessors, and it has become customary for the Prez to bypass Washington reporters in favor of journalism-free entertainment programs. If Presidents Clinton or Bush had tried this, the press corps would be out for blood.
Even in this environment, the lack of media interest in the Benghazi incident crosses a new line: subordination of the public interest to political advocacy.
The good news is that freedom of information in the United States is self-correcting. If President Obama is re-elected the ideological corruption of the news media will continue, but not for long. Sixty percent of the respondents in a recent Gallup poll now distrust the “mainstream” news media, and the three major networks are losing their audience to Fox News and an army of bloggers. Sooner or later, economics will force the media to return to honest journalism or go out of business.
If Governor Romney is elected, the White House press corps will awake from their slumber and the news media will immediately revert to their traditional adversarial role… just as the Founding Fathers envisioned.
Share this: