Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   5 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Journalism in the Obama age shows the real media bias

By (about the author)     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 2   Supported 2   Interesting 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 10/26/12

Become a Fan
  (117 fans)
- Advertisement -
Cross-posted from The Guardian

A new Rolling Stone interview with the president shows subservience to power, not partisan favor, is what drives the press corps

brinkley
The Rolling Stone's Douglas Brinkley, in a screen grab from CNN, speaks about his new interview with the President. Photograph: CNN

Last month, Vanity Fair featured a major profile of President Obama by Michael Lewis, who was given what the New York Times called "rare" and "extraordinary access." Lewis "conducted multiple interviews with the president"; "rode in the official presidential limousine"; "was given a special lapel pin that identified him to the Secret Service as someone who was allowed to be in close proximity to the president"; and "flew with the president on several foreign and domestic trips" -- "not with the rest of the press corps in the back of Air Force One, but near the front." And, noted the Times, "the president even allowed Mr. Lewis to play on his basketball team."

But in exchange for such access, Lewis, unbeknown to readers of his profile, had agreed to a journalistically corrupt practice -- now banned by many large media outlets -- whereby the only quotes he was permitted to use were ones the White House approved in advance. Unsurprisingly, the profile was pure hagiography that left Obama's most devoted media fans gushing with ecstacy.

Though I would have thought it impossible, Rolling Stone somehow just managed to top that profile when it comes to sycophantic, power-worshiping "journalism." This week, it features a cover story on Obama by its contributing editor, the historian Douglas Brinkley, largely based on a 45-minute interview in the Oval Office. The questions Brinkley posed are so vapid and reverent that it is hard to believe it's not satire.

Most of his questions are some iteration of asking Obama: Seriously, how heinous is Mitt Romney? How gross is he? And really, how great are you? Just behold some of the questions which this historian and journalist -- given the opportunity for a one-on-one interview with the president of the United States -- chose to ask, beginning with the first four of the interview:

"Let's start with how the campaign has been going. Ever since the first debate, Romney has abruptly shifted his position on a whole host of issues, from his tax plan to financial regulation [that's the entirety of his first "question"].

"Many observers have commented on how Romney has misrepresented or even changed his positions in this last leg of the campaign -- that he's been like a chameleon on plaid. Do you feel that he has lied to the American people?

- Advertisement -

"Where were you when you first saw Romney's speech in Boca Raton about the 47 percent? What was your first reaction?

"What has surprised you the most about the Republican campaign this year?

"You said, 'a.k.a. Obamacare.' Do you mind if historians call the achievement Obamacare?

"You sometimes use the term 'fair shake.' FDR had the New Deal, Lyndon Johnson had the Great Society. Is the Fair Shake something you'd be comfortable with to describe your legacy?

"The auto bailout helped rescue states like Ohio from economic disaster. What, in turn, have you learned from the people of Ohio during your many visits to the state?

"Bill Clinton -- how important is he as a surrogate for you? What's your friendship with him like these days?

"Halloween's coming up. If you could have Mitt Romney dress in a costume, what should he be for Halloween?"

If nothing else, shouldn't a concern for his own dignity lead Brinkley to have at least a pretense of adversarial substance? An interview of Obama by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney would have been more challenging. Had Brinkley had more time, next on his list of questions undoubtedly included: "Do you believe Romney is more like Hitler or Satan?"... and "Sir, do you mind that historians will likely see you as a mix of Gandhi and Jesus?"

Ample ink is spilled over debating whether the US media is biased in favor of Republicans or Democrats. It is neither. The overwhelming, driving bias of the US media is subservience to power, whoever happens to be wielding it.

That is what explains why the US media has been so obsequious first with George Bush and now with his Democratic successor (for those who doubt that "the liberal media" venerated Bush as much as Lewis and Brinkely do Obama, I'll remind you of this still-remarkable, borderline pornographic display of giddy fawning on Mission Accomplished Day, or the fact that Bush's own Press Secretary wrote a book mocking the US media for how "deferential" it was to the Bush White House). It's why journalists joyously dance with top officialsswing on their tires, are creepily grateful when they're sprayed in the face by their squirt guns, and play fun beach games with the very campaign officials they're ostensibly covering.

The central function, the religion, of the US establishment media is adulation of those who wield power, especially military power as personified by the inaptly referred to "commander-in-chief." Brinkley conducted the interview in the Oval Office from his knees because -- with some significant exceptions -- that's the posture which US media culture assumes in the presence of the royal court.

What makes this most ironic, and most destructive, is that this function is the exact antithesis of what media figures claim they perform and what pioneers of press freedom protections envisioned. The political media is designed to be adversarial because it is supposed to serve as a scrutinizing check on the claims of those in power, not serve as worshipful, propagandistic amplifiers of those claims.

If, as is obviously the case, Brinkley desperately craves Obama's re-election, that's fine. But as a journalist and historian, there are all sorts of dubious assertions and controversial actions on the part of the president that merit questioning and challenge. One would think that minimal intellectual curiosity, or at least base professional self-esteem, would prevent someone like Brinkley from completely squandering this opportunity by taking the time he was given to flatter and serve the president.

But one would be wrong. He was given this time and access precisely because the White House knew how and toward what end he would use it. In other words, they knew he was a typical member of the US press corps and his behavior would therefore be reverent in the extreme. One cannot blame the White House for exploiting those eager to spit up hagiography masquerading as journalism. The fault lies with those who deceive the public by holding themselves out as journalists.


 

For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters. I am the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

HSBC, too big to jail, is the new poster child for US two-tiered justice system

US investigates possible WikiLeaks leaker for "communicating with the enemy"

Prosecution of Anonymous activists highlights war for Internet control

The myth of Obama's "blunders" and "weakness"

Are All Telephone Calls Recorded And Accessible To The US Government?

The Remarkable, Unfathomable Ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 people are discussing this page, with 5 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

are in the nonprofit alternative press. Commercial... by intotheabyss on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:52:17 AM
Nothing more. The MSM.... by Don Caldarazzo on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:06:36 AM
"Ample ink is spilled over debating whether the US... by Art Costa on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:14:40 PM
"There can be no press freedom when journalists e... by Sister Begonia on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:52:06 PM
That only asked Obama about his feelings on romney... by Kim Cassidy on Sunday, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:45:23 AM