Even a politically sophisticated group like MoveOn.org gets it wrong by asking its members if they are interested in challenging the media because they think it is pro-Republican. In a survey to set priorities, the 9th issue Move ON raises reads "Stop Republican Efforts to Take Over the Media."
This is odd because if memory serves, challenging the media overall was supposedly their priority number 2 in an earlier survey.
The media fight is not simply about too much partisanship. Yes, Republicans are more prominent in many media outlets and the Administration has made a move on The Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But there are as many conservative Democrats on the air as Republicans. When it came to the war, there were few meaningful differences.
CORPORATE MEDIA IS THE PROBLEM
Media concentration and market-driven corporate media is the real problem because their bottom line needs comes before good journalism. The role big media plays in trivializing important issues, covering-up for people in power and slanting news to support a war is far more serious because we know there is more bi-partisan consensus than competition. The Judith Miller saga just confirms how journalists have not just become embedded in the military but in our political structures as well.
Mediachannel.org has launched a "Tell the Truth About the War" campaign
aimed at the news media. Thousands of our readers have signed on. (There are
also efforts afoot by a broader coalition to mount a well-funded "Show Us the
War" initiative that we hope to become part of.)
What is to be done" We have enunciated a critique and set of demands on how to
improve war coverage but getting the media to respond is an uphill battle. One
reader writes: "It would be wonderful if the media would change their tune,
even by a few notes. I would think it would take a tremendous effort to get
them to budge; they're so barricaded, defensive and otherwise in league with
"They're not amenable to change even with all the embarrassments over the lies
and quisling behavior that have been blatantly exposed in the past year. If
change isn't forthcoming now, when will it ever be".
"I'm frustrated because I just don't see any sea change in MSM coverage of the
war. They would have to question the entire premise of the "War on Terror" and
US foreign policy. For pragmatic, ideological and financial reasons there is
no chance this will happen. In fact, MSNBC and CNN are worse than ever."
CHANGE TAKES TIME AND PRESSURE
Change takes pressure, active campaigning, protests and calls and letters. It
takes an organized effort with a clear message, and that requires support from
groups like Move On and others. At this stage, we are seeding the clouds on the
issue with the expectation the rains will come. We are building a critical mass
for action. It takes time bit it can work. Look how public opinion on the war
has turned around. Withdrawal was an unthinkable option in 2004. It isn't
We are getting tons of responses. I have had letters from ex CNN correspondents
and regular reporters. Journalists are rarely joiners but many are speaking
out. To wit: Even though I only worked for weekly newspapers covering
local news, I know what's it's like to see my best attempts at coverage given
short shift by internal corporate politics and the economic bottom line. I
worked for Gannett papers in southern New Jersey in the mid-1990s. I firmly
believe the media must allow its journalists to cover the war in Iraq, as well
as other wars throughout our world with no censorship: no editorial censorship,
no censorship caused by economics. Please add my voice to your cause."
ON TO AMSTERDAM
On November 9th, the TV News broadcasters of the world will be in Amsterdam for
the annual "News Exchange conference. And so will Mediachannel. We are going
to confront the industry without expectations but a sense of mission. We will
be distributing a call to action. Let's see what happens. It reads:
IS COVERING WAR BUSINESS AS USUAL" TELL THE TRUTH
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).