I haven't seen it yet, but I have seen the Washington Post article by Tom Shales. "Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes use alarming evidence and an array of respected journalists to make the case that, in the rage that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the media abandoned their role as watchdog and became a lapdog instead."
Gee, you think? I posted this note---Read all about it! "Amazing" "Revelations"- way back in 2005, when the mainstream press suddenly "discovered" all the things about the Bush Administration that the fearless warriors of Salon and the Huffington Post, and a few (a very few) real journalists from the mainstream press had been telling the doubters and skeptics among the population ALL ALONG.
You know, you get the feeling sometimes that the mainstream press really IS just beginning to work this out.
[quote begins from Shales, The Washington Post, A Media Role in Selling the War? No Question]
The show asks: Did the Bush administration benefit from having an effective collection of accomplished dupers -- a contingent that Washington Post investigative reporter Walter Pincus calls "the marketing group" -- or did the outrage of 9/11 made the press more vulnerable to being duped?
Pressures subtle and blatant were brought to bear. Phil Donahue's nightly MSNBC talk show was virtually the only program of its type that gave antiwar voices a chance to be heard. Donahue was canceled 22 days before the invasion of Iraq, Moyers says. The reason was supposedly low ratings, but the New York Times intercepted an in-house memo in which a network executive complained: "Donahue represents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time, our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
Dissent was deemed not only unpatriotic, Donahue recalls, but -- perhaps even worse -- "not good for business." Most of Moyers's report involves serious, respected journalists who let themselves be swept up in war fever and who were manipulated by the administration sources who had cozied up to them. Instead of investigating administration claims about al-Qaeda and WMDs and such, cable news offered up hours and hours of talking-head television.
[quote ends]
You know, turning the news into a money-making venture for big corporations really hasn't worked out too well for either journalists or the public. I wonder if anything now will change. I'm not sure it has. There's not any great courage required to attack the president at this point.
And if you think about it, we really should NOT have been overflowing with gratitude toward people who were "bold" enough to criticize the Administration during Katrina. Isn't that what they're for?
Commentary from "Eat the Press" at The Huffington Post is here.
Comments