1991 v. Today

Tomgram

Maybe it is the cynic in me, but when I read the third paragraph quote from John Nichols, "On the eve of his recent sojourn in Europe, President Bush had an unpleasant run-in with a species of creature he had not previously encountered often: a journalist.” I started laughing. While I do not have any beef with GW Bush the man, I am about as opposed to his policies as one can be. Furthermore, I don’t have anything against conservatives in general, but reading about his administrations suppression of the media disgusted me. But hearing how the media responded to being kicked around without doing anything disgusted me more. It made me think of a dog cowering in front of an abusive owner in the hope of receiving a few scraps of rotten food.

What I feel even more than disgust is fear. The fact that, as supported by Andrew’s articles, major PR firms can leverage our elected officials and news media to get their way is very disturbing to me. What scares me even more is that we elected, twice, a man who invades countries because God told him to. Not that I have anything against God fearing Americans… I just don’t feel that one incapable of basic articulation and fact-based judgment should be President of the United States.

I read one article related to this topic from the Washington Post. It deals with a 20 million dollar contract put out in 2006 in an effort to get some positive PR from Iraq. The argument is that media was unfair in its coverage and only put out negative things from Iraq. I’ll leave it for you to consider.

Is it ethical for the government to pay PR firms to try and paint a positive picture to retain support? Or should their actions speak for themselves?

And now... my thoughts on some of Andrews questions (warning: I got a little preachy here)

Controlled News Coverage and Its Impact on the Public

-Should the public matter more in the creation of news? Should there even be creation of news in the first place? Rather than an objective telling of the facts, a great deal of what was reported as “news” in the first gulf war, especially that surrounding public support for the war, was, if not entirely fabricated, spun to the max. I do think that the public should hold more sway over what does and does not get reported. That said, it is only because there is a marketplace for smut that the issue of creationism in the news even comes to the fore. If the public could diverge its attention away from the gossipy world of “breaking news” (especially about young boys in balloons) and immerse itself in the work of good investigative journalism and fact-based reporting, the news media institution itself would have to shift its focus.

-How do the spiral of silence and rally around the flag theories interact? What do they create? Because of media reach in today’s society, I think it has a tremendous impact on what is perceived as popular and important. The rally theory supports my view that it is standard in times of war for citizens of a given country to inhale a deep breath of nationalism and exhale patriotism; the news media is not excluded from this movement to support for ones leaders. The desire to be included in a community is part of human nature. Therefore, if the majority supports one opinion, those who like to consider themselves part of the majority group will join them. Individuals who do not join, and consider their opinion to be unpopular will often remain silent, and the pattern will repeat, thus the spiral of silence. This polarization of full support or dead silence allows for the creation of an artificial power. The majority group can push its agenda because most who hold opposing views stay silent.

-What difference does new media make with regards to war? An individual’s ability to fact-check online and post questions is a key difference. Additionally, the ability of citizens in a war zone to report the goings on creates a new kind of accountability. Just recently, when German soldiers blew up a gas tanker that had been stolen in Afghanistan, people immediately began taking pictures with phones and posting them online. At first, Germany said that they had killed mainly militants, but the pictures told a different tale.

PR in the First Gulf War

Have PR firms and politicians managed to take hold of news and information? Successfully? I think PR has taken control of the news and the politicians. I am less inclined to think that all of our elected officials are lobbyists. The comprehensiveness with which PR firms built support for Desert Storm is staggering and confirms the strength of their hold on the media. I found the bit about t-shirt very interesting in this article. As a student, I do not tend to worry about who may be behind my free clothing.

Tomgram

-Have politicians found an effective way to control the press's check on government power? By keeping their hands tied, and their eyes covered, the government has done a tremendous job of curbing the press’ ability to hold them accountable. I do not think that it would take very much for the press to break their restraints and do some good reporting. Furthermore, I think that the Obama administration’s move toward more transparency will allow the press to ask more of the hard questions that were forbidden during the Bush reign.

-How did acceptance of the Bush doctrine lead to a problem in the media? It led to a loss of quality journalism. The media readily reported facts from the Bush White House without doing even simple fact-checking work. They got lazy and allowed themselves to be pushed around. The fear that doing good journalism would get them excluded led many papers to settle for mediocrity and inaccurate information.