One of my take away messages from “An Inconvenient Truth” is that the media is not giving us the information we need to discover the truth. I know, you knew that already. So this morning, I happen to find a bunch of posts that support, once again, this argument.
“TV Reporters Decry Drop in Iraq Coverage” —How can we ever gain some understanding of how to end this nightmare without current information?
By the end of April, the amount of time devoted to Iraq on the weeknight newscasts of the three major television networks had dropped nearly 60% from 2003, according to the independent Tyndall Report tracking service.
Even before Monday’s attack in a relatively placid section of Baghdad, some network television correspondents had reached the unsettling conclusion that, even as they were risking their lives in the war zone, audiences and producers in America had grown weary of much of the coverage from Iraq.
“Exxon CEO: “We’re Going To Be An Active Participant In This [Global Warming] Debate. We’re Just Going To Have To Disagree”… —So they are flat out telling us that they will continue to use the media to refute the scientific evidence. Once you misrepresent the truth, it’s hard to acknowledge it.
The company still believes oil prices will come down from their lofty $70 a barrel levels, unlike others in the industry who think high oil prices are here to stay. It still views the science behind global warming with skepticism. And you won’t see it investing in wind or solar energy any time soon.
“The term scientific consensus is an oxymoron in itself,” Tillerson said when one shareholder suggested there was consensus on global warming.
“Can Pacifica Live Up to Its Promise?”— The ‘alternative media’ is not immune to careerism and corporate inertia.
What needs to be scrutinized is the collusion of incumbent programmers, many of whom were put in place by the previous utterly corrupt management, with the current management that seems resistant to change — and stays in place largely because of support from incumbent programmers. Some local board members seem to be joining such cliques; others seem reluctant to assert their power to reform the network.
People need to demand excellence from their independent media; not simply to repeat platitudes, but to provide a serious news, information and cultural infrastructure that exposes the mainstream media as the dinosaurs they are.
One final example: “AP spinning for GOP?”— The question is rhetorical.
What other conclusion could be drawn from this headline: “Prospective Democratic Chairs All Liberal”? Here we go. Scare tactics with the L-word. Straight from the mouths of the GOP.”
And you won’t see it [Exxon] investing in wind or solar energy any time soon.
But if there were corporate tax breaks for such investments, you know they’d suddenly find religion and be the first in line, LOL!
So the media problem is clearly identified.
What can people do about it?
Get to know your local paper journalists. Talk to them. Email. Call. Fax. Write to your editorial board. Get a group of credible citizens in your community together and request a meeting with the Editorial board and lay out the concerns about them not addressing this issue.
Bring a few short handouts – not more than a page, illustrating not more than three points, preferably one each. One of the handouts should be a list of contacts, with phone numbers, of environmental scientists that the reporters SHOULD be talking to.
Part of the problem is that journalists are increasingly pressed for time. The bad guys make their side very plain, very easy. Heck, they write the stories for them which are sometimes reprinted verbatim. We have to be able to do the same. Take them clear, unassailable information, documentation, sources for verification, etc. And be NICE. Nothing turns a journalist off more than raving lunatics screaming you’re not doing your job!! 😉 No one here would do such a thing, I hope!
This is terrific advice which I try to follow. It’s hard with some of them.
So it is. I sent Farhad Manjoo a message titled, “Farhad, you ignorant slut” after his attempt to rebut the RFK Jr. article on the 2004 election anomolies. 😉
In his case that worked, and we talked by email for nearly half a day. But i had talked to him before, and he, like I, enjoys a good tangle now and then. Most reporters would not have warmed to that. 😉
I’m surprised the title of your email to Farhad didn’t drive him away. Most reporters I have dealt with are a little thin-skinned, until they get to know you.
As I said, I had talked to him before. I would never have sent that to someone I didn’t know! ;-D
EGADS, IT CAN GET WORSE: http://rense.com/general71/dd.htm
Mandatory Draft Bill
Snuck In – To Be
Debated 6-6-6
6-4-6
“On February 14, 2006, Congressman Charles Rangel (Democrat – NY) introduced a bill (Universal National Service Act of 2006 – HR 4752 IH) aiming at drafting everyone – men and women alike – from the ages of 18 to 42 into the military for a minimum period of 2 years.
Or to quote the bill: “To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.”
While Corporations can own as much of the media as they can get their hands on nothing will change.
The folks at Grist have a deconstruction / point-by-point rebuttal of a right wing rant (claiming to be a movie review of “An Inconvenient Truth”) in the NY Post. It it weren’t so sad that someone with such a soapbox could be sooo misinformed, it would be funny.
I’m puzzled by the inclusion of the Pacifica Radio Network (Sam Husseini’s piece)in your article, Howie. Do you really believe that Pacifica’s reporting is part of the problem of the media “not giving us the information we need to discover the truth?”
I’ve been fortunate enough to live within a Pscifica siganl all my adult life — 30-some years since I was an undergrad at UC Santa Cruz — & can’t think of another source ofr alterntaive news & viewpoints that’s more accesible to the general public (simply by turning the radio dial). While Pacifica is certainly open to criticism (indeed, invites listener participation) — like why they have only been able to establish a foothold in a hanfdul of cities) including it in a discussion of the media’s failure to report on global warming is simply off-base.
You ask if the “‘alternative media’ is not immune to careerism and corporate inertia?” Pacfica listeners & programmers sucessfully fought off a serious challenge to its progressive mandate & hijack the board– which came not from the Republican far right, but from Clintonian DLC centrists — to emerge stronger than ever. Could they do more? Cover more? Sure. Do they deserve to be called out in your article? Not even close.
Nobody’s perfect, but Pacifica may be real close. I assume you went to the link for the full story, but I don’t see where you are objecting to the facts as they were presented there in some detail.
I read it over the weekend. I didn’t quite get where He was coming from — much was unclear in his piece. Things may also be very different in Dc than at KPFA, the Berkeley station that I’m familiar with.
What I am objecting to is your inclusion of it in a piece blasting the media for its reporting failures on global warming. There are no “facts” in Husseini’s piece that would justify such an inmplication as yours makes.
Well, the author is the former chair of the WPFW local advisory board. He argues that the station is not living up to its “promise.” To repeat just two of his arguments: 1)they fail to cover things that should be cover and 2)they don’t ask “tough, timely questions.”
)they fail to cover things that should be cover and 2)they don’t ask “tough, timely questions
Any long time listener of Pacifica knows thaose statements are nonsense. But I don’t think that’s quite what Husseini was saying. What I read was that they haven’t devoted the resources to attending gov’t press conferences where they could ask those questions. That’s part of a larger debate about how to bwecome a part of the national debate, & not just a marginalized alternative.
(His article is hard to make sense of even knowing some of the internal politics, & much in it is heeavily abbreviated. It may well be that the DC station is still run by those board members installed during the ‘coup’ — I don’t know — but if so, that would create major problems. But the profiteering charge, fer instance,makes most sense if he’s talking about those board members who tried to sell off some ‘assets’ — i.e. stations — in lucrative markets. That’s not at issue today.)
Nothing in his article suggests they have been remiss in covering global warming, which is the major reason I’m questioning its inclusion here. It’s a subject their programmers & stations have devoted endless hours to, years before Al Gore appeared on the national scene.
What, in your mind, has Pacifica missed on the subject of global warming to merit inclusion in your piece?
You probably noticed that the examples I give of media short-comings were not all related to global warming, though that is the subject of “An Inconvenient Truth.” I was broadening Gore’s argument about media issues beyond global warming to include the war, Democratic politics, etc. When I was a volunteer at a Pacifica station back in the seventies, there was a tendency towards a “party line” approach to things, but still it’s a great resource. In particular, the article cites “Democracy Now” as a force for change.
IOW, you can’t back up your smear of what is of of the few genuine progressive media outlets in the country. One that gives a voice to countless journalists who actually do criticize the corporate media accounts. One that runs stories simply not heard elsewhere.
Does Pacifica have problems? Sure. Can they do some thigns better? Sure. Is there a tension between a ‘party line’ as you have it, & new blood/ideas? Sure — & they handle it as an institution in a better & more transparent manner than most.
So Husseini thinks there have been some negative changes — what are they? & what in your mind are the problems at Pacifica that deserve inclusion in an article on the media as a problem? Or was it, as it now seems from your responses quoting an article we’ve both read, merely mindless parroting, errrrr stenography, errrrr “blogging.”
Or are you going to contend that say Democracy Now doesn’t ask any tough questions?
Your insulting tone has ended our dialogue.
My apologies for the over-the-top insuslts — they were unnecessary & my only excuse is not enough coffee in the system before typing.
The criticism though, stands. Including Pacifica in an article on problems with the media not telling the truth is simply off-base. Cherry-picking Husseini’s article, and taking his comments out of context (like the ‘asking tough questions’ which was in the context of allocating limited resources –should they have reporters at press conferences? — not as general ‘fact’) leaves implications that sound like a poorly informed smear. Nothing you’ve offered can justify implying that “careerism and corporate inertia” are problems at Pacifica that prevent them from getting the truth out, which is how you’ve framed the article (or perhaps I totally misread it?).
I still don’t get what your complaint with (criticism of) Pacifica is, & quoting back selections from Husseini’s article hasn’t clarifed much. Not really much of a dialogue going on here from my POV — just a defensive reaction on your part to questions that that you’ve been unwilling/unable to answer.
Your shutting down the “dialogue” only confirms the impression that you were never interested in its terms to begin with.