 |
Are We Part of the Problem? |
 |
Much has been made of the McCain/Palin campaign’s seeming immunity to fact-checking in the mainstream media; how despite plenty of evidence that statements in their speeches are either lies or blatantly misleading, John McCain and Sarah Palin seem to be rewarded for repeating them. This is what prompted CNN pundit Paul Begala’s well-founded criticism of mainstream media for failing to embrace and hold candidates to, at the bare minimum, the facts:
If John McCain and Sarah Palin were to say the moon was made of green cheese, we can be certain that Barack Obama and Joe Biden would pounce on it, and point out it’s actually made of rock. And you just know the headline in the paper the next day would read: “CANDIDATES CLASH ON LUNAR LANDSCAPE.”…
Facts are indeed stubborn things, but the McCain-Palin lies are more stubborn still. In the face of demonstrable, provable, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, McCain and Palin continue to assert that Gov. Palin opposed the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”
But NPR aired an interesting “Truth Squad” story today — arguing that mainstream media has addressed this point, and voters still aren’t listening:
Pretty much wherever she goes on the stump, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin tells voters she killed Alaska’s now-infamous “bridge to nowhere” in portraying herself as an anti-pork-barrel reformer.
And yet, pretty much every time journalists have compared Palin’s record to her rhetoric on that proposed bridge, they’ve called a foul. The results — whether from CBS News, USA Today, the Anchorage Daily News, NPR or some other outlet — have been remarkably consistent. The surprising thing is how little effect that journalistic fact-checking has had on the campaign trail.
As the commentator reminds us, though Sarah Palin has repeated the line “I told Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks’ to that bridge to nowhere!” in virtually every speech on the campaign trail, the historical record reveals that not only did she support the bridge when campaigning in 2006, she later sought to keep the earmarked funds in Alaska for other projects when the bridge itself became unpopular.
Nevertheless, the line still draws loud applause every time she repeats it, and is “earning” her a reputation as the anti-earmark reformer.
What caught me off guard this morning, was this next comment from NPR:
“Most of the time in past campaigns, when major news organizations have come out and said that something is totally false, the candidate will drop it,” says [former LA Times Washington correspondent Jack] Nelson, who was a reporter for more than five decades. “In this case, they are repeating it over and over and over.”
But with so many other sources of information and opinion online, revelations in mainstream news organizations don’t pack the same punch that they once did.
To my knowledge, this is the first time I’ve heard anyone in the mainstream media identify the fervor and prolificacy of online opinion (i.e. blogs) as dulling the public’s ability to grasp the truth. Yet as a blogger, who generally takes the stance that the sense of plurality, transparency, access, and independence blogs bring to media coverage is a good thing, I found myself annoyingly in agreement.
Here is what I think…
Especially where mainstream audiences are concerned (i.e. those who get their news exclusively from mainstream media), the blurry lines between traditional and new media add a false sense of authenticity to campaignspeak — candidates can say whatever they want about themselves and their records, and voters can just assume that there are concurring and dissenting opinions out there that ultimately balance to keep the candidates honest. Moreover, the abundance of information and opinions changes the natures of “facts” — facts are no longer objective, but rather, they are always cherry-picked and spun to accommodate a specific line of punditry, until there is no such thing as an “indisputable truth.” Little do audiences realize that candidates and their spokespeople take advantage of the blurry mess to just assert whatever version of history works for them — for example, that Sarah Palin opposed the bridge to nowhere, that offshore drilling will relieve gas prices, that we are winning the war in Iraq, and so on.
The question then, for me, is what can blogs like The Seminal do to help prevent, rather than contribute to, the demise of “the fact” in media coverage. By putting forward our personal thoughts and opinions alongside those of thousands of others, how can we still encourage voters (including those who haven’t the time or interest to sift through all those thoughts and opinions) to still listen for and embrace the facts of a story?
More generally, are blogs part of the reason candidates can get away with repeating well-debunked lies in their campaign stumps? Or do blogs serve a crucial role by doing what mainstream media refuses to do itself — calling a lie a lie, rather than calling a lie a debate?
Seminal readers, what do you think?
Hannah, it seems you have touched on THE underlying philosophical struggle of our time - modernism vs. post-modernism. In the modern world, we expect an objective media that reports to us the facts and separates truth from fiction. In the post-modern world, we understand that there is no such thing as objective reporting, that all journalism involves bias and agendas, and that all truth is relative. A media source doesn’t produce truth - it gives us a certain perspective.
The post-modern world scares us to death - because without an absolute truth, how do we measure whose statements are valid and whose are not? How do we deal with people who are blatantly telling lies and passing it off as truth, as opposed to people who are doing the best they can with the limited information they have?
But to answer your question - I think blogs are critical. The more voices the better. That’s a bedrock principle of democracy. Blogs keep the mainstream media honest, to a certain extent. Mainstream media, of course, is threatened by us, and I think we’ll see more and more of these accusations hurled at us as we continue to gain ground.
I disagree.
It’s still the media’s fault, and here’s why. The media, though they may say they’ve been calling out Palin’s lies, hasn’t really. They still have the Republican side of the story in all their features, which allows the McCain campaign to trot out someone to say that Palin’s lies are actually truths. Even *if* the media itself says they are lies, they *still* include “the other side of the story” so they can say they are “balanced.”
That’s the real problem, the media’s definition of “balance.” If they were intent on disproving the lies, they would label every Palin lie as a lie and they wouldn’t allow Republican response. The article then wouldn’t be one-sided, it would be true and accurate.
By the way, word is Palin has dropped the bridge to nowhere lie from her stump speech. Not sure if that’s been confirmed yet.
I think both Jim and Jason have good points. However, both miss a huge issue. The real issue is money. Mainstream media is, for the most part, commercial media.
Thanks to the ‘96 Telecom Act, commercial media continues to merge into giant, international corporations that rack in higher and higher profits. Of course, media conglomerates need the cooperation of the FCC to keep this trend going. The FCC is a government entity. Right now, the FCC is allowing conglomerates to grow as large as they want. FCC Chairman Paul Martin personally saw to that. In this way, the government has bought off the mainstream media.
What we’re seeing now is a perfect storm created by money and politics. Mainstream news sources don’t want to alienate their audiences by acting too openly complicit with the government. However, pissing the government off could mean a reverse of the current money making trend. The final product is %u201CCANDIDATES CLASH ON LUNAR LANDSCAPE%u201D as pointed out in Hannah’s original post.
This is also why PBS is so strapped for cash. Groundbreaking programs - such as Frontline’s: Bush’s War and the Bill Moyers’ hour long, bipartisan discussion on impeachment - drive the Bush Administration nuts!
Wutang said it best: CASH RULES EVERYTHING AROUND ME. CREAM! GET THE MONEY! DOLLAR DOLLAR BILL Y’ALL.
Here’s a response I wrote to MSNBC about their coverage
Tomcurry@feedback.msnbc.com
Tom,
Just curious how you kept from laughing out loud during the interviews for this piece.
Obama will sit down with terrorists…
Liberal spending…
I’m worried about my children being safe…
Your piece plainly displays the total ignorance of most of the GOP delegates you interviewed. Doesn’t it bother you that people actually believe these Rush Limbaughisms with all their heart?
They have no memory of the last 8 years, of trillion dollar deficits, bending the Constitution, GOP leaders indicted, wars of choice, signing statements, bank failures, political prosecutions, economic disaster, millions of jobs lost forever, gas prices rising 250%….
They’re a bunch of children who don’t understand big words.
They only know a few, like—ABORTION%u2014WAR ON TERROR!
Sometimes I really want to have you respond during an interview with “excuse me sir, but you know that’s absolutely not true. Who told you that?”
The GOP did. They’ve adopted the Goerbles/Rove propaganda playbook.
- Always accuse your opponent of things you actually do%u2014called projection
- Lie BIG—the bigger the lie, the more people will want to believe it’s true
- REPEAT THE LIE–repetition makes a lie sound familiar, like the truth, doesn’t it?
- It’s ABORTION STUPID!–not the economy, not corruption, not homelessness..
We’re in a world of trouble. America could use some real objective journalism not the current style where equal time is given to both the lie and the truth. This leaves the public with only their partisan instincts to help them choose what to believe. With the GOP wrapping themselves in GOD and family values and abortion, it’s no surprise that their base miss seeing “the man behind the curtain” .
Your piece demonstrates dramatically how misinformed many GOP delegates are and there doesn’t seem to be anything or any way to enlighten them.
It may be too late to change their minds.
Any information challenging the GOP beliefs will be described as “ATTACKS coming from the Liberal Media”.
In the GOP meetings behind closed doors, life will go on as before with Rove trained robots laughing hysterically and quoting Karl that the “wing nuts came through again! What a bunch of idiots! They’ll believe anything!”.
John McCain will sit dejectedly, at the same table, eyes downcast, finally realizing. This is what it was like back in the 2000 election. Now he is using the same tactics that were used to destroy another guy named McCain eight long years ago.
Head bowed, squeezing his eyes shut to hold back the tears, he remembers that other McCain. Then in his mind he repeats the mantra “Anything to win — winning is all that matters — Anything to win — winning is all that matters — Anything to win — winning is all that matters…..”
Obama needs to start every interview and appearance with, “John McCain is a liar and here’s why.”
Not just have ads that say it but say it himself. Over and over.
It is no longer a time for him to be passive. He does not need to pickup the Karl Rove tactics but he need to call McCain on the carpet for his conitued lies to the American people.