Thursday, February 24, 2011

The Obedient Mainstream Media

There was a time in this country when the mainstream media was independent enough to tell the truth to the people regardless of who didn't like it. Newspapers took the lead, but even radio and television considered their duty to report the news to be sacrosanct and independent of any need to be entertaining or profitable. Those times are long gone.

Far too often today, the media is more concerned with profits than delivering real news. We're lucky if we get superficial coverage of the news. Seldom does any of the media spend the money or the time to dig deep enough into a story to find the truth. They think they've done their job by giving "both sides" of an issue, and almost never dig deep enough to see whether one (or both) side is lying.

That would be bad enough, but the problem is even deeper. Far too often the modern mainstream media is little more than an obedient mouthpiece for government. They repeat the points and stories the government wants the people to hear, and hide the uncomfortable facts the government wants kept secret. This is not only wrong -- it's dangerous, especially in a democracy when the people need the whole truth so they can make reasonable decisions.

Take for example the story of the United States "diplomat" arrested in Pakistan for shooting a couple of men. The United States government has been telling the public that the man was a diplomat and was covered by diplomatic immunity. The truth is that he was a CIA agent recruited from the infamous Blackwater Security. The Pakistanis knew this from day one, and it was reported in their media, but somehow this part of the story did not make it to these shores.

The New York Times has now admitted that they knew he was a CIA agent (they had to since it was widely known in Pakistan). They say they did not report that because the Obama administration asked them not to do so. They were told that reporting it could put the agent's life in danger. And the NY Times was not the only U.S. mainstream media source that didn't report this fact. They all hid it.

The only reason it is being reported now is because the British newspaper, The Guardian, has published the information. The Guardian was also asked to keep it a secret, but someone at that paper evidently had a functioning brain. They asked themselves how it would put the agent in danger. That fact was already widely known in Pakistan, where he is being held. The only place where it was still a secret was Great Britain and the United States. Surely the government didn't think he was in danger from the citizens of those countries.

They decided the government wanted to keep it a secret because they didn't want to be embarrassed by the revelation that a CIA agent was evidently spying on Pakistan -- a nation we are not at war with and who is supposed to be our friend. And since they considered the public's right to know more important than the government's desire to avoid embarrassment, they printed the story. And that is exactly what they should have done.

Once they printed it, the American media printed it also. They should have done it much sooner -- like the day they learned the truth. It is not the job of journalists to hide the truth or to protect government. In fact, this is just the opposite of what they are supposed to do. It is their job to get the facts to the people (and hopefully the story behind those facts), regardless of what the government (or the corporations) wants.

This is becoming a regular thing with the media -- the obedient mainstream media. They failed the public with this story, and it makes one wonder how many other times they've hidden facts that are inconvenient to the government. Probably far too often. This is another reason why it is not good for too much of the media to be owned by just a few corporations -- corporations who are more concerned with profits and cooperation with government, to the detriment of delivering the real truth to the public.

Thank goodness we have the internet -- not only for independent blogs, but also for access to foreign news services. The fact is that today's mainstream media can't always be trusted to deliver the full story of what's happening in the world. Anyone who wants the full story would do well to check a variety of sources, including overseas media.

7 comments:

  1. Really? The media used to be interested in truth? When was that? Not in *my* lifetime. Oh, they used to be a lot better at pretending, but if we'd had the Internet to fact-check back then, we'd have found them just as corrupt tools of the oligarchy as they are today. Even Watergate and the Pentagon Papers were basically published because one faction of oligarchs was peeved at another faction of oligarchs -- not because the New York Times and Washington Post (Pravda on the Hudson and Izvestiya on the Potomac) got a sudden case of the journalistic urge.

    The fact of the matter is that our media has been owned by oligarchs since virtually the beginning of the nation. Even Walter Cronkite mostly had to present truth by omission -- i.e. by omitting falsehoods (sometimes to the point of not covering stories at all if he couldn't cover them without doing that), rather than by actively searching out and seeking truth, an activity which his superiors would have in no way countenanced.

    - Badtux the Cynical Penguin

    ReplyDelete
  2. You may be right. But I'd still like to think that Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were a little better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Walter talked a lot about it in his last years, about the fights he had with CBS to try to get some semblance of journalistic integrity to "stick" and some of the things he had to do in order to get around the corporate beancounters. What happened to CBS News after he left, when they abandoned all pretense of journalistic integrity and became just another entertainment venue, broke his heart, and it was one of his abiding regrets towards the end that he retired at age 65 rather than stay at CBS News and try to delay the inevitable for a decade or two more.

    In other words, Cronkite had integrity coming out his wazoo. The institution he was embedded in, however, was corrupt even then, and it was a constant struggle on his part to make sure that his viewers got as much of the truth as he could manage, even if it meant completely ignoring some stories where there was no way to report it "impartially" without repeating lies.

    Again, you don't have to believe me. Google "Walter Cronkite" and read some of his last editorials for Common Dreams and other online venues. He was the real deal, almost brutally honest about the news media back in his day -- and the news media now.

    - Badtux the Journalistic Penguin

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ur right for once. Only fox is half way truthful. The rest are in the pocket of libs and unions. Cause if bush was still in they would have been all over the cia aspect. But like u they would have left out the part of the two killed trying to rob this guy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A-

    "fox is halfway truthful"
    What planet do you live on? Fox is the worst of the broadcast networks, having no regard for truth at all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. having no regard for truth at all.

    Were talking about FOx not your blog.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.