Post 9-11 Journalism

After reading what Brent Cunningham and Bob Stevenson wrote about how the media responded to the attacks on September 11, 2001, I realized how little I know on the subject. We've discussed this event endlessly in and outside of class for years since that very day when I was a freshman in high school. When we talked about it in Issues and the News, I wasn't exactly sure where I stood when it came to how the media covered the event.

It's a hard thing to judge, especially since I was only just starting high school at the time. Stevenson acknowledges the tremendousness of the event. This was an unprecedented event. You can't knock journalists for how they reacted too much, because this was something completely new and unfamiliar. I can't believe the executive editor of the NY Times had only been working that position for six days when the attacks rocked the city. These reporters did amazing things covering these events. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to do something like that. Stevenson brings up the personality profiles the Times did; how they really tried to show who these people were who lost their lives.

This side of the story sounds just too outrageous to criticize or analyze the media. When the news is, as Stevenson put it, "recent occurrences of familiar events," it's easy to make judgments and analyze the quality of journalism and coverage. This is familiar territory. The other side of the story that I've been thinking about is more related to what Cunningham's article was talking about.

Cunningham discusses the power of language. By calling the attacks "acts of war" versus "criminal acts," you are building an idea or forming an assumption. This is the part I realized I don't know enough about. A few years after the attacks I read a book about how the media was being used as a tool to promote the war in Iraq. I thought this was horrible, but I also realized who ever wrote the book was illustrating an opinion as well. Propaganda is everywhere. I've never really figured out what happened after the attacks. I never quite understood why we went to war. I remember it all happening so fast at the time. And I remember not understanding what was happening. It wasn't until my friend came home dead from Iraq when I really began to question it.

So, what I'd like to know, is what was happening in the world of journalism? Weren't people asking these questions? I know many people in the media were fired from the mainstream for bad-mouthing and questioning the war, but what was actually happening during that first year following the attacks. Once journalists were done covering the grief and the drama and allowing public officials answer the questions, did anyone stop and realize something was going on?

Maybe I should know the answer to this question by now, but I really don't. I know how strong language is, and I realize words helped promote the war; but with so many voices, there had to be someone analyzing things more deeply. Sometimes I wish I had been a little older when it happened. But then again, I'm probably lucky I was just a thoughtless freshman in high school. It's probably better that way.

Vladimir Pozner Interview on Frontline

There were a few points Pozner made in his PBS Frontline interview that I really liked. First of all, he pointed out the obvious fact that network television is a tool used by the government to promote what the government wants. Jeff Cohen, in Issues in the News class, mentioned Phil Donahue too. The United States really can't knock Putin for controlling network TV if Fox fired people who didn't agree with the Iraq War. Of course, from what it sounds like, Russians don't seem to care about other sides. They don't care about free press because they've never had it.

What I'd like to know is how much access to other sources of information do Russians actually have. Americans don't have to listen to Fox solely for information. We have billions of voices on the internet and other forms of media with different views. It sounds like whoever controls TV has the power; especially after hearing about the people who squashed the potential return of the Communist Party. That amazed me. But is this control because of media and press limitations in Russia, or is it only because the people don't try to find other answers? If they are happy with Putin, maybe they are not searching for someone saying he's wrong.

In a way, this isn't a terrible thing. In America, especially as a Journalism student, there's a lot of pressure to question, analyze, and always seek as many sides to one story as possible. We are supposed to be skeptical. I know that being educated grants us this freedom--the ability to be skeptical and try to make a difference--but just living happily might be okay too. I wouldn't mind a world where I wasn't required to read every page of the newspaper every single day and worry about what is going on in every corner of the planet. I won't take for granted that I have the ability to do so, but life was probably a lot simpler fifty years ago when the gatekeepers were less than ten.

Another thing I thought was interesting was when Pozner said, "I am not cynical, but I tend to have serious doubts that, deep down inside, they care about democracy in Russia; [they care] only in that they think a democratic country is easier to deal with than one that is not democratic."

I couldn't agree more. I've always wondered why the United States tries so hard to make everyone mimic their ways and their government. Clearly, we can't be these purely altruistic country who wants everyone to be as "happy" and "luxurious" as we are. We always have a motive. We are not perfect.

"The Rhetoric Beat. Why journalism needs one"

Brent Cunningham reminded me of something I've heard before; something I don't know if I would've ever thought about until professors or others pointed out to me. After listening to the horror stories Jeff Cohen told about working in the mainstream media at the beginning of the War in Iraq, I'd believe anything I heard about the government's link to the media. I've read books outlining ways the media are used to manipulate, rally, and gain support. Cunningham brings up one of the most subtle form of this deception--which goes way more undetected than canceling the Phil Donahue Show. This is the power of words; the power of language. The smallest word--like that three-letter word beginning with a "w"--can make all the difference. Language in the mainstream media has the power to create ideas.

With events at such an astronomical scale, like the 9-11 attacks, it's hard to be the person to fight against the tide of how what is happening is meant to be perceived. As Cunningham points out, it probably wouldn't have been possible to question why these attacks were called "acts of war" versus "criminal acts" or "mass murder."

But I think there's a good side to all this. There is hope. Just as democracy, during its inception, brought hope to nations controlled by corrupt and oppressive leaders, something new is on the rise. This is the independent media practitioners. There are people out there now filling in the gaps the mainstream is missing (whether it's deliberate or not). Someone out there is watchdogging the media as the media watchdogs the government. With the amount of analysts voicing opinions these days, the power of language used by the media might not be as effective. The device can be used by anyone. What we need is someone to keep an eye out for misunderstanding created deliberately to promote skewed images. I'd say in the competitive world of journalism growing today, it'll be much harder for corporate media to gain so much control over people's thoughts.

Tabloidization of the News

I'll be honest. I'm sick of hearing people complain about sensational, celebrity, and entertainment news. Let's be real here. Not everyone really cares about Paris Hilton. But some people do. The New York Times doesn't need to spend columns talking about her, but someone out there has every right to. I read Runner's World, but this isn't something everyone needs. It educates me, but not everybody really wants to or needs to know how to train for a half marathon. That's why we have so many forms of media. That's the best thing about the rise of independent media. As long as every individual media outlet recognizes its role and knows how to cater to the audience, the lines won't be so blurry.

It's hard to balance the business and public service sides of journalism. There are plenty voices out there to provide information and analyze current events, so it's hard to accuse anyone of covering something that shouldn't be covered. Of course, celebrity news belongs in the media outlets it was designed for.

Independent Media Setting us back On Course

After reading "Off Course" by Michael Massing and "Facts, Fallacies, and Fears of Tabloidization" by Linn Washington and listening to both Josh Marshall and Jeff Cohen talk about independent media, I've come to a conclusion. All the talk about the mainstream media being too sensational, basing their story content on business models or large corporate agendas, or working towards making a profit versus serving democracy is becoming a bit tiresome. Everyone has an agenda, a purpose, and an opinion. This is unavoidable. The world is not perfect. I think the best answer to these complaints is the rise of more independent journalists.

People spend so much time criticizing what is being covered in the news (which is fine because there's nothing wrong with criticism). But the more voices and opinions joining the conversation, the more news is being covered. It allows for people to see the many sides to one story. We are not limited to mainstream media, so it's not so horrible if they are not covering exactly what they should be covering.

Of course, even independent media groups, such as Josh Marshall's team of ten, are out there to make money. That's how you survive in this world. As long as we realize everyone has a reason for saying what he or she is saying, we can gain the information and examine a story from multiple angles unlike ever before. So, all this worry about tabloidization or worry about Britney Spears coverage dominating the news isn't something to be too concerned about. It's a new age; an age with an unlimited amount of sources of information and perceptions of an issue.

Re-thinking Objectivity

The ideal of objective journalism began in the 19th century. It's been questioned, it's been defied, and it's been pushed to it's limits. Yet, it persists. Brent Cunningham points out, in "Re-thinking Objectivity," that nothing better has come along to replace it. It's a good thing to strive for. Avoiding opinion in news, especially hard news, has it's advantages.

Of course, as Cunningham argues, the desire to be objective can sometimes affect the quality of investigative journalism. Tonight Josh Marshall spoke about the solution to this problem. If mainstream media is afraid to bring up issues or doesn't have the time to dig for more, there are other voices out there filling in the gaps. Independent media has less restriction, though there has to be rules to gain credibility and trust from a readership, so it can take the time and the chance to reach a little further.

Objectivity and subjectivity are both important parts of delivering and analyzing the news, but it's important to know whether your news source is meant to be factual or editorialized. Nobody is perfect and no single media outlet or individual journalist can report everything perfectly, so it's good we have a million of voices in one vibrant conversation.

Globalization: Good or Evil?

I've always had mixed feelings about globalization. There are plenty of reasons why it's good for the world and plenty of reasons why it's bad. If I was asked to write a persuasive argument either for or against globalization, I wouldn't have a problem coming up with evidence to support each case. But when I think about globalization subjectively, or when I look at it for what it is from my perspective rather than others; I don't feel too badly about it.

If I hadn't been overseas before and I hadn't met people from around the world, I might even think globalization is merely the United States and other dominant countries forcing their form of government, culture, and economy on the less developed nations. In some ways, this is the case. But I see it differently.

When you meet people from different cultures, the two best things to talk about are the things you have in common and the things you don't have in common. No matter how "standardized" or connected we become, every country or group of people within a country will have differences. Liking similar movies, TV shows, activities and music give you common ground with the rest of the world. It shows we really are not that much different. We are all human and find the same things funny, scary or entertaining. There's nothing wrong with that. We still have differences that make us unique.

Less developed countries might not be joining the race; there's nothing wrong with that. Others are eager to jump on the band wagon. There's nothing wrong with that either.