BuzzFlash Reader Contribution

CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES  

American Mainstream Media: More by Will than by Reason

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Alexander Lynch

Recently, there have been a string of government-culled journalists encouraged by taxpayer dollars to promote conservative agendas.

Armstrong Williams, an African-American, was the first, and admitted taking $241,000 from the Education Department to promote No Child Left Behind. A law that most African-American intellectuals would not call a reforming of law, but a retardation of it.

Maggie Gallagher, a Universal Press Syndicate writer, received $21,500 to support the president’s initiative to control marriage.

The third journalist, and still we can’t be sure if it’ll be the last, was Mike McManus who took at least $4,000 to promote, within his columns, essentially the same issue as did Gallagher.

Meanwhile, an analysis by congressional Democrats found that the Bush Administration has more than doubled its contracts to public relations firms over his first four years (2001-$37 million, 2004-$88 million).

The report, justifiably, criticized the Bush Administration for spending money to promote its agendas through PR firms during a time of "growing budget deficits."

Around the same time, Michael Powell, head of the Federal Communications Commission, proclaimed, while announcing his resignation, that he had completed a "bold and aggressive agenda" over his term.

Some prefer a parting shot on the way out, but to admit that he had an "agenda" as head of the FCC to, we can observe from his record; deregulate telecommunications and allow the consolidation of big news outlets to head forth, is quite revealing.

So, if we can go back for a moment, we find that:

- Not only are supposedly objective journalists being paid by our government to support government positions, they are being paid with taxpayer money.

- The government, obviously enchanted with the outcome, is spending twice as much on PR firms to promote its projects while increasing the deficit to record heights.

- The Chairman of the FCC admits proudly, while on the way out, that he had an "agenda" during his term.

There is, has been and will continue to be, a civil, or soft war, not directly between competing ideologies such as conservative or liberal, but between acceptable journalistic stances on issues, which may be better referred to as the presentation of an issue to consumers of media.

At one end is an active and aggressive participant in the debate. The other seemingly in a constant defensive position.

A common statistic reported by media watchdogs and pundits is that upwards of 80 percent of reporters consider themselves liberal on issues. Also, reporters are often quoted as saying that their works are not edited for content, only grammar and such necessities.

Even with that, reporters only suggest stories, editors assign them. Reporters are paid for their labors and can only move up to an editorship by the hand of other editors or publishers. The orders basically come from the top and move downwards. The debate about stances on issues, for the most part, takes place without the input of reporters and although reporters do the legwork, they can only move up by their willingness to play by the rules.

The striking new trend of government paid journalists underlies this top-down hierarchy. The Bush Administration is admittedly conservative, by paying journalists to toe the Administration’s line on issues, it is actively taking part in the debate over issue presentation. The same could be argued by spending millions on public relations.

Liberals, on the other hand, are in a state of submission by simply pointing out the unethical nature of such tactics. However true it may be and however many people it may convince, it is not as effective over a population of media consumers who typically don’t have the time to look into the debate that takes place around the presentation of an issue.

And, when the chairman of the FCC, who admits having an agenda and whose record defines the conservative agenda on related issues, it again leaves the liberal agenda in a state of resignation in a very high position in the hierarchy.

It could be argued that it is a natural tendency for conservatives to man the highest positions in this hierarchy, or, as cited, paying for opinions, in a market driven business as is the American media.

Without any true disagreement, the holding companies of major networks and newspapers are conservative. Also, advertisers are generally considered on the conservative spectrum due to their majority being corporations, or for-profit businesses.

The media and journalism in the United States, for the most part, is a business with stake holders that occupy the top positions and although a majority of reporters may be liberal, the upper reaches of the system is dominated by those who have an overwhelming conservative lean. The system, therefore, wouldn’t allow too many obvious liberals to move up and, instead of editing for content of articles, the system edits for presentation of issues behind the closed executives’ doors.

An example of media being corporate, maybe the most grossly apparent, is NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and numerous radio stations and cable channels which are all owned by General Electric. Executives at GE are, without doubt, interested in protecting their products and interests. Along with presenting issues through the media, GE also is a manufacturer of weapons.

Also, without much doubt, one of the largest issues of our time is the corporate influence over everyday lives in the United States. It is the subject of many books and corporate executives are regularly portrayed as the evil "bad guy" in Hollywood movies.

Yet, the subject is hardly touched by the media and the reason is obvious; the protection of the system and, to use a journalist‘s quip, it would be a "conflict of interest" to allow a report on one‘s own downfalls. To give an example, GE would never allow a thoroughly researched and argumentative piece to air on any of its affiliates a story about, for example, the amount of money GE may have spent on lobbying the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq in order to unload its stagnant stacks of war materials and receive government/military contracts to make more.

With such a system, not to mention a hold on the legislative, judicial and executive branches, conservative issues are in position to win many debates by sheer strength.

When the Bush Administration argued, through the mainstream media, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, links to al-Qaeda and possible nuclear capabilities, Americans shrieked in fear. Newspapers, commentators and pundits were brought on stage to make the argument in a constant stream of, what we later found out, was nothing more than propaganda.

Still, the issue had been defined and consumer minds had been made while naysayers were repeatedly called, however irrationally, "anti-American," or "aiding the enemy."

Currently, the Bush Administration is arguing for partial privatization (although the word privatization itself has come under semantic fire) of Social Security, at once trying to scare the young and calm the old, the Washington and Wall street conservatives are presenting, through the media, a stance that doesn’t exactly hold water.

Bush has argued that Social Security is heading for inevitable insolubility. But, the General Accounting Office and two Social Security Administration actuaries have all but shot that argument down.

Still the argument persists, more by will than by reason, to gamble on Wall Street an entitlement program that was created by a Democrat and has come under fire from conservatives from the beginning.

The need for a change is obvious (and the topic of another story). But it is important to understand that, in the American mainstream media, there is not a struggle between conservatives and liberals, it couldn’t be called a struggle, more like a trouncing. The real struggle that takes place is how to present the issue.

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

Alexander Lynch is a Tampa based journalist. He can be reached at shanachie51@hotmail.com.