Category: Media Watch

What a welcome weather respite — and therapeutic diversion — was provided by that thrilling USF double-overtime win against TCU two Saturdays ago. For a few fleeting hours it was sanctuary city, as the cone of anxiety and the approach of the apocalypse du jour were on hold for some quality escape. Until, that is, the concluding two plays of that dramatic 45-44 USF win in Fort Worth, Texas.

That’s when an ESPN Regional satellite-feed error resulted in a switch back to WFTS, Channel 28’s “All attitude all the time” 11:00 news. Glitch happens, of course, but compounding matters was leaving the OT nail-biter for on-location shots of Don Germaise, who could hype a bake-off. In inimitably frenetic fashion, he was reporting from somewhere on the east coast that not only was it raining hard, but it was really, really windy and a lot of damage was sure to result.

The CBS/Dan Rather “memogate” incident begs several interpretations and subplots. To wit:

*Given the three-way communication among CBS producer Mary Mapes, John Kerry senior adviser Joe Lockhart and long time George W. Bush critic and memo enabler Bill Burkett, conspiracy theorists have some traction. The real outcome: Left-leaning CBS and its anchor/executive news editor Dan Rather, who three years ago actually spoke at a Democratic fund-raiser in Texas, weren’t so much snookered as found out.

*Given the Machiavellian reputation of Karl Rove and some amateurish forgeries, contrarian conspiracy sorts think it was the perfect storm of pre-emptive Republican damage control. The strategy: Concede the message of 30-year-old National Guard favoritism — but assure that the messenger and its manner of conveyance were trashable. The presumptive result: end of National Guard story — and beginning of biased media as “the” story. Running against John Kerry and Dan Rather is not without benefit.

*Given Dan Rather’s reputation for grandstanding — especially at the expense of Republican presidents, including a contentious session with George H.W. Bush — it’s likely the 73 year old was just going to the GOP character-assassination well one last time.

What is certain, however, is this. Too much time and focus have been spent by the media on an issue that warrants virtually none. The result was a distraction from the real issues and a disservice to candidates, the voting public and most media.

What is also inescapable is this. CBS is guilty of unconscionable shoddiness when it comes to vetting sources and authenticating evidence. It is also at fault for unprofessional ethics by involving itself directly with a Kerry campaign operative. And it arrogantly stonewalled for a fortnight before Rather’s belated apologia. The (oft-violated) media mandate to “Get it right, get it first” was shamelessly transposed and disgraced.

As for Rather, who has never been confused with Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite, he wasn’t so much biased, as he was enamored of the prospect of another big score before he turns in his talons. He obviously hasn’t retired his journalistic hubris yet.

Perhaps the debates will get us all back on task as we await this most pivotal presidential election.

Perhaps.

So what’s with CBS and Dan Rather blatantly carrying water for the anti-Bush side? Isn’t that the job of Michael Moore, Kitty Kelley and Gary Trudeau?

For those of you who liked “Fahrenheit 9/11,” you will likely like “Control Room.” For those who didn’t like “Fahrenheit” or, more to the point, refused to see it, you just might appreciate “Control Room.”

It’s a documentary — not a diatribe. It’s not about conspiracy theories and ham-handed editing. It’s about journalists who work for Al-Jazeera. Its agenda is perspective.

The movie, which is directed by Egyptian-born, Harvard-educated Jehane Noujaim, has received numerous plaudits for its objectivity. Ironically, one of its most telling points is that events seen through different cultural and nationalistic lenses inherently render viewers, including journalists, subjective.

Don’t let any journalist tell you otherwise. None of us is truly objective. We simply try to recognize and limit our subjectivity. We are all products of our experiences and byproducts of societal norms and values. Objectively speaking, we all live our lives subjectively. Journalists don’t have an “Off” button when we go to work.

I suspect the ultimate political fallout from Michael Moore’s controversial documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” will be — nothing.

An unscientific survey (mine) finds that most “Fahrenheit” patrons are there for the same reason people listen to talk radio. To be validated. To be part of the choir awaiting the preacher.

Those not in the mood for a bludgeoning, anti-Bush polemic — or who prefer a lot less of Moore on any subject — will stay away in droves. Running down the United States for profit doesn’t appeal to everyone. An anti-American diatribe that is popular with the French will deter others.

The merely curious and skeptical will likely remain that way. Moore, like a cinematic Ronda Storms, has a way of getting in the way of his own point of view. His voice-overs are frequently as silly and sophomoric as they are manipulative and disingenuous. Ellipses-connecting inferences masquerade as conspiratorial facts. A heavy editing hand is always preferable to a deft touch. Cheap shots are a Moore staple. He has his Bolshevik moments and flights of race-baiting fancy.

But in “Fahrenheit,” he also has plenty of material. A commander in chief who is not presidential. An unnecessary war. A mismanaged occupation. The conversion of the moral high ground into an abyss of unilateralism and arrogance.

Plus the historical context that preceded George W. Bush. To wit: An unbroken chain of administrations that have been in bed with the House of Saud. And an FBI and CIA that had been incommunicado for too long. All Moore had to do was get out of the way and exercise taste other than bad.

But here’s some advice for apoplectic conservatives.

Don’t add to the notoriety. Don’t bring more attention to “Fahrenheit” by trying to refute specious assertions and skewed conclusions. And definitely don’t try to prevent it from being shown or advertised. It is what it is, a MoveOn.orgy that won’t matter — except for making Moore millions.

The Tampa Tribune will be a while living down that fiasco over the wrong editorial that consoled the Lightning over a valiant — albeit losing — effort against Calgary in the Stanley Cup Final. It was among the worst things that can happen to a newspaper — trying to cover your ass on deadline and making the wrong call. The contingency plan from hell: preparing in advance for either victory or defeat — and then choosing the wrong one.

Oh, the average reader moved on the following day, but it took a little longer for the national media — and the St. Petersburg Times — to let go. This was a juicy, “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment. The impact, however, transcended embarrassing media snafu.

It was an opportunity for the ESPNs and other sports media — especially flagship newspapers in markets with well-established traditions in hockey — to pile on the Tampa Bay area as a less-than-deserving venue for such major sports success. The Trib, alas, provided Exhibit A to the usual naysayers.

Ultimately, however, it comes down to this. To hell with ’em. The editorial. The apology. The cheesy, cheap shots.

The Cup is where it belongs. Worthy of tribute — not Tribulation.

From time to time the complaint is raised that the “Comics” page is less than an appropriate forum for the “Doonesbury” strip. Agreed. But it’s not a matter of political partisanship.

If Thomas Sowell, for example, could draw something other than conservative conclusions, I wouldn’t want his paneled politics on the “Comics” page either. “Doonesbury” belongs on the editorial page even more than “Dilbert” belongs on the business page.

Never, however, was the context more inappropriate — and jarring — than on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend. Both metro newspapers ran “Doonesbury” as they normally do in the Sunday Comics. Only this time the strip’s six panels were devoted entirely to the names of those American G.I.s killed in combat in Iraq through April 23.

It came from a good place, and Gary Trudeau is to be saluted for his tribute. Our fallen troops can never be remembered enough.

However in this case, an otherwise legitimate “In Memoriam” tribute was trivialized by its “Comics” context. In one newspaper, which ran the strip vertically, “Doonesbury” was under “Marmaduke” and adjacent to, among others, “Mother Goose and Grimm” and “Hi & Lois.” In the other, which ran “Doonesbury” horizontally, it was sandwiched between “Hagar the Horrible” and “Luann.” Positioning next to “Non Sequitur” would have made more sense.

Unlike the generic issue with “Doonesbury,” this was no mere journalistic judgment call. It was, however much unintended, disrespectful.

Now we have the New York Times issuing another mea culpa. Perhaps it’s the annual.

Last year it had to admit — eventually — that Jayson Blair was a lot more than the iconic newspaper’s minority, superstar-in-the-making reporter. He was a fraud. A superstar-in-the-faking. A plagiarizing, source-fabricating, arrogantly venal fraud — and the leadership of the Times was his self-congratulating, diversity enabler.

This time it’s a lot more serious. This time it’s not the Times being caught worshiping its idols at the altar of political correctness. This time it’s the Times being caught hurting a lot more than its reputation. This time it blindsided the country.

The Times now confesses that it was “had” in its reporting on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. It was duped by dubious, agenda-driven sources and became an unwitting co-conspirator in presenting the key rationale for war to the American people — and the rest of the world. It accepted as geopolitical gospel assertions and allegations by a clique of self-appointed, self-serving, Iraqi regime-change advocates.

As a result, it ill served its readers, a seemingly forgiving lot who still like their world according to the Times . But much more importantly, it ill served the national interest. The Times may want to send personal apologies to the families of all those soldiers who have been killed fighting a war with a bogus rationale propagated in no small part by the lazy, hapless reporting of the New York Times.

America’s newspaper of record can’t blame this one on Jayson Blair.

As we now know, the aftermath of the TyRon Lewis wrongful death case did not result in full-fledged rioting. The community breathed a collective sigh of relief as fears had been flamed that there might be a reprise of 1996’s burning and looting spree. Calmer heads ultimately prevailed over the revolutionary rhetoric of the Uhurus and their H. Rap Brownshirts.

No thanks to the St. Petersburg Times , however.

This is how the Times heralded the news that a jury had rejected a call for more than $1.6 million in compensation for Lewis’ family. The 4-column, front-page, above-the-fold headline declared: “Jury Finds City Owes Lewis Family Nothing.” Directly below was a 4-column, close-up, color photo of infuriated family members.

At a time when no one knew if violence — actually an extension of a previous night’s limited looting — would break out once a verdict had been rendered, the Times chose language and a juxtaposed photo that was at least fuel for the Uhuru firebrands. (Having provided an ongoing bully pulpit for the anarchist rantings of Omali Yeshitela wasn’t contribution enough.)

It was tantamount to saying “Mostly White Jury Agrees That Family Of Black Teen Killed By Trigger-Happy White Cop Deserve Nothing For Their Heartbreak.”

The Times loves to tout its role as a responsible, involved corporate citizen as well as its reputation for award-winning, independent journalism.

Tout this.

It’s not exactly a “man bites dog” story.

For some reason, another big study about the media was just released. Doing the releasing was the Washington-based and presumptively named Project for Excellence in Journalism. The results say the public doesn’t think much of the media; however, the media think rather highly of the media.

We needed the “State of the News Media 2004” to tell us that? What next? Revelations that the public doesn’t trust politicians, car salesmen, telemarketers, itinerant roofers, Flat Earth Society tenets and Don King?

It seems that a majority of the public thinks that journalists only care about fairness after they’ve exhausted other priorities, such as biases, agendas and career advancement. The public also thinks that news organizations worship the bottom line instead of venerating truth.

And journalists — and their bosses — disagree with such perceptions.

None of this is particularly new, let alone news — at least since the Hearst papers kick-started the Spanish-American War.

But more context might help.

First of all, the nature of news must be acknowledged. Mostly, it’s what’s unexpected. The bridge that didn’t collapse. The plane that didn’t crash. That’s not news. That’s why so much of the news is “so negative.” That’s why there is often the need for a soft “kicker” at the end of news broadcasts.

The electronic media hasn’t been the same since news morphed from public-service loss leader to profit center. Electronic’s strength is visual impact and immediacy. But it’s been misused by a short-attention span public that likes its information packaged as entertainment. It was never intended to be America’s main — let alone sole — source of news.

As for the journalists, they are the way they are because of the nature of the calling and the culture of their education — not because they are Pulitzer hustlers or co-conspirators in bias. Many have hubris-driven, crusader complexes: if they don’t get the truth out, it may never get out. Ongoing Watergate fallout.

Moreover, they are taught as undergraduates to be hardened skeptics and to protect “the people,” i.e. the “little guy,” from all that is big: government, business, behemoth bureaucracies of all stripe. Many have the muckraking gene.

That’s why most mainstream media — talk radio and the Fox Network notwithstanding — are to the left of center. Most journalists are well intentioned; the ( New York Times) Jayson Blairs and the ( USA Today) Jack Kelleys, journalistic prostitutes both, remain the rare exception.

The business of the media is not an oxymoron, but a unique challenge. Selling advertising is not selling out. Unless you’re Havana’s Granma , that’s how you stay in business. You have to succeed in the marketplace before you succeed in the marketplace of ideas.

It should be noted that with the exception of publications sold at supermarket checkout counters, newspapers don’t print stories because “that’s what sells papers.” The papers would sell anyhow.

And it must never be forgotten that the media is the only business that has its own amendment, the First. The press is that important. Such that Thomas Jefferson was memorably moved to say: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

But Jefferson, for all his prescience, never saw the slippery slope coming. Alexis de Tocqueville saw vexing scenarios unfolding and nailed it when he observed that “In order to enjoy the inestimable benefits that the liberty of the press ensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable evils that it creates.”

But Paul Newman said it even better: “I wish I could sue the New York Post , but it’s awfully hard to sue a garbage can.”

Which is about where this discussion began.