Role of the Media in the Trans-Atlantic Relationship

[Skybird]

Worth a read, I thought.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-478884,00.html

One could see it as an absurd lopsidedness because, for example, that a single edition of the "New York Times" would run the same story from a number of different angles - the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department. Europeans are unfamiliar with this tradition in which journalists report hard facts but avoid stating an opinion. Even the analysis of these facts, sometimes by the same reporter who has penned an article, whether in the "New York Times", "Washington Post" or "Los Angeles Times", differs little from the other pieces. What distinguishes American journalism from its European counterpart is the absolute divide between such articles and editorials, opinion pieces or regular columns. It is obvious where this can lead: readers who want to believe that the affirmative, patriotic America was the real deal would pay attention to one half of the papers, while those who wanted to read about questioning, self-critical America would stick to the opinion pages and journalists like Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman or Thomas Friedman. That's how easy it can be to have your prejudices confirmed.

Major powers often underestimate the significance of historical experiences not their own. Medium-sized powers are aware of the dangers of over-estimating their own importance and correctly assess the significance of institutions within the global community. Major powers occasionally fall prey to the delusion that they can bend the world to their will in certain selected regions. In the past, Europe's medium-sized powers followed the same policies and now know that overweening ambition and large empires can be short-lived. Major powers like America repeatedly underestimate the overwhelming force of the strong emotions they unleash against themselves. Smaller powers have already experienced the historical consequences of such actions, so that experiences that are quite new for superpowers will often seem like déjà vu to them.

The cultural differences between major powers and smaller powers can feed a perception of "foreignness" that can lead to increasing political polarization when power starts to decline.

[P_Funk]

Major powers like America repeatedly underestimate the overwhelming force of the strong emotions they unleash against themselves. Hello!:p

As for reporters being opinionated in Europe, I've noticed this. I've listened to pod casts of Robert Fisk, and a few recordings of his lectures and he makes a point of saying that he is purposely opinionated. He says that the press isn't here to be impartial, but to be a check on the powers that be and that it is his obligation as a reporter to be critical of those powers.

Very much a contrast to how it is over on this craggy rock in the sea.:nope:

[Skybird]

I wouldn't say which way of journalism is the better one. But personally, I find it more difficult to keep track of an issue in let's say the WP or NYT (online editions), than in German papers. The way the longterm coverage of a subject is structured is very very different, I think. On the other side, bad examples of european journalism are watring information with subjective opinion to a degree that this makes it difficult to track the facts in an subject, too.

[P_Funk]

On the other side, bad examples of european journalism are watring information with subjective opinion to a degree that this makes it difficult to track the facts in an subject, too.
That is always an issue. However there is always an implicit bias anyway in North American reporting most of the time. Its not about expressing opinion usually, so much as how the story angles it. What information is emphasized and what is left out altogether. The bias usually favours the conservative right, but thats mainly because almost the entire north american news media is owned by a few conglomerates and corporations are by their very nature conservative.

How individual reporters approach stories seems irrelavent in North America. I can't think of a single younger reporter that can be put on the same level as a Walter Kronkeit or a Woodward and Bernstein. Its all glam and flash. I mean they have Katie Courric on the evening news for heaven's sake.

Investigative journalism is sparse. Nobody seems to chase down stories, so much as they mull throug authorized releases and official statements.

[OddjobXL]

The bias usually favours the conservative right, but thats mainly because almost the entire north american news media is owned by a few conglomerates and corporations are by their very nature conservative.

I tend to take issue with that. Yes, conglomerates own the media and they really don't have a vested interest in riling up the government that can regulate them or cause trouble when mergers roll around. However, there is a tradition of journalists as being a Fourth Estate of government - that they have an informal role, implied by the freedom of speech mandated in the constitution, as part of how a democracy governs itself. They look at what's really happening in the country, the world and our government and let the people see for themselves, with sources and access the people can't get on their own, what's going on.

These days it's fair to ask whether they really are doing a good job fulfilling that duty and I'd say it's fair to conclude that, by and large, they are not. The reason for this has to do with the news media being seen more and more on the same terms with other products as profit generators rather than institutions that lend prestige to the owner. Papers get sold, staffs are slashed, and the content is remodelled to be more commercially viable. Same story with broadcast news. More color, more drama, more editorial opining, more blondes - less depth and breadth of coverage for real news, investigative reporting and contextual analysis. The other aspect to this is that politicians are much more cagey about granting access and levels of access to reporters that are willing to play ball with them: to write down what they say off the record, to take them at their words, to socialize with them at parties in Georgetown.

After 9/11 there was a tendency for all Americans to want to pull together. I donated blood and money, I even bought an American flag magnet for my car. We were in this as one nation. I think this spirit also consumed the news media and muted political opposition. Since Republicans were running the show you'd naturally have reporters featuring what they had to say more and more. But it lacked all sense of perspective or doubt. People who did question were treated as freaks or traitors even by outlets that aren't superglued to Republican doctrine like Fox News. And when an enterprising reporter like Walter Pincus of The Washington Post went after sources inside who did offer pre-war warnings about what the Administration was up to his stories about the warping of intelligence got jammed back to page A18 or so.

But I don't think you can just say that conservative conglomerates are pushing out propaganda in mainstream American media (aside from the Murdochs of the world). What we have is a public that will watch a car chase before a talking-head policy discussion and that for a very long time was unwilling, because it seemed so unlikely and troublesome, to believe an administration would lie to them in a time of war. And we had a media that was chasing that market more than the underlaying stories.

Edit: Now I've had time to read it I think that article is a pretty good summation of the situation.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

God I thought you were going to talk about person to person trans atlantic relationships :rotfl::oops:

[Skybird]

God I thought you were going to talk about person to person trans atlantic relationships :rotfl::oops:

A: "Damn lefty...!"
E: "Damn warmonger...!"
A: "Unthankful weakling!"
E: "Selfish gangster!"
A: "Silly babble-club!"
E: "Bigmouthed cowboy!"
A: "Idiotic socialist!"
E: "Capitalist predator!"
A: "I hate you...!"
E: "No, I hate you...!
E2: "No - we hate you...!
E3: "Well... do we?"
E4: "The question is... should we?"
E5: "Please don't you talk in my name."
E6: "but we need to talk united."
A: "Ha! You and - united...! :rotfl: "
E: ":arrgh!: We hate you!"
E7: "Well, actually I do not."
E8: "Shut up."
E9: "Be sensible, guys."
E10: "Be supportive, guys."
E11: "Correct. Politcally, I mean."
E12: "I'm hungry."
E13: "I'm thirsty."
E15: "Let's go grilling."
E16: "It's not called grilling, it's called barbecue."
E17: "With TV transmission of rodeo."
E18: "With cowboys?"
E19: "yep. bigmouthed ones."
E20: "And huge steaks."
E: "Huuuuge steaks."
A: "Ten dollars the piece!"
E: "Twelve!"
A: "Eleven!"
E: "Deal!"
A: no comment
E5: "Don't you talk in my name, please."
E8: "Shut up!"
E5: "No!"
E8: "Yes!
E5: "No!"
E8: "Yesyesyesyesyessss...!"
E21: "Oh please..."
E22: "All this only because of the Americans."
E23: "And their damn barbecues."
E24: "Not to mention their awful rodeos."
E25: "Not much they can beyond that."
E16: "We don'T want no stinking barbecue."
E7: "Actually, I would."
E8: "Shut up."
E15: "It's not a barbecue, it's grilling."
A: "Oh look what they are doing to our beautiful barbecue!"
A: "Uah... they grill mixed pickles, no steaks! :doh: "
A: Aaaah... it smells awful...!"
E: "You don't know what is true haute cuisine."
E18: "You'r just a damn cowboy."
E19: "A bigmouthed cowboy."
A: "Degenerated grill-club!"
E: "Steak-thief!!"
A: "Steak-thief...? :doh: "
E: "All capitalist predators are stealing thieves!"
A: "Idiotic socialist!"
E: "Selfish gangster!"
A: "Damn lefty!"


:-j

[Yahoshua]

Personally I'd prefer if reporters here followed the same European outline of newspapers according to the point of view it is reported from.

Eg. Communist paper, Unionist paper, Republican paper, Democrat paper, etc.

It'd resolve all the "fair and balanced reporting" bs that we have to put up with when we can figure out the agenda of a reporter or news agency within a series of articles quite easily.

And I'd also like to see more transparency within the news organizations themselves and have a requirement for basis of "fact reporting" as opposed to this "celebrity reportiong" that I'm so tired of. I'm finding too many "fair and balanced reporting" articles being passed off as news when they are in fact opinionated articles with no real meat to the story.

I also want to hear more positive stories on the news. All the "doom and gloom" is both dangerous by crying wolf too many times, and desensitizing the public from real dangers that exist and atrocities that are occurring.

Thos are my 2 cents.

[Iceman]

Good Article and good points by all...I agree in that media corporations have an intrest in "Playing Ball" probably more so than ever in history...reason I think this is only because of working for the local cable co. here in AZ Cox Cable....in my 10 years here I have yet to see one negative thing reported about the home company...ever....I see nothing but propoganda in favor of it and almost to the point of making me sick and I work for em. :) I mean it is a really good company but everyone farts...no one human is perfect and we all have problems...companies and governments alike and to think otherwise is silly and dangerous....not sure there is a solution but do thank God really for the internet and the ability to read from media from Iraq to Kalamazoo to North pole to South and make my own decisions still.

[P_Funk]

But I don't think you can just say that conservative conglomerates are pushing out propaganda in mainstream American media (aside from the Murdochs of the world). What we have is a public that will watch a car chase before a talking-head policy discussion and that for a very long time was unwilling, because it seemed so unlikely and troublesome, to believe an administration would lie to them in a time of war. And we had a media that was chasing that market more than the underlaying stories. I would argue that the relentless pursuit of profit and market shares above genuine reporting is a result of conglomerate ownership of the news media. It is the nature of corporations to pursue revenues above all else. There is no moral compulsion to be a good citizen or to be a responsible Fifth Estate (as I was taught it, not the Fourth, but that might be a cultural difference). Another thing to consider is that the larger conglomerates are owned by massive ownership corporations themselves and ultimately any agenda pushed by these corporations are out of self interest to their profits.

Certainly the mood of the people over the last 30 years and especially since 9/11 is one where dissent was at first not popular, but that goes with the policy of selling newspapers. Selling to the mood by not being controversial means a wider interest. And lets face it, no matter your politics or mine the average adult isn't interested in whats going on. Mostly they want reinforcement of their convictions and any affront to that tends to drive down sales.

I don't by any means think that it is just the corporatization of the news media. However it is a major consideration. But in a discussion of the lack of investigative journalism today the corporate element is the most significant I feel.