volinbham
VN GURU
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 68,555
- Likes
- 58,218
We've hit around this topic many times and I'll just throw out a few potential directions.
1. Bias - I've argued that there is a liberal-bias where the word liberal here means a view of the weak needing more representation than the powerful. As a result, the press is more critical of those in power than those who are not (individuals, organizations, countries). When reporting a story of weak vs. strong, the weak is more likely to be portrayed as sympathetic or their view of the situation is likely to be emphasized.
Bias also comes in the form of the perceived role of the press to "speak truth to power". The press has an implicit assumption that those in power shouldn't be trusted and the press should serve as a check to that power. As a result, the press portrays a sense of mistrust in the government (republican or democrat). I believe this explains why the Bush admin gets such consistently negative press since his administration represents the most aggressive attempt to consolidate power. To finish this thought, the president (any president) will get more scrutiny than Congress since power is concentrated in one person in the presidency vs. spread across 535 in the Congress.
2. The big score - I believe Watergate has exaccerbated the bias listed above and set a model in place that the best journalism is that which exposes a conspiracy. The result is relentless digging to uncover conspiracy where it doesn't exist. Often stories are rushed out only later to be found wrong. The retraction never receives the same attention.
Points 1 and 2 represent an impact that the press has of breeding a sense of distrust in government, business, etc. (any "powerful" entity). They also represent a bias in the sense that the story is consistently (although subtly) told from one perspective. Again this is not Republican vs. Democrat but there is a connection since the Republican side typically claims a more capitalistic view (allow power) while the Democrate side typically claims a more populace view (protect weak).
3. Freedom of the press - this is a must and the cornerstone of a free society.
4. Policing the press - The governmental branches have checks and balances but the press claims to police itself (the only institution with that power!
I think the recent articles about the terrorist financing program really point out the tension here. Personally, I don't buy into the NYT logic. They use conflicting claims to justify exposure of the program: 1 - 5 years later, it doesn't need to be secret anymore, 2 - it wasn't really secret and the terrorists probably already knew about it (later they modified this to explain it was still news because Americans didn't know about it but the terrorists did!
, 3 - the public has a right to know, 4 - while no abuses have been found or even alleged, the potential exists. (see Point 1 above)
I certainly don't think the NYT (or other outlets) should be charged with any crime for reporting this but the bigger issue is: Do we really want editors at news outlets to determine which national security secrets should be revealed? The plot to blow up the Holland Tunnel was evidently uncovered by monitoring chatrooms. According to NYT logic in their second argument above, terrorist already knew chatrooms were being monitored and would be too clever to use them. Wrong. My guess is that many didn't know that the clearinghouse for banking was being monitored but they do now!
1. Bias - I've argued that there is a liberal-bias where the word liberal here means a view of the weak needing more representation than the powerful. As a result, the press is more critical of those in power than those who are not (individuals, organizations, countries). When reporting a story of weak vs. strong, the weak is more likely to be portrayed as sympathetic or their view of the situation is likely to be emphasized.
Bias also comes in the form of the perceived role of the press to "speak truth to power". The press has an implicit assumption that those in power shouldn't be trusted and the press should serve as a check to that power. As a result, the press portrays a sense of mistrust in the government (republican or democrat). I believe this explains why the Bush admin gets such consistently negative press since his administration represents the most aggressive attempt to consolidate power. To finish this thought, the president (any president) will get more scrutiny than Congress since power is concentrated in one person in the presidency vs. spread across 535 in the Congress.
2. The big score - I believe Watergate has exaccerbated the bias listed above and set a model in place that the best journalism is that which exposes a conspiracy. The result is relentless digging to uncover conspiracy where it doesn't exist. Often stories are rushed out only later to be found wrong. The retraction never receives the same attention.
Points 1 and 2 represent an impact that the press has of breeding a sense of distrust in government, business, etc. (any "powerful" entity). They also represent a bias in the sense that the story is consistently (although subtly) told from one perspective. Again this is not Republican vs. Democrat but there is a connection since the Republican side typically claims a more capitalistic view (allow power) while the Democrate side typically claims a more populace view (protect weak).
3. Freedom of the press - this is a must and the cornerstone of a free society.
4. Policing the press - The governmental branches have checks and balances but the press claims to police itself (the only institution with that power!
I certainly don't think the NYT (or other outlets) should be charged with any crime for reporting this but the bigger issue is: Do we really want editors at news outlets to determine which national security secrets should be revealed? The plot to blow up the Holland Tunnel was evidently uncovered by monitoring chatrooms. According to NYT logic in their second argument above, terrorist already knew chatrooms were being monitored and would be too clever to use them. Wrong. My guess is that many didn't know that the clearinghouse for banking was being monitored but they do now!