Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
OF INTEREST
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...

Sponsor:

Click here to go there...

ARCHIVE
« December 2003 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright © 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor

Consider:

"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"







Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Wednesday, 3 December 2003

Topic: The Media

"If our boss can do it, why can't you network guys do it?"
An interesting post regrading the news media from Rick in Atlanta.


The question "Why don't we ever see Peter Jennings visiting Iraq" may not be burning holes in the brains of the average American viewer, but it seems to be quietly eating its way through the Bush administration. Who knew?

There are those in the White House who have noticed that whenever Jennings visits some city like Atlanta, we then tend to see all sorts of cute stories, many if not most of them positive, that otherwise never would have made network air. So why, the reasoning seems to go, instead of dwelling on all this violence, don't the network anchors visit Iraq and show America the 95% positive and good things going on there?

(Okay, other than the obvious counter argument that the networks have legions of journalists on the ground in Iraq already, might one wonder how positive the Iraqi situation would look if the anchors were required to fly in with lights turned off, as the president did? Just pondering here.)

You can read this with pictures at:
No News Anchors In Iraq Has White House Troubled
Peter Johnson, USA TODAY, updared December 1, 2003
As U.S. casualties - 79 in November - and controversy over the war in Iraq mount, why has no network news anchor set foot in Iraq since September, when CBS' Dan Rather last visited?

It is a sore spot between the Bush administration and network news executives. Now that President Bush and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., have made Thanksgiving trips to Iraq, insiders predict networks may return some of their big guns to Iraq in coming weeks to gauge the situation for themselves.

Executives at NBC, ABC and CBS argue that correspondents in Iraq are putting the story in perspective and that millions of Americans who watch everything from NBC's Today to The CBS Evening News to ABC's Nightline are getting an accurate picture.
But the Bush administration says positive stories from Iraq are drowned out by a daily drumbeat of bombings and attacks on U.S. troops. If news divisions sent their anchors to Iraq and let them spend time there, they might report a different - and more positive - story.

Ambassador Paul Bremer, who heads the U.S. rebuilding effort in Iraq, "never misses an opportunity to invite every anchor to come over. It is a staple of every interaction," coalition spokesman Dan Senor says. "Ninety-five percent of this country is returning to normal. In order to capture that story, you have to travel and invest time."

From March through October, ABC, CBS and NBC combined devoted 47 hours, more than one-quarter of their weekday nightly newscasts, to Iraq, network news analyst Andrew Tyndall says. NBC spent 1,037 minutes; ABC, 930; and CBS, 873.

"It's not automatic that anchors should be in Iraq, but it's not out of left field to ask why they are not there," Tyndall says. Almost 30 million viewers get their news each night from the three broadcasts - the biggest source of news in America.

NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw has not been to Iraq since July, but producer Steve Capus says, "I reject the characterization that we only do negative stories." He cites, among others, stories on cement and water treatment plants working again. "Our report runs the gamut: good, bad and otherwise."
And so on, with many quotes from the talking heads...

Posted by Alan at 13:38 PST | Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink
Updated: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 13:46 PST home

Thursday, 4 December 2003 - 09:20 PST

Name: Phillip and Rick in Georgia

__ from Phillip:

There are no news anchors asking to go to Iraq because it?s too dangerous and at any moment they could be in harms way. A friend and neighbor just returned from Baghdad and pointed out that almost anybody could pick up a grenade for less than three dollars. There was never a time when you didn?t hear gunshots. If such news doesn?t reach the general public, it surely reaches the anchors. Not evaluating how much worse it can get is a hallmark of our blunder prone military.

__ from Rick:


Phillip,

I think there may be something to your ?too dangerous? argument, although there have been times when anchors have braved that danger. Dan Rather sneaking into Afghanistan during the Soviet incursion comes to mind, although many saw that as a grandstander?s stunt.

But I still think the main reason anchors don?t go to Iraq is that there isn?t that much an anchor can tell us that an army of correspondents aren?t telling us already. You also have to wonder what makes the administration think anchors will put a more positive spin on this story that reporters won?t. And furthermore, it?s not like Iraq is the only story going on in the world right now.

Of course, a real question of journalistic ethics brought up by the latest White House hectoring of the media is, when does covering a news story a certain way cross over from, on the one hand, serving the public, and on the other, to serving the public relations needs of a particular of newsmaker?

In the 11/24/03 issue of New Yorker, there?s an article by George Packer (p.58; ?Letter from Baghdad: War After The War - What Washington doesn?t see in Iraq?) in which he talks about the time he accompanied Paul Bremer and a phalanx of aides and guards as he swept through an Iraqi maternity hospital, handing out stuffed animal toys. When they got to a room where two mothers and their babies were obviously near death, Bremer?s smile disappeared, he said ?I don?t like seeing this at all,? and asked the photographer to stop taking photos.

Downstairs, Packer got to talking with some doctors who told him the electricity had been off all week and was only on at that moment because Bremer was there. They said the ongoing power outages were bringing the infant mortality rate up to as high as ten deaths per day.

At some point, a Bremer press aide, a veteran of George W. Bush?s primary campaigns, spotted the group and came over to offer peppershot questions, apparently designed to get the conversation back on message. ?Are you happy with Saddam gone? Things are better now?? (?Yes.?) ?What?s the best thing about Saddam being gone? ... Do you think over time it gets much better? ... But don?t you think with time it will get better? ... Americans? Iraqis? Both working together?? (?Yes.?) ?So...the economy will stabilize the looting??

After reading much of this, I get the feeling it?s not the anchors who need to go there, it?s Bush who needs to sneak in, probably in disguise and without ?press aides? greasing the skids, sort of like a news reporter does, not announcing ahead of time where he?ll be showing up. That way, he might be able to gather unvarnished information, unfettered by someone?s agenda, and much closer to the truth than he?s become accustomed to. Okay, okay, I guess the ?Prince and the Pauper? approach may be a bit too risky for someone we still, for some reason, refer to as ?Leader of the Free World.?

But fortunately there?s another, much safer way, to achieve the same result:

He merely has to sit down, read some newspapers, listen to NPR?s ?All Things Considered,? and watch some TV news.
Rick

View Latest Entries