Media Criticism

I mentioned state-run media briefly in Monday’s post about Italian media and RAI. The same issue of Monocle where I learned about Milena Gabanelli runs an interview with Washington D.C. bureau chief Roselena Ramirez from Venezuela’s state-run TV station TeleSUR. Ramirez makes a valiant effort to defend her country’s media while showing journalist integrity but falls short for a fundamental reason.

Luke Crisell asked Ramirez whether Americans felt that Hugo Chavez was involved directly in operations at TeleSUR. Ramirez was understandably defensive in responding to this question by offering an anecdote. A panel of media veterans who were reviewing TeleSUR’s credentials asked a similar question. Ramirez responded by throwing back the question to reporters who work for ABC which is owned by multi-national company Disney. The notion of a billion-dollar company like Disney holding the same sway as a national leader may sound right in an impassioned defense of media integrity but I am not convinced.

State-run media outlets like RAI and TeleSUR are outlets for narcissism, egotism and corruption. There is no system in the world where a lack of competition is better than a profuse amount of competition. Journalism and reporting need to be exposed to competing viewpoints without interference from the figures being critiqued on a daily basis. Hugo Chavez uses the media as his bully pulpit to the world which means that he is receiving some benefits for being the head of state (the same state that is providing a large amount of funding for TeleSUR).

One problem that arises from an all-or-nothing approach to government funding of media outlets is the main alternative. We experience this alternative on a daily basis when we watch CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. These cable outlets are run by corporations which deluge the airwaves with advertisements to make something as unprofitable as journalism palatable for investors. Every nation needs a fusion approach to media funding which includes a substantial stake taken by the public. There can be a place for corporate media, public media and state media as long as each is present in a society. An imbalance in any direction (even toward public media) means that there is a tyranny of perspective.

The title seems draconian but the promise by President Pervez Musharraf that he will relinquish his military uniform (again) and open the presidency to the democratic process must be fulfilled. Coverage of the Pakistani situation has been rampant in the mainstream media as well as alternative media sources as this ambivalent ally in the war on terror turns to hell in a hand basket. We must look past the promise of democracy in the midst of chaos to begin earnest steps toward realizing democracy in Pakistan.

I don’t think regular readers will be surprised by my views on the war on terror. A war against an idea, a tool of oppression and anarchy is foolhardy. The only thing more foolish than fighting terror is using feckless thugs, authoritarians and incompetent bureaucrats as our allies. In the same way that America got into bed with all manner of politician to fight Communism in the Cold War, America is allying itself with anyone as long as they say the right things about terrorism.

The Bush Administration may be content by pushing Musharraf in November 2007 that may never happen in January 2008 but Americans concerned with foreign policy want more than that. I think that the media coverage of riots, the house arrest of political reformers like Benazir Bhutto and the pressure applied by the West on Pakistan has been outstanding. Media pressure will only do so much against a flailing dictator like Musharraf and Americans need to push their representatives for action.

We need to mobilize an international coalition with the assistance of India and the European Union to enforce Musharraf’s promised steps. The occasion of stabilizing Pakistan may offer America an opportunity to offer an olive branch to Russia. It is important to utilize the United Nations General Assembly to promote the idea of peace keepers and international election observers in Pakistan to make sure that every vote is counted and every ballot has more than the name Musharraf available.

Above all else, voters throughout the United States need to press the candidates in both parties to come out tough for anything but a legitimately elected government in Pakistan. If America is going to be an interventionist power, we must work within the bounds of international politics and ally ourselves with nations that support democratically elected governments. We cannot afford Pakistan to fall into chaos as the Asian continent becomes critical to 21st century political, economic and social development.

The terms “People’s Party�? and “Populism�? have changed drastically since the days of silverites and gold bugs in the 1890s. The People’s Party in the United States tried to bring in labor, women’s groups and limited numbers of African Americans into an alliance against moneyed interests that began political rule that continues today. American populists in the 1890s were imperfect and lacked the sophistication of major party activists but desired a political system geared toward the average person.

Today’s great “populists�? include racists like Christoph Blocher of the Swiss People’s Party which has grown into the largest political party in Switzerland. Blocher has used language familiar to historians of Central Europe to lash out against immigrants in the hopes of gaining seats in Parliament. The rush of ignorant voters worried about Muslims and the polyglot masses entering the land of chocolate and watches helped push the SVP into a plurality in Swiss government.

Switzerland has always been associated in my mind with political accommodation and reason. The seven seat cabinet that has helped balanced power between the major parties since World War II is beginning to resemble a Klan meeting. Blocher and another represented of the SVP will sit in the cabinet, breaking up the balanced approach taking to Swiss politics for five decades. By no means is Christoph Blocher a facsimile of authoritarian leaders like Adolf Hitler; Switzerland has an insufficient infrastructure and an unwilling populous for institutionalization of hatred. My concern is that Blocher’s victory will help encourage voters in surrounding nations to choose nationalists and right wing nuts.

The Flemish Block in Belgium and the National Front Party in France are only two examples of nationalist parties cloaking racist language behind the veil of populism. The hedge on growing conservatism and nationalism in Poland in the most recent election is diminished when you look at Civic Platform’s policies. Civic Platform was successful in wresting power from the Law and Order Party under the corrupt Kaczynski brothers. While Donald Tusk is a moderate leader that will demand EU involvement and withdrawal from Iraq, Civic Platform and Law and Order are similar in their desire to maintain a conservative domestic government in Poland. In the end, nationalism is pushing past traditional conservatism to take hold of the European public’s imagination.

I understand that the European welfare state has caused certain logistical problems in nations like Belgium and France. The use of foreigners and minorities as scapegoats for economic and social woes is nothing new; in fact, it shows a lack of imagination by popular leaders like Blocher. Every opposition party and minority coalition in Europe needs to rise up and save that this type of narrow-minded, one-dimensional political rhetoric will not stand in the 21st century. European voters should not be duped by nationalists claiming to shut down borders when the European continent is becoming more open than it has ever been. My only hope is that the Swiss people understand that the addition of political power to Christoph Blocher’s portfolio can only equal long term problems before the next parliamentary elections.

The confrontation between Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush on Tuesday was something that battle rappers and high school debate teams should watch in equal measure. Both presidents gave speeches several hours apart and Bush attended meetings in order to get out of seeing Ahmadinejad’s speech. Bush spoke about the authoritarian and dictatorial governments throughout the world including Cuba, Zimbabwe and a nation that starts with I and ends with ran.

Ahmadinejad was slightly more subtle than George W. Bush which proves that he is a bit of a buffoon in his own right. Anyone should be more subtle than Bush and Ahmadinejad’s speech was something to behold. He describes an occupying force that does not admit defeat, allows thousands of deaths and devalues the independence of other nations. I wonder which occupying force in the Middle East he could be referring to?

The United Nations offers a distinct opportunity for tyrants and democrats alike to speak to a global audience. America has always been hostile to the United Nations because a) it has no muscle and b) arguments going back to Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations indicate a hint of racism underneath political arguments. Americans do not have a right to tell the world who they can hear speak in the United Nations because it is not OUR organization. People can protest all they want but Ahmadinejad spoke, the Cubans left after Bush’s rhetorical attack and representatives from brutal dictatorships took these attacks in stride. While the arguments between Bush and Ahmadinejad were superficial and full of bile, they do show the value of open debate. You can take what you will from that statement but if we want to spread democracy to the world (like Wilson), we need to be prepared for the bruises, cuts and psychological damage associated.

On the CNN Political Ticker today, there is a story about the Republican Party’s love affair with new French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain have praised Sarkozy’s approach to immigration and a variety of other issues in an effort to show their international acumen. The Ticker notes that Democrats have cautious interest in the new French leader but that political moderation in Europe is akin to American liberalism.

I think it is hilarious that Republicans who only months ago were still sounding the call against France are now embracing Sarkozy and the people he leads. Republicans may have felt they were arguing against Jacques Chirac but they pointed out the unemployment and laziness of the French people, not their leader. The fact that they have turned on a dime and fallen in love with Sarkozy belies their position on Iraq since the French president opposes the underlying premise of the war. The Political Ticker points out another interesting wrinkle in the ongoing hypocrisy of the Republican Party and the ambivalence of the Democratic Party.

I enjoy reading foreign newspapers when it comes to covering American politics. The American press is largely homogenized in its coverage, relying on formal press releases and news services to fill out their coverage. I was reading the BBC News website recently and came across an entire section called USA Vote 2008 that provides a good primer for British readers. In fact, I think it is an important primer for all Americans who are confused by the issues at hand.

One article I really enjoyed was published at the end of July and discussed the religious right in America and the prospects of gaining religious votes in the Republican primaries. Mike Huckabee provides a nice bit of candor when he says that conservative religious elements had become “intoxicated�? with power. While the article is concise, it provides observations of religious power in America from a different perspective.

The BBC name has diminished a bit in value over the years due to questions about objectivity and the quality of their reporting. Nonetheless, it is important to read what the foreign press thinks about an American political system that has immersed operatives in an Election Day atmosphere nearly two years before Election Day. The British political scene is changing as the Blair years have come and gone with a media that is rejuvenated by a new leader to prey on. It seems like a tall task for the typically apathetic American public but we need to understand how the foreign press sees our system to test our beliefs and convictions. We also need to use foreign newspapers and websites to measure what we need to do to create an effective and objective press in America.

Here’s the scoop: Douglas Alexander, a political ally of new British PM Gordon Brown, gave a speech denouncing a “might makes right” approach to international relations. He stumped multilateralism and peaceful diplomacy as an alternative to war.

Alexander’s comments have stirred up the rumor mill, and many are claiming that his remarks were an understated way of breaking ties with the foreign policy methods of the United States, particularly pertaining to the unpopular conflict in Iraq.

However, this article from the foreign Brisbane Times seemed quite odd to me. The headline–Senior British minister hints at shift in US relations–is essentially an argument that the rest of the article subtly refutes.

This media method follows the pattern of a persuasive tactic. Often, if to argue a point, it is effective to acknowledge and deconstruct the opposite argument. This article’s headline postulates that the relationship between the United States and Britain will change, while the article itself makes the opposite argument; quotation after quotation indicates that Britain has no (outward) intention of altering American-British relations.

There are many reasons this formula may have been intentionally placed in the article. A headline claiming that the United States and Britain may shift their relationship catches the eye (it certainly caught mine), so this may have been a way to bring in readers. If so, it worked. Alternatively, the author may be making a deliberate statement that the media frenzy surrounding Alexander’s comments is unfounded.

There is, of course, the simple possibility that the author attempted to write an objective piece, and his/her opinion shone through the words. Maybe Britain just handled the situation well and flooded the media with the quotations they wanted to see in print.

Reading the news isn’t always as simple as it seems.

I thought I would add a bit of colour by discussing a highly important issue to me–Israel–through the eyes of an article from a foreign source.

Last summer, Israel’s war in Lebanon was a huge source of controversy. Photos circulated all over the globe of suffering citizens in Lebanon, news reports blasted Israel for the accidental killing of UN observers, and the Israeli people seemed to be generally unsatisfied with the outcome of the war. Israel traditionally gets bad press; somehow, no matter how many Israeli civilians die as a result of terror attacks, the front page seems to carry a picture of the poor, suffering terrorists.

However, this article paints a different picture. It doesn’t even mention the damage done to Lebanon; rather, it focuses on the suffering Israelis faced as a result of war. From evacuations to children suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the BBC seems highly sympathetic towards the plight of a country at war.

Complicated issues breed complicated journalism.