Media Criticism

I hate the crass rhetoric of hawks in America who say that anyone who opposes the president’s war does not support the troops. It is patently absurd to say that I cannot hope that soldiers stay safe and sound overseas while the American government is pulling a Three Stooges act on foreign policy. I despise the war in Iraq but I want every soldier to avoid harm. With this statement in mind, it may be surprising to die-hard hawks that I support Freedom’s Watch in its fight with NBC.

NBC recently refused to run an ad by Freedom’s Watch during the holiday season asking people to continue supporting troops overseas. The reasoning behind NBC’s decision was part of a policy to avoid advertisements authorized by the network that deal with policy issues. There was also a problem of the URL of the Freedom’s Watch website being displayed on the ad (which makes no sense whatsoever as a reason for prohibition). I can understand the butt-covering that NBC executives are using in refusing the Freedom’s Watch ad. The problem is that the idea of money as free speech should actually be allowed to take its course in this case.

My support for the Freedom’s Watch ad is contingent on another ad being run at the same time. This ad would be funded by a group that opposes the war with the exact same amount of time and exposure as the Freedom’s Watch ad. NBC’s refusal to run the ad is certainly going to increase hits on the Freedom’s Watch site which may be more important to the organization’s leaders than running the actual advertisement. I think there is a real opportunity to initiate a standard of networks encouraging both sides to address major policy issues in America.

NBC needs to reconsider its decision as a way to surpass other networks in terms of encouraging discourse. This is an incredibly naïve attempt on my part to apply an unrealistic standard on cold, heartless networks who are more interested in getting shows like Kid Nation on the air than helping out the public. A debate over the politics of the war instead of the black/white debate between hawks who apparently LOVE the war and doves who HATE the troops can increase the viewership of NBC. I just hope that the writer’s strike continues so that NBC will start to consider new ways to draw in new viewers.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave a much anticipated speech on Thursday regarding the role of his Mormonism in a potential Romney White House. Romney gave a well-orchestrated speech that did not delve into the specifics of the Mormon belief system while trying to reassure voters that his beliefs would not influence his decision making. There are a number of reasons his speech on Thursday will be totally irrelevant in the long run, not the least of which is the fact that Romney did not speak about his actual beliefs in any detail.

The fact that Romney did not go into the specifics of Mormonism is not as troubling as Romney’s judgment about his role in the Republican Party. Romney is not an overwhelming favorite nor is he a lone front runner in the primary season. The fact that Mitt Romney felt the need to give this speech presumes a stature in the Republican Party that does not necessarily exist. This speech will be long forgotten if Romney fails in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Romney’s speech did not reveal anything to the American public that they could not have gathered from the primary debates. Romney peppered in references about fighting terrorism and other right wing values that had nothing to do with Mormonism. This speech was just another stump speech without redeeming value for Romney’s campaign, the future of the Republican Party and the status of religion in politics. I only hope that Iowans and Granite State voters are smart enough not to be swayed by the media hype around this speech.

Romney’s JFK moment was just another campaign appearance in a bloated, money-driven campaign by a man who flip-flops more than anyone in politics. I don’t care how significant the media says this speech was; the election coverage hypes everything out of proportion to fill time until actual votes are cast.

While I have ragged on The New York Times in multiple entries in the past, one of my favorite pieces of reading materials is the Sunday Times Magazine. The magazine encapsulates some of the major issues facing the world today without committing to some of the bloviating that goes on in the regular paper. I have to confess that I also enjoy the interviews because they are free online. This week’s interview subject was Umberto Eco, an Italian political philosopher who laments the growth of media consolidation in Italy.

Eco’s attacks on former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi reveal his belief that media consolidation is a major demon in his native country. In the interview, however, the Times writer seems to bypass the fact that America is undergoing similar problems. Eco acknowledges that his specific concerns are peculiar to Italy though the Federal Communications Commission has certainly done a lot toward deregulating media markets. I think the responsibility for this oversight falls on Times writer Deborah Solomon.

One other issue I have with the interview with Umberto Eco is the type of questions that Solomon pursues about Eco’s literary background. The written word does not easily lend itself to transcribing discussions but I got the impression that Eco was agitated. Solomon asks whether he would care if anyone read his book 100 years from now. Eco gave a curt answer that essentially said that writers need to care about their work to ensure the creation of something significant. I am toying with the idea of making a review of the Times magazine a regular fixture each Monday. If anyone has any input, I would love to hear it.

I live in a “blue� state and a large city (Milwaukee, WI) that is racially diverse and filled with wonderful surprises around most corners. Outside of Milwaukee, there are cities like Green Bay and Madison that have cultural and entertainment offerings to keep people busy for days on end. I love living in a livable city where I can actually go home after a night downtown to an apartment or home with a yard surrounded by green spaces. The problem I encounter is when I see programs on Travel Channel, Food Network and others that focus on the stereotypical visions of Wisconsin: cheese, bratwurst and German heritage.

The Willamette Week has recently struck against condescending attention by national newspapers and television networks. This Oregon-based alternative newspaper has captured my attention with their rating of articles in newspapers like the New York Times ranging from a 1 (purely stereotypical language about Portland) to a 10 (accurate depiction) about Portland’s attractions. Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Austin (TX) and other cities are getting attention for supposed hot spots that are frequented by tourists instead of residents. The Willamette Week article features several examples of condescending, misleading or stereotypical travelogue-style articles from national media sources.

While I appreciate the trend of residents of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington D.C. discovering new places to spend their money, their approach to describing “smaller� cities leaves much to be desired. If I hear one more stupid joke about the Packers or cheese or bratwurst from a Chicago resident, I will just have to tell them that they should go back to their overpopulated city and spend their money on something besides our bed and breakfasts, new stadiums and museums. Too bad that Illinois has few attractions of note outside of Chicago.

This tirade is part concern over media portrayals of states inside the coasts and part concern that more Illinois residents (and a smattering of residents from California and New York) will infiltrate my beautiful city. I think the New York Times should focus on promoting beautification efforts in their own city and allow lowly fly-over state residents like myself to enjoy the Milwaukee Art Museum, the Grohmann Museum, Miller Park and other fantastic places.

As a writer for CensorSpace, I came out quickly to endorse former Senator John Edwards in his bid for the Democratic nomination in 2008. This endorsement means very little and I don’t think that the blogosphere, whether liberal or conservative, makes nearly the difference that it thinks it does on politics. I feel it necessary to disclose this fact as I have vacillated on the available candidates in both parties in previous posts on Media Critiques.

I am coming out today to endorse wholeheartedly the candidacy of John Edwards for the Democratic nomination. There are many reasons I have chosen Edwards over other candidates not the least of which is that Edwards is an underdog with a detailed populist program facing the two-headed monster of Hillary and Barack. John Edwards has been releasing specific policies since the beginning of his campaign including a national health care plan and plan to deal with poverty that include ways to pay for these programs. His most recent policy has put my support over the top for Edwards over my next choice, “someone else� followed by “third party.�

Mr. Edwards is now railing against drug advertisements that help drive up the price of pharmaceuticals in the United States. You know those commercials for penis medication and sleeping pills? They cost money in prime time and that money goes back to the public in the form of higher retail prices. One of the former senator’s first acts as president would be to promote a two year moratorium on consumer advertising for new drugs. He would also provide the FDA the power to stop advertisements that are misleading or based on questionable evidence. It is no wonder that Edwards has a devoted, if small, following in states like Iowa and South Carolina.

I have been advocating in various publications for the regulation of drug advertisements since my days as an ultra-liberal graduate student in Wisconsin. Drug companies complain about the high price of research but they don’t seem to mind putting money into lobbying, advertising and hectoring doctors to peddle their drugs. Mr. Edwards has come out for things that I believe in like investment in education, health insurance and a sound foreign policy in recent months. The smear machine within the Republican Party, the Democratic Leadership Conference and the media has focused on expensive haircuts. It is time to get past media obfuscation to find the truth.

This will be the last time I write about Mr. Edwards in this blog until the primaries unless there is an incredibly compelling reason to do so. I will not be a shill for Edwards (beyond this entry, at least) nor will I attack other candidates on his behalf. I simply want to say that corporate media can be reformed for the better with John Edwards in the Oval Office. If that is a sentiment that is incorrect, then I will no doubt look back upon this post in upcoming months to cringe at my narrow mindedness. For now, it is time for change in the way drug companies, lobbyists and major political parties do business.

The underlying theme of any presidential primary debate depends on who is hosting the candidates. Forums held by the AFL-CIO will probably not deal with the environment while the Logo Network debate probably won’t get too far into the Iraq War. I understand that the good graces of the host make a focused debate a necessity in order to get the best questions from the panel. The Democratic debate held on September 9th on Spanish-language channel Univision may be drawing too fine a line in pleasing constituents with debates that few people watch.

I think that Hispanic voters who are interested in the debates have probably watched the endless hours of debates already conducted across the country. The political correctness that is rife within the Democratic Party was obvious when Senator Dodd and Governor Richardson (who is HISPANIC!) tried to speak Spanish to the chagrin of hosts. Every candidate was required to speak English which was then translated into Spanish for the viewing audience. The difficulty of listening to candidates of any party lay out their talking points for an hour and a half is made more significant when it is filtered several times over.

All of these points lead to one conclusion: the primary season is not too long, just the list of debates. While I have an interest in what candidates have to say on gay marriage or the environment, I don’t want to hear 90 minutes on the topic. I have not decided who I will vote for in my primary and I definitely have not thought about the general election yet. Like most voters, I will make a decision as I approach the ballot box. These debates are focused too much on a particular issue based on questions from single-minded forum moderators and offer nothing that a look at each candidate’s website won’t yield. If the Democrats and Republicans insist on holding similar debates in future election seasons, here are a few suggestions:

1) Let local news stations host the debates, not issue-oriented groups.
2) Space these debates out so that you have no more than one every month.
3) Stay away from the YouTube debate…please!

I always find it troubling when the media participates in raising false hope when an abduction or natural disaster occurs. This has happened with mine troubles out in Colorado and West Virginia over the past few years with talking heads spending hours bandying about conjecture under the guise of keeping hope alive. The disappearance of adventurer Steve Fossett on Monday has led to a week’s worth of stories stating that wreckage was found that was likely linked to Fossett.

The most difficult part of this type of disappearance is that there is no rhyme or reason to it. Steve Fossett has gone around the world in a balloon and a number of other daring feats that make a three hour flight seem routine. The press pushes local police departments and search teams for details in order to glean something newsworthy from their hopeful words. If Steve Fossett is found dead, the media as an institution will be happy because they can eulogize this great man without discussing the series of stories that built up the nation for a fall.

I don’t think this type of information is worth more than a few minutes each day on the news to update the public on the situation. Police crews, state search and rescue crews and family members will conduct their search without the help of the public. In fact, they should be given a wide berth to make their search without interference by the media or prying eyes. Cable networks and news papers are just showing their voyeuristic nature when they cover Steve Fossett’s disappearance endlessly.

I know the title is not very catchy but I think any good media criticism blog begins with an examination of local media. I live in the Milwaukee metropolitan area and have seen hundreds of inane local news stories that have riled me up. There is the “Dirty Dining� feature on Milwaukee Channel 4 or “Ted’s Take� on Fox 6 Milwaukee. Who watches these stories? More importantly, why is there three hours of news after 6 pm on any given night?

Minor local celebrity Ted Perry contributes to the ridiculousness of Milwaukee’s news scene. Perry is one of the local Fox station’s premier anchors and he also appears regularly on local radio. I was flipping through the major networks the other night and saw Ted expressing his opinion on the Iowa straw poll. This wasn’t Fox News Channel and Ted Perry is certainly not Sean Hannity. I just shook my head and turned off the television, deciding to read instead of listening to Perry toot his own horn further.

Local news is not the place for opinions. The editorial page in the daily paper or a separate show that the station produces to let journalists express their opinions a la Meet the Press is a better place. This is not an issue of preference but of ethics. How do I know that Perry and others don’t express their opinion when they are reporting the news? I can only read alternative papers or research stories of interest so much. I need to be able to trust news anchors to at least provide an unbiased list of facts. Instead, I get a wink, an opinion and a crass attempt at journalist integrity squeezed between 10 minutes of weather and 10 minutes of sports.

People all over the United States, from Seattle to Portland, Maine need to turn this garbage off. Anchors have the same interests as station managers: ratings. If no one watches, anchors won’t be able to spew their opinions on the air and won’t have the public’s support for their outside activities like geo-caching (Fox 6) or participation in Fourth of July parades (every channel). They will be stuck angrily blogging about the state of their career without the podium that they once brandished without regard for what they were doing.

The controversy over the firing of eight prosecutors continues with Bush’s announcement today that two former members of his administration will not testify before Congress. According to ABC News, “President Bush ordered former counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional summons….” The article adds that “[c]ontempt citations against both women were a possibility.”

It is intriguing, to say the least, that the administration is going to such lengths to obstruct the investigation into these firings. It’s also interesting to investigate the way in which this news is presented.

It’s no secret that ABC News leans to the left. Left-wing crazies would argue that it’s perfectly fair and objective (if not a wee bit conservative), whereas right-wing crazies tend to lump ABC in with CNN and CBS as part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. Regardless, the ABC article definitely disparages the administration’s move. The easiest way to understand how it does so is to read this article on the same subject from Fox News. Not only is the ABC article significantly lengthier and more detailed, but it also focuses more on the possibility of Meirs facing contempt charges. Fox, on the other hand, opens with the quotation regarding Meirs’ protection from subpoena and gives only a few words to the possible contempt charges. This then indicates a more sympathetic view of Bush’s announcement today.

However, I believe both articles raise the same question: why is Bush trying to suppress this testimony? According to both articles, Sarah Taylor (former White House political director) defended the president and claimed that he had no role in the firings. It is unclear why Bush would suppress positive testimony about him; he has enough bad press these days as it is.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out; it will be even more interesting to see how the media handles this controversy.

Article Source: ABC News: Bush Orders Miers Not to Testify