a) Patriotism
�I was wrong when I said that Americans who continue demonstrating against the war once the shooting begins are being un-American. People who lawfully dissent should never be labelled un-American. Instead I will call those who publicly criticise our country in a time of military crisis, which is this, �bad Americans��
Bill O�Reilly, March 2003 33
It is difficult avoid the American flag on television these days. From glitzy programme intros to gold-plated lapel pins, Old Glory�s presence in modern news broadcasting is entrenched. September 11th, the subsequent �War On Terror� and the continuing efforts of US forces overseas are all symbolically represented by the red, white and blue. The flag symbolises confidence; a comforting reminder of deep-rooted all-American values. Stars and stripes forever, as the song goes. However, the mainstream media�s embracing of these hyper-patriotic principles serves unwittingly to dishonour their own pledges to objectivity. A devoted pro-American news broadcast can only be taken as truly �balanced� in the eyes of its intended audience. Patriotism belongs on the opinion pages. Like church and state before them, the twin dogmas of nationalism and journalism must be kept apart, not only to prevent unnecessary framing (as I will examine later in this chapter), but also for the sake of the story beneath the presentation. However, the role of news has changed irrevocably. As ABC anchor Peter Jennings observed two days after the 2001 attacks, �the television set in this country is a little bit like the campfire in the old days of the wagon train, where people have a chance to share a tragedy that might have occurred�when people were going West. And now this is a real chance for us to share in the experiences that other people are having.�34 News has become a shoulder to cry on.
In the �War on Terror� there can be no sitting on the fence, there are those that support America and those that hurt it. A polarisation of interests occurs and those not seen to be towing the party line find themselves thrust to the opposite end of the political spectrum (think of Rumsfeld�s infamous �old Europe� speech in late 2002)35 . This phenomenon is thus echoed in the media. Liberal, moderate and conservative media adopt the flag for its patriotic symbolism, yet in doing so, both wittingly adopt �one side� of the argument. The Left and Right points of view become fractured. By discrediting the other�s claim to patriotism, the Right chastises the Left for uncharacteristic muscling in on �their� nationalistic territory. And when either side deviates from his or her neo-patriotic position, the other is quick to point out the inconsistencies in their argument. During the recent Abu Ghraib prison scandal, for example, the Left was castigated heavily by a number of leading conservatives for pandering to the desires of the terrorists by exposing irregularities in American heroism. As Americans, all sides support America. There can be no denying that. But a simple lapel pin can mean the difference between pride and full-on nationalistic jingoism. Military forces become depicted as �ours� and �theirs�. The war is taken into the opposing newsrooms. As Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Centre noted in a recent fundraising letter, �We are training our guns on any media outlet or any reporter interfering with America's war on terrorism or trying to undermine the authority of President Bush.� 36 One man�s terrorist cannot be another�s freedom fighter unless America dictates it.
Any attempts to retain impartial independence tend to be shot down by the patriot missiles of public opinion. In the aftermath of September 11th, news director Stacey Woelfel banned the wearing of red, white and blue flag lapel pins during news broadcasts on Missouri-based KOMU-TV. Knowing his decision would prove to be unpopular, he sought to discredit the naysayers and attempted to retain the fundamental right to journalistic independence. But this was neither the time nor the place for such aesthetic pandering. Following a strong public outcry, the Missouri House of Representatives cut the station�s budget by $500,000. As Republican state representative Martin �Bubs� Hohulin later told the Chronicle for Higher Education, �I don't care about journalistic integrity or academic freedom. It was either this or going over to punch [Mr. Woelfel] in the face, and this seemed a whole lot more diplomatic." 37
To the Right, such patriotic precincts seem normal, and quite understandable given the mood of the country. America is at war, and if that means abandoning ethics in favour of partisan ideology, then all the better for the folks on the front line. The press� handling of the Abu Ghraib scandal is an effective illustration of how this patriotic framework can contribute to the polarisation of the media. A major story such as this highlights the episodic nature of the conservative media�s challenge- to disenfranchise �liberal� journalism from the �bigger picture�. Can there truly be independence amidst all the flag waving? Conservative media analyst Paul Rodriguez, editor of InsightMag.com, argues the prison scandal appeals to journalists age-old �wolf pack mentality� and is an archetypal example of media overexposure, which tragically resulted in the beheading of a contractor, Nick Berg, by Al Qaeda militants several days later. When the story broke, he argues, the media were obsessed on a daily basis with �the same pictures that no longer had any context other than to make people uncomfortable -- similar to what many kids do when talking about something gross ... knowing that it makes mum and dad want to vomit� While this wolf-pack mentality is good in some measure at the beginning of a tough story.... it gets rather lame quickly without fresh meat on the plate. And I think that's what was lacking -- fresh meat. What was presented began to get green rather quickly and too many newsmen and their outlets didn't seem to notice that people had moved on.�38
By considering themselves as Americans first and journalists second, newsmen should, according to Rodriguez and others pull back from stories that could damage �American interests�. As with the Woelfel case, such self-restriction should be considered a constraint on the duty of the media to report the truth, �warts and all�. The US media�s great freedom, as dictated by the First Amendment, allows journalistic questioning of governmental policy. But when the policy shifts abroad, and fellow citizens are placed in highly volatile situations, where should reporters draw the line? Is it inconsistent for the media to embellish Abu Ghraib and ignore the tortures of Saddam�s regime? Or, on the other hand, the multitude of civilians killed by American fighter jets on a daily basis? Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, notes that the argument for or against increased exposure is conflicted. �The [conservative media] are only interested in being a mouthpiece for a government perspective. And if one accepts that assumption, then they�re right- we should just cancel the First Amendment and just have a PR operation for the US government... Looking at the hypocrisy of it, the response of the right wing, including so called right wing media critics� since there�s a hypocrisy they shouldn�t cover any of it. The journalists approach should be that well yeah, there is hypocrisy and there should be more of this coverage, not less.�39
If there is an irony to be found in the conservative backlash against the liberal exposure of the prison abuse scandal, then it lies in the incendiary comments by a number of leading pundits regarding military interrogation techniques, stretching back to the initial arrest 9/11 suspects in 2002. In the article �Pro-pain pundits�, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting journalist Steve Rendall notes that conservatives in the media seem compelled to advocate interrogation techniques that defy US and international law. Rendall�s report focuses on a 9th November 2002 broadcast of MSNBC�s �The McLaughlin Group�, where, he claims, �four out of the five pundits advocated torture�40 . More recently, Fox News� Bill O�Reilly proved a strong advocate for the use of �sodium pentothal, mind-altering drugs, chemicals, things like that� on a 15th December 2003 �special� that focussed almost entirely on interrogating Saddam Hussein.41 While there is little evidence (despite what the Left may think) that military leaders �encouraged� the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, the same cannot be said of the fickle world of the insta-pundit. The presence of this subconscious persuasion towards violent and illegitimate interrogation methods in the US media demonstrates that the �warped� mindset of the soldiers committing the atrocities may not have been as unique as leading sociologists would have the public believe.
Nationalistic pressure may make it difficult for normally objective journalists to do their job, but to avoid �running emotionally upstream�42 , more focus needs to be placed on the relationship between the press and the government. The public has a right to be openly critical of journalists, but by focussing on the men in the middle, namely the isolationist Bush administration, the press has a duty to see through the publicised jingoism and uncover the truth behind the red, white and blue marketing.
b) The Government
�To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Franklin Roosevelt, 1918 43
In establishing the Republican model as the dominant one, the media borrows heavily from the �noise machine� of hype, spin and turbo-charged marketing put forth by the administration. The conservative public relations machine is so ingrained that it ensures that favourable stories percolate throughout the news cycle for a considerable amount of time- often with little relevance to the issues of the day. The president, a veritable recluse compared with other leaders 44 becomes inescapably newsworthy, even if his speeches remain virtually unchanged for months at a time. Rumsfeld, as spokesperson for the great Iraqi/Afghan �liberation army�, is newsworthiness incarnate. Cheney is the businessman�s businessman. When they talk, people listen. They have no choice in the matter.
And as they don�t talk that much, what they do say has a massive bearing on the way the news is presented.
By isolating themselves from the media, the government allow spin-doctors and media strategists to create their image. This gives them an otherworldly presence that they can use to manipulate the media. Bush�s (like Reagan�s) discontent with press conference scenarios is understandable. Without the pre-packaged PR to guide him, he faces the possibility of being lost amidst a flurry of demanding questions. But by manipulating his answers through constant repetition, he deliberately creates what I would term a �press vacuum�. By getting sucked (or should that be suckered?) into the vacuum, the media�s ability to challenge the administration is tested, and many find themselves in a purely reciprocal role, quiet beneficiaries of the weekly governmental diatribe. Very few questions are answered; humming and hawing replace factual content. The figurative image of the President bravely �addressing the nation� during a seemingly perpetual �crisis situation� is placed centre stage. Too many journalists resist the temptation to dig deep. As New York Times Washington correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller noted in the wake of the 13 April 2003 press conference, �it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you're standing up on prime-time live TV asking the President of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war. There was a very serious, sombre tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the President at this very serious time.�45 As with the devotion to the flag, the media�s submissive relationship with the government reflects societal views rather than their own beliefs. If the national mood determines that the president is right, then conformity is king. Journalists should, in seeking objectivity, long to be apolitical, but find themselves spun back into politics by the need to sell newspapers or gain advertising revenue. Even the thought of an isolated �voice from nowhere� is absurd given the complex intertwining of society, the press and government.
But the relationship need not be so ingratiating. By allowing itself to become �domesticated�, the White House press corps (and, as a knock on effect, the rest of the media) has agreed to succumb to the hype, with arguably perilous consequences for the ethics of journalism. Similarly, the �opposition� finds itself up against intense pressure to tow the party line, as any attempt to �unspin� government rhetoric is met with further distortion. When referring to Bush as a polarising president, moderate and liberal organisations inadvertently boost the public relations output, as the government reinstates its image in the national psyche. The mainstream media themselves become the polarising power; alienating themselves from half their audience (who seek sanctity in the alternative, partisan media) and opening floodgates of criticism from right wing lobby groups. Choosing to �sit on the fence�, a philosophy which many journalists subscribe to, is far from the safest option, as the �moderate� view is often passed off as inconsistent (and therefore worthless) by an intensive media watchdog task force. The Right is pro-government and staunchly so. The Left is unpatriotic. And somewhere in the middle come the �flip-floppers�, unpredictable ramblers who deviate on certain issues. What self-respecting newspaper editor would like to be one of these? 46
The influence of the government on media affairs also has a lot to do with the Republican �strict father� system, a device typified by Bush�s self-classification as a �compassionate conservative�. The media, in dealing with such characters, will do what they are told. For UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff, Arnold Schwarznegger, newly elected governor of California is the epitome of conservative discipline and moral authority, an image that is incorruptible, �With Schwarzenegger,� Lakoff argues, �its in his movies; most of the characters exemplify that moral system. He didn�t have to say a word! He just had to stand up there, and he represents Mr. Discipline. His very persona represents what conservatives are about.�47 The ideological resolve of the Republican political mindset is a characteristic that finds itself rooted in post 9/11 society. Liberals are, by tradition, calculated and methodical in problem solving. Conservatives grab the proverbial bull by the horns and get active. In portraying themselves as the driving force, the government draws society (and subsequently the press) to �where the action is�. Bush, despite arguable simian characteristics, becomes undeniably �attractive�. Hyperbolic events such as �Shock and Awe� may have been largely derided in the liberal press for sensationalising the realities of war, but the mainstream majority and right-leaning media took it for what it really was- a demonstration of the political and military might of the United States government. The �strict father� system dramatised in the most impressive way possible. And until the bodies started rolling into Dover Air Force base, Delaware, the pro-Bush lobby lapped it up.
This is an administration that knows what the media want, how the media work and who the media is aimed at. Journalists may have struggled at the outset to �turn the nincompoop they bashed throughout the [2000] election into something resembling the leader of the free world�48 , but since 9/11 and the introduction of the PATRIOT Act, they have become mouthpieces for the new American way- trained in the latest lexicon emanating from the Heritage Foundation and suckered by the gratuitous lure of �embedded reporting�.49 And given the strong links of the present government to the corporate business model, which itself is becoming increasingly intertwined with the media environment, there may well exist the financial incentive to retain the Republican mindset for a long period of time. The conservative movement may soon possess the authority to solely influence the mainstream, physically altering the way Americans receive their news. According to Danny Schechter, filmmaker and executive editor of MediaChannel.org, this would lead to �lack of civil discourse, lack of willingness to have debate and discussion. This administration doesn�t believe in discussion, they believe in one perspective. They�re not interested in debating with me; they�re interested in crushing me. That�s a very different approach, and it�s scarier in a way. It�s a difference between a sort of proto-fascism and real democracy.�50
Big Brother may not be watching you, but he is certainly affecting what you watch.
c) Media Watchdogs
�Any misstep and you can get into trouble with these guys and have the Patriotism Police hunt you down. These are hard jobs. Just getting the facts straight is monumentally difficult. We don�t want to have to wonder if we are saluting properly. Was I supposed to use the three-fingered salute today?"
Erik Sorenson, MSNBC President 51
Perpetuating the �liberal media� myth is a full time job. For activists such as Cliff Kincaid, Brent Bozell, and Lucianne Goldberg it is a fully-fledged career. Well-funded, well-managed media watchdog organisations such as Bozell�s Media Research Centre (MRC) offer daily diatribes on misinformation, the majority of which stems from mainstream and left-leaning media outlets. With an extensive database, these conservative commentators can track the �liberal bias� of the major news organisations, ensuring every subtle commendation of Clinton or criticism of Bush is tarred with the same patronizing brush. To vanquish the media opposition, the Right must first seek to demean it through steady criticism. Not to be outdone, the Left has been forced to muscle in on the act.
This may be an archetypal conflict situation, but the constant wrangling back and forth by Left and Right commentators only serves to prolong what is considered by many to be a pointless argument 52 . To combat the conservative onslaught, organisations such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), S. Robert Lichter�s Centre for Media and Public Affairs and David Brock�s recently launched Media Matters for America seek to contradict the opposition�s hot air with a moderate breeze of their own. For every mention of American soldiers as �our� troops; or any disparaging remark about Palestinian �death squads�, FAIR claims a valuable point in their own fight against an increasing �conservative bias�. And so the proverbial buck is passed back. Both sides exist antagonistically, pointing out flaws in the other�s claims and seeking to discredit the opposition�s support base. Like a fiery political debate, the media watchdog environment can be as theatrical as any battlefield struggle. Just as election coverage is often thought to focus too much on dramatic �horse race� elements, so the discussion about the coverage is treated by these organisations in the same conflicting manner. With so much attention being placed on the packaging rather than the content, organisations such as these ultimately ignore one of the fundamental standards of news reporting in the process- the news itself. As Tim Graham of MRC notes: �By now, merely every political argument can be dismissed as a "spin"�Raising the idea of media critic "spin" is like raising my biases -- you can start a discussion with it, but the argument ought to be over analysing the content.� 53
The Internet based environment in which media watchdogs operate is important to note due to the rise of the �blogosphere�- the ideologically charged online format at the forefront of �New Media�. Hundreds of daily diatribes, or �blogs�, on a variety of political and social topics infect the news. It could be argued that the medium has replaced the old �rumour mill� as the source of potential political scandal. �The Blogosphere�, notes Edward B. Driscoll, �essentially had its grand opening on September 11th, when several million Americans who couldn't log onto the Websites of CNN, The New York Times and the Washington Post, instead began checking out alternatives whose servers weren't blown out from too much traffic. These newcomers to the Blogosphere stayed there, and often put down roots themselves, as the media trotted out its clich�s of Quagmire! Failure! Evil imperialism! The brutal Afghan winter! Remember the Soviets!�54 Embracing the new format, conservatives ensured the development of a new critical landscape; an isolationist platform upon which media watchdog organisations could be founded. The Left, forced to try to beat the critics at their own game, became embroiled in the current two-way argument that, given the competitive nature of the current political environment, seems doomed to endless self-perpetuation.
However, the validity of both conservative and liberal media watchdog arguments is conflicted as it only retains authority in the eyes of the individual consumer. As I noted earlier, one man�s terrorist may be another�s freedom fighter. But whether you agree with the use of the terms �terrorist� or �freedom fighter� at all depends entirely on your own predispositions. Thus, with a liberal and conservative market hungry for their own respective forms of media analysis, neither is seen to �win� the argument, and the bickering continues unchecked. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, commenting on David Brock�s Media Matters website, notes �Brock's new shop is devoted to faulting conservative opinion journalists for expressing conservative opinions. What the Media Research Centre does is entirely different; it analyses liberal bias in the news media, which are supposed to be objective.�55 This may, in part, be true, but it is not to say that Brock�s argument cannot find favour with a potentially larger audience than its conservative counterpart. While the analysts on both sides may claim that their argument is �morally purer� or �more accurate�, only regular subscribers know which is more suited to their frame of mind.
d) Tabloidisation
�What the programme is really offering is not discussion but entertainment- the voyeuristic, sadistic thrill of watching someone get beat up, just like a bull fight or World Wrestling Federation Smackdown. [The] viewers understand this point implicitly�
Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, re: �The O�Reilly Factor�56
Ideological wrangling aside, the media�s very affinity towards drama seems to fuel the increasing polarisation debate. By incorporating entertainment values into the news, and sensationalising political and social issues (think of the Clinton scandal), both conservative and moderate media fail in their duty to deliver perfectly �balanced� news. Public relations firms and message manipulation specialists have ensured that American society finds itself immersed in a tabloid culture, enraptured by the �cult� of celebrity and the dramatisation of emotional conflict on shows such as Oprah or Jerry Springer. Such a culture finds no aesthetic value in traditional news broadcasting. While large proportions of the viewing audience still remain loyal to the �regal milquetoast triumvirate of Rather, Jennings and Brokaw�57 for their daily news fix, the braggadocio swagger of newcomers such as Fox News� Bill O�Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity attract a younger, more dynamic audience, hyped uncontrollably on big-budget Hollywood blockbusters and the National Enquirer. �Fox News,� argues Joe Bob Briggs of United Press International, is �rabble-rousing like an old Southern politician who knows how to throw out code words to keep the masses entertained, energised and alarmed�. And while the Left uses emerging networks such as Air America to take its seat on the sensationalist bandwagon, the high proportion of conservatives in the new �infotainment� spectrum threatens to widen the already spacious ideological divide.
The emergence of the 24-hour news cycle, brought to life by CNN and echoed in MSNBC and Fox, created a need for a dynamic approach to traditional formats, offering more than straightforward reporting. By incorporating entertainment values into broadcasting, MSNBC and especially Fox, have transformed the half-hour bulletin into a daylong �news experience�, leaving subtlety at the door in favour of a sensationalistic assault on the TV ratings. The popularity of this format has seen its influence spread to other networks, as even stalwarts such as CBS, championing its new-look �60 Minutes 2� programme, have subscribed to subtle �Foxification�. Conservatives meanwhile, traditionally outspoken in dealing with the media, are in the perfect position to embellish the new format. The balance is tilted in favour of hard-line conservatism rather than conciliatory liberalism because the Right is more dramatic, more ideological and, consequently, more entertaining. A sure-fire ratings winner. On a programme such as Fox�s �The O�Reilly Factor�, host Bill O�Reilly �eats alive� liberal and moderate guests alike. His �no-spin zone� claims to offer news without the spin, yet the frequent tabloid rhetoric and ideological positioning that makes him so successful ensures his on-screen prominence. Put simply, he always gets the last word in. As Jason Gay of the New York Observer notes, �even when he's doing the battering-ram act you despise the most -- beating the pulp out of some hapless liberal punching bag like a heavyweight champ working over a sparring partner -- and he turns triumphantly to face the camera after knocking the poor sap into oblivion, you can see a little Barnum-esque twinkle in those blue eyes, maybe even a teensy-weensy wink, enough that it makes you think, maybe just for a second, that he's not a total prick or totally evil and it's at least partly a show, an act for the camera.�58 O�Reilly�s news �fame� stems from his embracing of a fresh, confrontational news dynamic. He may define his show as commentary, and his daily ideologue, the �Talking Points� memo is clearly labelled as such. Yet he forms part of a larger �infotainment� spectrum, an �alternative� that while not going into detail on certain news issues, keeps his viewers informed and entertained in equal measure.
On another Fox News programme, �Hannity and Colmes�, (broadcast directly after O�Reilly) the polarising effect of the �infotainment� format becomes clear. Billed as a �fair and balanced� debate, staunch conservative Sean Hannity and open-minded liberal Alan Colmes engage in heated debate over that day�s issues- a classic, gun slinging conflict scenario. What entertainment value exists, however, is soon overshadowed by the imbalance of the format. The attitude of the two hosts soon becomes evident; the staunch partisan Hannity is consistent, sycophantic towards the government and �the troops�, while the reclusive Colmes is indecisive, meandering and committed to no particular ideal, an understated moderate figure. Comedian Al Franken, documenting the disproportionate nature of the debate notes, somewhat hyperbolically: �it�s a conservative-versus-liberal talking heads show, kind of a combination between Crossfire and a Harlem Globetrotters game. Hannity spins around on the floor, dribbling behind his back�Colmes, the lone Washington general stumbles around confused until Ollie North hits him in the face with a bucket of confetti.�59 But such imbalance may not be entirely the network�s fault. While many view the inequity of the show as part of a larger �Fox News right-wing conspiracy�, the fact remains that by their subdued nature, liberals and moderates lack the arrogance and unrelenting belligerence to succeed as �infotainers�. Liberals pride themselves on disciplined discussion and meticulous adherence to journalistic ethics. There is nothing disciplined or meticulous about tabloidisation. Deriving all its energy from impact, sensationalism has infected the news with opinionated ideologues and fast-paced formats. Given its strong self-imposed presence on the media �scene�, it is also a financially viable business model, drawing audiences and advertising revenue in equal measure. Forget balanced debate, this format is all about screaming down the opposition.
Within the tabloid spectrum, the willingness to declare ones political allegiances is a characteristic that clearly splits the traditionalists from the new breed of journalist. The intertwining of opinion with news blurs the lines between fact and fiction- damaging the credibility of the news media and corrupting, albeit subconsciously, its intended audience. Networks and station executives no longer pander to a philosophical understanding of journalism; they simply look upon existing formats through financially savvy spectacles. And while adopting an opinionated approach may lose them some of their older viewers, their new footing should pander to a whole new partisan audience, who possess the fiscal fortitude to keep them afloat. It may be considered reactionary, but for the operatives on the front line, it represents a much-needed deviation from the perennially stale norm. As O�Reilly himself notes: �Anyone- and I mean anyone- who delivers a strong opinion in America is going to be labelled an egomaniac. That�s jut how it is�The country founded on freedom of speech is populated by human beings who are often deathly afraid of speaking up in front of a crowd.�60 A Pew Research Centre study in July 2003 noted that 47% of television viewers thought that hosts with strong opinions were a �good� thing, compared with 40% who disagreed with the sentiment 61 . And while the Left shudders at the concept of embracing this �opinionews�, conservatives see it as an effective way of redressing the balance, a reaction to the partisan reporting of the �liberal media� that has been taking place for decades.
It�s a gladiatorial slugfest to the death, and the conservatives are playing the part of the Romans.
e) Media Consolidation and Corporate Media
�By the end of the millennium five men controlled the world�s media. And the people rejoiced, because their TVs told them to.�
Michael Moore 62
Ebeneezer Scrooge would have loved it. Never before in the history of the American media has so much rested in the hands of so few. Under the leadership of Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has, in a few short years, changed the way the media is controlled, managed and ultimately portrayed, through loosening of media ownership laws and the promotion of mergers. American conservatism is linked to wealth, and the newly-rich media is a financial playground. At the start of the 21st century, the media environment is no more than a gross hybridisation of the American Dream. And for the bosses of Viacom, Vivendi, Clear Channel, News Corporation, Disney and Time Warner, the drama is only starting to unfold.
Media ownership affects the polarisation of the media in a number of ways. If we accept that there is an increase in �top down� journalism, as I discussed earlier, then criticism of the emerging corporate presence is understandably kept to a minimum. With �the boss� dictating the �way things are�, it becomes increasingly difficult for any self-respecting journalist to disesteem this, for fear of digging his or her own grave. Almost a decade ago, the takeover of ABC news by Disney Corporation in 1995 resulted in �Good Morning America� host Charles Gibson being placed on the spot by his new chiefs. The question? Whether the merger would be a �good thing�. As Alan Bash of USA Today recalled at the time, �Toward the end of the live chat, [ABC/Capital Cities Chairman Thomas] Murphy put Gibson on the spot by asking him, "wouldn't you be proud to be associated with Disney?" The host - facing the two men who control his career - stammered a bit, then muttered, "Yes, sure," only to recover by saying that while the deal seemed logical, he needed to remain an "objective interviewer." Then Gibson did what all good journalists do when they're caught in an awkward moment: He went to a commercial.�63 By having the power to frame the news output if or when they see fit, media owners and executives alike become ethical considerations of their very own, �coaxing� traditionally objective reporters into conveying idealised messages. Despite its significance, press ownership itself is a topic that rarely comes under scrutiny in the media. As a Pew Centre survey found in July 2003, only 12% of survey respondents claimed to have heard �a lot� about recent FCC ownership changes.64 It is clearly both advantageous and profitable for �the management� to keep this particular wolf at the door.
Further media merging can also threaten to �homogenise� opinion on the networks involved. The business ethics of the conservative/corporate model trickle inevitably down through the various degrees of the network, until the journalists themselves become unwilling �puppets� of those in the upper echelons of the organisation. This corporate idealism also tends to fall neatly along party lines. Straight-talking Democrats tend to lack the strict business acumen required to operate in such a �dictatorial� role at the head of major news organisations, preferring independence to confluence. There is thus little danger of a liberal-minded ownership threatening to pull journalists� ideologies in a clear leftward direction. As Neil Hickey of Columbia Journalism Review observes, �it�s a natural tendency of conservative administrations to want to deregulate companies, companies are their bread and butter, that�s where they get most of their money.�65 By taking the power away from the journalists, it can be argued that corporate owners rid them of truly independent thought, and broadcasts must occasionally be tweaked with the bosses� interests in mind. On the other hand, corporate executives themselves argue that increasing media ownership capabilities equates to offering more diversity, and that any self-respecting mogul would pour resources into creating both liberal and conservative networks if he or she were truly looking for the highest possible viewer demographic. Dynamic takeover bids need not spell the end of independent thought; rather such progress would dramatically increase the capabilities of the independent station, and increase their productivity with no change in ideological output. Right. According to FCC chairman Michael Powell, "Common ownership can lead to more diversity. What does the owner get for having duplicative products? I don't know why you'd want to have two newspapers that say the same thing. I would say, 'Let's make one Democratic, let's make one Republican.' "66 This view dates back to the early days of media ownership, when few could have predicted the present oligopoly controlling the American media. The 1934 Federal Communications Act, which in effect created the FCC, laid ground rules for the regulation and management of the emerging radio networks. The duty of broadcasters to act in the public interest was put at a premium. Peter Steiner, an early 1950s economist and one of the first to hypothesise about media ownership, attempted in 1952 to predict what kind of effect media consolidation would have on news output. He remained wistfully optimistic, as Jenny Toomey recalls: �According to Steiner's theory, a single owner with multiple stations in a local market wouldn't want to compete against himself. Instead, he would program each station differently to meet the tastes of a variety of listeners.�67
The recent attempt by the FCC to relax the media consolidation laws in the States was met with fierce opposition by a number of leading members of the Senate (both Republican and Democrat), while a letter writing campaign, organised in part by liberal activist group MoveOn (www.moveon.org), saw an estimated two million complain to Congress about the proposed changes. The plan was to increase the potential consolidation cap that any one organisation could own to 45%, up from the present 35%. 68 Following a successful FCC transition, one organisation, if merger trends continued, could soon possess a near monopoly on media output in the United States. Without keeping present restrictions in place, the potential existed for an ideological takeover that could ultimately result in the polarisation of the media to an extent where the opposition, more than likely the progressive Left, would be choked to death. In a possible worst-case scenario, argues Neil Hickey, the media would be rife with �endless cross-promotions of the owner�s interests, and probably very little hard news about anything which has a negative impact on the advertisers or on the company itself. Everything you read or see, every opinion, every image and every jot of information would arrive through one corporate filter.�69 Journalism would be lost amidst a sea of advertising and corporate programming. Prior to implementation, the opposition originated from a distinct variety of sources, from the National Council for Catholic Bishops to the Parents Television Council 70 and National Rifle Association 71 . The planned changes were voted on by the Republican majority FCC on June 2, 2003 and were passed along party lines, by 3-2. While both houses of Congress agreed to subsequently roll back the regulations to the 35% cap in September of that year, a threatened veto by President Bush saw the stake raised to a compromise 39%, enough to accommodate Viacom (owners of CBS) and News Corporation, whose current audiences stand at roughly 39% and 37% respectively. However, a final blow for the FCC came on June 24th, 2004, as the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals effectively �threw out� the June 2nd ruling. In the wake of a historic 2-1 decision, the judges wrote �the FCC has not sufficiently justified its particular chosen numerical limits for local television ownership, local radio ownership, or cross-ownership of media within local markets.� 72
Media ownership aside, the increased corporate presence in the media still threatens to undermine journalistic integrity. As well as manipulating ideologies, commercial influence could, in extreme cases, result in the total �blacklisting� of unwelcome elements in the news, or in the larger media. The recent move by Disney chief Michael Eisner to block sister company Miramax from distributing Michael Moore�s �Fahrenheit 9/11� is a clear illustration of the power of the media mogul over his miniature empire. 73 Yet the actions of Clear Channel, a radio conglomerate with over 1200 stations across the US, set a precedent for media management in 2003 when they banned all their stations from playing any songs by Texan pop combo �The Dixie Chicks�. Not usually renowned for their political activism, head �Chick� Natalie Maines went public with her views regarding the upcoming war in Iraq while performing at a concert in London, remarking, �We�re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas�. The repercussion was almost instantaneous, as the group�s public display of anti-war activism, despite actually taking place in a different country, acted as a rallying cry for conservative retaliation. Georgia based Cumulus Media began public demonstrations against the group in mid-March, including a symbolic bulldozing of CDs in Shreveport, Louisiana. And by the end of the month, with the tanks officially rolling into Baghdad, the New York Times reported that Clear Channel would follow their lead, and blacklist the group until further notice. Maines, dismayed at the response to her comments and an ensuing decline in record sales, offered not one, but two very public apologies. For some, like conservative talk-radio host Mike Gallagher, the apology was far from convincing. Commenting on the group�s behaviour to a South Carolina audience, Gallagher noted: �Obviously, this is designed to send a message that it's not OK to run down our president during this time of war. They insulted their core audience. Country music fans are red-blooded, patriotic Americans who support our military and support our commander in chief.�74 Forget McCarthyism. The blanket ban by Clear Channel and Cumulus set a new and dangerous standard in corporate media management, and one that, once left unchecked, could spread into the field of journalism. By using their power to control the output of their stations along political lines, these organisations failed to offer sufficient diversity, and in effect �framed� their product. While dissenting views are still present in the news media, the increase in corporate pressure may at times affect output in a similar, if less sensationalistic fashion. Owners and journalists should be aware that while the corporate presence in journalism steadily increases, the potential for manipulation also rises. While the polarisation of the media still finds room for dissenting views on both sides, the Big Brother dogma displayed by Clear Channel and Cumulus during the Dixie Chicks fiasco is a worrying development in the new corporate environment.
f) Framing
�The bewildered herd is a problem� Every once in a while you call on them to chant meaningless slogans like "Support our troops." You've got to keep them pretty scared, because unless they're properly scared and frightened of all kinds of devils that are going to destroy them from outside or inside or somewhere, they may start to think, which is very dangerous, because they're not competent to think.�
Noam Chomsky, 1991 75
Chomsky�s warning about the �bewildered herd� may be over a decade old, yet his fundamental principles retain relevance in the present news environment. By keeping the masses (Chomsky�s �bewildered herd�) occupied, news serves its purpose to inform the public. But by keeping the masses �scared�, news becomes a propaganda tool. By invoking the development of some ideologies and derogation of others, news, in effect, polarises itself. Framing is the media�s most powerful tool, and is utilised to some degree within every structural category I have discussed in this chapter. Take the very labels themselves: Conservative, Liberal, Moderate. The ostensibly trivial classification of a public figure as either �conservative� or �liberal� theoretically �tags� him or her with a predetermined set of ideologies and belief structures, some or most of which he or she may not subscribe to. Except, of course, in the eyes of the viewing public. Ditto news organisations. When the New York Times is �framed� as a �left-leaning� publication, an ideological Pandora�s box is opened, alienating the paper from its prospective Republican readership. Fox News is regularly seen as conservative in orientation, but is this a liberal �frame�, or is the label justified? Sometimes the framing of the news acts as a catalyst to the formation of new ways of thinking, sometimes framing helps to halt thought processes altogether. When it comes to the polarisation of the media, the �how� and �why� of journalism far outweigh the �what�.
When a frame is �accepted� by mainstream society via the major media, it becomes ingrained into the subconscious of that society. Hitler, you may recall, did not gain power by encouraging balanced debate. The propaganda frame, if recognised as a fundamental truth by �right-thinking members of society� allows conflated claims to originate. These are then accepted by the masses with little fear of repercussion. In American culture, post 9/11 frames put forth by the government, Bush�s �Axis of Evil� for example, become entrenched in the public sphere through media overexposure. While much framing can be attributed to the government itself, whether it is Republican or Democrat, the willingness of society and the rest of the media to subconsciously adopt these extremist frames is a wholly American phenomenon. Conservative talk-radio don Rush Limbaugh speaks, people listen. It�s a one-way system. And while Limbaugh himself considers himself an entertainer rather than a journalist, his adoption of a journalistic �frame� leads many to consider his opinions perfectly valid. The Limbaugh �frame� may be �angry white Republican�, and the central theme little more than good old fashioned �liberal-bashing�, but the popularity of his show owes as much to society�s adoption of the �Limbaugh mindset� as it does to his comedic put-downs. If part of his audience agrees with his ideologue, he will, in turn, become acknowledged as an influential figure. And by gaining a trusting audience, Limbaugh has used his pseudo-journalistic status to promote and establish a belief structure. As Jamieson and Waldman note in The Press Effect: �Because the terms we use to describe our world determine the ways we see it, those who control the language control the argument, and those who control the argument are more likely to successfully translate belief into policy.�76 By promoting the frame, the media serves to polarise itself; similarly, by accepting the frame, the public allows the polarisation to take place.
Images and language also help to confirm the status of news frames in society. As a �War on Terror� logo slowly morphs into �Operation Iraqi Freedom�, so the public gradually comes to recognise the connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers. Bombs may fall on Baghdad, killing and injuring thousands of civilians, but the news frame shows only exploding buildings 77 . A statue falls in a city square; a war is, iconically at least, over. Reality becomes replaced with �news reality�, and all developments become categorised in one effective soundbite. The increase in �slippery� slogans such as �friendly fire� seems like a recent phenomenon, but as far back as 1960, Eisenhower warned of the potential damage such �semantic disorder� could have on balanced news.78 �Police states are called �people�s democracies�. Armed conquest of free people is called �liberation�,� he wrote. �Such slippery slogans make more difficult the problem of communicating true faith, facts and beliefs. We must make clear our peaceful intentions, our aspirations for a better world. So doing, we must use language to enlighten the mind, not an instrument of the studied innuendo and disorder of truth. And we must live by what we say.� The traditionalists, still clinging to objectivity, try to steer clear of such comfortable, PR-friendly packaging. The sensationalists grab hold of every opportunity they can to maximise the exposure. The cynics attempt to fit every development into a political �horse race� structure 79 . The Republicans bash Clinton. The Democrats bash Bush. Somewhere in the dirt lies the truth. Have journalists lost the ability to tell it?
Herbert Gans, author of �Deciding What�s News� and one of the leading sociologists of news believes that journalists tend to absorb, without realising it, the dominant culture in American society. Championing a multiperspectival approach, Gans� solution to polarisation is simple; create an all-encompassing media that considers as many points of view as is possible, in effect, a multitude of frames. �Journalists�, he argues, �should be covering politically relevant activities of all social strata, economic classes, races, and so on-- which means that journalism has to be more than about the issues and problems that concern the white middle class mainstream. But multiperspectivism goes further; it also means reporting all ideas that could resolve issues and help problems, even if the ideas come from ideologically small groups.�80 The practicability of Gans� hypothesis is, however, its major flaw. Modern journalism is dictated by a certain kind of �framing�, a shaping of the news that owes little to political or social beliefs. Restrictive time frames lead to the abandonment of certain less newsworthy elements in favour of others. Multiperspectivity is discarded in favour of one or more of the most popular perspectives. Important features are relegated to the sub-editors� floor.
But still something remains rotten about the whole situation. The manipulation of traditional frames in ideological contexts is a poison affecting US journalism, and one that will only serve to increase the detachment of the emergent partisan media from its traditionalist bedfellow. Polarisation will increase, as the developing media comes to recognise it as the norm, and thrust it into the social sphere. The old way may be gone; Jefferson�s grave may be clogged with 200 years of dirt. But journalism must beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past�81
The �bewildered herd� now holds all the cards.
~~~~~~~~~~
In the following chapter I will look at media organisations themselves under more scrutiny. As the project focuses on the relatively recent polarisation of the media, I will focus my attention on broadcast media formats, namely television news (including cable news) and talk radio. I shall not be including any newspaper reports in the study, but the Associated Press will be used to as a control measure. I will examine three news �events� on three separate days and look at how individual media outlets �framed� them for their particular audiences. This will take the form of a content analysis project. I will examine in each case whether the organisation/programme distorted or omitted any relevant information to the story, what sources were used, and what language was used to describe events. Finally I will determine whether the individual news organisation/programme let down its readership by distorting the stories, and attempt to determine where each network falls on a hypothetical �polarisation spectrum�. Does each news organisation/programme live up to its ideological billing? And finally, do the actions of each contribute in any way to the polarisation of the media along conservative and liberal lines?
The �news events� I will be including in my study are as follows:
� Friday, April 9th, 2004: The anniversary of the �fall of Baghdad� i.e. toppling of Saddam statue.
� Wednesday May 5th, 2004: President Bush appears on Arab television to express regret at the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.
� Tuesday June 8th, 2004: The death of former president Ronald Reagan.
The news organisations/programmes I will be studying are as follows:
Television 82 :
� ABC- �ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings�
� CBS- �CBS Evening News with Dan Rather�
� CNN- �Newsnight with Aaron Brown�
� Fox News Channel - �The O�Reilly Factor�
� MSNBC - �Hardball with Chris Matthews�
� NBC - �NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw�
Radio 83 :
� �The Rush Limbaugh Show�, Excellence In Broadcasting (EIB) Network, daily syndicated talk radio broadcast
� �The O�Franken Factor�, Air America Radio, daily syndicated talk radio broadcast
� �Newsbeat with Blanquita Cullum�, Radio America, daily syndicated news radio broadcast
� �Day to Day�, National Public Radio, daily syndicated news radio broadcast
-----------------
33 Peter Hart, The Oh�Really Factor? Unspinning Fox News Channel�s Bill O�Reilly, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2003, p145
34 Peter Jennings, ABC News Special Report: America Under Attack, ABC News, 13 September 2001
35 Further analysis of Rumsfeld�s comments can be found in the Robin Geyde article Euro relations with America at new low, Daily Telegraph, 25 January 2004, p 14
36 quoted in Deborah Potter, Flagging the Problem, Newslab.org, 1 July 2002, http://www.newslab.org/articles/flags.htm
37 quoted in Michael Scherer, Framing the Flag, Columbia Journalism Review March/April 2002, http://www.cjr.org/issues/2002/2/flag-scherer.asp
38 Paul Rodriguez, in interview
39 Norman Solomon, in interview
40 Unfortunately the transcript for the show was unavailable, but according Rendall�s to report, �The Washington Times� Tony Blankley and MSNBC�s Laurence O�Donnell joined host John McLaughlin and National Review editor Rich Lowry in approval of torture. Only Newsweek�s Eleanor Clift objected. When Clift asked her co-panelists where they would send suspects for torture, McLaughlin shouted, "The Filipinos!" while Lowry barked, "The Turks!"�
41 The O�Reilly Factor, Fox News, 17 December 2003
42 Russ Baker, Want to Be a Patriot? Do Your Job, Columbia Journalism Review May/June 2002, http://www.russbaker.com/CJR%20May-June%202002%20-%20Patriotic.htm
43 quoted in Eric Mink, Costs of Dissent: Fox News, The White House and Intimidation, St. Louis Post Dispatch, 20 August 2003, pB7
44 Note that up until the 2004 State of the Union address Bush had held only 10 press conferences. His father had managed 61 at this point in his administration, and Bill Clinton 33. (according to George W Bush and the real state of the union, The Independent, January 20, 2004, p1)
45 Quoted in Eric Alterman, Dishonest, Moronic or Both?, The Nation, 8 April 2004, http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20040426&s=alterman
46 Note that �flip flop� is an epithet used increasingly by conservative journalists to describe presidential hopeful John Kerry, a trend which could be said to have been kick-started by a February 2003 New Republic article (Ryan Lizza, Front Load, 13 February 2003, https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20030224&s=lizza022403, requires subscription). In a Lexis search of �All US Publications� in the period between 22 June 2003 and 22 June 2004, joint searching for the terms �George Bush� and �flip flop� yielded 302 matches. A search for �John Kerry� and �flip flop�, meanwhile, yielded 979 matches. While the margin of error is certainly high and all three terms may have appeared in a large number of articles, the sheer numerical difference shows how the image of John Kerry as a �flip flopper� has become subconsciously ingrained in the press� way of thinking
47 Quoted in Bonnie Azab Powell, Framing the Issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics, UC Berkeley web feature, http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
48 David Carr, quoted in Eric Alterman, What Liberal Media? Basic Books, New York, 2003, p192
49 A good analysis of the initial reaction to �embedded reporting� can be seen in the following articles: Eric Deggans, �Embedded' reporters add insiders' view of conflict, St. Petersburg Times (Florida), March 21, 2003, p16a; Clark Hoyt, Knight Ridder journalists go to scene of combat to bring independent view of war news, Detroit Free Press, March 21, 2003
50 Danny Schechter, in interview
51 Quoted in Jim Ruttenberg and Bill Carter, Network Coverage a Target Of Fire From Conservatives, New York Times, 7 November 2001, Section B, p2. Note that this complaint against media watchdog organisations also appeared on MRC.org under the headline �Whining About Watchdogs� on 26 November, 2001. http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2001/nq20011126.asp
52 Jay Rosen and others, Has Media Bias Become a Dumb Debate?, PressThink, 24 October, 2003, http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/24/bias_questions.html
53 Jay Rosen and Tim Graham, No Media Bias is Not a Dumb Debate, Says Bias Hunter, PressThink, 24 October 2003, http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/24/bias_mrc.html
54 Edward B.Driscoll Jr, Welcome to the Post-Bias Media, Techcentralstation.com, 5 May 2004, http://www.techcentralstation.com/050504C.html
55 Edward B.Driscoll Jr, Welcome to the Post-Bias Media, Techcentralstation.com, 5 May 2004, http://www.techcentralstation.com/050504C.html
56 Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: The Use of Propaganda in Bush�s War on Iraq, Tarcher Paperback, New York, 2003
57 Joe Bob Briggs, Joe Bob�s America: Jealous of Fox, United Press International, 18April 2004
58 Jason Gay, Jolly Roger Ailes hosts O�Reilly flag, declares news victory, New York Observer, 28 April 2003, p1
59 Al Franken, Lies and The Lying Liars who Tell Them, Dutton Books, 2003, p63
60 Bill O�Reilly, The No-Spin Zone, Broadway Books, 2001, p170
61 It should be noted that the same study found that 70% of Americans supported a pro-American viewpoint in the news; only 20% disagreed with the premise
62 Quoted in Robert McChesney and John Nicholls, Our media, not theirs: the democratic struggle against corporate media, Seven Stories Press, 2002, p114
63 Alan Bash, 'Ellen' gets a dose of Jeremy Piven's doctoring, USA Today, 1 August 1995, p3d
64 Pew Research Centre for People and the Press Project for Excellence in Journalism, Public Wants Neutrality and Pro-American Point of View, July 2003, http://www.people-press.org
65 Neil Hickey, in interview
66 Ana Marie Cox, The Liberal Media Strike Again, Alternet, 16 December 2002, http://www.alternet.org/story/14789
67 Jenny Toomey, Empire of the Air, The Nation, 23 December 2002, http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030113&s=toomey
68 The percentages in this case referring to �ownership� are measured by the percentage of viewers reached by the organisation.
69 Neil Hickey, Media Monopoly: Behind the Mergers, Columbia Journalism Review May/June 2002, http://www.cjr.org/issues/2002/3/media-hickey.asp
70 According to the PTC website, http://www.parentstv.com, president Brent Bozell (yes, the same one) argued that the rules would alter the levels of decency trickling through onto screens, and see an upsurge in violent programming. �An ownership cap increase, supported by Chairman Powell of the FCC,� he noted, �would have granted the networks far greater ability to thumb their noses at the America public and ignore even the most commonsense decency standards.�
71 As The Washington Post�s Frank Ahrens reported on May 20, 2003, the NRA were concerned about their own image in the media following potential mergers. The NRA�s appeal warned of �gun-hating media giants like AOL Time Warner, Viacom/CBS and Disney/ABC . . . could literally silence your NRA and prevent us from communicating with your fellow Americans by refusing to sell us television, radio or newspaper advertising at any price.� [Unlikely Alliances Forged in Fight over Media Rules, 20 May 2003, pE01)
72 John Plunkett, US court blocks media ownership reform, The Guardian, 25 June 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0%2C3604%2C1247184%2C00.html
73 Eisner defended his decision not to distribute the film due to its political content, commenting �We're such a nonpartisan company. [People] do not look for us to take sides.� Charlotte Higgins, Fahrenheit 9/11 could light fire under Bush, The Guardian, 17 May 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0%2C13918%2C1218376%2C00.html
74 William McDougall, Using War to Sell Country Music, http://www.alternet.org/story/15635/, 14 April 2003
75 Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Seven Stories Press, 1991, p9
76 KH Jamieson and Paul Waldman, The Press Effect, Oxford University Press, 2003, pXIV
77 An effective eye witness account of the bombing of Baghdad, contrasting with the television coverage, can be seen in the Jack Chang article US News criticised for sterility, Contra Costa Times, 29 March 2003, p4
78 KH Jamieson and Joseph Capella, Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good, Oxford University Press, 1997, p28
79 As Robert Entman would put it, �To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating context, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation.�, ibid, p45
80 Quoted in Jay Rosen, Interview with Herbert Gans, America�s Senior Sociologist of News, PressThink, 13 January 2004, http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/01/13/interview_gans.html
81 Borrowed from F.Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, Penguin Books, 1994, p192
82 Note that all televised programmes, with the exception of �The O�Reilly Factor� and �Hardball� are the flagship news broadcasts of the various networks. There is no clear cut equivalent on MSNBC and Fox News, so the two programmes have been selected for inclusion in the study by virtue of their high audience ratings. �The O�Reilly Factor� gets an audience of 1.4 million per night, according to Jim Condit of Network America. (http://www.rense.com/general35/warwsig.htm) Since the demise of MSNBC�s Donahue, Hardball has become the station�s flagship broadcast.
83 Note that in the case of �Rush Limbaugh� and �The O�Franken Factor�, only the first hour of the show was included in the study. The actual duration of both shows is three hours.