|
Coincidentally, I read an interesting commentary by
the editor of Columbia Journalism Review,
(linked below) questioning the notion of media objectivity just the other day,
arguing if media tried too hard to be objective maybe the truth wasn’t being
served, especially if the story was just reporting and not analytical. As an example, when surveyed earlier
this year, The Tennessean
reported letters to the editors were running predominantly against the war in
Iraq, but they were trying hard to print the (fewer) letters supporting the
war, in order to appear non-biased.
Is that reporting the truth, then? Maybe you’ve noticed this in your local news, as I did
this morning, where the President “sat down for a private interview” with our “local
reporter in Washington DC.” But form letters
from soldiers? Come on! What were they thinking? - KWC Also see Rethinking Objective Journalism. Links are live. Color highlights, bold, are mine. Especially note below where GWB does
not say “I don’t know…” but rather, “I don’t care”. BUSH COURTS REGIONAL MEDIA By Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer,
Tuesday, October 14, 2003; Page A04 The Bush
administration, displeased with the news coverage of the war in Iraq, has
accelerated efforts to bypass the national media by telling the
administration's story directly to the American public. Yesterday, Bush granted
exclusive interviews to five regional broadcasting companies -- an
unprecedented effort to reach news organizations that do not regularly cover
the White House. The effort by Bush to
reach out to about 10 million Americans through the regional broadcasters --
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer had
similar sessions previously -- came two days after it emerged that soldiers in Iraq have sent
form letters home to local newspapers asserting that the U.S. troops had been welcomed "with open arms" in
Iraq. Identical letters to the editor from
different soldiers with
the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Infantry Regiment appeared in 11 newspapers across the country, Gannett News Service reported on
Saturday. The news service reached
six soldiers who said
they agreed with the letter but had not written it, one who had not signed the letter, and one who didn't even know about the letter. Lt. Col. Cindy
Scott-Johnson, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said that the form letter was similar to
the "hometown
news release program"
and that the Pentagon had raised no objection "that I know of" to the
letter, apparently written by 2nd Battalion staff and distributed to soldiers. The
form letter from the troops, like the Bush interviews with local media outlets,
stems from a frustration
with the national media
and a desire to circumvent
what the administration
views as unfairly negative coverage of the Iraq conflict. Bush, in his
interviews with the regional broadcasters yesterday, mentioned improvements to
Iraq's hospitals and schools. He
said that "there's a great deal of consistency" in the administration's
actions and "a very clear strategy" while expressing "a sense
that people in America aren't getting the truth." In one interview, with Hearst-Argyle,
he said, "I'm mindful of the filter through which some news travels, and
somehow you just got to go over the heads of the filter and speak directly to
the people." The letters to the editor had a similar theme.
"The fruits of all our soldiers' efforts are clearly visible in the
streets of Kirkuk today," they said.
"There is very little trash in the streets, many more people in the
markets and shops, and children have returned to school. I am proud of the work we are doing
here in Iraq and I hope all of your readers are as well." Last week, Bush
complained that the news reports out of Iraq emphasize the negative. "We're making good progress in
Iraq," he said.
"Sometimes it's hard to tell it when you listen to the
filter." Speaking Thursday at
a fundraiser in Kentucky, Bush said, "We're making great progress -- I don't care what you read about." Bush aides make no
apologies for targeting local media -- which, they say, tend to be less cynical.
"We believe local media and regional broadcasters are more
interested in letting viewers or readers see or hear what the president has to
say," said Dan Bartlett, White House communications director. "It's less analytical and more
reporting." Bartlett said that as
"we move to an instant news cycle" dominated by cable news, more
Americans are turning to the Internet, radio or local broadcasts and papers for
their news. "That's forcing
national newspapers, weekly magazines and national broadcasters to become more
analytical and provide commentary," he said. Andrew Kohut, who runs
the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, said the White House is
correct that viewers tend to trust their local news more than network
television, and he said local news has held its own while network news has
declined. Coincidentally or not, Bush's public standing has
improved. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup
poll released yesterday found his support had jumped to 56 percent from 50
percent in September. But some in the
national media say the White House strategy amounts to shopping for softer questioning. "It's much more often the case in doing local or
regional interviews that reporters come to the interview at least a bit star-struck,
at least a bit less prepared for how to focus the interview on questions and
answers in the public interest and a bit more willing to accept what the White House position is on matters of controversy," said
Mark Halperin, ABC News political director. Halperin said he intends no slight to regional reporters but
that Bush is "more sophisticated" about avoiding the national media
"than anybody who has ever held the job." Presidents for decades
have courted regional and specialized media, but the Bush administration has
been unusual, according to media experts.
Vice President
Cheney, who almost never grants newspaper interviews, has been a regular on
talk radio and Sunday television shows where his answers are unedited. The White House invited talk radio hosts to set up shop on
the North Lawn one day, treating them to a steady stream of administration
officials. The White House Web
site has hosted dozens of "Ask the White House" chats for the public. And Bush himself has had few news
conferences and extended interviews but has made time for specialized outlets such as Runner's World. The White House Office
of Media Affairs deals with about 10,000 regional and specialty outlets,
fielding questions from hundreds of radio stations daily. Bush himself has regularly participated
in this outreach, giving "roundtable"
interviews
to regional journalists. Yesterday's interviews were the largest
such effort
-- he sat for five
eight-minute
interviews -- and the first time he sat down with all five of the major
regional broadcasters. A White
House spokesman said the transcript of Bush's remarks would not be released,
following its policy of treating such interviews as the property of the
questioners. The matter has not
been controversial because regional newspapers often publish the transcripts
themselves. Martha Kumar, a Towson
University professor who has studied White House relations with the media, said
reaching out to regional media "can give you a temporary lift." But, she added, "I don't know in
the long run what it really buys you.
The president's problems now are policy problems, not
communications problems." The report yesterday
on WBAL in Baltimore, owned by Hearst-Argyle, mixed Bush's words with reminders
of the violence in Iraq and the failure to find weapons of mass
destruction. "The president
is trying to paint a brighter picture of Iraq despite the deaths of more U.S.
soldiers today and another deadly car bombing over the weekend," the
report began. Staff
writers Thomas E. Ricks and Bradley Graham and researcher Lucy Shackelford
contributed to this report. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
