Leo Hubbard
Sep 1, 2004, 08:17 AM
Though it's looking less likely than it was a few weeks ago, John Kerry could still pull off a win in this presidential election. But there's already one clear loser: the so-called "mainstream media" of network television and major newspapers. Whoever winds up in the White House next year, the position of these traditional media outlets (or "legacy media" as some call them) continues to decline.
That decline is partly technological in origin. Monopolistic or oligopolistic newspapers and broadcast outlets were the result of technology: economies of scale and scope that rewarded consolidation and led to virtually no competition among newspapers and very little among broadcasters. Now that's changing, as alternative outlets like talk radio, cable television, and, especially, the Internet, have almost completely removed the traditional barriers to entry and allowed competition.
But the loss of those barriers isn't the biggest problem faced by the mainstream media. The biggest problem is that, like most monopolists, they've spent so many years enjoying their position and not worrying about quality that they're left floundering now that competition is exposing their faults. Like the folks at GM who couldn't understand why people were buying Toyotas all of a sudden back in the 1970s, today's Big Media folks are shocked to see ratings and circulation numbers falling while readership for Internet sites skyrockets. And, like the auto executives, they're even starting to mumble about the need for protection.
Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."
Hmm. A 15-point margin kind of makes a mockery of "democracy" doesn't it? And we were worried about a few hanging chads?
As Debra Saunders remarked on CNN's Reliable Sources (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/29/rs.00.html) over the weekend, there's a double standard in election coverage. Why?:
SAUNDERS: I am suggesting a double standard.
KURTZ: Why do you think that is?
SAUNDERS: I think that most journalists support John Kerry.
KURTZ: You really think that that's the reason?
SAUNDERS: Yes, I do. I work for "The San Francisco Chronicle." I've been in journalism for many years. And most people...
KURTZ: So you believe that most journalists want John Kerry to win, and therefore are asking tougher questions of the president and giving Kerry an easier ride for ideological reasons? That's a pretty serious charge.
Yes it is -- and it's also rather obviously true. Then there was this admission (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Feb1004.html) from ABC's The Note:
"Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.
"They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions." …
"The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.
"It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.
"It remains fixated on the unemployment rate. … The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race."
...
http://www.techcentralstation.com/083104B.html
The press's neutrality has been revealed as a fiction. That might not matter if they were still better at what they did than anyone else. After all, what about all the fact-checking, the professionalism, the editors meticulously ensuring fairness and accuracy?
Yeah. What about 'em? It's tempting to point to Jayson Blair, or any of the other media scandals of the past couple of years. (Or, for that matter, to Walter Duranty). But the problem goes even deeper than that. Beyond these major scandals, a combination of laziness, bias, and complacency haunts reporting on all sorts of subjects.
The latest example has to do with the controversy over John Kerry's claims to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968. He wasn't, as even his campaign has admitted now. But major media ignored this story for weeks, even as bloggers and others were researching and publishing.
As Jonathan Last notes (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/517dhjcp.asp):
"There are many reasons why the mainstream media don't like the Swift boat story, but chief among them is that they've been strong-armed into covering it by the "new" media: talk-radio, cable television, and Internet blogs. …
"Talk-radio and the blog world covered the Cambodia story obsessively.
"They reported on border crossings during Vietnam and the differences between Swift boats and PBRs. They also found two other instances of Kerry's talking about his Christmas in Cambodia. Spurred on by the blogs, Fox led the August 9 Special Report with a Carl Cameron story on Kerry's Cambodia discrepancy.
"All the while, traditional print and broadcast media tried hard to ignore the story--even as Kerry officially changed his position on his presence in Cambodia. Then on August 19, Kerry went public with his counter assault against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and suddenly the story was news. The numbers are fairly striking: Before August 19, the New York Times and Washington Post had each mentioned Swift Boat Veterans for Truth just 8 times; the Los Angeles Times 7 times; the Boston Globe 4 times. The broadcast networks did far less. According to the indefatigable Media Research Center, before Kerry went public, ABC, CBS, and NBC together had done a total of 9 stories on the Swifties. For comparison, as of August 19 these networks had done 75 stories on the accusation that Bush had been AWOL from the National Guard.
"After Kerry, the deluge."
...
http://www.techcentralstation.com/083104B.html
That decline is partly technological in origin. Monopolistic or oligopolistic newspapers and broadcast outlets were the result of technology: economies of scale and scope that rewarded consolidation and led to virtually no competition among newspapers and very little among broadcasters. Now that's changing, as alternative outlets like talk radio, cable television, and, especially, the Internet, have almost completely removed the traditional barriers to entry and allowed competition.
But the loss of those barriers isn't the biggest problem faced by the mainstream media. The biggest problem is that, like most monopolists, they've spent so many years enjoying their position and not worrying about quality that they're left floundering now that competition is exposing their faults. Like the folks at GM who couldn't understand why people were buying Toyotas all of a sudden back in the 1970s, today's Big Media folks are shocked to see ratings and circulation numbers falling while readership for Internet sites skyrockets. And, like the auto executives, they're even starting to mumble about the need for protection.
Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."
Hmm. A 15-point margin kind of makes a mockery of "democracy" doesn't it? And we were worried about a few hanging chads?
As Debra Saunders remarked on CNN's Reliable Sources (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/29/rs.00.html) over the weekend, there's a double standard in election coverage. Why?:
SAUNDERS: I am suggesting a double standard.
KURTZ: Why do you think that is?
SAUNDERS: I think that most journalists support John Kerry.
KURTZ: You really think that that's the reason?
SAUNDERS: Yes, I do. I work for "The San Francisco Chronicle." I've been in journalism for many years. And most people...
KURTZ: So you believe that most journalists want John Kerry to win, and therefore are asking tougher questions of the president and giving Kerry an easier ride for ideological reasons? That's a pretty serious charge.
Yes it is -- and it's also rather obviously true. Then there was this admission (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Feb1004.html) from ABC's The Note:
"Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.
"They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions." …
"The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.
"It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.
"It remains fixated on the unemployment rate. … The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race."
...
http://www.techcentralstation.com/083104B.html
The press's neutrality has been revealed as a fiction. That might not matter if they were still better at what they did than anyone else. After all, what about all the fact-checking, the professionalism, the editors meticulously ensuring fairness and accuracy?
Yeah. What about 'em? It's tempting to point to Jayson Blair, or any of the other media scandals of the past couple of years. (Or, for that matter, to Walter Duranty). But the problem goes even deeper than that. Beyond these major scandals, a combination of laziness, bias, and complacency haunts reporting on all sorts of subjects.
The latest example has to do with the controversy over John Kerry's claims to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968. He wasn't, as even his campaign has admitted now. But major media ignored this story for weeks, even as bloggers and others were researching and publishing.
As Jonathan Last notes (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/517dhjcp.asp):
"There are many reasons why the mainstream media don't like the Swift boat story, but chief among them is that they've been strong-armed into covering it by the "new" media: talk-radio, cable television, and Internet blogs. …
"Talk-radio and the blog world covered the Cambodia story obsessively.
"They reported on border crossings during Vietnam and the differences between Swift boats and PBRs. They also found two other instances of Kerry's talking about his Christmas in Cambodia. Spurred on by the blogs, Fox led the August 9 Special Report with a Carl Cameron story on Kerry's Cambodia discrepancy.
"All the while, traditional print and broadcast media tried hard to ignore the story--even as Kerry officially changed his position on his presence in Cambodia. Then on August 19, Kerry went public with his counter assault against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and suddenly the story was news. The numbers are fairly striking: Before August 19, the New York Times and Washington Post had each mentioned Swift Boat Veterans for Truth just 8 times; the Los Angeles Times 7 times; the Boston Globe 4 times. The broadcast networks did far less. According to the indefatigable Media Research Center, before Kerry went public, ABC, CBS, and NBC together had done a total of 9 stories on the Swifties. For comparison, as of August 19 these networks had done 75 stories on the accusation that Bush had been AWOL from the National Guard.
"After Kerry, the deluge."
...
http://www.techcentralstation.com/083104B.html
