Journalist Demographics

Tim Porter, of the First Draft blog, has an excellent rundown of a new survey of American journalists. Demographics, specifically political affiliations, often arise in discussions of media bias. Porter says:

I hate the liberal-conservative press debate since it’s like arguing over the weather–and because I believe most newspaper journalists are reactionary (in the non-political sense) by nature, and therefore a root cause of newsroom stagnation. That said, the survey found that 37 percent of journalists identify themselves as Democrats, moving them closer to the national percentage of 32 percent. It’s the lowest number since 1971 (proving, perhaps, that the greatest Democratic recruiter in the last half-century was Richard Nixon).

Interesting reading.

Should the press root for victory?…

Debra Saunders says:

When mainstream journalists report both sides of racism–pro and con, with equal weight–or both sides of having a free press in America, then I’ll believe that American media don’t take sides on issues, and that there is at least a rationale for American media not rooting for U.S. troops to win in Iraq. But that day will never come.

She properly qualifies this statement by observing that there are many issues in which “thinking” Americans agree. I would add that cultural values constitute a part of this “thinking.” For example, there may be cognitive differences between racists and the rest of us, but there are certainly cultural differences. Mainstream journalists are part of a culture that repudiates racism (what to do about it is open to debate).

Can we apply this same thinking to coverage of war? Saunders makes an excellent case. But I am not persuaded because, for the most part, American journalists are not against American troops. And, from the bulk of the coverage I’ve seen/heard/read, they hardly seem against the war. They do, however, fulfill that watchdog function for which they rightly deserve praise.

I don’t want journalists to look the other way when tough situations arise just as I don’t want them to forget they are Americans. Being a good journalist often requires the ability to live with contradictions and irony.

Peter and Geraldo…

Howard Kurtz runs down the recent troubles of journalists Peter Arnett and Geraldo Rivera. You’ll also find many links to material on Arnett at Romenesko (scroll down). I have no comment on either case.

Freedom of speech…

Is this a great country, or what? Today, thanks to Jeremy Gilchrist, we are free to express exactly what we think…to police dogs. And in their language, too!

Mass hysteria…

In our modern, civilized democracy, the populace cannot be exhorted to obscene, mindless acts of boorishness or violence because we are heir to, and defenders of, a rational civic discourse. We air our differences as Madison, Hamilton, and Jay taught us to do by the example of The Federalist Papers. We are Americans: Champions of the Enlightenment.

Or maybe not.

TV nation…

Richard Blow says the anti-war left is upset with the “mainstream” media for not telling “the truth” about the war in Iraq. Their growing hostility is, he claims, proof of cultural marginality and their anger is more about cultural struggle than media practice. Blow quotes Harvard professor Brian Palmer speaking at a recent rally at the university:

The press won’t tell the truth about this war, Palmer declared. “CNN will show Iraqis dancing in the streets, but it won’t show burned and crushed and obliterated bodies.” The line brought a huge cheer.

Hostility to the American media has become an emerging theme of the anti-war movement. Protesters are giving voice to a feeling of betrayal, a sense that the media ought to be sympathetic to liberals but isn’t–and as a result, we’re getting more propaganda than truth.

The news media should not be sympathetic to any political ideology. It is, by its very practice in an American context, liberal in the sense that journalists see themselves as a check on power and as defenders of underdogs. That function ought to operate just as well during times of war and times of peace. And, for the most part, I think it does–in print.

Truth, balance, fairness, depth, complexity, etc….from TV? The lack of “truth” Palmer decries is not the fault of a conservative media that shuts out liberal thought or marginalizes progressives (although these may be consequences). And it’s not about the media eschewing liberal roots.

It’s about pictures of things blowing up. It’s about patriotic music and fancy logos with shimmering American flags and soaring bald eagles. It’s about the pathos of news tickers and the ethos of retired generals. It’s about embedded reporters who do more coverage of their own embedding than taking a hard look at what that tank just hit.

Sadly, most American’s get their news from television. And television feeds them what the medium will allow (see the structural biases of journalism). And this, I think, offers a better explanation of the source of the problem the progressives have with TV news and, by extension, the news media. Also see “How TV messes with your head…”

(Yes, I’m making several fat assumptions that are difficult–but not impossible–to support in the media environment of 2003. But I think it’s a good thing to take the ol’ idealism out for a walk now and then.)

UPDATE (12:45 p.m.): Sanders LaMont says readers of his paper see the war in black and white.

UPDATE (12:47 p.m.): Michael Getler thinks the Washington Post’s coverage is first rate.

UPDATE (12:55 p.m.): Mike Fancher understands the pathos of TV and its structural biases. Here’s the opening of his Sunday column (emphasis mine):

At some point last week I turned off the television and stopped watching the war with Iraq in real time.

It wasn’t easy and I felt guilty doing it. Combatants are fighting and dying, some of them on my behalf. Innocents are dying. Journalists are dying. The outcome is unknown. How could I look away?

The answer is that television’s relentless sense of urgency was working a hardship on me without giving me much knowledge or understanding in return. Channel surfing to see the latest was doing me more harm than good.

This isn’t a knock on the hard work and dedication of the television journalists covering the war, especially the bravery of those on the battlefield. It’s about the medium they serve. Television’s need to fill every second of every minute of every hour was more than I could take and the progress of this war could offer.

UPDATE (1:00 p.m.): Romensko has a lot of media/war coverage today. I thank him for several of my links. Be sure to check out the critiques of FOX News, the leader in the cable ratings race. This page does not use permalinks. Instead, you’ll need to enter a Quicklink number at the bottom of the page…unless you like scrolling. The number is: A27647

Horses cross first finish line…

Why bother calling them candidates?

Nope, they’re horses in a race. This metaphor makes it easy for the press to focus on the easy stuff (such as counting money) and easy to avoid the difficult stuff (such as explaining policy). And horse Howard Dean, despite meeting expectations, is behind the pack. Here’s the spin:

Tony Coelho, who helped manage Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, said he was impressed by how much Dean raised in a short time. Meeting expectations and showing momentum are as important – and maybe more important – than having the highest total right now, he said.

“It’s not only what you have in the bank, it’s what can you do next,” Coelho said. “The issue is do you have an organization to raise money and do you have the credibility to go longer.”

Nice try.

In case you’re interested in something Howard Dean might have said recently, I have posted my analysis of his speech to the California State Democratic Convention on Presidential Campaign Rhetoric 2004.

How TV messes with your head…

We’ve seen these kinds of polls in previous administrations. The numbers seem to demonstrate that Americans like the president personally but do not favor many of his important policies. Or, as the headline on this story says, we like Bush more than his policies. What’s not explained is how this curious state of affairs occurs.

Let me chart for you one explanation. A 1988 study by G. E. Marcus, published in the American Political Science Review, demonstrates that one’s emotional reaction to a candidate is predictive of one’s vote for or against that candidate. Communications scholar R. P. Hart, in his 1999 book Seducing America, demonstrates (for the umteenth time) that television is an emotional medium that creates a false sense of intimacy with its subjects. This is the strange phenomenon that compelled people to ask actor Robert Young (Marcus Welby, MD) for medial advice.

Further, the structural biases of TV promote a dramatic, visual presentation of political events. This is why candidates orchestrate events that offer plenty of patriotic, down-home, feel-good visuals and music. This is why televised political events are short on discussions of policy.

So, what happens, according to Hart and so many others, is that people come to like or dislike a candidate based on the images they see and the personal, emotional responses these images encourage. These images are manufactured and may have little relationship to the “real” politician. Armed with these emotional reactions, voters enter the voting booth prepared to cast their votes for politicians who seem most like themselves.

It should not be difficult to understand, then, how crucial positive press and skilled media manipulation are to any candidate.

It should also not be difficult to see that news articles such as the one referenced above are incomplete without an explanation of how and why people can like the president (any president during the TV era) personally and yet not favor his policies. The article treats this phenomenon as if it were “normal.”

On TV, policy is boring–not because policy is boring, but because it is boring on TV. But it is the stuff of policy that affects your life. This is why TV is bad for politics and governance.

Real-time, gee-whiz coverage…

At our KC Bloggers meeting on Monday, Jay Manifold, Nels Lindahl, and I were discussing TV coverage of the war and antiwar protests and its emotional/intellectual effects on the audience, especially those of us (in this case, me) who question if this war is a good idea. Being anti-war doesn’t necessarily mean being against our troops or military victory. About watching the war on TV and my thoughts on victory, I said: “When I turn on CNN, I want to see an ass-kicking.”

In other words, I want to see the gee-whiz pictures of our troops opening a can of whoop-ass on Saddam. I want to see victory. I want to feel victory.

For context and something like an accurate, conflicted, and sober portrayal of the war–one that rubs the realities of war in my face, I read the newspaper.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the TV networks and cable outlets are trying to re-vamp coverage as they go and provide context and a glimpse at the big picture–something that’s difficult to achieve considering the structural biases of this medium. I don’t want that. I want pictures–ass-kicking pictures. What does it say about the emotional power of TV and the new technology that I want to see this stuff (never mind for a moment, please, what it says about me). Are we being desensitized to the spectacle of war (notice the pronoun switch)?

The article concludes:

Despite the raw power and immediacy of the live coverage, experts caution that TV can convey only so much and to recognize those limits.

“People need to wake up to the fact these are not video games,” said Boston University’s [John J. ] Schulz [professor of international communication], noting that much of the early coverage was “antiseptic and long-distance…. Television gives us the easy answers; it always has. It’s not the full picture.”

End note: Hmmm…I really really do not want to write a war blog. But the rhetorical intersections between the press and politics are too numerous, interesting, and important to ignore in regard to war. So it is now my goal to keep some kind of perspective rather than simply give in or give up. I write about the war under protest. But I also write about the war under obligation to my purpose as a scholar and popularizer if rhetoric. I’ll trust my readers to help me find that perspective.

UPDATE (11:45 a.m.): We ridicule, you decide: FOX News has this to say to war protestors. (via Thinking It Through)

UPDATE (29 March 5:05 p.m.): Maybe this is what FOX News had in mind.

A great gig…

So the networks and cable news channels are trotting out the retired generals to comment on the war. While their commentary is interesting, infuriating, and insightful by turns, I find myself fascinated by the rhetorical situation this practice creates for Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Commander and potential candidate for President of the United States. While the other Democrats struggle with kairos and the proper tone for a campaign run during a war, Clark looks happily dapper and calm as he plays the role of military expert for CNN.

How might this stint as TV talking head help or hurt his chances for a 2004 run? I don’t know yet. But I’ll bet there’s more than one declared candidate who envies this exposure.

UPDATE (10:45 a.m.): Chris Suellentrop has this to say about “embedding” generals in the news shows.

UPDATE (10:50 a.m.): While the Democrats tread lightly on the campaign trail they must still win the first leg of the money race.