Appalling Spread Of False Information Requires Stronger Media Accountability

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/79465

Appalling Spread of False Information Requires Stronger Media Accountability

By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet. Posted March 12, 2008.

The mass media has become one of the most important obstacles to social and economic progress in the 21st century.

"A free press is supposed to function as our democracy's immune system against . . . gross errors of fact and understanding," wrote Al Gore in his book, The Assault on Reason. But it doesn't - as Gore explains -- and that is what makes the mass media one of the most important obstacles to social and economic progress in the 21st century.

How the media treats repeated falsehoods is a key issue. For example, when the New York Times reports on the allegation -- spread by his enemies -- that presidential candidate Barack Obama is a Muslim, there is a sentence that follows immediately: "In fact, he is a Christian. . ."

The media didn't do this kind of "immune system" work when it reported on the run-up to the Iraq war. As a result, more than 70 percent of Americans were convinced that Saddam Hussein was involved in the massacre of September 11. More than 4,000 Americans and over one million Iraqis have been killed in the violence that perhaps could have been averted with better journalism.

A 2008 study by the Center for Public Integrity, "The War Card: Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War," documents 935 false statements by President Bush and seven top officials of his administration. The report notes that "much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq."

Filmmaker Michael Moore told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "We're in the 5th year of this war because you, and CNN… didn't do your jobs back then and now here we are in this mess."

The mass media fails us on many issues other than war and peace. Most Americans under 50 think they are never going to see their Social Security benefits. In fact, the probability that they won't get their Social Security benefits is about the same as the chance that there won't be a U.S. government when they retire - pretty close to zero...

MORE

[ixion]

1. the MSM has acted as an enabler for the mess we're in today

as such, I hold them in contempt to the same degree that I hold BushCo. If they had done their job, rather than parroting the WH press releases, the landscape would be much different today.

[flor de jasmim]

2. Absolutely - this a.m. I saw an ad for training "fact checkers" for the media

Great idea - we need more fact checkers and editors who know the difference between FACT and OPINION

[rfranklin]

3. And then the publisher (a Republican, of course) will tell them...

what the "facts" really are.

[flor de jasmim]

4. yes... ***SIGH***

[MaryCeleste]

5. The author needs some strong cheese to go with that loud whine

If you are going to condemn something, have a viable solution handy. Saying "we need more media" is not much of a solution. To say we need a larger "public media sector" is no better.

Journalism profs criticize bloggers because "journalists have ethics and professional training"/ Complete and utter nonsense. The modern media started as scandal rags and agitprop and nothing has really changed except for blogging and other consumer level/p2p information exchange. There is no certification standard for journalist like there is for engineers and architects, and any attempt to mandate one would and should be considered a 1st Amendment issue.

M$M is imploding due to finances. The current revenue model is just not going to make it in an age of widely available internet access. However, like always, the consumer is going to have to pick and choose whom they believe with great care. This has not changed since the start of large scale media.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. interesting points

I suspect that there will always be a market for decent journalism. The problem is that standard media outlets were turned into info-entertainment centers which also became profit centers. the idea that news sells was not wrong, after all papers had ink and paper to buy, staff to hire, and printers to pay. But the greed of corporations killed the goose. 20-25% returns on investment? Ridiculous. yet that is what they seek. And of course, to get there temporarily, they cut staff to "improve service, quality and performance." Then they act surprised when readership and viewership falls.

[MaryCeleste]

7. The thread title says accountability, but the article fails to address it

No discussion of how that could be done from a Gov perspective without turning into Iran or China. (licensed journalists?)

Its also not clear what is meant by a public media segment. A larger NPR? Official Government newspaper? You get the idea.

The article also mentioned Micheal Moore and his attack on CNN. Hopefully they were not considering him a journalist. He is a great OPED guy, as is Randy or KO, but none of them qualify as dispassionate reporters of facts (thankfully).

[shenmue]

8. I'm pretty tired of the "bloggers as saints" thing. Garbage.

No, newspapers did *not* start out as tabloids, and yes, things *have* changed.

Besides, you let down the public in all this. The public *wants* stupid, ridiculous shit. The public *wants* rumormongering. Stop letting them off the hook.

[MaryCeleste]

10. I don't think they are, but they are no worse than many "professional" journalists

Perhaps you mean I left the public off the hook, not let down. That is a harder call. I am not sure you can make people read/view a media they have no interest in. Daily papers are in dire straights due to the internet, and its only going to get worse.

Originally mass papers very partisian and were effectively tabloids. Things got better for awhile, but I tend to think they are head back that way, and to being infotainment fluff. USA Today is often cited in that regards, but there are times it seems one of the better papers out there.

[conscious evolution]

9. My solution=War Crimes Tribunals

Members of the media can also be charged with crimes against humanity just like goverment officials and military leaders.

[MaryCeleste]

11. Some government entity trying journalists?

Whether domestic or international, that sounds a little chilling to free speech. Be interesting to see what standard of evidence and what crimes could be ascribed to them as well

[conscious evolution]

12. The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction

According to the Nuremberg Principles many media owners and journalists can be charged with war crimes.

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The way the media has spread lies and false propoganda,incited ethnic and religous hatred and covered up evidense of war crimes clearly demonstrates their participation in the war crimes committed by our goverment.

Their is legal precedent for such action.After WW2,Julius Striecher,a Nazi media owner,was executed for his part in poisoning the minds of Germans.Josef Goebbels,the German minister of propoganda,would most likely faced such a fate also if he had not committed suicide in the wars last days.
Also,after the Rwanda genocide in the early ninties several Rwandan media owners and deejays were charged with war crimes for their active participation in the genocide.

It may seem chilling to free speech but remember this-Even in this country it is still illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded theater.

[MaryCeleste]

13. The citation inferes common intent and malice

It doesn't cover sins of omission which is what much the M$M is being accused of.