Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Killing the Messenger

The Pew Center for public opinion research has released its September study of public trust in media, and the picture isn’t very pretty.  Americans are pessimistic when it comes to the quality of reporting in the corporate press.  This should hardly be a surprise considering the extent to which reporting on Iraq and Iran in recent years propagandistically and falsely reported both countries as pursuing and perhaps even possessing nuclear weapons, and the way that reporters muddy the waters of rational debate on important domestic issues such as health care, the economy, the 2008 election, and so on.  Most Americans are also weary of the titillating mass media coverage of celebrity gossip, finding these stories to be a diversion from more relevant political issues.

According to the Pew center, public trust in the media is now at its lowest point in the last twenty years, with just 29 percent of Americans seeing news outlets as generally “getting the facts straight” in reporting, and only 18 percent feeling that reporters “deal fairly with all sides” of important political, economic, and social issues.  These findings are no revelation considering the longstanding marginalization of progressive-left views in the mass media.  What is encouraging, however, is that the general public is finally recognizing this reality in encouraging numbers.

It should come as no surprise that more than six in ten Americans now say that news stories are “often inaccurate.”  The mass media shares major responsibility – along with both Democratic and Republican political leaders – for manipulating public opinion in favor of a war in Iraq based upon false WMD-related pretenses.  My own study of the New York Times’ reporting on Iraq in the run-up to the 2003 invasion, for example, found that 75 percent of news stories only stressed that Iraq possessed WMD and was a threat to the U.S., whereas just 10 percent of stories challenged that claim.  This massive imbalance is stark evidence of distorted, propagandistic coverage.  The corporate media’s near complete failure (with the exception of groups like Knight Ridder) to challenge the Bush administration’s propaganda on Iraq remains a dark, permanent stain on the record of mainstream journalists and editors.

Of course there’s bound to be a significant amount of partisan hackery uncovered in any study of public opinion of media bias.  It is clearly not the case that all those surveyed in the Pew study attack the press because it’s biased against the left and because it depicts U.S. wars as “humanitarian” in intent.  Much of the public criticism does come from progressives who are unhappy with sycophantic reporting of both the Obama and Bush administrations, but many criticisms also come from the right, where reporters are typically lambasted as biased against conservatives and in favor of “liberal” perspectives.  Revealingly, the percent of Republicans who claim that press criticisms of political officials “do more harm than good” increases when Republicans are in the White House and decreases when Democrats take over.  A similar trend is apparent for self-identified Democrats when their party takes over government and is out of power.  In other words, many partisan hacks see what they want to see in coverage, and blame the mainstream press for not granting unqualified support to their favored political leaders.

Of all news demographics, Fox News viewers are the most likely to claim that reporters “favor one side,” that “stories are often inaccurate,” and that news coverage is at times “immoral.”  Such conclusions are particularly disturbing in light of the fact that conservatives and the far right thoroughly dominate AM radio, retain a very strong presence in national editorials and print media, and enjoy strong a dominant position in cable news.  Progressives enjoy no such privileged position in the corporate press.  It is extraordinarily rare for public figures such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Patrick and Alexander Cockburn, and many other fine critics of U.S. politics to appear in mainstream news interviews, or to be invited to submit editorials for major newspapers and newsmagazines.  Mainstream leftists such as Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Ed Schultz are allowed to host political programs, while leftists of the Counterpunch and Z Magazine variety are regularly blackballed.  Compare this to the treatment of far right ideologues and hate mongers such as Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck, who host programs on Fox News, and one begins to see the massive imbalance in corporate media today.

Much of the distrust of media on the right may be based on paranoid delusions of liberal media bias, but this shouldn’t discount the importance of the recent Pew study.  A majority of Americans, for whatever reason, are very unhappy with the quality of reporting in the mainstream press.  I have long argued that this mass discontent should be used as a rallying cry to build broad support for a non-profit press in which all types of views are protected and guaranteed equal expression.  This system would need to incorporate citizen groups of all kinds, which must be guaranteed a spot at the table in journalistic discussions of which stories a public media would cover, and from what perspectives.  This program for reform, also supported by visionary media critics like Robert McChesney and John Nichols of Free Press, is something that all Americans should support, regardless of their political leanings.  We desperately need media dedicated to public service, free of the dictates of the market pressures that marginalize criticisms of corporate America.  Advertisers have long been successful in censoring reporting that’s critical of corporate abuse and corruption.  The “free market” outlook supported by journalists and editors also ensures that those critical of corporate capitalism are denied a voice in public policy debates in the mainstream press.  The sooner we begin to build broad support for public media, the sooner we can break the stranglehold that corporations enjoy over public discourse.

ANTHONY DiMAGGIO teaches American and Global Politics at Illinois State University.  He is the author of Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008) and the forthcoming When Media Goes to War (2010).  He can be reached at adimagg@ilstu.edu

 

More articles by:

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
Sam Husseini
The Most Strategic Midterm Race: Elder Challenges Hoyer
Maria Foscarinis – John Tharp
The Criminalization of Homelessness
Robert Fisk
The Story of the Armenian Legion: a Dark Tale of Anger and Revenge
Jacques R. Pauwels
Dinner With Marx in the House of the Swan
Dave Lindorff
US ‘Outrage’ over Slaying of US Residents Depends on the Nation Responsible
Ricardo Vaz
How Many Yemenis is a DC Pundit Worth?
Elliot Sperber
Build More Gardens, Phase out Cars
Chris Gilbert
In the Wake of Nepal’s Incomplete Revolution: Dispatch by a Far-Flung Bolivarian 
Muhammad Othman
Let Us Bray
Gerry Brown
Are Chinese Municipal $6 Trillion (40 Trillion Yuan) Hidden Debts Posing Titanic Risks?
Rev. William Alberts
Judge Kavanaugh’s Defenders Doth Protest Too Much
Ralph Nader
Unmasking Phony Values Campaigns by the Corporatists
Victor Grossman
A Big Rally and a Bavarian Vote
James Bovard
Groped at the Airport: Congress Must End TSA’s Sexual Assaults on Women
Jeff Roby
Florida After Hurricane Michael: the Sad State of the Unheeded Planner
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Bradley Kaye
The Policy of Policing
Wim Laven
The Catholic Church Fails Sexual Abuse Victims
Kevin Cashman
One Year After Hurricane Maria: Employment in Puerto Rico is Down by 26,000
Dr. Hakim Young
Nonviolent Afghans Bring a Breath of Fresh Air
Karl Grossman
Irving Like vs. Big Nuke
Dan Corjescu
The New Politics of Climate Change
John Carter
The Plight of the Pyrenees: the Abandoned Guard Dogs of the West
Ted Rall
Brett Kavanaugh and the Politics of Emotion-Shaming
Graham Peebles
Sharing is Key to a New Economic and Democratic Order
Ed Rampell
The Advocates
Louis Proyect
The Education Business
David Yearsley
Shock-and-Awe Inside Oracle Arena
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail