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

January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: When Just One Man Says, “No”
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Two
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail