Does the Truth Matter Anymore?

This is not false naivete: I am genuinely surprised that John McCain and his campaign keep throwing out false charges and making false claims without any qualms. They keep talking about Sarah Palin’s opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere without any embarrassment over the fact that she once supported it. They keep saying that Barack Obama will raise taxes, suggesting he’d raise them on everybody, when Obama’s plan, according to the Tax Policy Institute, would cut taxes for “about 80 percent of households” while “only about 10 percent would owe more.” And as Sebastian Mallaby pointed out in his recent column, Obama would cut taxes for middle-income taxpayers “more aggressively” than McCain would.

And now comes a truly vile McCain ad accusing Obama of supporting legislation to offer "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer declares: "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."

Margaret Talev of McClatchy newspapers called the ad a “deliberate low blow.” Here’s what she wrote in an excellent fact check: “This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain's votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12. But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach ‘age-appropriate’ sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.”

Is McCain against teaching little kids to beware of sexual predators?

McCain once campaigned on the idea that the war on terrorism is the “transcendent” issue of our time. Now, he’s stooping to cheap advertising that would be condemned as trivial and misleading in a state legislative race. Boy, do I miss the old John McCain and wonder what became of him. And I wonder if the media will really take on this onslaught of half-truths and outright deception.

UPDATE: I wrote this post late Tuesday night. I'm glad to see the story on the front page of today's Post begin to take up what will be an ongoing imperative in this campaign.

By E.J. Dionne | September 10, 2008; 12:13 AM ET

Boycott MSNBC Today (Until 8 PM ET)

By Bill Scher

September 10th, 2008 - 10:17am ET

---

If I'm not listening to my local liberal talk radio station, I typically keep MSNBC on in my home office during the work day, in part to support its decision to have actual liberals on during prime-time, and in part because it usually focuses on politics during the day more than CNN.

But after this morning I am boycotting MSNBC today, until Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow come back on.

MSNBC has put a manufactured outrage, a non-story, in a constant loop all morning. (I will not waste one letter of my time or your time explaining it.) As if that should be the lead story while the nation looks for answers on how to get our economy back on track, solve our energy crisis, rebuild our infrastructure, make education and health care affordable and accessible to all, and restore our global standing.

Then I flipped over to CNN. I can only assume this non-story got some attention there at some point today, but I didn't see it for 40 minutes straight, so at least it's not being treated as non-stop breaking news. So CNN is what's staying on my TV today.

As a mere single news consumer, I am putting the media industry on notice. You will not get my business by trying to shove the trivial down my throat. You will not get my business with a parade of political hacks pontificating on non-stories. You do that, I grab the remote.

In the case of MSNBC, yes I will come back for Keith and Rachel. Not because they are liberal, but because I trust the focus will then return to important news.

And it is particularly critical to support The Rachel Maddow Show. If it continues to beat Larry King in the ratings (as it did for its premiere), it will send shockwaves throughout a media industry that has long believed liberal views should be marginalized, pandering to conservative audiences is profitable, and that a liberal anchor can deliver an informative program that elevates discourse and strengthens a news brand.

It doesn't make sense to ignore traditional media and tune it out completely. To get a robust, aggressive, investigative and informative media that helps the public govern, we need to engage the media.

We need to let media executives know -- with our words and actions -- that they will make money by delivering a good product, and lose money by repeating misinformation and prioritizing non-news that fails to help us citizens run our democracy.

So MSNBC, know that you lost a customer today. If you want me to come back tomorrow, you know what to do.

Wednesday, Sep 10

When The Tide Turned At MSNBC

In a must-read in the New York Observer, Felix Gillette gets the story behind the story of MSNBC's decision to take Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews off the political anchor desk for the rest of the campaign.

While MSNBC president Phil Griffin has spent the last 48 hours trying to tamp down rumors, Gillette details the open dissension and behind-the-scene maneuvering that led to the change.

First, the rumors. The New York Post reported that GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt facilitated the change because "a lot, maybe thousands" of shareholders called to complain. "This makes me so mad, because it's so untrue," Griffin tells Gillette. "Somebody is spreading rumors. It's wrong. It's getting into the echo chamber."

As for the internal strife about the Olbermann/Matthews pairing and its reflection on NBC News, Gillette reports on an early August dinner in Washington, hosted by GE chairman Immelt:

...according to sources, Andrea Mitchell, the veteran political correspondent and wife of Alan Greenspan, noted on behalf of her colleagues that there was some ongoing uneasiness about having Keith Olbermann-MSNBC's liberal pundit and caustic anchor of their hit show Countdown-co-anchoring (along with Hardball's Chris Matthews) the network's coverage on big political nights. What happened to the traditional firewall between news and opinion? There were risks involved with blurring the distinction.

A few weeks later, anchor tensions came to a boil on the air, at the DNC. Executives had a plan to make sure it didn't happen at the RNC. Gillette writes,

MSNBC and NBC executives looking to restore order were planning a meeting to take place on Tuesday in St. Paul on the second day of the Republican convention, where producers and talent could smooth out their grievances behind closed doors, and hopefully reestablish some team unity. But over the weekend, Hurricane Gustav descended on the Gulf Coast, and the staff scattered between New York, St. Paul, and New Orleans. As a result, the meeting never happened.

And, as has been written on this blog, at the end of the day, it comes down to the bottom line. Griffin tells Gillette,

"MSNBC just had its biggest year ever in terms of revenue, and is contributing - I don't want to tell you the number - but let's just say, a significant part of the revenue base of NBC News, which helps make this division better able to cover news around the world. It's all working. I know that a lot of people love to follow whisperers and disgruntled people. The issue is, the others would die to have a cable-news network help with their revenue, give them an opportunity for airtime, which is oxygen, and to help create a better news-gathering operation.

How To Detect Bias In News Media

Media have tremendous power in setting cultural guidelines and in shaping political discourse. It is essential that news media, along with other institutions, are challenged to be fair and accurate. The first step in challenging biased news coverage is documenting bias. Here are some questions to ask yourself about newspaper, TV and radio news.

Who are the sources?

Be aware of the political perspective of the sources used in a story. Media over-rely on "official" (government, corporate and establishment think tank) sources. For instance, FAIR found that in 40 months of Nightline programming, the most frequent guests were Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Elliott Abrams and Jerry Falwell. Progressive and public interest voices were grossly underrepresented.

To portray issues fairly and accurately, media must broaden their spectrum of sources. Otherwise, they serve merely as megaphones for those in power

Count the number of corporate and government sources versus the number of progressive, public interest, female and minority voices. Demand mass media expand their rolodexes; better yet, give them lists of progressive and public interest experts in the community.

Is there a lack of diversity?

What is the race and gender diversity at the news outlet you watch compared to the communities it serves? How many producers, editors or decision-makers at news outlets are women, people of color or openly gay or lesbian? In order to fairly represent different communities, news outlets should have members of those communities in decision-making positions.

How many of the experts these news outlets cite are women and people of color? FAIR's 40-month survey of Nightline found its U.S. guests to be 92 percent white and 89 percent male. A similar survey of PBS's NewsHour found its guestlist was 90 percent white and 87 percent male.

Demand that the media you consume reflect the diversity of the public they serve. Call or write media outlets every time you see an all-male or all-white panel of experts discussing issues that affect women and people of color.

From whose point of view is the news reported?

Political coverage often focuses on how issues affect politicians or corporate executives rather than those directly affected by the issue. For example, many stories on parental notification of abortion emphasized the "tough choice" confronting male politicians while quoting no women under 18--those with the most at stake in the debate. Economics coverage usually looks at how events impact stockholders rather than workers or consumers.

Demand that those affected by the issue have a voice in coverage.

Are there double standards?

Do media hold some people to one standard while using a different standard for other groups? Youth of color who commit crimes are referred to as "superpredators," whereas adult criminals who commit white-collar crimes are often portrayed as having been tragically been led astray. Think tanks partly funded by unions are often identified as "labor-backed" while think tanks heavily funded by business interests are usually not identified as "corporate-backed."

Expose the double standard by coming up with a parallel example or citing similar stories that were covered differently.

Do stereotypes skew coverage?

Does coverage of the drug crisis focus almost exclusively on African Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of drug users are white? Does coverage of women on welfare focus overwhelmingly on African-American women, despite the fact that the majority of welfare recipients are not black? Are lesbians portrayed as "man-hating" and gay men portrayed as "sexual predators" (even though a child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a family member than by an unrelated gay adult—Denver Post, 9/28/92)?

Educate journalists about misconceptions involved in stereotypes, and about how stereotypes characterize individuals unfairly.

What are the unchallenged assumptions?

Often the most important message of a story is not explicitly stated. For instance, in coverage of women on welfare, the age at which a woman had her first child will often be reported—the implication being that the woman's sexual "promiscuity," rather than institutional economic factors, are responsible for her plight.

Coverage of rape trials will often focus on a woman's sexual history as though it calls her credibility into question. After the arrest of William Kennedy Smith, a New York Times article (4/17/91) dredged up a host of irrelevant personal details about his accuser, including the facts that she had skipped classes in the 9th grade, had received several speeding tickets and-when on a date-had talked to other men.

Is the language loaded?

When media adopt loaded terminology, they help shape public opinion. For instance, media often use the right-wing buzzword "racial preference" to refer to affirmative action programs. Polls show that this decision makes a huge difference in how the issue is perceived: A 1992 Louis Harris poll, for example, found that 70 percent said they favored "affirmative action" while only 46 percent favored "racial preference programs."

Challenge the assumption directly. Often bringing assumptions to the surface will demonstrate their absurdity. Most reporters, for example, will not say directly that a woman deserved to be raped because of what she was wearing.

Demonstrate how the language chosen gives people an inaccurate impression of the issue, program or community.

Is there a lack of context?

Coverage of so-called "reverse discrimination" usually fails to focus on any of the institutional factors which gives power to prejudice—such as larger issues of economic inequality and institutional racism. Coverage of hate speech against gays and lesbians often fails to mention increases in gay-bashing and how the two might be related.

Provide the context. Communicate to the journalist, or write a letter to the editor that includes the relevant information.

Do the headlines and stories match?

Usually headlines are not written by the reporter. Since many people just skim headlines, misleading headlines have a significant impact. A classic case: In a New York Times article on the June 1988 U.S.-Soviet summit in Moscow, Margaret Thatcher was quoted as saying of Reagan, "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears." The Times headline: "Thatcher Salute to the Reagan Years."

Call or write the newspaper and point out the contradiction.

Are stories on important issues featured prominently?

Look at where stories appear. Newspaper articles on the most widely read pages (the front pages and the editorial pages) and lead stories on television and radio will have the greatest influence on public opinion.

When you see a story on government officials engaged in activities that violate the Constitution on page A29, call the newspaper and object. Let the paper know how important you feel an issue is and demand that important stories get prominent coverage.