Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Speaking of Partisans and the News...   An article in this morning's New York Times reports on research, released in the latest's Americian Political Science Review, that finds a connection between genetics and views on hot-button social issues like abortion or evolution. The genetic argument is new for political scientists, though there has always been strong connections drawn between environment and political affiliation. Although the methods used are very sterile-- essentially a secondary analysis of some preexisting studies of twins -- the findings make sense intuitively even as they only go so far. It's another way of explaining how some people continue to accept arguments for the war in Iraq despite growing evidence against the rationale and the ethics used to take us there. l 9:51:59 AM     comment []

	Monday, June 20, 2005

Where I have been and other mysteries of the moment...   Blogging seems to be for people without other "old media" writing deadlines breathing down their neck. That's the short answer to why it is I have not filed since February. The answer gets fleshed out a bit when I add that I had a wicked teaching semester and some other obligations. The schedule isn't much better right now, and I am about to spend July in Europe, doing some work, and playing a little, too. Some good news from the semester: I got promotion and  tenure. It's the nearest I've come to a marriage. Visiting Lappland and seeing the Midnight Sun , one of the stops on this summer's trip, seems especially poignant right now. I've certainly had a lot to say about news coverage. I almost came back to blogging last week as I watched TV reporters speculate on what life in prison would be like for Michael Jackson once the jury came in and he was convicted, then retrace their steps as if they had always known he would walk free. It would appear that we are getting psychic readings ( and bad ones at that) instead of the news. My next blogging phase, however, will more likely encompass media criticism with some of my other specialties. I plan to change the domain name and make other changes over the summer--and re-emerge in the fall ( though there may be some intermittent rants coming from my way). The blogosphere still excites me, but I need to add some new wrinkles--and I have a book I am trying to get moving on.  Maybe I'll write from Europe. In any event, I'll write soon.     7:12:27 PM     comment []

	Thursday, February 03, 2005

Iraq voter turnout and 'fuzzy math' The images of Iraqis headed to the polls were quite moving, and yes I got a little choked up when I saw the lines of people walking great distances despite the risk to their lives. But if you  have wondered about those numbers the media threw around about participation (8 million?) and turnout rates (60%), which seemed a bit too precise given the conditions under which the voting took place, an article in Editor & Publisher suggests some skepticism is healthy. Greg Mitchell's lede: (February 02, 2005) -- Everyone, of course, is thrilled that so many Iraqis turned out to vote, in the face of threats and intimidation, on Sunday. But in hailing, and at times gushing, over the turnout, has the American media (as it did two years ago in the hyping of Saddam’s WMDs) forgotten core journalistic principles in regard to fact-checking and weighing partisan assertions?   9:56:19 AM     comment []

	Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Ignorance Breeds Contempt: Young First Amendment Foes   Like many who teach college, I often find myself asking, "What in the hell are they teaching kids in high school?" So often there seem to be large gaps in the understanding of history and many other subjects that the view one gets of elementary and secondary education can only make one shudder about what happens when younger generations take over. That's the reaction to the new survey showing that large numbers of high school students think that press freedoms should be curtailed. While these kids support freedom of expression for musicians and artists, they are less generous with the press, and frightening numbers believe that the government should have the right to approve/reject news articles. Are the times so fraught with fear that young people growing up under today's rhetoric are as unthinking and uncritical of power as the stone-throwing villagers in "The Lottery." For now, I guess I'll have to take solace in my department chairman's observation that, while one in three feel the press has too much freedom and should have to get government approval before publishing, 51% don't think that's a good idea. First Amendment awareness and support isn't a lost cause, but it needs nurturing. Let's hope this study will produce more than the usual round of "look how dumb our kids are" ; adults are there to correct that. Let's see who answers the call for First Amendment and civics education.     10:35:48 AM     comment []

	Sunday, January 23, 2005

Would You Run These Photos? The image of a woman sitting in anguish amid rows of babies killed in the tsunami disaster was the single image that brought home the devastation of the tragedy for me and many others. Yet there is legitimate debate over whether the New York Times, among other papers, should have run the AP photo. The Associated Press Managing Editors is reporting the results of a survey of readers and journalists on this and other riveting photos of tragedy that we have witnessed. The survey gets an important discussion going. Check out the photo and survey results. Media scholars have taken up some of these issues; in was in such works that I first came to realize that U.S. and British media are more likely to run closeups of the mangled bodies of victims in Third World countries than they are to run photos of victims right in their backyards, particularly white suburbanites. It would be seen as too intrusive. Knotty questions here. I can't help but feel that if it's okay to run photos of victims from afar, it's right to do it here. But what happenes when one's own circle of family and friends are the victims whose bodies are displayed on Page One? Then the answer is not so easy, which is journalists need to run through an ethical tree of reasoning before running any such pictures.   8:52:30 PM     comment []

	Tuesday, January 18, 2005

"Reliable Sources"and Pretend Media Criticism Journalism prof Christian Christensen of Bahcesehir University in Istanbul, Turkey uinmasks the illusion of critique on CNN "Reliable Sources." I'm often amazed by the simplistic analysis provided on the show, which could cause the untrained eye to think that Howard Kurtz and Co. really are taking on their employers, colleagues and the news media in general. Kurtz never takes on deeper journalistic routines or the status quo in general. When Jayson Blair was caught plagiarizing at the New York Times, it was Kurtz who injected race unduly early on, raising the question of whether a middle-aged white guy would have been fired more readily. Given the 12+ years of plagiarism and fraud Jack Kelley managed at USA Today, as well as the general quality of journalism and critique on Reliable Sources, the emphasis on Blair's race -- admittedly, it has to be taken as part of the mix -- has to be among the exhibits indicating the general lack of critical awareness on the show.  Those are some of my beefs. Christensen has quantified the problem, examining 56 transcripts from 2003/2004 that show: The real problem with "Reliable Sources" is that it purports to be "critical" about the news business, all the while acting as a veiled cheerleader for a corporate media system that has surrendered to the Bush administration over everything from WMDs in Iraq to social security. The genius of the program is that it manages to give the impression of critique while staying completely milquetoast: the guests say how reporting was bad, how editors failed and generally give the news media a black eye. The logic of the system, however, is never questioned: critiques are almost always at the individual, not the systemic level. It is pre-packaged and commodified dissent.     Christensen, noting that CNN is dropping Crossfire, suggests that "Realian Sources" should be next. That might be drastic, but perhaps a more diverse group led by someone other than  Kurtz, media reporter for the Washington Post, might show how true media criticism is done.     10:29:00 AM     comment []

	Monday, January 17, 2005

Crying Bias   Well, I'm back. Actually, I have been making lists of any number of press issues undergoing public consumption and indigestion, from the old media bias debate to Dan Rather and CBS to bloggers and journalism, but various deadlines and, more recently, a cold that won't shake, caused me to fall behind in my writing plans. But  I'm back and plan to  change the website and do other things soon. In the meantime, let me call your attention to something that really gets me in the mood to throw tomatoes.   Van Gordon Sauter, president of CBS News in the 1980s,  wrote this piece for the Los Angeles Times, and it appeared other places, including the Courant, where I read it. Without any examples or evidence of critical thinking, he picks up the old "CBS is a Liberal network" complaint, which he sees as one of the reasons for the end-of-journalism-as -we- know- it. This is really dangerous thinking because the editors who are buying into this "the news has a liberal bias" argument are making great pains to get "balanced" reports that further obscure the truth; it's like everybody but these executives are in on the fact that there is no such thing as pure objectivity. Caving in to the right-wing or status quo is what helped push the country into Iraq--and even some of the people on the right would have to admit that wasn't such a good idea, after all.   Sauter's remarks are just as knee-jerk as a man who was part of a tour group I traveled with through Italy a couple of years ago. A nice guy, the man, who was in his 30s, like to talk sports and politics over dinner. One night at dinner he said something like "I hate Dan Rather because he is unAmerican." A statement so lacking in nuance can only be met with a "Wow, we're not real capable of seeing gray, are we?", but I did manage to ask for an example. He cited the fact that Rather interviewed Saddam Hussein. Okay, it was a controversial interview; some people wanted him to bitch slap Saddam. But of course, various protocols were at work that shaped the interview just so, in the same way that interviews with the President of the United States is shaped by certain deference for his role. These points, however, were lost on the critics. And it wasn't like the interview was a love fest.   But I digress. The point is that Sauter isn't doing much thinking in the piece; there are no solutions, nothing to advance the conversation. He starts with the assumption of a liberal bias, but doesn't give any examples. It's sort of like some students who complain about political correctness. I happen to be someone who thinks certain aspects of political correctness, euphemisms like height-challenged instead of short, for instance, go too far. But there are also good reasons why we don't allow racial slurs and other put-down language in everyday speech.Nonetheless, I always try to get students to clarify what it is they feel they aren't being allowed to do. Are there words they want to use? Names they want to call people? Help me on this. I never get a straight answer.   That's my problem with Sauter's piece. What makes CBS News, which has skewed various issues, particularly economic policy, in ways much like media in general, so liberal? Are there more sympathetic stories about the poor or gays? Are more people of color featured? Is it the tributes to the people who lost their lives in Iraq?Without concrete examples, we can't examine Sauter's claims for his  biases.   News does come with certain biases that aren't helpful to any point of view --I hate saying "both sides" because of the false dichotomy that sets up -- but we can't get at it so well when the media start from the assumption of liberal media bias and don't dissect what it is the writer actually means when he makes that charge. I'm rather glad that Van Sauter is no longer in the newsroom. Clearly, the issues have grown too complex for him to sort. As I have said before in these pages, it's not about a liberal or conservative bias; it's about journalistic routines and formats that obscure the truth and ultimately support and reproduce the status quo, keeping the powerful right where they are.     9:40:25 PM     comment []

© Copyright 2005 vivian b. martin. Last update: 7/2/2005; 2:36:40 PM.