Arguably one of the media's more important duties is to serve as a watchdog over the government. It is their job to fact check statements and let the people know when we are being deceived.

In my personal opinion, they have performed horribly at this task in the past few years, and seem to shirk all duties during elections. Candidates are frequently allowed to say things on national television and radio that are patently false and the only people that question them are political junkies like those of us that frequent AD.

However, the following video (right click, save as and view with quicktime) is footage that was broadcast by ABC's Peter Jennings, exposing a blatant lie and misquote by President Bush concerning John Kerry. You can also view the transcript here if you can't access the video for some reason. This gives me hope that our media might start taking its role in society seriously again.

Questions for debate:
1. Do you agree or disagree with the premise that the media should serve as a watchdog over the government? If so, do you think they have performed their job adequately over the past several years? If not, why not?

2. Do you agree or disagree that our media should start calling politicians on what they say as demonstrated by Peter Jennings in the aforementioned video?

1. Do you agree or disagree with the premise that the media should serve as a watchdog over the government? If so, do you think they have performed their job adequately over the past several years? If not, why not?



Maybe they should, but they really don't. Not if this is an example of being a "watchdog". This is an editorial comment by Peter Jennings just as your claim of a "blatant lie" is an editorial comment on your part. In ABC's defense they did show Kerry claiming that America is less safe since Saddam has been overthrown and it's pretty clear to me that he would prefer to have Saddam still in power.(At least that's what his position is today, stay tuned) So what President Bush said was hardly a "blatant lie" as you claim.


2. Do you agree or disagree that our media should start calling politicians on what they say as demonstrated by Peter Jennings in the aforementioned video?

Sure they can, and they have. In the case of the Jenning's comments though they might consider putting a chyron of "commentary" under their interpretation of the soundbytes they choose to air.

I would call the Bush v Kerry remark noted by Jennings more of an interpretation than an outright lie. But fair's fair, after all Kerry does the same thing to Bush.......

1. Do you agree or disagree with the premise that the media should serve as a watchdog over the government? If so, do you think they have performed their job adequately over the past several years? If not, why not?
The media should absolutely serve as a watchdog over the government. But they increasingly aren't. If they were, I don't believe we would be seeing the widespread legitimitizaion of weblogs. Which in any case, I think is a good thing. The more media and news outlets there are, the broader range of news you have to choose from.

2. Do you agree or disagree that our media should start calling politicians on what they say as demonstrated by Peter Jennings in the aforementioned video?

Yes indeed, as long as it's fair across the board. Politicians from both major parties lie and misconstrue on TV daily in an attempt to bamboozle the public into voting for their candidate.

#1.
Absolutely. The media should serve as a watchdog. But who will watch the watchdog? I listen to talk radio, I read the paper, I look at blogs, so I think I hear all sides. If the mainstream media were really concerned about fairness, they would actually turn more attention to the issues and investigative reporters would be getting congress's attention about the sad state of affairs we are currently in.
It is the publics job to let them know they are doing poorly. Devoting a whole month to the SVBT, a week to CBS, two weeks to the national guard story, please people. What about Abu Ghraib? What about Enron? What about unemployment and outsourcing, the effect of the Hurricanes, how and what about the deficit? I could go on and on...
They need to cover a wide swath of subjects, instead of just one or two.

#2. Yes. Call it like you see it, Mr Jennings.

I'd like to blow off a lil steam first...

Granted, Dubya did not quote Kerry word for word, but I believe this is more of an interpratation blown out of proportion than a lie. Bush interpreted Kerry's statement as "...the world was better off with Saddam in power...". Now, granted those weren't Kerry's words exactly lets analyze the definitive phrase that garnered Bush's reply.

"...we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure..."

He's obviously implying that we traded down for something. And if what one trades down is worse than what one had, one was obviously better off with what he had before. Change "one" to America and make the subjects of trade Saddam in power v. out of power and Bush seems to have interpreted Kerry's statement correctly.

Now is that true? I don't believe so. When I was in the army, I was terrified of goin to the Gulf for fear Saddam would use chem or bio agents that everyone in the world thought he had. Not to mention if you asked his neighbors if they thought they were safe with Saddam in power, many would say no.

And to bring the rant portion of this post to a close, I didn't want to bring it up, but was Kerry's testimony regarding war crimes in Nam, lies... or misinterpretations?

But you won't see good ol' PJ make remarks about that.

Now, on to the questions...

Do you agree or disagree with the premise that the media should serve as a watchdog over the government? If so, do you think they have performed their job adequately over the past several years? If not, why not?

I want to say yes in the idyllic sense that media platforms and their stewards have played an important part in bringing to light issues that the gov't has attempted to hide or play down. Watergate and Abu Ghraib are some good examples.

But, with the media as split factionally as it is (and naturally so, these things are run by people, and although information should at least be presented as objectionally as possible, people are people and people have inclinations to personal ideals and politics) you end up with one side scrutinizing and manipulating every little thing one does while the other side tends to not be so scrutinizing and spins it the other way.

Do you agree or disagree that our media should start calling politicians on what they say as demonstrated by Peter Jennings in the aforementioned video?

See above para. Unless its an opinion or an editorial, I don't want to hear Jennings slam someone for an opinion on what someone said.

Of course, what is the media if not a government watchdog? And no, they haven't come close to doing their job during the past several years because they are too biased. I've just recently cancelled the NY Times, and had brief stints reading the NY Post [don't know what I was thinking buying that], and the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and the Daily News. I have experimented with each one over the past year and a half and they're all biased one way or another. So is the media doing it's job, that depends what you read or watch and who's in control of the government.

Of course, someone has to expose politicians, and if the media doesn't do it, who does?

CP

I think it is patently absurd to expect news without bias. The fact is that an effective 'government watchdog' system requires both a rigorous journalistic effort, and the ability of readers to critically discern the "truth" as they see it from what they read, see or hear.

Is the current state of the media satisfying it's end of the bargain? Not even close, and it has nothing to do with bias whatsoever. The fact is that the media has always carried a bias with it; it is impossible to expect otherwise. What we are seeing now is a crumbling of ethics, and a shift in power from journalists to editors, and most importantly controlled sources.

Lets face it, the media is getting lazier and lazier as profits dwindle and information proliferates. It is a lot cheaper to buy up an AP news-feed, snap a paragraph on to the end, and claim it as your own than it is to dispatch a journalist to Haiti or Iraq. At the same time, the shift from sales to advertising revenues has placed pressures on editorial staffs (in any media) to satisfy a much smaller, more conservative (not in the political sense, but rather in the philosophical sense) market. It is no coincidence that newspapers measure against each other on ad buy-rates as opposed to readership.

Laziness also takes on another form; the professionalization of consultancy. There was a time when a reporter talking about an impending war would call up the nearest university or think-tank and get the opinion from someone who is both an outsider and an expert in the field. This person would provide their feedback free-of-charge. Contrasting this a good reporter could then perhaps contact a relatively local military or political official for balance. Now, we just go to the most recognizable "Military Consultant," who is usually a former member of either the military or the Defense industry, with a personal interest in the coming events as well as a financial or PR interest in providing a certain point of view. Punditry is almost useless. I think that people quite literally make themselves "dumber" by watching interviews on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. when pundits are involved because by any objective standard of quality journalism these people are the worst sources of good information. And since nobody challenges them, there is little room for insight.

The biggest problem (at least in the States) regarding the media though is the continuing pressure that the government is putting on journalists. While this is not a new phenomenom, with roots going as far back as FDR and the 'ban' on pictures of him in a wheelchair, it is certainly one that has become more prominent. The shock at President Bush's lack of composure/articulation during the last debate has less to do with the seriousness of those flaws than the fact that he hasn't had to speak off-the-cuff in a challenging situation since 2000. Every media event is carefully planned and choreographed to remove any stress and uncertainty. The media is equally to blame for this as well. I can't recall the last time any reporter has asked a truly challenging question to any important national politician. It doesn't happen anymore, as a result of the laziness I discussed earlier combined with the fear that further access could be restricted.

Agreed. I can completely live with a little bias, as I said in my post, but when it gets to the point where I don't trust the media to give me coverage that is fair and balanced, I get annoyed. I don't understand why it is so much to ask [not suggesting that you said this UJ] of the media to tell the American people what happened, where, when, who was involved, how and why. That's all I ask from journalists, and if they can't do that, then they should be asking NYU for their money back.

To a point, I agree. I do think that a reader or viewer should be able to use his or her common judgement to understand the news, but I think that it is ridiculous that viewers or readers have to sift through all of the spin on TV and in newspapers to get their news, the job of the media is to decipher spin, not the readers/viewers.

I couldn't agree with you more regarding this point, and pretty much the rest of your post, well put UJ.

CP

1. Do you agree or disagree with the premise that the media should serve as a watchdog over the government? If so, do you think they have performed their job adequately over the past several years? If not, why not?

I wasn’t sure whether or not to start a new thread for this, but there are so many already dealing with the media, I will respond here.

I believe the media should be a watchdog…unfortunately, instead of a tenacious pit bull they’ve become the groveling toy poodle of special interests and powerful politicians. About the only place left to get good investigative reporting anymore is on the internet, and it takes a healthy dose of skepticism to weed out the truth from the urban legends there.

A couple of weeks ago, a WSJ reporter’s private correspondence about life in Iraq was published on the web without her knowledge. This may or may not have been the reason for her “going on vacation” and being directed to “not report on Iraq”. Some of her observations:

And for those who believe there is a shred of fairness at the WSJ, consider this.

FAIRNESS!?!! Well, my stars and garters!! Finally an honest account of conditions in Iraq, and the person is criticized as unfair. What in the world have we come to?

Though the author did not intend that this story be published, why aren’t we getting the same kind of frank, gritty, unvarnished truth from our media? Has our government become so Orwellian that ignorance truly is strength, and groupthink is the only acceptable thought?

Even the “Bush’s Bulge” story has been muzzled. While it is somewhat humorous, it has some ominous implications; that the president possibly perpetrated a fraud on the American people by cheating in a national debate. Whether or not the story has merit, doesn’t it behoove a free press to investigate it? One reporter did…but his story never hit the big news networks.

With Sinclair forcing his ideology into America’s living rooms, firing those of his employees who do not toe the company line, news from Iraq whitewashed and censored to conform to a certain image, reporters censured for their personal views, Fox News broadcasting its unique form of editorializing-as-news, and Chairman Powell of the FCC (who’s never met a media merger he didn’t like), is there any such thing as an fair press? Heck at this point, I'd settle for a press with some cojones, rather than the trembling, neutered lapdogs we seem to have.

Mainstream media never has, and never will fufill its purpose. It is inherently conservative in as far as it supports the status quo.

As Ralph Miliband, in his book The State in Capitalist Society said, "...the press may well claim to be 'independent'...[as they]... fulfil an important watchdog function. What the claim overlooks, however, is the very large fact that it is the Left at which the watchdogs generally bark with most ferocity, and that what they are above all protecting is the status quo."

It is therefore clear that, despite showing the illusionary signs of a difference in opinion. by and large, a consensus prevails whereby it demonises anything outside mainstream political culture.

How is it an editorial comment to say:



How is this editorial commentary? Was it not a pointed attack? I wouldn't call it an inconspicuous attack or a subtle attack. I would say that was an accurate description. The rest is just dull, boring setup for the clips.

As for what Bush said, and whether it is an accurate interpretation, I would say it is disingenuous to make such a leap.

As is evidenced by comments like:


You can certainly take one phrase out of context and through some semi-recognizable form of logical deduction infer that he was talking to a guy named Les Sequer and was referring to the fact that Chaos often leaves America when you make your trade in dictators.

So, I think they should actually start showing the word "editorial commentary" under everything Bush says. What he is doing is trying to make America believe that a complex issue is Black and White, when it actually isn't.

What Kerry seemed to be saying [and this is my interpretation] is that... Yes, Saddam was bad, but what Bush did -- and more importantly, the manner in which he did it -- made the world safe from Saddam at the expense of American security.

You see, that takes the entire comment in consideration when making the deduction.


In this instance, I believe the media was doing what it should. Objectively showing you Bush's commentary on what Kerry said along side what Kerry actually said.