David on Al Jazeera's Inside Story: Are the Oscars too white?

David on Al Jazeera discussing the lack of diversity at the Oscars

Our House Is On Fire, Part 6: Who Stopped the Presses?

By David A. Love, BlackCommentator.com

The following is the sixth part of an ongoing Color of Law series.
Click here to read any of the commentaries in this series.

Who stopped the presses? Obviously, it is a question that many are asking these days.  

It is a bit sobering to witness the apparent demise of the newspaper industry. Not unlike dominoes, newspapers around the U.S. are toppling, closing their doors, filing for bankruptcy, or ceasing their print operations and only remaining online. As someone who has written op-eds for newspapers throughout the nation over the past decade, I can appreciate the importance of having a vigorous and viable press in this country. In order for true democracy to work, we need news media that will speak truth to power, that will expose, without apology, government misconduct, corporate corruption and official wrongdoing. That was the original purpose of the press, after all.  

But as someone who has always had one foot firmly planted in the independent media camp—as a former producer for Democracy Now!, former video documentary producer, a writer for a number of independent publications, and a political blogger—I understand two things: First, independent media came into being to fill a void because the mainstream media was flat on its behind. Fast asleep. Second, mainstream media have failed their mission by becoming too cozy with the powerful forces they were supposed to police.

Independent media have come to the rescue to save the public from a news industry which historically may not have reflected their reality, their perspective. For example, the Black, Latino and other ethnic press provide a crucial alternative to a media establishment which often ignores these communities, or seeks to depict them as criminals or buffoons. Progressive media provide an alternative to a mainstream press which is too often White, conservative and male centered. It is worth noting that although the nation has an African American president, the White House press corps, lacking in diversity, does not reflect this reality. But as newsrooms shrink, the diversity problem only gets worse.

To be sure, there are many good newspapers which are struggling, and unfortunately many invaluable publications which are falling or have fallen by the wayside. The reasons for their demise are various: the Internet, blogs, an unsustainable business model of providing free online content, etc.

I would suggest some additional reasons that some newspapers have failed. Too often, they simply have not served their readers, and the product, like a GM car, has lost its appeal. Many news companies— not just papers, but TV as well—are owned by corporate conglomerates and entertainment companies. This reality is reflected in the softball, celebrity gossip orientation of many so-called news outlets. Governed by the bottom line and cost-cutting measures, these papers have eliminated their City Hall beat reporters, and other reporters who are in tune with the pulse of a given city. In the absence of seasoned journalists who can actually report on anything, because those people were already laid off, these newspapers become a collection of news wires and press releases, in a pamphlet. And who is paying for that when you can read it online?

The damage has been done in terms of the giant pass that the news media have taken on the important issues of the day. During the Iraq War, the mainstream media took the opportunity to act as nationalistic cheerleaders, the propaganda arm of the Bush White House— beating the drums of war and almost celebrating the thousands upon thousands of deaths that would inevitably occur.

As cheerleaders for corporate America, the mainstream press fell asleep on the Wall Street crisis. Over-caffeinated blowhard snake-oil salesmen posing as business journalists were in abundance during the heyday of the financial sector. But where were the probing exposés on the problems of deregulation, and the thoughtful analyses on the consequences of gluttony on Wall Street?

Even as we speak, what about coverage on the thwarted assassination plots against President Obama? Or a meaningful discussion on the malicious and deleterious effects of U.S. drug policy? How about a substantive debate in the mainstream news about the madness that represents America’s gun policy, and the lethal combination of gun proliferation, economic recession and untreated mental illness—of individuals and of the society— that plays itself out in communities throughout the country?

Well, many newspapers and other corporate news venues will not offer and have not offered such valuable content. Their game is trifling and sloppy. So if they die, it wouldn’t be too soon, as they provided us little benefit in the first place. That is why people increasingly turn to independent news sources, sources such as the one you are currently reading.

The winds of change are blowing, and there is about to be a transformation in the press. We do not yet know what the world will look like when all is said and done. Perhaps mainstream and independent newspapers, and other publications will increasingly become nonprofit entities, seeking a business model that makes them truly accountable to the public. And the blogosphere has been picking up the slack, having emerged as a legitimate source for quality information that often is unavailable elsewhere. One thing is certain: independent muckraking news media with paid professional journalists, fact-gatherers and commentators must be supported if the press is to survive. 

In crisis there is opportunity. Journalists, columnists, media practitioners, bloggers, you name it, need to start conversations around the nation, if they have not already done so, on the future of the news. We have the power to start the presses again—they’ll just look a little different the next time around.

Click here to read any of the commentaries in this series. 

Mainstream Media Serve Up Garbage As Legitimate News Coverage

By David A. Love
Published by BlackCommentator.com

May 1, 2008

Speaking of his fellow journalists, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann was right when he told David Letterman that “Most of us in news are not smart enough to figure out what's going on. We may pretend that we're good enough to do that. But in fact, when we look you in the eye, in the camera, we're really just making it up.” I think he’s onto something.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, Elizabeth Edwards, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and wife of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, decried the state of the press and the problem of shallow media coverage of the issues:

Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates’ priorities, policies and principles - information that voters will need to choose the next president - too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not surprised.

Why? Here’s my guess: The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.

But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.

Meanwhile, conservative-turned-liberal commentator Arianna Huffington has criticized the “self-loathing” liberal media for placing “unabashed propagandists” on their payroll, deceptive individuals such as Karl Rove at Newsweek, Tony Snow at CNN, and Bill Kristol at the New York Times.

Perhaps a most fitting example of what is wrong with much of the mainstream media in general - and their coverage of this campaign season in particular - was the Pennsylvania Democratic debate. Hosted by ABC, it is more aptly called The Trial of Barack Obama. Despite the myriad crises facing this country, including recession, home foreclosures, health insurance, global warming, and a worldwide food shortage, much of the debate focused on patriotism, flag lapel pins, and angry Black preachers.

To add insult to injury, one of the debate moderators, George Stephanopoulos, a former advisor to Hillary Clinton’s husband when he was president, was a walking conflict of interest. And he appears to have received some of his questions from the right-wing Fox News. Fox host, Sean Hannity, suggested that Stephanopoulos ask Obama about his ties to William Ayers, a University of Illinois at Chicago professor who was a member of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. Stephanopoulos complied with Hannity’s recommendations, and his conduct was criticized even by much of the mainstream media, and the thousands of people who left comments on the ABC website. How many of us long for the days when the League of Women Voters sponsored these debates and focused on the issues that mattered, as opposed to today’s sensationalism, gossip and guilt by association?

This leads us to Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The Wright issue was tailor-made for the mainstream press. Small portions of Wright’s “controversial” sermons, taken out of context, were played continuously over the airwaves. The mostly white-conservative-male punditocracy - political hacks and establishment tools who are culturally insensitive, wholly ignorant about the history of the Black church and the history of this nation, yet well-versed in race-baiting – ran with Dr. Wright. The 24-hour cycle of cable news, with its emphasis on the sound byte, and the need to entertain, divert attention and make a buck, demanded no less.

It was far easier for them to create the narrative of the wild-eyed, irrational Black radical than to present the truth: a scholar and theologian with a master’s degree from the University of Chicago and a doctorate from United Theological Seminary, who is far more educated than those who would unfairly critique him; a man who served his country for six years in the Marines and in the Navy, and was part of the medical team that cared for President Lyndon Johnson; a man who has served his Chicago community for thirty-six years, and a man who has received death threats, and whose church has received bomb threats since his statements were first publicized.

Then finally, the media allowed Dr. Wright to tell his own story. Bill Moyers had a lengthy and thoughtful interview with Wright on PBS. CNN and C-SPAN aired, in its entirety, his April 27, 2008 speech before the Detroit branch of the NAACP, and his April 28 speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. In those presentations, Wright gave the audience a lesson on the Black church and the legacy of racism in the United States. Agree with him or not, Dr. Wright has provided something which is sorely lacking in much of today’s mainstream news coverage: historical context, relevance, and an unfiltered voice speaking truth to power.

Now, I do not want to paint broad brush strokes here in my condemnation of the media. I have spent a number of years involved in various media organizations - mainstream, Black, Latino and alternative press, in print, online, on the radio and on television. And I have learned that there are countless journalists, capable, hard-working and experienced, who perform their job with integrity, attention to detail, and a sense of responsibility to the public. But it seems that the empty-headed talking heads, the fashion models and over-scripted, over-rehearsed cue card readers, increasingly are the norm. And fewer and fewer corporations are controlling what we see, hear and read. Unfortunately, style prevails over substance, and the real issues get lost in the process.

The public outcry over the Pennsylvania debate was a warning to the corporate media: If you hope to survive and regain credibility, you must change your ways.