The Media's Outrage Deficit

I was on a talk show recently in San Francisco's KALW radio, and the host raised an excellent question: Is the mainstream media's language, with its convention of bland even-handedness, adequate to describing the various outrages that litter our political landscape?

The answer is no. There isn't enough outrage in media coverage today. The U.S. government has gone off a cliff - several cliffs, really. Yet on some level in the media it still seems to be the mid-1990s, when the political stakes were considerably lower and partisanship ruled the day. (Not coincidentally, this was also the dawn of the Internet age.)

By outrage, I don't mean fire-breathing attacks. I mean uncompromising journalism that doesn't buy the stock explanation, that probes how and why things went wrong, and are going wrong.

On Sunday, Clark Hoyt touched on this issue in the New York Times, writing that he has frequently been asked versions of this question: "Why not just come right out and call Alberto Gonzales a liar, since, well, by any reasonable standard he is one?"

Hoyt concluded that "liar" is too loaded a term, and to have the New York Times throwing it around would degrade an already badly frayed political discourse. On this narrow point, I agree. To call someone a liar involves diagnosing personal corruption. This recalls Mary McCarthy's famous attack on Lillian Hellman: "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" Can you see Katie Couric making such a judgment?

But the real issue isn't a word, but rather, why don't mainstream media outlets tell it like it is? In other words, the Times or CBS or whoever could explore the whats and whys of Gonzales's massive dissembling in a way that makes it perfectly clear how outrageous it is. The Daily Show, for example, with its clip shows of administration spin, is quite good at this. Yet with some notable exceptions, the MSM don't do this in any systematic way. It's too adversarial - and that risks being branded as "partisan" or "liberal."

But the alternative is far, far worse. The media are still operating with a set of conventions that served them well for the couple of generations leading up to the Internet age. They assume they can be honest brokers, and that everyone will view them as such. This is based on the idea that high offices demand respect. Power is assumed to be exercised in the public interest, and that demands respect. The practice of journalism is good for democracy, and that demands respect. Respek!

But what happens when the exercise of power becomes consistently craven, tawdry, and disengaged from its basic aim, public service? What happens when public officials don't deserve respect - and don't respect the media's traditional role in democracy? The media lose not only their privileged place, but their own grip on reality, and with it their relevance.

Iraq is exhibit A. As far as Iraq goes, the political culture that dominates Washington right now has as its primary raison d'etre is not the ordinary functioning of government, or even the practice of electoral politics, but the manipulation of perceptions. Not even the public's perceptions, which seem pretty set that the war is a bust. Really, the whole Petraeus show is over the perceptions of a handful of politicians in Congress and that of the media itself. And the mainstream media - even after the White House sends Petraeus and Crocker over to Fox - seem determined to keep devouring the thin gruel that the White House has dished up for them.

Comments

[mrcontinental]

Journalist are just one step in front of lawyers on the highway to hell.

They are the two most pathetic lifeforms on earth.

Self serving oxygen thieves.

[realitytrumpsbull]

This issue kind of comes down to the actual ownership of a given media entity, and what type of editorial(censorship/political influence, not quality control anymore, that went out the window a LONG time ago) control is exercised over the final news that gets presented to the public.

You say 'the media' has an outrage deficit? I don't want an outraged media, I want media that does its' job without inserting either opinion OR bias. Tell me what happened, when it happened, ,who was involved, where it happened, how it happened, and, if there's time left over, THEN tell me WHY you think it happened, but leave that for last. Otherwise, it's not news, per se, it's a given story, hyped up and stretched out for a full hour/past the point that anyone's still listening.

For all the world, it seems today that TV news is very much in the business of telling you a lot, without actually really saying anything.
Not only not entertaining, not really informative anymore, either. Kind of a big waste of time, and money...but, it sells lots of beer commercials, I guess...

[protagonia]

The "Middle" is far, far to the right. Only liars deny it.

[TexasDem0]

The lack of outrage in the media is a total failure of journalistic character and integrity.
The issue goes beyond simple dereliction in reporting the facts. The media provided excuses, cover, and near non-stop cheerleading for a run-away, criminal administration.

[Indiana]

NBC Nightly News is a textbook example--with their frequent "rah rah" attitude on the Iraq War. I don't even visit their "Daily Nightly" blog very much anymore because there's a lot of it even in the blog posts (which there didn't used to be.)

[jeskiley]

The opinions are always going to be there, be they whispered or flung. I wish the media would layer their perspectives with intelligent references to historical figures and events, like Ariana did in her post "Denying the Truth",

"Petraeus has come down from the mountaintop with his 10 Commandments and all of humanity now knows the way forward in Iraq. Except, unlike the original, Petraeus' message is not divinely inspired. Indeed, having watched his opening salvo -- which he delivered while barely looking up from his script -- it's not even grounded in reality. Unfortunately, like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of responsibility, too many in the Washington press corps want to pretend they are leaving the question of "what is truth" to their readers -- "

Some of those sentences rang 10 bells, others made me question the educational background of the writer. If you're going to tell me what you think, you'd better tell me how you arrived there. And quickly, 'cause I got babies to raise.

The truest public service the media could give is to raise the bar. Compete with each other by rapping with archetypes, throw Bush into a legend or two, don't just say he's dumb, and all your friends think so too.

[FearlessFreep]

Funny, the MSM had outrage to spare back in the days of the Carter presidency. (I guess the White House was seen as a safer target back then.

[Indiana]

Sure--and the Clinton presidency, which still can be seen today because of Hillary's candidacy, regarding such things as the Hsu foofaraw.

[puddytat]

The media is corporate controlled and doesn't allow anything to interfere with the profits and interests of their parent corporations. This includes all the miltary contracts of GE as well as business the media has with the FCC. They have sold out the protection (and accountability) they were given in the Constitution for corporate greed and profit as well as to feather their own nests.

They were given their own separate Constitutional protection so that they could be an advocate for the people and the country - not to be the uncritical mouthpieces of whatever party happens to be in control. They shame themselves with their continual failure to accept their responsibility.

Until they correct these serious inadequacies, they will continue to lose audience to alternative news sources.

[NYDamien]

Of course you are right, MzTat, but the media have always been corporate controlled. So what changed? The answer is...a sea change in our society. Not an evolutionary change, but a tipping point, a cataclysmic critical mass change. Corporations have been around for a long time, however our country had been blessed during that time with a thing called honor. They made money on entertainment, documentaries, travel, all sorts of programming. The "news" was a side bar, off budget, an almost sacred obligation, not designed as a profit center. The owners were satisfied getting rich off those other areas and thus were spawned Nellie Bly, James Cameron, Floyd Gibbons, Ann Leslie, and of course, Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite.
My personal belief is that the "tipping point" was reached when another President, (and I mean this clinically, not pejoratively) the idiot Ronald Reagan was elected. An idealogue, like the current idiot, he was able to implement his "The Government IS the problem" program. Out went sensible rules and safeguards, in came de-regulation, corporate consolidation, and "the markets can solve all our problems" philosophy. Boom! overnight, prudent budgets? Bah! Turn the Treasury over to the markets. They'll handle the money better than "Gov't Bureacrats." Safety rules? Phooey! After enough workers fall off unprotected scaffolds, the "Managers" will see the waste in dead workers and fix it. News, as an honorable, revered calling? Nonsense! That 23 year old, pimple faced Wharton graduate will show Wall St. how to get "value" (and two points on the stock price) by forcing News to become a profit center.
Bye, bye Annette Funicello. Hello, Britney. Bye, bye, Walter Lippman. Hello Michael Savage. Bye, bye "All the News That's Fit To Print." Hello Judy Miller.
The only thing that was more disgusting than Karl Rove's obscene "rap dance" was his partner (or should I say his bitch?) NBC's Chief White House Correspondent, David Gregory.

[dynadem]

The media is not outraged. The personal interests of the multimillionaire pundits and NYT editors are aligned with those of the Washington political class. Major media figures have no fear that their children will ever fight in a brutal illegal war, they are not concerned that they could ever be subject to extraordinary rendition, and they all have excellent health coverage.

[UltraClassic]

John, I would ask you in relation to your view of the media, where you stand on the political scale. It may be that your view may not be all that mainstream or moderate.

A bunch of liberals and leftist democrats sitting around in their' PJs eating breakfast while screaming at their computer monitors does not a majority make. And as far as the inter-net is concerned, I'm sure glad that the majority of the country has not sunk to the depths of MoveOn and Kos. Now that would be a spooky day even Mr. Chavez would envy.

[backhandpath]

I am personally offended by your ad hominem attack on Mr McQuaid's political views rather than addressing the subject of his argument.
Cheap and easy shot below the belt. Very neocowardly of you.

I hate to break it to you, UltraObsolete, but a majority of the country has risen to the level of MoveOn, Kos and yes Huff Posts. We are tired of your broken record of "news'n'politics'news'n'politics", little lie told over and over, your ultraclassic doublthink, your ignorance of representative government. We the People have instituted new media in your place. We are everywhere you refuse to be.

Mainstream. Moderate. You parse these words as if they have anything to do with politics because they have Nothing to do with John McQuaid's job reporting the news.

[Indiana]

Well said.

[mimsnpips]

EXCELLENT ARTICLE. I applaud you sir, and agree 100%. Please keep up the good work even when it seems futile.

[GKJames]

But isn't it a question of saleability? As long as the stats show that whatever it is the MSM are serving up continues to sell, why would it change? Conversely, if outrage alienates customers, we're not going to see it. The underlying problem may be an idealized notion of what journalists are all about. There are good ones out there, though you have to be literate and interested enough to go find them. And paying teleprompter readers of the likes of Couric and Williams $12 million a year gives us an idea as to why the grand experiment in self-government may be in trouble.

[Indiana]

Soon we'll probably see the day when NBC Nightly News, ABC's World News Tonight, and CBS Evening News are being anchored by Britney, Paris, and Lindsey in a costly effort to get ratings....

[dynadem]

The national media establishment has been deeply corrupted by its excessive fraternization with and dependence on political power and money. There is no outrage because the media cannot be outraged at people whom they view as colleagues in running the country. The media's fraudulent "evenhandedness" has lent support those who defense the outrageous, and lulled much of the country, which depends on the media to explain public events, into a stupor.

[Indiana]

....and Britney just made a fool or herself, but Paris and Lindsey have been quiet lately....

[DemandTruth]

Oh, there's still plenty of outrage over at FOX Propaganda channel.

They're still outraged OUTRAGED! at Clinton, as they rehash pointless, fruitless investigations of him that were settled almost a decade ago, over and over on their shows.

Like we haven't been over this before. It's been almost 10 years, and there are more recent scandals to be outraged at, right? Right?

I guess they can still only "get it up" for Clinton after all these years.

[Indiana]

After all, they can't talk about Madeleine McCann all the time.....

[dynadem]

The national media establishment has been deeply corrupted by its excessive fraternization with and dependence on political power and money. There is no outrage because the media cannot be outraged at people whom they view as colleagues in running the country. The media's fraudulent "evenhandedness" has lent support those who defense the outrageous, and lulled much of the country, which depends on the media to explain public events, into a stupor.

[dynadem]

The national media establishment has been deeply corrupted by its excessive fraternization with and dependence on political power and money. There is no outrage because the media cannot be outraged at people whom they view as colleagues in running the country. The media's fraudulent "evenhandedness" has lent support those who defense the outrageous, and lulled much of the country, which depends on the media to explain public events, into a stupor.

[Indiana]

Well said--a few months ago I read the book, "Fair and Balanced, My Ass!" which takes a penetrating look at one major news channel...