Who Watches the Watchmen?

While it's impossible to draw a direct connection between an act of insanity like this past week's murder at the Holocaust Museum and the hysterical rantings of media viruses like Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, and Beck, a quick tour around the op-ed circuit and the blogosphere indicates that there is significant concern about what might be incited or encouraged by such exploitative and irresponsible media. Through what seems like a 24/7 cacophony of bluster, we hear claims and charges from ratings-driven, facts-challenged "journalists and commentators" that sound like discarded plots from the X-Files.

And the problem in not only prevalent in the world of cable bloviators and wacko authors. Other somewhat respectable media outlets continue to fuel fires of unreasoned conspiracy thinking, such as the recent Washington Times piece that suggests the President, "not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself." As if a religious affiliation other than, Christian, would indicate some sort of threat or wrong doing. Not to mention the fact that there has never been any credible evidence presented supporting the claims that President Obama is hiding something about his religious affiliation.

But another article that chronicles the latest round of crazy rantings and borderline calls for violence is not why I'm writing. Instead, I'd like to address the question of accountability and responsibility at the top. A quick search around the Internet will uncover endless amounts of criticism of the aforementioned peddlers of potentially dangerous pablum such as Mr. Hannity and Mr. Limbaugh. And there's a special place in Internet Hell for Ann Coulter. Her critics are legion. But the group that continues to get a free pass is those in charge... the semi-invisible suits that provide the megaphones and reap the profits when these intellectual snake oil salesmen peddle their nonsense in pursuit of ratings and sales. In other words, "who watches the watchmen?" Attacking Sean Hannity while ignoring management and ownership is the media equivalent of blaming the grunts at Abu Ghraib while ignoring the generals at the Pentagon. Enough about Sean Hannity's seemingly purposeful distortions. How about a little more focus on those that provide Hannity with a forum and legitimize his style of broadcasting (I'm really not sure what to call it, so "broadcasting" will do.)

I also want to make clear that this is not an assault on "right wing media." I don't come to this an an ideologue. If there is equivalency on the left, that should be challenged and criticized with equal vigor. The recent examples speak to who is in power and who is in the role of challenging that power. And challenging power is a critically important function in a vibrant democracy. We need Republicans and others to propose alternatives to Obama's ideas and policy initiatives. But Ann Coulter's latest scream for attention is not the equivalent of the loyal opposition. The former serves the greater good. The later, at best, serves Ann Coulter's self promotion. At worst it promotes anger, distorts reality, and flirts with inciting violence.

I am also not making a case for restricting free speech. To the contrary, I'm pretty much a purist in that regard. But I know from first hand experience that ownership and management matter more than the latest flavor of the month/year/decade with access to the airwaves. I spent 20 years on the air on C-SPAN and about 5 years on an independently owned radio station affiliated with NBC before that. I wouldn't have spent 5 minutes on either if I ever said anything remotely like the things routinely offered by those that seek ratings by tapping the related veins of anger and irrational thinking. We had standards that were promoted and enforced by management. There was a sense of accountability and responsibility to the public that eclipsed our own parochial economic interests. My bosses didn't hide behind on-air lightning rods. They were involved and accountable.

Rush Limbaugh is a one man media empire in many ways, but without management at individual stations around the country signing the syndication agreements that distribute his program, he wouldn't be the force he is today. So Rush becomes the focal point of anger and frustration among those that yearn for more mature and responsible opposition party commentary. It's even suggested that his rantings may incite the type of violence we've seen recently with the shooting at the Holocaust Museum and the murder of Dr. George Tiller (who according to Bill O'Reilly was referred to as, "Tiller the Baby Killer"). Meanwhile, unnamed and in many cases unknown executives rake in the bucks by shoveling this bile onto the airwaves. We keep blaming the front men for our degraded and degrading public discourse, but what about their enablers?

Comments

[MDCambridge]

The law needs to be changed relative to public figures. If challenged, a newscaster (and their corporate bosses) should have to produce credible evidence to things being said. The fact that people are in the public eye should not make the media immune to spreading lies. In the UK, you can't do what Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly do without facing damages and having to issue a retraction. (Basically, free speech does not include lying about a public figure.)

Recently the UK publication Daily Mirror accused Josh Hartnett of being caught on tape having sex in a library of a hotel; three months later, they were paying damages. If US law held a newscaster to a modicum of responsibility along with an expeditious legal turnaround (loser paying court, attorney, and damages, if they lose), the swift-boat mentality would not be profitable or politically expedient.

[larry278]

I recall seeing some unkind words about the Messrs Ailes & Murdoch posted on HP, other sites & media in the last few years. Media on the left & right of the center have said very harsh things of the Messrs Murdoch, Ailes & Fox News, aka FAUX NOISE (by enraged partisans of the really, radical, progressive views).
But welcome to the fray. There is a saying stolen from rugby fans, "Give blood, oppose Murdoch, News Corp, Ailes & Faux.".

[texastrixie]

Cavuto on Fox is whining right now that Fox is not getting any one-on-one interview with Obama today when he is supposed to be meeting with scores of other media outlets. About time someone in the Obama press relations grew a pair!

The fact that Fox labels everything Obama does as socialist, communist, or playing up to terrorists - why on earth would Obama (or anyone from the administration) meet with anyone on Fox. The Bush administration essentially locked out all media outlets except Fox, shouldn't turn-around be fair play?

I am thrilled that Obama left Fox out of the loop. No matter what he said, and how they left him alone while he was on-air, the minute he finished, they would tear him apart. The same as before the election - no one who watches Fox and thinks its a real news outlet would ever credit Obama with anything positive.

The one person who will NEVER show up on Fox is MIchelle Obama. Obama might meet with O'Reilly and when given the chance, say nothing about how the network had called his wife his "baby mama," or an "angry black woman." But Michelle Obama wouldn't let that slide. If she was ever invited to be interviewed by Fox, she will bring up everything from the "terrorist fist bump," to the "baby mama" caption, and will want to discuss, in depth, on what basis each of these denigrating remarks had any fact.s behind them.

[TexasDem0]

Good points. Maybe if someone on Fox adopted the mannerisms of professional journalism, they would get an interview. Why should anyone treat them as professionals when their screech fests are filled with deception, innuendo, and invective? They can start by showing a little respect towards people with other views.

[John Milewski - Huffpost Blogger]

You do reap what you sow in that regard. Any interview subject, the president included, will consider the environment in which he's walking into. In journalism as in life, it's difficult to have your cake and eat it.

[larry278]

FAUX NOISE's talking heads are trying to come to terms with Pres Obama. FAUX's on air employees no longer call Pres Obama, Communist-assed or KomUnisT. Give FAUX credit they have been working hard since 11/4/08 to improve the speech patterns & diction of FAUX's on air staff. Don't bring up that Pres Obama has been in office since 1/20/09; that's well over 100 days ago. It is hard to quickly change a life long speech pattern for some speakers of American English. Some may not have learned a foreign language nor made an effort to speak a 2d language every day. There are also some who only speak to others with a similar speech pattern that the learned as toddlers.

[Vermoulian]

Good point----why don't you actually name a few of these faceless suits? With your journalism background one would think you could find out who they are.

[John Milewski - Huffpost Blogger]

At the risk of sounding as if I'm making excuses, I accept your point and can only say that it's a matter of resources and time available. I will also point anyone interested to The Center For Public Integrity's website. They've done lots of good work on connecting the dots as it relates to media ownership.

[JScott]

Hmmm no new revelations here.....just give more background as to why this happened a few years back with the corporate media consolidation.

BTW if ya don't already know that moonie owned 'Washington Times' is hardly a credible news source.

[kitkatborn]

Good post. I too believe that owners & managers of media businesses also need to be held responsible for what is said on their watch.

[ceindependence]

NO CREDIBILITY WITH THIS ARTICLE. Make your claims of nonbias to the choir. No mention of Olbermann, no mention of J. Garofolo or Maddow, but do discuss the extreme right. Wow! So tell me what snake oil you want to sell tomorrow.

Your always the same, never anything new or original. Lets always place all the blame on the right. What a sham and a shame.

[waverly]

Media dealing with TRUTH is not the problem. You mention Olbermann, Garofolo and Maddow....what is your problem with them? They hit back with the truth at the blatant LIES and HOSTILITY coming from the right. Do you have a problem with the truth? Or are you just so delusional you can't see the truth?

[KarelS]

Never, never heard Keith or Rachael say, for instance, "Obama is responsible for the deaths of 5000 zygotes while in office".
Can the same attitude be said of O'Reilly, Beck, Limburger, et al?

[John Milewski - Huffpost Blogger]

Based on your response I have no delusions about my ability to convince you otherwise. But if you can resist the knee jerk reaction of seeing the world as one big far left versus far right construct, there's lots of room between those extremes for serious and thoughtful discussion.

[roger3815]

They too busy slamming David Letterman as a "pervert" and accusing him of everything short of conspiring with the Borg.

Letterman is guilty of inciting rape of 14 year-olds but Coulter is just exercising her right to free speech and telling "jokes."

See the differences?

Me either.

[gage]

"While it's impossible to draw a direct connection between an act of insanity like this past week's murder at the Holocaust Museum and the hysterical rantings of media viruses like Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, and Beck"

Yes, it is impossible, given that von Brunn is a socialist who has written of his hatred for Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly, Christians and Jews, Bush, McCain, and neocons. Limbaugh is also a strong supporter of Israel.

[HANNIBAL1066]

This information comes from the Blog for Arizona, post from David Safier. It's a progressive site. Unfortunately, it is dated August 11, 2008. This "permissive broadcast environment" can be addressed.

He lauds the Star newspaper editorial praise for The Hispanic Institute's boycott of CNN for Lou Dobbs. Here is his post verbatim:

"In a surprisingly bold Sunday editorial, the Star praised the Washington, D.C. nonprofit, The Hispanic Institute, for launching a boycott of CNN because of Lou Dobbs' hate-filled immigrant bashing. The editorial includes radio talk show host Jon Justice as well as Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly in its rogues' gallery. It also applauds Media Matters for putting together a pamphlet, Fear & Loathing in Prime Time: Immigration Myths and Cable News, debunking the myths and misstatements repeated by the hatemongers ad infinitum...The Star even issues a call to action:

'We encourage other groups — whether they represent minorities or not — to let CNN and other news outlets know that unwarranted attacks that demonize a particular group of people will not be tolerated.'"

Story at http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/immigration/

[Starryeyesurprise]

Ok, but I was hoping you would start naming names.

Roger Ailes(who got his start from Richard Nixon) and Murdoch are obvious, but what about the program managers, the people at Clear Channel...who ARE they

They never appear in interviews, are never written about.

I would like someone to get in their faces a la Michael Moore and say, "how do you sleep at night?" over and over and over and over

[gage]

What, specifically, did these people do to encourage von Brunn? They are all capitalists who support Israel. Von Brunn is a socialist who hates capitalism (jewish plot) and hates Israel.

[HANNIBAL1066]

Here are the references for my quotes and information related to a "permissive broadcast environment."

Ofcom, ”About,” at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/sdrp/

Fox News awards at:

Sky News, ”In the News—Sky Wins Top Award,” February 21, 2007, at http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/In-The-News---Sky-Wins-Top-Awards/Article/20070231252545?lid=ARTICLE_1252545_In%20The%20News%20-%20Sky%20Wins%20Top%20Awards&lpos=Home_0. Sky News, “Sky News Wins Top TV Awards,” February 28, 2003, at http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Wins-Top-TV-Awards/Article/200302412257304?lid=ARTICLE_12257304_Sky%20News%20Wins%20Top%20TV%20Awards&lpos=searchresults.

How seriously do the British take "hate speech"? On May 5, 2009, the British banned five Americans from entering Britain: Stefan Donald Black, Stormfront; Michael Alan Weiner aka Michael Savage; Erich Gliebe, chairman National Alliance; and, Fred Phillips Sr. and Shirley Phelps Roper, anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church. Story at

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/05/05/us-extremists-banned-from-entering-the-uk/.

[HANNIBAL1066]

I agree. Allow me to call attention to America's "permissive broadcast" environment and what can be done about. To illustrate the concept of the permissive broadcast environment, consider the difference between Fox News in the United States and its sister station Sky News in Britain. Having watched both for many years, they are two different broadcasting entities. Sky News operates in an environment in which its main competitor is the British Broadcasting Corporation. The British regulatory agency, Ofcom, is responsible under the Communications Act of 2003 to, among other things, apply “adequate protection for audiences against offensive or harmful material” and apply “adequate protection for unfairness or the infringement of privacy.” Sky News has won the prestigious “News Channel of the Year” award from the Royal Television Society at least three times since 2001. I am not advocating any regulatory change or reviving the Fairness Doctrine. It is a waste of time. What Rupert Murdoch and the owners of CNN who broadcast Lou Dobbs understand are their corporate bottom-lines. If discussions with corporate heads do not change the documented broadcasting of harmful language on the immigration issue and a number of other public policy issues, then a campaign against Fox and CNN sponsors is appropriate. No sponsor wants their product associated with speech related to hate—especially speech correlated with violence against African Americans and Hispanics—two important consumer markets. Rupert Murdoch knows what speech Fox News broadcasts are offensive, harmful, and unfair—to use the Ofcom terms.

[gage]

Your definition of "harmful language" is opinions with which you disagree.

What you call a "permissive broadcast environment" I call the first amendment.

I have never heard any "hate speech" or "harmful language" on CNN or Fox.

[kitkatborn]

Then, by your own admission you agree with O'Reilly, Beck, et al.

[Pippen]

The American populace is ignorant. We were once an intellectually hungry entreprenureal people with patriotism and devotion to the US Constitution.

Sadly these Propaganda puppets are making millions on the ignorant masses with distortions, lies and angry inciteful rhetoric. They get air time like Faux because of an evil non believers in the US Constitution and are doing their best to destroy it's meaning.

It makes me want to vomit. I'm so ashamed this is going on in my country that it demands some form of "qualifying counter" to educate the masses instead of pandering to their ignorance for money.

[gage]

The ones ignoring the constitution are the commenters on progressive sites calling for government crackdown on speech with which they disagree. I see that all the time on this site.

Conservatives call for letter writing or boycotts, both of which are expressions of free speech, but we NEVER call for government censorship of political speech.

[elbzee]

And NEVER voice the desire that our president fail, right? And NEVER incite violence, right? And NEVER distort the truth, right?

Uh-huh. Riiiight.

[DMSmith]

I've often said that I think those who continually present provably false and incorrect information on the airwaves should be charged with a crime.

The airwaves are ours and we depend on the information put forth. Truth should be required. One should be able to back up what they say on the air.

[pgsteward]

I guess the Olbermann / Garafalo rant falls into the above category. Remember, and I paraphrase, ALL people attending tea party protests are haters of a black president. Now let me see you prove that one!

[Pippen]

You obviously don't know the difference between OPINION and INFORMATION. Typical.

[gage]

Do you have any examples of anyone who "continually present provably false and incorrect information on the airwaves"?

Also, cable news is not on the airwaves, but radio and broadcast tv are.

[John Milewski - Huffpost Blogger]

Technically, and in some matters legally as well, you are correct. But as convergence moves forward and the ways in which we bring media into our homes and lives evolves, I'm finding the distinctions less helpful. When I first worked with the program Close Up on C-SPAN, we used the term "cablecast" instead of "broadcast." But when you view broadcast channels over cable, or everything via satellite, fiber optic lines, or the Internet it all gets very muddy.