Corrupting Habit

"Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias," the Los Angeles Times reported on July 27, 2008. Not so, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which claims the networks have been rougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain during the first six weeks of the campaign.

And so it goes in newspapers, on TV, in chat rooms, dormitories, and offices across the country - it's another election year and that means rancor and rage about political partisanship in the media.

Since the fall of 1969, when Spiro Agnew went after the "liberal" press corps, media discourse has been dominated by debates about the news as a spin zone. But we think this argument over bias has obscured a far more fundamental reality: In an Age of Infotainment, where personality trumps policy and the lines between politics and show biz are blurred, the mass media has helped foster a public culture in which Americans have lost confidence in elected officials and the federal government. Consciously or unconsciously, the media may be doing the bidding of small government Republicans. But at bottom, it is not a "red" or "blue' issue; it's a "green" issue. Not green as in "the environment", green as in "money".

Here's how it's happened:

First, the forces of Infotainment have abetted the slow destruction of our trust in public servants.

Joe McGinnis's 1969, The Selling of the President, and the 1972 film, The Candidate, exposed campaign "packaging." Elections are all about tactics, personality, and images, they suggested, and not public policy. All of the candidates' men behind the scenes pull the strings.

By the 1990s, Cable television's insatiable need for content - and profits-- made political consultants like Democratic strategist James Carville into rock stars. Before then pollsters Bob Teeter or Pat Caddell, political strategists Hamilton Jordan and Lee Atwater, or media Consultant Michael Deaver were occasionally in the media but not "of" the media. But over the last two decades, political magicians have taken viewers back stage to see how the tricks are done.

Carville led the way. He is everywhere, from Meet the Press to The Situation Room, appearing often with his wife, Mary Matalin, a Republican "fixer." Carville's former partner, Paul Begala, has climbed on the gravy train. So have Ed Rollins, Donna Brazille, Bob Shrum, Michael Murphy - the list goes on. There is a fresh "farm system" of bloviators on Cable TV and talk radio - tune into any episode of Hardball or O'Reilly and you will see bush leaguers auditioning for the big show.

These days, on the network news and on Cable, it's all about the horse race, all the time. Pundits, pontificators, and pollsters opine about the tactical considerations that convinced Obama to flip on off shore drilling or prompted McCain to flop on the Bush tax cuts. The message couldn't be clearer: politics is not about principles or the public good. It's Powerball. It's about ambition. Winning is everything -- and the only thing.

Discussions of tactics and strategy are followed by dissections of strategy and tactics. And in showmanship comparable to the World Wrestling Federation, on election nights CNN rolls out multi-tiered, multi-paneled groups of former campaign consultants - the Battle Royale of Punditry.

We have been taken into the sausage factory and shown how the sausage is made. Should we be surprised that more than three decades after Watergate public approval of politicians has reached historic lows?

Next, and equally important, media infotainers have reinforced the notion that the government is incompetent, wasteful, and fraudulent.

For years, network news broadcasts have run two kinds of features. The first is typified by ABC World News' "Your Money." Introduced on its web site as "a chronicle of excessive government expenditures," the segment always ends with the phrase "It's your money." The NBC version is "The Fleecing of America." CBS offers "Follow the Money." Fox News, as we speak, is pushing a special entitled "Porked: Earmarks for Profit." The message is hard to miss: public officials are in bed with profiteers, and they're having a ball with your tax dollars.

"Your Money," "The Fleecing of America," and "Follow the Money" never show government programs that work. It's big, bad digs, not an inter-state highway system that is the envy of the world. Salmonella scares, not ever-safer food, drugs, water, and workplaces. Mike Espy's Super Bowl tickets, not a political system less tainted by corruption and bribery than most other nations on earth. Nothing about how many lives have been saved by weather forecasting. Or about the role of the federal government in developing the Internet. Or how Social Security provides a safety net for tens of millions of elderly Americans, once the poorest cohort of the population.

The other long-running feature on the network news puts an exclamation point on the "red meat" rhetoric that government is the problem and not the solution. ABC's "Person of the Week" and NBC's "Making a Difference" profile remarkable individuals who help others. While government wastes your money, these private citizens overcome the odds (and, often, opposition from bureaucrats) and get something done.

These messages have had a corrosive impact on American politics. They have reinforced our cynicism about our elected representatives and about virtually every government initiative. As a result, we don't muster sufficient outrage over Brownie's bumbles, Halliburton's no-bid contracts, or the out-sourcing of prisons and public schools to private corporations. We are "conditioned" to expect it - after all, we've seen it all before. Every night on the news.

We live in an era dominated by Infotainment and Celebrification. The fault, of course, rests not in our stars but in ourselves. We cannot reverse these meta and mega trends. But we can at least step back from the cynicism of political professionals who are fed to us the way Access Hollywood serves up Paris and Brittany and think about the nutritional value of the "McNuggets" of news we are ingesting. Then we might have a chance, as Anthony Lewis once wrote, to re-awaken faith in an America "that struggles with itself and conquers corrupting habit."

Comments

[SouthPrairie]

When the monocorrespondent voice of the media is funded by the same corporate sponsors that political campaigns are funded by, you have an insidious symbiosis that has left the solid American citizen out in the cold. As long as you have corporate moguls dominating the majority of the news networks, their interests and the interests of their corporate sponsors eclipse the old fashion ethos of informing the citizenry in order to have an honest dialogue about the potential leaders of our country. I consider myself an informed citizen; however it takes a great deal of effort--or multi-news source obsession--and I continually hear distortions, lies, and fabrications throughout the media. Not only that, but they seem to fixate on stories that have no substance. It is maddening. They want Americans dumb, uninformed, fearful, and submissive. It really sucks.

[research]

The perversion of the media by conservatives is well documented in;

"The Republican Noise Machine"

[InofTouch]

"Access Hollywood serves up Paris and Brittany and think about the nutritional value of the "McNuggets" of news we are ingesting"

Yes thank you for your use of Simile...as if we didn't get answer to the whole long speech of this story.

[ObamaEdwards]

Not to sound even more cynical than the authors think we are--but All the King's Men was published in 1946. So, at the very least, Americans have known about fraudulent political claims and the interwoven strategies of politics and commerce for six decades. And yet no outcry loud enough to shake the foundations.

I am coming to understand that the vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with government or politics. They want to live comfortably, and raise their children without suffering huge setbacks. That's all. So, if you can convince people that they will get that from your proposed administration, most of them will vote for you. If you are a liar, you will con them into it and then turn the tables and introduce MORE government and seize more power (as Bush did). If you are a truth-teller with a good plan, like Obama, and you have to FOLLOW such a lying, cheating, embezzling power monger as Bush, then you have an uphill battle. You don't have to simply prove that your plan will work, sight unseen. You also have to prove that you are not the big, fat phony your predecessor turned out to be.

[cadawa]

It's worse than that. We have corporate control of the White House, by extension the DOJ, and Congress and the media is their PR organization. What is left of the 4th Estate is happening on the internet and on the fringes of broadcast media. Access is limited to those who are willing to actively seek out other voices.

[Ozarks]

This column is a joke. You claim: "media infotainers have reinforced the notion that the government is incompetent, wasteful, and fraudulent". Your column attempts to support that it is only a "notion... that ....government is incompetent, wasteful and fraudulent", Given the Katrina farce, the WMD basis for Iraq war, the shredding of the Constitution ie Fisa and Habeas Corpus, Gitmo, White House Torture memo, the Military Tribunal---there is no "notion" of government's incompetent and fraudulence it is a fact. It started with Richard Clarke, McClellan and now Suskind along with the alleged "Justice" Department latest subpoenas to its former employed Lawyers showing how fraudulent this government is and that includes the Democrats who abide by this entire fraudulent government. What you are implying is that these alleged "infotainers" are not spreading the truth but just entertainment for money. I guess you would like to shut down free flow of information because somebody might be making a dime off telling the truth.

[MB141]

Great post and so appropriate that we examine the state of the media during the presidential election. Does anyone believe that government is working on behalf of the "public good" at this stage? I read a similar article recently about Hollywood losing it's bankable, reliable stars because the glut of media coverage from tabloids (TMZ, etc) is tearing down the facade of glamour that once surrounded actors/actresses. No longer can a studio rely on having Tom Cruise to make a movie a success, because media scrutiny (some of which he obviously brought on himself) has severely tarnished his reputation and "star" status.

In politics, thanks to 24-hour news, it has had a similar, but obviously more drastic effect. The constant coverage has permanently altered the way political campaigns are waged. Only in this media environment can we have a president, with so many instances of incompetence and impeachable offenses, still be in office. His reputation permanently ruined, books coming out almost daily detailing another cover-up or crime, with a Congress deeming any legal action to be a political loser.

In terms of actual news coverage, it is ridiculous how much time is given to points-of-view that are clearly incorrect or flat-out wrong. But without any accountability for the media, how can we expect any standards in the long run?

[AcitizenNJ]

Mr. Kevin Morris and Mr.Glenn Altschuler

It has long been my belief that this nation has had an unspoken third political party. This party has never held an elected office and regardless which policy is debated from the red or blue side it the green side the dictates the outcome. it has never been clearer in my opinion based on the events following the two most current blows to our nation. The assault on New York City "9/11" and Katrina on New Orleans. I find it sad to say but the actions following 9/11 have made this third political party a lot of money while the American people, the city of New Orleans and surrounding area's are not a good return on investment.

It is no wonder that these talking heads are viewed as entertainment when the information given is obviously slanted more on someones personnel opinion than factual data.

[elmoor]

If you don't hear it on PBS or on NPR, then you know you are hearing ratings-driven drivel.

(Please donate today to your local NPR station!)

[WorkingClass]

The corporate media have a job. Keep the world safe for global monopolists. To this end, they tell you what they want you to know and they don't tell you what they don't want you to know. As long as they have your ear, you will be stupid.

[shadowgm]

Don't for a moment believe the drivel about the 'free market' as preached by Rush Limbaugh and others. It's not about the strength of an idea, good or bad, achieving prominence on its own merits; it's the flow of money behind those ideas, and America's mistaken ideal that money = success = good ideas.

I'm surprised, however, that Morris and Altschuler appear to have overlooked the demise of the Fairness Doctrine as a major factor in this trend.

The myth of the MSM, however, is another gift from the right, achieved by continual browbeating and ignoring Edward R. Murrow's insight that it is a mistake to believe there are two equally reasonable and valid sides to every argument. It is this 'balance' - not an equivalency of time or access, but the requirement that the media fawn over even the most specious claims as having merit - that has given rise to this canard.

[lenski]

@ shadowgm: I agree completely. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a "free" market. Even when everyone is an honest broker, the various participants vary dramatically in their ability to participate fully: low information vs high information, low influence vs high influence, etc. etc. Everyone wants to manipulate the market in ways small or large, in order to maximize their transactional gains. It's natural and reasonable to expect people to want that power. There must be a fair arbitrator to limit excessive manipulation.

So when someone says "free market", it must be recognized that the person making that statement is INTENTIONALLY hiding the failure of all markets to be "free". The only question to be asked is, who is manipulating the market: Is that person an honest broker? Or almost certainly, someone who wishes to hide his/her marketplace advantage behind pretty capitalist rhetoric?

The demise of the Fairness Doctrine is a symptom of the manipulation of the media "market" precisely to support those who are most interested in preventing marketplace freedom.

[certainot]

it has been a huge blunder of progressives to not recognize the rise of the talk radio monopoly after reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine and its major contribution to the mess we're in now. progressives can strategize all they want but most of it is for nothing if they keep attributing their failures and losses to public consensus and social changes instead of the ravings of GOP coordinated loudmouths yelling from the biggest soapboxes in the country.

as long as that monopoly continues real democracy and bipartisanship is impossible.

[terramartom]

As the writer clearly states, "It's all about money". How else could Bush still be in office and not in prison for his crimes?

[valleyforge]

Viewers should feel outraged and violated. Network news should be a public trust which feels a responsiblity to convey information accurately. Cable TV should assume a leadership role in public education. Instead, both have become propaganda spigots for corporate interests and conservative political agendas.

Morris and Altschuler: don't stop here. Keep working to get these ideas before the public, and help us see how we can organize our resistance and create change, in the manner of FAIR http://www.fair.org/index.php. We need the equivalent of MoveOn to confront the corporate and political interests that have hijacked the media.

[earthandfire]

I agree with you: "We need the equivalent of MoveOn to confront corporate and political interest that have hijacked the media."
Maybe we need something larger than that. The task is dounting, indeed.
If Obama failed (It is possible that he bend his principle and get elected in this cultural climate. I don't want to believe this though. But, "failed" here means he failed to be elected.), I really think he should form a larger and more effective movement (or a more effective entity than being president) for politics and culture as a whole, equivalent of what Al Gore did for environmental issue. This could move the world powerfully (America is a part of the world, right? And I know, most of people posting here are America first but at the same time world class citizens.) Truthful people will just migrate to that movement... (Don't say it's like a recipe for making up a messiah. Obama himself is the part of this current: necessity of change.)
...then, what will happen to the rest of this country? Third world status in politics? If that is the wish of majority of people and they believe that is the American Way, then...
We have to create something that media cannot ignore.
(Please forgive my English.)

[JBS]

Not only have they abetted the destruction of our trust in the government, they've given fundamental cause for us to distrust "the media". The cult of celebrity reaches beyond politics.

[certainot]

PS when we talk corporate media we're talking TV and print. the corporate media limits and manages political content in TV and print but it can't get very creative with it without looking like Fox. that is something Americans have not been completely dumbed down to yet.

the GOP's giant talk radio monopoly with its coordinated uncontested repetition in every state is the only medium that can really create new realities on a large enough scale to give cover and denial to a whole party of politicians and require the other party to have a veto proof majority to get anything done.

as long as that monopoly continues real democracy and bipartisanship is impossible. if that is fixed the other parts are easier.

[UnknownSoldier]

"TV and print but it can't get very creative with it without looking like Fox. that is something Americans have not been completely dumbed down to yet."

I have to disagree with your statement. The other networks are no different than FOX. Lest you forget ABC NEWS got its debate questions from FOX NEWS. Remember this one: "Does he (former Marine) love his country as much as you do Senator?"

[certainot]

there was a reaction to that and ABC has been excluded from the mccain -obama debates. maybe that's why.

tv and print can break a story but its a lot harder for them to turn molehills into mountains or lie enough to create a lasting myth, like is done routinely on talk radio. tv and print could not turn a 400$ haircut into a character defining issue as the GOP talk radio repetition was able to do. after a few weeks as a daily subject all around the country it went so far as to become a subject worth minutes of discussion on an PBS panel with gwen ifil.

the talk radio monopoly can create a giant red velvet bandwagon for the lazy talking heads, with a smorgasbord of prechewed talking points and one liners to choose from. they know the top GOP talking points they see in their daily faxes are well traveled by the end of the day and the cable shows are full of hosts that giggle and chuckle whan they hear them one more time.