|
untitled
A SEASON OF NEWS COVERAGE: NO CURE FOR POLITICAL
BLUES
By Norman
Solomon
"The Echoes of Abandoned Reality," ©2000 Wendy Lu
 |
The media summer of 2000 is now history. As
leaves begin to fall, let's consider a few key dynamics of the political season that
has just passed.
Despite complaints about smarmy orchestration and chronic pandering, the Republican
and Democratic conventions resulted in gobs of deferential coverage. Some journalists
rolled their eyes or even shed a bit of light on the big money bags behind the Oz-like
curtains, but each party got what its backers paid for -- a week of mostly upbeat
publicity.
Meanwhile, Americans saw very little news about the iron-fist tactics that police
used in the host cities to suppress thousands of social-justice demonstrators. Evidently,
several days of militarizing a downtown area is the latest new thing for laying down
the political law.
In Philadelphia, while the Grand Old Party partied, police raided a protest headquarters.
The gendarmes proceeded to confiscate and destroy large numbers of handmade puppets
being readied for deployment in the streets. The crackdown was understandable, since
art can be subversive. Better to be on the safe side!
Two weeks later, in Los Angeles, the Democratic show unfolded with frequent boasts
of authentic inclusion. At the same time, outside Staples Center, the decidedly "unincluded"
ran gauntlets of locked-down thoroughfares and rubber bullets. The American Civil
Liberties Union quickly pointed out that police were targeting journalists for physical
attack. But freedom prevailed: Demonstrators were invited to assemble in a designated
"protest zone."
Realpolitik smarties seem to have convinced most reporters and pundits that the era
of big government is -- or at least should be -- over. Evidently, the downsizing
of the public sector includes the First Amendment. Don't worry, your One-Half Amendment
rights are secure.
In the electoral arena, the "bipartisan" (translation: two-party monopoly)
Commission on Presidential Debates has upheld the notion that small is beautiful.
Narrow is great, too.
By mid-September, plans for the fall debates were just about complete, with only
George W. Bush and Al Gore scheduled to square off. Most journalists seem happy with
the match-up excluding Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan.
Although quite a few daily newspapers around the country have editorialized in favor
of opening up the debates, elite national media seem comfortable with sticking to
the two-party nominees. Political humorist Mark Russell gave voice to the prevailing
media attitude: "Some say that Nader and Buchanan should be included in the
debates. And while we're at it, let the Minor League Toledo Mudhens play in the World
Series."
Ha ha. Well, that's settled.
However, a minor detail is worth noting. Most members of the public -- also known
as "the American people" in politicspeak -- remain unenlightened about
the virtues of confining the presidential debates to a pair of corporate-friendly
politicians. According to a new Zogby poll, Reuters reports, "likely voters
agree that third party candidates should participate in the debates." When citizens
were presented with a list of a half-dozen potential participants, two of them --
Nader and Buchanan -- received majority support for inclusion.
As a public service, some commentators have done their best to drive down the poll
numbers of the third party candidate with the most popular support. This summer,
several widely syndicated columnists -- with Anthony Lewis of The New York Times
in the lead, followed by such thinkers as The Boston Globe's Thomas Oliphant and
The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne -- went after Nader with liberal vengeance.
Not coincidentally, there has been scant media interest in probing fundamental implications
of the government's shoddy "regulatory" apparatus that made the Bridgestone/Firestone
tragedies possible. Although still routinely tagged in news stories as a "consumer
advocate," Nader and his awesome grasp of such issues did not intersect with
the mass media frame.
News accounts of the lethal Firestone debacle have detoured around words like "crime"
and "murder" -- which could be accurately applied to the premeditated cover-up
decisions made in high corporate places. By the time autumn officially began, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was saying that at least 103 people
died and more than 400 others were injured because of the defective tires.
"Corporate crime wave" doesn't exactly roll off the media tongue.
If a small group of thugs made decisions that caused the deaths of more than a hundred
Americans, the airwaves and editorial pages would be filled with calls for severe
punishment including long prison sentences or even executions. After all, in medialand,
we cannot tolerate crime in the streets.
Crime in the suites is a very different matter.
It's so much easier to stick with bipartisan debates. Why complicate the media picture?
Articles probing the current clout of America's broadcast industry are posted at
www.mediademocracynow.org -- a website
that's unlikely to be mentioned on the national airwaves. One of the most insidious
prerogatives of radio and TV giants is that they largely filter out news about challenges
to their own power.
Also see Broadcasters Celebrate Big Gains from Violence
and Greed.
-Norman Solomon
is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is "The
Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."
|