What If the Media Reclaimed Their Role as Fourth Estate...

by emptywheel

And nobody cared?

ThinkProgress has a great compendium of mainstream newspaper editorials criticizing the weekend's FISA debacle. Just about every major paper in the US (with the notable exception of the Wall Street Journal) has come out against the new FISA law. I'm even on the same side of this issue as Fred Hiatt, which kind of scares me.

Which means the next six months will be a test of how irrelevant the media have become. It made a difference, after all, that the media generally backed the Administration's call to war. Which was kind of the final straw in a loss of credibility for the media. So now that the print media, at least, is almost universally on the correct side of an issue, will it matter?

Many of these editorials mention the six month sunset of the bill, which ought to present an interesting challenge for these newspapers. Can they sustain their outrage--and educate voters on the reasons for it--sufficiently to make a difference come January, when we have the opportunity to change this abysmal law?

Or has the media already lost any ability to sway public opinion?

Update: I guess this post would be an appropriate place to note that the TimesSelect opinion wall is coming down. And I didn't even miss having David Brooks to kick around. (Oh wait ... I am a TimesSelect subscriber! I guess I just never found Brooks worthy enough to read.)

Comments

[phred]

Hmmm, I was one of those subscribers that cancelled between April and June -- one too many front page articles from Michael Gordon pushed me over the edge. I liked Herbert, Krugman, and Rich (didn't bother with the rest), but all the good opinion pieces in the world couldn't make up for their dismal editorial standards on the front page.

I'm glad the country's editors are finally cottoning on to the abuses of this administration and what can only be charitably described as incompetence on the part of the Dem Congressional leadership, but I don't need them any more. I am quite happy here thanks. Still, not every has access to the toobz, so a little support from the print MSM certainly can't hurt our stuggling democracy as a whole.

[FRP]

Roger that on the D Brooksie worthiness

[radiofreewill]

An amazingly bad call by the Dems on FISA - Flatbacking for Bush!

Reid and Pelosi really fell down on the job, and now they are going to hear about it for the rest of the year, and maybe well into campaign season next year, too.

Nancy and Harry made the Goopers' Talking Point - Dems are Weaklings - come completely true in one single cowardly act of submission.

[tasteless]

Unless Condi Rice gives Bush a hummer (lower case) then the media will not be able to sustain 6 months worth of attention on this issue.

[Sojourner]

Media irrelevancy... an interesting topic! For those of us who seek out the truth, with balancing opinions or thoughts thrown in, most of the normal media have gone by the wayside. We have sought out our own sources of information.

I no longer watch any television news because it has relegated itself to ratings and soundbites that are so shrill and irrelevant to what is truly happening that it just is not worth the headache. How many times can they report that Lindsey Lohan has gone into rehab? What is the point?

Most of the newspapers are struggling, and rely mostly on wire services for national news. So, the slant is whatever the wire service provides, and it often has no balance to it.

The media, in my opinion, are a major reason why much of the public is so apathetic. It seems that most of the "journalists" have little depth or knowledge to report the complexities involved in today's stories. Maybe Karl Rove has been counting on that in his strategies. Many people seem to have difficulty understanding the problem with politicizing the DoJ and could care less.

Carrying it further, though, the media have allowed themselves to be spoon-fed information from this administration and have not bothered to question it. It is only now that there is any serious question of what is going on.

If the television and print media want to get back into the game and regain their place as the fourth estate, they need to question EVERYTHING very loudly, in banner headlines! Question, question, question! Don't allow themselves to be spoonfed -- go out and dig for answers and alternative viewpoints!

In the end, however, it may be too late... Media relevance is now measured in ratings and profits.

[bmaz]

In answer to your question, the dirty deed is done. It is a little late now. Even if the MSM bellows at full voice, and even if the odious law is sunsetted or repealed, there are, as you noted upon return (and I was saying since I realized on Friday or so that the Dems would cravenly cave) far to many substantive elements of damage that cannot be recovered. The Democrats have effectively waived their arguments of criminal conduct on the entire package of wiretapping/privacy issues, and ratified the Administration's previous conduct. These were the best, and most easily understood arguments of criminally violative behavior we had. Now you can fashion an argument that there was legally no such waiver/ratification, but if even I pretty much see that as what happened, I cannot see such an argument going to far. What Pelosi, Reid and the other leaders knowingly allowed to occur here is fucking criminal in it's own right. So, as to what good the MSM getting it right at this point amounts to; not much. This is the same reason I made the somewhat prickly comment yesterday about the YKos participants not having dropped the planned festivities at least enough to make a concerted effort in unison to mobilize the politicians and unique and timely media megaphone they had in an effort to stop the FISA legislation passage. the fight cannot continuously be fought from our heels and behind the eight ball. It is always harder to stop the bus after it has already run over you.

In the other vein, so I am a paid up glorious member of Times Select. What does this announcement mean to me and my dues? Do I still have enhanced search abilities, or is that all free now too?

[JohnJ]

bmaz: "So, as to what good the MSM getting it right at this point amounts to; not much."

This is most likely not an accident. This reminds me of the Repug dance around torture; McCain and others stand up and say "this is not right"! That makes big headlines, MSM agrees, Scrub call the "upstanding mavericks" into his office, (they all have a big laugh), they come out and say "we have made it right"! The slight problem with that...nothing changed, but I'll bet you money that everyone remembers McCain standing up to our dictator and assumes that the torture has been brought in line. (Ha ha, fooled you again, you morons).

[faceitwearemorons]

boy, i love it when we don't torture, don't you?

[JEP]

Well, lets just not give it back to them, Marcy.

Here's something you won't see anywhere in the MSM and it is a very "4th Estatish" sort of post...

These articles of impeachment were meant for Nixon, but I am astonished at how all of them, except maybe #5, (who knows?) applies to Bush/Cheney/Rove/Gonzales et al etc ad infinitum...

I have added some references to the Bush era, maybe there are more that others might want to contribute?

1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
(WMD, yellowcake, serin gas)

2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States; (WH emails, Energy Industry Task Force co-conspirators, DOJ documents, etc ad infinitum)

3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
(Goodling/Gonzales tete a tete, energy executive testimony before Congress, Libby investigation)

4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, (OK that LAST one won't fly, but this next one fitz) and Congressional Committees;(Libby trial, CUNNINGHAM INVESTIGATION, DOJ FIRINGS)

5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;(like I said, who knows?)

6. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States; (yellowcake, Plame, Italian forgeries, this is a long list)

7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability; (I know there's something here that is ringing a bell, but can't put my finger on it, someone help me out with this one)

8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: (I thought Bloch might fit this one, but he may actually be sincere... or am I naive)

9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
LIBBY LIBBY LIBBY on the table table table)

Isn't it interesting, how so many of Nixon's crimes can so easily be transposed to Bush/Cheney/Rove and their peripheral minions?

[Ralph]

The print press no longer matters much at all now. Television and radio are the only significant determiners of public information. They are completely controlled by the same international corporations whose influence we are striving to control.

Until a way has been found and implemented to solve the TV and radio problem, no real progress can be made in U.S. politics, on any front. Of that I am certain.

[phred]

JohnJ -- Worse, in one of the Republican debates McCain painted himself as being against torture. Bullshit! He could have stopped the MCA on the strength of his own experience in the Hanoi Hilton and the S.O.B. caved after the tete-a-tete at the WH. It isn't just that people might remember that particular sequence of events incorrectly, but that McCain has actively been rewriting history ever since. Galling completely, utterly and despicably galling.

As an aside, bmaz, I left a question at the end of the Kontogiannis thread, would you mind taking a peek... I didn't want to go off topic up here... thanks!

[Boo Radley]

I'm afraid the MSM used the editorial pages as their safety valve. When Gonzales is let off, after it surfaces that he spied on someone he shouldn't have, they will trot out their editorial. Meantime, they won't report what we need them to.

[Sojourner]

There has been some recent writing and discussion about the old Fairness Doctrine, which went by the wayside in the Reagan years. By removing that rule, broadcast media almost immediately began going down the tubes, in my opinion. Ratings took precedence, Geraldo Rivera and Jerry Springer rose in prominence, and sensationalism became the rule, a la the Fox network.

There is also the issue of media ownership. I cannot remember for certain, but there used to be some pretty strict limits on how many radio stations, TV stations, and newspapers that one company could own in any given market (or perhaps nationwide). That was done away with, so now we have the likes of Rupert Murdoch, who is imposing his limited view of the world on all of us.

As U S citizens, we are supposed to be well-informed. Sadly, most of us choose not to be and opt for the entertainment.

I guess that means that I am rapidly turning into an old guy when I go making observations like that...

[cboldt]

JEP - Posted on a dead thread for thread continuity. Cited here as an act of "not hiding."

Washing away or damage to lung surfactant is reversible July 27, 2007 at 10:51

JEP - Between the two of us, you are the more arrogant one. July 27, 2007 at 11:30

You can have the last word on the subject, here or there, I don't care. I just wanted to make an effort to point you to what I "said" to you.

[JohnJ]

Boo Radley: "I'm afraid the MSM used the editorial pages as their safety valve. When Gonzales is let off, after it surfaces that he spied on someone he shouldn't have, they will trot out their editorial. Meantime, they won't report what we need them to."

Thank you. I sometimes get lost on the way to making a point. That was the conclusion I wanted to induce.

[Neil]

David Brooks is: the compassionate conservative stenographer.

Editorial boards should be required to listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly. They won't be letting up for the next six months.

[bmaz]

Phred - I took my best stab at your question; can't say it was a great one, but hopefully a little help. I think cboldt could likely make a better stab at it than I can without reviewing the pleadings. He is pretty good on these wonky questions.

[cboldt]

I took a stab at it too -- but I think it won't be very helpful because I am completely uninformed about the case.

[phred]

Thanks bmaz and cboldt -- just left you a thank you on the other thread, too... I didn't realize how complicated it was. I really wish I was less clueless about the law. Thanks again for your help!

[Sally]

It was a chance to (rightly) beat up the Democrats. The Republics, not so much, although as I remember they were the majority voting for the *#$@ thing.

[cboldt]

Check that thread again, I just left a post that links back to something that I'm sure you'll find interesting. ;-)

[phred]

Wow, that was interesting cboldt... thanks!

[bmaz]

I too have left another probably useless comment. Another month or two and there will be something right in my limited wheelhouse. In the meantime, it sucks feeling stupid....

[JEP]

cboldt;

You seem desperate to defend you argument, I gues we'll have to disagree here.

If you aren't one, I am sorry for the arrogant troll comment, my knee-jerk reaction when someone (anyone) defends or softens torture (no, not Bush's version, the one I believe, that may be the crux of our problem here), even if it was an academic exercise (although I get the feeling you are still justifying it, and not really coming to grips with it) (See final paragraph...)

I tend to use troll whenever someone makes statements that seem to be apoligizing or excusing Bush's lalessness... so if that is not the case, pleas forginvce me.

And I also might use the word arrogant for anyone who would assume they have some right to determine what torture is, when they clearly have not suffered it...

SO, if I was wrong about either label, forgive me.

But here's your own words, "and therefore is not expected to result in protracted (long term) loss of lung function"

if you think a variable like "is not expected to" suggests some sort of solid argument, let me ask you, what if those expetations are just wrong?

"Is not expected to" takse a lot of liberty with the lives of those whoi are the exception to your interesting "rule."

In my opinion, it is torture. You can argue that I am wrong, but you certainly can not suggest that you are absolutely right, your own words offer toomany consolations to certainty for me to give you any due here..

[phred]

bmaz, you are a huge help and I found your follow up reply quite helpful!

My apologies EW, didn't mean to hijack this thread at all, but I seemed to manage it anyway.