On Television
In a 1961 speech to the National Association of Broadcasters, FCC Chairman Newton Minnow decried the "vast wasteland" of television programming. He gave notice to the network leadership of his vision of regulating the industry focused on placing the public interest above all others. Compare that to the attitude of the current FCC Chairman, Michael Powell, whose main idea of "regulating" the industry is to remove obstacles to consolidation, and then trust the corporations to police themselves. What we have now is a nearly INFINITE wasteland, controlled by fewer and fewer corporate entities, operated with NO regard for the public interest. Most television programming, including news, is "infotainment" carefully packaged to deliver advertising to its viewers.
I never watch commercial television at home. Since I’ve been in Iraq, however, I’ve been exposed to a lot of TV news, and I don’t like what I see. I’ve noticed a pattern, where one story becomes "it" for several days, with around-the-clock repetition, until it is eclipsed by the next big event. To illustrate this, consider what I’ve seen on CNN International over about the last ten days.
Last weekend, it was "all Fallujah, all the time." This was understandable, as despite President Bush’s claim last May, the upcoming battle would be "major combat." Every report I saw in the days leading up to the assault portrayed it as a military and political necessity, an inevitable step required to stabilize the country. I didn’t hear a peep about the possibility that assaulting this small city might be a strategic mistake or a humanitarian disaster.
As the week and the assault progressed, the television cheerleading continued, and I was reminded of the coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Embedded reporters gave dramatic accounts of firefights, aerial bombardment, and artillery attacks, of insurgents captured and killed, of weapons caches found and destroyed. Exciting stuff - the display of American military might was truly amazing. It was an orderly attack, running very smoothly, almost as if made for TV.
Other news crept in – a sick and dying Arafat, a guilty verdict in the Peterson case, resignations from the Bush administration. But the central story was always Fallujah, and how well things were going there for "our side."
While observing the overwhelmingly positive portrayal of fighting, killing, and dying on TV and in the mainstream corporate media, I also saw stories of a different battle unfolding in the alternative and independent media. This battle featured children bleeding to death from shrapnel wounds because they were afraid to leave their houses to get care. In this battle, the civilian population cowered in what was left of their houses, afraid to stay because of the bombs, afraid to leave because of the snipers. Some stories were not credible, such as reports of A-10 jets "raining cluster bombs on the streets" (cluster bombs, which have a very high dud rate, would not be used in a confined area where friendly troops are fighting). But was this falsehood "enemy propaganda," or was it the hysterical mistake of a terrified innocent person? Which story was true, the antiseptic version seen on TV where only combatants die (but never on camera), or the more graphic and horrifying one in the alternative press? Where was the balance? Why didn’t the TV news show both sides of the story?
As a medium, television is unparalleled in its reach and influence, and it can create or perpetuate public perceptions which may be inaccurate. Most Americans get their news from the major corporate television networks, which in the last decade have gone to great lengths to portray American military actions in a positive light. On TV news, war is usually portrayed as glamorous, noble, and stirring - like an adventure movie, where Americans are always the heroes. Maybe if war were portrayed more accurately – as a dirty, terrifying, and cruel undertaking, where real people just like you and I kill others and are killed, then it wouldn’t be so appealing. Unfortunately, you have to dig deep and winnow a lot of chaff to find that kind of reporting.
The latest development in the Battle of Fallujah is the apparent killing by a U.S. Marine of a wounded, unarmed insurgent, caught on video by an embedded reporter. This is certainly newsworthy, but the way it has been portrayed on TV is illustrative of the excesses of the medium. The clip of the incident was played over and over all night and day long, interspersed with "analysis" by various talking heads. Now this one incident has become "the story," and will occupy center stage until something more dramatic occurs. It is shocking yet fascinating, and playing this clip over and over will doubtless sell lots of advertising.
Television programs exist only to get viewers to watch the commercials. If the programs aren’t entertaining, advertising revenues decline. Television news is primarily entertainment. Turn off the TV, read some alternative or independent news sources, and liberate your mind and your life.
There are no pictures for this post, but here is a timely and relevant article.
I never watch commercial television at home. Since I’ve been in Iraq, however, I’ve been exposed to a lot of TV news, and I don’t like what I see. I’ve noticed a pattern, where one story becomes "it" for several days, with around-the-clock repetition, until it is eclipsed by the next big event. To illustrate this, consider what I’ve seen on CNN International over about the last ten days.
Last weekend, it was "all Fallujah, all the time." This was understandable, as despite President Bush’s claim last May, the upcoming battle would be "major combat." Every report I saw in the days leading up to the assault portrayed it as a military and political necessity, an inevitable step required to stabilize the country. I didn’t hear a peep about the possibility that assaulting this small city might be a strategic mistake or a humanitarian disaster.
As the week and the assault progressed, the television cheerleading continued, and I was reminded of the coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Embedded reporters gave dramatic accounts of firefights, aerial bombardment, and artillery attacks, of insurgents captured and killed, of weapons caches found and destroyed. Exciting stuff - the display of American military might was truly amazing. It was an orderly attack, running very smoothly, almost as if made for TV.
Other news crept in – a sick and dying Arafat, a guilty verdict in the Peterson case, resignations from the Bush administration. But the central story was always Fallujah, and how well things were going there for "our side."
While observing the overwhelmingly positive portrayal of fighting, killing, and dying on TV and in the mainstream corporate media, I also saw stories of a different battle unfolding in the alternative and independent media. This battle featured children bleeding to death from shrapnel wounds because they were afraid to leave their houses to get care. In this battle, the civilian population cowered in what was left of their houses, afraid to stay because of the bombs, afraid to leave because of the snipers. Some stories were not credible, such as reports of A-10 jets "raining cluster bombs on the streets" (cluster bombs, which have a very high dud rate, would not be used in a confined area where friendly troops are fighting). But was this falsehood "enemy propaganda," or was it the hysterical mistake of a terrified innocent person? Which story was true, the antiseptic version seen on TV where only combatants die (but never on camera), or the more graphic and horrifying one in the alternative press? Where was the balance? Why didn’t the TV news show both sides of the story?
As a medium, television is unparalleled in its reach and influence, and it can create or perpetuate public perceptions which may be inaccurate. Most Americans get their news from the major corporate television networks, which in the last decade have gone to great lengths to portray American military actions in a positive light. On TV news, war is usually portrayed as glamorous, noble, and stirring - like an adventure movie, where Americans are always the heroes. Maybe if war were portrayed more accurately – as a dirty, terrifying, and cruel undertaking, where real people just like you and I kill others and are killed, then it wouldn’t be so appealing. Unfortunately, you have to dig deep and winnow a lot of chaff to find that kind of reporting.
The latest development in the Battle of Fallujah is the apparent killing by a U.S. Marine of a wounded, unarmed insurgent, caught on video by an embedded reporter. This is certainly newsworthy, but the way it has been portrayed on TV is illustrative of the excesses of the medium. The clip of the incident was played over and over all night and day long, interspersed with "analysis" by various talking heads. Now this one incident has become "the story," and will occupy center stage until something more dramatic occurs. It is shocking yet fascinating, and playing this clip over and over will doubtless sell lots of advertising.
Television programs exist only to get viewers to watch the commercials. If the programs aren’t entertaining, advertising revenues decline. Television news is primarily entertainment. Turn off the TV, read some alternative or independent news sources, and liberate your mind and your life.
There are no pictures for this post, but here is a timely and relevant article.
posted by Greg at 11/17/2004 10:09:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home