The Shotgun Blog
« More twittering | Main | Time to ban lightning »
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
It's Not Apathy. It's Malpractice.
Via Protein Wisdom - NRO's The Corner does a little media comparison shopping...
For anyone who wants to quibble with the notion that the media favor Kerry, consider this: Since January 1, 2004, here are the number of morning and evening news stories and interview segments the networks have devoted to uncovering the growing United Nations Oil for Food program bribery scandal: four. NBC aired three: a January 15 report by Myers, a July 20 report from Andrea Mitchell, and a Myers story on October 6, when the Duelfer report came out detailing the scam. ABC aired only one this year: from investigative reporter Brian Ross on April 21, the day the UN announced its own internal probe into the scandal. But we found CBS has not aired a single story on the scandal, even when using a list of different search terms in the Nexis search engine trying to find one. Maybe they were hip-deep in phony documents.
Why isn't this a major scandal for the major networks? Despite the nine ongoing probes, the networks would rather chase anti-Bush angles. ABC, CBS, and NBC have combined for more than 75 stories on George W. Bush's National Guard Service, more than 50 stories on "skyrocketing" gasoline prices, and hundreds on prison abuse at Abu Ghraib. All year, Kerry has touted a greater UN and European role in Iraq. Now, those players look like what liberals called "the coalition of the bribed." And the anchormen are keeping quiet. More on the media apathy here.
I'll go out on a limb and state that if you did a search on Canadian media outlets, the ratios would be similar.
But I disagree with Tim Graham on one point - this is not apathy. It's journalistic malpractice. And for once I'd like to see some of those who lurk in the "mainstream media" through these blog discussions (yes, your ip's turn up in our logs) screw up the courage to actually respond in the comments, and attempt to justify why you continue to treat us, the consumers, with such utterly transparent professional contempt.
Posted by Kate McMillan on October 20, 2004 in Media | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834695b9769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It's Not Apathy. It's Malpractice.:
Comments
Why isn't it in the papers?
Covering the Oil For Food scandal in any serious way might lead Canadian reporters to question the entire stupidity and futility of the UN. Which would lead to questions about the credibility of the great heroes of Canadian "soft power" such as Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. Which might lead Canadians to wonder what else these intellectual and moral paragons have been screwing up in the same corrupt but oh-so-moralizing way. Things they have been screwing up closer to home - like the economy, the constitution, the medical system, education, transportation, ...
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2004-10-20 6:56:36 PM
I think there is more at work in certain issues not being reported than sheer bias. Having spent a number of years both writing for National publication and working with Journalists for the NYT, Homemakers Magazine, National Post, Vancouver Sun etc, on trying to bring more pressure to bear on the corruption in the DIA and Indian Band Governments my experience leads me to the following conclusions
1)(scarcity) There are very few actual "investigative journalists" anymore, both in Canada and the US.
Paul Wells has done some pretty excellent stuff - and Vaugn Palmer is just wonderful... but when it comes to actual reporting - they are pretty much IT in Canada. There are a few others, but even they have to cave into pressures from the management and editorial boards.
I'm not sure why this is the case - but that's the cold hard reality.
2(economics) Shrinking budgets,extremely limitted time constraints, and an insatiable desire by the audience for "tabloid journalism" is what drives many a news room.
In my experience, the main reason that these stories are NOT reported is because full-time salaried journalists just don't have the time to work long-range investigative projects. Many journalists whom I have worked with always have some long term project on one particular issue that they are working on - in their own time (what little they have) Many of them are just as frustrated with these constraints as you are Kate.
I don't know a single journalist that doesn't have a book in mind that they want to find the time to write someday on these very issues.
Then there is the issue of audience. I am not sure if you are aware of it - but I believe most editors would tell you, that in order for an article to be accessible it must be written in such a way as it can be understood for the average reading level of about grade 9 or a little lower.
That being said - if there are freelancers out there who CAN do the investigation, and reporting - scrupulously research and report on what you find, there is a wealth of opportunity to get published BECAUSE of the same economic constraints that are limitting newsrooms content. If an enterprising free-lancer invests the time and money in covering some event it most likely will get published.
For instance, I would bet dollars to donuts that those bloggys here who want to see more coverage of these sorts of events were to take it upon yourselves to do the research, submit a concise 1000-1500 word article for publication, you will be able to sell it. I'll do you one better. If somebody out there has an article they have written that qualifies as an investigative journalism piece (not just an opinion article) I would even be willing to broker it to some of my contacts in media on your behalf.
Hell, that's how I got into writing for pay in the first place. Mostly by accident. I did my own research about Indian Affairs and Indian Band Government corruption and then wrote down what I had discovered and then sold those articles to various publications. I was frustrated by the lack of reporting on this issue of Aboriginal Affairs corruption and it's lack of proper attention. I realized that the only way the DIA would respond to anything we did - was to shine a spotlight on them. So - when I couldnt get a staff reporter to cover an event, I covered it.
But the bottom line is - human nature is such that the greater audience (market) for such stories is more obsessed with sordid details of things such as the number of little easter bonnets owned by Jon Benet Ramsey (for instance) than in paperwork financial scandals of big government or the UN.
That's the reality that must be contended with.
Look at Enron and Martha Stewart Coverage. If a newspaper actually were to cover the dry hard facts about such things instead of engaging in tabloidish vilification of Ken Lay or Martha Stewart - they would be risking losing their audience to other publications that will engage in that kind of reporting - because THAT is what Sells. The cold technical facts of these case are seemingly irrelevant in terms of viewer/reader interest.
That being said - if one of you bloggys could come up with a big time Villain in the Oil for Food Scandal, and some tragic victims to splash about -it would become more newsy instanter.
Posted by: MWW | 2004-10-20 11:39:14 PM
One more thing. The most sure-fire way to get editors and reporters interested in some issue is for lots of people to write letters to the editor about the issue. If enough people are clamouring for attention to be paid to some particular event or issue - that makes editors/producers sit up and pay attention to it. It keeps it fresh in their mind when they are considering content. You may not think that LTE do much - but you couldn't be more mistaken. The general rule of thumb that I have heard from editors is "if one person has taken the time to put pen to paper and send us this letter expressing concern, at least 10 people have thought about doing so, and 100 more are interested in the topic".
However - such letters to the editor are highly ineffective if they are nothing but shrill accusations of professional malpractice and misfeasance. Such letters simply more deeply engrain the aversion the editorial room has to the subject and go straight to the round-file.
Posted by: MWW | 2004-10-20 11:45:09 PM
Apparently France, Germany, Russia and China were given written confirmation from Iraq that they would each receive designated amounts of low-cost oil (sometimes dedicated oil fields, at around $10/barrel), if they would vote to lift sanctions against Iraq. We also know that the UN itself profited in the realm of billions of dollars through the oil-for-food scandal. Now do we really need these kinds of "allies" in the war against terrorists and state sponsors of terror?
I encourage everyone to check out the newly released documentary "FahrenHYPE 9/11", a point-by-point rebuttal of the infamous Michael Moore documentary. I have just received my copy (ordered from www.fahrenhype911.com) and watched it this week. It's not as flashy, emotional or as fast-paced as Moore's, but it's very informative and provides a good review of the war.
Posted by: Joel | 2004-10-21 4:26:46 AM
Has anyone else noticed that the Canadian History Channel (not the vastly superior US version) is devoting a large portion of next week's prime time slots to "Bush stole the election/Bush believes in God -- look out!" etc "documentaries"?
http://www.historytelevision.ca/
Isn't one CBC one too many?
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-10-21 6:46:36 AM
"Isn't one CBC one too many?"
Does the History Channel pocket any CDN government money? If not, I don't particularly care what programming they choose to run. The opposite is the case if my tax dollars are involved.
Posted by: Sean | 2004-10-21 7:44:31 AM
The bloggers have been covering Oil-For-Food for a year now, most notably Roger Simon. In addition, the scandal - including the naming of names - is a key part of the recent Dalfour Report. No investigation required - only the ability to read and write.
The media covered that report from a singular angle - "no weapons of mass destruction" - as though it exonerated Hussein and the UN... when in actuality, it stated something quite the opposite.
That's malpractice, and I categorically reject any argument about limited resources. The pattern is too ingrained, too consistant and too one sided to argue that anything other than subversion is in play.
We saw this phenomenon during the Soviet era - soft peddling of Stalin, of communism by a leftist, quasi-sympathetic media machine, and we are witnessing it again.
Posted by: Kate | 2004-10-21 8:26:16 AM
Funny. When Jon Stewart tried to say the same thing about the mainstream news on CNN's Crossfire, everyone jumped all over him . . .
Posted by: j | 2004-10-21 8:27:25 AM
History Television indirectly benefits from Canadian government money in that all of their original programming relies on government film subsidies. I don't know if the station itself gets direct subsidies in addition to this, though, but without government production money, there would be no Canadian programming, which would probably mean no CRTC license.
Posted by: rick mcginnis | 2004-10-21 8:33:59 AM
"That's malpractice, and I categorically reject any argument about limited resources. The pattern is too ingrained, too consistant and too one sided to argue that anything other than subversion is in play."
You can "reject" it all you want. These are the cold hard realities whether you like it or not.
If you doubt it - why not call Jonathan Kay, or Terry Cochrane at the National Post/Financial Post, or Neil Reynolds at the Vancouver Sun, or Vivienne Sznosowski at the Vancouver Province, John Sullivan at the Winnipeg Free Press, or even any of the editors for the National Review - and ask them why they aren't doing more coverage on this issue. Then ask them if - you were to take the initiative and do the research, spend the money and time and effort to write some hard-expose on the matter would they publish it?
Hell - call Fox News and ask them why they aren't doing more on the story. Why not even ask Ezra if he has a few thousand dollars that he would like The Western Standard to spend on research and expenses for a really indepth expose on the UN scandal. Come to think of it - that's a really great idea.
Sorry Kate - but your "catagorical rejection" simply doesn't fly. None of the above mentioned editors or publications are "left-wing ideologues". They have a vested interest in seeing this news get out there, as much as you.
Why aren't they covering it? Because it costs too much, thus far the stories are not really "newsy" enough - i.e. there aren't any salacious details to titilate the audience.
Now if you were to investigate and find some kind of thousand-shoe-fetishist collection akin to Imelda Marcus - or could hype some photos of lavish lifestyles finances by the oil-for-food scandal against a backdrop of the sanctions starving Iraqi children you could definatley get published. You could probably make some good money writing such articles.
But no... you have to resort to the typically Canadian foot-stamping temper tantrum demanding that other people feed you the news that you want, when you want it.. boo hoo.
If these issues are really that important to you - then get up off your bum and do the work yourself.
Create the market for the news articles and go sell it. Then get back to me about your "Catagorical Rejections".
Have you even TRIED to write such hard-news articles and sell them? If not - how do you even KNOW what the hell you are speaking of?
Posted by: MWw | 2004-10-21 9:36:23 AM
Ok Meaghan lets just say tracking down the story is cost prohibitive as you say. Are you suggesting the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek et al dont have enough money?? Where is the reporter who routed out Nixon, supposedly the best investigative reporter in the U.S.?? No money?? Do you really believe that newspapers that wouldnt go after John Kerrys military record or his Vietnam capers or his post-Vietnam senate babble are going to take it upon themselves to investigate the UN, which they cherish as the answer to all the worlds problems. You may even be right that Canadians don't have the resources but that doesnt stop the big American Media. The only media reporting on it is Fox News in the US. Check it out.
Posted by: Mike P | 2004-10-21 10:21:28 AM
Sean, Rick is right. When I visited the History Channel site they boasted of producing more than 200 hours of original programming a year. This means Telefilm gives them money and we fund Telefilm. Not for those very docs, of course, but for whatever else it is they do.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-10-21 10:53:26 AM
"Ok Meaghan lets just say tracking down the story is cost prohibitive as you say."
When it comes to market trends yes, that is what I am saying. Publishers make more money with Tabloid style than hard-news. They get more return in advertising revenues and circulation from such fare. It's not some kind of grand conspiracy - it's simple market forces at work.
"Are you suggesting the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek et al dont have enough money?? "
Newspapers and Magazine publications have declined in circulation and advertising in the past few years. This has forced constraints upon editors and publishers to get maximum profit for least investitute of capital. What I am telling you is that damn few newsrooms will or can allocate the kinds of money needed to do these kinds of investigations in the long run because overall - such reporting (while vital to public interest) is not as profitable as fluff.
"Where is the reporter who routed out Nixon, supposedly the best investigative reporter in the U.S.?? No money??"
Woodward and Bernstein were not highly paid reporters at the time that this story broke. Sy Hersh was freelancing at the time and on to the same story which according to the historical records was part of the reason W&B focussed so hard on it. They were competing with each other to get the fastest coverage.
"Do you really believe that newspapers that wouldnt go after John Kerrys military record or his Vietnam capers or his post-Vietnam senate babble are going to take it upon themselves to investigate the UN, which they cherish as the answer to all the worlds problems. You may even be right that Canadians don't have the resources but that doesnt stop the big American Media. The only media reporting on it is Fox News in the US. Check it out."
There have been exposes about Kerry in the past number of months. Maybe not as much as you would like... but I'm telling you that Media -is- a business. In order for them to have the resources to spend to do the hard-hitting hard-journalism they have to focus on driving viewers, and advertisers to their publication/outlet. Publishers watch the trends vary carefully to see what's selling and creating more revenue for them.
For whatever reason, the public isn't terribly interested in some of the dirt-peddling on Kerry, or Bush for that matter.
I don't know about any of you - but I have personally been in the middle of a media storm, not once but many times over the past number of years.
I have seen how reporters work a story and how editors handle coverage, and been privy to discussions from editors and producers as to some of the reasons certain content is not covered.
The reasons given are always broken down into the following three catagories
1)Too expensive to thoroughly investigate issue/event -- well enough to cover it
2)Too complicated to fit into allocated column space or 1/2 hour slot
3)It's old news - no new angle or hook.
And variations on those themes.
This has been the response from editors/producers from American and Canadian TV,Radio,Print at every level - be it local, regional, national or international.
Know that - if I want to see something get covered more, I have to be sure to pitch stories or columns in such a way that none of these apply.
Anybody can do it. It's not rocket science.
Posted by: MWW | 2004-10-21 11:12:49 AM
It cracks me up every single time when this discussion comes up and conservative types complain about the "media bias" of PRIVATE companies.
It is so out of character with the general belief that a company should be able to do whatever it wants, without outside interference, in order to make a buck.
And if you aren't proposing that someone should "make" these companies be more balanced or cover more conservative news, or whatever, then all you are doing is complaining - about the effects of market forces no less!
The irony drips.
Posted by: bob | 2004-10-21 11:39:46 AM
The key findings of Charles Duelfer's report are here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
It's free.
There has been too much empty, repititive op-ed "reporting" on Iraq and WMD over the pat year to argue that the neglect of Oil-For-Food exposure is due to anything beyond laziness and/or will to do so. In my books, that's malpractice.
Posted by: Kate | 2004-10-21 12:00:13 PM
Again, your malpractice charge implies, no REQUIRES, that you believe that private media companies must report on news in a "balanced", "equal", "fair" way.
How can you possibly say this with a straight face in a forum of The Western Standard?
Market forces created this bias, and only market forces can change them (unless you want to impose balanced reporting!).
Posted by: bob | 2004-10-21 12:10:34 PM
There is a place for bias - it's called the op-ed page. In the reporting of current events, the media must strive to eliminate overt bias or they risk losing not only their credibility, but they put our democratic institutions at risk. There is a reason that circulation figures are in free fall, and it's not because there aren't enough Scott Peterson stories. Survey after survey reveals that the average news consumer is losing confidence in the MSM to relate the facts.
Currently, the practices of many mainstream media outlets travel well beyond bias, to outright dishonest reporting and fabrication.
Posted by: Kate | 2004-10-21 12:45:38 PM
By the way, Bob - go up to my "Blood, Blood, Blood" post and click on the link to Chapman's op-ed for an excellent example of a malicious quote about Paul Bremer, by the LA Times, who only admitted to the "error'" when called out by an Iraqi blogger.
Posted by: Kate | 2004-10-21 1:00:07 PM
I agree with Kate. In the States we generally see the problem originating with J schools. Like everywhere else in academia it is thought that all the 60s radicals who floated into J schools are now the professors.
Now there exists an informal Culture with a general agenda that sees journalists as people with jobs of "making a difference" by "creating change". Investigating particulars with the idea of reporting the facts has diminished as a first priority.
Bernie Goldberg and others have already testified to the overwhelming bias in journalism and in the media. Naturally here in the States we've had a lot more luck with creating alternative voices than we have with changing the elite media.
Posted by: Greg in Dallas | 2004-10-21 1:01:36 PM
Bob, there is no irony here. Private media have the right to report the news anyway they see fit and all of us have the right to criticize them for their inaccuracies or bias. I certainly would not support government getting involved in regulating media content (of course to some extent they already are and that's wrong). There is a clear difference between saying that CBS has a right to be biased and saying that they should be condemned for it. You have the right to lie to me (not to the authorities) and I have the right to challenge you and reveal your lies and help in the effort to discredit you for it.
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2004-10-21 1:42:40 PM
Greg has a good point. Just speaking personally, the young, idealistic journalists I've met or read about want to "change the world". It's like they were too dumb to get into social work, or too short to be Miss America.
All very adorably idealistic, but "Changing the world" has often been accomplished by telling lies "for a good cause." Or at least leaving out the part of the story that doesn't suit or prove your thesis. I rarely hear these kids talk about "truth" and damn the consequences. It is more about working as part of the establishment media, with all its faux cutting edge, eat-your-brocolli progressivism. they think they are "questioning authority" and speaking truth to power when they themselves are working for the Power and don't even realize/admit it. It is like watching New Kids On the Block trying to "rap".
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-10-21 2:37:21 PM
Kate, I'm not saying there isn't bias in the media. I wholeheartedly agree that there is. I'm only saying that, first you can't do anything about it, and second there is nothing wrong with it.
You say that the circulation numbers are in free fall. Great! Presumably this means that some bright person will come up with the idea of providing more balanced news coverage and people will buy that newspaper instead.
By the way, this is a totally non-partisan issue. FoxNews is just as biased as CBS. In fact, the conservative bias of FoxNews is a perfect example of market forces resulting in an alternative to perceived liberal bias at NBC, CBS, etc.
It is naive to believe that the media can be anything BUT biased. What is the alternative? Can you impose balance on a private company?
I can't believe that I'm arguing FOR market forces against conservatives.
Posted by: Bob | 2004-10-21 2:47:37 PM
"I can't believe that I'm arguing FOR market forces against conservatives."
Bob, I don't think I read any conservative commentators on this thread arguing that someone should force these news media outlets to change their reporting. We would like them to be more open and fair, and we ridicule them for being blind and prejudiced. The main thing we are advocating is to weaken the power of the federal government so that more freedom and more competition can enter our media.
As I think I have posted elsewhere in this or one of its blog cousins, I don't think that the major media outlets in Canada are all that "private" or "independent" of government control. Do you remember Russell Mills?
The "private" media are little more than creatures of the Liberals, because their broadcasting operations are at the same time protected by and under the thumb of the CRTC. And their publishing arms are subsidized and/or protected from American competition, under the laughable notion that Canadian culture is extremely valuable, yet so fragile that the people who *own* the culture cannot be trusted to patronize and participate in it of their own free will.
And the CBC do not resemble a private or independent media outlet in any way at all. To me they look and sound like a bunch Liberal toadies, because they know their survival is at stake - let the Barbarians in the door, get privatized, and there go your fantastic union perks, your huge budgets, your ironclad job security, and your whole "government is my daddy" worldview.
I should add that I realize there are a lot of smart and dedicated people working in the media who try to do the best job they can, despite "the system" that they work in.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2004-10-21 6:29:28 PM
"There is a place for bias - it's called the op-ed page. In the reporting of current events, the media must strive to eliminate overt bias or they risk losing not only their credibility, but they put our democratic institutions at risk." - sez Kate
Exactly how big is the market for information about the Iraqi Oil-for-Food Scandal? Would you care to hazard a guess? How bout the market for your opinions and efforts at journalism - Kate?
Or if you don't know the answer to that question - let me try to make it even simpler. How much money are people or companies willing to pay you to blather on?
How much revenue has your blog generated for you?
How many articles have you written and sold?
Do you really believe that multi-billion dollar companies should abandon their profitable efforts in business and adopt the "blog for free" approach? Well - you can believe it all you want - but it's never going to happen.
Do you not understand that your complaints are little better than marxists prattling on about the labour theory of value.
Your comments amount to little more than:
"Boo Hoo - the market won't supply me with what I want. Ergo the suppliers of news are corrupt and lazy people who don't deserve to be in business"
They do deserve to be in business because they ARE in fact meeting a demand for their services and products. They aren't meeting your demands - but they have no moral obligation to do so.
Media is not a charity, nor is it a non-profit enterprise. It's a business. Media businesses have no moral obligation to "protect democratic institutions" or in fact do anything but supply their products and services to willing customers and consumers.
If they lose credibility by engaging in false reporting or slanted coverage then that's tough beans for them. The market will eventually correct the situation - as it currently is (per declining circulation and advertising revenues).
Your problem is that it's not happening fast enough to your liking, and you aren't interested in doing more than complaining about the current market, instead of capitalizing on the opportunities to provide better content and services to customers and consumers.
If you really believe in what you are saying - then why don't you waste several million dollars of your own money (like Conrad Black) and go into the media business to promote your values and style of journalism.
Posted by: MWW | 2004-10-21 8:37:03 PM
Meaghan - there is no question you cannot answer for yourself, by simply working on your reading comprehension. Of course, that would deprive you of the excuse to post largely irrelevant rants....
Posted by: Kate | 2004-10-21 10:27:44 PM
"there is no question you cannot answer for yourself" --
I'll take that as a ZERO then - in response to my question about how valuable your writing is to the market.
Posted by: MWW | 2004-10-22 1:17:18 AM
One last chance Meaghan: Re-read the original post. As often as it takes. Go slowly. Read each word and make sure you understand it. Read out loud if you have to. Use your dictionary. There is one word in particular that you need to look up: "consumer".
That said, my expectations are not high.
Posted by: Kate | 2004-10-22 9:01:14 AM
"One last chance Meaghan: Re-read the original post." --
One last chance or what? You will edit my comments to make it look like I agree with you? That's a laugh, when you are complaining about lies and deception, malpractice and malfeasance by those who practice the journalistic craft.
So - you aren't interested in doing anything to solve the problem - and generate more of a market for the news that you want to read.... and in typically Canadian Fashion, you just want to whine and bitch and demand that other people provide you with what you want, when you want it.
You know - when I go to a restaurant and the food is bad, or the service is poor, I generally make a quick complaint to management, and if it's not resolved - I take my business elsewhere. Go then, and do likewise you silly ninny. All the caterwauling and indignation in the world isn't going to change a damn thing. If you aren't interested in lifting a finger, or spending the resources to correct the problem - why should publishers or journalists be?
I've pointed out the FACTS of REALITY that the media has to contend with in providing news. It's clear that unbiased reporting is obviously not a real value to you - or you would be spending YOUR money and your time to do what you demand that MSM does.
But thanks for admitting that you yourself are not a journalist. That makes things very very clear... doesn't it.
Posted by: MWW | 2004-10-23 12:49:31 PM
Again, Meaghan, at the risk of sounding repetitive...- it may be that you are burdened with limitations that make it impossible for you to understand how little sense you make.
I have never said that I am a journalist. Why you would "thank" me for "admitting" this is just further evidence that supports the preceeding paragraph.
That said (and expectations suitably lowered) .... why do you read blogs at all, when one of their most demonstrably powerful functions has been to challenge and correct erronious and dishonest news reporting? I'm certainly not alone - why aren't you over at Powerlineblog (of CBS memogate fame) sharing your "FACTS of REALITY" with them? For that matter, why aren't you sending missives to NRO's the Corner, where the majority of the quote originates?
Why limit yourself to the lowly Shotgun? Think big, girl.
Posted by: Kate | 2004-10-23 1:15:01 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.