The Bias of Bad Reporting

I am a true believer in "new media" and it's effects on politics and campaigns. The popularity of candidates from Barack Obama to Ned Lamont has relied on strong netroots support, and blogs like MyDD and Daily Kos get into the nitty gritty of everything from polls to policy papers. However, despite the educational and informational value of delving into a blog or two, most Americans get their news from either the local or cable news broadcasts. Whatever individual opinions might be about the validity or real news value of these shows, it seems almost impossible to over-estimate the impact of their segments on the general public. I'm not talking about the five minute public interest stories about someone's house exploding (as happened here last week), but their coverage of the D.C. scene- the war, the presidential nominees, Bush's talking points, etc.

News has no need to be biased. There are plenty of spaces, in both new and mainstream media, for opinions to be aired and discussed. It is likely true that many news bureaus tend to lean Democrat in their staff, but it is equally true that good reporters show no personal opinion in their stories. In a perfect world, this would indicate that the news is unbiased. Many watchdog groups, from Media Matters to Crooks and Liars to the ACLU, have documented the conservative slant in our media. But I don't think this is necessarily an indication of a personal conservative bent among writers and newscasters. I think it has a lot more to do with the shoddy quality of journalism in general.

Campaigns of all stripes have sets of "talking points" which they attempt to get out through interviews, press releases, and editorials. Any current president has the ultimate chance to distribute these talking points- daily press conferences, high profile speaking events, etc. It should be no surprise to anyone that the Bush people rally around their talking points, and that these points often offer a version of events that is highly in favor of Republicans. What should surprise us all, on the other hand, is that reporters accept this rhetoric, these talking points, uncritically and serve as a free communications department for the administration.

Case in point, the recent flap over Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria. While an objective view of events might consider the visit of anyone, Republican or Democrat, to Syria as a step in the right direction in terms of foreign policy, diplomacy, and our influence in the Middle East, the conversation surrounding Pelosi's trip has consisted of her decision to wear a head scarf, her right to visit the country in the first place, and the damage of undermining the anti-Syria position of the White House. Republican talking points brought up these issues, and it was a smart, if dishonest, strategy. It was also successful Writing an article about how offensive it was that Ms. Pelosi chose to wear a head scarf, while disregarding the fact that both Condoleezza Rice and the First Lady have both chosen to wear head scarves on visits to the Middle East, is not news, but commentary. Talk of the disruptive politics of her visit, or calling it an attempt to grandstand or undermine Bush, completely ignores that the visiting group also included Republicans and offers no real reporting on the facts of the visit.

Journalism requires research. Imagine. There is a difference between reporting the facts and the analysis of events which comes in editorials. Reporting on events requires knowing something about them in the first place. I can't see how any of the recent reporting on this issue has stuck with the facts, and as such has given the public an incredibly inaccurate view of events. I like to think that being a citizen and a voter requires research as well, but that might be asking too much for many casual observers of politics. However, as most voters are casual observers of politics, stories such as the following demonstrate exactly why Republican talking points have won the day for the past six years.

From Think Progress, via Daily Kos:

This morning, NBC’s Today Show ran a biased segment casting doubt on Pelosi’s Syria trip. Every single question asked by anchor Matt Lauer was framed around conservative talking points. In his first question, Lauer claimed Pelosi has gotten off to a rough start because of criticisms from a baseless Washington Post editorial, Vice President Cheney, and the conservative editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal:

LAUER: Vice President Cheney called Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria "bad behavior," a Washington Post editorial on Thursday called it "counter-productive and foolish," and an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning goes a step further and suggests her trip may actually have been a felony, that it may have violated something called the Logan Act. Tim, is this the way the Democrats wanted to get off the mark in terms of foreign affairs?

With his second question, Lauer asserted that "a lot of people think [Pelosi] messed up on this one," and then asked "what’s the impact for the Democrats overall?" Lauer never mentioned the fact that five Republicans — Reps. Frank Wolf, Robert Aderholt, Joseph Pitts, David Hobson, and Darrell Issa — visited Syria this week.

To wrap up the segment, Lauer suggested that Pelosi may be "seen as usurping presidential power in designing and implementing foreign policy," disregarding Rep. David Hobson’s (R-OH) comments that the Pelosi-led delegation "reinforced the administration’s positions."

This kind of hack reporting has taken place on everything from wiretapping to Walter Reed to the US attorney firings, and it's just plain depressing. While there is certainly no shortage of great reporting to be found all over the web and in news journals like the Atlantic, Mother Jones, or The Nation, it would be nice to see some from our most popular newspapers and t.v. news programs.

See a little less (RED)

Apparently I'm not the only one who feels strongly about the (RED) campaign- check out buylesscrap.org, a site that takes on the (RED) campaign image for image. There you can donate directly to the causes the (RED) campaign supports without consuming more product. They say, reject the notion that "shopping is a reasonable response to human suffering." I say, Amen.

(Hat tip to Stephen)

Seeing (RED)

So unless you live under a rock or are an avid subscriber of AdBusters (in and of itself problematic), you will have certainly heard of the (RED) campaign. While it is essentially, and openly, a "business model" (promoted by a company called The Persuaders, no less!) it does have a manifesto, which you can read here. The (RED) people have joined up with such companies as Apple, the Gap, and Motorola to brand certain items as (RED), which means that when they are purchased some money will go towards buying retroviral drugs for Africans with HIV/AIDS. In the manifesto, the campaigns says the following:

(RED) is not a charity. It is simply a business model. You buy (RED) stuff. We get the money, buy the pills and distribute them. They take the pills, stay alive, and continue to take care of their families and contribute socially and economically to their communities.

If they don't get the pills, they die. We don't want them to die. We want to give them the pills. And we can. And you can. It's easy.

All you have to do is upgrade your choice.

This is vaguely threatening language, and clearly designed to help consumers view their decision to spend $150 on a cell phone feel more like a philanthropic act. But there are more than a couple problems with this. First, this "we want to give them the pills, which is only possible if you consume more products" is patently false. It has been well-established by many health organizations that it wouldn't take much money to fight AIDS in poverty-stricken areas. What holds them back is partially lack of funding, but it's also proprietary medicines, price gouging from pharmaceutical companies, and the pull-back of funding for preventative programs which teach safer sex practices, abolished by the Bush clan. The reason why AIDS drugs never get any cheaper or widespread is because the populations who have AIDS are irrelevant to most of the world. Poor, largely female, African, uneducated. They count on aid groups to deliver medicines to them, because the real money for pharmaceutical companies lies in promoting and developing drugs that stop incontinence, boost virility, or lower the blood pressure of our obese population.

I don't doubt that there are researchers out there who spend their days searching for cures, or that promotion of statins is necessary to recoup R&D spending. But it goes far beyond that. There is certainly a profit-margin for those in the industry, which spreads to doctors, politicians, and shows it's consequences in the sad story of the millions of people, mostly childen, who die ever year from preventable diseases like dysentery and malaria. Why? Because why should anyone bother spending money to manufacture drugs that no one will be able to pay for?

Which brings me back to (RED). The idea has come under fire, particularly for the contrast between the amount of money spent marketing (RED) products and the amounts which they actually contribute to the cause. But, as they say again and again, they are not a charity. They are a business model. The problem is not the idea that one would pay money for something one wants and indirectly donate to a charity. This has been done for AIDS before, through the sales of bracelets and other jewelry, and I'm sure in other marketing ploys as well. But I think there is a difference. When you buy a silver AIDS bracelet, it's a simple silver bangle with a large AIDS ribbon on the side, signifying that this was a purchase with a point.

(RED) products are, in general, the color red, some are not. Some have catchy slogans promoting the idea and selling the cause, others just the logo. But all of them are simply one item in a brand's line which obstentially make the buyer more socially aware, more politically active. But does it? The (RED) manifesto says nothing about educating buyers about the AIDS crisis, or the real solutions and problems which face it. While putting up some Gap billboards which state the number of AIDS deaths per year may shock some, shocking someone into buying a t-shirt to soothe their conscience does nothing to promote either activism or philanthropy, only Gap's sales figures. The AIDS crisis is no secret, nor has it been for years. The issue is not that people are unaware, or that they need Bono and Oprah at the Apple store hawking iPods to goad them into action. The issue is that the problem is "over there," a place where there are so many problems that the genocide and massive rapes in Darfur barely made a blip on the American radar. People may say, well, what can I do? And certainly, there is plenty. But the answers require real thought, a true facing of the way that our values affect the rest of the world, and whether or not we care enough to change it.

There has been a lot of talk since the iPod's takeover of American ears that you see so many people wandering around, white earbuds in, socially tuned out. And whether it's white, black, or (RED), the metaphor stands- it's a band-aid solution, but not for AIDS in Africa. This marketing band-aid attempts to cover America's occasional guilt over consumption and ignorance, but like the iPod, it's best if you turn the music up and close your eyes.

no, virginia, they don't really have herpes.

so i'm actually old enough to remember a time when prescription medicine wasn't advertised on television in hopes that you'll take your desire for the new anti-depressant/statin/bp lowering med to your doctor. apparently this trend causes some confusion among the younger generation, as i learned while watching a valtrex commercial with my step-sister:

her: so do you think these people actually have genital herpes?
me: um, no. they're actors.
her. really?
me: yeah, they're getting paid to talk about it so more people take this medicine.
her: huh.

what followed this exchange was an even more ridiculous conversation about exactly which types of herpes it's ok to make fun of people for having between her and her brother (answer=none), but it left me feeling slightly disturbed that a 13 year old girl might think that all of the people shilling meds, or anything for that matter, on t.v. might really believe the things they're saying and not just be paid actors. i'm not sure if it says something about her age, personal naiveté, or complete lifetime immersion in advertising, but it does seem slightly problematic that kids don't even take commercials with a grain of salt. not giving me a heck of a lot of hope for questioning the media/government/etc as they get older.

generation sheep? i sure hope not. maybe we need to expose them to the power of nancy pelosi's womb.