Media, Advertising And The Road To Hell

In our previous post, What’s Good For The Political Goose Has To Be Good For The MSM Gander, we asked a simple question:

Consider this: If public officials are subject to scrutiny because they are in a position to influence public policy, then why aren’t journalists subject to the same scrutiny? They too, are in a powerful position to influence the public and public opinion. Should not they too, be subject to the same scrutiny as others that have so much influence?

Those with influence on public opinion ought to be subject to the same scrutiny as those they report on.

Media can and does influence opinion and ideas. Al Qaeda understands that, the dysfunctional Arab world, Iran and the regime of Kim Il Jung in North Korea understands that truth. The Voice of America exists for no other reason than to influence opinion and ideas (Of course, the kinds of ideas clearly differentiate the VOA from the lunatic rantings on display at MEMRI or MEMRI TV).

If media did not clearly and measurably influence opinion and ideas, advertisers would not find media outlets to be of any value. Advertisers utilize media with a single goal in mind. To be succesful, advertisers have to change the way people think or what they believe in. Advertisers spend billions and billions of dollars in the hope that their advertising will change ideas and behavior. Simply stated, if you are loyal to idea or product A, the hope is that enough people will be influenced by media to change their loyalties or beliefs or to buy product B.

As advertising budgets increase with each year, it is clear that advertisers find media a good investment and reliable way to get you to change your beliefs and perceptions.

The same principles applies to news. CNN is successful because it appeals to a certain kind of viewer. CNN is not pleased that Fox News appeals to a different kind of viewer- and is even less pleased that Fox News scores so well in the ratings, by attracting even more viewers (adding insult to injury, CNN has to come to terms with Fox being able to generate even greater advertiser income and revenue).

CNN complains about Fox News and Fox News complains about CNN. Why? In a single word- influence.

If CNN or Fox News were simply news outlets, there would be no discernible difference between them- and yet, clearly, there is.

Bill O’Reilly presents his view, clearly conservative. Anderson Cooper presents his view, clearly liberal. Each of them attempt to influence the meaning of the news or the implications and inferences of the stories they choose to cover. Sometime, they cover the same news and offer up very different spins (while it is true they each are, in reality, infotainers, the line has become blurred, by design, by the MSM- in response to how well they can change opinion and ideas).

We are not advocating journalists not do their job. In fact, we are all for a vibrant and vigorous press, doing what they claim they do. However, as we have noted, we have a right to know exactly who is doing the reporting and what their credibility issues are, if any. This is especially important because most people rely on the media to help form their political identity- and as The Anchoress notes in Iraq: Bloggers “Premature,” Press “Focused” they are perfectly aware of the influence they wield:

I suspect the press relies quite a lot on the fact that most Americans no longer have the attention span of a single news cycle. I find it a little terrifying, frankly.

So, who are the rubes here, the folks in the press who use questionable information and pictures to tell their stories, or the bloggers who check this stuff out at the risk of being called “partisans” (snort! Hello, Kettle? Black!) and being lectured to about making “premature” assertions.

The Anchoress isn’t happy and she spells it out. She takes the MSM out to the woodshed for for blaming bloggers and anyone else in sight for the current state of political affairs. The MSM don’t even have the capacity to look inward. They have created a lot more than a tainted media. They have in fact, created and allowed for a culture and society that has no compunction in calling for theg blood of whomever they disagree with and whio can’t even be bothered to even attempt to hide fraud and deceit, as in the case of the Kerry ‘joke’ as covered by the NYT (H/T The Anchoress). The Anchoress goes on to say

I want our press to be healthy and honest and accountable. [emp-SC&A] Our country will not survive with sick, BDS-infected media that only tells what it wants to tell, instead of what it damn well should. Is it really asking too much?

That plea isn’t as high minded, noble or academic. The McMartin pre school case in California and more recently, the Richard Jewell case in Georgia, are good examples of how media influenced local communities and ruined lives, in the process- and those are only two of the cases we know about.

Shrinkwrapped, too, has an excellent post, What is Reality And Why Does It Matter, in which he examines the role- and influence of media in society.

No one is any longer surprised to find that our MSM, in their heedless pursuit of a “higher truth” have become willing to sacrifice all notions of fairness and objectivity in their reporting. Unfortunately, their “created truth” has real world effects. Opinions based on faulty reporting create facts that have real repercussions.

Clearly, writers and editors can influence opinion. As with advertisers, they would not utilize the media influence if it did not deliver.

It is true that many people can easily discern a writers politics, simply by reading that writer. There are however, bigger issues. The NYT, for example, is selective in correcting errors. Some writers seem to be more ‘error prone.’ Editors choose cropped photos so as to convey a certain idea- when a publishing the entire photo would convey an entirely different impression.

It is common editorial policy to mistranslate certain foreign language words and phrases. Why is that? Who makes that decision?

No doubt many journalists believe their ideas and ideologies are in the best interst of the American people. As true as that is, that is irrelevant to their function as journalists. They are charged with informing the public and no more. If journalists want to editorialize, they need to label their efforts as editorials and not news. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Media influences our understanding of local and national events, every day.

We have the right to know who exactly is influencing our perceptions- just as we have the right to know who it is we select to represent us.

What’s Good For The Political Goose Has To Be Good For The MSM Gander

Recent firestorms over MSM accuracy and credibility are intensifying. No longer centered around doctored documents, photographs and ‘misinformed’ editors, MSM practices and agendas are coming to light. The mighty efforts being expended by the MSM in their own defense and to muffle the questions, are all for naught. They now find themselves defying momentum and other laws of physics. In an ultimate irony, they appear to praying for a miracle.

Journalism and the MSM have long touted themselves as the ‘first line of defense’ of our great democracy, standing up to the deliberate deceit, lies and fraud that might be foisted against us by politicians and others with an agenda of evil. It is another great irony that the MSM have proved to be so adept and comfortable employing those very same tactics of deceit, lies and fraud designed to promulgate an agenda. As we noted yesterday, today’s MSM

…highlights the difference between themselves and Nazi era media outlets. Those German media outlets were forced to report the lies and deceit and of the Third Reich… most of the mainstream media are perfectly happy to report the ‘party line’ and agenda as real news, willingly and without coercion.

Of course, the MSM want to blur the distinction between their actual mission and what they have become. They want to wrap themselves in the noble morals and ethical mantle of a higher calling, all the while engaging in the most base and promiscuous of behaviors. The MSM have become surgeons that happily murder the patient on the operating table, even as they loudly proclaim the Hippocratic Oath, piously repeating the mantra of ‘do no harm,’ in the hope that no one will see their hypocrisy.

As trust in the MSM reaches an all time low, rather than ‘clean their own house,’ the MSM is ever frantically attempting to ‘murder as many patients’ as they can in pursuit of their agenda. There isn’t even a pretense anymore at presenting news as it occurs or fair reporting. The documented decline of prestigious media organizations such as the once great BBC does not go unnoticed or unmourned. A recent BBC investigation into their own reporting highlighted the bias and bigotry that permeates that organization. More importantly, that investigation revealed an ugly truth. BBC reporters and editors did not even have to bother to hide their bigotry or bias.

The MSM have come a long way from their calling and obligations.

Of course, it is understood that elected officials are subject to media scrutiny because they are in a position to influence public policy. It is imperative that as much relevant information as possible be made available to the public so that informed decisions by voters can be made. We put our trust in the Fifth Estate, so much so that journalists are even provided certain constitutional protections. In fact, those constitutional protections afforded journalists are one sided, because we believed that journalists would defend the principles of journalism as an extension of the principles of a healthy democracy. There is no oversight or accountability.

This process can only work effectively if we can trust journalists and the MSM.

Consider this: If public officials are subject to scrutiny because they are in a position to influence public policy, then why aren’t journalists subject to the same scrutiny? They too, are in a powerful position to influence the public and public opinion. Should not they too, be subject to the same scrutiny as others that have so much influence?

Both the print and broadcast MSM regard themselves among the final arbiters on the meaning and motives behind government decisions and policies. Their reporting and editorials are meant to influence readers. Shouldn’t we be aware of who those editors are and what their politics are? If reporters and editors come to certain conclusions, isn’t it appropriate for us to know upon what facts, agendas and ideologies they base those conclusions? Shouldn’t we be aware of their affiliations?

Facing an ever critical population of news consumers, many in the media now concede they are indeed biased- but ever the noble victims they claim that is irrelevant because they are ‘fair.’ If that argument works for reporters, why can’t that be said for politicians? Irrespective of the party of their affiliation, why can’t media agree that politicians too, put the interst of the country ahead of party politics?

What makes reporters and editors so special that only they can have political affiliations or political ideologies and be considered ‘fair’ and ‘honest brokers’?

Clearly, the media will not ascribe to that idea (assigning morality to those they disagree with is something they cannot bring themselves to do). That being the case, why should we believe that the media- whose clear objective is to influence public policy- are somehow able or are even willing to put aside partisan ideologies?

If you are in a position to influence public opinion and public policy, we have the right to know who you are and what influences your beliefs and ideologies. We also reserve the right to judge you by the same standards as you judge others.