That may be the wrong question. The “MSM” – while remarkably uniform in many respects – is actually a collection of individuals. There is no “thing” known as the MSM with a single body, mind and soul. There are only individuals. So let me rephrase the question.
What should the people who produce the news consider to be their responsibility regarding terrorism? My overarching answer is to act ethically. To act ethically in the information business is to present facts in such a way that those who receive those facts understand what happened.
To do that you need context. Lack of context is what you get from the much derided “used car salesman” or from Dick Durbin. One will tell you what a creampuff “this little beauty” is, guaranteed to run … neglecting to add: "until it leaves the lot." The other will tell you that the Gulag, Nazi death camps or the Cambodian killing fields were just like Gitmo with the air conditioning dialed to the wrong temperature.
What is it about the ethics of the people who bring us the news? Why do those who shout most loudly about their superior “journalistic ethics” are widely perceived as having the most base morals? Of operating in an ethical vacuum?
Which brings me to Daniel Henninger’s column in the Wall Street Journal of June 17, 2005: Terrorism for Everyman.
As far as I can tell, this is the recent news out of Iraq:
Yesterday: "Six U.S. Servicemen Die in Iraq Violence."
Wednesday: "Surge of Violence Leaves 52 Dead in Iraq."
Monday: "Iraq-Bombing Update: Additional Bombings, Death Toll 10."
It is possible to extend this headline exercise of Iraq news to the horizon. As a physical principle no less established than the second law of thermodynamics, U.S. opinion polls in June outputted these headlines and stories:
June 12: "A Growing Public Restlessness: The June [Post-ABC News] survey found that 58% of its 1,002 respondents now disapprove of the way Bush is handling both the economy and the situation in Iraq.
June 11, AP: "Only 41% said they support Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, also a low-water mark." The "war," of course, extends no further than these bombing reports.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the maestro of the Iraqi civilian slaughterhouse, has produced a steady shower of human blood, and as often happens, blood has been a public-opinion downer. Perhaps in his next life al-Zarqawi can come back as an American marketing consultant. Having established there is a U.S. market for American-associated death in Iraq, such as the front page of the Yahoo! news portal, al-Zarqawi is supplying it with daily product. The up-or-down polls he reads are his profit-and-loss statement.
He concludes:
Little wonder, then, that our own news coverage of these repeated slaughters of civilians in Iraq also lacks any normative or moral context unfavorable to the perpetrators. And little wonder that in such a world the only "side" many people in the U.S. feel comfortable with is heading for the exits.
No comments:
Post a Comment