MacKinnon's Screed
» Chron: 2008 could tell the story for powerful Fourth Estate (Doug MacKinnon)
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry over this one. McKinnon makes a number of comical charges that are merely the latest in a 30+ year line of argument that the "media" is out to get Republicans. In McKinnon's case, it's the "monolithic" media that has a "obsessive need to promote exclusively negative stories about Iraq." That's according to an "independent study." I guess it depends on the meaning of the words "exclusively" and "independent."
The study in question is Brent Bozell's Media Research Center. That'd be the same Brent Bozell who was previously an operative for the National Conservative PAC and current co-author of "Whitewash: How The News Media Are Paving Hillary Clinton's Path to the Presidency." If that sounds "independent," I've got oceanfront property in Omaha to sell you. As for the "exclusive" nature of the "monolithic" media's "obsession" ... there seems to be an absence of examples in the MRC study that show 100% negative reporting. Based on McKinnon's distortions, it's safe to classify this op-ed as a screed.
And nevermind that the definition of "media" is far more diverse than McKinnon lets on. It's as if Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and the easily spun Republican blogosphere simply don't qualify as "media."
All that said, why not have some fun with it ...
Iraq, and a strong dislike of this president by many journalists, seem to have caused some to compromise their profession and their principles. Lest we forget, Abu Ghraib, which some former Pentagon colleagues told me was nothing more than a reprehensible "fraternity prank," -- was on our front pages and on our networks for weeks or months. By comparison, how much coverage did the capture, torture, physical mutilation and execution of some of our troops at the hands of the insurgents get? How many U.S. troops were killed by al-Qaida and other terrorists whipped into a frenzy by the nonstop showing of the Abu Ghraib photos and videos?
Where to begin here? McKinnon is genuinely defending the abuses at Abu Ghraib as a fraternity prank? ... on the advise of what "some former Pentagon colleagues told [him]"? ... that such a story doesn't warrant mention in the press? ... or that McKinnon himself fails to quantify his countercharge?
Every failing of the argument of a "liberal media" is on clear display here. And they're laughably obvious. It just remains astounding to me how otherwise intelligent people can fall for this line of reasoning ... repeatedly.
Oh, let's play along...
Let's say the media monolith really exists as a threat.
Of course, we then have to look at some sort of timeline for media consolidation. Where and when did this monolithicalization* begin?
Start at the bottom with small-town newspapers and radio stations: how many of them are still owned by individual citizens? Or even by local partnerships? How many of them are still looked at as services provided (but we'll try to get 'em to break even) rather than as cash cows (every unit has to produce a profit)?
Two things come to mind: deregulation and the last couple decades of deregulation fever. Gee - where did those come from? An anti-bureaucracy sentiment and a trickle-down economic theory - the very things the whiners preach from their bully pulpits.
Pfftt. Next they'll claim that the sun rising in the east doesn't reflect Western values...
*I know. That ain't a word. Yet. But say it to yourself a couple of times, and it begins to just roll off your dancing tongue.