News media falling short in watchdog role, critics say

[babylonsister]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16863000.htm

News media falling short in watchdog role, critics say
By Matt Stearns
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - It was a big week for accountability in Washington.

Military leaders had to explain to Congress how they let war veterans fester in moldy, roach-infested buildings at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted on perjury and obstruction charges.

But there's another Washington institution that many say needs an accountability moment: the news media.

In both events, experts say, the country would have been better served if big news outlets had taken a more aggressive watchdog attitude. The Libby case especially illustrates that too many elite members of the media are more interested in cultivating Washington power brokers than in maintaining skeptical, independent and arms-length relationships with them, challenging their assertions and holding them to account for their failings.

The consequences can be enormous: The country went to war in Iraq on false or exaggerated evidence trumpeted by anonymous sources through compliant media. And U.S. forces have been at war since 2001, but only in 2007 did the Walter Reed abuses come to light, as the elite media ignored earlier reports from smaller outlets, such as the online magazine Salon, rather than credit and build on them.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media was not paying attention," Celia Viggo Wexler, the vice president of the civic-reform group Common Cause, wrote in an opinion article this week.

During the Libby trial, reporters for The New York Times, NBC News and other major news outlets testified about their willingness to grant Libby anonymity in exchange for listening as he spun stories intended to undermine the credibility of a Bush administration critic. To many Americans, it seemed to confirm that in Washington, big media names are sometimes partners in power with the officials they're supposed to be holding accountable.

more...

[papau]

1. 7 years into the lapdog/cheerleader role for GOP/Bush we say "watchdog" w/o laughing? n/t

n/t

[blm]

10. That watchdog hasn't barked against the fascists in 10 years.

It took a fockin' category FIVE hurricane to blow back against the corpmedia's years of category five spinning for BushInc.

[bryant69]

2. The media is lazy and tends to favor the values of the upper class

I don't know how you solve the problem other than by watching the watchers.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[tanyev]

3. Oh, ya think?

:banghead:

[malaise]

4. I was going to write duh but

then I recognized the critical role of the new media - blogs and Websites like DU. MSM is a waste of time.

[Atman]

5. Before the howling about the term "Mainstream Media" starts...

This article actually points out what the term means and why it is, in fact, correct to refer to the usual suspects as "the mainstream media," or MSM. That term bunches the panties of many here on DU, saying the traditional news outlets aren't "mainstream" at all. But they are. They are the main stream of information dissemination for most of America. This article points out who helped break one of the key stories of this war, the Walter Reed scandal; Salon.com, hardly the "mainstream" media. It's a new world, and basically this article is calling the "mainstream media" into account for being compliant lapdogs while the online media have become the new watchdogs.

The mainstream media, especially print/newspapers, is in a death spiral of its own making. They're still hugely profitable, don't let all the layoffs, circulation reductions and whining fool you -- newspapers are incredibly profitable. But that is because they no longer do "news," they've largely become entertainment rags with one section of actual current affairs in them, as they continue to cater to the lowest common denominator. They don't lay off the human interest reporters, because they're largely interns and newbies anyway. They shut down their news divisions. Then wonder why we go to places like Salon.com for "news."

.

[babylonsister]

9. Thanks, Atman, for actually

reading it! I know DUers have knee-jerk reactions to the term MSM, as I do, but the distinction they're making is important.

And speaking of Salon, here's Mark Benjamin's latest on Walter Reed. Well worth a read, but I am apparently one of the few that think so.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3152215

[mmonk]

6. One of the reasons impeachment is imperative IMO

is the loss of an informative fourth estate.

[mloutre]

7. Well, here's at least one grass-roots way to separate the wheat from the chaff

At the risk of seeming to blog-flog another post, I just finished putting up a thread on a trustworthy-news-media item right before I clicked in to read this OP and it seems like it dovetails serendiptiously -- so rather than rewrite it as a comment here, I'll just include the x-link and you can either check it out there or not as you see fit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=375448&mesg_id=375448

[Mind_your_head]

8. Someone on NPR radio brought up a good point today as well

The news organizations mis-use their money when they pay big bucks for names like Katie Couric to be an anchor rather than directing the huge sum of money to well, NEWS GATHERING! I know that's only a piece of the problem, but it does play a role.

(sorry don't know who it was that said this, kinda tuned in at the middle/end of the segment).

[Mind_your_head]

11. kickety

:kick:

[Coexist]

12. it took long to figure this out?!

omg.

ugh.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Ya think?!