October 17, 2004
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a historian and scholar of journalism and media systems. I have written or edited eleven books, and have had my work translated into 14 languages. I have taught journalism students for the past 16 years at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and now at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I am also a practicing journalist. I published a monthly magazine in Seattle in the 1980s and currently host a weekly hour-long program on journalism and media issues on WILL-AM, the NPR affiliate in eastern Illinois. The show is titled “Media Matters with Bob McChesney.” It will be syndicated nationally in 2005.
With all of this experience in practicing and studying journalism, I have been concerned by the way in which Democracy Now has been characterized as “advocacy journalism” or in some manner less professional than the journalism produced by NPR or much of the commercial news media. The implication or insinuation is the Democracy Now! is more interested in pushing a political agenda than mainstream – it is partisan – and therefore must not be regarded in the same light as NPR or most mainstream commercial news.
The perception is understandable, but it is dead wrong. Please let me explain.
Much of what is considered professional journalism in the United States is rigorously committed to being neutral politically, and providing a forum for those in power to debate each other on the issues of the day. If those in power, leading Republicans and Democrats, are debating an issue – say, for example, abortion rights – then journalism can appear combative as it reports the views of the contrasting sides. But if those in power do not disagree on an issue, or elect not to debate it, then contemporary professional journalism is severely hamstrung. It provides no opposition to the official story; if journalists elect to challenge what those in power agree upon they are accused of being “ideological” and pushing their own agenda. It is a terrible thing for a professional journalist to be accused of. It is, for example, one of the main reasons the press coverage of the build-up to the invasion of Iraq was so deplorable and unsatisfactory.
This version of professional journalism was not “natural.” In fact, it was the result of a decades long process in the first half of the twentieth century when journalists, editors and publishers grappled with how to establish a credible journalism that did not appear to simply promote the political views of the owners, as had been the practice in the first 125 years of the Republic. It was one thing to have partisan journalists when newspaper markets were highly competitive and a wide range of views would be present, but quite another thing to have stridently partisan journalism in the increasing number of one and two newspaper towns by the 20th century. The struggle for professional journalism was born.
It reached a head in the 1930s. Leading U.S. journalists like Heywood Broun and George Seldes argued that democracy required a truly independent journalism that did not simply reflect what official sources said and provide a forum for their debates. They did not want a partisan journalism but rather a journalism that saw itself as representing the broad interests of the people in constant pursuit of the truth. All people in power, all official sources, were to be regarded with skepticism. The vision of Broun and Seldes – and embodied in the journalists union they formed, The Newspaper Guild – was for a journalism rigorously committed to research and investigation and enlightenment, not to pontification.
Press owners were not enthralled with this type of journalism, nor were some journalists. It put the newspaper in constant hot water with the powers-that-be and that was not good for business. Also the owners themselves were part of the power structure and not especially interested in such a rigorous application of journalism. By the 1940s the more modest version of professional journalism was ascendant.
But the other version remained alive on the margins. Its greatest practitioner in the postwar years was I.F. Stone, the legendary reporter and editor of I.F. Stone’s Weekly, who broke scores of major stories that professional journalists never touched. Stone could never do his work with a conventional newspaper; it was considered far too controversial. But Stone never carried water for any political party of the movement; he was simply unsparing in his critical reporting on those in power. By the end of Stone’s life, and certainly today, Stone is considered one of the greatest journalists in U.S. history and arguably the greatest journalist of the second half of the twentieth century.
What Broun and Seldes promoted, what I.F. Stone did, is exactly what Democracy Now does. It is not partisan journalism. In fact, Democrats get the same treatment as Republicans. Ask Bill Clinton. I have no doubt that if Ralph Nader or John Kerry were in power, Democracy Now would subject them to the same critical analysis as it does George W. Bush. It is not unsubstantiated pontificating. It is very hard research on very serious issues concerning affairs of the state. It is roundly taught in journalism schools as precisely what journalism must do if we are to have a bona fide self-governing political system. As the great journalist Richard Reeves put it, real journalism is stuff we need to know to keep our freedom. That is Democracy Now in a nutshell.
If one understands Democracy Now in this tradition, we can see why it is also so controversial. People in power don’t tend to like it. But since when is that the yardstick of journalism, unless the country in question is a banana republic? If the reports it produces are filled with errors and misrepresentations, that is one thing. But no one makes that claim about Democracy Now. Its standards for factual accuracy equal or triumph mainstream news.
In this light, the occasional effort to characterize Democracy Now as the liberal version of right-wing talk radio or Fox News Channel is nonsensical. Right-wing talk show hosts do not do journalism. They simply bloviate opinions, and, invariably, conservative Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats can do no right. The programs are shameless. The better comparison for right-wing talk radio might be Air America. It is admittedly devoted to Democrats. But at the same time, as one who has listened to Air America, it has a much stronger commitment to factual accuracy and intellectual consistency. It is not shameless.
In short, Democracy Now is an extraordinary and necessary addition to the media diet of Americans. It is a superb complement to other news sources, such as NPR. The Democracy Now audience has mushroomed over the past two years because people who treasure Democracy Now and who treasure public life respond well to what it has to offer.
Please contact me if you wish to discuss the matter further.
Sincerely,
Robert W. McChesney
Research Professor
217-344-1545
rwmcces@uiuc.edu
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
"Democracy Now!" looks at "War Made Easy," by Norman Solomon
Our group here in Athens wants the local public radio station, WOUB, to include Democracy Now! in its weekly programming. We think that there is a need here for broadened news coverage that reflects another perspective, that offers a different interpretation of the news, and that covers stories that are not covered by public radio.
With this in mind, I watched Democracy Now! today (though I had the option of listening to it), and, after the headlines, the program focused on Norman Solomon's new DVD, War Made Easy. It's based on his book by the same name. There is not much on public radio and television in the DVD - or the book - but what there is doesn't make me confident that they can always be counted on to capture the real or full picture.
Well into Solomon's video, there is a short segment from an interview with Jim Lehrer in which Lehrer admits that his program, The Lehrer News Hour, never thought to question the administration's rationale for invading and occupying Iraq. They just went with the media flow, along with Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
This implies, I think, that, for example, they uncritically accepted the fallacious testimony that Colin Powell gave at the U.N. in February of 2003. In his book, Solomon writes that "Powell's star turn at the United Nations elicited an outpouring of media adulation. In the process of deference to Powell, many liberals were among the swooners (p. 45). As Solomon's video establishes, Lehrer admitted to being one of the swooners. Democracy Now! remained critical, though few people had the opportunity to watch or listen to its criticisms. We all would have benefited from the information and critical perspective that Democracy Now! brought to its coverage of the pre-invasion news on Iraq.
In the book, Solomon also gives some examples of how NPR was also among the swooners, as it covered the early months of the war in a way that did little to help listeners to understand and become informed citizens on events in Iraq. Here's two examples:
"News stories about [Jessica] Lynch swiftly approached flood stage. On Wednesday, the Baltimore Sun devoted more than a thousand words to Lynch in a page-one article datelined from her hometown of Palestine. The next morning, National Public Radio did its bit by interviewing Lynch's kindergarten teacher, and correspondent Wade Goodwyn closed his report by declaring: 'For the family and friends of those who are held prisoner or who are missing in action, the advance of the American Army toward Baghdad cannot go fast enough" (206)
"A year after the invasion, Marine Corps spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Rick Long told a University of California symposium: 'The reason we embedded so many journalists is that we wanted to dominate the information environment." (Solomon that describes how reporters from an NPR affiliate was embedded and did nothing to raise questions about the validity of the U.S. occupation.) Solomon continues:
"...the National NPR program All Things Considered aired an on-the-scene description from Eric Niiler, a reporter with member station KPBS who was accompanying the 1st Marine Division as it fought to gain control of Fallujah. The report was more stenographic than journalistic. His first words were: "What I understand from the commanders here...." And his account of events seemed to be largly based on statements by those he later referred as 'Marine commanders here.' To the casual listener, it might have sounded like Niiler was actually a Marine himself, as when he began his response to a question from the NPR anchor by saying, 'Well, what's happened is that in the areas where we patrolled today, it's really very quiet.'"
On the basis of these few examples, public radio and television offered little counter-spin to the administration's early celebration of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. How many more examples are there of NPR just reporting the official line at critically important junctures in hugely important news events? We need Democracy Now! to provide critical balance - and independence - in our media news coverage.
Bob Sheak
With this in mind, I watched Democracy Now! today (though I had the option of listening to it), and, after the headlines, the program focused on Norman Solomon's new DVD, War Made Easy. It's based on his book by the same name. There is not much on public radio and television in the DVD - or the book - but what there is doesn't make me confident that they can always be counted on to capture the real or full picture.
Well into Solomon's video, there is a short segment from an interview with Jim Lehrer in which Lehrer admits that his program, The Lehrer News Hour, never thought to question the administration's rationale for invading and occupying Iraq. They just went with the media flow, along with Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
This implies, I think, that, for example, they uncritically accepted the fallacious testimony that Colin Powell gave at the U.N. in February of 2003. In his book, Solomon writes that "Powell's star turn at the United Nations elicited an outpouring of media adulation. In the process of deference to Powell, many liberals were among the swooners (p. 45). As Solomon's video establishes, Lehrer admitted to being one of the swooners. Democracy Now! remained critical, though few people had the opportunity to watch or listen to its criticisms. We all would have benefited from the information and critical perspective that Democracy Now! brought to its coverage of the pre-invasion news on Iraq.
In the book, Solomon also gives some examples of how NPR was also among the swooners, as it covered the early months of the war in a way that did little to help listeners to understand and become informed citizens on events in Iraq. Here's two examples:
"News stories about [Jessica] Lynch swiftly approached flood stage. On Wednesday, the Baltimore Sun devoted more than a thousand words to Lynch in a page-one article datelined from her hometown of Palestine. The next morning, National Public Radio did its bit by interviewing Lynch's kindergarten teacher, and correspondent Wade Goodwyn closed his report by declaring: 'For the family and friends of those who are held prisoner or who are missing in action, the advance of the American Army toward Baghdad cannot go fast enough" (206)
"A year after the invasion, Marine Corps spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Rick Long told a University of California symposium: 'The reason we embedded so many journalists is that we wanted to dominate the information environment." (Solomon that describes how reporters from an NPR affiliate was embedded and did nothing to raise questions about the validity of the U.S. occupation.) Solomon continues:
"...the National NPR program All Things Considered aired an on-the-scene description from Eric Niiler, a reporter with member station KPBS who was accompanying the 1st Marine Division as it fought to gain control of Fallujah. The report was more stenographic than journalistic. His first words were: "What I understand from the commanders here...." And his account of events seemed to be largly based on statements by those he later referred as 'Marine commanders here.' To the casual listener, it might have sounded like Niiler was actually a Marine himself, as when he began his response to a question from the NPR anchor by saying, 'Well, what's happened is that in the areas where we patrolled today, it's really very quiet.'"
On the basis of these few examples, public radio and television offered little counter-spin to the administration's early celebration of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. How many more examples are there of NPR just reporting the official line at critically important junctures in hugely important news events? We need Democracy Now! to provide critical balance - and independence - in our media news coverage.
Bob Sheak
Monday, May 28, 2007
Readings From Howard Zinn's "Voices of a People's History of the United States"
On Memorial Day Democracy Now spends the hour with readings from a Voices of a People's History of the United States edited by historian Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove. It is the companion volume to Zinn's legendary People's History of the United States - which has sold over a million copies.
You will hear dramatic readings of speeches, letters, poems, songs, petitions, and manifestos. These are the voices of people throughout U.S. history who struggled against slavery, racism, and war, against oppression and exploitation, and who articulated a vision for a better world.
Performances include Danny Glover as Frederick Douglass, Marisa Tomei as Cindy Sheehan, Floyd Red Crow Westerman as Tecumseh and Chief Joseph, Sandra Oh as Emma Goldman and Yuri Kochiyama, and Viggo Mortensen as Bartolomeo de Las Casas and Mark Twain.
In other words, no great speeches by Generals, or worse, Presidents.
Smiddie
You will hear dramatic readings of speeches, letters, poems, songs, petitions, and manifestos. These are the voices of people throughout U.S. history who struggled against slavery, racism, and war, against oppression and exploitation, and who articulated a vision for a better world.
Performances include Danny Glover as Frederick Douglass, Marisa Tomei as Cindy Sheehan, Floyd Red Crow Westerman as Tecumseh and Chief Joseph, Sandra Oh as Emma Goldman and Yuri Kochiyama, and Viggo Mortensen as Bartolomeo de Las Casas and Mark Twain.
In other words, no great speeches by Generals, or worse, Presidents.
Smiddie
Saturday, May 26, 2007
OU student featured on Democracy Now!
The following DN! report featured OU journalism graduate student Marshall Thompson, on his return from Iraq.
"Army reservist Sergeant Marshall Thompson spent a year in Iraq working as a military journalist. He reported from across Iraq, interviewing thousands of US soldiers. Now back home in his native Utah, he is planning a 500-mile walk across the state to protest the war and call for a withdrawal of US troops." [read full story]
"Army reservist Sergeant Marshall Thompson spent a year in Iraq working as a military journalist. He reported from across Iraq, interviewing thousands of US soldiers. Now back home in his native Utah, he is planning a 500-mile walk across the state to protest the war and call for a withdrawal of US troops." [read full story]
Bill Moyers, on why "Democracy Now!" should be on the public airwaves
"BUT THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT. Something else you can do. And I'm going to let you in here on one of my fantasies. Keep it to yourself, if you will, because fantasies are private matters, and mine involves Amy Good man. But I'll just ask C-Span to bleep this out. Oh, shucks what's the use. Here it is. In moments of revelry, I imagine all of your returning hometo organize a campaign to persuade your local television station to start airing Democracy Now! I can't think of a single act more likely to remind people of what public broadcasting should be, or that this media reform conference really means business. We've got to get alternative content out there to people, or this country is going to die of too many lies. And the opening rundown of news on Amy's dailed show is like nothing else on any television, corporate or public. It's as if you opened the window in the morning and a fresh breeze rolls over you from the ocean. Any doesn't practice trickle-down journalism. She goes where the silence is, and she breaks the sound barrier. She doesn't buy the Washington protocol that says the truth lies somewhere in the spectrum of opinion between the Democrats and the Republicans.
"On Democracy Now! the truth lies where the facts are hidden, and Amy digs for them. And above all, she believes the media should be a sanctury for dissent, the Underground Railroad tunneling beneath the plantation. So go home and think about it. After all, you are the public in public broadcasting and not just during pledge breaks. You live there, and you can get the boss man at the big house to pay attention."
Bill Moyers (January, 2007)
[read speech on the Democracy Now! web site]
"On Democracy Now! the truth lies where the facts are hidden, and Amy digs for them. And above all, she believes the media should be a sanctury for dissent, the Underground Railroad tunneling beneath the plantation. So go home and think about it. After all, you are the public in public broadcasting and not just during pledge breaks. You live there, and you can get the boss man at the big house to pay attention."
Bill Moyers (January, 2007)
[read speech on the Democracy Now! web site]
Friday, May 25, 2007
Local Democracy Now Group First Meeting -- my notes/thoughts
I. Our goal -- To broaden WOUB’s coverage by including Democracy Now an hour-long program five days a week. Broaden can mean one or two things:
1) Immediate contacts with WOUB
4) Start a letter-writing effort
* The risk here is that you antagonize current supporters
III. There may some in our group who would like the group to be more direct and confrontational in our approach to the goal of getting WOUB to incorporate DN into its programming. If there is such a position, I think we should discuss its merits and risks and not simply dismiss this approach or any other.
In a quick search for books on NPR this morning, I identified two that may be of interest to some of us. I’m not sure I’ll bother to read them myself.
Micheal P. McCauley, NPR: The Trials and Triumphs of National Public Radio ($31.35)
Jack W. Mitchell, Listener Supported: The Culture and History of Public Radio ($39.95)
===========
Bob Sheak
- A news program with a different perspective on the same or similar news items somewhat ideological
- A news program with different stories than are typically covered on WOUB’s regular news programming
1) Immediate contacts with WOUB
- Make a request
- Get an initial response
- Follow up contacts
- Think of ways to respond to their rejection or postponement i.e., what are our reaons/rationale
- Possibly seek out a Community Advisory Board person to talk to
- Continue honing reasons/rational
- A blog in which members can pass on their ideas; examples of DN’s program; examples of how DN handles particular issues/topics different from WOUB….
- Student tutorials directed at DN, WOUB, or related issues.
- Specific projects for members e.g., looking up some of Bill Moyers’s speeches and identifying what he says, if anything, about NPR and Democracy Now
- Generally, looking for articles that discuss/criticize NPR and/or Democracy Now, in order to deepen our knowledge about the two broadcast systems.
4) Start a letter-writing effort
* The risk here is that you antagonize current supporters
III. There may some in our group who would like the group to be more direct and confrontational in our approach to the goal of getting WOUB to incorporate DN into its programming. If there is such a position, I think we should discuss its merits and risks and not simply dismiss this approach or any other.
In a quick search for books on NPR this morning, I identified two that may be of interest to some of us. I’m not sure I’ll bother to read them myself.
Micheal P. McCauley, NPR: The Trials and Triumphs of National Public Radio ($31.35)
Jack W. Mitchell, Listener Supported: The Culture and History of Public Radio ($39.95)
===========
Bob Sheak
Let's Get Started
So, who wants better media? I can tell you about one group of people who met this morning at Donkey Coffee in Athens, Ohio to talk about how to get better media, starting right here in Athens.
But first things first. Last Wednesday (May 16, 2007) the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism hosted the "Media Consolidation and Media Reform" conference (see the Web site). It was an important part of the discussion, and part of a national conversation on media reform.
At about the same time that students in the school were organizing this conference, a group of folks in the community were asking the question: why can't we get the broadcast program "Democracy Now!" on our public airwaves in southeast Ohio?
Today, these two groups came together to meet each other, to talk about the goals and issues at hand, and to see if there might be a way to move the common goals of the students and community members forward. One of the outcomes of that meeting was this group blog, which we've established to move the conversation forward, and into the public sphere. Anyone interested in being part of this conversation is welcome to join the group blog, and we encourage everyone to read it, post comments, questions, etc. We'll delete span posts, but otherwise we'll try to leave all posts as they are. Any change in that policy will be discussed and explained.
Our first goal is to get Democracy Now! onto the local airwaves, so that folks without Internet access can hear what we think is an important program. We're hoping to meet with the WOUB honchos to find out what we need to do to "make the case." We'll also be posting comments on this blog on a regular basis, comparing "DN!" coverage to other public broadcasting coverage. If you want to be part of this effort, simply add a comment of your own.
Oh yeah, a bit about me: I'm the administrator of this blog, and a faculty member in the School of Journalism at Ohio University (since 1987). I teach in the online journalism sequence in the school and am the director of the school's Institute for International Journalism. You can reach me at stewartr@ohio.edu.
Now, let the conversation continue.
Bob Stewart
But first things first. Last Wednesday (May 16, 2007) the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism hosted the "Media Consolidation and Media Reform" conference (see the Web site). It was an important part of the discussion, and part of a national conversation on media reform.
At about the same time that students in the school were organizing this conference, a group of folks in the community were asking the question: why can't we get the broadcast program "Democracy Now!" on our public airwaves in southeast Ohio?
Today, these two groups came together to meet each other, to talk about the goals and issues at hand, and to see if there might be a way to move the common goals of the students and community members forward. One of the outcomes of that meeting was this group blog, which we've established to move the conversation forward, and into the public sphere. Anyone interested in being part of this conversation is welcome to join the group blog, and we encourage everyone to read it, post comments, questions, etc. We'll delete span posts, but otherwise we'll try to leave all posts as they are. Any change in that policy will be discussed and explained.
Our first goal is to get Democracy Now! onto the local airwaves, so that folks without Internet access can hear what we think is an important program. We're hoping to meet with the WOUB honchos to find out what we need to do to "make the case." We'll also be posting comments on this blog on a regular basis, comparing "DN!" coverage to other public broadcasting coverage. If you want to be part of this effort, simply add a comment of your own.
Oh yeah, a bit about me: I'm the administrator of this blog, and a faculty member in the School of Journalism at Ohio University (since 1987). I teach in the online journalism sequence in the school and am the director of the school's Institute for International Journalism. You can reach me at stewartr@ohio.edu.
Now, let the conversation continue.
Bob Stewart
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
