Fox News at its heart is not a journalistic institution.
Dean Baquet, Executive Editor, New York Times
In a recent interview in the Financial Times, Executive Editor of the New York Times Dean Baquet described the 2016 presidential election coverage of CNN and Fox News as “ridiculous” and “bad for democracy.” “This mix of entertainment and news, and news masquerading as entertainment, is kind of funny except that we now have a guy who is a product of that world nominated as Republican presidential candidate.”
Never has the national deficit in critical media literacy skills of the American electorate been more apparent, yet is scarcely discussed even within academic institutions. The Critical Media Project at the Annenberg School for Journalism and Communication, University of Southern California asserts that traditional definitions of media literacy must now include “complex ideological discussions around media power.”
The new graduate program in Media Literacy and Digital Culture at Sacred Heart University is the first with a specific focus on critical media literacy. That program, in collaboration with the Action Coalition for Media Education (ACME) and Project Censored, helped create the Global Critical Media Literacy Project, and developed a 100 page educator’s resource guide to engage students to more fully comprehend the perils Dean Baquet and others are warning citizens about regarding our news media. (Full disclosure: the author is a member of the ACME board of directors.)
The money’s rolling in, and this is fun. It’s a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald. Keep going.
Leslie Moonves, Chairman of CBS
It should be pretty hard to miss the decade long build up of Donald Trump as a reality TV star and his incredibly successful run for President this election cycle. If somehow this is still a bit of a mystery, you should read this recent article by Margaret Sullivan in the Washington Post to begin appreciating the downside of commercially driven entertainment and news this blog has been addressing.
You might also begin considering the lack of critical media literacy education in the U.S.
Mr Trump is the leading exponent of “post-truth” politics—a reliance on assertions that “feel true” but have no basis in fact. His brazenness is not punished, but taken as evidence of his willingness to stand up to elite power.
Art of the Lie, The Economist
As the media spectacle of this year’s presidential election gathers terrifying force in the remaining days before the votes are cast, speculation whether American journalists are acting responsibly is growing as well. Though much of this can easily be attributed to partisan game playing, an alternative view focusing on the responsibilities of news consumers expressed recently by Matt Taibi in Rolling Stone deserves more serious consideration.
It is the view of the Media Stewards Project that commercially driven broadcast journalism too easily succumbs to the siren song of sensationalism more likely to generate a large audience whose attention can profitably be sold to advertisers of every sort. Independently funded public media sources are better suited to help citizens understand this dynamic, but are not strong enough in the U.S. to provide the critical perspective citizens need to begin addressing the perilous state of our political dysfunction.
Encouraging citizens to acquire critical media literacy skills is essential for increasing their greater participation in the workings of our democracy.
The news chases squirrels, calls them rabid, and shoots them. [ ] Journalism does not inform.
James Fallows, author and national correspondent for The Atlantic, has thoughtfully analyzed the problems and shortcomings of American journalism for decades. In a recent blog, he reflected on the publication twenty years ago of Breaking The News: How The Media Undermine American Democracy. A condensed version of his book appeared in the Atlantic as Why Americans Hate The Media and is worth reading in this watershed presidential election year.
Respected media critic Jeff Jarvis covers much of the same ground in a recent blog excerpted here:
Imagine if even a fraction of the time we see wasted on cable news were devoted to educating the public about the issues and realities of immigration, refugees, criminal justice, the economy, infrastructure, education, health care costs, entitlement costs, security, the environment, taxes, jobs…. When was the last time you saw TV news do that? How much of any news organization’s work is devoted to doing this, to informing the electorate? Shouldn’t we ask before assigning every story and booking every TV discussion: How will this help the public better decide how to vote?
Journalism is failing the nation. This election is the proof.
These are powerful arguments spanning decades for citizens to reconsider the need for supporting a much more robust public media system providing a critical perspective on the circus atmosphere that has taken over our political process and contemporary journalism driven by overly dominant commercial media interests.
Roger Ailes built the Republican party –
now both are crumbling in plain sight
Very few citizens are aware of the historic role Fox News creator Roger Ailes played from the late sixties onward to foster the rise of the modern Republican party and alter the tenor of political discourse in America.
That history is clearly delineated in How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Factory by Tim Dickenson five years ago in Rolling Stone, and further articulated by media reporter Gabriel Sherman in his 2014 biography, The Loudest Voice In The Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News — And Divided a Country.
Mr. Trump’s decision to make Stephen K. Bannon, chairman of the Breitbart News website, his campaign’s chief executive . . . formally completed a merger between the most strident elements of the conservative news media and Mr. Trump’s campaign, which was incubated and fostered in their boisterous coverage of his rise.
Aug 18, 2016, New York Times
The advent of Stephen Bannon as Donald Trump’s new campaign manager is a significant milestone in the steady evolution of the Republican Party to the extreme right long facilitated, and now lead by experienced “alt-right” media manipulators. The history of this poorly understood evolution puts into stark relief the failure of for-profit media, particularly TV journalism, to illuminate this dangerous development in American politics.
In 2013, respected political scientists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein sought to draw greater media and public attention to the troubling rightward drift of the Republican party in their book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. In an interview with Bill Moyers on PBS, they expressed surprise and disappointment that none of the major network TV news organizations showed any interest whatsoever in discussing this topic.
Only recently have a few journalists and pundits begun to draw more attention to the role Breitbart News has played in the rise of Donald Trump. A key episode was the remarkable duping of the New York Times in covering the campaign by Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe to destroy the community organizing group ACORN by posing as a pimp and his prostitute seeking advice to circumvent the law.
Though the failure of Republican leaders to recognize their responsibility for the rise of the “alt-right” and its enabling of Donald Trump as their presidential candidate is finally being widely discussed, there are still too few connections drawn between the huge profits generated by right-wing media organizations and the threat they pose to the functioning of American democracy. Speculation regarding a new right-wing media organization involving Donald Trump, Stephen Bannon and deposed Fox News guru Roger Ailes to cash in on demonizing Hillary Clinton should she be elected president is worth following closely in the run up to election day this year.
Donald Trump once again captured major media attention over several days in August by claiming unequivocally that President Obama was the “founder” of Isis, and that Hillary Clinton was the “co-founder,” something he first suggested in early January. This presented a challenge to news organizations nationwide to explain whether there was any truth to Trump’s claim about who was responsible for creating Isis which did not end when he eventually said he was being sarcastic.
This generated even more accounts explaining why Trump supporters do not care whether what he says is true or not because the news media are biased against him. The Washington Post reported the complex factors and policy decisions made over many years by members of the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as actions by Congress, which contributed to the rise of Isis. Unfortunately, analysis of this kind is all too rare and not suited for careful consideration on commercial television news programs.
Boiled down, key underlying factors leading to the creation of ISIS were:1) invading Iraq with only dim awareness of the deep Sunni-Shia historical divisions suppressed by Saddam Hussein; 2) not providing sufficient civilian and ground forces to maintain stability; 3) the disaster of allowing Nouri al-Maliki to oversee Iraq’s transition to democracy which greatly exacerbated Sunni-Shia tensions.
These major developments were primarily the responsibility of the Bush administration, as was promoting the false connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as reason to invade Iraq and topple him. Absent more thoughtful, fact-based discussions about how Isis came to exist, wild accusations about who is responsible will continue to be taken seriously by large numbers of voters in this election season.
Very few regard the 2016 presidential election season as normal in any respect thanks to the unique reality TV talents of Donald Trump. His masterful seizure of our public discourse is endlessly discussed with every new outrageous statement he makes, many now questioning the journalism that is being practiced even by reputable news organizations.
Media analysis from respected sources such as Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis and the Columbia Journalism Review have weighed in about widespread journalistic malpractice, and CNN host Brian Stelter specifically criticized Fox News for greater public shaming.
But there is little analysis pointing to a more systemic problem, namely that our commercially driven media system combined with under-resourced non-profit media organizations serving audiences as citizens, not consumers, require the systematic teaching of critical media literacy at all K-12 and college levels of instruction.
Unlike all of the British Commonwealth countries and most of Western Europe, the U.S lags far behind in teaching basic media education. Entirely too few American citizens, including Supreme Court justices, are aware of practical explanations as to WHY we as a nation are experiencing such breathtaking sophistry, mendacity and manipulation of public discourse this election cycle.
A healthier balance of commercial and public media is unlikely to be realized in the U.S. for a very long time, in large part due to the paucity of critical media literacy skills among our citizenry. Perhaps a growing awareness of the dangers facing our democracy related to our hyper-commercial media system and scarce knowledge of media education that have allowed a rank demagogue the opportunity to actually become our president will open the American mind to this unexamined reality. Key organizations addressing this issue worth following:
Global Critical Media Literacy Project (GCMLP)
Action Coalition for Media Education (ACME)
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
News Literacy Project
Media Literacy and Digital Culture Program / Sacred Heart University
Centre for Excellence in Media Practice (CEMP) / Bournemouth University
Trump Will Still Lose. Here’s How.
Bloomberg View, January 7, 2016
A basic question of the 2016 presidential election cycle is how Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, could possibly be taken seriously given his repeated, well documented lies, constant insults, and questionable policy positions. It is credible to argue that Sarah Palin opened the door for the current Trump media phenomenon. And Glenn Greenwald is right to point out how cost effective it is for pundits to appear on television, how rarely they are held accountable for their questionable predictions, and that the preponderance of pundits spouting opinions masks the cold fact that ever less independent, investigative journalism is taking place to help citizens consider which candidates to vote for.
James Baldwin long ago suggested that a good measure of public education is the level of political discourse taking place in a presidential election season. By this standard, our country is failing to grasp the most basic tenets of media education and the need for a more robust public media sector willing to examine such issues.
The 2016 presidential race thus far strongly indicates this will be a change election due to the surprising success of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders as anti-establishment candidates as well as the remarkable failure of the mainstream media to cover their campaigns responsibly. Trump continues to dominate the coverage on the Republican side which now includes heated debates about the role commercial media, especially TV news, is playing.
Pulitzer-Prize winning historian of the press, Doris Kearns Goodwin, considers the coverage of Donald Trump a journalism fiasco. Supporters of Bernie Sanders have complained for many months about both the lack of coverage of his campaign as well as the general quality.
Sanders regularly criticizes the commercial TV networks for their relentless focus on personal attacks instead of serious issues like income inequality, campaign finance reform, inadequate healthcare and family leave, our crumbling infrastructure, and the rising cost of higher education.
Since the commercial TV networks profit handsomely from the costly political ads they air while continuing to cover candidates as celebrities to boost their news ratings, there is a great opportunity this election season for citizens to consider the general failure of our commercially driven media system to adequately cover the significant issues they will be voting on. There is a profound connection between the lack of media attention to issues American citizens care about most and the gross imbalance between commerical and public media.