Gingerbread Man on 26/4/2006 at 20:28

---

So recently our esteemed Prime Minister -- the vaguely-voted-for Stephen Harper -- decreed that there will be no photos of the caskets coming back from Afghanistan. How surprising that he ape the Bush in such a way.

However, the front page of my paper this morning had a huge colour photo of a flag-draped casket being loaded into a waiting hearse, with the headline FORBIDDEN: THE PICTURE YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE (Which, okay, is horribly gay in and of itself...)

And inside there are huge opinion columns that boil down to "WHAT THE FUCK? Don't tell US what we can and can't report on, you horrid little faggot."

My question, and god help you all if this turns into a Bush Hurrrr Americans Hurrrrr thread, is serious and simple:

Other than the recent (late and rather weak) Rebellion of the Talking Heads in American media, why do you think the press is so easily cowed at the moment? Forgetting for a moment the obvious Bush Administration factor -- the threats to remove access, the jingoistic talking-points, and the blatant condescending / arrogant / sometimes outright lying face they put behing various podiums -- what's going on inside the press as a whole?

Certainly at first they were as taken in / swept up as everyone else, and recently things have started to slip away from immediate endorsement of the Official Line Without Question or Hesitation, but come on. The press always seemed to be a hallowed institution in the USA, and all I can think is that various money interests have resulted in Infotainment and anchors / producers / editors who really aren't interested in reportage so much as ratings.

Which is understandable, but unforgivable if it's resulted in the mess we now see.

Gingerbread Man on 26/4/2006 at 21:33

---

Not OUR press, I'm talking about the American press. More specifically (because I don't really have experience of anything else) the major network news and the really big newspapers.

The sensationalism I understand. Ther's some major competition, and that always makes news outlets devolve into "who can have the most provocative / titllating content" -- you only have to turn on the radio to notice that.

I'm more talking about what is either a total unwillingness or inability to do any actual investigative journalism. Or at least, the fact that none of it seems to end up on front pages or news networks.

Dia on 26/4/2006 at 22:17

---

I don't know what's going on with the press in your country GBM, but here it's well known that the press is corporately owned (unless it's an independent publication). Ergo, they'll pretty much publish whatever the government wants them to since the gov't. is hand-in-glove with the corporations. Same with the news stations on TV & radio. I don't even bother watching/listening anymore since it always sounds like the newsperson is just reading from the latest edition anyhow. Except maybe NPR.

d0om on 26/4/2006 at 23:28

---

This makes me think of a BBC documentary recently about American veterans from Iraq matching around protesting about the atrocites the US army is commiting there.

While the BBC were filming an Al Jezera camera crew turned up and filmed as well.

The veterans said that no US media had taken the slightest interest in them or reported on them.

And the things they were saying happened in Iraq were pretty horrific; killing someone because they didn't like the look of them then dropping a shovel by their body so they could say they caught them digging an improvised road-side bomb.

Agent Monkeysee on 27/4/2006 at 01:18

---

I think it's a couple things in order of importance:

1) Media consolidation and subsequent corporatization
2) 24 hour news coverage
3) The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine
4) The rise and acceptance of active public-relations participation in news media

Basically those all came together to create a system that rewards sensationalistic and apathetic journalism, though I'm not really smart enough to put all this together into a more coherent thesis.