Patriotism can be practiced in many ways. Some choose to defend the country by taking up arms. Others serve in diplomatic positions, smoothing the way behind the scenes. Still others are lawyers or judges who pay integral parts in a justice system that helps prevent chaos and strives to protect the innocent. Many demonstrate love of country simply by waving flags. I and thousands of my colleagues have chosen the pencil, the pen, the computer, the camera, and the tape recorder to uphold one of the pillars that sustain a democracy, a free press. Democracy and a free press; you can't have one without the other. ... News Flash is an optimistic call to journalists and all Americans to demand honest and fair news reporting, so that citizens can make informed decisions based on solid, unvarnished information.
-- Bonnie M. Anderson, veteran reporter for CNN and NBC
I happened to go to the recently opened greatly expanded new environs of the Fordham Library, the main branch of the Bronx, and saw a lot of books. Targeting a few, I took some out on the media. One on editorial cartoons seemed promising, but it had the mistaken assumption that only somewhat progressive, critical of the government sorts can be true to their craft. It is unclear why you cannot write pro-administration etc. cartoons, criticizing the other side. Many have. Another, War Made Easy, how the press eased the way of war looks good, but I have not read it yet. News Flash, though I did a bit of skimming, is well worth a look.
[As suggested by her bio, the book really focuses on network news, not print media. The two surely have differences worthy of note as she herself references at one point when discussing attempts to combine magazine staffs with television to save money and have "synergy" among corporate assets. Did not quite work.]
Early on, Anderson was a bit ... well annoying, since she put forth a super-idealistic view of her craft, which I doubt ever was totally true. For instance, in the past, plenty of news sources had some sort of pro-American slant. She is quite right that the news, especially internationally shown such as CNN, cannot speak of "our troops" etc. without hurting its integrity as a supplier of information, not editorial comment. But, she toned it down a bit, and one can accept her idealism.
Anderson did earn her stripes and with her dad executed in Cuba when she was four, you can imagine why she believes so much in a free press. One that has much responsibility if it truly wants to say they are honoring the spirit of the First Amendment.
And, with a bit of bite -- she gets angry a few times in this book, and a bit nasty one or two. For instance, Anderson notes how Roger Mudd cut a newsmagazine piece on AIDS in the 1980s because it violated his religions beliefs -- it suggested it is not just a homosexual disease. Anderson also becries how the dollar became more important the supplying the news, including how for a full day a less hard hit area of a hurricane diaster was filmed, resulting in the authorities to mass to that area ... not the true disaster spot. And, she discusses how reporting does seriously affect public policy, including how her reporting in Africa changed our policy respecting supplying food to a famine struck area that was under rebel control. Her reports suggested food could get through.
She touches upon topics such as the lack of diversity, FOX, the problem with embedding and government controlled information (with censorship that even if acceptable -- she doubts it -- requires the press to inform how their reports are only partially complete), how Iraq and Cuba forced conditions on reporting, and the depths we have fallen in the Bush years. The start of her chapter on this last point warrants extended citation:
Picture a Country Where:
Suspects tried and convicted in closed-door military tribunals may face a firing squad The government denies its troops fired on one another, censors news stories, and locks up journalists in a warehouse to prevent them from reporting about soldiers who've died in battle The president unilaterally decides not to share vital information with the legislative branch It's permissible for government entities to secretly obtain a reporter's phone records Police have the authority to monitor citizens' e-mails and tap their phones Press conferences are rigged The government encourages regular citizens to turn in fellow citizens they think are suspicious; in Cuba, an identical program is called the Committee of the Revolution
But this country isn't Cuba, China, or Iran. It's the United States.
We can end with her concern for various misleading habits now prevelant in the business. Anderson mentions her refusal to report from in front of the FBI during the Richard Jewell affair -- the alleged Olympics bomber, who was actually innocent* because of the message it would have sent. Apparently, this seriously reduced the amount of money her employer had to pay when Jewell later sued the media for their actions. Likewise, there is the "sources say" to either not have to give credit to others or cover up the fact the sourcing is questionable. She also mentions little tricks that in effect mislead, such as implying taped bits are live or pool material is personally connected to local networks.
This brings to mind the infamous "Video News Releases" supplied by the government. Though she does not mention VNRs, Anderson probably would call to task the media too ... a media that often, to save money and time, played such reports as real news. The government had a responsibility to properly label such material, but so did the press who helped them out. Many administration critics also blame the "MSM," arguing that they are not doing their job of reporting the news, the facts clearly not on the administration's side if they just were properly reported. This book suggests they have something of a point. But, across the board, not limited to just one area of coverage.
And, this would be true whomever is in power. As noted here, being critical of the current government does not necessarily make you liberal, even if your critics suggest it does. OTOH, if you are a whistleblower, you better CYA.
---
* The real bomber turned out to be a rabid pro-life sort that hid out for a few years with the help of some locals. Anderson notes that one of the infamous FOX "memos" spelling out the slant of that day's news suggested that this should not be emphasized because it would make the locals -- i.e., conservatives -- look bad.
She also notes that one reason why FOX makes money is low overhead -- their news staff is quite low as compared to other networks. They tend to focus on a few stories and let local affiliates pick up much of the slack.