As has been previously mentioned, Noah Schactman was the brave and unapologetic subject of many the hairy eyeball at the MilBlog Conference last weekend. Lord knows I’ve picked my own nits with the way the war has been covered in the past, and in fact the way that the media covers the military in general. In fact, there was¬† time when I toyed with the idea of becoming a print journalist myself after my service is complete. Set the record straight, like. The reason I won’t will probably be revealed in due course, but for the bottom line up front folks, here it is: I can’t afford to.
No, the problem I’ve got with MSM bashing as a blood sport is that it’s hopelessly reductive. While I’m quite certain that there are people in the media who are so eager to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” that it blinds them to telling the “larger truth” - a truth that some of them might in fact deny the objective existence of - it’s scarcely fair to label all of them a “5th Column” as we all too¬†often tend to do. After all, a certain senior senator from a mountainous mid-Atlantic state might well¬†have once been Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, but that’s no reason to label his entire caucus or party¬†as klansmen.
In order to rebut the notion that MSM journalists are hiding in the Green Zone taking face value copy from potentially compromised local stringers, Noah pointed out that more journalists have been killed covering Iraq than in any other recent war -¬† a clear truth. But the fact that of the 101 journalists¬†killed, 79 have been Iraqis doesn’t necessarily buttress his case, or at least they way he’s making it. His larger point - and one I agree with comprehensively, by the way - is that journalists cover things that happen. A bomb blowing up in a¬†market is a “happening.” A school opening up in Diala province, not so much.
Face it: The media doesn’t report the planes that land on time, they report the ones that crash. They do that because that’s what the market - you and me multplied by 150 million - want to read about that. They print what we buy.
And if that doesn’t tell the whole story? Or help to win the war? It pays off those college loans, and sometimes a job is just a job.
All that said, there are¬†some uncomfortable truths about what some of us have come to label the “mainstream media” - shorthand for the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, as well as the major network broadcasters and CNN but excluding Fox News by the general consensus of those who spit the initials “MSM” out from between clenched teeth.
While the media outlets themselves are owned and operated by ruthless capitalists, red in tooth and claw, the foot soldiers at the reportorial level are far more liberal than the country at large, as are their mid-level superiors at the editors desks and most of the Op-Ed columnists. 
But we can scarcely claim to be surprised when people who think defending our existing liberties and institutions¬†is the highest possible¬†calling tend to be but cautious revolutionaries, or that people who think that the “business of America” is business tend to go into, you know - business, while¬†those who want to help change the world or “make a difference” tend to¬†gravitate¬†into what’s commonly labeled the “progressive” camp.
It might or might not help from a “politics of envy” standpoint¬†that - according to payscale.com -¬†a Columbia University J-School graduate (BA)¬†with 10 years of experience working in Washington, D.C. earns an average of around $61,000 per year. Contrast that to a Navy lieutenant commander of 10 years seniority - who may well¬†have graduated from a far less prestigious school than Columbia - but who will in 2007¬†be making $67k per year just¬†in base pay. Tack on (non-taxable)¬†allowances for housing and subsistence for the D.C. area¬†and our theoretical officer earns over $99k. An aviator whose fly gates are satisfied will be getting nearly $8k on top of that in flight pay, while the¬†career-oriented aviator whose¬†initial obligation has passed will be eligible for an additional annual retention bonus in a quantity I am rather too embarrassed to relate. Because I spent mine. Summat to do with wine, women and roses, I dimly recall. Worth every penny.
The point is not that our naval aviator living in the District of Columbia is over-paid (although his surface warfare officer brethren might well aver this to be so, the bassids), but rather that there are very few careers an Ivy League graduate might aspire to which pay so shabbily. If our politics involve any element of “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” well: You can always count on the ardent support of Paul.
Once safely esconced in this self-selected mileu - especially in the cities¬†culturally dominated by a soi-disant coastal elite -¬†the tendency for many of these otherwise clear thinkers and clever boys¬†is to form a part of a¬†self-reinforcing echo chamber. When everyone you know and respect thinks exactly the same way you do, well, that’s a very comfortable place to be, psychologically. Amplify this only a little, and it is easy to come to the conclusion that people who differ from you politically are either dupes or are themselves¬†duplicitous. This is not a vice restricted to the left.
We all of us have our own cognitive lenses, even if we’re actively aware of them. For my own part, I find the fact that President Clinton dismissed all his US attorneys - an act alleged to have been committed in order to¬†get at one or two of them - much more interesting than the fact that President Bush fired eight. But I’m well aware that people who view the world in a different light might find that story line less compelling.
After all, he was such a beautiful, complex man. Who cared. And all.
So it’s not that the MSM - whatever that really means - is out to lose the war. It’s that they honestly think it can’t be won. No one thinks it can, or at least¬†no one that they know does.
And it’s not that they seethingly hate the President and his party (although some of them certainly¬† do) - it’s just that they think he’s wrong. Always has been. About everything.
And it doesn’t help that¬†many of them are¬†still sort of holding a petulant grudge about having “supported the war” back when everyone knew that Saddam had WMD, only to discover that they had been “tricked” by discovering - once we’d had the kind of look-around that the UN was denied - that maybe it wasn’t so.
Nor that, in their heart of hearts, they still think that the President “stole” the 2000 election in Florida. Despite the constitutional intervention of the highest court in the land, and the evidence that they themselves developed which points largely in¬†the contrary direction. And despite the fact that he won the 2004 election with the largest number of popular votes ever cast. Original sin, and all that.
People are who they are, the see the world the way they see it. My only objection is the apparent fact that the editors aboard the major outlets are insufficiently aware of their own biases to efficiently counter-act them. We see this all too frequently, when Page 1 reporting starts to look increasingly like the Op-Ed page. In a more perfect world, their biases would conform to mine. That being a difficult assignment, it’d be cute if they could just report the news in the news section and save the opinion bits for the back end.
So as I’ve said¬†before, it’s not that the media is acting as some kind of 5th Column - it’s that if they were doing so, and being clever,¬†you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference.
The good news is not that we now have an alternate media - bloggers will never replace the MSM, we simply don’t have the resources - but that we do have a nimble, responsive and democratized analysis process.
This is all to the good. Our predecessors didn’t have the benefit of that alternate view back in 1968, when US and South Vietnames forces decisively defeated the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong by crushing their¬†all-in offensive during the Vietnamese New Year - during Tet.
We sent the NVA formations reeling back across their border in a desperate attempt to reconstitute, leaving in the wake of their defeat a smashed VC insurgency which was never again capable of independent military action.  The most respected journalist in broadcast television witnessed this victory for US arms, and the detailed destruction of an evil enemy and concluded - almost incomprehensibly - that the war could not be won.
Not this time. Not without a fight.
Related: Jeff Goldstein gives the MSM the benefit of the doubt. Sorta.
In general, I’m willing to give the media the benefit of the doubt—they tend to go for the sensational, and many of their drones aren’t exactly the sharpest stingers in the colony—but when it comes to memes that they continue to push even after they have been thoroughly and completely problematized or outright debunked, then we can safely say that their intent has become something far more objectionable than merely selling newspapers.
Also Related: Jules Crittenden shares what it’s like to be inside the belly of the beast.
My own business is looking more like a shaky late stage Roman Empire, which was in its day the single stop for civilization, law and order, engineering and scientific knowledge, then torn apart by the barbarian hordes from which our civilization emerged, something better but still employing a lot of the conventions, devices, terminology of the old empire.  The Internet is at the gates of journalism, and our walls are crumbling.
Bad enough for them. I just hope they don’t take the rest of us down with them.
16 responses so far ↓
1
Kevin
// May 9, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Hey, there was (still is?) a rather substantial SWO retention bonus. Hell froze over in the mid-90’s and no one noticed!
2
Kevin
// May 9, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Journo’s make all their money as talking heads on TV or giving speeches - but you need to have a name to do either of those.
I think all the ex-Mil talking heads on the 24/7 networks make about $500 an appearance, or they’re under a retainer contract. Either way, it’s pretty sweet money on a per minute basis.
3
Casca
// May 9, 2007 at 1:31 pm
They’re all theoretically Darwinists. They should feel good about this. The smart and strong will survive.
4
AW1 Tim
// May 9, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Cap’n,
Well, the point I would offer is an analogy to the “Emperor’s New Clothes”. The “MSM” was doing fine and dandy, thank you for asking, until someone stood up and, well, pointed out that perhaps they were wrong on this little part, so to speak, and that, perhaps, some further investigating and fact-checking might be in order.
Folks were all well and good about supporting the “MSM” until those inconveniant truths started to appear. The fact that certain “facts” were taken out of context, numbers fudged, photographs “Gasp” alt, er, touched up, etc.
It’s that old problem of taking the painted lady home and finding out what’s underneath the make up. Not that, like, I’ve ever been in that situation, mind, you, but I have heard stories.. yes, stories!
But I digress.
Once you lose that credibility, no amount of mea culpas will bring that back. Time doesn’t heal all wounds, but it does help to slow down the bleeding, and it’s gonna take a rather large chunck of time to staunch what’s happening these days.
Respects,
5
Steeljaw Scribe
// May 9, 2007 at 2:16 pm
With the exception of intellectual laziness displayed by some members of the MSM when it comes to basic research and reportage (as AW1 Tim points out above), I tend not to get too overly exercised with the media. In line with our sidebar last weekend I suppose it is because I have spent so much of my reading time heretofore having to muck through the Soviet and now Russian press, gaining in the process, an emotional immunity not unlike that acquired by cow milkers of yore, who would acquire a mild case of cow pox from their daily labors and build immunity to the more virulent small pox.
I will freely admit to being a longtime subscriber of the Washington Post (noting that first writing and lately, common sense has departed the Grey Lady), bounce equally between Fox and CNN and will eschew Dan Rather and Katie Couric for Chris Matthews and Charles Gibson…and take my daily dose of Novosti, Izvestia, Moscow Daily News, etc. and try not to gag…does so admitting brand me then a heretic?
- SJS
6
jpr
// May 9, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I’m glad no one will lump all journalists together in the pile of biased overpaid blowhards attempting to cover the war from DC.
As a former journalist by education and OJT, a still photojournalist to be precise, I actually left the biz for government work and took a slight pay increase, and better working hours. In 2000, when I left my local weekly newspaper chain in suburban Chicago, I was maxed out on the union pay scale at around $40K, in today’s dollars.
With the exception of a few hacks that need photoshop to make their pictures more compelling, the vast majority (again, there are some hacks out there) of photogs do incredible work telling stories here in the US and over there. Go view Todd Heisler’s Pulitzer Prize winning photo story “Final Salute.”
Still photogs don’t do their job safely ensconced in the Green Zone. They’re out there with the troops, they earn every penny.
7
Skippy-san
// May 9, 2007 at 2:41 pm
That LT working in DC making 67,000 is underpaid compared to his journalist counterpart. That’s because the journalist does not have the requirement to get shipped back to sea when his all too brief time in DC ends (or off to to an IA in Iraq). He’s owed more-a lot more.
As for the media-well I still submit it is a product that competes on the market. Some products are made well, some are not. Left or right. You the consumer get to choose what you read or watch. Its a market driven industry. That’s OK with me-I know I’m smarter than the average consumer and can discern what I need to.
What we should be lamenting is not the media-but the fact that too many of the reading / watching public are not smart enough to make such distinctions. Thanks to the decline of public education-the abilty to research, analyze and debate is declining. Which is why the more gross sins of the media get done-there is no good consumer base to catch them. Bloggers pat themselves on the back that they are sometimes better, but IMHO by and large they are not.
No more time. Gotta run to work. However if people actually looked at what was said-vs what they were told was said, they would find something very different.
8
buckethead
// May 9, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I think, being generous a lot of liberal journalists try to be objective in their coverage. That is, as they’re writing their stories. Where the bias sneaks in, is in what stories they choose to cover. There are topics that are as inherently uninteresting to the Columbia-trained journalist as they are interesting to milbloggers and our ilk. Like telling heroic stories of bravery and sacrifice. When you are out to “make a difference” that usually boils down to poking holes in things, not holding up the good.
It was great meeting you this weekend - hope to see you next year.
9
Deborah Aylward
// May 9, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Being so new to blogging that I’m still not exactly certain of its’ meaning, I find myself having a much more balanced view of events on the war, specifically, and the Military, in general. The main stream media still don’t seem to understand their apparent bias toward only reporting negative stories is not only demoralizing the Troops, but also feeding the anti-war throng.
10
badbob
// May 9, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Good work as usual ‘bro telling Truth, but I have some variance with this hypothesis:
re- “it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s not that the media is acting as some kind of 5th Column”
No they are not, knowingly, however, due to factors alluded to by yourself they are made tools of powerful folks like this:
Nothing new here. Ever heard of Randolph Hearst? Ever watch “Citizen Kane”, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” or one I watched the other day, “Meet John Doe”? Same theme played out again and again…
This time however information moves all and influences all by a factor of ten…Let’s face it. Goebbels dream play-pen is out there with all the technology to move information beyond imagination. All great, but the flip side is because of that lack of critical reasoning (undeveloped by Skippy above) on the part of the over stimulated, 30 minute sitcom, click that mouse, I want it Now, population, we are all vulnerable to that stuff those with illogical agendas want to find a home for in folks brains…
Call it cognitive whatever but I think the looney left and those who want to cut n’run from Iraq, shut down coal fired plants because of global warming, etc. etc. are simply illogical. There is only one set of facts and one reality IF you endeavor to find it. I’m personally running short of patience because a lot of B.S. put out by the MSM is just that- CaCa. IMO, most professional journalists are programmed from high School to write what they write.
Therefore, given a lack of critical reasoning and simple laziness in reporting by the MSM we The People (lofty, eh?) are empowered by bloggers like yourself who parse for the facts…It’s dirty work but somebody’s got to do it!
b2
11
unkawill
// May 9, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Cap’n, while I can see that Journalism would be both, beneath your pay grade and dignity, I still encourage you to aspire to a post retirement career in Writing.
You Sir, have a gift, that should not be squandered on a lowly Blog.
My thinking is, letters to the editors of your local fish wrap, on current events and things Naval.
Acquire an agent, you have already produced a significant body of work, which the Denizen’s appreciate immensely,and have proved willing to purchase.
That being said, IMHO, this is the best essay that I have read, that emanates from your keyboard.
12
MissBirdlegs in AL
// May 9, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Thanks, Lex. I can’t decide if I’m more fed up with the MSM and their laziness as b2 said, or the average all too lazy American consumer, who takes every word of “news” as the gospel (if they bother to look for news at all). If they didn’t see it somewhere themselves, one of their friends or some of their family saw it, and IT IS FACT! Logic and truth are totally lost and you cannot make them see otherwise, because it was IN THE NEWS!
Because the media has such a big ready pulpit, they could foster much more respect for America and her Warriors, but with few exceptions, they go in an entirely different direction. I just can’t give them a pass for their nastiness, for which I worry we’ll all pay a huge price some day.
13
Daveg
// May 10, 2007 at 5:38 am
As for the media-well I still submit it is a product that competes on the market.
This is true, and is with a shameful degree of schadenfreude that I watch the market respond to crappy product by shunning the NYTimes, LATimes, and poor James Lilek’s Star-Tribune in very large numbers. Sure, Management will console themselves by blaiming CraigsList rather than considering their own narrow worldview as the problem, but the net result is the same: the WSJ and Fox grow, while the DNC talking point rags and CNN wither.
Schadenfreude.
14 The Thunder Run // May 10, 2007 at 8:00 am
Web Reconnaissance for 05/10/2007…
A short recon of what?Ç‚Äôs out there that might draw your attention….
15
beren74
// May 10, 2007 at 11:26 am
I’ve read this site with great interest almost every day for the last year or so and really appreciate the stimulating dialogue here. I really appreciate this article, and the ensuing discussion. I picture most of the media the way the newspaper editor (J. Jonah Jameson) was portrayed in “Spiderman.” Spice the news up to sell papers and push his agenda.
It’s too bad that so many people are brought up to believe that if it’s on the news, it’s got to be true (I sure was). Many journalists tend to get all sorts of details wrong (what constitutes an “assault weapon” is one of my favorites) because they are asked to report on things that they have little knowledge of, and in spite of that, seem to do little more than superficial research for their stories. Which are then often consumed as fact.
The advent of the blogosphere hopefully will be the force to shake up the institution enough to provoke reform, and inspire people to become more involved in the manner they obtain and process information. I want news - information, for free (free of advertisement and agenda) because that’s how it should be. If I can’t get the real story from the “news,” maybe I can get it from someone who was there…
16
Dadmanly
// May 10, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Lex,
Excellent commentary. I don’t stop over here nearly often enough; I will in future. You did a great job at the Conference too, BTW.
Leave a Comment