The Credibility Gap

[Guest guest]

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20116/

 

The Credibility Gap

By Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org

 

Posted on October 7, 2004,

http://www.alternet.org/story/20116/

 

There are two debates going on in American politics. The first is

between and about the candidates. Who is ahead? Who is behind? The

horse race metaphor frames the mainstream narrative as in years past.

 

Along side it, another debate rages about the role of the media

itself. Is it being fair? Is it covering what it should? Is it biased

– not just toward individual politicians but also against the

democratic process itself?

 

With the credibility of leading news organizations in question – with

a coterie of partisan bloggers digging up media controversy at every

political twist and turn – there seems to be a growing popular

rejection of the traditional news machine.

 

The much-discussed rise of satirical news formats, such as " The Daily

Show " and The Onion newspaper, is as much about the public's negative

reaction to mainstream media as it is about a desire to poke fun at

prominent people and events in American culture.

 

For the first time, citizens who used to just focus on politics are

obsessed with the media, too. The media issue has gone from being a

casual complaint to a looming threat to a healthy democracy.

 

MediaChannel.org's Media for Democracy functions like a MoveOn.org on

the media. More than 60,000 citizens have joined our grassroots effort

in the last seven months, each seeking a stronger hand in improving an

election media system that continues to stumble down the campaign

trail. Media for Democracy members come together each week to demand

better coverage from journalists and news executives, and to lobby the

FCC and Big Media owners to ensure that news outlets better serve the

public interest with more fair and comprehensive election and civic

affairs coverage.

 

Last week, Media for Democracy members sent more than 7,000 questions

to debate moderators Jim Lehrer, Charles Gibson and Bob Schieffer,

asking that they pose them to the candidates during the debates. This

week and next, thousands more joined our citizens panel to act as

media watchdogs of the debates, ensuring that the media monitors and

candidates address issues that matter to Americans most.

 

During last Thursday's debate 4,900 " citizen monitors " watched and

then rated the quality and format of the debate. Was the right amount

of time devoted to the most important national security and foreign

policy issues? Were various personal attributes of the two candidates

properly addressed? Did moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS do a good job?

MediaChannel.org tabulated the citizen monitors' in real-time, via the

Web, and fed them back to the media as a voter-driven guide to the

issues that resonate most with Americans.

 

Within hours of completion of the debate many complimented PBS anchor

Jim Lehrer for a job well done with democrats more effusive in their

praise. Perhaps that's why conservative groups later challenged Lehrer

with charges of bias.

 

Later when his colleague Gwen Ifill moderated the Cheney-Edwards

debate, Bush supporters gave her higher marks than Kerry supporters.

 

Media analyst Andrew Tyndall summarized the results of MediaChannel's

citizen monitoring of Ifill's performance: " A majority of Bush backers

endorsed her question choices on a range of foreign policy and

economic issues; Kerry supporters demanded more depth, especially on

trade, poverty, social security and the environment. "

 

Others have been less charitable in their rating of the political

coverage. New York Press media critic Matt Taibbi is planning to give

out a prize for the worst campaign coverage in 2004. He has moved from

criticizing press coverage by individuals to condemning the work of

most of the industry itself.

 

" It's time to blame the press corps that daily brings us this

unrelenting symphony of horseshit and never comes within 1,000 miles

of an apology for any of it, " Taibbi wrote. " And it's time to blame

the press not only as a class of people, but as individuals. We must

brand anyone who puts his name or his face on credulous campaign

coverage an eternal Enemy of the State. Hopefully, over time, this

will have a deterrent effect. "

 

As the blogger-in-chief at MediaChannel, I am bombarded daily with

gripes and snipes at reporters for acts of sloppiness and worse. Other

websites like MediaMatters patrols the press from the left side of the

fence, seeking to strike down right-wing influence in the media

system. Others like NewsMax and the Media Research Council perform the

same rapid response against their perceived liberal bias in the press.

 

The language is often harsh and reflects the extreme political

polarization that has divided the electorate down the middle.

 

Behind all of this is a call for more accountability, truthfulness and

public service on the part of our media. In an age of scandal and

crisis, the media have become the battleground.

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/20116/