[Mb-civic] The Credibility Gap

Thu Oct 7 17:26:17 PDT 2004

The Credibility Gap

By Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org
 Posted on October 7, 2004, Printed 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.