Global Policy Forum

By Matthew Riemer*

By Matthew RiemerYellow Times A June 6th conversation on the National Public Radio news show On the Media between host Brooke Gladstone and guests Bill Falk and Jeremy O'Grady, executive editors of the American and British editions of The Week, highlighted important differences between American and British journalism, and, more importantly, the sad state of affairs currently being experienced by the American version of the discipline.

Jeremy O'Grady, representing Britain's edition of The Week, remarked that American journalists display a reverence for the government and are often afraid to question the official line, while British journalists are more skeptical and irreverent. As an instructive case in point, O'Grady pointed to a piece by New York Times columnist Judith Miller that was essentially sanctioned by the Pentagon: a flimsy article, based entirely on anonymous sources and Pentagon hearsay, seemingly printed to keep the hopes alive of those who believe that huge stores of WMD are still going to be unearthed in Iraq and to buoy artificially the validity of the Bush administration's rhetoric. To O'Grady, such a story reeked of professional coziness the likes of which a Brit would never endure.

American journalism also seems to believe in a theoretical yet attainable state of objectivity and strictly segregated formats governing the presentation of opinion and fact -- that, in a way, journalism is more of a science which can be practiced very exactly, not a profession of inherent bias. The Brit is less afraid of opinion and more naturally embraces slant and agendas as part and parcel of the journalistic, historical process surrounding the recounting of events.

Bill Falk observed: "Here when you enter into the New York Times or the Washington Post, it's entering into a cathedral. Journalists -- particularly the commentators and the named journalists are the high priests of the profession, and we worship the truth, and there's this sense that in our country the truth is a quantifiable, objective deity that you can put borders around and say 'well, this is the truth and that's opinion.'"

Such observations touch upon just a few of the characteristics that make up a larger social and cultural phenomenon that acts as a kind of "default setting" for American journalism -- those foundational, philosophical and moral beliefs that are used to divine what has come to be perceived by a majority as the "truth" or "objectivity."

This "default setting" is best defined by simply stating its most common, and largely tacit, assumptions.

· Democracy and capitalism are the ultimate realizations of political and economic systems. This is arguably the bedrock of American journalism. This belief commonly manifests itself in the distrust and marginalization of any person or country that is neither and a hyper-reverence for anything that is.

· The United States is the rightful enforcer of global order. The fact that the U.S. wanders the globe establishing a military presence essentially anywhere it wishes, policing and disciplining small countries that commit the smallest offense, and consistently offending the sovereignty and cultural identity of host nations is never questioned on its face. It is allowable to debate "how" this process should proceed, but never its very existence or legal or political basis.

· The world needs to be helped by the U.S. This assumption is quite nuanced because the real meaning is not that those under duress need emotional and material aid to get back on their feet again (charity, assistance) but that much of the world is a "failure," and because of this, the U.S. is compelled, though reluctantly, to straighten them out. So this "help" isn't the giving of food to a poor country (of course, this is done, but only along with subsidies) but instead is the overthrow of a government seen undesirable by Washington. Such a philosophy is perfectly captured by Henry Kissinger's comments regarding Chile, "I don't see why we should have to stand by and let a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people." Very rarely do corporate journalists ask, "What right do we have to be there in the first place?"

· The process known innocuously as "globalization" (really, in economic terms, a kind of global and fully deregulated, free-market capitalism) is at once beneficial, in fact needed by the communities of the world, and an egalitarian system of modernization. To argue that "globalization" is a class sensitive benefactor -- enriching the rich and weakening the poor -- or to question its legitimacy or long-term economical soundness is anathema to American media. Of course, to challenge globalization is essentially to challenge capitalism.

· America knows best. Regardless of who is involved, how distant the land or the people, or the actual stake the American people have in a given "crisis" or "situation," the United States government is the sole, most reputable, and most complete source of enlightenment on the subject. This assumption is highlighted by both the American media's and American people's general distrust, if not open contempt, for virtually all foreign governments and foreign media. (This is also partially caused by the overt rise in nationalism over the past two years.)

· Imperialism is a thing of the past and no longer exists even in a hybridized form. This is, perhaps, the most laughable of all the assumptions that one must be so careful not to disrupt in polite conversation.

These attributes saturate current American journalism and are the reason many journalists, news agencies, and people around the world take the American media less and less seriously and strongly question its impartiality -- especially when American commentators and journalists speak so profoundly of the truth and objectivity while throwing around supposed facts from the Pentagon or State Department so carelessly.

Later in the interview, O'Grady remarked that "But I don't think it's objectivity versus commentary, though I think that distinction does exist within the press, but I don't think it's the relevant distinction here. I think it's much more reverence versus irreverence, in fact. I think there's a -- there's an irreverent tradition here where there is much more likelihood that a journalist will not take the official line."

Regarding WMD, he said, "...there were quite a lot of facts which could have been uncovered with greater diligence, I suspect. Now what happened I think in the mainstream of reporting over here, and by all accounts your side of the pond as well, was that there wasn't much attempt to highlight the dubious nature of these facts which is not part of commentary but part of the reporting of facts as facts. What I perceive to be the difference is an attitude of mind towards the reporting of facts -- reverence versus irreverence."

These comments begin to explain the situation with American journalism: objectivity has become reverence. It's as if an unspoken rule is that any decent journalist should just accept what the United States government public relations branch tells them and that to question openly or conspicuously what one is being told crosses into "advocacy journalism" -- even when what one is being told is absolute nonsense. This, combined with a dogmatic view of "the truth" and the paranoia surrounding the concept of "opinion," has led to the phenomenon of American news outlets sincerely believing they are fair, balanced, and objective without interjecting any spin or bias, when, in fact, they are bastions of advocacy, selectivity, and slant. As a complement to this, it's a frequently employed technique to label counter arguments or views as "opinion."

In this light, then, there is a strong parallel with Washington's foreign policy, as both American journalism and foreign policy seem to exude a distinct air of infallibility accompanied by an even more marked contempt for the opinions of organizations and individuals who conceptualize and think differently.

With each botched story the American media runs in its attempt to titillate and scare viewers -- from dozens of misleading reports about WMD to the Jessica Lynch rescue fiasco -- the further down the drain the reputation and credibility of American journalism will continue to plunge.

About the Author: Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.