From pericles@temple.edu Sat Aug 24 08:19:36 2002 Received: from mailscan1.cac.washington.edu (mailscan1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.16]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.01) with SMTP id g7OFJWeY054636 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 08:19:32 -0700 Received: FROM mxu3.u.washington.edu BY mailscan1.cac.washington.edu ; Sat Aug 24 08:19:31 2002 -0700 Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.06) with ESMTP id g7OFJUbq010140 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 08:19:31 -0700 Received: from temple.edu (pcp01784256pcs.audubn01.nj.comcast.net [68.46.176.188]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1C00AVMT8IXY@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for classics@u.washington.edu; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 11:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 11:20:29 -0400 From: Dan Tompkins Subject: Re: TAN Re: Wise Greeks To: classics@u.washington.edu Message-id: <3D67A43D.10E1A5B4@temple.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 (Macintosh; U; PPC) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en References: <002801c24a66$70d4a960$23ed1ec4@icon.co.za> <3.0.6.32.20020822222943.008afb30@pop.mindspring.com> Fred and I are, I think, agreeing about a lot. I think we both disagree with conspiracy theorists who say all American journalism is predictably slanted. We agree that there are plenty of independent editors and reporters who manage, sometimes with effort, to get good reports out. Where we disagree really may be a matter of what one means by "freedom." I would say that a system where editors and publishers control what gets printed is inherently constrained in its "freedom." Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes not. A lot depends on having a multiplicity of news sources with different points of view. That multiplicity is being reduced as big corporations take over more and more organs of information. 3 problems I see are a) slanting of news that goes against the interests or predilection of ownership, b) reduction of news content, often for budget reasons, and c) management structures that are inherently negligent of journalistic accuracy. These all reduce "freedom." a) Slanting of news: this happens often enough at the truly bad papers. I don't see a "conspiracy" but I do see massive problems as centralization occurs and corporate ownership becomes more powerful. Sometimes the slanting takes place because management is not evil, but just unduly respectful of government assertions. A nice example was the NYT's gullibility in accepting federal claims that underground nuclear tests could not be monitored from a distance (and thus that there could be no nuclear test ban treaty): I.F. Stone went to the Coast and Geodetic Service and found they could. b) is really serious. Loss of all those foreign correspondents, disregard of "real" news. A fairly popular NPR person said to a buddy of mine two years ago, when he suggested more discussion of international relations, "Foreign affairs is dead. Noone listens to it." Post 9/11 this may be changing, but not at the Knight-Ridder papers, which are emphasizing neighborhoods, not nations. (Many American corporations would be happy with a 15% profit margin, but K-R and other mega-companies are pushing for even higher return. We suffer the consequences.) c) would include the old Time. Fred is right, that Charles Mohr did quit after Otto Fuerbringer rewrote a story. Equally important was what happened then: Henry Luce added a new managerial line, reporting directly to him: Richard Clurman as chief of correspondents. Then Henry Grunwald replaced Fuerbringer, and replaced the old system in which reporters' stories were wholly revised at HQ. These were massive changes. Time is an extreme case, but that internal history is synecdochic of the tension that always exists between reporters and ownership. Now, a), b) and c) remain as such hot issues that the question of "freedom" remains urgent. Here is a comment I got this morning, not from a Noam Chomsky acolyte but from a man who spent his career as a Time correspondent: "Now, of course, there isn't much tension, because most of the correspondents have been eliminated under budget cuts and staff reductions. There is no Chief of Correspondents, and headquarters reigns supreme, seldom troubled by dissent from the field." Which is pretty much the same as saying, "Freedom of the press belongs to whoever owns the press." A few additional comments: I mentioned that the NYT had an "independent line" on Vietnam from early on. I was referring not to editorial position, but to the reportorial tradition stemming from Homer Bigart. I could have been clearer. Fred said, "On bad papers bad editors probably go along with bad owners who try to influence coverage for their own narrow personal interests. I don't read such papers, and I would urge you not to read them either. Exercise some taste, discernment, discrimination; boycott the Washington Times, Fox News, etc." What I read is not worth discussing. One question is, how many papers can be called "bad papers," and is the number and readership growing? I don't have permission to name the reporter in Central America who complained about rewrites at HQ, but he was and is no slouch. As to the story about American pilots using amphetamines and then bombing the wrong people, it remains interesting but requires further work. The Independent carried it. Globe and Mail seems not to have (two other Canadian papers, at least, did). W Post, NYT and WSJ have not picked it up. They're being accused of ignoring the news, but I would bet, or at least hope, that editors there are trying to figure out how much can be verified. I guess we'll see. Thanks for the comments! Dan Tompkins .