The Implications of Left-Wing Bloggers to the World of Journalism

[Time for change]

We’re Working on Them
by Jane Hamsher
The American Prospect – May 2006 issue
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11409
(Full article not available to non-subscribers)

Right-wing bloggers love authority. They live to repeat slavishly the talking points of the Bush administration, bowing down like a pack of authoritarian cargo cultists before the words and images of the Jeep-in-Chief. Left-wing bloggers, on the other hand, are a notoriously unruly bunch, and they spend much of their energy in a steel-cage death match with corporate media journalists they consider compromised and conscripted by the GOP. It is not a relationship fused with an abundance of mutual affection.

Liberal bloggers consider themselves media watchdogs. The journalists they cover consider them ankle-biting amateurs. But as paper gives way to pixels, the two groups are being forced into ever-closer proximity. This two-way street often scares mainstream journalists accustomed to one-way, we-speak-you-listen communication, and the fractious relationship between traditional journalists and the folks whom New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen calls “the people formerly known as the audience” is becoming the stuff of headlines.

Hamsher then talks about the recent victories of left wing bloggers (referred to by Bill O’Reilly as “on-line terrorists”) over The Washington Post. First, how they forced the Post to retract its claim that Jack Abramoff had given money to Democrats, as well as Republicans – after being called “on-line barbarians full of hate speech” by the Post’s online editor, Bill Brady. Then, how they forced the firing of the Bush administration lap dog, Ben Domenech, by bringing to light his racist statements and numerous instances of plagiarism.


What are the larger implications for the world of journalism?

These modern-day I.F. Stones would probably make certain right-wing scams very difficult to pull off today. Take Whitewater…. The press… accepted the fabricated assertions of political operatives with little or no skepticism. Such a hijacking would be impossible now – it’s much harder for the press to accept the whole-sale whoppers of political operatives knowing that a bunch of itchy, trigger-fingered keyboardists are connected via the Internet and willing to sift through enormous amounts of data for documentation with which to counter spin and disinformation.

The bias of the media has lurched horrifically to the right. Mention the word “liberal” to journalists, and watch their eyes bug out and their hair stand on end… It’s understandable that they now feel themselves wedged into a tight spot as they experience liberal online pushback.

But bloggers and their readers are much more than just liberal battering rams. They act as analysts as they help to shape the dominant narratives and sort through ever-accumulating piles of information….. Their narratives increasingly feed back out into corporate news media and help determine the shape of future reporting.

No wonder Don Rumsfeld has declared war on us “Internet terrorists”, and Congress is hatching plans to steal the Internet from us.

[acmejack]

1. Absolutely, the day they pull the plug & unwire us will let have their way

If they ever decided they had to impose martial law for some reason that would be the first thing they would do. Or so I would suppose, take down the internet and cellular communications networks and only allow official comms. Talk about confusion to the enemy...

[Time for change]

4. You may be right about that, but I doubt that they want to wait until the

last minute.

As Hamsher says, "The bias of the media has lurched horrifically to the right". In other words, any news that threatens the status quo, we are not likely to get without access to the Internet. If we lost that it's hard to see how we would know what was going on.

[stillcool]

2. I didn't realize until reading "Secrets"...

by Angus Mackenzie...the amount of 'underground newspapers' that were established and widely circulated in the 60's. So often, you hear people say that the 'media' back then, was more un-biased. The energy the feds and spooks exerted in infiltrating and trying to bust up these newspapers implies otherwise....MHCHAOS

[Time for change]

5. I wasn't aware of that

But it is nevertheless true that the news media was much better then than it is now. Today it's all owned by a very small number of wealthy and powerful corporations -- which wasn't the case back then.

[stillcool]

7. more.....

The Media
Journalism is a perfect cover for CIA agents. People talk freely to journalists, and few think suspiciously of a journalist aggressively searching for information. Journalists also have power, influence and clout. Not surprisingly, the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale, a mission it dubbed Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The agency wanted these journalists not only to relay any sensitive information they discovered, but also to write anti-communist, pro-capitalist propaganda when needed.

The instigators of MOCKINGBIRD were Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham was the husband of Katherine Graham, today’s publisher of the Washington Post. In fact, it was the Post’s ties to the CIA that allowed it to grow so quickly after the war, both in readership and influence. (8)

MOCKINGBIRD was extraordinarily successful. In no time, the agency had recruited at least 25 media organizations to disseminate CIA propaganda. At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA’s testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975. (The committee felt the true number was considerably higher.) The names of those recruited reads like a Who's Who of journalism:

Philip and Katharine Graham (Publishers, Washington Post)
William Paley (President, CBS)
Henry Luce (Publisher, Time and Life magazine)
Arthur Hays Sulzberger (Publisher, N.Y. Times)
Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star)
Hal Hendrix (Pulitzer Prize winner, Miami News)
Barry Bingham Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal)
James Copley (Copley News Services)
Joseph Harrison (Editor, Christian Science Monitor)
C.D. Jackson (Fortune)
Walter Pincus (Reporter, Washington Post)
ABC
NBC
Associated Press
United Press International
Reuters
Hearst Newspapers
Scripps-Howard
Newsweek magazine
Mutual Broadcasting System
Miami Herald
Old Saturday Evening Post
New York Herald-Tribune
Perhaps no newspaper is more important to the CIA than the Washington Post, one of the nation’s most right-wing dailies. Its location in the nation’s capitol enables the paper to maintain valuable personal contacts with leading intelligence, political and business figures. Unlike other newspapers, the Post operates its own bureaus around the world, rather than relying on AP wire services. Owner Philip Graham was a military intelligence officer in World War II, and later became close friends with CIA figures like Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Desmond FitzGerald and Richard Helms. He inherited the Post by marrying Katherine Graham, whose father owned it.

After Philip’s suicide in 1963, Katharine Graham took over the Post. Seduced by her husband’s world of government and espionage, she expanded her newspaper’s relationship with the CIA. In a 1988 speech before CIA officials at Langley, Virginia, she stated:

We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things that the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.
This quote has since become a classic among CIA critics for its belittlement of democracy and its admission that there is a political agenda behind the Post’s headlines.

http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html

[Time for change]

8. That's quite an impressive list

And that statement from Katherine Graham is chilling, and a little surprising to me, but not totally.

I had never thought of the W. Post as extremely right wing until lately.

I would be very curious to know exactly what all those news organizations did for the CIA.

[stillcool]

9. The Church Committee's report...

is here
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book1/html/ChurchB1_0100a.htm

pages dealing with media are 191-201, and remember this is the government's version.

[Time for change]

10. Thank you for the report

It provides a lot to think about.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. now that's comforting...I would hate to think everyone is waisting their

time. I've had a feeling that it has an impact; usually indirectly, but still an impact.



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Time for change]

6. Yes, given the state of corporate journalism in our country today

I think that we would be in considerably worse shape than we are without the liberal/progressive efforts to get and spread the REAL facts.

[Robbie Michaels]

11. That's Why I Blog

There's nothing I hate more than seeing real journalists present one side of the story. Do we have to keep doing their fact checking for them?

[Time for change]

13. Well, someone's gotta do it, otherwise the facts won't be published

The so-called real journalists are largely Pre$$titutes.

Of course, that's an illusion to prostitutes, but it's grossly unfair to real prostitutes, so maybe the word should be dropped. At least with a real prostitute you know what you're getting, and they actually perform a service.

[Robbie Michaels]

15. You're Right

A prostitute might get offended but we can't deny the fact that quite a few "journalists" on TV are absolute whores for Neislen ratings.

[Time for change]

16. But it's not mainly the Neilson ratings that they're after

The main agenda of the corporate media is to maintain the status quo, which includes their wealth and power. Hence their unwillingness to challenge the Bush Administration. News is only a miniscule portion of their business, and they are willing to sacrifice ratings of their news shows if it means maintaining the status quo.

[Peter Frank]

17. Well said,,,

At least prostitutes don't promise you the truth.

[Cleita]

12. Considering that many of the bloggers were mainstream

journalists like Arianna Huffington, doesn't make them as unprofessional as the MSM would like you to believe.

[Time for change]

19. It's the corporate news media who, by and large is unprofessional

these days. Most of them have no sense of professional ethics, they're just out to obey their corporate masters.

[Peter Frank]

14. The "liberal" media have been castrated by the their employers.

How can you call yourself a journalist if you haven't the balls to ask the tough questions? Can you imagine any of the mainstream talking heads grilling Cheney about his actions on 911?

[Time for change]

18. Absolutely - most of them are worse than worthless as journalists

They've given Bush a free ride, thereby enabling him to stay in power.

Here's a post I wrote about what Bill Moyers has to say about how this threatens our democracy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5414880&mesg_id=5414880