Latest update: May 31st, 2013
So powerful are the media that they have been referred to as the fourth branch of government. Indeed, they can make or break reputations.
Example: when former vice president Dan Quayle misspelled “potato” by adding an “e,” the press magnified and harped on the incident so much that it cemented the perception that Quayle was a lightweight – a perception the media had already done so much to foster.
By contrast, when Barack Obama stated earlier this year that he had visited 57 states, the media glossed over the gaffe, sparing Obama the Quayle treatment.
Double standard, anyone?
At times the media’s power goes to their collective head. When Sarah Palin was picked by John McCain as his vice-presidential running mate, several of the most prominent commentators in the Washington-New York media elite pouted and were superciliously dismissive toward Palin. How dare McCain pick someone who had never been on “Meet the Press”?
One famous female commentator was so upset that she called the choice of Palin “insulting to women.” The onslaught of nasty comments about Sarah Palin had just begun.
One of the most flagrant abuses of media power was their coverage of the Vietnam War. The media convinced many Americans (including me) that the United States was defeated militarily. Only after the war did I learn that the famous North Vietnamese Tet offensive of 1968 was a major defeat for the North — yet U.S. journalists made it seem like a U.S. loss.
Years later, North Vietnamese General Giap explained in his memoirs how his side’s eventual victory was won in the American media, not on the battlefield.
There is a danger today of the U.S. media committing a similar atrocity. After years of barraging the American public with depressing stories of every American life lost in Iraq, with criticism of our military strategy, and with the monotonous insistence that we couldn’t prevail, victory is now within sight.
On Sept. 1, our troops formally transferred security control of Anbar province to the democratic government of Iraq. This is huge. Anbar was the center of the Sunni insurgency and the base of al Qaeda in Iraq.
As recently as a year ago, gloomy prognosticators claimed that it could never be pacified. Now that it has been, have you seen it reported on the news?
Granted, it was a busy week for news, due to Hurricane Gustav and the Republican convention, but isn’t good news in a long and painful war newsworthy? Why did the media never hesitate to publicize our setbacks, yet now are reluctant to publicize American success?
I’d like to ask reporters and editors: Aren’t you glad we’re winning? Or are you afraid that by reporting our success you would have to give credit to John McCain, who was instrumental in convincing President Bush to install new military leadership with a better strategy, while his opponent took the defeatist and mistaken position that the U.S. could not prevail?
Another example of Big Media misshaping public opinion is their long-time role in bashing Big Oil. I can still remember the oil crunch of 1979-80, when the network anchors reported a major oil company’s quarterly profits as having risen 100 percent.
That sounds like a large number to the mathematically unsophisticated, but in reality it often meant that profit margins had risen (temporarily) from 5 percent to 10 percent. Interestingly, at the very same time the networks’ own profits had increased by a larger percentage — a fact they didn’t bother to include on their nightly news shows.
Seeing journalists up close can be disillusioning. Once, while visiting Washington, I was given press credentials by a newspaper I had written for to attend a press conference with leaders of the Nicaraguan Contras. Sitting among the Washington press corps before the Contras arrived, I felt like I was witnessing a gang plot, an ambush.
The pre-conference chatter was dominated by reporters enamored of Sandinista ruler Daniel Ortega, the young Marxist with the cool mustache and designer eyeglasses. They were planning how they would trash the U.S.-backed Contras and bash President Reagan for supporting the Contras’ efforts to liberate their country from the Marxist Sandinistas.
The reporters had an agenda, and objectivity and truth-telling were not part of it.Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
About the Author:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.
If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.