Why We Hate the Fourth Estate

On July 10, the Pew Research Center released the findings from a survey of 2,504 adult PP_17.06.30_institutions_lede_partyAmericans illustrating the sharp partisan divergence in how U.S. citizens view major institutions. Many of the results are not very surprising: conservatives overwhelmingly believe churches and other religious groups are beneficial to U.S. society, but are critical of labor unions and higher education, while left-leaning Americans generally support universities and unions, but reserve their ire for Wall Street. Interestingly, however, both groups have a rather low opinion of the mainstream media. Most Republicans (85%) believe the media does more harm than good, while Democrats are almost evenly split, with 46% saying the media is hurting the U.S. (44% say otherwise).

It seems clear that most of us hate the Fourth Estate. Yet, you really would not know it from consuming the media itself. In fact, since the onset of 2017 and the Trump presidency, many news outlets have wrapped themselves in the U.S. flag and declared themselves the defenders of our imperiled republic. “Democracy dies in darkness,” the Washington Post now states on its homepage. MSNBC has supplanted Fox News as the most-watched prime-time cable news network, thanks in no small part to its plethora of pundits regularly decrying the Trump White House for treason and calling for the start of impeachment proceedings. In many ways, MSNBC has become the Democratic equal of Fox News, long-regarded as more of a political operation than a journalistic one. While the third big name in network news, CNN, is ostensibly less partisan than its rivals, it remains the main punching bag for President Trump, who made headlines for tweeting a video of him wrestling the physical manifestation of CNN in an edited clip of his appearance on a professional wrestling show. Trump has often labeled his critics in the press as “fake news,” using the term – created by the media to refer to mendacious articles that spread during the 2016 presidential campaign – against his detractors.

300px-cnn_atlanta_newsroomIt therefore be tempting (especially for the media) to argue that our widespread dislike for the press is a product of manipulation on the part of Trump and his Republican allies. That would certainly help to explain why Republicans, historically always hostile to a “biased liberal” media, see the media as so detrimental to the U.S. Unfortunately, this does not explicate why Democrats are so lukewarm about the press. If, after all, this was just another partisan deviation, should Democrats not then have a prodigiously positive view of news outlets? The reality is that they do not, and I would argue that the public distrust of the media has less to do with partisan bickering and more with a general distaste with major institutions in this current period of global unrest. Granted, the present political climate in the U.S. is not helping. Yet I think the survey speaks to a more deep-rooted problem with the media.

This problem is well-illustrated by a recent segment on the highly-rated Rachel Maddow rachel_maddow_in_seattle_cropped Show on MSNBC. On the July 6th episode of her show, Maddow devoted the bulk of her time-slot to an “exclusive” about unnamed villains (presumably the Trump administration and/or the Russian government) sending out “carefully forged” documents intended to undermine media credibility. Maddow had received such a forgery, an alleged NSA document about Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. On its own, this would be a non-story, as news outlets often receive bogus tips and documents, and it is part of their due diligence to authenticate them. Maddow, however, inflated the story into a “scoop” by implying that it was part of a grand conspiracy against the press – that vanguard of integrity, speaking truth to power – on the part of the Kremlin/White House axis of evil. This exaggeration depended on the belief that the forged document in question was based on a document published on Glenn Greenwald’s news site The Intercept – except that the forger had created the phony document before the Intercept published it. This was important, because if the person responsible for the forgery had simply downloaded the document from The Intercept, modified it, and then sent it out to news organizations, there would be nothing special about that – no conspiracy, no exclusive scoop, no story.

Except, according to Greenwald, that is precisely what happened. On the latest episode of Jeremy Scahill’s podcast, Intercepted, Greenwald states that it has been in contact with the person he believes as behind the forgery sent to Maddow, and that it was an effort to see just how willing a news outlet would be to pick up and run with a story connecting Trump and Russia – even if such a story was predicated on a lie. The “careful” forgery only took ten minutes to create, and apparently Buzzfeed – which also received the document – dismissed it without comment. Maddow, however, took the bait but twisted it, acknowledging the document was fake but making the forgery itself into a story. In other words, Maddow inflated the significance of the forgery for the sake of pulling in higher ratings by giving her viewers what they crave: not the truth, but a manipulation of the truth that fits their preconceived ideas about Trump and Russia. We are being told what we want to hear.

Noam Chomsky has spoken about this as “concision.” News outlets need stories that can be elucidated between two commercial breaks or in less than 1,000 words. If you’re a for-profit news network — like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News — or a newspaper concerned about advertisers, it behooves you to have on guests, analysts, pundits, etc. who will spend those five to ten minutes or those column inches that will grab the reader’s attention. For the conservative media, this means stories about brave Marines versus Marxist professors, rising crime rates, and so on. For the liberal media, this means incessantly making the legal case of Trump’s impeachment, but in sensational dribs and drabs. Building a case against the administration is not sexy; it is far better ratings-rise to release anything and everything even suggestive of collusion between Trump, his inner circle and the Russian government, even if the evidence remains speculative. The recent resignations of some CNN journalists over such a story that had to be retracted is great evidence of this.

This is not to say that there is nothing fishy about Trump and his connections to the Russians; indeed there is, and it should be investigated, by law enforcement as well as the press. Yet there are also many other important stories worth covering — the net neutrality debate, the anti-globalization movement that made waves at the G20 summit, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen —  that may not do as well in terms of ratings, but which U.S. citizens should still be informed and concerned about.

Smears, Spying, Snowden & the State

Before she broke down in tears on national TV apologizing to Mitt Romney for mocking trans-racial adoption, Melissa Harris-Perry used her MSNBC show to attack Edward Snowden for seeking aslyum in other countries rather than staying in the U.S. to face the consequences for his disclosure of the NSA’s mass surveillance practices. Rather than discuss the constitutionality of what the NSA is doing, how it damages our reputation abroad and how it violates basic conceptions of privacy, Harris-Perry did her duty to the establishment to shift the narrative from what Snowden had shared with the world to his traveling around the world.

This sort of thing is sadly still going, and what is tragic is that it is still coming from the “left” media. In an article in The New Republic (later reprinted in the UK’s The New Statesman), Sean Wilentz devotes many paragraphs to personal attacks on Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange, grasping at every straw he can to portray all three men as extremist libertarian nutjobs that no “decent” tweedy liberal (just the sort of demographic TNR aims for) would dare make common cause with. As the article’s title bluntly implies, no self-respecting member of the liberal class should support what these individuals are doing because these individuals hold (or have held in the past) political views that just are not acceptable in the left’s mutual admiration society!

Henry Farrell dissects this obvious hitpiece very well over at Crooked Timber. The bottom line, however, is that it doesn’t matter to me (nor should it matter to anyone) if Snowden wants to privatize Social Security or if Greenwald at one point Ron Paul. The point of what they did was to shine the spotlight on the surveillance state, not on themselves. The fact is we were being kept in the dark about the extent to which the government was spying on us, on allied nations and their leaders, and even Congress did not know that the PATRIOT Act was being used in the way it was. When even the law-makers who crafted the law think it is being used above and beyond the authority it was meant to invest, that means it’s time for the body politic to pause and at least reflect (if not outright reject) what the government is doing. Rather than get distracted by smears and side conversations about whether Edward Snowden is Boris Badenov or if Glenn Greenwald is a “respectable” left-winger, the debate needs to be about whether what the NSA is doing is acceptable and whether Obama’s proposed (and possibly unworkable) reforms are adequate.

Hacks like Mark Ames have argued that Greenwald and Snowden are out to make celebrities of themselves, releasing info on NSA surveillance piecemeal rather than all at once, thereby enchancing their images and creating a cult of cyber-libertarians around themselves. This is risible to me since the main criticism against WikiLeaks and Greenwald for so long was that they weren’t careful enough about disclosing sensitive information, putting American lives at risk (which was and never has been proved). And if Snowden is giving interviews and Greenwald appears frequently on TV, perhaps it is not so much that they want the attention as that someone has to push back against an administration that demonizes them and an access-hungry media that is all too often eager to parrot that administration’s talking points without critical reflection.

I strongly suggest reading this piece by Peter Frase over at Jacobin about how some on the left see defending the state as a knee-jerk reaction, as if all libertarian attacks on the state are the same as neoliberal attacks on the welfare state. Simply put, the national security state and the welfare state are not the same thing, and in fact, the state has been more than happy to go along with the neoliberal program of eroding the latter and strengthening the former — more often than not, to protect private interests rather than to enact policies to aid and protect the helpless and the disadvantaged.