|
NEW
YORK TIMES' PAUL KRUGMAN INTERVIEWED BY RORY O'CONNOR ON U.S. MEDIA BIAS:
17/10/2007 (MaximsNews Network)
UNITED NATIONS - / MaximsNews Network /
- 17 October 2007 -- I
had the opportunity to sit down this week with one of America’s top
economists, Paul Krugman, who of course doubles as an influential op-ed
columnist for the New York Times.
It’s
more than a bit surprising when the guy from the New York Times sounds more
radical than anyone else in the room… but Krugman and his twice-weekly column
have been more consistently surprising and radically different than anything
else allowed to appear in the Times (or indeed anywhere else in the so-called
‘mainstream media’) for so long that even Krugman himself no longer seems
surprised by the force of his own outrage.
He certainly pulled no punches
during our conversation, stating in a forthright manner his opinions on such
controversial topics as truth and lies in the newsroom (“The Big Lies are all
on the right”), media bias (“A large part of it is in fact right wing bias,
because they are effectively part of the right wing”) and corporate pressure
(“It’s very clear that when the parent companies of the major news sources
have issues at stake before the federal government… this definitely influences
the coverage.) Perhaps the fact that he’s a tenured professor at Princeton —
and not a professional journalist still on the make – has freed Krugman to
speak truth to naked emperors and Times readers on a biweekly basis…
We spoke at the beginning of a
national publicity tour for Krugman’s latest book, ‘The Conscience of a
Liberal,’ which ranges over the history of the past century to explain what
went wrong in America – and then attempts to point the way to a “new New
Deal.” Part of what went wrong with America, of course, was the role played in
our democracy by the mass media, as Krugman recognized and parsed in one chapter
in his book entitled ‘Weapons of Mass Distraction.’
ROC: You speak in your book
about “movement conservatism,” which you call a “radical new force in
American politics that took over the Republican Party.” What role if any do
the media play in movement conservatism?
PK: The media are a very
important force in it. They shape perceptions and they conceal issues. Look at
the 2000 presidential campaign, for example, where the media were so heavily
biased against Al Gore. That’s what brought Bush to within a Supreme Court
decision of the White House. So if you look at, certainly these last seven
years, the role of the media in not telling you reasons why you should be
skeptical about the course of the war, for example, it’s enormously important.
We have a situation right now in
which there are several major parts of the news media that are for all
practical purposes part of “movement conservatism” – Fox News, the New
York Post, the Washington Times – and in which other news organizations are
intimidated, at least to some extent.
I sometimes talk about what I call
“asymmetrical intimidation.” If you say a true but unflattering thing
about Bush or in fact about any other prominent conservative, oh boy!
People are going to go after you.
I mean, I’ve got people working fulltime going after me, right? But if
you say a false, unflattering thing about a Democrat or a progressive, no
risk…
And that shapes coverage, no
question about it. It’s better now, but it’s still very asymmetric. The
other thing we should mention about the media is their addiction to the
trivial.
We’ve got the most substantive
election coming up, I think, ever. We’ve got clear differences on
policies between parties.
And what are we seeing news
stories about? John Edwards’ hair and Hillary Clinton’s laugh… this is
horrifying! And again—it’s asymmetric. I can think of lots of unflattering
things to say about any of the Republican candidates – Mitt Romney’s saying
his sons are serving the country by helping him get elected! – but it
doesn’t get nearly as much play in the media.
ROC: It sounds like
you’re saying there’s a bias in the media. If you are, what is the bias?
PK: The media’s bias, a
large part of it is in fact right wing bias, because they are effectively part
of the right wing.
Fox News… there’s nothing like
Fox News on other television networks that you can look at.
There is no liberal equivalent of
Fox News, there is no network that, if a conservative got the Nobel Peace Prize,
would have responded the way Fox News did to Al Gore’s Peace Prize, by first
saying nothing at all, then when they figured out the line, talking about how
fat he is…. So there’s no correspondence there.
Beyond that, there’s two things
at least; first, the hatred of substance – they really want to talk about all
that trivia – and there’s also the fetish of evenhandedness.
If one candidate says something
that’s completely false, and the other something that’s true, the media will
say, ‘Some people believe what that guy said was false, and some people say it
was true.’
Way back in the 2000 campaign, I
wrote a piece in which I said that if Bush said the earth was flat, the headline
would read: “Opinions Differ on Shape of the Planet.”
I was thinking specifically about
what Bush was saying about taxes and Social Security, which were just out and
out lies! But no one would say that, and they still won’t. It’s better now,
a little, but they still won’t say it, and that tends — I imagine in some
future environment that might work to the advantage of some dishonest candidates
on the left – - but the fact of the matter is the Big Lies are all on the
right right now. So it works much more to their advantage.
ROC: Do you think it’s
possible that economics is driving politics in the media?
PK: The role of economics
in driving the media is an interesting one. One question is simply, “Do they
respond to what sells?” And to some extent the focus on the trivial is there
due to that. And also, by the way, talking heads screaming at each other is a
lot cheaper than actually having reporters out in the field doing reporting, so
that’s one reason why you get that.
I guess the question that you want
to ask is “To what extent is news coverage biased by the corporate interest of
the parents?” And that’s hard to pin down in any direct way, but one of the
interesting things that you notice right now is the remarkable reluctance of
some of the networks to follow what the viewer ship numbers seem to be
saying.
I mean, look at Olbermann’s show
versus anything else at MSNBC, for example. Why aren’t there more programs
like that? Why is CNN still trying to be Fox Lite, when you clearly can’t
outfox Fox and there clearly seems to be a bigger market opportunity on the
other side?
And you really do start to think
that — there probably aren’t, at networks other than Fox, there probably
aren’t memos saying here is how we are going to slant the news today – at
Fox there are, everyday. But there’s probably this general sort of pressure to
go for the views that won’t upset the CEO of the firm that controls the
network that has a lot of business interests that are best served by one side or
the other… so yes, this is a problem.
ROC: So deregulation,
consolidation and corporate issues like that might affect news coverage?
PK: Oh sure. It’s very
clear that when the parent companies of the major news sources have issues at
stake before the federal government – and if one party controls the White
House and both houses of Congress and has made it very clear that it keeps lists
and remembers who its friend and not-so-friend are – this definitely
influences the coverage.
A lot of people I talk to
in the media say that they have received pressure in ways that only seem to make
sense if you think that at some level management – not the guys that think
about audience shares but the guys who think about broader concerns – are
taking into account the political liabilities.
Which is one reason why it is
remarkable, although it’s still not what I want, that the news coverage has
gotten a whole lot better — funny, no? — after the polls really turned the
other way.
ROC: In your book, you talk
about the media’s use of “storylines” and what you’ve called the
“Ramobofication of history.”
PK: Yes, I’m rather proud
of the term “Rambofication.” In the years immediately following Vietnam, all
of this stuff that now seems so much a part of the story — that we lost the
war because we were stabbed in the back, that the “weak” politicians, the
Democrats, can’t be trusted on national security — wasn’t very much out
there.
I actually went back and looked at
a lot of polling and what people had to say at the time. In 1977, people still
remembered what Vietnam had actually been like, and why we needed to get the
heck out of there.
It wasn’t really until the
1980’s that the history began to be re-invented, so if only we’d let
Sylvester Stallone flex his muscles, we could have gone back and won the war.
The idea of Democrats as “weak” on national security really got invented
then — and you know there were a couple of events that played into that, such
as the collapse of the Soviet Union, which I really don’t think had much to do
with Reagan, but helped make the storyline.
So when 911 came along, the
realities of 911 were that the Clinton people had been working pretty hard to
try to do something about Bin Laden, and the Bushies said as soon as they came
in, “We’re not interested, we want to think about a war with China.”
But the storyline that the media
fell into was that “We’re the tough guys, the other guys neglected it.”
And that gave them a good run—they won two elections, in ‘02 and ’04,
which I think otherwise they would have lost — by playing on this notion of
“We’re strong, and they’re weak.”
I guess the sort of good news is
that they have done such an incredibly terrible job at all of that that
we may have at least a while before all that scare tactic stuff comes back.
ROC: Or we may hear in four
years how the Democrats “lost Iraq.”
PK: I’m worried,
obviously. Clearly, if it’s a Democrat who withdraws from Iraq, which it
appears likely it will be, then it will be more of the “We were winning, we
were on the edge of victory, then they stabbed us in the back…”
ROC: “They spit on our
soldiers…”
PK: Yeah, that’s amazing,
the ‘spitting on our soldiers’ thing — because it never happened, there
are no documented cases — but it became part of the storyline. Will that
happen again? Certainly they’ll do their damndest to make it happen….
I guess I’m more optimistic
about the American public, that it will take a lot more than four years, for us
to see that again, because it took more than four years after Vietnam, and right
now the American public has a pretty good sense of just what a disaster that’s
all been… I think people have made up their minds that this is a
disaster.
Maybe ten years from now,
they’ll have forgotten and be willing to, you know, see movies in which some
heroic guy goes back and wins the Iraq war but… not for a while anyway.
ROC: Well, I’m more of a
Mencken disciple when it comes to the American public, but I hope you’re
right.
PK: I hope I’m right too!
Labels: U.S.
Media Bias, Rory
O'Connor, Paul
Krugman, New
York Times Columnist
~~~~~
MaximsNews.com, An Independent Voice from the
U.N., provides commentary and analysis from
leading world figures: King Abdullah II
(Jordan), HRH Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein
(Jordan), Sir Brian Urquhart, Hans Blix, Amb.
Richard Holbrooke, Anwar Ibrahim, Bianca Jagger,
Dr. Nafis Sadik, Shashi Tharoor, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, Noeleen Heyzer,
Masood Haider, Kerry
Kennedy, Ian Williams, Stephen Schlesinger, Sen.
Timothy E. Wirth, Marc Morial, Amb. Jayantha
Dhanapala (Sri Lanka), Amb. Pierre Schori
(Sweden), Amb. William H. Luers, Susan Roosevelt
Weld, Rory Kennedy, Mehri
Madarshahi, J. Michael Adams, Gloria Feldt,
Jeffrey Laurenti, Rodney D. Smith, Ashley
Bommer, Rory
O'Connor, Genevieve Stamper, Max Stamper and
others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MaximsNews®
LLC
NEWS NETWORK FOR THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
MaximsNews Network® LLC is a Global News Network reaching over 30,000 in the International Community. It is associated with MediaChannel.org and Globalvision News Network, global news and media information services with more than 350 news affiliates in 135 countries.
Established in 1999.
The views expressed are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of MaximsNews®
LLC.
MaximsNews.com
U.N. ® LLC www.MaximsNews.com
| MaximsNews@MaximsNews.com |
Please
contact us about Republishing:
Syndication@MaximsNews.com ©Copyrights 1999 - 2007, MaximsNews® LLC. All rights
reserved.
|
