Media Views

The Media Views format is now retired. FAIR will continue to post analysis and critique, information on breaking stories, news updates, criticism, commentary and more on the FAIR Blog. Click here to join in the conversation.

Our past collection of Media Views will remain as an archived resource on this website.

A co-producer of the Uncounted 2004 election documentary expresses gratitude for a New York Times article warning of likely problems with the 2008 tally: "Although it doesn't offer concrete solutions, it is a must-read for every voter"—but Mancini finds that "while it is thorough, there are a few red flags." After noting that the Times' advice for voters to "check their registration with election officials at least two weeks before the polls open" is "too late, especially in states where the cut off for registering is at least a month before the election," Mancini then takes issue with a line describing how "shortages of paper ballots or electronic machines have been a common cause of long lines and people leaving the polling places without voting":

See FAIR's magazine Extra!: Subverting, Not Preserving, Democracy: Marginalizing Vote Fraud 'Conspiracy Theories' (7–8/06) by Jon Whiten

Sirota explains the theory and practice behind corporate media "centrism":

Read FAIR's recent Media Advisory: Obama Moves Right? Pundits Cheer (7/15/08)

Considering that, in her estimation, "vastly more people use birth control than believe Obama is a secret Muslim," Pollitt wants to know when will "the commentariat take a break from itself and let the world know how much John McCain opposes birth control?":

An almost textbook-case of corporate media reporting on trade, this piece opens by making a lengthy case on behalf of the proponents of the Colombia trade deal. You have to venture deep into the piece to read anything that would explain (in actual terms, not political horse-trading) why there would any debate over this:

Weisman also seems surprised at the response of the media: "What Mr. Bush has done instead is wage one of his most elaborate campaigns for a measure in Congress since he took office in 2001, winning newspaper endorsements from the broadest political spectrum." He got newspapers to write pro-"free trade" editorials? How on Earth did he manage that?

A survey the PEJ considers "the most systematic effort yet to examine the changing nature of the resources in American newspaper newsrooms" looked at hundreds of U.S. newspapers to yield what they call "a composite" of the modern paper:

Unfortunately, that last hopeful-sounding bit is undermined by the twin findings that "the newsroom staff producing the paper is also smaller" and "staff also is under greater pressure, has less institutional memory, less knowledge of the community.... There are fewer editors to catch mistakes."

While explaining that U.S. residents "pay more than twice as much per person as the average for other wealthy countries yet we rank near the bottom in most measures of health outcomes," Baker notes that "reform is blocked by the power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industry"—and yet, the economics blogger finds the New York Times' "dogmatically protectionist" stance on trade to be "perhaps nowhere deeper than in the treatment of healthcare":

The watchdogs at Media Matters summarize the problems with a July 17 segment of Bill O'Reilly's hit Fox News show:

As if comparing an illustration with a doctored news photo weren't dumb enough, O'Reilly originally showed his viewers the Times' caricatures of him with the exclamation: "You notice the horn in there? Isn't that nice?" But from even a cursory glance at the image, it's quite obvious that that's not a horn—it's the tail of a word balloon. (The point of the cartoon is that O'Reilly talks about himself a lot.)

According to Diehl's column, Barack Obama has a real problem with his Iraq War platform:

Diehl's advice is not surprising. Obama could stick to his phased withdrawal, but that's no good. Instead, Diehl writes that there is a "better way for Obama to solve his Iraq problem—one that is honest about the state and stakes of the war but still sharply differentiates him from McCain." And that policy would be... a much slower withdrawal plan that is dubbed "conditional engagement," meaning it would rely more on negotiations with the Iraqis about when to leave. As Diehl has it, the withdrawal would take longer, but still be ever so slightly quicker than McCain's favored plan. And somehow that's supposed to help voters differentiate between him and McCain—the choice will be between two Iraq policies out of step with public opinion.

Professional foreign policy dissembler MacFarquhar propagates a sadly still-prominent media narrative of conflict in Sudan:

Years after corporate media took notice of the region, they have yet to heed Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani's warning that such portrayals are not only misleadingly simplistic, but may actually contribute to the violence; see FAIR's magazine Extra!: Mahmood Mamdani on Darfur: Western Media Must Share Responsibility (5–6/07)

The L.A. Times' list of oil-wealthy "autocratic governments" lumps together official U.S. enemies Iran and, of course, Venezuela. While these countries may seem to have very different systems of government, the Times reporters state that both "are demanding a greater role in world affairs while spending on domestic social programs, raising salaries and building infrastructure." If those sound like good ideas to you, Stack and Daragahi instead assure us that they are simply "measures that help blunt concerns over a slide into greater authoritarianism."

See FAIR's magazine Extra!: Imperial Mythology: Venezuela, Hugo Chávez and U.S. Media (11–12/06) by Steve Rendall

Secretly taped proof of a lobbyist offering White House access to a foreign leader in exchange for donating to the Bush library fund makes the corporate U.S. news—just barely. While the fact that such an important story had to be generated by overseas press may seem shameful, the maddening reality is that recent precedent shows corporate U.S. outlets averse to—and even hostile toward—such enterprising investigations when undertaken by domestic journalists.

See Extra!: Is Undercover Over?: Disguise Seen as Deceit by Timid Journalists (3-4/08) by Aaron Swartz. and listen to FAIR's radio show CounterSpin: Ken Silverstein on 'Their Men in Washington' (7/13/07)

Former Rick Santorum and Fred Thompson employee Robert Traynham--described by National Public Radio only as "the D.C. Bureau chief for the Comcast cable network CN8"--tells NPR listeners about the reception of John McCain's education speech about school vouchers at the NAACP convention:

But did he really? Here's how the Baltimore Sun reported the same event: "McCain received a polite, somewhat sedate reception—with only a smattering of applause for his education plan." This discrepancy is likely explained in part by a crucial element that NPR didn't point out, but the Baltimore Sun did: "The NAACP has taken a strong stance against school vouchers, arguing that they take vital resources from public schools and abandon minority students."

Reporter Bacon makes it sound like Barack Obama was really stressing the personal responsibility themes in his NAACP speech—at least that's what the Post chose to put in the lead: "He told one of the nation's most influential African-American groups that he will press his call for blacks to take more responsibility for their lives." But then, near the end of the article, one reads this:

Well, that would seem to be the main point of the speech, then, wouldn't it? But what's important to corporate media is how much politicians tell them what they want to hear.

Analyzing widely reported recent polling, Sargent and Kleefeld take apart a particular Quinnipiac University survey that they say "showed a 51 percent–43 percent majority opposing a timetable, which the GOP can surely spin to their benefit." The TPM bloggers tell us that the trick is "all in the question":

See FAIR's newest Action Alert: Washington Post's McCain-Friendly Poll: Deceptive Question Misleads on Iraq Position (7/15/08)

From Manohla Dargis' review of The Dark Knight:

• Domestic gross for Batman Begins, the "new Batman" to which she's referring: $205 million ($371 million worldwide)
• Domestic gross for Superman Returns: $200 million ($391 million worldwide)

It's true that Batman Begins was a much bigger financial success than Superman Returns, because the Batman movie cost $150 million to make and the Superman one cost a whopping $270 million. That gives you some insight into why there's a new Batman out and not a new Superman, but not much into the national mood.

In a piece very reminiscent of 2006 Iraq coverage corporate media seem to know exactly when to start banging the drum against U.S. troop withdrawal. Tavernise and Oppel open by quoting an Iraqi general who likes Obama, but sure doesn't like the idea of U.S. troops leaving the country: "Thus in a few brisk sentences, the general summed up the conflicting emotions about Mr. Obama in Iraq." But how conflicted could Iraq really be? Most Iraqis want the U.S. out, and they've wanted that for years. The Times doesn't rely on that sort of polling, though—they find "a deep internal quandary in Iraq," where, we're told, "for many middle-class Iraqis, affection for Mr. Obama is tempered by worry that his proposal could lead to chaos in a nation already devastated by war." And how did the Times get to this conclusion? They admit that "street interviews remain risky in Iraq. For this article, 18 people were interviewed about their opinions." This is as close as the paper really gets to capturing actual Iraqi opinion:

Got that? Support for withdrawal from Iraq "is not unpopular here." That's the clearest way to put it, isn't it?

See the FAIR magazine Extra!: No Way Out: Withdrawing from Withdrawal from Iraq (11–12/07) by Peter Hart

Correspondent Tumulty uses Time's Swampland blog to quote the newsmagazine's poll reporter Jackson Dykman criticizing what he calls the "utter nonsense" of a New York Times piece headlined "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race": "I've rarely seen a story so wildly off from the actual data on which it is based." Dykman continues:

Cable news contributor Martin sounds quite authoritative when announcing that

Really? A 2001 poll by the National School Boards Association/Zogby International, found that likely voters oppose vouchers 49 percent to 47 percent. And African-Americans oppose vouchers 57 percent to 41 percent....

Read FAIR's magazine Extra!: Test-Score 'Facts' Need Media Scrutiny: In Voucher Study, an Average Is Not Just an Average (3–4/01) by Phyllis Vine

Among other recent changes at the Associated Press, Swanson addresses fears of their new Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier-led approach that he dubs a "trend toward personalized journalism":

PR flack detective Javers notices something fishy on CNBC coverage "the day after dramatic news that the federal government was stepping in to support the mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae":

CNBC's not exactly confidence-inspiring defense: Javers says there own flack told him "the network didn't know that Glaser worked for the mortgage companies." Other corporate outlets don't appear to be much more knowledgeable—or perhaps they just don't care—judging by the results of a quick Nexis search in which "Howard Glaser" turns up 72 newspaper hits and 11 TV and radio transcripts.