What does this say about the state of the news media?

In the United States, the news media is charged with the responsibility of acting as the supervisors of the political establishment. Accountability is an important check on political power; politicians know that informed voters can throw them out of office. And good journalism is the means by which such necessary information is disseminated. That would-be tyrants, conspirators, and abusers of power work behind closed doors is a powerful testament to this fact.

Most Americans become aware of political issues via the media. Because of this, reporters seem especially well-placed to guard against political gambits that depart from citizens’s wishes. If the media’s role as the palladium of good government is as crucial to contemporary society as many in the news business believe, then politicians who want to head off-center should be checking their rearview mirrors often.

Yet, as we witness time and again, many news organizations have failed to fulfill this role. Political elites continue to refine their techniques with dealing with voters and managing the media. In the political battles waged through news outlets, news organizations frequently transform from watchdogs into lapdogs.

So is the problem that plagues the news media today partisan bias? Most journalists would describe their political views as centrist, although I would imagine they tend to vote Democratic. And while journalists tend to the left, publishers and editorial pages tend to the right. Maybe there isn’t so much of a “liberal media bias” after all.

Perhaps the issue is not partisan bias, but other biases that the news media is involved with. One such bias is that the news media is more focused on entertaining than informing (Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, in my opinion, should never be considered “breaking news”, much less “news” at all). It was at a lecture at Princeton that I learned that “what bleeds, reads.” The news media has put a premium on drama and brevity. Consider this: the print edition of the New York Times contains, on average, 100,000 words. Nightly news on stations such as NBC averages 3600 words. I suppose that’s why television is a medium; it isn’t well-done.

TV news stories must catch the viewer’s eye, and must to do immediately. To do otherwise is to face the vengeance of the remote control. Because of this, stories have become shorter and more dramatic. More and more news stories cover crime, celebrities, and disasters. To compensate, less airtime is devoted to the more complex political issues that are of interest to the citizen who wishes to be informed.

What of the print media? It performs slightly better. But fewer Americans get their information from the daily paper as more get their information from Web and TV sources. Newspaper companies have been cutting back operations for some time now, and as consolidation becomes more commonplace, news conglomerates shift their focus on turning a profit. This renders newspapers as yet another ordinary commodity. Few papers give their readers enough news to make them informed citizens of domestic and international affairs. Clearly, the majority of Americans don’t get their news from the New York Times, much less the Financial Times.

For all these reasons, the American media has decomposed into a delivery system for “news”, commentary, talking points, jargon, and spin. Biases such as the media’s attraction towards hyperbole, among other biases, impede its effectiveness far more than any left-or-right-leaning political bias. Only once we identify and understand these biases can we begin to take steps to reform this defunct machine.

In the years following the Second World War, the United States realized it might need what has been called a ?strategic asset? in the Middle East. And yet, Israel itself is not America?s main concern in the region. Rather, the main interest lies in the petroleum reserves of the Middle East, especially in the Arabian Peninsula. In 1945, the US State Department noted:

?These resources constituted a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history . . . probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment.?

Since usurping Great Britain?s position as the main foreign power in the Middle East, America?s foreign policy has been directed towards keeping this prize.

Not surprisingly, America?s blind pursuit of the oil ?prize? has led it to giving almost unilateral support to Israel. Israel has been helping the United States by ensconcing the region in a military infrastructure in the hopes of protecting and maintaining access to Western oil supplies. But at what cost? Israel has received more military and civilian aid than any other client-state of the United States: by the end of the twentieth century, the amount of this aid totaled around 100 billion dollars. Israel continues to receive about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America’s entire foreign aid budget. And all of this continues amidst skyrocketing oil prices, a falling dollar, a looming recession, and a mounting national debt that is on the verge of collapsing upon itself.

How exactly did Israel position itself as a ?strategic asset? of the United States? To properly answer this question, some background knowledge of Zionism is required. The stalwarts of the Zionist movement understood that the success of the Jewish state was contingent on the sponsorship of what they termed to be a ?Great Power.? After World War II, the United States became the ?Great Power? of the Middle East. And by 1951, three years after the establishment of the State of Israel, its leaders were ready to tie Israel?s existence to the opportunistic intentions of the Western powers.

This is what the Israeli newspaper Ha?aretz had to say in 1951:

?Strengthening Israel helps the Western powers to maintain equilibrium and stability in the Middle East. Israel is to become the watchdog. There is no fear that Israel will undertake any aggressive policy towards the Arab states when this would explicitly contradict the wishes of US and Britain. But if for any reasons the Western powers should sometimes wish to close their eyes, Israel could be relied upon to punish one or several neighbouring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.?

1951 also seemed to be the year in which radical nationalism was to sweep across the Middle East. That same year, Dr. Mossadeq, Iran?s new radical nationalist leader, nationalized British oil interests. Israel?s statement of intent could hardly be more apposite. Indeed, Israel would become the Western watchdog of the Middle East. Israel?s cooperation with clandestine CIA operations, along with its ?intelligence?-gathering activities, would cement its place as the definitive American client-state in the Near East.

President Bush has insisted on supporting Israel, although he has not clearly stated his reasons for doing so. And while Bush may just be following a fateful example, there is some insight to be gleaned from Reagan?s tactless admission in 1981:

?with a combat-experienced military, Israel is a force in the Middle East that actually is a benefit to us. If there were not Israel with that force, we?d have to supply that with our own, so this isn?t just altruism on our part.? (Mideast Observer, 1981).

Essentially, Israel is the military arm of the United States in the Middle East ? and it is probable that if Israel did not have its own defense forces, a significant US troop presence would exist in the region, free to act in whatever manner desired to secure energy reserves, while the rest of the world ?closes their eyes.?

External links:

US State Department Report on Foreign Aid to Israel

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf