"Fear and Favor in the Newsroom" or Historical Revisionism in Action

A documentary perspective of the news industry is the topic of "Fear and Favor in the Newsroom" recently replayed on World Link TV, A DISH Satellite TV public channel. The program is fairly informative and the channel located in the far end spectrum associated with televised secondary education programming.

The perspective of the program tends to be left to far left in its projected implications, although spoken as though only the left is a neutral reporting position. The program was made circa 1996.

No criticism is rendered to left leaning reporting, but repetitive slants against programs such as McNeil-Lehrer Newshour and major newsrooms where editors have decided not to run investigative reporting pieces. The impression left by the program is that major newsrooms no longer allow investigative reporting, if corporate interests from multiple holding companies are influenced. The mechanics of censorship are by controlling which reports make it to air time and which assignments are approved by corporate management.

“I have been able to get stories on that were very critical of the U.S. government, of employees or executives at ABC News, when I worked there, of friends of my bosses at 60 Minutes – on the air. I’ve also had some trouble getting some stories either approved or on the air that related to similar individuals. But it’s never been as heavy-handed as somebody saying, ‘You can’t do that story.’ But I think it’s understood that when you get into that area, you’re in a dangerous area.”

Later in the program, though, the thesis is returned to the program's major theme.

“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” – A. J. Liebling

“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only when you own the press. This is something I learned from the New York Times.”

The program advances the 70's investigative reporting image as being the primary mission of reporting, but in an eulogistic fashion, as though corporate America has squelched all media access to investigative reporting.

Explicit examples made to comment on this cause include the '91 Gulf War and is rendered as a military controlled press which doesn't allow the press to show the 'real' victims of the war, the Iraqi people. The '91 Gulf War is presented as a war for oil by the US, without any attempt for diplomacy and disregard for collatoral damage.

1) Why is such a biased anti-Bush, anti-US in the Gulf, anti-US military program presented now?

2) Why would such a program avoid addressing liabilities caused by contrived arguments from some investigative reporting? The perspective of Cerra indicates conflicting intersts by parties working for a larger corporate beast and her victimization as the good reporter. The perspective fails to show a contrary position that not all reporting must be adversarial.

Where contrived arguments don't exist, the program casts an impression that event reporting is simply lame, irresponsible, inactive, 'Momma in the kitchen baking cookies' reporting, failing to perform their professional duty.

3) Is there a long term agenda in action to promote left leaning investigative reporting by training high school and college journalism students with rpograms such as these? If there is, then there are parties attempting to influence political power base and structures about 5 years out or attempting to establish unrest in about 6 months by airing such programming.

A simple answer is that the program simply reflected a left leaning bias without ulterior intent.

A Clintonesque agenda might be to foment political unrest in future generations by historical revisionism, casting all capitalism and conservatism as opportunistic leachery.

I suspect, the real answers lie in between, in some convoluted mess. Perhaps that is intended, but only a far-left, anti-US position would promote such an agenda.

This was in part a rant, but also a 'heads-up'. I observe that the Democratic Socialists tend to remain affectionate for social agendas from 30-40 years ago and merely remain non-vocal for short periods before resuming their attacks along those agendas.

They never seem to weigh the consequences of their positions or actions, but merely lay wait to ambush again, fallaciously believing younger generations share their myopic lusts. I suspect their worldview assumes that by merely following their same tactics from 30 years earlier, they will remain worldly and gain more power.

Accordingly, programs such as this might telegraph their true agenda.

I post this out of curiosity if others closer to the 'newsroom' observe any 70's vintage anti-establishment ethic emerging from remission.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.