MSM vs. New Media
So the allies have gotten “bogged down”, and “resistance has proven stronger than expected”. The Media is starting to dust-off the “Q” word to describe the war – against the Taliban in northern Afghanistan. Yes, we are hearing today the same tired echoes of the media from that last war.
As if anyone recalls, the Northern Alliance and allied forces swept towards Kabul, then apparently meeting that “unexpected resistance”, “became bogged down” – apparently “ill-equipped to take the capital”. So our troops waited around, caught up on their emails, showered, etc while air power ground the Taliban front-lines into dust. After the “lull” our forces were in Kabul before the ink was dry on several articles written by professional journalists describing the “Vietnamization” (ugly, ugly word) of the war against the Taliban. Too bad they were completely wrong.
So why do journalists persists in offering their opinions? Why can’t they report an event without adding their analysis?
First, they are elitist and believe that their audience is unable to understand the news on their own. Journalists believe that they are part of the Fourth Estate – protectors of the public – yet by doing so they lose touch with the public which they claim to protect. Secondly, they believe that they know more about the event than others do and that it is their duty to impart this knowledge on their audience. If this includes their opinion, then so be it. Finally, it makes them part of the story. Instead of being mere voyeurs to an event, they become active participants. This is shown by Peter Arnett’s taking credit for the anti-war movement in the USA. He no longer is a watcher – he is a player.
Professional journalists understand war about as well as Catholic priests (the ones NOT chasing after the altar boys) understand sex. They know how its done, and they see people do it – yet they really don’t understand it. One is hard pressed to name a single professional journalist under the age of forty who served in the military. The vast majority of journalists have degrees in journalism, in contrast to the majority of Americans who don’t have any type of college degree and if they do it isn’t in journalism. Journalists are not required to study history the way that military officers are. Ask any military officer why the Battle of Cannae is important and you’ll get a long-winded treatise. Ask a journalist and you’ll get a blank stare.
Journalists are not military experts. They don’t understand the history of warfare, its elementary tactics, or the possible outcomes as well as even teen-aged war-gamers do. Witnessing an event does not make one an expert in the same way that seeing black Americans doesn’t make me an expert on African-American culture.
What America needs is a revamping of the way journalists are created. Reporters should go back to their role of reporting events, not participating in them. America also needs more amateur journalists or reporters with broader experience. That’s where the internet comes in.
Steven Den Beste is not a professional journalist or pundit, but his essays are better researched and presented than anything currently in print. Glenn Reynolds’ role of de facto “editor in chief” for blogdom, exposing writers from all corners of the web to the public, democratizes the media far better than the New York Times’ hiring of a real conservative writer. Salam Pax has a sobering effect on both hawks and doves – more so than anything that appears in Time or Newsweek.
Blogs and online journals such as this one were born in the aftermath of September 11. That event energized people from all walks of life to take up the pen (or keyboard) and become journalists. Writer Harlan Ellison once wrote a short story called “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream”. For thousands of us, blogs and online journals are our mouths, and the blogosphere rings with the echoes of our screams.
Fuck you, Peter Arnett.
