The Power of the Press?

Hello, I'm a news hound. During my second year of college, I realized something almost any college student (or retiree) can attest to: there is very little on television during the daytime. Instead of watching old sitcom re-runs, I became enthralled with cable news. I am familiar with almost all of the "talking heads" seen on cable and can spot network reporters as well.

Free newspapers the year before, combined with no television in my dormitory, helped me follow currect events and geopolitics. My consumption has spread over time. My most visited sites (aside from fantasy football) are BBC, NPR, CSPAN, PBS, Drudge, and Yahoo News which includes AP, Reuters, AFP, USA Today, CS Monitor, with stories from NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun... you get the point. While absorbing information provided by these outlets, I supplement my addiction with books discussing current affairs. Yes, I'm a barrel full of fun.

24-hour cable news has increased market-share recently and I am fairly certain of the reason. Today, most outlets require less than incisive reasoning to discern their bias. It is precisely this lack of objectivity which draws "the base," those who agree with each outlet's editorial preference. Digesting news today requires rifling through mis-statements, misrepresentations, and misleading quotations. There is exaggeration, selective use of information, and quotation without context. Welcome to today's news media.

I will just use one example to illustrate my point: read a story about Iraq.

The description of the election for the interim government is my concern. Since the election occurred, a myth has been perpetuated about Sunni participation. Before the election, the news media discussed and opined about the dangers of the election. If you'll recall, many editorialized that the election should be postponed citing a lack of security. "Postpone the election until it is 'safe enough' to be held, that was the argument. They foretold intimidation and wide-spread violence. Now fast-forward to basically anytime after that vote. After the initial enthusiasm (remember the blue fingers from the indelible ink?), the media began using a tactic that has been embraced by most Democrats; repeating it enough will make it so (think: perception vs. reality).

The Democrats entire argument for Iraq has been "it's a mess and it's Bush's fault" but that did not stick in the 2004 election (I guess they didn't have enough time to repeat it). The Iraq interim election is now described as a "Sunni boycott" which is implicit evidence of Sunni support for the insurgency. The problem with saying that the Sunnis boycotted is that there is no evidence for such statements. A proper description would say the Sunnis had a low voter turnout. Calling it a boycott implies an organized opposition to policies (in this case, an election). Sunnis did not vote because:

1. Their lives (and their families) were threatened with a leaflet campaign.
2. The Baathists could still return to power, thus returning Sunni political clout.
3. Participating in the vote implied support for the "occupying foreigners" in their local community.
4. Participating and losing was worse than not voting. Wouldn't the victors expect spoils (meaning seek revenge), and the losers would have undermined their only support structures.

So, when you read about the Sunni "boycott," realize there was no such thing.

Repeating something does not make it so, but it can change perception. This is happening in Iraq. The thing is, if security improves and there is a 'boycott' in the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum, wouldn't that imply progress? An organized political event? Doesn't it bring more Iraqis into the political fold? The success of this vote will be turnout, anything else (including passage) is secondary.

Revisionist interpretations are pervasive. Know enough to spot them and you may be able to process something useful from the news by piecing together various accounts. Remember, don't believe everything you read (or hear) and reading (or hearing) something over and over doesn't make it true either. Media bias? Let's just recognize their first interest is getting a story and bad news sells better than good news.